Metrojet crash Eygpt [Archive]

Iceheart

17th Nov 2015, 13:53

The modern mobile phone has a barometer, GPS, accelerometers, microphones, timer, radio links, a huge amount of computing power, and a massive support ecosystem of development tools and optional hardware. It's also an everyday item and possession is entirely unremarkable. You can develop the software anywhere in the world and deploy it anywhere else on demand.

You couldn't hope for a better platform to design an efficient and flexible bomb trigger mechanism, all for a couple of hundred dollars and accessible to people with hobbyist-level skills.

At the same time, modern phone lacks any suitable interface to actually wire it up to the detonator, and the creative modifications required to do it are not exactly hobbyist-level; more so, the modified phone will no longer be "entirely unremarkable" - unless one manages to conceal the entire explosive device within the phone's casing. I defer to demolition experts on whether it is doable.

I agree that It is a possibility, but from an pure engineering standpoint of view, my humble opinion is that using a smartphone as a detonation trigger seems to be too complicated and potentially unreliable way, while, obviously, there are much simpler ways to achieve the same effect, like the $1 wristwatch that you have mentioned.

vmandr

17th Nov 2015, 14:05

It appears all suggestions of "HS jackscrew failure" branch of PPRuNe armchair investigation was wrong

wait, will be followed by the ...'balistics expert' team :p

CONSO

17th Nov 2015, 14:17

For a second straight day French warplanes hit a command post and a recruitment center for jihadists in an Islamic State stronghold, Raqqa, the French Ministry of Defense announced (http://www.defense.gouv.fr/operations/actualites/chammal-nouveau-raid-contre-daech-a-raqqah) on its website, while Russian news reports said a Russian submarine had fired cruise missiles at Islamic State targets in the same area.
Russia struck Raqqa with advanced Kalibr cruise missiles launched from a submarine in the eastern Mediterranean, the RBC news agency reported, citing sources in the Russian Defense Ministry. The agency said it was the first time Russia had fired cruise missiles from a submarine during a war.

oldoberon

17th Nov 2015, 14:24

Think the poster meant mechanical failure, would have thought a bomb in apu compartment would have severely disprupted HS and ripped jackscrew to pieces.

Slow and curious

17th Nov 2015, 14:26

How do you protect your 'mole', if the device is set to trigger while the a/c is still over home territory, leaving evidence right at his doorstep? Doesn't make much sense.

HundredPercentPlease

17th Nov 2015, 15:02

At the same time, modern phone lacks any suitable interface to actually wire it up to the detonator, and the creative modifications required to do it are not exactly hobbyist-level; more so, the modified phone will no longer be "entirely unremarkable" - unless one manages to conceal the entire explosive device within the phone's casing. I defer to demolition experts on whether it is doable.

EDIT: It's a trivial job, involving a tenner and ebay.

Kulverstukas

17th Nov 2015, 15:08

LifeNews published cut from old video with suspected luggage piece.

LifeNews LIFE | NEWS (http://lifenews.ru/news/170325)

"In contrary with other luggage, this one seems bears burn marks from inside".

http://c.lifenewscontent.ru/static/posts/2015/11/170325/799712c85014e9349a87af6495249dcc__660x370.jpg

UPD: Nevertheless, I still not think it was luggage bomb. My opinion it was planted outside rear pressure bulkhead and it was planted from outside.

oyviv

17th Nov 2015, 15:19

Exactly what is the wisdom in posting about possible trigger mechanisms and explosive devices on a public aviation forum???.......?

Propduffer

17th Nov 2015, 16:18

oyviv
There's nothing to worry about with what has been posted here

This is stuff that an industrious middle school kid with a bit of a mechanical aptitude could easily come up with.

Alain67

17th Nov 2015, 16:21

If some people here, not being explosive experts, can imagine such mechanisms, don't you think Daesh have been able too ? They aren't probably (and unfortunately) completely stupid.

Control Eng

17th Nov 2015, 16:35

UPD: Nevertheless, I still not think it was luggage bomb. My opinion it was planted outside rear pressure bulkhead and it was planted from outside.

So, in your opinion, what destroyed the fuselage pressure vessel while still in the air?

There is no evidence of the RPB being thrust forwards!

Kulverstukas

17th Nov 2015, 17:03

There is no evidence of the RPB being thrust forwards!

Blast was not strong enough to damage fuselage, I think. Also RPB is even stronger for external forces because of pressure. But bomb was planted smart enough to make tail detached.

Mark in CA

17th Nov 2015, 17:03

How does Egypt reconcile this with previous announcements concerning various suspects at the airport, etc?

Egypt says has found no evidence criminal action behind plane crash (http://news.yahoo.com/egypt-says-found-no-evidence-criminal-action-behind-153132653.html)

Kulverstukas

17th Nov 2015, 17:09

Mark, may be there is a presumption of innocence in Egypt?

9 lives

17th Nov 2015, 17:10

Exactly what is the wisdom in posting about possible trigger mechanisms and explosive devices on a public aviation forum???.......?

My thoughts exactly. Mods?

Pontius Navigator

17th Nov 2015, 17:29

. Pressure altitude was reached earlier in the flight if device was placed in cargo-hold.
How do you figure that out with a pressurized cargo hold?

BARKINGMAD

17th Nov 2015, 17:29

Slow and Curious posting # 27.

Which type of Airbus has an unpressurised cargo/baggage hold? :confused:

Backoffice

17th Nov 2015, 17:30

J J "TNT type explosive at the rear of the plane - so the video posted by "IS" showing immediate black smoke from fuel on fire is a fake?"

There is a fuel pipe to the APU there.

MountainBear

17th Nov 2015, 17:36

I have no doubt that the Russians found explosive residue on that plane. The question is who put it there? I am deeply suspicious both because of the timing of the announcement (four days after another attack) but also because of the huge reward. I can't imagine Russia actually plans on playing that award to a neutral party.

I'll await the FULL report before making up my own mind--assuming now that we actually see a full report.

Slow and curious

17th Nov 2015, 17:42

@ Pontius, BARKINGMAD
Quote:
"How do you figure that out with a pressurized cargo hold?"

Quote:
"Which type of Airbus has an unpressurised cargo/baggage hold?"

Well, that's what I'm saying. A purely barometric trigger without an additional timer, would have set off earlier.

gcal

17th Nov 2015, 17:47

Does the aircraft uplift catering in the airport?
Given that it had at least 12 hours on the ground then it would no have been catered for the return.
I understand ( but cannot confirm ) that there was a hot meal service on the flight?
Forget the hold - look at the catering.

Swiss Cheese

17th Nov 2015, 18:35

It will also be interesting to see how Putin now deals with the UN on MH17, with the Joint Criminal Investigation report around the corner, and confirmation that it was a Russian made warhead that brought MH17 down. Perhaps a co-incidence of interest will now result in consistent behaviour?

DIBO

17th Nov 2015, 19:24

TNT type explosive at the rear of the plane - so the video posted by "IS" showing immediate black smoke from fuel on fire is a fake?
- "rear" of the plane: as far as I know, a more precise location has not been given, so until further notice it covers everything from the 'rear/aft cargo hold' up to the 'rear pressure bulkhead' and more
- Russian press reports (automatic translation): This is indicated by the fact that personal belongings, luggage and airplane parts were found traces of the explosive foreign production.
- given the presence of the extra cargo hold fuel tanks, following the initial explosive energy, TNT has 5 times more combustive energy, enough to set the (leaking) extra fuel tanks ablaze, with the incomplete combustion producing thick black smoke
- my (military) explosives training was limited to crudely blasting away brickwork with single quarter-kilo TNT sticks, but my uneducated guess would be that a 1 Kg TNT charge in the tail/APU section, would cause massive havoc to the tail section, not corroborated by available photos (it would however explain the HS separation )

thcrozier

17th Nov 2015, 19:42

They didn't say it was TNT, they gave a TNT equivalent, which is the standard for measuring the performance of different substances. In general it's called Relative Effectiveness Factor. TNT has a REF of one.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_effectiveness_factor

Wellfan

17th Nov 2015, 19:55

TAPT is a tad unstable. There might not have been a trigger at all, just a bit of turbulance

Steve6443

17th Nov 2015, 20:03

Mark, may be there is a presumption of innocence in Egypt?

The reaction of the Egyptian Authorities just underlines the fact that they are untrustworthy when they are investigating themselves - remember EgyptAir 990 where they still claim it was caused by a rudder hard-over and not a deliberate act on the part of the relief first officer? Anything to protect their own reputation rather than admit the shocking truth.....

Pontius Navigator

17th Nov 2015, 20:21

S&C, 're-reading your last and your OP I now see what you meant. Earlier in relation to the flight not the cabin.

Yes, a baro-timer would be the best option preventing premature detonation but ensuring detonation at altitude. How calculated point of detonation is something else to argue.

vovachan

17th Nov 2015, 22:19

The FSS guy mentioned a foreign manufactured explosive. Didn't sound like he meant "homemade"

bud leon

17th Nov 2015, 22:28

Quote:
Exactly what is the wisdom in posting about possible trigger mechanisms and explosive devices on a public aviation forum???.......?

My thoughts exactly. Mods?

It's not going to do any harm at all. Anyone with real intent to make such a device is going to be able to work out how to do it with very little technical knowledge and I'm sure there are plenty of places on the web, for example the dark web, where you could get detailed advice if you looked hard enough. I'm sure the bomb making expertise in the extremist community extends far beyond what is discussed here.

CONSO

17th Nov 2015, 22:43

The FSS guy mentioned a foreign manufactured explosive. Didn't sound like he meant "homemade"

Foreign to whom? :rolleyes:

AreOut

17th Nov 2015, 23:12

belfrybat

18th Nov 2015, 00:24

and I'm sure there are plenty of places on the web, for example the dark web, where you could get detailed advice if you looked hard enough.
Never mind the dark web. Anyone more than a little tech savvy and using the rather obvious search terms will find a lot of examples out in the open. In fact, I just did. How to use it with a phone is also quite obvious.

peekay4

18th Nov 2015, 01:41

@AreOut

That's the difference between official and unofficial sources.

Unnamed "US intelligence sources" may leak various info to the media -- such as a belief or speculation that a bomb may have brought down the airliner -- but they don't speak for the government.

A spokesman for the U.S. Department of State, however, conveys official U.S. Government positions as a matter of public record.

Smott999

18th Nov 2015, 02:07

Well what definitive evidence do we have of explosive residue? And of what type?

If the U.S. Is refusing to accept RUssia's assessment that it was a terrorist act, and Egypt (Ok it's Egypt but still ) states it has found no evidence of criminal action....

Then....do we have any specific details re the explosive residue, exactly where it was found, on what debris parts, what type it is, what was the trigger, and so on?

_Phoenix

18th Nov 2015, 03:09

Explosion in APU BAY?
Airworthiness directive:
www.caa.si/fileadmin/user_upload/pageuploads/AD-NOTE/AD-2004/007_DGAC_F-2004-019_B_.pdf
Possible scenario:
http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/e615/o5404x4z8j5j9u4zg.jpg

PAX_Britannica

18th Nov 2015, 05:32

I don't understand... US intel was IIRC first to suggest it was a bomb and now this?

US Department of State spokesperson Eric Toner said the United States has not accepted the Russian government’s conclusion that the Metrojet crash in the Sinai Peninsula was a terrorist act and has yet to make its own conclusion.

Read more: US Govt Refuses to Accept Russian Assessment A321 Crash Was Act of Terror (http://sputniknews.com/world/20151118/1030293580/us-wont-recognize-a321-crash-terror.html#ixzz3rnUUA1eS)

The headline is somewhat contradicted by the body of the article.
We are aware of those reports that Russia has made – Russian Government has made about the cause of the crash of Metrojet flight 9268. In our view, this is an Egyptian-led investigation, and we have not made our own determination about the cause of this incident, nor do I believe has the Egyptian Government. However, we cannot rule out – and we’ve said this before – we cannot rule out at this stage, and must consider the possibility that this crash could have been caused by terrorism and by an explosion onboard. And we’ve said that for a matter of weeks now, but we still have not made a final determination. And again, this is an Egyptian-led investigation into this crash.

Which seems a sensible and measured response, to me.
The text of the briefing is here (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2015/11/249625.htm). Search for "9268" to find the relevant part.

Further brief discussion with US Secretary of State John Kerry here (http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/11/249581.htm).

I'm not aware of any detailed and substantial account of evidence found by Russia-based investigators.

Maybe time to shut this thread down until there's an interim report ?

mitrosft

18th Nov 2015, 05:34

Russian daily Kommersant - Ú-Ãàçåòà - Òåðàêò áåç ñðîêà äàâíîñòè (http://kommersant.ru/doc/2856505)

Explosive device was planted under pax seat in the rear of the plane by the window.

Investigators found a piece of a/c skin with 1*1 meter hole where sides where bend outward.

Type of explosive unknown.

No other details about who planted it,just speculations about ground personnel in SSH.

Mark in CA

18th Nov 2015, 06:41

US Department of State spokesperson Eric Toner said the United States has not accepted the Russian government’s conclusion that the Metrojet crash in the Sinai Peninsula was a terrorist act and has yet to make its own conclusion.

Who the heck is Sputnik News? And why are they the only ones reporting this? Could it be because it isn't true, as PAX_Britannica has already pointed out? In fact, I cannot find any other reference to an "Eric Toner" connected to the US Department of State, except on this web site. Does he even exist?

TWT

18th Nov 2015, 07:00

Sputnik News = Russian Government media outlet.

Kulverstukas

18th Nov 2015, 07:09

As we still have lack of FDR records, will be quite interesting to look at blueprints for signal cables layout in the rear part of A321.

bud leon

18th Nov 2015, 07:47

Mark in CA: I cannot find any other reference to an "Eric Toner" connected to the US Department of State, except on this web site. Does he even exist?

Apparently he does. Not sure what you're getting at. If you read the briefing it's more of an avoid giving a direct answer type of statement obviously for political reasons.

Toner, Mark C. (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/242958.htm)

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2015/11/249625.htm

paulmoscow

18th Nov 2015, 08:24

Type of explosive unknown.
The article in question states: "Какая именно взрывчатка сработала на борту самолета, пока не уточняется."

It means: which type of explosive detonated onboard is not yet specified.

Sober Lark

18th Nov 2015, 08:50

Haven't 'chemical noses' have been developed to provide extra security for searching aircraft?

Apparently there are some kits aircrew can carry although I don't know just how useful they are or if anyone uses them? In-Flight Explosives Detection Kit | ChemSee (http://chemsee.com/explosives-detection/products/in-flight-detection-kit/)

bud leon

18th Nov 2015, 09:04

Would you find any explosive residue on the Aircraft -> No

But on passenger's clothing or baggage? Quite likely.

weebobby

18th Nov 2015, 14:40

This is from the issue 12 of the ISIS magazine.
Also claims that initially a Western airliner was targeted but changed to Russian after they started targeting ISIS

sky9

18th Nov 2015, 14:46

Guardian report in English
Egypt plane crash: Russian media links bomb to airport staff | World news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/egypt-plane-crash-russian-media-links-bomb-airport-staff)

G-CPTN

18th Nov 2015, 15:55

Reading sky9's Guardian link - there's nothing but speculation of the sort that was mooted on PPruNe just after the event.

CONSO

18th Nov 2015, 16:57

ON reuters

Islamic State says 'Schweppes bomb' used to bring down Russian plane | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/18/us-egypt-crash-islamicstate-photo-idUSKCN0T725Q20151118#D1VgjKG74r5f2WBk.97)

Islamic State's official magazine carried a photo on Wednesday of a Schweppes drink it said was used to make an improvised bomb that brought down a Russian airliner over Egypt's Sinai Peninsula last month, killing all 224 people on board.

Pontius Navigator

18th Nov 2015, 17:07

Well that is larger than 100ml

silvertate

18th Nov 2015, 17:08

If they had taken an uplift of drinks in Sharm, the crew would have counted all the drinks and should have spotted something like that.

Note to Pontius - there is no 100ml limit on catering supplies, as you might expect.

Lonewolf_50

18th Nov 2015, 17:18

If they had taken an uplift of drinks in Sharm, the crew would have counted all the drinks and should have spotted something like that.
Theory/guess, not fact:
Within that upload process a previous ISIS cell's scouting operation may have discovered a gap, vulnerability, or loophole which was then exploited.
Theory/guess, not fact

Basis of my speculation: 20+ years of receiving counterterrorism training.

Chronus

18th Nov 2015, 18:28

- "]
- given the presence of the extra cargo hold fuel tanks, following the initial explosive energy, TNT has 5 times more combustive energy, enough to set the (leaking) extra fuel tanks ablaze, with the incomplete combustion producing thick black smoke
my (military) explosives training was limited to crudely blasting away brickwork with single quarter-kilo TNT sticks, but my uneducated guess would be that a 1 Kg TNT charge in the tail/APU section, would cause massive havoc to the tail section, not corroborated by available photos (it would however explain the HS separation )

TNT X Combustive energy than Jet fuel? No, rather an understatement I`d say.
1 gm TNT = 4000 JOULES.
1000 gm TNT = 4,000,000 Joules, result nothing much larger than confetti.

Latest news says the explosive was in a mixer fiz can. If this be true then no way would 1 kg be packed in it.

jxf63

18th Nov 2015, 19:20

TNT X Combustive energy than Jet fuel? No, rather an understatement I`d say.
1 gm TNT = 4000 JOULES.
1000 gm TNT = 4,000,000 Joules, result nothing much larger than confetti.

Latest news says the explosive was in a mixer fiz can. If this be true then no way would 1 kg be packed in it.

One suspects the message got "summarized" on its way up the chain of command viz.

Bomb Tech: We found the device to consist of a :mad: mixture with :mad: brisance generating an overpressure of :mad: kPa and an R.E.F. in the range 0.1 to 1.0

Manager: Sir, it was the equivalent of 10g to 1Kg of TNT

Director: Minister, it was equivalent of 1Kg of TNT

Minister: The device consisted of 1Kg of TNT

:rolleyes:

thcrozier

18th Nov 2015, 19:43

Minister: The device consisted of 1Kg of TNT

Yes, that's exactly how it works!

Lonewolf_50

18th Nov 2015, 19:56

I see the 1/0 switch so supposedly manual activation but only Russians and Ukrainians on the plane...doesn't add up I think that picture was a sample from a "how to" in an ISIS pub, not a piece of evidence from the actual crash. I'd not read too much into it.

quentinc

18th Nov 2015, 20:04

I think that picture was a sample from a "how to" in an ISIS pub, not a piece of evidence from the actual crash. I'd not read too much into it.

And maybe I read too much into it. The Can museum (!) SCHWEPPES-Pineapple soda-330mL-Egypt (http://www.canmuseum.com/Detail.aspx?CanID=39428)

has this can as being from Egypt.... If it is a how to... they happen to have chosen an appropriate can.

StuntPilot

18th Nov 2015, 20:22

4.000.000 J is quite a lot of mechanical energy: it can lift a fire truck 40m high, to give an idea of the damage it can do. An inefficient explosion of a smaller amount of TNT will transfer far less energy to the airplane structure but would be more than destructive enough.

In my opinion the electronics can not have been only pressure based. The altitude where the bomb went off was too close to cruise alt so small measurement errors could have made the bomb fail to explode and if it would explode it would be unclear when.

Taking into account they wanted to film the explosion I think a timer was used. With a couple of sensors (vibration, pressure) it is easy to determine when the plane takes off and wait until the plane is above a predetermined camera position.

Sensor boards that can perform such functions are present in consumer electronics, it is impossible to prevent they get in the wrong hands. To prevent such an event, focus must be on detection of explosives.

jxf63

18th Nov 2015, 21:06

Yes, that's exactly how it works!

I know :ugh: :*

HeartyMeatballs

18th Nov 2015, 21:40

If the bars were replenished in SSH and the bars sealed, then there would be no need for them to be counted by the crew. It could be that someone in the catering company could be the perpetrator. It is my belief something went off in the rear galley area due to the damage on door 4R which wouldn't be the case if it were in the hold.

bud leon

18th Nov 2015, 22:20

Explosive heat is not the only consideration, velocity of detonation, volume of explosive products and fragmentation all come into play.

Chu Chu

19th Nov 2015, 00:19

A range of 0.1 to 1.0 would be equivalent to a range of 100g to 1KG (unless there's a technical point I'm missing). Or maybe the point was that managers can't do math.

thcrozier

19th Nov 2015, 02:05

Hahahaha...
I'd put myself at the Director level, so I know that whatever I receive from the Manager is already filled with errors of all kinds, and whatever the Minister says I said will be ten times as distorted.

And with that, I'd say this thread has run its course. Unless some facts indicating a Black Swan event surface, there is already plenty of information here for enhancing self-education.

jxf63

19th Nov 2015, 06:07

A range of 0.1 to 1.0 would be equivalent to a range of 100g to 1KG (unless there's a technical point I'm missing). Or maybe the point was that managers can't do math.

Good spot ! It was of course a subtle dig at the manager's matk skills and not a typo by me, oh no ;)

Prada

19th Nov 2015, 07:06

Kulverstukas wrote:
PPS almost all suggestions of "tail" branch of PPRuNe armchair investigation was right

I wonder what it means... Is it part of fuselage somewhere from wings to tail, or is it close proximity to tail?

And how burns on passengers and scorched seats can be explained? Heat from explosives only is not sufficient.

Mark in CA

19th Nov 2015, 09:40

bud leon: Not sure what you're getting at.
Not trying to get at anything. When I Googled the name yesterday, nothing turned up other than the above mentioned news source. Nothing from the State Department. I Googled it again today, and now it shows up. Strange.

Uplinker

19th Nov 2015, 11:44

So much for the "least risk bomb location" on A320/321...............:confused:

Kulverstukas

19th Nov 2015, 11:45

Another "source/expert" told "Kommersant (http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2857174)" that bomb was planted under seat in the right rear last row. It makes hole 0.8 x 1 m and cut signal cables to FDR. So either he has some inside info or read pprune/aviaforum.

Also there is another leak, now LifeNews: examination was carried on 34 bodies of passengers occupying rows 32-38, which bears explosion marks and also traces of TNT. No definite place of explosive device determined, versions are from rear cargo hold to under a seat to on the body of suicide bomber to upper cargo compartment.

Also "experts" claims that blast was directed from rear to front, separating tail section, so bodies of the front passengers and crew doesn't' bear explosion marks.

Kulverstukas

19th Nov 2015, 11:56

Also I doesn't see this photo before:

http://s3.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20151118&t=2&i=1095938045&w=&fh=&fw=&ll=644&pl=429&sq=&r=LYNXNPEBAH0YP

from (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/19/us-egypt-crash-islamicstate-photo-idUSKCN0T725Q20151119#hvGSjkcl5wWEsjxq.99)

Pontius Navigator

19th Nov 2015, 16:59

Note to Pontius - there is no 100ml limit on catering supplies, as you might expect.

Statement.

Therefore either lax pax security or lax catering security.

Given an earlier statement (Mitrosoft' s post) that it was under a pax seat suggests pax security.

Lonewolf_50

19th Nov 2015, 19:03

IIRC, in the now locked thread that video was given an analysis by someone who "gets" video creation. I vote with Kulverstukas on that score: not a good piece of input/data when analyzing the event.

Kulverstukas

19th Nov 2015, 19:13

I also can summarize information which we know as 100% facts and can use safely now:

1) Any photo of debris
2) Any video from media agencies shot at the site.
3) Information from FR24, confirmed speed, alt and stage of flight at the moment of accident
4) Information about abrupt ending of FDR recording
5) Information about traces of explosives found at the debris
6) Pax list
7) Condition of airframe and engines from airline papers

Anything else still are "leaks" and BS from unconfirmed "sources"

Any addition to the list?

MountainBear

19th Nov 2015, 19:50

1) Any photo of debris
2) Any video from media agencies shot at the site.
3) Information from FR24, confirmed speed, alt and stage of flight at the moment of accident
4) Information about abrupt ending of FDR recording
5) Information about traces of explosives found at the debris
6) Pax list
7) Condition of airframe and engines from airline papers

Problem is, there is no way to connect the dots between #4 and #5. The only way to get an explosive to manage #4 is either (a) an explosive so large as to rip the plane in half or (b) an explosive that was targeted to do just that--stop the recorders. There is no evidence of the first possibility in the wreckage seen so far and the second possibility is silly because there is no way that any attacker cares about cutting off the recorders.

So I don't believe in the bomb hypothesis--not based on evidence so far.

Kulverstukas

19th Nov 2015, 19:58

The only way to get an explosive to manage #4 is either (a) an explosive so large as to rip the plane in half or (b) an explosive that was targeted to do just that--stop the recorders.

or (c) just by incidence bomb was placed near the signal cables link to FDR/CVR and cut them when exploded.

PS: It was list of known facts, some of them direct, other (like FDR and explosive traces) from official sources, not any attempt "to connect dots".

FlightDetent

19th Nov 2015, 20:12

Kulverstukas, an honest question, assuming you understand the fine differences in who-says-what in RF:

If one is to believe the official statement that explosives had been identified in the wreckage of the A321, why should we not trust the official statement that Malaysian was shot from mid-air? Or vice versa?

respectfully, FD.

ettore

19th Nov 2015, 20:13

An interesting contribution by Al Jazeera

Could a bomb in a soda can really bring down a plane? (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/bomb-soda-bring-plane-151119144902555.html)

Kulverstukas

19th Nov 2015, 20:20

the official statement that Malaysian was shot from mid-air

AFAIK there was no such official statements.

bud leon

19th Nov 2015, 22:39

ettore: An interesting contribution by Al Jazeera

Could a bomb in a soda can really bring down a plane?

From the article:
"Inside the can itself - if filled to full capacity - there are probably 200 to 300 grammes of high explosives. So certainly it’s a viable device," Chris Hunter, an explosives expert, said.

That comment surprises me from an explosive expert, because if the can is 330ml then there was probably around 400g of explosives and possibly more.

RatherBeFlying

19th Nov 2015, 22:50

Assuming reports of placement correct, catering or cleaners have ample opportunity to tuck a device in that corner that heretofore will be carefully inspected.

bud leon

19th Nov 2015, 22:50

MountainBear: So I don't believe in the bomb hypothesis--not based on evidence so far.

But don't you think there is additional context that increases the likelihood of it being a bomb:

- Russian involvement in Syrian/ISIS conflict
- ISIS takes responsibility for plane
- UK and US suspect bomb based on intelligence
- Action taken to change aircraft travel through airport
- ISIS Paris attacks
- Reports that CVR sound signature = bomb
- Complete almost instantaneous in-flight failure of commercial aircraft is extremely rare
- Russian government states it was a bomb (I would not judge its current actions based on MH170)

Seriously, in this case you have to look in the opposite direction of everything right now to think it wasn't a bomb.

Smott999

19th Nov 2015, 23:11

Have they described the type of explosive residue they've found? I am no expert, but presume there are are various types that can be identified?

MountainBear

20th Nov 2015, 00:21

So let's take your comments one by one

- Russian involvement in Syrian/ISIS conflictSure. This speaks to motive. There is no dispute that ISIS had the motive to do it. But motive is not evidence that something was done, only that one desired to do it.

- ISIS takes responsibility for planeISIS (and terrorists in general) take responsibility for things they don't do. They have a vested interest in looking more powerful than they are. So any such claim by them is self-serving.

- UK and US suspect bomb based on intelligenceYes. But intelligence that has not be revealed to anyone. So it's not something we know.

- Action taken to change aircraft travel through airportThis is a mere inference. We don't know what the Egyptians know that caused them to do this. It isn't evidence that a bomb took down a plane.

- ISIS Paris attacksWhat does that have anything to do with anything?

- Reports that CVR sound signature = bombSuch reports are false. That has been explained in the prior thread already.

- Complete almost instantaneous in-flight failure of commercial aircraft is extremely rareTruth. But so are terrorist bombings. So what is you point?

- Russian government states it was a bomb (I would not judge its current actions based on MH170)Yes. But again like the USA and UK we don't have any data, just claims.

bud leon

20th Nov 2015, 01:20

Well we can doubt everything, which is a good place to be if you are doing the actual investigation, but from a helicopter view it looks like a bomb and smells like a bomb and there is more apparent and circumstancial evidence for that than anything else. There is a stronger case for a bomb than the elaborate, evidence poor and extremely hypothetical arguments for a catastrophic tail separation due to mechanical failure.

SKS777FLYER

20th Nov 2015, 01:55

A fresh study has confirmed that people are reluctant to change their minds and adapt their views, even when new information has been presented.

The research from the University of Iowa is based on previous studies indicating that people are particularly likely to stick to their original viewpoint when they’ve had to write their beliefs down– a phenomenon known as the ‘explanation effect’.

Also known as "Don't confuse me with any facts or conclusions by other involved parties, my mind is already made up":}

Kulverstukas

20th Nov 2015, 08:23

Interfax cited source which told that Schweppes can is local Egyptian kind and newer sold anywhere outside.

MATELO

20th Nov 2015, 12:17

@ mountain bear.

"UK and US suspect bomb based on intelligence"

Yes. But intelligence that has not be revealed to anyone. So it's not something we know.

The intelligence has not been released to the public. It may have been passed on at higher echelons

Etud_lAvia

20th Nov 2015, 15:42

Though I have long studied air transport safety (as a matter of personal curiosity), I certainly don't have encyclopedic knowledge of its history.

So I'm asking the readers of this thread, to help me out here. Within these constraints:

• after the early era of jets (say, post 1970)
• from an altitude at or near cruise (say, FL300 +)
• with evidence of major structural failure at altitude
• with a governmental investigation report from one of the principal countries in aviation, making clear findings of probable cause

How many times has a jet airline flight suffered a major structural failure not caused by an explosive weapon, which disabled it so suddenly that the flight crew never sent a subsequent radio message?

I haven't yet thought of an example. Anybody?

Kulverstukas

20th Nov 2015, 16:11

PersonFromPorlock

20th Nov 2015, 16:18

Not from post-1970, but the early Comet failures come to mind. I suppose there could be some analogous hidden fault in the Airbus A-321, but it seems unlikely. In fact, if the authorities thought it wasn't a bomb, I'd expect to see all similar aircraft at least grounded for inspection by now.

Etud_lAvia

20th Nov 2015, 16:21

@ various:

I've seen some reasoning here, which seems particularly at risk to lead to invalid conclusions.

The implicit premise, is that the Presumed Bad Guys are Really Clever and Highly Capable. Therefore, the way an attack played out in detail, is a reflection of Bad Guy planning and decision-making.

I think there is good evidence that in practice, people who commit such depraved acts are not especially clever, or capable. What perhaps sets them apart, is that they are really determined to do things most people would never choose to do.

Example 1: The "Bomb Trigger"

There's been much discussion (in this and the previous thread) about barometrics, timers, consumer electronic devices, etc. I wish to observe that the effect of triggering several minutes AFTER the cabin reaches its maximum pressure altitude, could be achieved by a really crude home-made trigger that by design should have worked earlier, but introduced a delay by accident.

What I'd like to remind folks of, is that it's quite possible there was a really sophisticated trigger; we don't know. It's also quite possible there was a stupid-simple trigger; we don't know. On the basis of publicly available information, we Just Don't Know.

Example 2: Killing the Black Boxes

Terrorists are inherently opportunistic: their attacks are shaped by openings and weaknesses in defenses against them. For this reason, some aspects of such attacks are quite intentional (for example, the type of targets); but others are quite accidental (this target was easier to get to).

Did someone really decide to design their attack, to disable the flight recorders?

If so, WHY? Do we really imagine terrorists sitting around a table saying, "there are some things about our attack we want to keep secret after the plane is destroyed, that MIGHT leak out from the flight recorders. Therefore, we must disable them!" REALLY??????

Did they plant a bomb aft because they concluded that this position was most likely to doom the aircraft?

Did they plant a bomb aft because they expected that this position would be easy for them to access, with a lesser risk of getting caught?

Or maybe, just maybe ... did they stick it under a rear seat, because passengers don't put stuff under seats in the last row?
________________________

Dear armchair investigators, let me remind you of the principle of least hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor).

Let me also remind you (as I believe somebody did on the big thread), Usama bin Laden is on record as saying he did not expect the twin towers to collapse. From his point of view, the cataclysmic scale of devastation was pure dumb luck -- the most elaborately planned terror attack the world has yet seen, made its most terrible effect by accident, not design.

Of course, we are all free to wander out onto the Grassy Knoll (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dealey_Plaza#Grassy_knoll) ... but let's remember that we are much more likely to find our own fantasies there, than anything that actually happened.

FDMII

20th Nov 2015, 16:28

. . . .

How many times has a jet airline flight suffered a major structural failure not caused by an explosive weapon, which disabled it so suddenly that the flight crew never sent a subsequent radio message?

I haven't yet thought of an example. Anybody?
Such accidents are rare. Here are two:

B.O.A.C 911, a B-707 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOAC_Flight_911)

Alaska Airlines MD80 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261)

I think it is healthy, (in terms of how investigators work), to suspend conclusions in favour of an abiding curiosity until we know of the physical evidence, but it certainly seems to quack...

Etud_lAvia

20th Nov 2015, 16:48

@ FDMII

There are other incidents as well, of jets that were at least suspected (if not necessarily confirmed) to have been abruptly wrenched from the sky by "mountain waves" or rotors in the wake of rugged peaks ... but naturally, all of these occurred far below cruise altitude.
________________

In general, since the first generation of transport jets (when engineers had to discover stuff like the effects metal fatigue on pressurized skins, and the deep-stall vulnerability of rear-engine jets) ...

Airplanes have (very simplistically) two kinds of parts. There are those which can fail, leaving the aircraft with the capacity to land safely; and those whose failure is expected to prevent a safe landing.

In jets after the first generation, catastrophic failure of the components in the second category are really, really rare. They are even more rare at high altitude, with favorable weather.

And even when such must-never-fail components DO break (from causes other than a bomb), usually the jet is able to stay in at least minimally controlled flight for several minutes afterward, or even dozens of minutes -- more than enough time for a Mayday.

I suspect (but don't know, because I haven't plowed through a database of all investigated accidents), that the Metrojet crash would, if not caused by a bomb, be the first one ever to meet the criteria I listed in my earlier post.
_______________________

Edited to add: I see you added the Alaska Airlines disaster. Even after the jackscrew mechanism had suffered a severe failure, and the plane pitched into its first steep dive, the flight crew made radio contact with ATC. It's true that they were unable to make a radio call after the jackscrew finally disconnected completely from the HS ... however, the progression of the failure was not so abrupt that the accident occurred without radio communication.

rog747

20th Nov 2015, 16:48

How many times has a jet airline flight suffered a major structural failure not caused by an explosive weapon, which disabled it so suddenly that the flight crew never sent a subsequent radio message?
I haven't yet thought of an example. Anybody?

plenty post 1970
how about
China 747
adam air 737
Egyptair 990
Lauda Air 767
Air Asia A320
Gol 737

plus plenty of crashes such as Gulf air Armenia and XL A320's Birgenair 757
and Flash KQ and ET 737's that did not transmit

all where the crews did not manage any distress call

bubbers44

20th Nov 2015, 17:37

I would put a distress call at the last of my priorities if it would not help in any way. I think most pilots feel the same. Save the ship, if possible, then when you find time deal with the communicating. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

Etud_lAvia

20th Nov 2015, 17:55

@rog747:

Thanks for posting the list!

The China Air Flight 611 crash is a genuine precedent for the Metrojet crash -- if the disaster in the Sinai proves to have resulted from a spontaneous structural failure, and not a bomb. I had not remembered, that the China Air flight made no distress call.
__________________

Indeed, Gol Flight 1907 did suffer a major structural failure at altitude ... after colliding with another jet. I wasn't thinking about that case, and should have specified without external cause. There seems to be no evidence that a collision contributed to the demise of the Metrojet flight.

Of course, we have other examples of structural failure at altitude downing airliners too abruptly for a distress call, where the cause of the failure was external to the aircraft. Even Kremlin fantasists seem to concede that MH17 was destroyed by a missile.

Considering the other accidents in the list:

Adam Air Flight 574, Lauda Air Flight 004, and Air Asia Flight 8501 all suffered major structural failures, but none at high altitude. Like Gol Flight 1907, they all appear to have been broken apart by aerodynamic forces during uncontrolled descent, following a gross upset -- none of them involved structural breakage above FL300.

Egypt Air Flight 990, famously attributed to murder by a flight crew member, had no structural failure at altitude.
__________________

I didn't check all of the other no-distress-call crashes listed, but they seem to be accidents that occurred in approach to landing or soon after takeoff. In conditions of high workload and close proximity to the ground, the absence of radio calls seems natural and expected.

Chronus

20th Nov 2015, 18:28

Yes, that's exactly how it works!

Someone has said it may have been contained in a 330 ml fiz can. This should not weigh more than 300 gm. Would a little tin of fizz weighing in at 1 kg been rather odd. Add to this a trigger/detonator/timer for it to go fizz bang boom, the little can would need to have all the internal dimensions of Tardis.

Back at NH

20th Nov 2015, 18:33

an explosive so large as to rip the plane in half

Alleged bomb estimated at 1kg.

For comparison, an estimated 340g-450g of plastic explosive tore PA103 in half in under 3 seconds.

DaveReidUK

20th Nov 2015, 18:39

Alleged bomb estimated at 1kg.

For comparison, an estimated 340g-450g of plastic explosive tore PA103 in half in under 3 seconds.

No, alleged bomb estimated as having a yield equivalent to up to 1kg of TNT. That could well end up being smaller than the Lockerbie device.

Smott999

20th Nov 2015, 18:50

Respectfully asking -
Have they identified the type of explosive?
And
Is the suspected location sufficient to immediately sever the lines to FDR?

Lastly,
Can we imagine a "non-bomb" failure such that FDR would be immediately disabled?
I.e. The hull failure/explosive decompression much discussed already. Could it explain immediate FDR cutoff?

Back at NH

20th Nov 2015, 18:51

No, alleged bomb estimated as having a yield equivalent to up to 1kg of TNT. That could well end up being smaller than the Lockerbie device. Point taken. Semtex-H, rumoured to have be used on PA103 has REF of 1.35 so yield equivalent would have been at max 600g at Lockerbie.

Kulverstukas

20th Nov 2015, 19:35

Etud_lAvia, +
Lauda Air 767, reverse deployment at cruise.
Speedbird 911, severe turbulence.

Kulverstukas

20th Nov 2015, 19:38

Bomb version close all known holes in the puzzle, so if explosive traces will be confirmed by commission, then I think we will accept it.

Preliminary report due in 10 days.

Etud_lAvia

20th Nov 2015, 20:02

@ Kulverstukas

The Lauda Air crash (already mentioned by rog747) experienced structural failure after its gross upset, probably because airspeed far surpassed Vne in its dive. It broke up only seconds before reaching the ground. The uncommanded reverser deployment likely resulted from a control system failure, not a structural failure.

The BOAC Flight 911 crash, like mountain-turbulence accidents mentioned previously, initiated far below the regime of cruise altitudes (about 16,000 feet).

Sober Lark

20th Nov 2015, 20:04

For comparison, an estimated 340g-450g of plastic explosive tore PA103 in half in under 3 seconds.

Can't really compare the expected results of a different type of bomb placed in a different location on a 747 compared to an A321. The results in loss of life were total but destruction differed.

My main concern is the method of delivery of the bomb and what can be done to reduce risk of recurrence.

G-CPTN

20th Nov 2015, 20:20

Can anyone produce pictorial evidence of what happens when a drinks can packed with explosive is detonated?
What I am hinting at is how might the can fragment?

Apart from the 'peeling' of the skin of the rear fuselage section, there was the 'peppering' of the upper trim panel of the rear door.

Would anyone intending to bring down an aircraft bother to pack 'nails'? - that would be reserved for anti-personnel munitions, Shirley?

Volume

20th Nov 2015, 20:42

How many times has a jet airline flight suffered a major structural failure not caused by an explosive weapon, which disabled it so suddenly that the flight crew never sent a subsequent radio message?
I haven't yet thought of an example. Anybody?Well TWA800 comes to mind as well.
But sometimes it was just luck, that the crew was able to communicate or even bring back the crippled plane.
Like for JAL123 or United 811
Also ElAl 1862 could have happened slightly different and lead to an immediate crash

vice versa there are cases where bomb explosions did not immedialtely tore the plane appart, like swiss 330.

I would currently say that in history the number of both occurences is about the same. We have however learned and improved aircraft design, and we do scrap aircraft earlier today due to their high fuel consumption before they become really old, so structural/system failure leading to an immediate loss should be less probably every day.

Still the bomb theory remains a very plausible one, but without hard evidence I will not yet buy it. Most of the wreakage is found, so finding evidence should be possible. Sooner or later.

RatherBeFlying

20th Nov 2015, 20:42

Can anyone produce pictorial evidence of what happens when a drinks can packed with explosive is detonated?
What I am hinting at is how might the can fragment?

About the same result as wrapping the explosive in barbecue grade aluminum foil.

A Buk it ain't. I'd rather not make suggestions on how to maximize damage with the suspect device or supply search terms.

G-CPTN

20th Nov 2015, 20:45

So the aluminium can is unlikely to be what caused the 'rash' on the door trim panel?

Pontius Navigator

20th Nov 2015, 21:06

Someone has said it may have been contained in a 330 ml fiz can. This should not weigh more than 300 gm.
Just a point of detail, a ml of pure water weighs one gram. I weighed a can and it came to 375 gm.

Kulverstukas

20th Nov 2015, 21:20

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronus View Post

Someone has said it may have been contained in a 330 ml fiz can. This should not weigh more than 300 gm.

Just a point of detail, a ml of pure water weighs one gram. I weighed a can and it came to 375 gm.

If the explosives sinks in water, then it can weight more than 1g/ml. I heard it from Greek guy Archimedes :cool:

PS: C-4 weights 1,44 g/ml so in standard tin can there will be 475g C-4
PPS: 475g C-4 is equivalent to 1.5 x 475 ≈ 700g TNT

bud leon

21st Nov 2015, 02:58

PS: C-4 weights 1,44 g/ml so in standard tin can there will be 475g C-4
PPS: 475g C-4 is equivalent to 1.5 x 475 ≈ 700g TNT

And actually a 330ml can has closer to 380ml capacity - there is always ullage in the top of the can.

So you could say if it was C4 you could have something more than 800g TNT equivalent.

Kulverstukas

21st Nov 2015, 07:38

As for the trigger, could well have been a passenger. ISIL seems to have no shortage of suicide crews. Maybe even a cabin staff if the Schwepps thing is to be believed?

Besides that Russian police investigates such possibility, it's greatly unlikely as it was return charter with mostly families aboard. Crew is highly unlikely too as it's small airline and staff is well paid in industry so rotation is quite small.

Kulverstukas

21st Nov 2015, 08:18

there was also a pre-order duty free service so i hope that has been looked into if any such orders were on-loaded at SSH

AFAIK duty-free uplifted in DME

Kulverstukas maybe knows more on the type of catering actually on board?

I have no reason to doubt link you provided to Metrojet own site, but last year traveler reports shows hot meals on SSH-LED leg. Also it was Egyptian catering IIRC.

gcal

21st Nov 2015, 11:34

A great many airlines have cut back on security of late and many rely heavily on their own or the destinations governments security requirements.
In this day and age you cannot do that and if that means a few extra pounds/euro or whatever on the price of a ticket then so be it.
There should be strong systems in place to ensure that the money is in fact spent on security - no return to the faux security of the pre PA103 days.

Ian W

21st Nov 2015, 12:18

Besides that Russian police investigates such possibility, it's greatly unlikely as it was return charter with mostly families aboard. Crew is highly unlikely too as it's small airline and staff is well paid in industry so rotation is quite small.

As was said earlier, a member of the cleaning crew would have found it easiest to plant the can, if the can was under a seat in the cabin and say up against the cabin wall. All the passenger searching is useless if the airside staff are compromised.

gcal

21st Nov 2015, 13:04

The security that the pax see, the basic screening at the an airport, should and in some locations is, the tip of the security iceberg.
Most screening the pax see is there, pretty much always, to satisfy the politicians and press. It looks as if something is being done.

The behind the scenes security is, in some places, and should be in all the most important part. Or, at very least co-exist with the more obvious.

FDMII

21st Nov 2015, 14:06

A great many airlines have cut back on security of late . . ..
What, and where is the evidence for such a statement? Are you a security expert currently involved and knowledgeable and can support such a statement?

bud leon

21st Nov 2015, 14:17

Quote:
Originally Posted by gcal View Post
A great many airlines have cut back on security of late . . ..
What, and where is the evidence for such a statement? Are you a security expert currently involved and knowledgeable and can support such a statement?
22nd Nov 2015 01:04

Yes, I don't think this is the case, nor do I think there is an argument that the statistical risk of dying in an aircraft terrorist event is significantly different to what it ever has been in the last 50 years. Actually the risk of dying in a terrorist event anywhere is incredibly small. The industry should continue to invest resources in technological safety systems and ensure that pilot training and support is maintained. Any redirection of resources would be misplaced.

FDMII

21st Nov 2015, 14:44

Yes, I don't think this is the case, nor do I think there is an argument that the statistical risk of dying in an aircraft terrorist event is significantly different to what it ever has been in the last 50 years. Actually the risk of dying in a terrorist event anywhere is incredibly small. The industry should continue to invest resources in technological safety systems and ensure that pilot training and support is maintained. Any redirection of resources would be misplaced.
Even as constituents of an explosive device are discussed, in the larger picture (as introduced above), Kahneman (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/12/kahneman-quiz-201112) is relevant here.

Lonewolf_50

21st Nov 2015, 20:46

My main concern is the method of delivery of the bomb and what can be done to reduce risk of recurrence. In support of your point, completely. The unknown may have an impact on the industry.

I reduced my travel not long after 9-11 because the industry became insufferable and I remember so well when air travel was something I looked forward to. (Not to mention the government add on farces that they call "security" at airports). It wasn't because I was afraid the plane carrying me would blow up. (Most recent trip was to Canada last year and to SF this spring, family trips I could not get out of, and I will say in defense of Northwest and Southwest respectively that they did a good job and were basically good to us).

Since the Metrojet incident, and the reports of some planes turning back in the past few days seemingly related (were they? hard to say) to what's going on in Syria and France at the moment, four people I know have cancelled business trips and one a personal travel via air. :eek: While IMO that is an overreaction, given odds and probabilities, once the what and how Metrojet was lost becomes more clear to the public, I suspect that the worries and fears will reduce.

The unknown bothers people in a lot of different ways.

bud leon

22nd Nov 2015, 01:11

FDMII: Even as constituents of an explosive device are discussed, in the larger picture (as introduced above), Kahneman is relevant here.

Couldn't agree more.

anartificialhorizon

22nd Nov 2015, 23:51

You need to understand and tell your friends that this sort of over reaction ( not travelling by air) is what groups like ISIL want.

A parent at my daughters school recently told the school (very publically) that she was pulling her daughter out of a school trip to a show in London, because of fears over terrorism.

To put risks into perspective, in 2013, 1713 people died on Britains roads. I don't see many people refusing to get in cars, cross the road or take the bus.

The risks of being caught up in the ground or the air are almost negligible.

Lonewolf_50

23rd Nov 2015, 02:07

You need to understand and tell your friends that this sort of over reaction ( not travelling by air) is what groups like ISIL want.
I understand just fine, thanks, and if you note from my post my decisions on flying have zero to do with the chance of blowing up. I do not choose to carry the industry's water for them, in re my friends and business associates. They are free to choose based on their own analysis.
A parent at my daughters school recently told the school (very publically) that she was pulling her daughter out of a school trip to a show in London, because of fears over terrorism.
I see stuff like that all the time, in a variety of venues. To be fair, I chose to NOT take the wife to Egypt in the late 90's thanks to the shoot up of the German tourist group. So maybe I fell for it in that case.

oldoberon

23rd Nov 2015, 12:44

the comparison to annual road deaths is not valid.

If you were told a mentally disturbed homicidal maniac had stolen a 40 ton truck and was believed to be on the lower M1 or M25 would you go on the motorway in that area until situation was resolved.

It all depends on your perception of the NOW!

anartificialhorizon

23rd Nov 2015, 21:31

Oldberon - "the comparison to annual road deaths is not valid".

Of course it is valid as it allows you assess risk and decide your actions.

From your example, if such an event happened you wouldnt venture onto said motorway until is was over. But would I go on that particular motorway the next day? YES, of course I would!!!!

I have to fly to accident sites, sometimes on a sister aircraft of the unfortunate aircraft that has come to grief. Do I hesitate? No. I think about it of course, but generally in life lightning does not strike twice... That's my assessment of the risk of getting on that sister aircraft.

Therefore not going to the theatre in London because of what happened at the Paris concert, or not getting on a plane because of Metrojet, is an over (albeit human) reaction.

oldoberon

23rd Nov 2015, 23:39

being a sister ship may make no difference unless you already know the cause of said accident ie it is valid if mech/tech not valid if pilot, weather, however if you knew the cause be no point in going.

we will have to agree to differ.

JamaicaJoe

24th Nov 2015, 03:04

Assuming for the moment that it was not a terrorist explosive.

The A321 was subject of an AD pertaining to an APU explosion that removed the tail-cone and damaged the control surfaces of a plane parked at an airport. This was mentioned briefly by another poster. I think the AD is quite interesting in that this aircraft is of the vintage that would be affected.

deanm

24th Nov 2015, 04:10

JJ:

[1] APU normally not used in flight (so no reason it would take the tail off near TOC).

[2] The AD you refer to was issued in 2005, so 10 years have elapsed for the directive to have been complied with.

[3] Russia now acknowledging explosive residue - quite distinct signature from fuel-fed detonation.

Dean

Kulverstukas

24th Nov 2015, 07:23

The only piece that not fit in puzzle will be rupture of FDR recording. Cables are at the right side, and any evolution you described are well into time frame of discretization on FDR.

Except if, however, information about FDR was correct.

PS: source of bomb placement is LifeNews (http://lifenews.ru/news/171215) but it was not reprinted by any major media yesterday.

PPS: Even "yellow" LifeNews has enough heart to not disclose name of 30A occupant, even less to post photo with "Too young to die ... Maria Ivleva.Source:Supplied" caption...

Prada

24th Nov 2015, 08:13

Kulverstukas

24th Nov 2015, 08:20

Both recorders placed right side in the HS compartment.

Machinbird

24th Nov 2015, 13:35

The only piece that not fit in puzzle will be rupture of FDR recording. Cables are at the right side, and any evolution you described are well into time frame of discretization on FDR.Just a reminder of how the tail came off, the blast appears to have caused an instantaneous transverse failure across the crown of the fuselage at a frame forward of the aft doors.
If the wires transited that area, and were not already destroyed by blast debris further forward, the separation of the fuselage would have parted the wires. Wires just do not stretch.:suspect:

Kulverstukas

24th Nov 2015, 14:00

the blast appears to have caused an instantaneous transverse failure across the crown of the fuselage at a frame forward of the aft doors

Highly unbelievably that 1 kg of TNT can cause such thing in less then 1 sec (and in 1 sec frame there will be at least dozen readouts at FDR).

tdracer

24th Nov 2015, 15:25

Highly unbelievably that 1 kg of TNT can cause such thing in less then 1 sec (and in 1 sec frame there will be at least dozen readouts at FDR).

Kulverstukas, go look on youtube for videos of ground tests were they set off a bomb inside a pressurized airplane. Even a relatively small bomb will cause an amazing amount of damage when combined with a 7 or 8 psi delta pressure across the fuselage.

As part of my job, I've looked at dozens of DFDR readouts. It is very uncommon for any parameter on the DFDR to be recorded at more than once per second.

JamaicaJoe

24th Nov 2015, 20:36

The AD specifically referenced in-flight danger. The explosion risk was fuel mixing with electrical power due to a faulty seal. Not the APU itself failing.

anartificialhorizon

24th Nov 2015, 21:50

Highly unbelievably that 1 kg of TNT can cause such thing in less then 1 sec (and in 1 sec frame there will be at least dozen readouts at FDR).

Kulverstukas,

I think you could stop the FDR with 10ozs if you put it in the right place, i.e next to the power supply. The fact that the FDR reportedly stopped after 1 second would suggest to me that the power supply was immediately interupted by the initial explosion. What happened after that was chain of events, leading to the liberation of the tail section etc. etc.

G-CPTN

24th Nov 2015, 22:28

I think you could stop the FDR with 10ozs if you put it in the right place, i.e next to the power supply. The fact that the FDR reportedly stopped after 1 second would suggest to me that the power supply was immediately interupted by the initial explosion.
So, trace the route of the FDR power supply and check the accessible locations for a b*mb.

clark y

24th Nov 2015, 22:40

Not the first time a bomb has been planted in the same hiding spot.
History repeats.
Philippine Airlines 434.
Aircraft survived with serious damage, 1 pax died and several others injured.

AreOut

24th Nov 2015, 23:15

from wikipedia

"Yousef removed an altered Casio digital watch from his wrist to be used as a timer, unpacked the remaining materials from his dopp kit, and assembled his bomb. He set the timer for four hours later, which was approximately the time at which the plane would be far out over the ocean en route to Tokyo, put the entire bomb back into his dopp kit, and returned to his current seat.

After asking a flight attendant for permission to move to seat 26K, saying he could get a better view from that seat, Yousef moved to that seat and tucked the assembled bomb into the life vest pocket under that seat."

I wouldn't be surprised if terrorists got their idea from wiki(or some other Internet source), this sounds very spooky...

601

25th Nov 2015, 00:12

nobody checks down there for their life vest.....

Well I do.

Volume

25th Nov 2015, 08:15

I do as well.
Once I found the container dangling down and contacted the FA. Comment was only "we do not fly over water today, Sir". They were not interested in somebody potentially messing with it, and probably did no write-up for maintenance to fix it...
On some aircraft it is a hard container, sometimes it is a soft bag.

FlightDetent

25th Nov 2015, 12:37

It is very uncommon for any parameter on the DFDR to be recorded at more than once per second. What about QAR, could the sampling rate be any different? Thanks, FD.

FDMII

25th Nov 2015, 13:42

What about QAR, could the sampling rate be any different? Thanks, FD.
QARs, and QAR data frame design are unregulated (as in, not required), but often have more parameters at higher frame rates than DFDRs in systems which do not "mirror" data going to the DFDR.

I disagree, though not importantly, with tdracer that frame rates greater than one-second are uncommon. CARS 625.33, Schedule 3 (https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part6-standards-a625i3-2467.htm) specifies rates which are essentially the same as U.S. standards (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title14-vol3/xml/CFR-2011-title14-vol3-part121-appB.xml).

There are a number of parameters which are sampled at 1/2", 1/4" and higher, (1/8", 1/10" (B777) & 1/16" (later Airbus)) rates. The reason is logical - Vertical/longitudinal/lateral 'g' for example, change rapidly, as do flight controls positions, aircraft attitudes and some engine parameters.

_Phoenix

26th Nov 2015, 01:08

The number of parameters recorded, the interval and the resolution are in function of year of production.

For a 1997 made:

CFR 14 §121.344 Digital flight data recorders for transport category airplanes:
(d) For all turbine-engine-powered transport category airplanes that were manufactured after October 11, 1991—

(1) The parameters listed in paragraph (a)(1) through (a)(34) of this section must be recorded within the ranges, accuracies, resolutions, and recording intervals specified in Appendix M

There are some parameters with interval below 1 second, as g factors and flight controls position, in Appendix M (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=e3d362bbc44e3d2c14d92cdd3b815b21&mc=true&n=pt14.3.121&r=PART&ty=HTML#ap14.3.121_11500.m)

Data Guy

26th Nov 2015, 06:13

AD 2015-23-13. All A-318, 319, 320, and A321 series airplanes. Allowable load limits on the vertical tail plane could be reached and possibly exceeded. Exceeding allowable load could result in detachment of the vertical tail plane.

SUMMARY: “This AD was prompted by a determination that, in specific flight conditions, the allowable load limits on the vertical tail plane could be reached and possibly exceeded. Exceeding allowable load could result in detachment of the vertical tail plane. This AD requires modification of the pin programming flight warning computer (FWC) to activate the stop rudder input warning (SRIW) logic; and an inspection to determine the part numbers of the FWC and the flight augmentation computer (FAC), and replacement of the FWC and FAC if necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent detachment of the vertical tail plane and consequent loss of control of the airplane.Effective December 29, 2015.” Compliance within 48 months.

“We estimate that this AD affects 953 airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $243,015, or $255 per product.”

FAA AD Link > http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/41103a24e0131b2286257f0700529ecf/$FILE/2015-23-13.pdf (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/41103a24e0131b2286257f0700529ecf/$FILE/2015-23-13.pdf)

ALSO REFERENCED IN THIS AD.

“EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0217R1, dated February 26, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ''the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition.The MCAI states: During design reviews that were conducted following safety recommendations related to in-service incidents and one accident on another aircraft type, it has been determined that, in specific flight conditions, the allowable load limits on the vertical tail plane could be reached and possibly exceeded.This condition, if not corrected, could lead, in the worst case, to detachment of the vertical tail plane in flight and consequent loss of the aeroplane.To prevent such a possibility, Airbus has developed modifications within the flight augmentation computer (FAC) to reduce the vertical tail plane stress and to activate a conditional aural warning within the flight warning computer (FWC) to further protect against pilot induced rudder doublets.”

“Consequently, EASA issued AD 2014-0217 to require installation and activation of the stop rudder input warning (SRIW) logic. In addition, that [EASA] AD required, prior to or concurrent with modification of an aeroplane with the activation of the SRIW, upgrades of the FAC and FWC, to introduce the SRIW logic and SRIW aural capability, respectively. After modification, the [EASA] AD prohibited installation of certain Part Number (P/N) FWC and FAC.”

“Since that [EASA] AD was issued, an additional previously-published Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) was identified, and a new SB was published, for the concurrent requirement to replace the FAC with a unit having a P/N as listed in Table 3 of Appendix 1 of the AD.”

NTSB SAFETY RECCOMMENDATIONS A-04-56 through -62.
See Letter to FAA Administrator Marion C. Blakey, November 10, 2004 which addressed the loss of American Airlines Flight 587 on Nov 12, 2001.
NTSB Letter Link > http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/A04_56_62.pdf (http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/A04_56_62.pdf)

FlightDetent

26th Nov 2015, 10:40

There are some parameters with interval below 1 second, as g factors and flight controls position, in Appendix M (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=e3d362bbc44e3d2c14d92cdd3b815b21&mc=true&n=pt14.3.121&r=PART&ty=HTML#ap14.3.121_11500.m) Thank you. The document linked requires 8 Hz sampling rate for vertical acceleration. As I suspected based on my experience with QAR data on a very similar aircraft. The inital media reports said "no disturbances on the recorders until end", we need to wait and see whether that will be the outcome of official investigation too.

take care,
FD.

A0283

26th Nov 2015, 11:37

Thanks for posting that :). The AD refers to pilot induced rudder doublets. Just one of the boxes to tick off in the Metrojet case. Even when a bomb is officially reported to be 100% certain, knowledge from doublet damages might be used to better understand the Metrojet break up sequence.

To be able to better understand and compare this aspect I wonder if anyone here has information on commercial or test pilots actually performing rudder doublets on Boeing aircraft and their resilience to that kind of pilot action. Condition being Inflight and above 200 knots.

In the AAL587 case it went over Ultimate Load to about 193% of Limit Load at 250knots after about two and a half doublets. In the AAL587 docket there is some information on Boeing design aspects but not surprisingly on doublet statistics (or cases) in Boeing test or operational service (as far as i have read it till now).

I think this is within, but almost at, the 'border' of the Metrojet case. In order not to lose a response, if you have some (deep or detailed) info on this you can also privmail me.

3rd_ear

26th Nov 2015, 19:37

I recently had an interesting conversation with a Russian engineer I've known for a number of years; according to him, he knows at least one of the investigators into this crash and apparently the bomb theory is not universally accepted.

This is proper rumour and should be treated as such; anyway, the story goes that, firstly, the cabin pressure did not spike before falling as one might expect from an internal explosion and, secondly, the sober assessment is one of catastrophic engine failure, hull breach, fuel fire and of course the tail falling off.

Looking at the pictures here (and the video on that page) http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/569907-breaking-news-airliner-missing-within-egyptian-fir-46.html how does this alternative take on events pan out? It's frustrating being unable to see each piece of wreckage in the wider context; the engines and their parts do look very separated from the wings.

I'll leave it to those who know their stuff to dismiss this idea.

twochai

26th Nov 2015, 19:44

To be able to better understand and compare this aspect I wonder if anyone here has information on commercial or test pilots actually performing rudder doublets on Boeing aircraft and their resilience to that kind of pilot action. Condition being inflight and above 200 knots.

Rudder doublet tests on transport category aircraft are approached with extreme caution. They are usually requested by engineers seeking to validate the estimated aerodynamic loads they used in the design and ground testing of the structure of the vertical surfaces.

Such tests are not done without much forethought and a careful briefing..

Rocchi

26th Nov 2015, 20:50

G-CPTN

26th Nov 2015, 21:17

the sober assessment is one of catastrophic engine failure, hull breach, fuel fire and of course the tail falling off.
Explain the lack of data (from the FDR).

Whatever happened 'severed' the data/power lines very early on.

A0283

26th Nov 2015, 23:34

Major items still missing in pictures in the public domain...

A. Fuselage barrel section between wing and tail... (two window rows aft connected to the tail section),
B. Substantial part of the vertical tail and rudder,
C. A large number of seats,
D. ....

As far as i have seen ... No clear evidence of bomb damage on any available picture...
No pictures of burned seats than can shed any light on the direction and extent of the fire in the aft section (point A.)...
From what is published you would expect quite a flash or short flashfire... In what appears to be a very short time. So how would a small bomb explain that. Cutting the APU fuel line of a shut off APU, does not deliver that ? ... Wings and cwt seem pretty complete? ... Did this specific plane configuration indeed carry fuselage tanks apart from the cwt, then these would be a more likely source?
Bomb versus fuel-tank explosion scenario discussions are not new. And appear to be never ending even years after final reports are published.

The engines are pretty close to the wing ... You can see them in a number of pictures taken from the main impact site. They separated rather late. They look pretty clean... and not like having had a catastrophic failure... Kicking out (both) fans is indeed quite unusual...

Another thing is, that we do not know what the site looked like just after the crash. Recovery of the victims has of course been a priority in the early stages.

Too many possible scenarios open at this stage... Is my impression... Which statistically speaking is no surprise :hmm:

Volume

27th Nov 2015, 07:22

I have seen many photos of plane crashes with the engines heavily damaged, but have I don't remember seeing any with a broken fwd fan shaft. Usually what is seen is the main fan disk still attached and heavy damage on all the fan blades. Check out the Comet crash investigation of G-ALYP. If I remember correctly, at least one turbine separated from the shaft. It was confirmed by testing that this can be atributed to gyroscopic loads if the wing pitching moment turns the engines quickly nose-down when the tail is no longer preventing this.
So for me after loss of the tail, separation of the fan and the engines look plausible.
I can not think of any engine failure scenario that separates the fan but leaves the fan blades widely undamaged.

P.S. found a report link here :
http://www.oocities.org/capecanaveral/lab/8803/comgalyp.htm

(b) Investigation by the de Havilland Engine Company Limited

80. The R.A.E. investigation did not deal with the engines. The history of their recovery and investigation is as follows.

81. The centre section of the wing of Yoke Peter was recovered from the sea on the 15th March. It was severely damaged by fire and by impact with the water. It contained the four Ghost engines substantially intact with the exception that the turbine disc of No. 2 engine (port inner) was missing. The shaft on which it had been mounted had broken near the hub to which it was bolted and it had escaped through a large gash in the exhaust cone. The disc has not been recovered.

82. The engines were removed and examined superficially by an engineer from de Havillands Engine Company Limited. They were then sent by air to that company's works where they arrived on the 21st March and were dismantled and examined in detail.

83. Dr. Moult, Chief Engineer of the de Havilland Engine Company Limited, said in evidence that there were no signs consistent with seizure of any engine, or of any excessive internal heat, or of any failure having occurred before the break-up of the aircraft. The extensive fire damage was all external to the engines. The four compressor impellers were intact on their shafts.

84. The turbine discs from Nos. 1, 3 and 4 engines showed no signs of failure. No blades were missing from them. In No. 2 engine, there was no evidence of penetration of the shroud ring surrounding the turbine, either by a blade or by the complete disc. There was no evidence of failure of any blade in any of the engines.

85. Examination of the hubs to which the turbine discs of Nos. 1, 3 and 4 engines were bolted showed that all were on the point of failing. Cracks were found in the same regions as those which had resulted in the fracture of No. 2 engine, which led to the loss of the disc.

86. The remarkable similarity of the damage to the turbine shafts of all four engines pointed to a common cause external to the engines, and further examination showed that the most probable cause was a sudden and very rapid rotation of the whole wing about a transverse axis, nose downwards, while the engines were still running normally. Such a rotation, being about an axis at right angles to the engine shafts, would produce gyroscopic couples tending to bend the shafts in a sideways direction, that is, in the plane of the wing. Since the clearances between the discs and the stationary parts surrounding them are small, signs of rubbing would be expected in definite regions. Examination showed such signs in each engine.

87. From this evidence the conclusion was reached that the engines had run, though only for a short time, possibly a few hundred revolutions after a sudden nose-down rotation of the wing and had not stopped suddenly. Further examination showed other evidence consistent with this, namely the absence of any deformation in the splines on the turbine shafts. This also suggested that by the time the whole of the centre section, including the engines, hit the surface of the sea, the engines were no lancer rotating.

88. The whole of the remaining extensive damage to the engines was considered to be due to impact with the surface of the sea. It was in the main confined to the upper parts of the engines, and was therefore consistent with the deductions from the examination of the centre section of the wing itself, which showed everywhere evidence of the wing having hit the sea upside down.

89. In order to investigate the conditions which were now thought to have caused the failure of the turbine hubs, tests were made on a Ghost engine supported in a framework which was pivoted about a horizontal axis some distance above the engine, so that it could swing in a vertical plane, like a pendulum. The engine was run at normal speed, and was pulled sideways, thus raising it from its lowest position. When released, it accelerated under the combined influence of its weight and the thrust from the jet. The rate of rotation round the transverse axis could be varied by releasing it from different heights. It was found that when this reached a value of nearly 180° a second (corresponding to the centre section of the wing turning upside down in about one second) the turbine disc hub broke and the engine slowed down and stopped without any further substantial damage. Examination showed the same type of failure and symptoms, as were found on the four engines of Yoke Peter.

CONSO

27th Nov 2015, 14:41

Volume said #183 (http://www.pprune.org/9193204-post183.html) (permalink (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/570722-metrojet-crash-eygpt-10.html#post9193204))

Check out the Comet crash investigation of G-ALYP. If I remember correctly, at least one turbine separated from the shaft. It was confirmed by testing that this can be atributed to gyroscopic loads if the wing pitching moment turns the engines quickly nose-down when the tail is no longer preventing this.That gyro loads can be very destructive ( reaction of a spinning disk at right angles to displacement ) was well documented in 1959-1960 re the Lockheed Electra crashes. In those cases, a weakened engine mount on the turboprop engine resulted in near total destruction of the wing and resultant crash(es)

Lessons Learned (http://lessonslearned.faa.gov/ll_main.cfm?TabID=2&LLID=7&LLTypeID=2)

IF the tail separated ( on the metrojet ) allowing a rapid pitch change then tearing of the pylons could be expected.

A0283

29th Nov 2015, 10:38

I stumbled upon a drawing of the damage of the JAL123 tail. Damage was almost exactly like that of the Metrojet tail. So front of leading edge and tip missing, as well as wing box and rudder. And damage in same relative locations. Also same components still missing.

When you look at the english language report of JAL, the drawing appears to be a little different. But still a lot of similarities.

The structure size is of course quite different. And the location of the fin box versus the location of the pressure bulkhead also.

But still.

This could make a bomb in the cabin scenario a little less probable.

I wonder if anyone has a link to the Japanses language version of the report.. I hope the photos and drawings in that one are better than the ones that i have now.

G-CPTN

29th Nov 2015, 10:51

'Explosive decompression' could occur due to a bomb - even a small one.

How Mike

30th Nov 2015, 04:48

A0283:
You may find JAL123 AAR by JTSB (parts you wanted) at:
http://www.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/rep-acci/62-2-JA8119.pdf
(Cover page)
http://www.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/62-2-JA8119-05.pdf (illustrations)
http://www.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/62-2-JA8119-06.pdf (photos 1)
http://www.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/62-2-JA8119-07.pdf (photos 2)
http://www.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/62-2-JA8119-08.pdf (photos 3)

SKS777FLYER

30th Nov 2015, 19:24

AO283 post 177 concerning rudder doublet testing

Rudder doublets were not required nor were they tested/attempted during certification of Airbus A300 (AA587 aircraft) nor were doublets attempted/ required of Boeing 767 / 757 certification.

When asked about rudder doublets testing by Airbus while investigating the smoking wreckage of AA587, the Airbus safety/ pilot representative on site stated the "no they are not tested during certification, the vertical stabilizer would likely detach from the aircraft."

I doubt if other Airbus or Boeing commercial aircraft types are rudder doublet tested either.

Kulverstukas

14th Dec 2015, 08:07

Reuters: Egypt has completed a preliminary report on the Russian plane crash in Sinai on Oct. 31 that killed all 224 people on board, the civil aviation ministry said on Monday.

"The technical investigative committee has so far not found anything indicating any illegal intervention or terrorist action," the ministry said in a statement.

Lancair70

14th Dec 2015, 09:41

I'm sure that earlier in this thread, someone predicted the Egyptians would find nothing terrorist related. This crash has affected their tourism industry and they're very keen to get it back where it was.

How surprising that they'd find different to Western and Russian investigators, just like they have done before.

wilyflier

14th Dec 2015, 09:55

Although I have followed the full thread I seem to have missed something.
Have we definitely seen the starboard tailplane?
Has anyone seen or got posession of SCREWJACK and end fittings?

If Egypts findings are sound it is wicked to cry " bomb" as an excuse for military politics.

Kulverstukas

14th Dec 2015, 10:33

I can't find any statement or even news on Egypt's Civil aviation ministry website. Anybody seen it except from Reuter's guys?

ThinkRate

14th Dec 2015, 10:39

The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/russian-plane-crash-report-live-sinai-jet-was-not-brought-down-by-isis-terrorists-a6772146.html)

Russian plane crash: Egypt report says 'no evidence' Sinai jet was brought down by Isis terrorists

Kulverstukas

14th Dec 2015, 11:56

UPDATED: Egypt says preliminary investigation shows no evidence of terrorist attack in Russian plane crash

Ahram Online , Monday 14 Dec 2015

Egypt's civil aviation ministry said in a statement on Monday that results of a preliminary investigation into the downing of a Russian plane over Egypt's Central Sinai in October indicate that the crash was not the result of a terrorist act.

"The investigative committee completed on Sunday the preliminary report on the [Russian] plane crash," a statement sent to Ahram Online by Egypt's civil aviation ministry said.

"The technical investigative committee has so far not found any evidence indicating criminal or terrorist activity in the downing of the plane, chief investigator Ayman El-Muqqadam said.

The statement added that a copy of the report has been sent to authorised international experts taking part in the probe, including from Russia, Ireland, and France, and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

On 17 November, Russia asserted for the first time that a homemade bomb containing up to 1 kilogram of TNT blew apart the Airbus A321, which took off from the Egyptian resort of Sharm El-Sheikh en route to Russia's St Petersburg.

Since the 31 October crash, which claimed the lives of all 224 aboard, Egypt insisted that its full investigation must be completed to definitevely determine the cause of crash.

The Egyptian government has dismissed statements made by the US and Britain which back Russian assertion of a terrorist attack, saying that only an official probe can draw such a finding.

He added that the committee is "continuing its work," saying that the preliminary conclusion will be verified with more detailed information in later phases of the probe.

Quashing theories that the bomb was planted on the plane in Turkey, El-Muqqadam affirmed that black box recordings of the passenger jet indicated that the aircraft's route for five days prior to the crash remained confined to flights between Egyptian and Russian airports only,

Several countries have suspended flights to Sharm El-Sheikh or Egypt altogether over security fears, prompting concerns that the country's already-troubled tourism industry -- could face a huge drop.

Russia has also banned incoming flights by Egypt's state-owned airline EgyptAir over concerns of the company's implemented security measures on the back of the disaster.

paully

14th Dec 2015, 12:17

No suprises then that the Egyptian Authorities have their heads firmly buried in the Sinai sand, hoping this cloud will pass over and the tourist dineros start to flow again. With this attitude, its difficult to believe that they can ever get Sharm security up to and maintained to International standards.If any of their airports.

I see EZY have pulled the route from September 2016, frankly can`t see anyone flying there anytime soon.

HeartyMeatballs

14th Dec 2015, 12:51

Does anyone know if MetroJet are still flying? I've not seen any of their flights on the tracker for weeks.

180backtrack

14th Dec 2015, 13:14

According to Wikipedia, Metrojet have suspended all operations from 5 December until next summer due to a severe reduction in passengers as a result of the accident and the security situation at its primary leisure destinations in Egypt.

Downwind Lander

14th Dec 2015, 13:21

Kulverstukas says: "UPDATED: Egypt says preliminary investigation shows no evidence of terrorist attack in Russian plane crash"

The strange curving of the fuselage in this picture in #1206 needs explaining:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/569907-breaking-news-airliner-missing-within-egyptian-fir-61.html

Does a sudden decompression explain it?

Cazalet33

14th Dec 2015, 14:10

Egypt's civil aviation ministry said in a statement on Monday that results of a preliminary investigation into the downing of a Russian plane over Egypt's Central Sinai in October indicate that the crash was not the result of a terrorist act.

"The investigative committee completed on Sunday the preliminary report on the [Russian] plane crash," a statement sent to Ahram Online by Egypt's civil aviation ministry said.

"The technical investigative committee has so far not found any evidence indicating criminal or terrorist activity in the downing of the plane, chief investigator Ayman El-Muqqadam said.

So, no evidence to support the 'conspiracy theory' of a terrorist action.

Sure, absence of evidence isn't quite the same thing as evidence of absence, but the absence of any evidence to support the 'conspiracy theory' that the aircraft was bombed out of the air deliberately is desperately thin.

No bomb. No missile. Quite reminiscent of TWA800 when the FBI tried to prove their conspiracy theory and the poor old NTSB was left with the conundrum of trying to claim that their own 'scientific' conclusions were wrong.

FDMII

14th Dec 2015, 14:12

What strange curving? It's a large section of skin & L3 door from the left mid-section just over the wing that's been torn from the structure just as the rest of the fuselage aft of the wings has been. The structure on the right is the aft section of the left-wing fairing.

Regarding "absence of evidence" & "evidence of absence", the Egyptians obviously need to fill in the gaping absence of explanations if the bomb theory is toast.

Similarly, I know the MAK is good, but the Russians need to provide the same quality of evidence for their bomb theory.

Either explanation needs to withstand independent scrutiny by people and organizations who do this kind of investigation work in their sleep.

Until then, all explanations are sadly just political posturing no matter what is said.

Simplythebeast

14th Dec 2015, 14:58

Its not as if it would be beneficial to the Egyptians to disprove any bombing is it. I mean....what would they have to gain? Oh.

Kulverstukas

14th Dec 2015, 15:00

I know the MAK is good, but the Russians need to provide the same quality of evidence for their bomb theory.

It's nothing to do with MAK, bomb "evidence" came from FSB which makes analysis of "samples" collected by EMERCOM rescue team. So it's part of criminal investigation not one carried out under ICAO rules.

Still waiting for any party involved to publish this report or at least confirm that they receive it.

FDMII

14th Dec 2015, 15:16

Thank you for the correction, Kulverstukas, much appreciated.

Slow and curious

14th Dec 2015, 15:51

Egypt says, no evidence of a crime.

Russia claims they have evidence that a bomb was the problem.

What is Airbus saying?

(Credibility: the quality of being believed in)

Kulverstukas

14th Dec 2015, 18:09

Issuance of the Preliminary Report for the Metrojet Russian Airplane accident (http://www.civilaviation.gov.eg/News/news%20pages%20ar/messs_14_12_2_15.html)

Cairo, December 14, 2015

Captain Ayman ElMokaddem, chief of the International investigation committee (Investigator in Charge), investigating the accident of the Metrojet airplane declared that, as a progress in the investigation work, and in accordance with Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation ICAO, the committee has finished the "Preliminary Report". This report has been sent to all Accredited Representatives for the States that have the right to participate in the investigation, in addition to the International Civil Aviation Organization ICAO. Captain ElMokaddem added that the report includes 19 typical articles well known in accidents investigations, and includes the preliminary information that is available to the investigation committee up till this date. The report includes also some information that will be subjected to developments through the next phases of investigation. Captain El Mokaddem indicated that the scope of investigation for the wreckage parts has extended for more than 16 kilometers from the main wreckage site. He assured also that the members of the forensic medicine task group within the investigation committee had received the reports regarding the examination of the bodies made by the forensic doctors. The committee is waiting for the comparison reports from the Russian side to identify the victims status after knowing the DNA analysis for their families and kins. The committee received support from Egyptian experts, faculty of engineering, Cairo University for producing photos for the airplane wreckage, using a three dimensional advanced camera, to assist in making a record for the status and shape of the wreckage and its relative positions at the impact site. About 30 working hours were dedicated to this task. In addition, a specialized team from the "Metallurgy Center for Researches and Development" had visited the wreckage site for the visual examination, preparing for the second phase of wreckage analysis after transferring it to Cairo. The committee has offered the full opportunity to all the concerned parties including the insurance company officials and the Russian working team to examine the wreckage at the site. This was done in accordance with the international regulations, before transferring the wreckage from the site for the following investigation phases. Flight Data Recorder FDR information indicated that all the flights made by this airplane, five days before the accident were between Russian airports and Egyptian airports. For the flight just before the accident flight, the airplane departed from Samara Russia and landed in Sharm El Sheik. The system group within the investigation committee, spent about 30 hours in removing 38 computer units belonging to the airplane, in addition to two other computer units belonging to the engines from the wreckage at the accident site. The units had been transferred to Cairo for the purpose of thorough investigation by the specialized task groups. The operation group within the investigation committee, with the Russian side, had examined the pilots’ information related to their flying licenses and their medical check. Detailed examinations of the information related to the pilots training are being done now, after translating this information from the Russian language. The technical status, and the detailed repairs that were carried out on the airplane, its structure, systems and engines since the date of production up to the date of the accident, are being studied now. This study is supported by the relevant airplane technical documents and records delivered from the Russian side. This study needs plenty of time, as the airplane had been produced on 1997. The wreckage group within the investigation committee, and for about 250 working hours, have done an extensive photography, identified the locations, sorted and classified the wreckage parts scattered within the wreckage site, developed a wreckage plan to deduce the different effects on each part of the airplane, linking this with the technical history to use that in the following investigation phase. Work in this area is still under progress. Captain El Mokaddem added that, all the Accredited Representatives representing the states participating in the investigation have been granted all the rights that are defined in Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Cooperation and communication with them are still in a continuation process to exchange information regarding the accident. Fifteen trips to the wreckage site have been organized by the Egyptian Air force using helicopters. Coordination is still under progress with the Egyptian Army, to benefit from their capabilities so as to transfer the wreckage from the accident site, after completing all the required examinations, and to collect it in a secure place in Cairo that allow the committee to start new phases of investigation. Captain El Mokaddem revealed that, the committee did not receive up till now any information indicating unlawful interference, consequently the committee continues its work regarding the technical investigation.

PrivtPilotRadarTech

14th Dec 2015, 18:41

If it was a bomb the evidence should be abundant and conclusive, and it's readily accessible in that barren landscape. The suddenness, flash seen by satellites, and Russian conclusions convinced me. <shrug> Denial is a river that runs thru Egypt.

WillowRun 6-3

14th Dec 2015, 18:54

It's nothing to do with MAK, bomb "evidence" came from FSB which makes analysis of "samples" collected by EMERCOM rescue team. So it's part of criminal investigation not one carried out under ICAO rules.
and then:
" . . . . the committee did not receive up till now any information indicating unlawful interference, consequently the committee continues its work regarding the technical investigation."
Kulverstukas, do you also read the sentence quoted above from the news item about issuance of the preliminary report to mean that the investigation committee is tacitly (or not so tacitly) stating that it has not received any outputs from the [paraphrasing] analysis by the FSB of samples collected by EMERCOM rescue teams? If that is not how you would read that sentence, then what, if anything, are the investigation authorities in Egypt saying about the subject analysis, samples and so on?

Kulverstukas

14th Dec 2015, 19:23

I read this as carefully phrased evidence that investigation led by Egyptian officials is carried by them without real cooperation with all other parties presented. And that at least Russia sent separate rescue/investigation team, under EMERCOM control/roof, which carried out it's own investigation.

"This report has been sent to all Accredited Representatives for the States that have the right to participate in the investigation" I read as "this report was composed by Egyptian team and even was not read yet by other countries investigators".

Lonewolf_50

14th Dec 2015, 20:18

Denial is a river that runs thru Egypt. Ample precedent to feel that this is happening again thanks to Egyptair 990 investigation's results.

Disappointing, but I do take some encouragement that the investigation is ongoing. Other things may still turn up or present themselves as they probe/analyze deeper.

Kulverstukas

15th Dec 2015, 21:43

Investigator in Charge: the Investigation Committee of Russian plane has not ruled out any of the assumptions (http://www.civilaviation.gov.eg/News/news%20pages%20ar/messs_15_12_2_15.html)

Cairo, December 15, 2015.

Captain Ayman Al Mokadem, Chief Investigator of the Russian Metrojet accident, said that the Preliminary Report of the Accident released yesterday states that “the committee did not receive up till now any information indicating unlawful interference, consequently the committee is continuing its work regarding the technical investigation”. He added that The Preliminary Report does not refer by any mean to the exclusion of any of the possible scenarios of the crash, and that the Committee has not ruled out any of the assumptions in this regard. Al Mokadem confirms that in case the committee discovers any evidence during the investigation or receives any documented information about unlawful interference, the technical investigation would come to an end as the entire case should be handed over to the Public Prosecutor. Al Mokadem clarifies that the Accident Investigation Committee issued this Preliminary Report in accordance to the Annex number "13" of the International Civil Aviation Organization ICAO after one month of the accident.

HighAndFlighty

16th Dec 2015, 05:09

Well, the report referenced by Kulverstukas was really painful reading.

I've added some paragraph breaks, which help a little bit.

Issuance of the Preliminary Report for the Metrojet Russian Airplane accident (http://www.civilaviation.gov.eg/News/news%20pages%20ar/messs_14_12_2_15.html)

Cairo, December 14, 2015

Captain Ayman ElMokaddem, chief of the International investigation committee (Investigator in Charge), investigating the accident of the Metrojet airplane declared that, as a progress in the investigation work, and in accordance with Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation ICAO, the committee has finished the "Preliminary Report".

This report has been sent to all Accredited Representatives for the States that have the right to participate in the investigation, in addition to the International Civil Aviation Organization ICAO.

Captain ElMokaddem added that the report includes 19 typical articles well known in accidents investigations, and includes the preliminary information that is available to the investigation committee up till this date. The report includes also some information that will be subjected to developments through the next phases of investigation.

Captain El Mokaddem indicated that the scope of investigation for the wreckage parts has extended for more than 16 kilometers from the main wreckage site. He assured also that the members of the forensic medicine task group within the investigation committee had received the reports regarding the examination of the bodies made by the forensic doctors. The committee is waiting for the comparison reports from the Russian side to identify the victims status after knowing the DNA analysis for their families and kins.

The committee received support from Egyptian experts, faculty of engineering, Cairo University for producing photos for the airplane wreckage, using a three dimensional advanced camera, to assist in making a record for the status and shape of the wreckage and its relative positions at the impact site. About 30 working hours were dedicated to this task. In addition, a specialized team from the "Metallurgy Center for Researches and Development" had visited the wreckage site for the visual examination, preparing for the second phase of wreckage analysis after transferring it to Cairo.

The committee has offered the full opportunity to all the concerned parties including the insurance company officials and the Russian working team to examine the wreckage at the site. This was done in accordance with the international regulations, before transferring the wreckage from the site for the following investigation phases.

Flight Data Recorder FDR information indicated that all the flights made by this airplane, five days before the accident were between Russian airports and Egyptian airports. For the flight just before the accident flight, the airplane departed from Samara Russia and landed in Sharm El Sheik.

The system group within the investigation committee, spent about 30 hours in removing 38 computer units belonging to the airplane, in addition to two other computer units belonging to the engines from the wreckage at the accident site. The units had been transferred to Cairo for the purpose of thorough investigation by the specialized task groups.

The operation group within the investigation committee, with the Russian side, had examined the pilots’ information related to their flying licenses and their medical check. Detailed examinations of the information related to the pilots training are being done now, after translating this information from the Russian language.

The technical status, and the detailed repairs that were carried out on the airplane, its structure, systems and engines since the date of production up to the date of the accident, are being studied now. This study is supported by the relevant airplane technical documents and records delivered from the Russian side. This study needs plenty of time, as the airplane had been produced on 1997.

The wreckage group within the investigation committee, and for about 250 working hours, have done an extensive photography, identified the locations, sorted and classified the wreckage parts scattered within the wreckage site, developed a wreckage plan to deduce the different effects on each part of the airplane, linking this with the technical history to use that in the following investigation phase. Work in this area is still under progress.

Captain El Mokaddem added that, all the Accredited Representatives representing the states participating in the investigation have been granted all the rights that are defined in Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Cooperation and communication with them are still in a continuation process to exchange information regarding the accident.

Fifteen trips to the wreckage site have been organized by the Egyptian Air force using helicopters.

Coordination is still under progress with the Egyptian Army, to benefit from their capabilities so as to transfer the wreckage from the accident site, after completing all the required examinations, and to collect it in a secure place in Cairo that allow the committee to start new phases of investigation.

Captain El Mokaddem revealed that, the committee did not receive up till now any information indicating unlawful interference, consequently the committee continues its work regarding the technical investigation.

Peter H

16th Dec 2015, 13:53

HighAndFlighty: Well, the report referenced by Kulverstukas was really painful reading.
I've added some paragraph breaks, which help a little bit.
... and I've shortened the line-length, hoping that also helps.

Issuance of the Preliminary Report for the Metrojet Russian Airplane accident (http://www.civilaviation.gov.eg/News/news%20pages%20ar/messs_14_12_2_15.html)

Cairo, December 14, 2015

Captain Ayman ElMokaddem, chief of the International investigation committee (Investigator
in Charge), investigating the accident of the Metrojet airplane declared that, as a progress
in the investigation work, and in accordance with Annex 13 to the Convention on International
Civil Aviation ICAO, the committee has finished the "Preliminary Report".

This report has been sent to all Accredited Representatives for the States that have the
right to participate in the investigation, in addition to the International Civil Aviation
Organization ICAO.

Captain ElMokaddem added that the report includes 19 typical articles well known in accidents
investigations, and includes the preliminary information that is available to the investigation
committee up till this date. The report includes also some information that will be subjected
to developments through the next phases of investigation.

Captain El Mokaddem indicated that the scope of investigation for the wreckage parts has extended
for more than 16 kilometers from the main wreckage site. He assured also that the members of
the forensic medicine task group within the investigation committee had received the reports
regarding the examination of the bodies made by the forensic doctors. The committee is waiting
for the comparison reports from the Russian side to identify the victims status after knowing
the DNA analysis for their families and kins.

The committee received support from Egyptian experts, faculty of engineering, Cairo University for
producing photos for the airplane wreckage, using a three dimensional advanced camera, to assist in
making a record for the status and shape of the wreckage and its relative positions at the impact
site. About 30 working hours were dedicated to this task. In addition, a specialized team from the
"Metallurgy Center for Researches and Development" had visited the wreckage site for the visual
examination, preparing for the second phase of wreckage analysis after transferring it to Cairo.

The committee has offered the full opportunity to all the concerned parties including the insurance
company officials and the Russian working team to examine the wreckage at the site. This was
done in accordance with the international regulations, before transferring the wreckage from
the site for the following investigation phases.

Flight Data Recorder FDR information indicated that all the flights made by this airplane, five
days before the accident were between Russian airports and Egyptian airports. For the flight just
before the accident flight, the airplane departed from Samara Russia and landed in Sharm El Sheik.

The system group within the investigation committee, spent about 30 hours in removing 38
computer units belonging to the airplane, in addition to two other computer units belonging
to the engines from the wreckage at the accident site. The units had been transferred to Cairo
for the purpose of thorough investigation by the specialized task groups.

The operation group within the investigation committee, with the Russian side, had examined
the pilots’ information related to their flying licenses and their medical check. Detailed
examinations of the information related to the pilots training are being done now, after
translating this information from the Russian language.

The technical status, and the detailed repairs that were carried out on the airplane, its
structure, systems and engines since the date of production up to the date of the accident,
are being studied now. This study is supported by the relevant airplane technical documents
and records delivered from the Russian side. This study needs plenty of time, as the airplane
had been produced on 1997.

The wreckage group within the investigation committee, and for about 250 working hours, have
done an extensive photography, identified the locations, sorted and classified the wreckage
parts scattered within the wreckage site, developed a wreckage plan to deduce the different
effects on each part of the airplane, linking this with the technical history to use that in
the following investigation phase. Work in this area is still under progress.

Captain El Mokaddem added that, all the Accredited Representatives representing the states
participating in the investigation have been granted all the rights that are defined in Annex
13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Cooperation and communication with them
are still in a continuation process to exchange information regarding the accident.

Fifteen trips to the wreckage site have been organized by the Egyptian Air force using helicopters.

Coordination is still under progress with the Egyptian Army, to benefit from their capabilities
so as to transfer the wreckage from the accident site, after completing all the required
examinations, and to collect it in a secure place in Cairo that allow the committee to start
new phases of investigation.

ettore

22nd Dec 2015, 23:15

Looks like a reality check by the Egyptian authorities...

Egypt’s government has hired international consultancy Control Risks to audit its airport security in the wake of the Russian jet crash in Sinai that led foreign leaders to curtail flights to the country.

London-based Control Risks will first inspect airports in Cairo, the country’s principal hub, and Sharm El Sheikh, the final takeoff point of the Metrojet plane that crashed on Oct. 31 and killed all 224 people aboard, Egypt’s Civil Aviation Minister Hossam Kamal said Tuesday,

Other airports across the country would be checked at a later date, he said.

Source: International Firm to Inspect Egypt?s Airports After Sinai Disaster - WSJ (http://www.wsj.com/articles/international-firm-to-inspect-egypts-airports-after-sinai-disaster-1450803727)

airman1900

23rd Dec 2015, 02:16

URL for below article not requiring a Wall Street Journal subscription:

International Firm to Inspect Egypt?s Airports After Sinai Disaster - WSJ (http://on.wsj.com/1Omw7pH)

Source: International Firm to Inspect Egypt's Airports After Sinai Disaster - WSJ

Mark in CA

24th Dec 2015, 11:58

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Alexander Bortnikov, the head of Russia's Federal Security Service, said on Thursday Russia had identified groups behind the explosion of a Russian plane in Egypt, which killed all 224 passengers on board in October, local news agencies reported.

(Reporting by Vladimir Soldatkin; editing by Dmitry Solovyov)
No other details, yet.

MrSnuggles

26th Dec 2015, 09:37

Recent news in Swedish:

Ryska utredare har hittat spår av sprängämne i Sinaiplanet - DN.SE (http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/ryska-utredare-har-hittat-spar-av-sprangamne-i-sinaiplanet-1/)

Ryska haveriutredare som undersökt delar av det ryska passagerarplan som störtade i Sinaiöknen i oktober säger nu att man har hittat spår av sprängmedlet C-4.
[...]

På fredagen skriver den ryska tidningen Kommersant (http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2882755) att utredare i Ryssland hittat ett en meter stort hål som sprängts inifrån och ut från flygplanskroppen och där också spår av det plastiska sprängämnet C-4.
Ryska myndigheter gick redan i mitten av november (http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/ryska-myndigheter-det-var-en-bomb-pa-planet/) ut med beskedet att man var säkra på att det var en bomb som låg bakom kraschen.
[...]

Egyptiska myndigheter sa så sent som den 14 december (http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/egyptiska-flygutredarna-inga-spar-efter-terrordad/) att man inte hade några bevis på att det rörde sig om ett terrorattentat.

My very short translation:

Russian aviation investigators who investigated parts of the Russian passenger plane that went down in Sinai desert now says they have discovered traces of the explosive C-4.

This Friday the Russian paper Komersant writes that investigators have found a one metre large gap in the airplane body, also with traces of C-4.