Tweet
The video shows a steep, banking descent into terrain in clear visibility, not a dive, not stalled. There are rumors of flight control problems but this may be related to GPS and ADS-B spoofing that was active in the area. The crash occurred one hour after a weather diversion from the intended airfield, so fuel exhaustion may be a possibility. If flight control issues are confirmed, a fleet-wide grounding might be forthcoming.
-
-
Highly speculative: It seems to have been phugoiding and some damage in the tail seems more shrapnel than crash damage.
Attached Files
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials --- -
-
The fireball might not sync with fuel exhaustion, although it is not a very large explosion and apparently a limited fire. Definitely seems to be either flight control issues or crew incapacitation. But the miracle here is how it managed a survivable angle of impact in the final seconds.Originally posted by Gabriel View PostHighly speculative: It seems to have been phugoiding and some damage in the tail seems more shrapnel than crash damage.
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.town...size=888%2C500
I don't know how to discern crash damage from shrapnel damage on a fuselage that has rolled and slid down in hard terrain. There are rumors of AA attack, but I would expect that to have had much more devastating effects. In this part of the world, who knows...
If the engines did flame out from fuel starvation and the crew took no action, would it be doing what we see here? (I don't see the RAT extended, but it is quite small on the E-190).
EDIT: re-watched the final close-up seconds of that video and I am pretty confident that the RAT is not deployed.Comment
-
Looks like JAL 123, loss of at least elevator if not more. Erratic path and as mentioned, the phugoid cycle until that last descent to ground.
i found a video that clearly shows that is shrapnel damage at the tail. Maybe the missile wasn’t terribly close when it detonated. For some reason I get an error trying to attach anything.
Comment
-
Me too. Just paste the link as text.Originally posted by xspeedy View Post
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---Comment
-
1010 days between jet airline incidents with multiple ticketed passenger fatalities, by far a record and the most I'll ever see in my lifetime. This one seems to be an artillery attack followed by a long but unwinnable fight with the controls. God bless the pilots for saving as many lives as they did.moving quickly in airComment
-
Clearly? Have a look at that impact video. High speed rollover in dirt, rocks, etc. This was a flight off it’s intended flight plan in an active war zone, so AA is certainly a possibility but I wouldn’t come to that conclusion quite yet. If it was AA, they will know that by now. I’m not so sure they could cover up the backlash for very long.Originally posted by xspeedy View Post
Also EASA and the FAA need to be vigilantly following the investigation in case a flight control issue might be design-related. I don’t know how that works in wartime.
Comment
-
The parts that have what looks like shrapnel damage clearly could not have touched the ground during the accident sequence. But yes, shrapnel-like damage can be caused by rocks and pieces of plane flying around during the accident sequence... But it doesn't look like that, to me at least. In any case, there is a reason why the very first two words of my post were "highly speculative".Originally posted by Evan View Post
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---Comment
-
Thanks. I linked to the video in the original post. It offers very close up of the damage.Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
Comment
-
Although you can never be 100% sure in this fake-news age, and especially when it involves Russia, it's pretty confirmed at this point that the plane was mistakenly shot down by the Russians.
I've seen a lot of pictures and videos, including a couple of passenger videos allegedly from inside this flight. And there is a lot of rumors of Russians admitting that they shot it down by mistake when they confused them with an Ukrainian drone since a multiple Ukrainian drone attack was taking place at that time.
Here is a nice analysis.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---Comment
-
Looks pretty damning. Not a place you want to be flying through.Originally posted by Gabriel View PostComment
-
There are videos alleged to be from aboard the flight that indicate a possible injury and damage to the plane (fuselage penetration on the port side, which is the same side as the tail damage). This is sounding like Malaysia 17 but with a better outcome. The other common video shows damage to the port wing flap track fairing as well as additional cabin penetration. From the exterior shots, there is an access panel at the tail that was blown open. The evidence seems clear.
Comment
-
The Kremlin is now saying "It would be wrong to put forward any hypotheses before the investigation's conclusions. We, of course, will not do this, and no-one should do this. We need to wait until the investigation is completed". So I think we can be pretty clear about who was responsible
The BBC is reporting that although this aircraft was landing in Kazakhstan if it was actually destined for Grozny (280 miles away in Chechnya) and the incident actually happened on approach to Grozny.
Comment
-
Lol. Didn’t stop Russia trying to sell the bird strike story right after the crash. And legitimate news agencies like CBS sadly pushed that narrative.Originally posted by flashcrash View PostThe Kremlin is now saying "It would be wrong to put forward any hypotheses before the investigation's conclusions. We, of course, will not do this, and no-one should do this. We need to wait until the investigation is completed". So I think we can be pretty clear about who was responsible
The BBC is reporting that although this aircraft was landing in Kazakhstan if it was actually destined for Grozny (280 miles away in Chechnya) and the incident actually happened on approach to Grozny.
Comment
-
"And our thoughts and prayers go not only to the ones impacted by this accident but also to the accident investigator that accidentally fell from the window at his hotel and the news reporter that had an unexpected massive heart attack. Wait what? What do you mean that was tomorrow's press release? Oh, that didn't happen yet?""It would be wrong to put forward any hypotheses before the investigation's conclusions. We, of course, will not do this, and no-one should do this. We need to wait until the investigation is completed"
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---Comment
Comment