Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Russian plane crashes over Egypt

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    I think this could be a great place to learn, and being proven wrong is a good way to learn if you are open to accept it.
    In my experience, people "open to accepting" being proven wrong are extremely rare on aviation boards. In fact, the very purpose of participating for many seems to be not any kind of a search for the truth, but just the pursuit of being right. More regrettably, to many there is no difference between those two concepts.

    Your mileage may vary, of course.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ptwtanks View Post
      Not sure if this has been covered but what is the location of the FDR and CVR in an A321? If they are in the tail section that is 3 miles away from the main crash site and they stopped recording at the initial event then that will be evidence that the tail separated immediately as opposed to breaking off during the decent.
      Not necessarily. If something severed power and/or datalink connections to the recorders, the tail section could still be attached at that time. I think the location of the tail less than a runway's length from the main wreckage and the condition it is in suggests that the tail separated at low altitude. Hopefully the flight recorders were working up to that point...

      Comment


      • Can not believe !!!

        EXCLUSIVE: The Thomson flight from London Stansted only took evasive action after the pilot spotted the missile speeding through the air. Passengers were not told about the incident.



        It seems that there were some terrorist acts registered two months ago.
        Red flag was raised long before

        Comment


        • Latest reports are indicating that all signs point to a bomb detonation.

          From what I can gather, the flight recorders register nothing unusual, then the CVR records 'an explosion', then the recordings end.

          That tells us the flight recorders are not going to be useful beyond that single recording of 'an explosion'.

          Originally posted by CNN
          "It's this split second, and it's a millisecond, where you hear an explosion of some description," he said. "And you see all the parameters (on the recorders) go haywire before the power is completely lost. If this report is accurate, (investigators) have now analyzed that ... heard it and they can identify it."
          If the plane had broken apart due to structural failure, there would have been more noise -- and for a longer time, he said.
          Before we start talking conclusively of a bomb, there are some other scenarios that might fit this description. There seems to be a section between the wing box and the tail that was obliterated somehow. That would end the recordings.
          A sudden major bulkhead failure could cause the tail section to blow out, ending the flight recorder functionality. The trouble with that theory is that the tail section appears to be intact enough that investigators should have been able to inspect the rear bulkhead for signs of failure by now.
          A sudden uncontained engine failure might also sever the links to the recorders. The trouble with that theory is that the engine parameters just before such an event should be abnormal (though not necessarily) and apparently they were not.
          A fuel tank explosion is unlikely but I suppose possible. Again, I wonder if there was an additional center tank in the rear baggage compartment. I would expect the investigators to know this by now as well.

          I think what they are not telling us is what they've already ruled out, and it's looking very likely that this was a bombing.

          Comment


          • European investigators who analyzed the two flight recorders from the Metrojet plane that went down last weekend in Egypt are categorically saying the crash is not an accident, CNN affiliate France 2 reported Friday.

            The investigators said the cockpit voice recorder of Metrojet Flight 9268 shows an explosion and the flight data recorder confirms the explosion is not accidental -- there is no sign of mechanical malfunction during the initial part of the flight, France 2 reported.

            Everything is fine during the first 24 minutes, then in a fraction of a second there is a blackout and no more cockpit conversation, convincing investigators there was a bomb on board, according to France 2.

            CNN Aviation Analyst Richard Quest said there would have been different data on the black boxes if there was a catastrophic failure than if there was an explosion. The key is what happened just before the data suddenly stops, he said.

            "It's this split second, and it's a millisecond, where you hear an explosion of some description," he said. "And you see all the parameters (on the recorders) go haywire before the power is completely lost. If this report is accurate, (investigators) have now analyzed that ... heard it and they can identify it."

            If the plane had broken apart due to structural failure, there would have been more noise -- and for a longer time, he said.

            France's air accident investigation agency, the BEA, told CNN that Egyptian officials will make an announcement about the crash investigation within the next 24 hours.
            Press conference tomorrow to go over initial analysis of the black boxes.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Evan View Post
              Latest reports are indicating that all signs point to a bomb detonation.

              From what I can gather, the flight recorders register nothing unusual, then the CVR records 'an explosion', then the recordings end.

              That tells us the flight recorders are not going to be useful beyond that single recording of 'an explosion'.



              Before we start talking conclusively of a bomb, there are some other scenarios that might fit this description. There seems to be a section between the wing box and the tail that was obliterated somehow. That would end the recordings.
              A sudden major bulkhead failure could cause the tail section to blow out, ending the flight recorder functionality. The trouble with that theory is that the tail section appears to be intact enough that investigators should have been able to inspect the rear bulkhead for signs of failure by now.
              A sudden uncontained engine failure might also sever the links to the recorders. The trouble with that theory is that the engine parameters just before such an event should be abnormal (though not necessarily) and apparently they were not.
              A fuel tank explosion is unlikely but I suppose possible. Again, I wonder if there was an additional center tank in the rear baggage compartment. I would expect the investigators to know this by now as well.

              I think what they are not telling us is what they've already ruled out, and it's looking very likely that this was a bombing.

              You're obviously not reading news reports. The French have said the engines didn't fail. This was a bombing. Stop looking to blame inadequate maintenance and pilot error as you always do. Though I'm counting the seconds until you start ranting about how Egypt is to blame cuz they didn't find the bomb.
              Last edited by brianw999; 2015-11-07, 14:22. Reason: Removed Off Topic text.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                You're obviously not reading news reports. The French have said the engines didn't fail. This was a bombing. Stop looking to blame inadequate maintenance and pilot error as you always do. Though I'm counting the seconds until you start ranting about how Egypt is to blame cuz they didn't find the bomb.
                At this point, signs are pointing to a bomb. We don't know it was a bomb yet. Everything that has been publically released thus far can also be indicative of mechanical or structural failure. What hasn't been publically released is a different story...
                Last edited by brianw999; 2015-11-07, 14:21. Reason: Removed off topic text. Off topic goes in the Off Topic forum please.

                Comment


                • Not suggesting that the same sort of incident is the case here (although the media are clearly linking the two incidents) but apparently (according to BBC reporting a story in Daily Mail), a missile fired by Egyptian military missed a UK passenger jet by less than 1000 feet in August, and that the crew were 'forced to manoeuvre away from the rocket' on approach.

                  The UK government investigated at the time and was satisfied that it was routine activity and no cause for concern, although experts seem to think it unusual.

                  Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34754577

                  Comment


                  • The focus seems to be on identifying the nature of the noise heard on the CVR.

                    "A spectral analysis will be carried out by specialised labs in order to identify the nature of this sound," Ayman al-Mokadem, the head of the accident investigation committee, said in Cairo on Saturday.
                    I suppose a bomb explosion will sound different from an explosive decompression or a fragment penetration. I also suppose this will take some time to ascertain...

                    Comment


                    • At the same time, a "high energy device" (i.e. explosive) should leave a lot of clear evidences, which is the main reason why TWA 800 was not a bomb or missile.

                      --- 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


                      • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                        At the same time, a "high energy device" (i.e. explosive) should leave a lot of clear evidences, which is the main reason why TWA 800 was not a bomb or missile.
                        Huh?

                        You are implying that there is a big difference in how a missIle to the fuselage and the center tank exploding on its own or a suitcase bomb would sever the wiring to the recorders?
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                          Huh?

                          You are implying that there is a big difference in how a missIle to the fuselage and the center tank exploding on its own or a suitcase bomb would sever the wiring to the recorders?
                          No. I mean a lot of evidence in the skin, structure, seats and people.

                          --- 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


                          • Passengers

                            When are the in-depth background checks of the pilots and passengers coming in... like with mh370?

                            Comment


                            • Pal434

                              The bomber of PAL434 attempted to place a small device under his seat and over the centre tank on a previous leg. The attempt failed because he picked the wrong seat number.

                              I wonder if an attacker used a small device intending to boost the power by detonating over the centre fuel tank would there be much explosive evidence?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Quench View Post
                                I wonder if an attacker used a small device intending to boost the power by detonating over the centre fuel tank would there be much explosive evidence?
                                Yes.

                                --- 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

                                Working...
                                X