Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Russian Superjet 100 Crashes During Demo Flight, Killing All Aboard

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the perils-of-innovation dept.

Transportation 339

First time accepted submitter Prokur writes "A brand new Russian Sukhoi Superjet 100 airliner on a demonstration flight with 37 passengers (mostly future clients and journalists) and 8 Russian crew members on board went missing after it took off from an airport in Jakarta. After an extensive search, rescuers concluded, based on the widespread debris field on the side of a ridge, that the aircraft directly impacted the rocky side of Mount Salak and there was 'no chance of survival.'"

cancel ×

339 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Probably lost the sale, too! (5, Funny)

BenJeremy (181303) | more than 2 years ago | (#39953769)

That can't be good for sales. If I was buying an airliner, I'd have to pass on this one.

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (1, Insightful)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#39953835)

And just think, we count on these people to send our astronauts into space.

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (5, Insightful)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 2 years ago | (#39953963)

Right. Much better in the days when the US was using the sturdy Challenger and Columbia...

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (5, Funny)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954237)

Sir! As a patriot, I want to be incinerated in a space vehicle made by my home country!

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (5, Insightful)

hey_popey (1285712) | more than 2 years ago | (#39953983)

Actually, no; we count on people who designed a rocket launcher the proper way (read: under pressure during the cold war) many years ago, and nowadays they don't know how to do it anymore. This is one of the reasons why the modifications to the Soyuz rocket launcher were kept to a strict minimum before launching it from Kourou: they wanted to keep as much as possible the old design that we know worked quite well.

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39954009)

And why is it important to have astronauts in space? Symbolism, romance and sword-rattling are not acceptable answers.

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (3, Interesting)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954079)

And why is it important to have astronauts in space? Symbolism, romance and sword-rattling are not acceptable answers.

Because an astronaut on Mars with a shovel can do more in 10 minutes than two robotic rovers can do in a year.

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39954211)

Wait... why exactly do we need to dig a hole on Mars?

If you wanna dig holes, I have a whole fence that needs to be put up, you can dig a bunch of them in my back yard, I'll even mark the spots I want you to... "take soil samples"... from. I'd be happy to have the entire complement of NASA astronauts come by and help me out.

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39954639)

To find the buried treasure!

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39954219)

1. You overstate the capabilities of the astronaut and shovel
2. We can sent two thousand robotic rovers to Mars for a year much cheaper than one man for ten minutes.

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (5, Insightful)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954373)

Except that for the mass of astronauts + a crew cabin + life support for a year + fuel to get all of the above back to Earth, you could send up an entire robotic demolition crew complete with RTGs to power them for decades.

I'm not against manned space exploration, but until we have better engine technology it will be a huge waste of resources.

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39954247)

Symbolism, romance and sword-rattling are not acceptable answers.

Why not?

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39954681)

Forget about sending astronauts to Mars. Send particularly disliked politicians to Mars. One way.

That has a better chance of improving things.

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (2, Interesting)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954779)

To keep pushing the boundaries. Long term, we need to leave Earth, we need to get humans in some survivable form on other worlds and eventually out of the solar system. We don't have just the sun exploding to worry about. Natural disasters, unexpected celestial events. Heck, we have companies looking into trying to move asteroids into Earth orbit for mining. Imagine if we had a Fukushima/B.P. incident with one of those? The sooner we can get the tech tested feasible the better in case we need it.

Take at the look at the discovery of the Americas. The first there and/or with tech to quickly get there and utilize any game changing discovery will greatly benefit.

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39954033)

You use the developers of the Superjet 100 to send astronauts into space? That sounds odd. Or is it when you say "these people" you mean "Russians"? That sounds odd too, because from where I'm sat, the Russians have a better track record at sending people into space and getting them back alive than anyone else.

I mean, if you actually were trying to imply the Russians weren't as good as space flight as other countries, why, that would just be absurd. You can't possibly mean such a thing. Right?

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (4, Informative)

pulski (126566) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954567)

I'm not sure where you're sitting but... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents [wikipedia.org]

"About two percent of the manned launch/reentry attempts have killed their crew, with Soyuz and the Shuttle having almost the same death percentage rates."

Looks like it's 2 to 2 on fatal space missions and even money on number of deaths as well.

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (5, Interesting)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954213)

It's worth mentioning that Boeing is a major partner in the Superet program, providing consultation, manufacturing, design and technical ability. They are more than a subcontractor, they signed a long term partnership for the project.

So it's worth holding off on the "its Russian" comments.

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (1)

Nrrqshrr (1879148) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954341)

It's okay, there is nothing in space to crash into (except some planets of course, but that's details).

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39954491)

There's plenty to crash into (or have crash into you) .. Just getting out of our immediate planetary vicinity is nightmarishly complex.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=40173

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (5, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#39953907)

Depends on why it crashed - at the moment it looks like Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT).

Also, crashes early on doesn't necessarily mean the death of the program, the Airbus A330 suffered a crash during its development, but has gone on to sell over 1,000 examples since.

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (4, Insightful)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954289)

    The initial reports I saw on this stated they requested an immediate descent from 10k feet to 6k feet moments before they disappeared from radar.

    One news report stated a farmer saw the plane fly low above him with "the engine" running. It could have been a single engine failure, which should not have been catastrophic. He may have only said "the engine" because he couldn't tell from the sound if it were one or two engines running.

    I'm sure the pilots must have known the terrain.

    Since they were suppose to be out on a 50 minute flight, they should have still been climbing.

    I would suspect the possibility of a loss of cabin pressure. Procedure for that is to put on oxygen masks, and immediately descend.

    Some people don't handle the air above 6,800 feet very well.

    If their altimeter wasn't accurate, they could have been much higher,and began suffering symptoms of hypoxia faster. The immediate descent could have done exactly what you said, controlled flight into terrain.

    We'll learn more from the flight data recorders, when they're recovered and analyzed. It may have been pilot error, equipment malfunction, or both.

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (4, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954453)

From what I have read, the descent to 6000ft was made on the prior demo flight as well, as part of the sightseeing - the weather was poor, so they would have wanted to get under the weather to see the sights.

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (3, Insightful)

Bitsy Boffin (110334) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954479)

It was a demo flight, they are (were) shopping the aircraft around various airlines looking for buyers. The pilots would not be "familiar" with the terrain. This was not a public transport flight, it was a private flight.

These demo flights operate in, lets say, a manner designed to impress the passengers.

A flight down low up an incredibly scenic valley, is one way of impressing your passengers. Miss judging the space needed to get out of that valley, that's not quite so impressive :(

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (3, Insightful)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954643)

    I would assume the pilot would have familiarized himself with the terrain, since that helps to know where to fly to.

    Impressing the passengers ... well ... That was probably lost somewhere between "look at the view" and [smack into the mountain]. It'll probably significantly impede their chances of getting a signed contract, since the signers were on board.

    I think that's one of those unspoken rules of business. "Don't kill your customers before they pay."

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (5, Funny)

TheLink (130905) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954725)

Sure made an impression on the ground.

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (5, Insightful)

Dan East (318230) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954663)

I doubt the pilots did knew the terrain that well. They were Russian pilots demoing a jet in a foreign country, so it would not have been an area they fly over regularly. They were touring.

I believe they were trying to show off, and here's why I think that. One of the news sites had a video (looked like Google Earth) showing where the plane took off, and where it crashed. The mountain it crashed into is this really isolated and abrupt thing sticking way up out of lower elevation terrain. It was very clear from that imagery that the plane took off and made a bee line for those scenic mountains for impressive views for those on board. I think the pilot tried to do a close fly by and did not realize just how steep that mountain was (it is practically vertical where the plane impacted).

Again, if you look at the topography, it is clear that if the plane had some sort of engine trouble, especially up at 10,000 feet, there was much lower elevation land they could have easily headed toward instead of happening to drop on that isolated mountain.

Remember, this was flying around for the sake of showing off a plane - a sightseeing tour that they wanted those on board to have a memorable impression of. Thus they would have headed towards something like that mountain to give the passengers something more interesting to look at than boring cloud tops or flat land.

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (2)

21mhz (443080) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954705)

    One news report stated a farmer saw the plane fly low above him with "the engine" running. It could have been a single engine failure, which should not have been catastrophic. He may have only said "the engine" because he couldn't tell from the sound if it were one or two engines running.

Come on, who expects a farmer to know these things?

    I'm sure the pilots must have known the terrain.

Why? They were test pilots from Sukhoi who flew in for the demonstration flights.

    Since they were suppose to be out on a 50 minute flight, they should have still been climbing.

And that's why they requested a descent?

Sorry, your armchair speculation does not add to understanding why this tragedy has occurred.

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (2)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 2 years ago | (#39953915)

Considering that the people they were trying to convince and now smeared across the side of a volcano...I'd agree. Lost sale.

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954015)

If you were thinking of buying this airliner you can't.
From the summary.

"A brand new Russian Sukhoi Superjet 100 airliner on a demonstration flight with 37 passengers (mostly future clients and journalists)

Emphasis mine.

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954367)

You're right... I'd much rather have one of those new planes that can fly right through a mountain.

Re:Probably lost the sale, too! (1)

Guppy (12314) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954525)

37 passengers (mostly future clients and journalists)

Those executives should have known better than to go themselves. Sending an management lackey [youtube.com] to participate in demos is much safer. :P

Repeat Customers? (3, Funny)

RapidEye (322253) | more than 2 years ago | (#39953775)

I hope Sukhoi wasn't counting on repeat customers to make their sales figures this year...

Re:Repeat Customers? (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 2 years ago | (#39953955)

Really! I can hardly imagine a worse scenario for a manufacturer of passenger aircraft. Who would buy one now? Who would board one now? It's gonna take an epic feat of PR damage control to save the company (or at least their passenger aircraft division) after that.

Re:Repeat Customers? (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954027)

They still have Aeroflot to fall back on...

Re:Repeat Customers? (2)

rwise2112 (648849) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954737)

They still have Aeroflot to fall back on...

I remember an old David Letterman's top ten list of ways to improve Aeroflot -- more Aero and less flot!

Re:Repeat Customers? (1, Interesting)

Ashenkase (2008188) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954081)

Do you not remember the Airbus crash in Paris in 88'? Airbus seemed to rebound after this epic fail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cv2ud1339E [youtube.com]

Re:Repeat Customers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39954297)

That was not in Paris but in an AirShow in Alsace.

That was not an epic fail. Later inquiries proved it was a mistake from pilot and despite in impressive crash there was only 3 casualties as most people managed to escape the plane after crash landing.

Re:Repeat Customers? (1)

Ashenkase (2008188) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954431)

Putting it into the context of this post it was a similar pre-production epic fail. When you have potential buyers watching an airframe fly into a stand of trees it does not bode well for sales.

Re:Repeat Customers? (3, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954309)

Ahh the good old Habsheim Crash, wondered when that would get trotted out.

The Air France pilot of that particular aircraft was too low, too slow and untrained for such a stunt. He flew below the height of surrounding obstacles with his engines at or near idle, and then blamed the spool up time as the engines being "unresponsive". He put the aircraft into a dangerous situation and other people paid for his mistakes with their lives.

The pilot was an idiot, there was nothing wrong with the aircraft that caused that crash. Sure there was irregularities with the handling of the flight recorders afterward, but nothing has ever been proven in that particular conspiracy theory.

Competition? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39953779)

Looks like Airbus and Boeing will be getting some more customers.

...too soon?

Wrong (5, Funny)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 2 years ago | (#39953811)

Looks like Airbus and Boeing will be getting some more customers. ...too soon?

No, just wrong. They took care of that problem by making sure the potential customers were in the plane, as the summary says.

Re:Competition? (4, Informative)

kidgenius (704962) | more than 2 years ago | (#39953871)

Not at this size they wont. More like Embraer and Bombardier will get more customers

Re:Competition? (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954385)

From a previous article I read, Boeing is one of the companies that had a hand in designing it.

Test Flights (0)

Rie Beam (632299) | more than 2 years ago | (#39953791)

If nothing else, it was a very thorough demonstration.

In Russia... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39953805)

In Russia...plane crashes you

In Soviet Russia... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39953817)

...Superjet demo's you.

I hope they made their time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39953833)

Did the pilot at least get to main screen turn on first?

IN SOVIET RUSSIA (-1, Troll)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#39953837)

engineering is bad.

Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA (1)

Virtucon (127420) | more than 2 years ago | (#39953875)

No In Soviet Russia Mountain crashes into you!

Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39954109)

Then why is the West worried about every technological threat from Russia? That always cracks me up. "We must spend billions on the latest tech and jets to protect ourselves from the Russian threat! Russian technology is inferior! HAHA!"

Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA (1)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954359)

I'm not sure where you've been, but America has not been concerned about Russia for about 20 years.

A triumph! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39953847)

It's good to see that in Russia, a land free of job killing market strangling regulation, that a group of self-reliant bootstrapping entrepreneurs really can buck the cash grabs of "safety standards" and "inspections". Who needs the FAA when you can board the pre-production plane and inspect it yourself?

Re:A triumph! (4, Informative)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#39953897)

Reminds me of the braindead comments we saw here in Indiana after last year's State Fair stage collapse when it was revealed that no one had to inspect the stage rigging.

My favorite was the one that said "why does it matter if some guy inspects the rigging." Well, for one thing it's not "some guy" but someone that has education and experience with such engineering problems. Secondly it's because people could die if it is wrong. Even when given a practical demonstration people are so ideologically motivated that they can't see why it should be done. You should of seen that idiot Mitch "fuck all regulations" Daniels backtrack when this was revealed and and people wondered why common sense wasn't followed and someone with experience didn't look over the setup.

Re:A triumph! (5, Informative)

Americano (920576) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954551)

You're an idiot. [wikipedia.org] The plane was certified by numerous agencies, and has been flying commercially since April of 2011.

It is certified as meeting the relevant airworthiness and safety requirements by the Interstate Aviation Committee [wikipedia.org] and the European Aviation Safety Agency [europa.eu] ; The EASA certification is more or less identical in procedure and requirement to our own FAA requirements.

This has nothing to do with "insufficient safety regulations and inspection" in Russia, the plane passed all the same certifications it would need to pass here in the USA, and in fact, the certificate that was awarded by EASA may very well be valid in the US, as there is some reciprocity in these certification processes.

Initial reports suggest that it was CFIT, and they flew right into the side of the mountain; unless you've got access to the black box already, maybe you should hold off on hollow political posturing until an understanding can be reached as to what actually happened?

rough start (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39953855)

About the passengers and the crew

It was carrying Indonesians, including journalists and businessmen, eight Russians, including embassy officials, pilots and technicians, two Italians, one French citizen and one American, said Vladimir Prisyazhnyuk, the head of Sukhoi Civil Aircraft.

about the plane

The jet was developed with Western design advice and technology from companies including Italyâ(TM)s Finmeccanica , as well as avionics and engine equipment from French aerospace firms Thales and Safran.

Built in a converted corner of a Sukhoi fighter factory in Siberia, the Superjet was unveiled in 2007 as part of a drive to restore pride in Russiaâ(TM)s aviation industry, but it ran into a series of development delays.

The Superjet 100, with a capacity of 68-103 passengers, is already in service with Russiaâ(TM)s Aeroflot and Armenian carrier Armavia and was half way through a 15,500-kilometre, six-nation Asian tour to try to drum up more international customers.

This is not a good start, will dampen the interest in this plane at least for a while, too bad for Sukhoi, they lost face, the head of the Civil Aircraft division and a bunch of potential customers, never mind the jet.

Re:rough start (1)

Virtucon (127420) | more than 2 years ago | (#39953935)

It won't just dampen interest it will probably kill it since it is Sukhoi's first commercial aircraft venture.

I'll wait however for the report on what caused the crash, but leaving it to the probabilities it may have been pilot error.
That goes not without saying that the design of this new aircraft could have contributed to a lack of understanding of the
flight characteristics of the plane or it could have just been a piece of shit to begin with.

Re:rough start (2)

berashith (222128) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954393)

if the pilot is dead, then it is always pilot error. He cant defend himself, or point to any incorrect training or manuals or flight characteristics. PR will always point at the dead guy in these cases, until the same thing happens multiple times, or blame can be pinned on somebody outside of the company like in the valuejet crash.

Re:rough start (1)

noh8rz3 (2593935) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954703)

That's why everybody loves captain sully sullenberger. Dude landed his craft, so they couldn't pin pilot error on him.

Weather (5, Interesting)

Dzimas (547818) | more than 2 years ago | (#39953869)

It was apparently raining or overcast, seems likely that the pilots flew into the mountain while attempting a sightseeing flyby. That's a completely different story than if there was a mechanical malfunction. Of course, they'll lose sales either way.

Re:Weather (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39953981)

Unfortunately, 'even a controlled flight into terrain', as I'm told it is polite to describe it, looks rather bad if 'Sukhoi’s chief civil test pilot' is the man at the controls(which it was). A very common form of accident, even among the competent; but probably doesn't give buyers the warm-and-fuzzies.

Re:Weather (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39954261)

Surprised they didn't have a local pilot along for these rides, a lot of smaller Asian near-airport terrain can politely be described as "hectic", with nasty wind systems and sudden mountains. For all his experience, Sukhoi's guy was probably flying by charts (digital or otherwise) in the cloud when a local would have had a better appreciation of where she or he was.

Re:Weather (1)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954049)

Either way, apparently there's no terrain avoidance alarm, or the one they have doesn't work.

Re:Weather (1)

21mhz (443080) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954177)

I think on civilian jets that works off a radar altimeter that looks straight down, so it gives little warning about an approaching mountain.

Re:Weather (5, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954321)

That's because in Soviet Russia, terrain avoidance alarm notifies mountain

Re:Weather (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39954343)

It's the moutain plane avoidance system which was defective

Hard sell gone wrong. (5, Funny)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39953881)

"Are you sure you don't want to buy our planes? Very well. If we have no further business, our aircraft is now on its final descent. Don't bother fastening your seat belts."

movie? (1)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39953883)

on the other hand, if they were being forced to watch an in-flight Jennifer Aniston movie, then it's just merciful...

Re:movie? (4, Funny)

quenda (644621) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954241)

on the other hand, if they were being forced to watch an in-flight Jennifer Aniston movie, then it's just merciful...

How dare you judge her? I mean what are you? You think you're some kind of, like, angel here? No, you're just this penny-stealing... wanna-be criminal... man.

Re:movie? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39954531)

on the other hand, if they were being forced to watch an in-flight Jennifer Aniston movie, then it's just merciful...

Should try 'Horrible Bosses'. Puts her in the right role!

Re:movie? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39954667)

She was in Office Space, a favorite among the slashdot crowd. Justifiably so.

At Call Center Training (5, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#39953895)

In the 90's they told us that if a customer has a good experience with your company he will generally not tell anyone, but if he has a bad experience with your company he'll tell at least 10 other people. They failed to cover the "Your product resulted in their death" case, though.

Re:At Call Center Training (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#39953933)

In the 2000s companies learned that death didn't matter, they would simply buy a congresscritter and get the law changed so it's illegal to talk about it. See: the beef industry.

What "freedom" is the corporate sycophant Tea Party talking about again?!?

Re:At Call Center Training (1, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954055)

Most Tea Partiers (like me) hate corporations. It's pretty much why the thing formed in the first place (first to help Ron Paul in 2007, and then to protest the bailout of corporations by Bush).

Sadly the Tea Party Congressmen just voted 71% in favor of the CISPA spying-by-corporations act, so maybe the TP has lost its was over the years. Hijacked by the Republicans.

Re:At Call Center Training (1)

quenda (644621) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954283)

Sadly the Tea Party ... hijacked by the Republicans.

How ironic, in a man bites dog kind of way.

Re:At Call Center Training (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954655)

More of a parasite kills host sort of thing....

Re:At Call Center Training (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39953945)

Look on the bright side. If your products kill the customer, it's almost as good as if the customer had a good experience - he generally won't be telling anyone about it.

Re:At Call Center Training (1)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954729)

In the 80's they told us that Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid.
So I think that sufficiently covers it.

Lucky (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39953909)

The aircraft made two demonstration flights on Wednesday. It returned to Halim Perdanakusuma airport, east of Jakarta, after the first flight where some people got off because it was the time for Muslim prayers

Looks like luck was with the Muslims.

Re:Lucky (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954267)

Maybe one of them did not get off? :)

All their Mars crafts fail (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39953925)

So why not this?

Awful for Russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39953949)

This REALLY freaking sucks. This is the first big passenger airline jet since the fall of the USSR. Symbolically, this is awful for Russia.

Re:Awful for Russia (2)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954419)

Don't worry, they'll make up for it by selling more weapons to North Korea.

A symptom of top-to-bottom rot (1, Flamebait)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 2 years ago | (#39953959)

The entire country is corrupt, decrepit and dysfunctional, not just Putin's much vaunted "national champions".

The corrupt little dictator knows that the country he presides over is falling over. Which is why he's so busy turkey-slapping anybody who looks like they could ever be a friend of Russia.

With another twelve years of this thug, Russia is fucked.

Re:A symptom of top-to-bottom rot (1)

Kozz (7764) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954003)

The entire country is corrupt, decrepit and dysfunctional, not just Putin's much vaunted "national champions".

The corrupt little dictator knows that the country he presides over is falling over. Which is why he's so busy turkey-slapping anybody who looks like they could ever be a friend of Russia.

With another twelve years of this thug, Russia is fucked.

When I first heard about the jet crash, I was wondering if any of the people on the plane were political enemies of Putin.

Similar to this crash of an Airbus 320 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39953971)

Reminds me of this demo flight of an Airbus A320

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296

Lots of fatalities there as well because pilots flew an extremely dangerous maneuver and was unable to regain sufficient thrust to safely climb out.
Even though Airbus tried their best to blame the pilots, modifications were made to the hardware as well.

Christian

Re:Similar to this crash of an Airbus 320 (0)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954547)

There were actually only three fatalities, but the pilot and copilot were charged with involuntary manslaughter. While it was true that the maneuver they performed was dangerous, it was certainly very recoverable. Unfortunately, they were unable to recover because the fly-by-wire system overrode the pilot's input and took too long to apply power by which time it was too late.The company never admitted fault in the fly-by-wire system (even though they did apply changes to it), and in order to prevent loss of contracts on the airplane and potentially bankrupting the company, they chose to ruin the lives of a few individuals who were acting at the direction of the company.

Re:Similar to this crash of an Airbus 320 (5, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954683)

Nope, sorry, your explanation is the standard one and it's wrong - the FBW system didn't prevent anything, the pilot had the engines at a far too low power setting and it takes time for any jet engine to spool up from that point. The pilot should have had the engines at a high power setting (TOGA) and he should have been using aerodynamic devices to keep the speed at the level he wanted it - he didn't, he just throttled back the engines, which you should never do in that situation.

The pilot was correctly blamed for that one.

S?hit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39953977)

My heart goes out (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39954045)

This is one of the times you should really read the article, so you don't jump to conclusions.

It was a demostration flight, not a test flight. The plane had been thoroughly vetted. So let's hold off until the investigation finds if it's plane or human error. It had decended to 1800m near the 2200m Mount Salek. We don't know if sensors failed, we don't know if the pilot got disoriented, and we don't know if there was a mechanical failure. We just don't know yet. So don't jump and blame the engineering.

The captain had lot's of experience, and flew the Superjet on its maiden journey back in 2008.

Those onboard were: "journalists and businessmen, eight Russians, including embassy officials, pilots and technicians, two Italians, one French citizen and one American"

This is a very sad situation, and I can't imagine what's on the mind of everyone involved. 37 people died, and no jokes will be coming from me. RIP.

What's on their minds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39954345)

I would assume dirt, rocks, sand, maybe some jet fuel, and a variety of 'trace minerals' mostly consisting of aluminum and possibly some carbon.

Re:My heart goes out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39954579)

Thank you for your response. Is it just me that thinks so or has the quality of the readers of slashdot nosedived? I used to really learn stuff and get interesting points of view from reading the comments, but that's not happening so much anymore.

can't you smell that smell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39954159)

This crash certainly could not be a subtle consequence of Russia's recent threat to use pre-emptive, destructive force on US missile defense...

http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/05/04/1230221/russia-threatens-pre-emptive-destructive-force-on-us-missile-defense

time flies... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39954203)

... and airplanes crash.

Dictator (-1, Offtopic)

kbg (241421) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954269)

What do you expect from a country that has been run by a dictator for the last 12 years and where corruption is rampant and there is no rule of law.

Obligatory... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39954307)

In Soviet Russia, mountain crashes into YOU!

Superjet crash (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39954417)

This crash has the hallmark of what is called "controlled flight into terrain", which means the plane may have been working fine, but the pilots did not know accurately enough where they were. The impact seems to have been near a mountain peak. It might have meant that they noticed this too late and were trying to climb. This is speculation, but these types of accidents have occurred before.

So why was he so low in the first place? I read somewhere else that the pilot had requested a lower altitude from air traffic control shortly before the crash (from 21,000 to 8,000). This might have indicated he was taking the plane down, into what he may have thought was better weather, possibly for some visual sight seeing to show off the plane. Some call this "sniffing for the ground" - not the best thing sometimes, especially with 50 potential customers abord and on a sales flight. Again I am speculating a bit here, but the investigation will be interesting. Rest in peace to all.

Waiting for it (0)

cyberchondriac (456626) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954613)

Are any of the Russians going to blame US radar for this one too?

SPECTRE!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39954651)

Call James Bond! This is a SPECTRE trap designed to throw Russian suspicion toward the Americans!

In soviet russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39954711)

In Soviet Russia plan crashes YOU!

wait no, I think I got that mixed up, let me try again

In Soviet Russia you crash plane!

Hmmmmm...... I don't seem to have this down yet.

So (1)

paiute (550198) | more than 2 years ago | (#39954745)

How many can I sign you up for?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?