Talk:S7 Airlines Flight 778

Please move and properly rename this page when the flight number is known. Daniel Case 04:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please move the article to S7 Airlines Flight 778

Death toll

As reports are sketchy and unverifiable as of yet, do not list any official death toll. as of 2:00 AM EDT, there are only two confirmed fatalities.--Brianjames 05:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similarity to Air France Flight 358

Is it me, or is this crash very similar to the Air France Flight 358 incident in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Should we also add this resemblance to the article? -- cncxbox 13:03, July 9, 2006 (UTC -5; EST)

I understand why you say that, but in that flight, all 300+ passengers survived, and the cause of the accident was due to the plane hydroplaning off the runway due to extreme weather.--Brianjames 18:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are several similarites (wet runway, no apparent tehnical malfunction) between this accident and Air France Flight 358 (See also MD-11 Accidents). As to the Air France disaster, it seems like pure luck that no one died. (See also Etobicoke Creek.)

Accidents during landing, especially in inclement weather, are quite common. In many situations a contributing factor is pilot error (after all, the pilot makes the decision to land and performs or oversees the execution of that decision, compare with CFIT). However, it might be best to wait for a formal accident report before any conclusions are drawn. --Oden 00:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalist profit ideas are (partly) responsible for this

The idea that an 50k+ hours airframe is flying should be crime against humanity. That is a piece of junk that should be melted. 50k+ hours in 20 years old airframe, made of aluminium, where even the smallest deformation causes faigue, unlike steel? The article should address that some airlines use flying junk, sacrificing passengers for profit. Certainly a new or few years old airframe would not shred that badly as that ex-PANAM plane and dozens more would have surived!

Otherwise this accident could never happen with a soviet-made Tupolev Tu-134 or Tu-154 airliner, because those had drogue chute in the tail and a damn big one at that, like 8 meters across. If brakes are bad or thrust reverser fails, the chute stabilizes stops the rolling plane dead in its track. It was dropped from western jetliners because airlines complained how expensive is chute canister reload and how often nervous pilots fire the chute unnecessairly. I'd say fire the chute 10 times unneded rather than not have it the one time you truly need it. 195.70.32.136 18:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two crashes in the same day?

Anyone else find that weird, can someone get exact times based on UTC and see how close they were? Zanduar 22:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]