Originally Posted by
Doors to Automatic
So what was all this nonsense about the aircraft having landed safely and taxying in when the explosion occured?
So far there are two apparently conflicting statements:
- the police chief of Khartoum said, the airplane veered off the runway, broke up in two, and burst into flames.
- the airport chief said, that the airplane had safely landed, the crew was talking to ATC regarding taxi, when the airplane burst into flames.
The statements by the airport chief were supported by all accounts of surviving airplane occupants, who even said, that there was a time span of 2-3 minutes from landing to start of the fire.
Now, what if BOTH statements are true?
Note, that I am in pure speculation now, which may be very off the reality. But this speculation explains all observations so far associated with this accident.
I assume, that the airplane landed, overran the runway end, and stopped just short of the approach lights, with the crew being unaware of the overrun. I assert, that the airplane was undamaged at that point and nothing out of the usual was noticed by the crew.
They now talk to ATC regarding taxi back to the apron and probably get cleared to backtrack the runway. Now the airplane turns to the left to backtrack - and now the right wing hits the approach lights.
The fuel tank gets ruptured and fuel spills to the ground. Fumes of the fuel get ignited by the engine exhaust, the fire starts at the right hand engine, and approaches the fuselage through the fuel on the ground (as the flames are being blown _AWAY_ from the fuselage).
Alternatively, the wing could have struck a pole of the approach lighting, breaking it off, and the right engine ingesting that pole causing the fire.
Now, this makes both, so far conflicting statements true and merge them into a possible scenario. But at the same time, this scenario explains the 2-3 minute time span between landing and the start of the fire and it explains, why the flames were seen being blown to the right and forward of the airplane in the live coverage of the blaze, but not towards the fuselage as it would have been if the airplane was still more or less aligned with the runway. The wind, remember, was coming from 140 degrees, so it needed the airplane almost perpendicular to the runway centerline to have this observed direction of flames.
Once again, we are in pure speculation at this point, that may well prove wrong. This is one of many more thinkable scenarios, but is a scenario that does not stand in conflict with any of the statements and evidence we have received so far. It is just a speculation, that perhaps may turn into a theory or may be disproven in an hours time. I stand to be corrected.
Servus, Simon