Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Two Russian pax a/c crashed within minutes of each other

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Two Russian pax a/c crashed within minutes of each other

Old 25th Aug 2004, 21:14
  #81 (permalink)  
Union Goon
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Don't forget Aeroflot never had a crash during the communist years

One of my mom's friends went to Russia (excuse me the soviet Union) on some sort of cultural exchange in the mid 70s. She never came home. Just dissappeared. It turned out about a year later the family found out they had perished in a plane crash.

While the laws of very large numbers make such a thing as the Russian accidents theoretically possible (Its those same large numbers that make some people think they are psychic, we can discuss it in a thread on numbers theory and gambling if you want) GENERALLY, the the more likely explanation of human intervention would be where I would place my money.



Too many coincidences to run together. Departure airport, timing, low PAX count (Ideal for an inflight takeover), no distress call (in a lot of ways eerily similar to 9/11)

A weakness was found and exploited I am sad to say. And the problem is that the nature of aviation is such that EVERY airport has weaknesses, and always will.

Cheers
Wino
Wino is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2004, 21:37
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Scotland
Age: 41
Posts: 416
Some posts earlier on refer to a possible test run for future terrorist plans..... I find this more doubtfull as after attacks of this nature (though we don't KNOW that yet) security would be stepped up dramatically so theories about planting items in the cabin before hand etc etc would be harder to do... I hope! I was on one of the first flights out of Gatwick to the USA 3years ago, and my flight was delayed almost 2 hours, just because of the extra security-hand searching every item of hand baggage etc...

One other thought... would it not be possible for an aircraft to appear to "explode" in mid air if it was say, descending a wee bit too fast, and not necessarily a bomb going off? I seem to remember watching video reconstructions on the TWA 747 where they believe the wings ripped off and the fuel igniting after the initial inflight seperation, due to the rapid speed the main part of the aircraft subsequently acheived. Possible that in a hijacking and consequent struggle for control, the aircraft could be put into an unrecoverable situation, thus massive speed exceedence...
simfly is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2004, 22:30
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 743
From LatviaCalling:

Witnesses on the ground saw them both explode in the air, and not on the ground.
Can you please tell more? So far I have only read of witnesses hearing the Tu-134 coming down:

Residents of the village recounted the sounds of the disaster.

"There were three loud bangs ... like someone knocking, like breaking glass," said Nikolai Gorokhov, who was in his home when the plane crashed. "I thought it was thunder at first."

Yevgeny Chorkin, 17, said he also heard three bangs. "First there was the sound of roaring, as if the plane was flying very low, then came an explosion, like thunder, followed by two more blasts after a couple of seconds. And that was it," Chorkin said.

Olga Yevseyeva said she was putting her son to bed at 10:55 p.m. when she heard a loud roar and smelled burning rubber.

"Then there was a hollow bang and a crash, and that was it," she said. "Silence."
cringe is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2004, 23:01
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: newark
Posts: 149
Fuel Contamination

If this ineed was fuel contamination, wouldn't more planes have had the same problem? Or does the tanker only have enough capacity to fuel 2 planes before it has to go and fetch more fuel?

Newarksmells
newarksmells is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2004, 01:03
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto,Ontario,Canada
Posts: 30
Just info.....

Official site of Airline Company "Siberia":
http://english.s7.ru/
ionov is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2004, 01:12
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Mindful of an old saying that there is no Pravda ([the] truth) in Izvestia ([the] news) and no Izvestia in Pravda, the following is an English translation of an article in Pravda. It certainly suggests a high altitude breakup of the Tupolev 154.

On the place of the crash of TU-154 plane in Rostov region, the bodies of six people were found.

The representative of the operative staff Sergey Kuznetsov also said that the two big pieces of the plane were found 600 (Cyrillic omitted).

There can be several bodies of the passengers and the crew members in the fuselage remains, said Mr. Kuznetsov.

According to him, the area of the search is 25 square kilometers. More than 1,000 people are working on the scene of the tragedy.

One of the pieces of the plane fell into the yard of a house. No people were injured as the piece fell onto the barn.

The reporter of Interfax interview the local residents, and they said that the bodies of 10 dead people from the plane had been found near villages Krutye Gorki and Zelenovka.

In the barn in Krutye Gorki village a passenger seat with dead bodies of a woman and a child in it, was found. The seat broke through the roof of the barn.

In this village, the bodies of two men were also found. Near the village, the pilot-s body was found. The bodies of 5 more passengers were found in Zelenovka village. The witnesses said that the bodies had not been burned.

The villagers notified the law-enforcers on all the bodies they had found.

Meanwhile, Intefax has had no official confirmation of the above information so far.

President Putin declared August 26 the day of mourning in Russia.
SaturnV is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2004, 01:21
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: N55' 56' and a wee bit west
Posts: 122
Avman wrote
INTEL101, I'm not entirely convinced that extremist suicide bombers would blow themselves up "for the cause" just for practice purposes. I think they want to die killing Americans.
Not everyone in the world is that interested in the USA. Terrorism was about long before september 2001, and different terrorist groups have different causes, most of which dont involve the USA!(despite what the media say!)
andyb79 is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2004, 03:29
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Connecticut, USA
Age: 60
Posts: 244
Probably some form of terrorism, but... a dumb question from someone who's not familiar with Russian operations. Other than the fuel truck, could someone else have worked on and/or serviced both aircraft? A baggage handler, maintainance person, etc? Someone who might be inexperienced, careless or downright destructive who might have damaged the planes in some way?
jugofpropwash is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2004, 04:54
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: In the oil wealth of sand dunes
Posts: 293
Speculation, speculation!!!

I doubt fuel contamination. If engines stop, aircraft will glide and radio communication can be established and chances are good that aircraft don't explode with engines stalling.

An eye witness need not be a rocket scientist to confrim an aircraft exploding before hitting the ground.

Something catasrophic happened in the cruise with an extreme high rate of descent (possibly uncontrolled flight) it sounds like with no chance of radio communication. Possibility exits that the crew were not contious at the time of impact due the the fact nothing was said on the radio.

Must wait and see!
planecrazi is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2004, 06:19
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,782
>>An eye witness need not be a rocket scientist to confrim an aircraft exploding before hitting the ground.<<

Yes but this "inflight explosion" and fire is almost always reported by someone whether it actually occured or not in airliner accidents.

Also, something is often lost or gained in translation and journalist editing of public comments, e.g. confusion between the angle of bank and the angle of turn in the recent CX "sporty approach" incident. If you've used the older Airbus manuals you know how misleading faulty technical translations can be.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2004, 07:11
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 303
Too Many Terrorist Options - Technological advances are required

Surely they weren't able to get explosives aboard and into the cabin; but if so, what a black eye for Russian airport security.....

The more security you impose (including skymarshals and impenetrable reinforced cockpit doors), the more constrained are the terrorists' options, but they'll still have many. If they can't get guns and bombs aboard then they'll construct something in the lavatory - perhaps. But explosives constructed from low-grade explosives like fertilizer don't work well in small quantities - or reliably. They'd often achieve little more than a rapid depressurization anyway - and there are easier ways of doing that. Accelerants and highly caustic substances do however create an instant crisis - and they can be gotten aboard in aerosols

Why wouldn't it have been a barometrically-fused bomb in the cargo hold? Possibly, but if the Sibir TU154 pilots managed to get out a Mayday squawk yet no R/T message (which seems to be the more widely reported case) then that might indicate that they were busy putting on their oxygen masks and/or that the a/c had already been rapidly or explosively depressurized. That preliminary overture would quickly distract or incapacitate F/A's and/or sky marshals. The easiest way to do that explosively would be to surreptitiously take out a window (or two) with a pen-gun (pistol barrel disguised as a plastic biro or fountain pen and utilizing a spring-loaded firing-pin onto a lead-pellet charge). It would just sound and appear to be a window blowing out.

Only then would the aerosol can of accelerant need to be stomped and ignited (with a pen-gun blank) and you'd have a rapidly spreading conflagration. The pilots would be very busy getting on oxygen, turning off the airway and getting headed downhill. Any R/T call comes next... and that might be suddenly forgotten if an F/A advised them of a fiery furnace down back. No sophisticated circuitry or fuzing required in this scenario. It would be very hard to reconstruct that from the debris and Al Qaeda tends to leave things very much up in the air on claiming credit. So the question then subsequently becomes, even for later genuine accidents, "well was it an accident or wasn't it? How can you be sure?". That imponderable then becomes the real deterrent to air travel....and that is the name of their wider terrorist assault upon Western economies. Suicide bombers have such a wide range of options.

Downlinked CCTV emergency telemetry of real-time CVR/DFDR data tied in to any number of auto-initiators (such as depressurization, smoke detection, EICAS alerts, pilot panic-button etc) would seem to be the only answer. Why's that? Well only in about 50 to 60% of cases does a definitive answer emerge from the clues contained in the CVR/DFDR/QAR (if recoverable). Something more sophisticated is now required for truth and honesty in both aircrash and aviation terrorism forensics.
TheShadow is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2004, 07:12
  #92 (permalink)  

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Northumberland, UK
Age: 57
Posts: 293
Notice that the FCO website (http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?...=1013618386379) has the following, possibly temporary, comment on the travel advice pages for Russia:

Two Russian airliners on internal flights crashed this morning. The British Embassy in Moscow has advised its staff not to travel on internal airlines for 24 hours, until the situation becomes clearer.
So the British Embassy staff are safe. Never mind any other British nationals who may have to travel.

Phileas Fogg, the old fashioned Russian/CIS airports have security before registration/check in, so it is possible to pull the trick you describe of transferring something naughty from the hold luggage to hand luggage after security. However, this does not apply to DME where the process is the more conventional (to the 'western' way of thinking) registration, including checking in of hold luggage, before security. There are (were?!) still gaps, but not as glaring as at other CIS airports.
Evening Star is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2004, 08:00
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: DUBLIN
Posts: 1
DOUBLE ACCIDENT IN CIS

I DID A RADIO INTEVIEW YESTERDAY )TUESDAY) MORNING AND THIS IS THE CRIB SHEET I MADE UP TO HELP. IT MAY OR MAY NOT ADD ANYTHING TO WHAT IS IN THIS THREAD ALREADY. IT DOES NOT READ WELL BECAUSE IT IS IN NOTE FORM, BUT I HAVE NOT GOT THE TIME TO RE-WRITE IT IN PROSE !!


TU 134 DOMODEVO TO VOLVOGRAD (STALINGRAD)
TU 154 SAME TO SOCHI BLACK SEA (PUTIN THERE AT THE MOMENT

Tu 154 [RUSSIAN TRIDENT and B727 LOOK ALIKE] FIRST FLEW 1972 923 BUILT This is 33rd fatal accident , but that includes 1 door opening, loss of 2 hostesses, one destroyed by troops storming after hijack


TU 134 [RUSSIAN BAC 111 STILL - HAS BOMB AIMERS CAPSULE IN NOSE (originally developed from Tu-16 “Badger”] FIRST FLEW 1967 852 BUILT including 200 military examples - 300 STILL FLYING ACCIDENTS RECORD SIMILAR OR WORSE THAN 154.

IN BOTH TYPES ACCIDENTS MAINLY OCCURRED PRE 2000 WHEN A MAJOR OVER HAUL OF CIS AIRLINES BEGAN

SIBIR THE OPERATOR OF ONE OF THE AIRCRAFT (BLACK SEA) HAD ONE SHOT DOWN IN THE SAME LOCATION IN OCTOBER 2001 BY MISSILE [UKRAINIAN]

Sibir is now Russia’s second largest airline, and should carry some 4 million passengers this year. Well run, good training facilities and centre, one of the few to use CRM / LOFT in Russia
CAUSE OF ACCIDENTS NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT

FOR EXAMPLE EI ONT? [AER LINGUS VISCOUNT OVER TUSKAR ROCK] CRASH ONLY RESOLVED AFTER 35 YEARS AND REPORT COMPLETELY OVERTURNED PREVIOUS REPORTS

FLASHAIR RED SEA ACCIDENT STILL UNRESOLVED - JAN THIS YEAR YET EGYPTIAN GOVERNMENT SAID IT WAS “TERRORISM” WITHIN HOURS OF THE CRASH.

HOWEVER ONE CAN MAKE SOME INTERESTING OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE DOUBLE CRASH……..

10 YEARS AGO WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TOO SURPRISED (CRASH OF TWO RUSSIAN AIRCRAFT) EXCEPT FOR HAPPENING ON SAME DAY FROM SAME AIRPORT WITHIN MINUTES AND ON SAME ROUTES WITH HIGH TERRORIST BACKGROUND THREAT. BOTH AIRCRAFT ‘OLD’ TECHNOLOGY THOUGH!

ACCIDENT RATES WORLD WIDE ARE AS FOLLOWS
3RD WORLD (DOES NOT REALLY APPLY TO RUSSIA NOW) 20 X MORE HAZARDOUS THAN 1ST CLASS WESTERN OPERATORS.

1994 was the low point for Russian aviaition. (because of the publicity generated around the Airbus – pilot’s son i/c accident) Russian government asked FAA to fully audit Russian civil aviation, FAA issued series if recommendations, all followed. Safety improved considerably, no accidents 1997 to 1999, last accident (to airliner – HELIS excluded) in July 2002 (2 events, collision over Lake Constance, + Il-86on ferry to base lost on t/o from Moscow, 14 crew dead).

CLUES TO TERRORIST ATTACK
· NO ADMISSION OF RESPONSIBILITY – INDEED IT HAS BEEN DENIED BY “SOURCES” [but then there were none after 9 /11, started trend?]

· Sibir confirms hijack code message – BUT no PAN put out by either crew

· IF THERE WAS A HIJACK, THEN IT IS UNLIKELY THAT IT WAS A BOMB SINCE NO PILOT WOULD SEND OUT A HIJACK CODE AFTER A BOMB. A HIJACKER DOES NOT USUALLY SET OFF A BOMB ON HIS OWN AIRCRAFT OR IF HE DOES, HE DOESN’T NEED TO ATTACK THE CREW. SO THIS IS A BIT MUDDIED – COULD HAVE BEEN A TAKEOVER THAT WENT WRONG OR THAT THEY SIMPLY OVERPOWERED THE CREW AND DIVED THE AIRCRAFT – “POOR MAN’S BOMB/MISSILE”

· SECURITY CAN BE BREACHED – BROKEN BOTTLES FOR EXAMPLE MORE DANGEROUS THAN BOX CUTTERS AND ANY NUMBER OF IMPROVISED WEAPONS CAN BE MADE – FOR EXAMPLE, THE TITANIUM ALLOY FRAME OF A WHEELIE BAG CAN BE SHARPENED INTO A SWORD VERY EASILY AND CONCEALED BACK WITHIN THE BAG UNTIL REMOVED.


· BLACK BOXES CAN TELL US IF THERE WAS A FAULT ON BOARD
· Tu black boxes now at international standards, adequate channels. The -154 had come out of a Form 4 overhaul – virtually a total rebuild, on August 10th. Therefore technical problem unlikely.
·
The TU 134 not so good. Lat Major OH completed in February 1996, although aircraft had flown just 65% of Time since MOH

POSSIBLE MOTIVE IS PRESENT – ELECTIONS IN CHECHYA IN 4 DAYS
PRESIDENT AKHMED KADYROV ASSASSINATED THIS YEAR
MAJOR REBEL ACTIVITY IN GROZNY THIS WEEK
PUTIN IN SOCHI

WITNESS REPORTS
WITNESSES NOTORIOUSLY UNRELIABLE AT THIS STAGE

SO ON BALANCE LOOKS LIKE TOO MUCH OF A CO-INCENDENCE TO BE OTHER THAN SOME FORM OF ATTACK ON THE AIRCRAFT.


Was it just the 134, I’d be inclined to look hard at tech failure, but a 154 just out of major makes this seem very unlikely.
They are also looking at fuel contamination, but Sibir has more than 50 flights per day from Domodedovo, so why only 2 aircraft with something so seriously wrong that no pans given. In any event fuel contamination causes poor running or flameout which is not a major problem – many aircraft have landed “dead stick” over the years and all major systems keep running certainly the VHF radio which would allow the crew to inform the ground.
It’s also much too early to exclude almost anything – even terrorism.


Good luck tiday!
ANGELHIGH is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2004, 08:16
  #94 (permalink)  
The Reverend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Shadow, your profile shows you are a pilot but with imagination like yours, I feel you are wasting your talents.

The easiest way to do that explosively would be to surreptitiously take out a window (or two) with a pen-gun (pistol barrel disguised as a plastic biro or fountain pen and utilizing a spring-loaded firing-pin onto a lead-pellet charge). It would just sound and appear to be a window blowing out.
Next time you see an engineer, ask him to explain the cabin window construction to you. What does a window blowing out sound like?
HotDog is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2004, 09:04
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 44
It was quickly established after the accidents that the Flight Data and Cockpit Voice Recorders had been found.

Anyone know if there is any preliminary results obtained from these yet???

Cejk
Cejkovice is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2004, 09:51
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Malta
Posts: 115
No news yet but boy would it be the mother of all coincidences if the 2 accidents were not linked.........
Nerik is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2004, 10:09
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,949
Quote from another site:

Swedish media claim 6 people on one of the flights where thrown off before take-off because the where drunk and causing trouble.
Lucky them I say...


I wonder if their bags were thrown off also!
Phileas Fogg is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2004, 10:31
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 303
Hot Diggety Dog - an expert at last

HOTDOG

You are obviously the EXPERT so perhaps you can explain it to us.

Why would the layers of transparency be impervious to a shotgun blast (being already under considerable outwards differential)?

What does it sound like? Do you clearly recall? Or are you claiming that pen-guns don't exist? Would you like to see an image of one?

Would the cabin occupants be able to discriminate between the loud noise and the sudden outrush of air and then rationalize (within the 12 secs of Time of Useful Consciousness (TUC):

"Can't fool me, Mr Terrorist. That was easily discernible as a gunshot followed .0001 secs later by a sudden outrush of air. Obviously two distinct events " Even the average flight attendant wouldn't be fooled into thinking a window blew out eh? But why would that matter anyway?

Are you saying that a (shaving foam spray-can) aerosol of highly inflammable petroleum based accelerant would be no big deal - or that it would be difficult to get one onboard? Or that it would be difficult to stomp and light it off during your own TUC?

As I recall you are the same expert who later claimed he saw 911 coming but didn't bring it up because it sounded too outlandish and you were awaiting proof.

We're dying to hear your own clear explanation therefore on this one.
TheShadow is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2004, 10:39
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Deptford
Posts: 13
From a Moscow Times article today:

"So far there are no signs of terrorist acts taking place on board either plane," FSB spokesman Nikolai Zakharov said.

Investigators rolled out evidence disproving a terrorist attack. They said none of the recovered bodies had burns -- which would have been an indication of an on-board explosion. The hijack alert from the Sibir Tu-154, confirmed by air traffic controllers and Sibir, was in fact an SOS call. And they said their investigation will not focus on terrorism but violations of civilian aircraft rules.

http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2004/08/26/002.html

Seems all a bit fishy.
Jellied Eels is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2004, 10:51
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,949
They said none of the recovered bodies had burns

So the aircraft didn't catch fire at any point? Not even upon impact with the ground?
Phileas Fogg is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.