BREAKING NEWS: airliner missing within Egyptian FIR

[lomapaseo]

The scrape marks on both sides of the VS are of interest,.

[Kulverstukas]

"I came across this photo, might fill in the missing "extreme end" question posed. "

That appears to be the area just fore of the APU and tailcone. Isn't that a fire bottle attached in the middle?

Looks like very accurate cut off part

[Chronus]

The first two are obvious (any military jet, just for one). The second is of course a very good point (also made later by another poster).

Just trying to get a handle on the airline saying "external influence" as a cause, and the range of what that might mean.

Possibly intended meaning has not been correctly conveyed in the literal translation of "influence" from Russian to English.

A better translation would have been "external factors". Airframe, systems, engines and crew are discounted as being a cause or contributory factor. When these are then viewed against the background of sudden loss of speed and altitude, the disposition of the wreckage, the only causes left must be external factors. Examples of which are, some kind of severe wx phenomena, bird strike, explosives on board ( not necessarily pax related, but also cargo related) and finally a missile strike. This last less likely, given that in the case of MH17, where a BUK system is suspected, the disposition of the wreckage bears little resemblance to this one. I am afraid if comparisons are to be made this one seems closer to the Pan Am Lockerbie disaster, where the break up sequence was such that the centre section came straight down and the debris field was wide with the cockpit and tail sections remaining relatively intact. That also occurred not long after the aircraft had reached its cruise altitude.

The mid-air separation of both the nose and tail sections (both free of any signs of fire damage ) of the aircraft from the mid section of the fuselage with both wings remaining attached in its fall, exhibiting an intense fuel fed combustion, leaves little doubt that the external factor referred to was an expansion of flammable gases of a large magnitude, generating sufficient linear forces to cause relatively uniform breaks of the fuselage at its two major structural assembly stations (hoop stress is four times that of lateral stress) This would further suggest that the origin of such a force is most likely to have been situated in the centre section of the fuselage, possibly close to the centre fuel tank, with its attendant fuel vapour.

[Kulverstukas]

Large rear chunk

BTW this "staining from possibly longterm hydraulic/skydrol leaks" are clearly visible on this part outside.

[mitrosft]

http://clip2net.com/s/3pKFqm5

http://clip2net.com/s/3pKFqm5


This dots looks suspicious. Could they be attributed to normal use scratches /damages ?

[Kulverstukas]

http://http://clip2net.com/s/3pKFqm5


This dots looks suspicious. Could they be attributed to normal use scratches /damages ?

http://clip2net.com/clip/m0/487bf-clip-351kb.jpg

[GSLOC]

Metrojet published a bunch of tech docs:

http://urgent.metrojet.ru/files/tehdoc_20151102175048.zip

Most interesting is a tech log filled at SSH prior to the last flight and maintenance summary check also performed at SSH. There is nothing suspicious that could be relevant to the crash though.

[L8 Fr8]

Where is the Horizontal Stab? Could a failed pitch trim mechanism have caused this. AKA Alaska 261. If the attachment point fails, could this cause the horizontal stab leading edge to go full up, causing the plane to nose down, then at some point the aerodynamic forces cause it to go the other way causing a climb, and on and on until it fails completely and departs the airplane. If the tail had departed because of a pressure bulkhead failure, the horizontal stab should have remained with the rest of the tail section... then again maybe not.

[susier]

Just interested in why the section in the photograph in post #498 appears to have suffered heat damage to the exterior whilst the section in post #500 (VS etc) appears not to show similar effects of heat.


Am I getting disorientated?

[HeartyMeatballs]

The picture by Kulvastukas is interesting. If that is the tail section, that would be door 4R. On both sides of this section of the aircraft we see the aircraft skin peeling outwards and now what looks like impact marks from many small projectiles of some description on the inside of door 4R. On the picture just under the 'A' in the Airbus titles there seems to be similar damage.

All I will say is that I'm glad I don't operate into SSH.

[cicero57]

Link is to a Russian News broadcast. At the 3:27 mark, there is a row of three seats, found, I believe, near the tail section. Multiple puncture holes and perforations in seat backs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18_eXE0qgHc

[A0283]

Major components which i have not found yet on pictures ... but hope someone else has:

a. top and aft section of the vertical tail structure,
b. rudder,
c. horizontal stabilizer (looks like it came clear off - which might suggest a high speed failure),
d. 4 of 8 passenger doors (it is easy to identify 3 in their proper position, 1 without position),
e. 1 of the 2 engines,

It might be possible that we can already see the complete fuselage. But the photos are not good enough. You need to be able to measure the various 'sections'.

Please note: At this stage a large number of items and components have already been moved from their original place and position. For example the cockpit section has been turned, collections made of airco ducts, collections of baggage, one of the doors that sat stuck in the ground appears to have been taken out and laid flat ...

An upset (suggested by preliminary and rough FR24 data, cause(s) unknown), followed by loss of control (causes unknown), high speed steep descent, overspeed failure of part of the tail and horizontal stabilizer, wing-fuselage inverting, going into a kind of flat rotation, losing both engines and APU during that rotation, and hitting the ground in that attitude ... could be one of the possible scenario's - based on the pictures that are available till now.

Only after rejecting such options, and only with clear possible evidence (like we had early on with MH17), would it be useful to spend time on more exotic (but not impossible) scenario's like bombs and missiles.

[ZeBedie]

This dots looks suspicious. Could they be attributed to normal use scratches /damages ?

I very much doubt these holes were present before the accident. Maybe they occurred due to contact with debris or with the ground or maybe they're shrapnel holes.

That's the top of the door and that trim panel doesn't normally get touched by anyone or anything, in normal service.

[Kulverstukas]

susier, post #513

ZeBedie, or maybe they're shrapnel holes.

As one emirates expat pilot suggested in LJ, "it's not too difficult to bribe someone of cleaning team at SSH to put some 1 kg of plastic explosive full of nails into one of the bins in the tail kitchen" :(

[HeartyMeatballs]

That door trim panel would not be in service in that condition. It doesn't get touched, there's no chance of trolleys banging it and damaging it etc. Although one should imagine the crew do a security search on a cold aircraft, if the aircraft has been sat overnight then a device of some sort could be hidden. It would only need to be very small. Perhaps hidden behind the back row or in an over head. However if it was here then I don't see how shrapnel would make marks on the door as there is a toilet between the cabin and the door.

[Out Of Trim]

Not suspicious, the dots are just rivets where the paint has eroded off of the rivet heads.

[HeartyMeatballs]

To my knowledge the door trim is a solid slab of plastic and there are no rivets. Could you provide more information on how it is constructed? I'd be interested to see.

[ZeBedie]

Not suspicious, the dots are just rivets where the paint has eroded off of the rivet heads.

He doesn't mean the rivets, you're looking at the wrong dots. Look at the picture again and you'll see he's drawn a red circle around the dots he refers to.

[GSLOC]

HeartyMeatballs: Although one should imagine the crew do a security search on a cold aircraft



Having worked for a top russian airline, I must say these security searches are sometimes overlooked and not thorough enough. Once I had to so to speak 'cool-down' DfT inspectors after they found our cabin crew failed on certain points and that was at a major EU airport. On other occasion I witnessed cabin crew sneakily smoking in aft galley during turnaround. Regret to put shadow on Russian airlines, but it's all about safety after all. Can imagine what it's like at SSH and tiny charter carrier.

[Just a spotter]

[the uninformed musings of a non aviation professional]

Looking at the pictures of the tail section and the "missing" HS, might this have been a scenario similar to Alaska 261 (accepting it's a completely different aircraft type), where a connection to the HS failed, causing it to suddenly deflect in the airstream, in this case resulting in a rupture of the rear fuselage and also the separation of the HS?

[/the uninformed musings of a non aviation professional]

JAS

[HeartyMeatballs]

GSLOC: thanks for that insight that's interesting. It is possible to see how a place like SSH (I've heard of numerous security lapses here) could allow a device onboard coupled with potentially a lack of search, a political motive and an insider airside could have caused it. MetroJet are fairly adamant that this wasn't technical and was caused by an impact and have taken the unprecedented move of posting the aircraft tech documents online. Someone knows more than we've been told.

[Infieldg]

I guess A300/A321 vertical stabs are the same in principle and this leak has been clearly visible on several years of photos of EI-ETJ even in July 2015 despite being repainted since the prevous pic in May 2015 so delamination is possible?


Flaw Found In Airbus Rudders: NTSB Orders Inspection Of AA 587 Aircraft | March 31, 2006 | www.rockawave.com | Wave of Long Island (http://www.rockawave.com/news/2006-03-31/Community/028.html)


NTSB ordered an "urgent" check on the rudders of all A 300-600 aircraft in the wake of the discovery that the material that holds the rudder to the aircraft may delaminate when corroded by hydraulic fluid.

The rudders on those planes are made of composite plastic that appears prone to disintegrating, the NTSB said.

The flaw in the aircraft came to light last November, when a mechanic working on an Airbus A300-600 operated by Federal Express, found a "substantial area of disbonding between the inner skin of the composite rudder surface and the honeycomb core, which is located between two composite skins," the NTSB said in a prepared report.

"Further examination of the disbonded area revealed traces of hydraulic fluid." That contamination can lead to progressive disbonding, which compromises the strength of the rudder, according to the report.

In the wake of the mechanic's discovery, Airbus Industries, the company that manufactures the aircraft, issued mandatory instructions ordering airlines to check the rudders of their A300-600 aircraft for "deterioration of composite surfaces."

"Further tests on the damaged rudder revealed that a rapid propagation of the disbonding damage could occur during flight."

[GroundedSpanner]

This dots looks suspicious. Could they be attributed to normal use scratches /damages ?

Yes, I can imagine CC / caterers repeatedly banging the corner of the galley boxes on that panel whilst getting them up into a higher stowage.

[Out Of Trim]

Thks ZeBedie, got the wrong dots!

Hmm, hope not; but dots could be blood splatter? or splatter from rear galley contents?

[oleostrut]

""This dots looks suspicious. Could they be attributed to normal use scratches /damages ?""

Are there any pics of either aft lav door?

[HeartyMeatballs]

Six years on the A320. I've never seen ANY damage of this type to the trim on ANY of the main cabin doors including 2R (319/320) which is the main service door and the galley is. The markings were not caused by the cabin crew or ordinary use of the door I'm certain of that.

[FDMII]

""This dots looks suspicious. Could they be attributed to normal use scratches /damages ?""

Are there any pics of either aft lav door?

Never mind the lav doors for further evidence...where is the same pattern on the rest of the door interior? The pattern is only on the top panel, and not on any other part of the door.

Where is the pattern on the rest of the components that connects this to an explosive device? There are some pock marks but they are not the same as the pattern on the small, top panel.

[fando]

thats left of the door?

http://i.imgur.com/0OIwID1.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/10L1Cc8.jpg


big version... http://www.enikos.gr/data/photos/1224565dcd969cfb65c328bf007a58eb.jpg

[Back at NH]

That door may have been moved to gain access for search/recovery.

[Pontius Navigator]

Never mind the lav doors for further evidence...where is the same pattern on the rest of the door interior? The pattern is only on the top panel, and not on any other part of the door.

If it's to be "nails" now, where is the pattern that connects?

I wasn't going to suggest further damage to the left and above the damaged panel, but since you mention it I will.

Look closely and you will there appear to be some marks but that part is slightly out of focus.

[PersonFromPorlock]

I think the general public would be very surprised if they got up close to any 15 year old jet. Evidence of historical leaks are commonplace. It doesn't necessarily mean the aircraft is unsafe. This. I recall walking around under the B-70 at the USAF museum before they cleaned it up, looking up at the film of hydraulic fluid and rubber dust that coated it, and thinking "Boy, this looks like a real airplane!"

(The exhibits there are usually just a little too clean.)

[testpanel]

GSLOC:

Metrojet published a bunch of tech docs:

http://urgent.metrojet.ru/files/tehd...1102175048.zip

Most interesting is a tech log filled at SSH prior to the last flight and maintenance summary check also performed at SSH. There is nothing suspicious that could be relevant to the crash though.

Except tech log page nr 26918 is missing....

[HeartyMeatballs]

If an explosive was detonated in the rear right lav, the alleged shrapnel could be limited to the upper section of the door as the lower portion is relatively protected. The lower portion of the lavatory capsule on the rearmost side of the LAV has the sink, and the under sink unit and the cover. On the back of the LAV wall, and between the LAV and the door is the rear double crew seat which will be very strong and offer some protection from shrapnel.

The upper section is relatively unprotected and all that is between the LAV and door 4R is the toilet wall only. This would be a relative weak spot and the blast wave could be directed up and rear ward, accounting for the damage to the trim of the upper part of the door.

[rog747]

re photo showing impact holes http://clip2net.com/s/3pKFqm5

if you can blow up photo you can see clearly these are def holes and not splatters or anything like that and there are some more to a lesser extent on other parts of the door trim

if the RPB had ruptured or an explosion then flying debris could have caused this?

[Biggles1957]

Back at NH (http://www.pprune.org/members/151984-back-at-nh)
That door may have been moved to gain access for search/recovery.Yes, it has been moved away from the airframe - there was a very early picture that showed it positioned blocking the entrance/exit.
The pattern of damage/dots could also have been caused by the impact with the ground or debris thrown up by that impact?

[RatherBeFlying]

We see the fin was dislocated presumably from ground contact.

The same forces could have torn out the door such that the upper panel hit the ground. Lots of dark pebbles present.

[16024]

On other occasion I witnessed cabin crew sneakily smoking in aft galley during turnaround.
What the...
10 years ago, before the beardy mafia took over, I'd have been back there with them, and at no time did my aircraft end up splattered all over the desert. What's your point?
Meanwhile, in other news..

[oleostrut]

I think the general public would be very surprised if they got up close to any 15 year old jet. Evidence of historical leaks are commonplace. It doesn't necessarily mean the aircraft is unsafe.
This. I recall walking around under the B-70 at the USAF museum before they cleaned it up, looking up at the film of hydraulic fluid and rubber dust that coated it, and thinking "Boy, this looks like a real airplane!"

(The exhibits there are usually just a little too clean.)


Yes. On a C or D check, we would park the arriving aircraft and powerwash the entire "works" of the aircraft after opening all access panels to the mechanicals. Then let it drip dry overnight. These were regularly serviced aircraft from a major airline, and skydrol, grease, oil, fuel, bluewater, etc was everywhere.

You can't inspect an aircraft covered in goo.

http://www.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=9166685) http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/reply_small.gif (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=9166685&noquote=1)

[FDMII]

I wasn't going to suggest further damage to the left and above the damaged panel, but since you mention it I will.

Look closely and you will there appear to be some marks but that part is slightly out of focus.
If the marks are the same, that would confirm a source that affected the area rather than one panel, but I just didn't see the same pattern. I did take a look, enhancing the photos to do so using high-contrast techniques and could see pock-marks, (which could have several sources, particularly during the impact with the ground). I just didn't see anything lower down on the door - the panels around the slide-engagement lever and the slide/hinge cover. I also enhanced the image looking inside the cabin to the bulkhead, (to the left, looking in the opening) and saw ill-defined pock-marks that could be anything.

[Mauersegler]

This picture of the APU/tail cone posted by Almostfamous
http://cdn1.img.sputniknews.com/images/102947/80/1029478002.jpg
It looks like there is corrosion there (widely supossed as result of the skydrol leakage) and I think this was the first piece falling apart, pulling the assembly of stabilisers and RPB with him (still attached through pipes/cables), this resulting in the explosive decompression and damage to the rear fuselage.

[4listair]

A collection of 33 mostly high resolution structural images from a Greek site:
http://www.newsit.gr/files/Image/2015/11/01/AIRBUS/planecrash_egypt.JPG
http://www.newsit.gr/files/Image/2015/11/01/AIRBUS/planecrash_egypt1.JPG
...
http://www.newsit.gr/files/Image/2015/11/01/AIRBUS/planecrash_egypt32.JPG


Also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-t9OtZFnYk
Search extended to 30 square Km tomorrow

[rog747]

also what is this hole ?

http://cdn.aviaforum.ru/images/2015/11/720450_ab8c7560d5e1fd8168dba582b65af49f.jpg

[Pontius Navigator]

RBF and FDMII, quite agree nothing is certain from looking at a limited number of pictures showing less than they might.

[Etud_lAvia]

1. Though it seems that most here have discounted the possibility of a surface-to-air missile strike, I want to underline that it is extremely unlikely. To covertly deploy the necessary equipment, crew and logistics in the Sinai, sufficient to strike an airliner at cruise altitude, would be a very tough undertaking. To single out a Russian flight among the substantial air traffic over the Sinai would be more difficult still. And as someone already observed, Israel likely would have detected and reported a SAM launch.

2. Major Russian air carriers seem to (generally) operate in accordance with international safety standards. However, the post-2000 record of smaller operators in the Russian Federation is scary.

3. The political effect of this crash may be more potent than any aviation incident in Russian political history.

3a. If investigation discloses evidence that deficiencies in quality and government oversight contributed to the crash, this will (I predict) strike a particularly raw nerve among the Russian people, and their confidence that government (or any institution at all) is protecting them. Russians often suffer from avoidable calamities (deadly hospital fires, to give one example) that would be really shocking in more prosperous countries.

Egypt is an enormously popular vacation spot for Russians. The list of countries you can easily enter on a Russian passport is a short one, and most of those are nobody's idea of a vacation spot. Accordingly, millions of Russians can easily visualize their own family as one of those returning on the doomed flight from a sunny holiday. My personal observation is that in Russian culture, events like this tend to be received rather more sentimentally and less analytically than in the West ... this one really hurts.

3b. If investigation discloses that a smuggled IED caused the crash, then this will react with Russia's abrupt initiation of attacks in Syria. I'm sure most Russians didn't see the Syria campaign coming, and there were no crowds on the streets in Moscow demanding the Kremlin to do such a thing.

Part of the political function of the Syrian campaign is to distract the populace from the dead-end of Russia's aggression against Ukraine. If you recall Orwell's "two minutes hate," and the instantaneous switch between war with Eurasia and war with Eastasia, you will have some picture of how the Kremlin communicates to the Russian people about its military adventures.

If the surprise -- and unasked-for -- gift of Russia killing people in Syria comes at the price of the worst air catastrophe in the history of Russian aviation, then the Kremlin will have an acute challenge of image management.

4. In light of my point 3, although Russia's air safety investigation arm (a commission of IAC/MAK) has a good reputation and track record, it could face unprecedented political pressure in the investigation of this accident. Russia is not an exotic variant of the West ... things are really different there.

[oleostrut]

As far as further pockmarks, there are multiple marks on the panel forward of the pockmarked door.

Also, in the large version of the photo, there are lav parts that are well forward (into the seating area) of where they should be, looks to be port lav parts . They should be displaced to the rear with a rear pressure bulkhead failure.

[Kulverstukas]

Etud_lAvia, is this forum place for political BS?

PS: jetfuel can't melt steel beams

[PersonFromPorlock]

Something interesting about the holes in the door panel is that, when I use Photoshop to enlarge the image, they appear to be exit holes. Has anyone seen a photo of the outside of the door?

And damn all low-resolution images anyway!

[oldoberon]

I came across this photo, might fill in the missing "extreme end" question posed.



http://cdn1.img.sputniknews.com/images/102947/80/1029478002.jpg


Must say I hadn't seen it before
a) is that the rear PB?
b) what is that hose pipe, never seen that on any aircraft b4.
c) bottom left side is that outer skin melted?

D) pure interest what is the domestic radiator type structure

[oleostrut]

I count over 30 dents on the tailcone bulkhead, not sure what th hole is.

There are at least 2 dents on the fire bottle. Those things are not fragile, they are difficult to dent.

[Lonewolf_50]

PS: jetfuel can't melt steel beams Doesn't have to. Just needs to heat them up enough to weaken them. Been through that with the 9-11 conspiracy nitwits.

While your question to Etud Lavia is well asked, anyone in the aviation business will be concerned about factors that may negatively influence the investigation into this tragic crash.

Note how Malaysia handles that disappearing 777 ... one could almost smell the political pressure and spin in that one.

One sincerely hopes that the Russian investigators are not given any "under the table" push, and that they are allowed to do their job. As etud notes, the investigators to date have a good rep.

[ZeBedie]

I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will soon be along, but I think that's aft of the RPB and you can see the APU fuel line, the line from the fire bottle to the APU, plus the bleed air supply from APU to aircraft services.

[RYFQB]

Re dots on the door, isn't there a hole directly above the opposite (port) door too, up by the VS?

[oleostrut]

"Re dots on the door, isn't there a hole directly above the opposite (port) door too, up by the VS?"

Aft of the port door, look under the skin panel that is displaced outward. There is a bulkhead that has multiple holes in it down low. Light is showing through the holes making them easy to see.

[Islay]

oldoberon
In response to your questions. No that isn't the pressure bulkhead. That is a firewall separation the APU compartment from the horizontal stabiliser bay. The hose pipe is the APU fuel pipe and the radiator structure is just part of the structure of that sidewall. The area forward of that photo is unpressuried. The photo also shows the APU Fire bottle and the APU bleed duct in the lower left corner. Between that section and HS bay there will be a cutout allowing movement of the HS. The aft portion of the hozizontal stab would sit over the APU tail cone shown in that photo.

[Back at NH]

Similar shaped "hole" on the same bulkhead of the Hudson A320.

http://www.barryontheroad.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/TailConeadj50.jpg

[22/04]

The focus here is moving towards the back of the aeroplane. The answer lies there I think

Someone must know now- because if it was an explosion in either the cabin or the lavatory or the baggage hold there will be tell tail signs of that explosion.

Otherwise it failure of the RPB (which doesn't look convincing) or some other structural failure at the rear of the aeroplane.

Don't think it is the RPB repair but am drawn to that skydrol which might be irrelevant. Still looking for answers as to whether it would need top up and whether that would be recorded in any kind of tech log. What are the consequences of Skydrol leak and where would it go- where would messy top ups go if they are needed. Still waiting for an engineer to tell me "there are no consequences worth note".

I sense some are looking for terrorist involvement when that is the least comfortable option for me as an outsider and doesn't seem likely really - a Jihadi from Syria straying to Sharm - well maybe but not really. A poorly maintained Russian aeroplane operated by a rogue operator is much more palatable. Means I can climb on to an Easy or Monarch A3xx to Sharm with more comfort.

And why is the operator wading in? It isn't their place - the independent investigation will determine. Dare I say the Egyptians would not like terrorism - I have the feeling Metrojet and Mr Putin might be more comfortable with it - though to his credit Mr Putin is remaining neutral at present.

[hamster3null]

Must say I hadn't seen it before
a) is that the rear PB?


Pretty sure that's not rear PB. Rear PB looks like this (A320): Photos: Airbus A320-212 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Croatia-Airlines/Airbus-A320-212/2403823/L/)

@Etud_lAvia, that's exactly my reading of the situation as well. That's why Kremlin was publicly denying possible terror involvement before even the wreckage was found.

[oleostrut]

22/04,

The skydrol is not a problem on aluminum. There is concern on the composite attach fittings on the VS, but the pics show that the VS failure was above them. So that is not the issue here.

If you search Airbus images on th net, you will see this is not uncommon.

Messy looking, not dangerous (on aluminum).

[G-CPTN]

Sources close to the investigation say it was not struck from the outside, leaving a bomb as one of the most likely causes.

From:- What's the most likely cause of the Egypt plane crash? (http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-11-02/whats-the-most-likely-cause-of-the-egypt-plane-crash/)

[HeartyMeatballs]

I think that's the frame below either doors 2 or 3. The panel is the emergency slide stowage from what I can gather but it's very difficult to tell.

[rog747]

this is either door 2 or 3 L or R emergency exit slide panel which is below the door

edit its door 2
as door 3 panel has a rear wing root fairing

[Prada]

a) is that the rear PB?

No this is not pressure bulkhead.

Pressure bulkhead is connected to fuselage here:
http://www.keri.ee/crash/bulkhead.png

And it looks like this from inside:
http://www.keri.ee/crash/rpb.jpg

[thcrozier]

The marks on the door panel are unusual. If you look at the nearby painted components fainter distortions are also visible. Those may or may not actually be there; they look like they could possibly be corrosion on the camera's digital sensor. In several of the shots including blue sky, sensor corrosion is obvious.

http://petapixel.com/2014/12/10/leica-users-seeing-widespread-sensor-corrosion-issue-company-offers-free-replacements/

The examples attached are not from the accident site. They simply show the types of image flaws that sensor corrosion can create; but similar flaws are evident in quite a few accident site photos.

http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2014/12/problem.jpg

[VolLibre]

Is this relevant? (http://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2005/03/18/05-5140.html). If not, sorry for adding to the noise.

We are issuing this AD to prevent oil vapor leakage from the APU AC generator, which, when combined with an electric arc at the electrical receptacle, could result in a fire or explosion in the APU compartment during flight

[Islay]

22/04
If there was a significant leak from one of the rudder PCU's then this would/should have been picked up, at least during a daily or the numerous A checks between the C/D checks. Any Hydraulic fluid replenishment is done from a central point to fill that respective hyd system ( not filled at the point of leak) and yes any uplift of Hyd fluid should be recorded in the tech log. I can't imagine any airline would allow a significant leak to carry on for that amount of time without rectifying it. The marks on the rudder could easily be damaged paint from a previous leak. This would only be rectified during a repaint.

[G-CPTN]

Some usually 'inert' device (like a laptop computer) that suffered a thermal runaway resulting in a fire and subsequent explosion.

Not a terrorist action (so satisfies the 'Kremlin').

Wasn't there a recent event where a credit-card reader battery overheated causing a diversion?

[TURIN]

Don't think it is the RPB repair but am drawn to that skydrol which might be irrelevant. Still looking for answers as to whether it would need top up and whether that would be recorded in any kind of tech log. What are the consequences of Skydrol leak and where would it go- where would messy top ups go if they are needed. Still waiting for an engineer to tell me "there are no consequences worth note".


Hydraulic uplifts are recorded in the Tech log during normal line operations. The operator should have a process in place to monitor this. If regular uplifts are necessary a leak will be obvious. Manufacturers give limits in the AMM of what constitutes a seep, drip, running leak etc. But of course some operators will bend the rules.....:suspect:
The worst thing about skydrol is it stings like buggery.

[LiamNCL]

That scorched hatch a few posts up looks like its from just under the L2 / R2 door

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4048/4652267507_c882b0978f.jpg

[Prada]

Lancair70, that part of fuselage is from just under the second door. The door that is located in front of wings.
there is actually similar pieces from opposite sides of these doors that have similar fire and heat damage.

http://www.keri.ee/crash/siinai3.jpg

if you look at the nose, then you can see that underside of nose is also covered with soot.

Russian medics said that main reason of occupants death was fire and blunt trauma.

Now back to speculation,
Regarding all this, it seems like after plane has lost its fuselage behind wings, its broken fuel tanks fuelled a large fireball around the plane. While remaining plane was falling backside down. It takes several minutes to fall and burn. If you look at the flames direction then it coincides with the probable falling attitude. The closer to the wings, the more heat damage there is.

Also there was a picture of a separated engine fan having similar sooting and heat damage. Thus, wings and engines must have been inside the fireball of falling plane.

[hamster3null]

Potentially curious observation.

First image: tail cone, containing the APU:

http://cdn1.img.sputniknews.com/images/102947/80/1029478002.jpg

Second image: the rest of the tail:

http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2015/10/31/did-accident-from-14-years-ago-doom-russian-plane-over-egypt/jcr:content/image.img.2000.jpg/1446418346569.cached.jpg

Other side:
http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2015_45/1285826/151102-russian-airliner-02-jpo-642a_b9c1cc4a4dd93cb08bfbc120d38bd582.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg

In the second image, you can see the line where the tail cone was attached. (We now have the entire tail except for HS and the rudder.)

The curious part is that the skin of the tail cone is badly sooted, but corresponding skin in the second image is clean.

This suggests that there was fire/smoke inside the tail, while the whole assembly was still in the air (and possibly attached to the rest of the fuselage), that's what caused the tail cone to separate (otherwise, I can't see a good reason why it would break off in midair), and the smoke was leaking out through the tail cone attachment line.

Note that there's no evidence of fire on the rear passenger door, so the fire was likely localized aft of the APB.

You can also infer the location of the APB from the third image. Parts forward of the APB have minimal damage, which could have been caused purely by ground impact. Parts aft of the APB are badly shredded as if by internal explosion.

However, I don't see how an explosion in that area could have caused the tail to break off entirely the way it did. It could have been the other way around. An explosion in an overhead bin (towards the rear, left side, judging by the fact that we're missing more skin on the left than on the right), causing decompression, causing the tail to break off, which severs the fuel lines to the APU, which leads to an explosion behind the APB that separates the tail cone and horizontal stabilizers, which land separately from the rest of the tail.

[Foxxster]

Just heard on radio that a satellite picked up a heat spike at the time of the 'event'. Clearly some kind of explosion but no confirmed cause, possible bomb or engine or fuel explosion.

Bit vague I know but interesting they are using all technology to help in the investigation.

[AirScotia]

If a bomb of any kind was involved, I imagine autopsies would show this to be the case. However, have autopsies been done?

According to this CBS news piece Satellite detected heat flash at time Russian jetliner went down - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/satellite-detected-heat-flash-at-time-russian-plane-went-down/),

A Russian government plane brought 130 bodies and partial remains to St. Petersburg. The city is holding three days of mourning through Tuesday.

If true, it seems the bodies have been removed from Egypt to Russia before detailed examination could be done? And how could those bodies have been definitively identified as Russian - given that four were from Ukraine and one from Belarus?

The article also suggests that the USA has not been invited to participate in the investigation:

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the U.S. offered support for the investigation, but he added that he's not aware of any resources that have been dedicated to it so far.

[TylerMonkey]

Better detail . . .

http://i21.servimg.com/u/f21/11/94/64/62/jet211.jpg

[porterhouse]

Exactly, a heat spike would be obvious when fully fueled airliner crashed to the ground from high altitude, unless they can precisely synchronize it to determine it happened mid-air this is hardly interesting piece of news.

[hamster3null]

Wasnt that tail cone dirty and marked before the crash as people have been noting ?

OK, I've realized my mistake. I was assuming that the tail cone is upright (and I guess there's no reason it should be). But it's actually on its side, and we're looking at what used to be the top, directly underneath the rudder. And yes, other pictures show staining in that area even before the crash.

[onetrack]

The investigators will also be verifying who worked at the airport that day and who was able to gain access to the aircraft, including ground staff, pax, crew, an aviation inspector perhaps?Good luck with that part of the investigation, pal. After having been stranded as a pax in Cairo airport overnight, and watching the lip-service paid to security between landside and airside, I can assure you, I never want to transit Egypt again, nor be part of their air travel system.

Many people seem to assume that terrorist organisations are some kind of highly organised groups with tight control over their members. The exact opposite is true.
These people are criminally-inclined sociopath nutters who regularly break up into small splinter groups, and who will fight each other as bitterly as they will fight European or Christian countries.

It's becoming more and more likely - despite the inadequate amount of evidence being released - to assume that a bomb brought down this aircraft and that said bomb was easily placed in the rear of the cargo hold by a terrorist from a small splinter group originating from Syria - which individual was intent on venting their hatred on a Russian civilian aircraft and Russian civilians, due to Russian warplane activity in his family or fighter friends environment.

No need for them to claim responsibility or make a big noise about it - they have carried out their revenge, and any attempt to gain pyschological advantage by advertising that they were responsible, would only bring intense and immediate electronic, military and investigative scrutiny upon them. Far better to operate like a cockroach and avoid the limelight. And human cockroaches describes ME terrorists particularly well.

The fact that a large portion of the fuselage between the wings and the tail is no longer intact - as one would expect in the case of a HS or pressure bulkhead failure, leads to the inevitable conclusion that only a bomb could be responsible.

The A321 is a basically-sound construction aircraft, with no important known weaknesses - and pressure bulkhead failures are a particularly rare event - but they have assumed a greater fear than deserved amongst many people, who tend to place a far greater chance of this event happening, than is likely to occur.

[log0008]

Does anyone know how far apart the tail and the tail cone were found? I am confused as to why the tail would break twice, such as if the tail separated from the aircraft first (it appear to be the ripped apart where as the cone is at a meeting point) why would the cone then fall off pre impact with the ground?

[A0283]

Hamster, you suggest we have the whole tail apart from the HS/THS?

As far as i have seen in the available pictures, we only have the bottom half or so of the 'leading edge' of the vertical tail, and part of the lower structure.
The top of the leading edge, the top of the tail, the complete 'box' structure, and the rudder are still missing.

In one very small picture we apparenlty see the tailcone with the APU access doors open. But as far as i have seen there is no proof that the APU is still inside.

Would be interesting to know if you have seen pictures showing these items.

+++

If we use the available pictures as 'evidence', then uptill now i have not seen any damage that looks like a bomb or missile. There are 2+1 'holes' that look a bit strange, but these can have multiple explanations. Also, quite a lot of structure is missing (no pictures) or severely burned. So, it appears far too soon to focus on these types of causes, or even use words like 'only' or 'inevitable'. In quite a few cases you can only clearly see that kind of damage after a reconstruction. With MH17 being an exception because of the hi res pictures of the hi to lo penetrations of the cockpit floor and pilot seats.

In general at this stage of an investigation all scenario's and options are open. In this case, with the low quality and low resolution of the photos, i would even say 'wide, wide open'.

[Toruk Macto]

Are there pok marks over some of the lining where the fire bottle is ( which also seems to be dintted ) ? Plus some of the struts seem to be hit by something ? The door that has holes in it , is that a rear door ? If a bomb was placed on board could there been more than one ?

[lomapaseo]

Now back to speculation,
Regarding all this, it seems like after plane has lost its fuselage behind wings, its broken fuel tanks fuelled a large fireball around the plane. While remaining plane was falling backside down. It takes several minutes to fall and burn. If you look at the flames direction then it coincides with the probable falling attitude. The closer to the wings, the more heat damage there is.

Also there was a picture of a separated engine fan having similar sooting and heat damage. Thus, wings and engines must have been inside the fireball of falling plane.

The engine sooting is likely coming in from the front. TWA 800 had soot patterns across the wings at angles corresponding to spinning as it fell.

PA103 snapped its tail off from aero loads generated from the primary break ahead of the wings.

Gyro loads on the engines may be part of the evidence of yes or no?

[oleostrut]

"Are there pok marks over some of the lining where the fire bottle is ( which also seems to be dintted ) ? Plus some of the struts seem to be hit by something ? The door that has holes in it , is that a rear door ? If a bomb was placed on board could there been more than one ?"

Yes.

Go to the original image and double the size. Increase brightness and contrast, and the marks are more visible. NOT normal wear and tear, esp the dents on the fire bottle.

[Foxxster]

Re the satellite heat spike.

All I can find is a report on NBC that indicates it was a mid air explosion, not on the ground. Also says that the same satellite would be able to detect the heat signature from a missile which it did not. But I don't think anybody is still pointing to that as a possible cause anyway.

Even if it was a mid air explosion, it clearly does not get us any closer as to what caused it (bomb or fuel tank) or if the explosion was the primary cause or a result of a structural or control surface failure that then caused a structural failure of some kind that consequently ruptured and ignited the fuel tanks

All it does is confirm what many have already alluded to and that is there was a major fire (explosion) mid air and what the autopsies seem to confirm with fire being a major cause of death (as posted above).

[oleostrut]

"The curious part is that the skin of the tail cone is badly sooted, but corresponding skin in the second image is clean."

Not soot. It is staining from long time hydraulic fluid leak. Not unusual.

[AVNTech]

Picture of door assembly seems to have a "Remove Before Flight Flag" installed in some component. Where did that come from? No one on the ground response
crew would possess an Airbus safety/maintenance device. Sorry,the image linked in post #511.

[Intruder]

How do you get such a clean break all the way around that tail cone? Is that seam an engineered weak point?

[oleostrut]

"How do you get such a clean break all the way around that tail cone? Is that seam an engineered weak point?"

The structure failed due to overload. The frame creates a stress riser, so failure at that point is nor un-expected. In normal loading, there is not enough stress at the frame to cause a problem.

Think of a balloon. Wrap a steel band around the balloon and inflate till it is tight. Then overinflate the balloon till it pops. It will likely fail at the steel band (stress riser).

Stressed skin (monocoque construction) needs ribs, frames,stringers, and longerons to form the shape of the structure, the strength is largely in the skin.

[oldoberon]

if there was RPB failure (regardless to cause) wouldn't the immediate blast backwards hit the APU firewall, debris from RPB causing the mentioned hole and denting, and would that blast it be strong enough to brake the cone free at that nearest frame point.

With such a scenario would it logically lead to the HS departing shortly afterwards followed by the whole tail section snapping off in the vicinity of the rear door.

[oleostrut]

I have never worked with explosives or done destructive testing, but there is an earlier mention here of how an internal explosion can bring down a plane.

Supposedly the explosive that brought down the Lockerbie plane was only about the volume of 3 golfballs. It didn't explosively destroy the plane directly, but the shockwave from the high explosive detonation overloaded airframe components to failure. Then cascading failures of the pressure hull did the rest.

A small explosion near the tail might have the same effect on the RPB. If so, loss of the tail would quickly destroy the aircraft.

[TylerMonkey]

Maybe this was a fitting on the other side that pulled away from the skin.
It looks a bit neater than a ragged entrance hole . . .


http://i21.servimg.com/u/f21/11/94/64/62/image11.jpg

[fdr]

damage is not post impact, those are high velocity penetrations, not from outside, and a relatively small device. Not good.

[G0ULI]

Clearly a dramatic failure of some sort caused the aircraft to disintegrate in the air. Given that the aircraft was still climbing with engines operating at high power, what effect would an uncontained turbine failure have?

Perhaps cover panels thrown back into the tail plane, turbine blades through the fuselage or wings separating fuel and control lines. Some shrapnel damage perhaps?

With the remaining engine still at full power, a massive fuel leak and ailerons or flaps fully deployed on one wing only, it would take only seconds for the aircraft to tear itself apart.

Most engine failures are relatively undramatic due to careful design, but if the containment system fails, extreme damage can be caused.

So no need for a bomb or some hidden structural failure, just a relatively common engine failure where the safety mechanisms didn't work. It seems more plausible than some of the theories being put forward.

[Toruk Macto]

Do the pictures of the engines look like they have exploded? Are there missing blades ?

[GunpowderPlod]

Has anyone been able to find the actual investigation/damage report for the tail strike at Cairo on 16Nov01/

Accident description: ASN Aircraft accident Airbus A321-231 F-OHMP Cairo International Airport (CAI) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20011116-0)

Operator History: https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/Airbus/A321/663/EI-ETJ-Metrojet-Russia

[hamster3null]

Hamster, you suggest we have the whole tail apart from the HS/THS?

As far as i have seen in the available pictures, we only have the bottom half or so of the 'leading edge' of the vertical tail, and part of the lower structure.
The top of the leading edge, the top of the tail, the complete 'box' structure, and the rudder are still missing.

You realize that the VS in tail wreckage pics is bent at a 90 degree angle, right?

So, we're missing the rudder, back one third or so of the VS (the section that was closest to the rudder), and horizontal stabilizers, like so: (edited)

http://i68.tinypic.com/dng9wz.jpg

[oleostrut]

A number of years ago, explosive tests were done on pressurized airplanes.

Supposedly the amount of explosive was small, similar to the Lockerbie bombing.

Video seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DNmZlewPhA


Imagine at cruise altitude and full of fuel.

[peabrain]

You realize that the VS in tail wreckage pics is bent at a 90 degree angle, right?

So, we're missing the rudder, back one third or so of the VS (the section that was closest to the rudder), and horizontal stabilizers, like so:

http://i65.tinypic.com/2yv73aa.jpg

As a new poster I have a post held in moderation... but wish I had responded to this image in the first place. How come the fracture on the rivet/bond line at the top of the fuse - supposedly stronger than skin?

[cockpitvisit]

IED on board has to be considered in case of a "mid-air heat spike".

But how much of a heat spike would an IED produce? If the bomb had like 3kg of TNT - its heat corresponded to 1 kg of jet fuel at most, with most of the heat being dissipated inside the fuselage (thus invisible to satellites).

Is it certain that the "heat spike" wasn't simply jet fuel exploding after the plane hit the ground?

[oleostrut]

250 grams of explosive is more than enough, Would that show as a heat spike?

[rcsa]

This video gives a good indication of how an aircraft falls when the empennage is separated:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOnsIGcZS-M

(2011 incident following a mid-air collision at an air-show in Iran, filmed from another aircraft in the show)

[chuks]

It's interesting that the various news services seem to have taken what the airline said about this at face value, when, really, we'll have to wait for the report to find out what happened. So far, all we have to go on is images of a big pile of junk out in the desert, with that fueling the usual pages and pages of speculation here, much of it from armchair aviators.

It's also interesting that what often happens when an aircraft loses its horizontal tail is that it flips over to crash inverted, when some of the damage seen seems to show that large parts of the aircraft hit inverted.

[Blake777]

I would be interested in someone with Russian language skills translating what is being said between 2:07 and 2:14 in this video. Looking at the pockmarks/scrapes - I assume 95% chance these occurred on ground strike before rolling 180 but just to be sure... There are also rear seats later in the video which have been mentioned previously, one of which seems to show some entry or exit holes - again, may be related to events during disintegration, but maybe not.

http://youtu.be/18_eXE0qgHc

[thcrozier]

Chucks:

Yes, if we live long enough we all end up in the armchair speculating on the rumor network.

Your first point seems to be there is something wrong with it, and then you go on to say you saw something interesting. I'm confused.

[GSLOC]

Blake777:

I would be interested in someone with Russian language skills translating what is being said between 2:07 and 2:14 in this video.

"It's quite heat-resistant part, may be even titanium, it is very odd it's got burned out". Speaker -- head of Russian CAA.

[Blake777]

Thanks - nothing to do with the marks then.

[Machinbird]

In the same video, there was a 3 man crew at time 1:16 that appeared to be taking technical samples from of the interior of the severed tail.
For explosive residue??

[Blake777]

FWIW - Not sure who the "military experts" are.

Russian plane crash: Experts say small bomb likely to blame for bringing down airliner over Sinai - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-03/russian-airliner-crash-looks-like-an-explosion-military-analyst/6908220)

[SLFstu]

Clean Break?
Intruder asked "How do you get such a clean break all the way around that tail cone? Is that seam an engineered weak point?" (#594).

...to which oleostrut (#595) postulated that the original strength is largely in the skin, supported by ribs, frames, etc.

Actually, according to Airbus confidential drawings (thank you Mr google) the whole tailcone subassembly is bolted to the rest of the empennage via attachment lugs at 4 points. None of those large lugs is visible in the crash photos. In TylerMonkey's photo (#581) showing "better detail" of the tailcone front firewall, the location of 1 of the missing lugs would be expected in the top left of the photo - in the position of the triangular hole in the outermost frame.

Origin of dents on firebottle?
oleostrut pointed out (#589) that the suspicious looking dents on the firebottle are beyond what's expected in normal wear & tear. See also TylerMonkey's closeup pic (#598).

Based on the Airbus drawing of the subassembly, unsurprisingly the firebottle has detached from it's original position which would be in the vicinity of the top left of photo in post #581. So, still tethered to it's line/hose it has presumably suffered like the proverbial rag doll during the tailcone's ground impact.

Disclosure: Not an engineer; just one of those pesky hardware technical writers in a former life.

[auntyice]

Having just retired after many years in the business I always felt that whilst passenger bags were screened and accounted for, most flights travelled with unaccompanied baggage namely catering boxes and carts.
On short turnarounds they are lifted from the hold into a high lift truck and on longer turnarounds from the off airport catering facility.
One wonders how efficient the security screening is at somewhere like Sharm.
A small explosive in the rear galley would be catastrophic.

[RYFQB]

So, not very detailed, and not exactly same aircraft, but the layout of the firewall layout looks very familiar.
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/airbus-aca320may2014-141019044749-conversion-gate02/95/airbus-ac-a320may2014-maintaine-140-638.jpg?cb=1413694612http://image.slidesharecdn.com/airbus-aca320may2014-141019044749-conversion-gate02/95/airbus-ac-a320may2014-maintaine-141-638.jpg?cb=1413694612

[Kulverstukas]

Another CVR leak (according to Interfax). In short. "Some strange sounds in last sec before end of tape, but crew doesn't make any distress calls".

[GroundedSpanner]

Originally Posted by Almostfamous View Post
I came across this photo, might fill in the missing "extreme end" question posed.




D) pure interest what is the domestic radiator type structure


That 'radiator' type structure is one of the 2 Horizontal Stab Bay access doors.
The interesting thing is that its designed to be a blowout panel in the event of Rear Pressure Bulkhead blowout. This door is still firmly in the closed position. This indicates that there has not been a significant dump of cabin pressure into the H/S Bay.

[GroundedSpanner]

Another CVR leak (according to Interfax). In short. "Some strange sounds in last sec before end of tape, but crew doesn't make any distress calls".

Consistent with a mid-air explosion / separation. The CVR / FDR are located in the H/S Bay. If there is a sudden removal of the rear end of the AC then all that will be on the recording is the start of the explosion, up until the CVR becomes electrically detached from the audio system in the front of the AC.

[andrasz]

That 'radiator' type structure is one of the 2 Horizontal Stab Bay access doors. The interesting thing is that its designed to be a blowout panel in the event of Rear Pressure Bulkhead blowout.

Thanks for this info, the most informative of the past 600 or so posts.
Still waiting for any photos of the HS.

[DaveReidUK]

That 'radiator' type structure is one of the 2 Horizontal Stab Bay access doors.
The interesting thing is that its designed to be a blowout panel in the event of Rear Pressure Bulkhead blowout. This door is still firmly in the closed position. This indicates that there has not been a significant dump of cabin pressure into the H/S Bay.

Do both of the access doors function as blowout panels, or just the one that we know didn't open?

[Kulverstukas]

There is now banner at newsru.com "Non a/c parts found at the site"

[vs69]

From memory that second stab bay access door is screwed shut,the fwd stab bay door is on quick release latches and also nearer the px bulkhead.

[Kulverstukas]

Foreign objects found - TASS sources in Egypt.

[Blake777]

Tass in English

TASS: World - Experts find components that are not of the crashed A321 airliner ? source (http://tass.ru/en/world/833666)

[Matt_1]

"Foreign objects found - TASS sources in Egypt."

There were over 200 people and luggage in the aircraft; of course there were 'foreign objects' onboard.

[Kulverstukas]

Dont't think expert can't separate allowed lugage from suspicious parts.

[ddd]

Russian plane crash victims sucked out of seats as ?external impact' blew jet apart | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3301094/Terrifying-final-moments-doomed-Russian-jet-Plane-lurched-passengers-sucked-seats-external-impact-blew-jet-apart-flight-data-reveals.html)

[Sergey Tachenov]

TASS: World - Experts find components that are not of the crashed A321 airliner ? source (http://tass.ru/en/world/833666)


TASS has no official confirmation of this information at the moment.

[SLF3]

The Times of India has a picture of the tail section from a different angle:

Mystery deepens over Russian airliner crash in Egypt - Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Mystery-deepens-over-Russian-airliner-crash-in-Egypt/articleshow/49639376.cms)

[iranu]

Clean Break?
Intruder asked "How do you get such a clean break all the way around that tail cone? Is that seam an engineered weak point?" (#594).

...to which oleostrut (#595) postulated that the original strength is largely in the skin, supported by ribs, frames, etc.

Actually, according to Airbus confidential drawings (thank you Mr google) the whole tailcone subassembly is bolted to the rest of the empennage via attachment lugs at 4 points. None of those large lugs is visible in the crash photos. In TylerMonkey's photo (#581) showing "better detail" of the tailcone front firewall, the location of 1 of the missing lugs would be expected in the top left of the photo - in the position of the triangular hole in the outermost frame.Not sure if my original post is still in moderation or got binned. However, considering the above and subsequent drawings I'll repost.

2014-0177 : Fuselage – Rear Fuselage Clips, Shear Webs and Angles – Replacement

EASA Airworthiness Directives Publishing Tool (http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2014-0177)

During the A320 fatigue test campaign for Extended Service Goal (ESG), it was determined that fatigue damage could appear on the clips, shear webs and angles at rear fuselage section 19, on Frame (FR) 72 and FR74.


This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane.



To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus developed a modification,
which has been published through Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A320-53-1266 for in-service application to allow aeroplanes to operate up to the new ESG limit.



For the reasons described above, this AD requires replacement of the affected clips, shear webs and angles at rear fuselage section 19, FR72 and FR74.Not sure which specific area frames 72 and 74 are in. Is this the same thing you are talking about?

[hamster3null]

That 'radiator' type structure is one of the 2 Horizontal Stab Bay access doors.
The interesting thing is that its designed to be a blowout panel in the event of Rear Pressure Bulkhead blowout. This door is still firmly in the closed position. This indicates that there has not been a significant dump of cabin pressure into the H/S Bay.

There's a problem with this line of reasoning. If it's a blowout panel and it's working correctly, what, if anything (short of collision with another aircraft), could cause the tail cone to be detached from the rest of the tail in midair?

[andrasz]

To have an explosion in the CFT you need several individually very unlikely events to coincide:
- an empty CFT (not likely in this case, as a SSH-LED flight is fairly long, not sure if wing tanks alone sufficient)
- extended exposure to high temperatures (unlikely, as departure was at 6am, just after sunrise, turnaround was in the cool of the night)
- an ignition source to explode the vapors

Also a CFT explosion would cause a very different disintegration pattern than what we see on the wreckage. The wing box with both wings attached reached the ground in one piece, with forward fuselage also attached. Whatever happened here happened in the back, close to the tail section.


what, if anything, could cause the tail cone to be detached from the rest of the tail in midair?


Good question, probably the key question. From some photos of the tail section it is clear that the entire rear tail section comprising the HS structure and the APU/tail cone broke away cleanly just aft of the pressure bulkhead, leaving just some of the top fuselage skin held by the rudder structure that remained attached to the tail section before the pressure bulkhead. I see three possible explanations:


A) Aerodynamic forces tore the HS from the remaining tail section with a downward force as it tumbled following initial disintegration, leaving the surviving tail section and the tail cone with APU initially attached. With the weight of the APU the weak remaining link eventually broke, and the two pieces landed separately (but only 350 metres apart, suggesting this scenario). This scenario assumes that the failure occurred somewhere in the rear fuselage (bomb ?). Any rear fuselage pieces further back along the flight path from the tail would confirm this scenario.


B) A catastrophic failure of the entre HS structure (fatigue or bomb carefully placed in the bay to achieve this). As the role of the HS is to pull the tail down (and the nose up), a failure would result in the HS parting with the rest of the structure downwards. The subsequent sequence is similar to A. If this is the case, the HS should be the first piece of wreckage to be found along the flight path (where is it ?)


C) Rupture of RPB creating a pressure wave strong enough to rip off the HS together with the tail cone and APU. This could only happen in the pressure relief doors do not function properly. If this were the case, examining the fairly intact tail section would confirm it instantly.

[Matt_1]

"Dont't think expert can't separate allowed lugage from suspicious parts."

Of course they can. But those experts, with proper access to the site, aren't going to be talking to the press before an appropriate confirmation.

The news information that's being leaked is biased and not subject to the appropriate rigour required for such an investigation.

[VNAV PATH]

Uplift fuel at SSH = 13,959 kg
Fuel remaining from previous leg (KUF-SSH) = 7,000 kg


Fuel on board = 20,959 kg


From Metrojet published tech/ops data.

[markmarine]

I notice in many of the photos of this tragic crash, pipes which appear to be made of copper with compression flanges and joints on the ends. I assume these must be high pressure fuel transfer pipes or engine components, but there are quite a few smaller diameter pipes too. It surprised me to see these at the scene as I would have thought there are other materials that could have been used in the manufacture, unless copper was used because of fatigue reasons. I wonder if any engineers would be kind enough to enlighten me?

[ZeBedie]

Fuel on board = 20,959 kg

About 2300kg of that would have been carried in a hold tank (Auxiliary Centre Tank), which at the time of the accident would probably have been empty. The centre tank would still have been about 80% full. The aircraft would have burnt at least 3000kg in the first 30 minutes.

That hole in the APU firewall Tyler showed looks very suspect.

Maybe it happened during ground impact.

[Leodis737]

There's a problem with this line of reasoning. If it's a blowout panel and it's working correctly, what, if anything (short of collision with another aircraft), could cause the tail cone to be detached from the rest of the tail in midair?

Collision with parts exiting the fuselage between the wingbox and door 4, blowing back onto the empennage (HS&VS)?

[HarryMann]

Engines have'nt exploded. But I have to say that seeing a FAN stage separated from one of the engine core is quite unusual. Only a huge forward momentum can produce such separation.

not true... extreme gyroscopic loads could break shaft. Due to rapud pitch or yaw

[lyubko]

Can anybody observe the APU on crash site pictures ?

[SRS]

It is clear that one should never believe anything coming from Egyptian sources. pilots requested landing permission, no change of terrorism, aircraft system failure, etc. they are only interested in protecting their tourist industry.

[edmundronald]

Several large sections of the plane have separated cleanly, which to a layman makes sense only if separation occurred before ground impact, ie the plane falling apart at the seams in the air. This could be confirmed easily by the distance between the fuselage parts.

No evidence of any criminal malfeasance or fire event has yet been publicized - and in fact access to the wreck seems to have been quite free. Shouldn't we use Ockham's razor and assume a local structural failure, cascading into a mid-air breakup, until evidence to the contrary emerges?

Edmund

[hamster3null]

Collision with parts exiting the fuselage between the wingbox and door 4, blowing back onto the empennage (HS&VS)?

Before or after the empennage breaks off of the fuselage?

If it's before, it's not trivial for any object exiting the hole to hit the tail cone, since there's no straight line from one to the other.

If it's after, it's also not trivial because two parts are rapidly going to fly away from each other.

In either case, I would expect the attachment joint to be sufficiently sturdy that it's not going to be knocked loose by a flying suitcase.

Could be some kind of indirect effect, I suppose (things flying out of the hole and hitting the VS, the VS folding and hitting the tail cone.)

[andrasz]

The BEA and Airbus go teams can go home


I think the very size of the combined BEA/Airbus/BFU team suggests that their line of reasoning is not entirely dissimilar to that of some of the postings here. As sad as it sounds, there will be a great audible sigh of relief if this turns out to be a planted bomb. On the other hand, the Egyptians are praying to the Almighty that it should turn out anything but that. A good part of the role of the combined team is to make sure the evidence is not being messed with.

[Prada]

That hole in the APU firewall Tyler showed looks very suspect. It shows penetration from the rear.

It could be easily some sort of pipe that was ripped out. You need to find A321 APU Firewall drawings to be sure.

[ironbutt57]

from the media photos anyway, the top section of the aft fuselage looks like a rather clean crack, instead of something that was blown off...like the Aloha 737 "cabriolet"

[SLF3]

It does look remarkably similar. Circumferential clean break failure above the floor beam adjacent to a reinforcement point (the door). Doesn't explain why, though.

[A0283]

Major components which i have NOT found yet on pictures ... but hope someone else has (updates marked with ***):

a. top and aft section of the vertical tail structure,
b. rudder,
c. horizontal stabilizer (looks like it came clear off - which might suggest a high speed failure),
d. 4 of 8 passenger doors (it is easy to identify 3 in their proper position, 1*** maybe 2 without position),
e. 2 of the 2 engines *** both engines identified in pictures just now,
f. APU itself,
g. the majority of passenger seats *** by now 1 clear image from a Russian video of a triple-seat which separated from the plane at altitude.
h. *** nose landinggear itself – but expect to find that inside the NLG box which is clearly visible,
i. *** cargo doors and associated panels,
j. *** more (top) fuselage panels,

It might be possible that we already 'see' the complete fuselage. But the available photos are not good enough. You need to be able to measure the various 'sections'. *** we are getting better pictures.

Please note: At this stage a large number of items and components have already been moved from their original place and position. *** A number of items have already been removed from the site by now. Most of it assembled passenger baggage it seems.

An upset (suggested by preliminary and rough FR24 data, cause(s) unknown),followed by loss of control (causes unknown), high speed steep descent,overspeed failure of part of the tail and horizontal stabilizer, wing-fuselage inverting, going into a kind of flat rotation, losing both engines and APU during that rotation, and hitting the ground in that attitude ... could be one of the possible scenario's - based on the pictures that are available till now.

Only after rejecting such options, and only with clear possible evidence (like we had early on with MH17), would it be useful to spend time on more exotic(but not impossible) scenario's like bombs and missiles.

[Kulverstukas]

lyubko
APU

Can anybody observe the APU on crash site pictures ?

A0283

f. APU itself,



Isn't it still inside tail cone? There was screenshot from copter video with tail cone from other side.

[MrSnuggles]

As posted by http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/569907-breaking-news-airliner-missing-within-egyptian-fir-28.html#post9166715

this photo is interesting: http://www.newsit.gr/files/Image/2015/11/01/AIRBUS/planecrash_egypt21.JPG

I am having trouble locating this piece, but knowing it to be upside-down, it looks curious with the door buckling outwards and soot coming out of it.

SPECULATION_MODE=ON
Clean sharp cuts around a clean white tail missing rudder and HS, tailcone some distance away.. something may have happened in the tailcone attachment, losing that part, yanking the HS and rudder away... rest of the tail shaves off, rest of plane goes inverted, electrical wires shortcircuit and causes explosion...
SPECULATION_MODE=OFF

[andrasz]

No reason to believe APU is not inside the tail cone.

[ironbutt57]

AO283...I tend to agree..structural failure around the circumference of the upper aft fuselage..tore away from the lower fuselage..THS (stab) failure/separation? but the upper rear fuselage doesn't appear to have failed due to overstess, looks like a clean good old-fashioned crack/failure to me...like most others here, just a guess...

[AirScotia]

Presumably the area is dangerous for helicopters / low-flying aircraft, if hostile groups are on the ground with access to manpads. This must make the search for airframe wreckage more complicated, requiring ground personnel to secure an area before helicopters can be deployed.

Perhaps the HS/rudder are in an area not yet explored, for these reasons?

[Prada]

this photo is interesting: http://www.newsit.gr/files/Image/2015/11/01/AIRBUS/planecrash_egypt21.JPG

I am having trouble locating this piece, but knowing it to be upside-down, it looks curious with the door buckling outwards and soot coming out of it.

This piece of skin comes from under second door on the fuselage left side. Just before wings. This part of fuselage, while falling down backside first was burning heavily, fuelled by fuel from Center wing tank, which probably was damaged during rear part breakup process.
The whole underside of the plane is sooted more or less and at least one separated engine fan is sooted too and has heat damage on painting.
The way fuselage is sooted could not have happened during level and stable flight.

[andrasz]

without new info we will go around circles
To a certain extent no news also conveys information. Up till now I was more inclined to assume some structural failure on this fairly high cycle/hour airframe (with a history of tail scrape damage), mainly on account of no claim of responsibility for the downing.

However the longer the investigators keep silent (and this is an Egyptian led investigation, all other parties are subordinates), the more likely it is that they already know just do not admit that foul play was involved. The door panel with apparent shrapnel damage pointed out today also swings the pendulum in this direction.

[ChicoG]

Who needs to make up rumours when you have the Telegraph?

Summary of today's events
A transcript of cockpit recordings obtained by Russian news agency Interfax suggest that there were "sounds uncharacteristic of routine flight", and the crew did not send a distress signal.
A source said: "Judging by the recording, a situation on board developed suddenly and unexpectedly for the crew, and as a result the pilots did not manage to send a distress signal".
Russian news service Tass cited a source saying that "elements that were not part of the plane" were found at the crash site. They are being analysed - whether that is from a bomb or simply some luggage is unclear.

Russian plane crash: investigators analysuing black boxes as cockpit recordings reveal uncharacteristic sounds - latest news - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11971577/Russian-plane-crash-latest-news.html)

[lomapaseo]

The Prune experts need to focus more on the aircraft fuselage ahead of the wings.

The tail may be secondary.

Look for evidence of sooting following aircraft trajectory prior to ground impact. Look for evidence of gyro loading in engines.

The more you depend on the black boxes the more likely they will cease functioning early in the event :)

[Kulverstukas]

andrasz, in my previous experience with armchair investigation, in absence of any info from officials good beacons are internal urgent documents, released by authorities. In case of Red Wings disaster in VKO it was telegram about reverse engagement, in case of Kazan - telegram about go-around technique and so on.

As we doesn't see anything similar in this case - posted NOTAMs was not released AFTER accident and Kolavia A321 now allowed to fly - I think that real experts have not much more confidence in real reason then we, pprune detectives.

[GSLOC]

APU firewall images (obscured, but general idea):

Upper
https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/15492/61625582.6a/0_14700a_572d35c5_orig

Lower
https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/9059/61625582.6a/0_147013_c9c8f095_orig

Obviously these photos are not from the aircraft in question.

[dechelski]

Forgive my first post confusion, but why isn't there any real speculation here about the fact this was caused by a potentially improperly repaired tail strike?

I can't find any professional documents, relating to that repair, nor is there any clear suggestion as to whether a doubler was used, or whether it was taken back to skeleton.

Given the absence of this, surely, this has to be a major key to concluding this case? I highly believe that an improper repair / continued maintenance missed the beginning of metal fatigue, thus resulting in it's mid-air break up some 14 years later.

I can't see it being a bomb/device/etc - why would you detonate it over the Sinai desert? Surely if you wanted to send a real message, you would wait until it was on approach to St Petersburg? Even if this imaginary device wasn't on a timer, you would have to expect more shrapnel/scorch damage than what we have already seen in the photo's - surely?!

Is there any clear pictures of this plane that show the repaired tail strike, prior to it's demise on Saturday??? Can't we study those? Also, can't seem to find the repaired area on any of the crash photo's either... Is there something wrong with my eyes?? :ugh:

[testpanel]

According to RT.com:

13:13 GMT
The passengers who were sitting near the back of the plane died of so-called “explosive trauma,” sustaining 90 percent skin burns and having metal pieces in their bodies, Russian tabloid LifeNews reports, citing the results of a forensic examination. Those closer to the front of the plane died of different types of injuries, including blood loss, open cranio-cerebral traumas and multiple fractures. So far, there has been no official response to these reports.

[oleostrut]

"Actually, according to Airbus confidential drawings (thank you Mr google) the whole tailcone subassembly is bolted to the rest of the empennage via attachment lugs at 4 points. None of those large lugs is visible in the crash photos. In TylerMonkey's photo (#581) showing "better detail" of the tailcone front firewall, the location of 1 of the missing lugs would be expected in the top left of the photo - in the position of the triangular hole in the outermost frame."

The lug attach areas are visible, and have obviously failed in tension. The support structure is pulled out and missing. The only fitting still present appears to be an alignment hole at the top.

As to the aft part of the fuselage breaking "clean", it is a skin failure just as I described. Go to the Greek site with the high res pic of the back door area. You can see where the skin tore cleanly at the top of the fuselage, it cracked and broke at the first rivet line, the rivets did not fail. About an inch or so of the skin joint is still attached to the rear frame.

The stringers failed just forward of their rear attach points, again no rivet failure.

That area of fuselage broke away from top down due to overstress in tension. Aerodynamic tail downforce or internal pressure can not be determined from the pic, but a good guess can be made,

[Blake777]

Test panel

A Russian language video mentioned earlier in this thread showed three seats from rear of cabin, one of which appeared to show evidence of fragments passing through. Hard to tell definitively if from the front or back, but assuming there was a body in the seat, which the condition of the seats suggests, most probably from the rear.

[GSLOC]

Not sure this was already mentioned here:

Pathologists in St Petersburg separated victim's bodys/parts into two groups -- those seated in front and those towards the tail. Those who seated in front sustained mainly chest, stomach, legs, arms injures, internal organs tear. Deaths mainly resulted from loss of blood, shock and brain injures.

Those who seated in the rear were found to sustain explosion injures and heavy burns (more than 90%). Experts attributed this to fuel tank explosion or explosion device detonation. Also a lot of metal pieces and aircraft skin parts were found in body's of those seated in the rear.


Source
http://lenta.ru/news/2015/11/03/results/

[Kulverstukas]

Also they made amendment that was this explosive trauma from explosive device or burning fuel and pieces of a/c is unclear until further lab examination.

[Kulverstukas]

Was this there already?

http://cs624027.vk.me/v624027237/6539a/E-8DH4K2JxY.jpg

[DARK MATTER]

Report from Reuters :

Egypt’s civil aviation ministry said on Tuesday there were no facts to substantiate assertions by Russian officials that the Russian airliner that crashed in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula on Saturday broke up in mid-air.

Rahmi said there was no proof yet that the plane had broken up in flight. "This could be a long process and we can’t talk about the results as we go along,” he said.

[oleostrut]

"Rahmi said there was no proof yet that the plane had broken up in flight."

Other than the tail being found several miles from the nose.........

[Toruk Macto]

Rahmi said there was no proof yet that the plane had broken up in flight. "This could be a long process and we can’t talk about the results as we go along,” he said.

What this guys job ? Hope it's not one of responsibility ?

[andrasz]

in my previous experience...
I would fully concur if it were a Russian-led investigation, but here the Egyptians are in charge (more precisely the Egyptian military). Having lived and worked in that fine land, I can say with some authority that if there is something they don't like, they will try to deny it whatever it takes.

there will be no data recorded on the FDR and CVR after the separation of the tailCorrect. The best we can expect is that the microphones picked up sounds that may be analyzed and possibly identified in the last milliseconds.

[ExDubai]

I would fully concur if it were a Russian-led investigation, but here the Egyptians are in charge (more precisely the Egyptian military). Having lived and worked in that fine land, I can say with some authority that if there is something they don't like, they will try to deny it whatever it takes.

Do not forget that also experts from France and Germany participate on the investigations. It would"t be that easy for the Egyptian military to deny the results.

[Kulverstukas]

Quote:

there will be no data recorded on the FDR and CVR after the separation of the tail
Correct.

Any chances there is unprotected FDR in nose equipment bay? Nose part seems not so heavily damaged.

[Kulverstukas]

Am I mislead but I think investigation is led by Egypt’s civil aviation ministry?

[DARK MATTER]

Rahmi is the official Civil Aviation Ministry spokesperson .................

[A_Van]

Some comments on the post by dechelski (a dozen posts above):

1. Tail section repair. I cannot find an absolutely credible information where the repair took place in 2001-2002, but heard from Russian radio (while driving a car this morning) that it happened in Toulouse, on the manufacturer premises. If so, there is no reason to suspect Airbus for not doing the job properly. Again, would be very interested to know where the repair was really done.

2. IMHO, talking about the bomb onboard, you are right asking "why not to do it over Russia?" Indeed, might be a double win for the bastards that implanted it. But all those (Russian) charters are often late (or even delayed for many hours) and timer alone would not be reliable to detonate the explosive over a pre-defined place. And a combination of a timer with a mobile link that sets it up when the plane is already on the run-way seems to be a) too sophisticated for those guys and b) leaving more traces (in a mobile/radio network) than a primitive luggage-looking explosive put onboard by a single jihaddist. With regard to the latter, I would like to see the Egyptian police and secret services thoroughly looking through personal files of all the airport employees servicing this plane that night/morning and maybe already treating some of them "in a proper way" to dig out the truth.

[andrasz]

In present day Egypt "Civil" is code for military in disguise.
I'm not saying this to pass any judgment (in fact the military is one of the few marginally competent organizations there), just as a matter of fact.

[A0283]

Any chances there is unprotected FDR in nose equipment bay? Nose part seems not so heavily damaged.

In general you will find the (D)FDR and (D)CVR near or in the tail section. I have never heard or seen a recorder as such in the nose. There are a number of (structural and survivability) reasons for that.
If you look at the accidents of the last 15 years or so, you could also suggest another location, but still the tail section it is.

Depends on your definition. But there is not really a nose equipment bay. There is a Main Equipment Center, which is not in the cockpit section, but behind and below the floor after the forward pax doors.
Two large recognizable units are the nose landing gear bay (ribbed) and the MEC with its trays and wiring (in which many avionics boxes are visible). The bay looks quite good. The MEC looks rather burned, but you need better pictures to be sure.

In general planes these days carry equipment like ('non-hardened') QARs quick access recorders and maintenance recorders. In cases where flight recorders fail or only give partial information, these boxes can, will be, and have been used (assuming they survived). These recorders store even more information than flight recorders. In other cases it is possible to retrieve data from local memory components of systems.

So you have to know what kind of boxes a specific aircraft carries. That is the art an science of "configuration" management. A subject rarely introduced into public accident discussions, but essential in getting to (any and) the right conclusions.

[Prada]

Thank you GSLOC for posting some actual images of structures in question!

While people enjoy speculating about bulkhead rupture, bomb, etc. It really puzzles me what were the forces that ripped off horizontal and vertical stabilizers along with APU section and rear part of fuelage.
But then again we havent seen pictures of any stabilizer nor pieces of missing aft fuelage between wings and aft piece.

[Kulverstukas]

QARs quick access recorders and maintenance recorders

Thanks for elaboration, A0283, I mean them.

[slats11]

Pathologists in St Petersburg separated victim's bodys/parts into two groups -- those seated in front and those towards the tail. Those who seated in front sustained mainly chest, stomach, legs, arms injures, internal organs tear. Deaths mainly resulted from loss of blood, shock and brain injures.

Those who seated in the rear were found to sustain explosion injures and heavy burns (more than 90%). Experts attributed this to fuel tank explosion or explosion device detonation. Also a lot of metal pieces and aircraft skin parts were found in body's of those seated in the rear.

This does seem consistent with the fact a lot of fuselage between the wing and tail seems to be missing from the photos seen to date (unless I have missed something).

Media also reporting mid-air heat flash before crash.

So problem with centre fuel tank? Or bomb?

[Airbubba]

Looks like Metrojet has reason to believe this was not a technical failure.

They have rerouted their flights out of Shram to the west according to this chart published today on their website:

http://urgent.metrojet.ru/files/route_20151103155044.pdf

[A0283]

You can be pretty sure there are a 'QAR' and one or more 'maintenance recorders' on board.

So what you need to know next is what tray they were in on the specific day. And find out if this tray is exposed to fire and/or damaged or not. For this you already need configuration data and close up photos ... and if damage is visible... you need hi res photos.

That is as far as you can go without having access to the recorders - as only the investigators and supporting parties will have.

If the case turns out to be complex, then i guess you would surely want access to maintenance recorder data.

[peekay4]

In general you will find the (D)FDR and (D)CVR near or in the tail section. I have never heard or seen a recorder as such in the nose. There are a number of (structural and survivability) reasons for that.

Black boxes were required by regulation to be located as aft as practicable.

However, the current best practice is to have two combination CVR/FDRs: one located aft, and the second located near the cockpit. There was a rule change relatively recently which made this possible. See FAR 25.1457(e)(2).

[AVR4000]

To Prada, #682:

A failure of the pressure bulkhead is a logical explanation for the separation of the rudder and horizontal stabilizers and a picture of its condition would give a clear answer.

Bulkhead failure as a reason for a loss of rudder and stabilizers can be found with the BEA Vanguard accident and also the Japan Airlines B747SR ditto. In the latter case, the rudder and a big part of the vertical stabilizer separated from the aircraft and those damages is actually quite similar to those pictured on the MetroJet A321 wreck. It is evident that the vertical stabilizer is not only missing the rudder but also an "L shaped" piece including the top while only the forward piece of structure (which folded backwards on impact) remains.

Another possibility is a separate failure of the horizontal stabilizers.

Based on the wreckage, it is evident that the rudder and horizontal stabilizers separated from the aircraft and landed in a different location, which is the reason why the rear pressure bulkhead will be suspected until more data is available. If it turns out that it is completely intact, then there is another cause for the separation of the rudder and stabilizers. Delamination and failure of the vertical stabilizer could be another possibility and it could very well have hit the horizontal stabilizer (this happened with the Boeing 707 over Mount Fuji even if it was caused by severe turbulence).

My take on existing evidence is a failure of the tail surfaces of the aircraft caused by either a failure of the pressure bulkhead, failure of the vertical stabilizer due to delamination or something happening to the horizontal stabilizers.

It is necessary to document the condition of the RPB, rudder and remaining structure from the vertical stabilizer and also the horizontal stabilizers including the jack screw. The flight recorders paired with QAR (if the latter survived) will give more answers, especially if there is recorded data for the same amount of time as the FR24 provided (approximately 25 seconds after the initial event).

[Leightman 957]

Ignoring for the moment the reported wide differences of pax injuries fore to aft, the fuselage attach points of the VS spar and HS are proximal and designed to distribute the highest loads in the aft fuselage. Yet despite the obvious structural trauma, the fwd VS attach remained in place and the more closely integrated aft VS and main HS spars separated from the structure. The probability of a non-localized force capable of this result is lower than one which would have also affected the fwd VS spar ("spar" used with caveats). So the question is what kind of force could have caused that structural split at that location. There is no clear evidence yet of a APB failure. Nor is there clear evidence yet that fire (exact scorching and cause of death) did not result from a primary event. So it seems mechanical failure of the HS VS attach or explosive event near there remain prime possibilities. Note that 'explosive event' does not suggest an intentional event. The division of the relative strength of the VS HS connection does suggest that the tail cone/apu were just along for the ride and were not causal. Why no HS pics so far??

[Kulverstukas]

CNN: U.S. satellite detected heat flash while Flight 9268 was midair, U.S. official says

[PersonFromPorlock]

While people enjoy speculating about bulkhead rupture, bomb, etc. It really puzzles me what were the forces that ripped off horizontal and vertical stabilizers along with APU section and rear part of fuelage. If the tail cone and empennage departed the fuselage intact, it's likely the effective 'flat plate' of the bulkhead facing the airstream would have caused immediate, violent tumbling, with consequent violent reversals of wind loads on the empennage as various flat surfaces rotated into and out of the relative wind.

Think of it in terms of twisting the leg off a roast chicken.

[Kulverstukas]

CAIRO, Nov. 3. / TASS /. Problem within the A321 crashed in Egypt over the Sinai Peninsula, resulting in damage to the starboard side of the aircraft before it hit the ground, reported Internet portal "Al-Masri al-Yaum" sources in the international commission studying the flight recorders of the plane.

[vovachan]

According to an "informed source" speaking to Interfax, 4 minutes before disappearance the pilots were having routine conversations and didn't mention problems. Shortly before disappearance there were "untypical sounds." Apparently the onset of the emergency was sudden and took them by surprise said the source.

[Kulverstukas]

Who was looking for APU?

http://s015.radikal.ru/i333/1511/36/2f1a1e59dd68.jpg

[A0283]

Have seen that photo before but this quality appears to be much much better. Thanks.

What you see - as far as i know - is the muffler. Not the actual APU. What is also striking is that the APU access doors are open. Of course we do not know if that happened in flight or on landing or afterward.

The question that i had, driven by the possible scenario that i sketched before, was ... is it possible that the APU broke from its mountings early on in the descent sequence?

So great photo, and even better would be to get one showing the insides of the cone and the actual APU. Or a photo of the APU somewhere in the desert.

[silvertate]

"Rahmi said there was no proof yet that the plane had broken up in flight."


... said Comical Ali.

If you have spent time in the region, you will know that the role of Comical Ali is held by many spokesmen across the Mid and Near East. It is an esteemed position requiring full control of fascial muscles and prior experience of living on another planet. :)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf

[FDMII]

. . . .

So great photo, and even better would be to get one showing the insides of the cone and the actual APU. Or a photo of the APU somewhere in the desert.
Yes, very helpful photo indeed.

I think it is reasonable to conclude that the APU is still inside the tail cone. Visible, obvious damage due to it's "egress" would otherwise be evident. Except for impact crushing, the structure appears intact.

[Kulverstukas]

Also look at this hatch cover:

http://s017.radikal.ru/i425/1511/b4/95e098e5c301.jpg

http://i011.radikal.ru/1511/8f/21c8dc322b04.jpg

http://s019.radikal.ru/i639/1511/1f/aecfba07e0f1.jpg

It's definitely shows signs of fire inside and inflight

Also it's hatch under second starboard door, right (IDK numeration).

[vs69]

Urm the APU doors are open because of the deformity due to the sudden impact,note the surrounding structure,or whats left of it. The skin on that section is not the most robust and I'll bet a pound (Egyptian) the APU is still in there.

[er340790]

Tail section repair... happened in Toulouse, on the manufacturer premises. If so, there is no reason to suspect Airbus for not doing the job properly.


You would certainly hope so. That said, the JAL-146SR was repaired by Boeing...

8 Sep 1985

The Boeing Company acknowledged Friday that it had made faulty rear-cabin repairs in 1978 on a Japan Air Lines Boeing 747 that crashed in Japan last month, killing 520 of the 524 people on board.

But the company added that further analysis was needed ''to determine whether this repair contributed to the accident.'' It was the worst single-plane crash in history.

The company said that the problem involved a relatively small section of the splice its team fashioned in reassembling upper and lower halves of the pressure bulkhead in the rear of the passenger cabin. It said, too, that all evidence indicated the bulkhead ruptured in flight and caused pressurized air in the passenger cabin to rush out to the rear.

Disclosure of a faulty repair was made initially by The New York Times on Friday. The Boeing statement took issue with a part of the report, attributed to authorities involved in the inquiry, that the improper assembly had to do with some missing rivets.

Defect in Riveting

''A splice plate added during the repair was incorrectly installed in this small section of the splice such that one of three rows of rivets did not pass through the splice plate,'' the company said. The small section amounted to about 17 percent of the splice, according to the statement.

The 1978 damage to the plane occurred when it made a landing at Osaka so severe that 30 people were injured. The Boeing team, sent to the scene from company headquarters in Seattle, repaired 54 feet of skin under the lower fuselage and replaced the lower half of the bulkhead, which then had to be attached to the original upper half.

The bulkhead, shaped somewhat like an umbrella canopy, is at the very back of the passenger cabin. It separates the cabin, which is highly pressurized in flight, from the unpressurized tail cone of the plane, which is behind it.

At least two key issues remain to be resolved. One is whether the improper repair led to the bulkhead rupture. The second is where the rearward rush of air was what caused the catastrophic damage to the tail's vertical fin.

Plane Struck Mountain

The still-unproven theory is that the air rushing rearward could have turned upward into the hollow tail fin, punched out the leading edge of the vertical tail structure, and thereby caused the plane to fly wildly out of control. It rammed into a mountain 30 minutes later.

Boeing officials would be relieved if it can be verified that the improper repair in fact caused the disaster. That would remove any concern that more than 600 747's in service in the world have an inherent defect and that a repeat of the Japanese crash is a continuing danger.

In Japan, aviation officials expressed surprise at the Boeing acknowledgement of the faulty repair.

Hiroaki Kono, head of Japan Airline's maintenance division, said: ''If the repairs are incorrect, it is a serious matter.''

Shiro Oshima, an official of the Ministry of Aviation, said: ''I'm surprised to hear of the Boeing announcement, which is quite new to me.''

[VNee]

@A0283 said:
"What you see - as far as i know - is the muffler. Not the actual APU"

FWIW, I believe that we are looking at the APU and the muffler section
(#5758 in the picture) is what's missing.

Very sad - RIP to all these poor souls


http://i63.tinypic.com/2hxudz9.jpg

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Looks like Metrojet has reason to believe this was not a technical failure.

They have rerouted their flights out of Shram to the west according to this chart published today on their website:

They could well be doing that as a 'just in case' measure, rather than any firm belief there is danger in overflying the region.

[Volume]

I am having trouble locating this piece, but knowing it to be upside-down, it looks curious with the door buckling outwards and soot coming out of it.
...
Also look at this hatch coverLooks to me like the slide/raft container of the emergency exit aft of the wing, not sure whether left or right. It is just below the door (you can see the door sill scuff plate)
To my knowledge, no pyrotechnical devices on this equipment which may cause a fire, but I am here to learn.

[Kulverstukas]

not sure whether left or right.

Assuming that smoke trails is in direction of flight, it's right side.

[Prada]

To AVR4000

A failure of the pressure bulkhead is a logical explanation for the separation of the rudder and horizontal stabilizers and a picture of its condition would give a clear answer.

Rupture of rear pressure bulkhead is not explaining why aft part of fuselage before RPB separated midair. Also, it does not explain why fuselage after wings is scattered around in small pieces.
Peeling of fuselage skin by wind aerodynamic forces works from front to back. Not from RPB toward cockpit.
Also, with ruptured rear pressure bulkhead, damage pattern aft of RPB should be different, as you could imagine how all that aft galley stuff was pressed through rapidly emerging hole.

[Ian W]

To AVR4000

Rupture of rear pressure bulkhead is not explaining why aft part of fuselage before RPB separated midair. Also, it does not explain why fuselage after wings is scattered around in small pieces.
Peeling of fuselage skin by wind aerodynamic forces works from front to back. Not from RPB toward cockpit.
Also, with ruptured rear pressure bulkhead, damage pattern aft of RPB should be different, as you could imagine how all that aft galley stuff was pressed through rapidly emerging hole.

I do not think you can be so certain. The horizontal stabilizer is not with the rest of the wreckage. Therefore it departed the aircraft before it reached low altitudes. If the horizontal stabilizer departs an aircraft it will (usually) bunt hard several negative g it will then start tumbling and what was the rear of the broken fuselage becomes the leading part of the fuselage into the slipstream it would be unaerodynamically shaped and could be expected to start breaking up as the direction became more vertical. This would put all the major parts of the wreckage in one area and some parts like the HS in a completely different area. Precisely what is seen in this incident. This could also explain some of the injuries.

If memory serves correctly, the Indonesian A320 crash resulted in similar fragments of the aircraft with a similar dispersion.

[Prada]

pieces from under second doors on both sides show similar inflight firedamage. But that could have happened already after initial breakup created large fire. Sooting on fuelage underside is visible even on cockpit part.

http://www.keri.ee/crash/siinai3.jpg

[A0283]

Have there been pictures of both engines? I've only seen one, that's missing the fan, and a burned-looking fan that's elsewhere.

I have seen pictures of the two different engines. The damage of the engines is different. The damage of the fan's is different. One is quite complete, the other has significant damage.

I have not had time yet to link them to the left and right one, or to the geographical location.

[oleostrut]

"Rupture of rear pressure bulkhead is not explaining why aft part of fuselage before RPB separated midair. Also, it does not explain why fuselage after wings is scattered around in small pieces.
Peeling of fuselage skin by wind aerodynamic forces works from front to back. Not from RPB toward cockpit.
Also, with ruptured rear pressure bulkhead, damage pattern aft of RPB should be different, as you could imagine how all that aft galley stuff was pressed through rapidly emerging hole."

Shockwave shattered the RPB and also overloaded the skin joint at the frame where it was torn apart.

Refer to the videos I posted several pages back and you can see similar damage occurring some distance from the blast site, but rupturing the skin at reinforced points (frames).

Once the tail was gone, the nose tucked and likely exposed the open fuselage to the slipstream, further damaging it. Then it entered a flat spin.

Also, those with experience in this model have stated no aft galley on this bird.

[iranu]

Third time lucky.

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE

AD No.: 2014-0177

Date: 25 July 2014

Fuselage – Rear Fuselage Clips, Shear Webs and Angles –
Replacement

During the A320 fatigue test campaign for Extended Service Goal (ESG), it was determined that fatigue damage could appear on the clips, shear webs and angles at rear fuselage section 19, on Frame (FR) 72 and FR74.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane.

To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus developed a modification,
which has been published through Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A320-53-1266 for in-service application to allow aeroplanes to operate up to the new ESG limit.

For the reasons described above, this AD requires replacement of the affected clips, shear webs and angles at rear fuselage section 19, FR72 and FR74.

[Capt. Inop]

Qote "Prada" Post 709:

Looks like fire damage and heat from the inside.

[dsc810]

Remember that the underside of the aircraft was painted black/dark grey......

[kimo]

similar burn marks on the RH side of the aircraft the red part is the wing light.

http://vz.lt/gallery/image.jpg?Site=VZ&Date=20151102&Category=ARTICLE&ArtNo=110209979&Ref=PH&Item=10&NewTbl=1&maxW=1900&lastupdate=37

[oldoberon]

@A0283 said:
"What you see - as far as i know - is the muffler. Not the actual APU"

FWIW, I believe that we are looking at the APU and the muffler section
(#5758 in the picture) is what's missing.

Very sad - RIP to all these poor souls


http://i63.tinypic.com/2hxudz9.jpg

don't know why you have drawn drawn a red line the section on the ground is the whole of the cone on this stand, just look at the grey triangle for the boundary movement of HS, it it there on both

[oldoberon]

to compare with image above

Who was looking for APU?

http://s015.radikal.ru/i333/1511/36/2f1a1e59dd68.jpg

[Prada]

Shockwave shattered the RPB and also overloaded the skin joint at the frame where it was torn apart.

That would have explained separation of APU. To me it looks that immediate shockwave area right after the RPB is not damaged. Skin is not even peeled. APU firewall is not visibly pressed inwards by shockwave which separated it from the rest of fuselage.

[cats_five]

don't know why you have drawn drawn a red line the section on the ground is the whole of the cone on this stand, just look at the grey triangle for the boundary movement of HS, it it there on both

No, it's missing the part BEHIND the red line in the photo.

[oldoberon]

Better detail . . .

http://i21.servimg.com/u/f21/11/94/64/62/jet211.jpg

so is this a picture looking in at the wide end of the cone, similar long black hose, or is it from slighty further forward

[oleostrut]

"That would have explained separation of APU. To me it looks that immediate shockwave area right after the RPB is not damaged. Skin is not even peeled. APU firewall is not visibly pressed inwards by shockwave which separated it from the rest of fuselage."

The RPB is forward of the APU firewall (that we are seeing still attached to the tailcone) by several feet. The support structure for the HS and VS is in this area between the firewall and RPB.

[oldoberon]

No, it's missing the part BEHIND the red line in the photo.


Possiblt due to shape and weight (all at the rear) it came down apu 1st and it has been pushed back into the rest of that area, then whole section fell over

[Ruimte Aap]

Looking at picture in post #714. What about the hole between the wing light and the window, looks like an exit hole to me.

[kimo]

Better detail . . .

http://i21.servimg.com/u/f21/11/94/64/62/jet211.jpg

That hole would be the APU generator cable feed through. probably ripped out when the tail cone seperated from the airplane.

[Kulverstukas]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair

[Airbubba]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair

Traditionally, this incident from three decades ago is cited as the reason for the ubiquitous 'Did you pack your own bag?' security question.

[deSitter]

Would remind all that a small hole in a pressurized plane can be a bigger problem than a large one - when such small hole is plugged by escaping debris, it can cause a "water hammer" build-up of pressure than can completely destroy a much larger structure than the initial damage - so a very small explosive device can destroy a plane if properly set. I recall PA103 was brought down by a relatively tiny device. The flames are easily explained as subsequent break-up of the plane and engulfing fireball.

-drl

[Kulverstukas]

Ruimte Aap

Looking at picture in post #714. What about the hole between the wing light and the window, looks like an exit hole to me.

Looks like this hole made by some pipe when on the ground. This small part attached will not survive free fall from 10 km I believe.

UPD: From other side

http://c.lifenewscontent.ru/static/posts/2015/11/167937/05b164d3dea317cf7e0a54ab0e60ca8b__660x.jpg

[Prada]

The RPB is forward of the APU firewall (that we are seeing still attached to the tailcone) by several feet. The support structure for the HS and VS is in this area between the firewall and RPB.

structure in question looks like this. If it gets damaged by shockwave or by heavy flowing items hitting it, it should buckle skin areas it is connected to and moving HS and VS into odd positions. Or if cleanly cut off HS and VS should have buckled fuselage skin they were connected to. Which is clearly not the case with VS for sure. Does it sound reasonable?

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/9059/61625582.6a/0_147013_c9c8f095_orig

[fflow]

Anyone know if the NTSB has been invited to this party? Theoretically they could be involved through Pratt & Whitney's stake in IAE.

[Kulverstukas]

http://cdn.aviaforum.ru/images/2015/11/720623_becd8fc01ea0285487052822868c7e21.jpg

[StuntPilot]

Do we know where it was found?

[wilyflier]

[QUOTE=Kulverstukas

Are we saying Rudder?(VS), or Tailplane(HS)?

[kimo]

It is the Horizontal stabilizer at least a part of it.

[A0283]

My initial impression was that we are looking into the structure box of the VS. Because it appears to be rather 'beefy'. Problem with the picture is that you have no scale reference and there is too much light (cant see the color).

Could the curved part on the front-left be where the rudder rotates.

Photo is not 'sharp' enough to be 100% sure, but i think you guys are right. One of the points that i look at is what appears to be the mounting lug left hand upper skin. Right hand sight is not clear enough for me yet to be 100% sure that it is complete but indeed more likely. Both components are CFRP so that is not a differentiator.

This means that that this component was sheared off flush with the skin. Probability that both sides shear off at exactly the same moment appears to be relatively low. So this departure would have a significant effect.

Hope that Kulver finds even better pictures :-)

[fando]

I wonder about the (one sided) soot on the APU because somehow it looks for me as it got there before that part got separated.

[StuntPilot]

@A0283

If you look at the pictures of the tail section you can see that the complete leading edge part of the VS is present. Here we see a leading edge piece at the base. Therefore this must be the HS.

[Mauersegler]

Yes it is one side of the tailplane/horizontal stabilizer, see here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Airbus-H%C3%B6henruder.jpg

enormous forces at work, or?

[Smott999]

Wow - if this is HS, big news.
Looks kinda shredded aft yes?

[auldlassie]

You are doing a great job on this thread, updating us with Russian pics, videos and factual info, without ever resorting to silly speculation. Just wanted to say thank you. Much appreciated.

[widmimabi]

I think it's the water and waste panel located on the aft fuselage below door 4L

[Kulverstukas]

LIFE | NEWS (http://lifenews.ru/news/167975)

HS is at 4:34

[archae86]

Kulverstukas,

Feeding Google Translate the URL you posted gave me text for a version of the page time-stamped 23:26 on November 3 with the intriguing sentence:

One of the objects found today became broken down into two parts of a toy airplane.

The original Russian for which this translation was provided was stated to be Одним из предметов, найденных сегодня, стал разломанный на две части игрушечный самолётик
Comments?

[StuntPilot]

The part of the HS where the torque box construction broke off and where the stringers stick out now looks strange to me: lots of dark decoloration, which gets very intense at the bottom. Can the torque box have been soaked with hydraulic fluid from the VS actuators above?

[oldoberon]

Thanks for update

Just before shot of HS were images of what I assume are parts of the missing rear fuselage ( no burn marks noticed) were they in the same geographical area, if they were not do you know distance from fuselage bits to HS, and in a line to the main wreckage which order are they (if well apart)

[Kulverstukas]

Quote:

One of the objects found today became broken down into two parts of a toy airplane.


As a some example of terrible and moving thing found he told about toy plane broken in half.

[Kulverstukas]

do you know distance from fuselage bits to HS

It's unclear from this reel. EMERCOM officer said that they searched distant area today, some cliffs and chasms where they must use mountaineering gear. He describe it like "we search area 17 km in radius".
Also was mentioned that all major debris was located and collected and that EMERCOM guys (in full uniform, despite +35C) make human chain and "comb" the area.

[MrSnuggles]

Thankyou very much Mr Kulverstukas!

You are providing much appreciated information and great updates. I salute you for that. Thankyou!

[Kulverstukas]

Just toy. Broken. There was 25 children aboard.

[Ruimte Aap]

Thank you for your observation reg. my comment on picture in post #714, sounds a good point about the flap. Saw another picture closer up showing the hole is rather rectangular. Also, thank you for your side info, links and translations :)

[henra]

Yes it is one side of the tailplane/horizontal stabilizer, see here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Airbus-H%C3%B6henruder.jpg

enormous forces at work, or?



Yes indeed! Looks like enormous loads and violent disintegration of the HS. Must have been huge vertical loads. Something must have changed the AoA of the HS drastically in a very short time. Possibly something heavily hitting/severing the jackscrew or its mounts?

[susier]

Is it possible to observe from the photograph of the HS, in particular the remnants of the attachment material, in which direction the forces which caused it to detach may have been acting?

[igs942]

Perhaps enough upward force for the HS central assembly to take out the rudder and half the VS?

[Prada]

In the Life News video that Kulvertukas posted, there was also a large part of missing fuselage visible. On the video a cargo bay under floor structure is visible and more than half of ceiling of the right side. It is unclear if there is one more piece between tail section missing or not. Probably there is.

On the roof it seems to be a aluminium skin ripping pattern to be visible. No soot or fire damage visible.

So, what happened first? tail was broken off or something happened to the fuselage between wings and tail?

http://www.keri.ee/crash/siinai4.jpg

[Mauersegler]

How about the supposed violent ups and down from FR24 data, are they spurious or real? Could the jack screw fail and the HS go uncontrolled? Now the damage to the VS looks like happened in flight and not at the ground impact... Also no wonder the APU/tail cone separated...

[nehoria]

Metrojet 9268 Extended Mode-S Data Decoded - 03/11/15 - FR24 (http://www.flightradar24.com/blog/metrojet-9268-extended-mode-s-data-decoded/)
In addition to our initial data, we have decoded Extended Mode-S data from a single receiver with the best reception in the area of Metrojet flight 9268. This is additional data sent from the aircraft when requested by air traffic control. This data is raw data from the aircraft that has been decoded, but not processed, by Flightradar24. Our previously released data set was synthesized data from multiple receivers processed normally through Flightradar24 servers and did not include Extended Mode-S data.

Upon request, we have supplied this data to the French Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses (BEA) as well as the Egyptian investigative authorities.

Important Notes About Data Validity

We supply this data set with important notes about the validity of certain data within the set.

At this point, from 04:13:13.872 to 04:13:30.653 we consider the altitude values to be unreliable. The altitude value is derived via a pressure sensor, which can be affected by changes in pressure outside the aircraft. In this case, what we’re learning about the state of the airframe calls into question the validity of the altitude readings during this time period. From 04:13:31.143 until our last received signal from the aircraft at 04:13:39.384 we received GPS altitude data from the aircraft. While GPS altitude data is not itself unusual, our receipt of it from this flight is. In normal cases, GPS altitude data must be requested from Air Traffic Control, but in this instance, we only see it in the data set after the flight has experienced a significant event and begun to descend rapidly.

Similarly, True Airspeed (TAS) is a pressure-derived value and may be unreliable after 04:13:13.872.

In this data set, Vertical Speed (Vspeed) is provided from the aircraft via GPS data, not pressure data. Our initial data set provided Vspeed values derived from pressure data, which, like altitude and TAS, we consider unreliable after 04:13:13.872.

[G-CPTN]

How realistic might the FR24 height variations be?

It would seem to be one hell of a ride.

Which part of the airframe constitutes the FR24 altitude trace?

Would a detached section register?

[oleostrut]

"How about the supposed violent ups and down from FR24 data, are they spurious or real? Could the jack screw fail and the HS go uncontrolled? Now the damage to the VS looks like happened in flight and not at the ground impact... Also no wonder the APU/tail cone separated..."

Once the plane was no longer in normal flight, the FR24 data is useless for anything other than indicating the equipment still had power, IMO.

The sensors only read correctly when operated as intended.

[henra]

Could the jack screw fail and the HS go uncontrolled?

Or it was hit by the RPB...


Looking at the damage on the central box/spar structure of the HS it seems conceivable that a huge and sudden excursion of the HS (hit by RPB?) could have been the event initiating the failure of the fuselage structure aft of the CWB.

[Prada]

How about the supposed violent ups and down from FR24 data, are they spurious or real? Could the jack screw fail and the HS go uncontrolled? Now the damage to the VS looks like happened in flight and not at the ground impact... Also no wonder the APU/tail cone separated...

Digital data can not be spurious. There is a data integrity check to avoid garbage transmissions.

These are actual sensor readings in FR24. But the question is what caused sensors to give such readings.
One explanation could be, that sensor ports were over or under pressurized due to abnormal flight attitude and air flow direction. Plane was not flying anymore. It might have rotated somehow for example.

[RatherBeFlying]

The apparent force applied to the tailplane would be consistent with the jackscrew or mounts letting go. But the fuselage would likely have to have still been attached to produce those forces, even though it would be quickly overstressed.

Perhaps that stress would be enough to detach the APU housing before the section [once] holding the tailplane parted with the rear fuselage.

The jackscrew and its connections could become a major focus.

[PilotsResearch]

Where, on the A321, are the sensors that feed the ADS-B transmissions?

[TylerMonkey]

. . . a bit brighter .

http://i21.servimg.com/u/f21/11/94/64/62/image12.jpg