Russia Grounds Sukhoi Superjet Over Safety Concerns

kevinandrew

There isn't much news about this, may have gone unnoticed considering the time of year but quite serious if true! 
Russian authorities have grounded the country's fleet of Sukhoi Superjet's after metal fatigue was found in the tail of one aircraft during inspection. 
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/24/business/russia-grounds-sukhoi-superjet-safety-concerns.html
Must be a bit concerning for Cityjet.

martinsvi

just checked a couple of aeroflot regs on FR24, they are up and flying.. EDIT: turns out there are 7 grounded aircraft, the article is slightly misleading.. still a concern thou..

KCAccidental

That article is complete garbage. Insinuating journalistically that the Indonesian crash was anything other than pilot error is moronic.

martinsvi

well something's up anyway, CityJet haven't used their SSJs since Dec 22.. EI-FWB doesn't show up on FR24 history at all (so been on ground for 7 days or more), very strange

sparrowcar

martinsvi wrote: »

well something's up anyway, CityJet haven't used their SSJs since Dec 22.. EI-FWB doesn't show up on FR24 history at all (so been on ground for 7 days or more), very strange

Don't read into that too much. They are only being used for charter and training flights at the moment, both of which wouldn't really happen over the few days around Christmas Day.

martinsvi

sparrowcar wrote: »

Don't read into that too much. They are only being used for charter and training flights at the moment, both of which wouldn't really happen over the few days around Christmas Day.

well that's also kind of strange - why would you order a new type which is supposed to be more economic, reliable etc, but half a year later you still only use it for "training" and charters... CS100 just entered service for Swiss and CS300 for airBaltic - again, completely new aircraft, yet they are working away on revenue flights

sparrowcar

martinsvi wrote: »

well that's also kind of strange - why would you order a new type which is supposed to be more economic, reliable etc, but half a year later you still only use it for "training" and charters... CS100 just entered service for Swiss and CS300 for airBaltic - again, completely new aircraft, yet they are working away on revenue flights

Any amount of reading here or elsewhere online will answer your questions but none have anything to do with your suspicions about the WX SSJ fleet not operating the past few days.

drdeadlift

The corrective actions prescribed by this Airworthiness Directive are mandatory.
No persons may operate an aircraft to which this Airworthiness Directive applies,
except in accordance with the requirements of this Airworthiness Directive

During the maintenance of RRJ-95B Aircraft serial No. 95018, tail No. RA-89010,
cracks in the lugs of the stabilizer upper and lower bracket attachment bands were
detected.

In order to ensure safe operation of the Aircraft type RRJ-95 it is necessary:

1. To perform the inspection of the stabilizer bracket attachment bands prior to
departures from the base airports of the RRJ-95 Aircraft. The work to be
performed per AMM 55-16-00-220-804 “Detailed inspection of the stabilizer
joint straps and bracket attachment bands” and AMM 55-16-00-220-801
“Detailed inspection of the stabilizer attachment brackets”. The work to be
performed jointly with the Joint Stock Company SCA.
The results of the onetime inspections of Aircraft to be sent to the Joint Stock
Company SCA and the Federal Air Transport Agency.
Further this work to be performed at each daily maintenance of Aircraft (DYcheck).

2. Additionally to the specified in p.l work, instrument inspection (with the use of
eddy current crack detectors) of the lugs of the stabilizer upper and lower bracket
attachment bands per NDTM 51-60-00 with photographic recording and issuance
of reports to be performed at each weekly maintenance of Aircraft (WY-check).

3. Aircraft operation must be terminated after detection of a crack or crack
apprehension.

JCX BXC

martinsvi wrote: »

well that's also kind of strange - why would you order a new type which is supposed to be more economic, reliable etc, but half a year later you still only use it for "training" and charters... CS100 just entered service for Swiss and CS300 for airBaltic - again, completely new aircraft, yet they are working away on revenue flights

Cityjet can't fly the SSJ's into LCY yet, which is their primary airport, so that's likely the main reason they're not used.

martinsvi

sparrowcar wrote: »

Any amount of reading here or elsewhere online will answer your questions but none have anything to do with your suspicions about the WX SSJ fleet not operating the past few days.

would you be so kind and pinpoint to any threads/posts where the Cityjet's unwillingness to operate scheduled pax flights with SSJ aircraft would be explained?

JCX BXC wrote: »

Cityjet can't fly the SSJ's into LCY yet, which is their primary airport, so that's likely the main reason they're not used.

so why not use it on other routes? Dub - CDG would be perfect for this type of plane.

Looking at Rj85 economy and number of technical issues they have had, it would make more sense to put SSJ on at least one route..

sparrowcar

martinsvi wrote: »

would you be so kind and pinpoint to any threads/posts where the Cityjet's unwillingness to operate scheduled pax flights with SSJ aircraft would be explained

You won't find any as Cityjet are not unwilling to operate schedule pax flights with the SSJ, they just can't yet for all the well documented reasons.

martinsvi

sparrowcar wrote: »

You won't find any as Cityjet are not unwilling to operate schedule pax flights with the SSJ, they just can't yet for all the well documented reasons.

sorry, what documented reasons? where? PM if you like

Pat Dunne

I'm know that the ORK-LRH is seasonal, but did it not operate on that scheduled service earlier this year?
http://www.blog.cityjet.com/maiden-scheduled-service-for-new-cityjet-superjet-ssj100

Wasn't another on temporary "wet lease" to the Finnair subsidiary Norra in Sept/Oct?

Peregrine

Pat Dunne wrote: »

Wasn't another on temporary "wet lease" to the Finnair subsidiary Norra in Sept/Oct?

Yeah, it was doing daily service for them around September.

JCX BXC

They operate DUB-CDG on behalf of Air France don't they? Could the contract prohibit them from using the SSJ's? I know nothing of the contract here, just wondering.

sparrowcar

martinsvi wrote: »

sorry, what documented reasons? where? PM if you like

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/superjet-steep-approach-approval-targeted-for-2017-425730/

Dardania

Also there was the story about a DUB-LCY flight during the summer being subbed by the SSJ and having to make a diversion to Southend I think?

JCX BXC

Cityjet SSJ on its way to Shannon from Newcastle ATM.

martinsvi

sparrowcar wrote: »

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/superjet-steep-approach-approval-targeted-for-2017-425730/

how is lack of steep approach approval preventing SSJ to do DUB-CDG flights?

sparrowcar

martinsvi wrote: »

how is lack of steep approach approval preventing SSJ to do DUB-CDG flights?

You keep changing the details of your questions to suit your own narrative, Good luck on your quest for the hidden truth.

martinsvi

sparrowcar wrote: »

You keep changing the details of your questions to suit your own narrative, Good luck on your quest for the hidden truth.

I have no narrative, I asked a relatively vague question which was partially answered by JCX BXC.. after which I decided to be more specific and ask about specific routes.. your responses to the thread gave me an impression that there's some sort of general knowledge that I have somehow missed or that you know something that might be of value.. we wouldn't have this conversation now if you wouldn't have played charades

I'm not trying to bash ssj either.. if it's deemed airworthy and if I'd have to go to Paris tomorrow, I would rather fly ssj than rj85.. I just want to know why it's not happening yet.. it makes no sense to me..

martinsvi

JCX BXC wrote: »

They operate DUB-CDG on behalf of Air France don't they? Could the contract prohibit them from using the SSJ's? I know nothing of the contract here, just wondering.

that seems plausible, but if true, raises more questions - both CityJet and Air France should be interested in getting newer, quieter and more economical aircraft on the route, why not re-do the contract and make it happen? Would Air France be against the use of SSJ for some reason? I know these are rhetorical questions, I don't expect an answer, I'm just surprised that - apparently - I'm the only one here puzzled by the whole situation..

LeakRate

Pretty sure its down to the contract with air france, they can only operate up to 95 seat capacity aircraft on the air france routes, the air france mainline pilot unions have it this way, the ssj is 98 seats so hence why it is not used. Looks like they will be doing some flying with brussels airlines in the new year.

Chris_5339762

Get a spanner and a screwdriver and take out three seats. Solved.

Van.Bosch

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Get a spanner and a screwdriver and take out three seats. Solved.

Or just cap sales at 95.

Mebuntu

Pretty sure its down to the contract with air france, they can only operate up to 95 seat capacity aircraft on the air france routes, the air france mainline pilot unions have it this way, the ssj is 98 seats so hence why it is not used. Looks like they will be doing some flying with brussels airlines in the new year.

The unions dictating to the airline how many pax they are permitted to carry on routes? I think I've heard it all now.

arubex

Mebuntu wrote: »

The unions dictating to the airline how many pax they are permitted to carry on routes? I think I've heard it all now.

It's fairly common in the USA, called 'scope clauses' wherein the mainline unions impose seat restrictions on subcontracted services.

Hence oddities such as the CRJ 440, which is a CRJ 200 certificated to only accommodate 44 passengers instead of 50 by fitting a big wardrobe. But you won't find it on Bombardier's website as it's only offered to airlines that need to work around scope clauses.

The CRJ 705 is another example, exactly the same as the 900 but certificated with fewer seats.

Of course they're much cheaper to develop than proper 'shrinks' and when the airline wants to sell them on they can pay to recertificate the airframe as the 'bigger' variant for better resale prices.

Irish Steve

Friend of mine who's a retired aviation engineer posted a link on facebook this morning.

https://www.facebook.com/Sukhoi.Civil.Aircraft/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED&fref=nf

The inspections of the entire fleet has been completed, and if I am reading it right, (among all the spin), it's a minor issue which will be repaired within a matter of weeks. A retrofit programme will be carried out to ensure that this issue does not recur.

billy few mates

Irish Steve wrote: »

Friend of mine who's a retired aviation engineer posted a link on facebook this morning.

https://www.facebook.com/Sukhoi.Civil.Aircraft/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED&fref=nf

The inspections of the entire fleet has been completed, and if I am reading it right, (among all the spin), it's a minor issue which will be repaired within a matter of weeks. A retrofit programme will be carried out to ensure that this issue does not recur.

The earlier post with the details of the AD suggests a repeat inspection (DVI) on a daily basis and a repeat NDT (Eddy Current)inspection on a weekly basis

The corrective actions prescribed by this Airworthiness Directive are mandatory.
No persons may operate an aircraft to which this Airworthiness Directive applies,
except in accordance with the requirements of this Airworthiness Directive

During the maintenance of RRJ-95B Aircraft serial No. 95018, tail No. RA-89010,
cracks in the lugs of the stabilizer upper and lower bracket attachment bands were
detected.

In order to ensure safe operation of the Aircraft type RRJ-95 it is necessary:

1. To perform the inspection of the stabilizer bracket attachment bands prior to
departures from the base airports of the RRJ-95 Aircraft. The work to be
performed per AMM 55-16-00-220-804 “Detailed inspection of the stabilizer
joint straps and bracket attachment bands” and AMM 55-16-00-220-801
“Detailed inspection of the stabilizer attachment brackets”. The work to be
performed jointly with the Joint Stock Company SCA.
The results of the onetime inspections of Aircraft to be sent to the Joint Stock
Company SCA and the Federal Air Transport Agency.
Further this work to be performed at each daily maintenance of Aircraft (DYcheck).

2. Additionally to the specified in p.l work, instrument inspection (with the use of
eddy current crack detectors) of the lugs of the stabilizer upper and lower bracket
attachment bands per NDTM 51-60-00 with photographic recording and issuance
of reports to be performed at each weekly maintenance of Aircraft (WY-check)

Chris_5339762

To be fair stuff like this happens with every new plane regardless of how well built and designed it is. Remember the A380 engine problems?

Pat Dunne

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

To be fair stuff like this happens with every new plane regardless of how well built and designed it is. Remember the A380 engine problems?

787 Battery problems.

Irish Steve

A380 wing stress cracking in early airframes.
B737 rudder hard over problems.
DC10 cargo door latch issues.

billy few mates

Irish Steve wrote: »

A380 wing stress cracking in early airframes.
B737 rudder hard over problems.
DC10 cargo door latch issues.

Agreed, teething problems are common on almost every A/C EIS you can think of but the B737 rudder hardover issues didn't really surface until much later into their service life. I'm sure they're already flat out redesigning the affected components but it will take a bit of time to get this certified and approved. In the meantime a repeat inspection on a Daily basis with a repeat NDT with (photographic evidence) on a Weekly will be real nightmare to schedule and absorb could even have to be outsourced with all the additional hassle that will involve.

Irish Steve

it's not completely clear from the previous notes if the evidence has to be submitted weekly, or if that was a one off, and the ongoing requirement is the inspection and local documentation.
Either way yes it's onerous until the fix is in place, but they seem pretty positive that the fix is not going to take long, and will be in place quickly, but having said that, given the information is coming from the manufacturers site, they would be putting as much positive spin on it as possible, to avoid any backlash from customers.

The good side of it is that they have gone public with the information , which is a change from the old ways of Soviet manufacturers, so they clearly want to see this aircraft succeed.

I've not flown on one yet, not sure when I will, but the impression is that it is a good aircraft and capable of competing in a very important area of the marketplace. I hope they do get the issues sorted quickly.

billy few mates

Irish Steve wrote: »

it's not completely clear from the previous notes if the evidence has to be submitted weekly, or if that was a one off, and the ongoing requirement is the inspection and local documentation.
Either way yes it's onerous until the fix is in place, but they seem pretty positive that the fix is not going to take long, and will be in place quickly, but having said that, given the information is coming from the manufacturers site, they would be putting as much positive spin on it as possible, to avoid any backlash from customers.

The good side of it is that they have gone public with the information , which is a change from the old ways of Soviet manufacturers, so they clearly want to see this aircraft succeed.

I've not flown on one yet, not sure when I will, but the impression is that it is a good aircraft and capable of competing in a very important area of the marketplace. I hope they do get the issues sorted quickly.

Yes it is completely clear if you read the AD. It calls for a one time inspection with a repeat daily (DVI) inspection and repeat weekly Eddy Current NDT inspection 'with photographic evidence' and report to be submitted. That's going to be a nightmare to schedule.

http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/RU-2016-322-02

Irish Steve

billy few mates wrote: »

Yes it is completely clear if you read the AD. It calls for a one time inspection with a repeat daily (DVI) inspection and repeat weekly Eddy Current NDT inspection 'with photographic evidence' and report to be submitted. That's going to be a nightmare to schedule.

http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/RU-2016-322-02

Thanks for the link, they are clearly very much concerned to make sure that this remains a one off aircraft defect, and to keep a very close eye on this until there's a permanent fix in place, or to make sure that if there is any developments of the same issue in other airframes, they find out about them very quickly.

I wonder if this happened as a result of a heavy landing or similar, a very long time ago, there was an issue with the Viscount, if there was a problem with severe nose wheel shimmy, it could result in a vibration in the tail spar that resulted in stress cracks, and the potential for the entire tail to fold up, with catastrophic consequences. I forget where I read about it, it was in an article where a pilot refused to fly an aircraft after a nose wheel damper failure caused major shimmy problems on landing, and when they spoke to base maintenance, they were told to get the tail checked before flying it again, and on getting it checked, it would have folded up when flight loads came on to the tail during rotation for the next flight, so they were very fortunate that they didn't try to fly it.

We don't have absolute information about the SSJ issue, but it seems that it's confined to one airframe at the moment, which is why I wonder if something out of the ordinary has happened to this aircraft.

Time will tell, there will for sure be an update to this AD just as soon as they can get it out, to reduce the impact of this level of inspection. In the meantime, I would agree, the operators are going to have to work hard to facilitate this level of extra checks until there is a resolution to the issue.

billy few mates

It looks like Interjet have had findings on the initial inspections and have grounded eleven of their Superjets, that's half their fleet....

http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2016/12/29/mexicos-interjet-grounds-11-russian-made-planes-over-safety/95951300/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-interjet-idUSKBN14G1EO

http://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/interjet-grounds-11-russian-built-planes/

Irish Steve

That doesn't make good reading, that's going to be a material issue, or a manufacturing issue if there's that many airframes involved, or someone made a big mistake in calculating loads when it was designed. The good thing is that it's been found before an airframe failed.

billy few mates

Irish Steve wrote: »

That doesn't make good reading, that's going to be a material issue, or a manufacturing issue if there's that many airframes involved, or someone made a big mistake in calculating loads when it was designed. The good thing is that it's been found before an airframe failed.

Not good at all, a 50% failure rate on this one fleet alone. The fact that it's on a daily and weekly rewatch suggests they expect the issue they're finding is going to appear at some stage and is not just a 'one off' in which case it might be easier to delay the EIS and simply park them up until the problem is rectified rather than going to all the hassle and expense of having to plan a schedule around these inspections or having to arrange a replacement A/C at short notice if they ever have a finding on one of these checks....