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

MH17 down near Donetsk

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

MH17 down near Donetsk

Old 18th Dec 2014, 23:42
  #1501 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Netherlands
Age: 54
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Engines retain their settings when control from the cockpit is lost. Thrust isn't changed.

Examples enough. In Tenerife the Panam set the engines on fulll power, and after the collision with cockpit gone they stayed on full power untill the (remaining) engines destroyed themselves. (killing at least one person)

TWA engines remained on thrust when the cockpit was cut off.

Both were 747s, but in Lockheed electra's or even A380 the same happens. The Quantas A380 lost control of the engine 1 by severed cables after an uncontained engine failure and they couldn't shut it down. This accident was discussed at EASA, including the difficulty to evacuate an aircraft when engines remain running out of control, but no new safety measures were suggested.

So I am pretty sure the same applies to the 777.

In case of MH17, it is not unlikely that the left engine suffered an uncontained engine failure, given that the forward ring of the intake was found at the cockpit crash site. It is possible that it ingested some radome parts or worse that could have destroyed the fan disc. It would have lost thrust altogether while the right engine would still function. Without countersteering from the cockpit the plane would enter a spin.
blackbird69 is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2014, 01:24
  #1502 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Dutch Safety Board on Sept. 10 described in a strange way their reason for changing the Dutch language version of the preliminary report.

In Dutch the explanation is this:
Op 10 september 2014 is een wijziging doorgevoerd in de Nederlandse vertaling van het Engelse rapport van eerste bevindingen. Van pagina 14 is de zin "De NOTAM met luchtruimbeperking was uitgevaardigd in reactie op het neerschieten van een Antonov 24 vliegtuig op 14 juli dat op een hoogte van FL210 vloog." verwijderd om de Nederlandse vertaling in overeenstemming te brengen met het Engelse document, waarvan de tekst leidend is voor het onderzoek.

In English the explanation above is this:
On September 10, 2014, a change was made to the Dutch translation of the English preliminary report. On page 14, the sentence "The NOTAM with air wide restriction was enacted in response to the shooting down of an Antonov 24 plane on July 14 that flew at an altitude of FL 210." was removed from the Dutch translation in order to align it with the English document, the text of which prevails over the Dutch version.

The Dutch report is not a translation of the English report. If the Dutch report is a translation of the English report, then the sentence in question could not have materialized out of thin air during the translation process. The preliminary report must have been written in Dutch and then translated into English. Further evidence can be seen at the bottom of every page of the English report. There you see pagination notes such as "6 von 34" which in this example means "6 of 34" in English. They failed to change the pagination notation from Dutch to English.

To refer to the Dutch report as a translation of the English report is misleading. The Sept. 10 change to the Dutch report made it less informative rather than more informative. Why the sentence was deleted has not been explained. We know that every member of the Joint Investigation Team (Ukraine, Belgium, Netherlands and Australia) has the right to block the release of information.

In the English preliminary report the paragraph with the omitted sentence is the last paragraph of section 2.4.3 on page 13. If the sentence had not been omitted then the English translation of the Dutch source document would read as follows:

NOTAM A1492/14 established a Temporary Restricted Area from FL260 to FL320 within an area covering the eastern part of the Temporary Reserved Area established by NOTAM A1383/14. The NOTAM with air wide restriction was enacted in response to the shooting down of an Antonov 24 plane on July 14 that flew at an altitude of FL 210. NOTAM A1492/14 was valid from 18:00 hrs on 14 July 2014 until 23:59 hrs on 14 August 2014. The restriction did not apply for flights of Ukraine state aircraft.
NotPegasus is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2014, 09:18
  #1503 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Netherlands
Age: 54
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not misleading

In case of reports in multiple languages, it is common to designate one report as THE report in case there are differences in interpretations between different language versions. In this case the English report is THE report.

Most Dutch people master English language, so it wouldn't be a problem to write it in English directly, without a dutch side-step. The choice for English is also logical for the international review by the other countries.

Most likely, the sentence was present in all reports, but was forgotten to be removed probably after reviewing by all parties involved. Maybe because it was factual not completely proved.
blackbird69 is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2014, 14:45
  #1504 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Netherlands
Age: 54
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Left Side at door L1

During the recovery of the wreckage this picture was made. The link is here:
Cockpit van MH17-Boeing geborgen | NOS

This picture shows the left forward section up to bulkhead electronics bay/ landing gear and up to floor level. The location of door L1 can be seen, doorframe and door had been ripped off.

Significant is that there are no holes in the plating below floor level. The buckling of the plates above floor level suggests some pressure wave, but this could also have been caused by the impact or post impact recovery works.
Together with the picture of the other side of the cockpit, which shows two intact windows on the FO side, and also no or few holes, it suggests that the impact of the high velocity objects are very local, conenctrated in a band running straight over the captain seat roughly in direction of door R1, fanning out.

Like a cone from a missile exploding to the left front of the aircraft.

blackbird69 is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2014, 09:02
  #1505 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Finland
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It seems some pieces are still being collected...
https://twitter.com/ArnoldGreidanus/...04812943077377

https://translate.google.fi/translat...-geborgen.html

(it would seem the engine ring/nacelle was also originally left behind, this pic might show another ring/nacelle https://twitter.com/ArnoldGreidanus/...706240/photo/1 )

Parts were originally going to be disposed in Ukraine, but now perhaps not...?
sotilaspassi is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2014, 23:21
  #1506 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Netherlands
Age: 54
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Evidence of Missile fired?

Today RTLnieuws announced that they had new photographic evidence that suggested that MH17 was shot down by a surface to air missile. These photos were taken at The photo's were taken by a local citizen that had turned them over to the Dutch criminal investigation team.

RTL nieuws has hired a bureau to investigate these pictures. Some of these images have been around in low res, but these were high res images and exact date and time was known. These images were used to determine the flight path of the missile, and the expected launch location is within rebel controlled territory. From satelite images before and after the crash. they determined that the launch location would be in a grain field in the picture below, where a burn mark was seen in the right corner of the burned field. This location had been visited by a BBC correspondent after the disaster.


Nieuw bewijs MH17 | RTL Nieuws
Hoe onderzocht RTL Nieuws de nieuwe MH17-foto's? | RTL Nieuws
blackbird69 is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2014, 07:33
  #1507 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Finland
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
re: Latest BUK launch material

I think there is strong indicators that those photos are authentic.
But are there indicators that they are not from the moment of MH17 crash?

btw. ukraine@war seems to have made a good summary of it again.
sotilaspassi is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2014, 14:58
  #1508 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Samara, Russia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Together with the picture of the other side of the cockpit, which shows two intact windows on the FO side, and also no or few holes, it suggests that the impact of the high velocity objects are very local, conenctrated in a band running straight over the captain seat roughly in direction of door R1, fanning out.

Like a cone from a missile exploding to the left front of the aircraft.
Buk's warhead has 6000 or more striking elements. The very local impact means that almost all that charge was absorbed by the cockpit. However the deck's floor has a small number of holes.
GSOB is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2014, 15:10
  #1509 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Eastern Europe
Age: 60
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'd say that over captain seat in direction of right-side frontal door was one surface of the thick cone of shrapnel pieces, another surface closer to the wing center section.
Lena.Kiev is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2014, 23:25
  #1510 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Netherlands
Age: 54
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
According to the rtlnieuws sources there are time and date stamp attached to the photograph which match the downing of MH17. There is a third photograph of the actual smoke cloud after the crash. The three photographs were checked by two different companies, both concluded these are genuine photographs. The third picture of the smoke cloud makes the set complete and gives additional proof to the credibility.

The photographs were used together with crash time etc to determine the launch location.

The ukraine@war link is here:
http://ukraineatwar.********.nl/2014...from-july.html

It also has a translation of an interview of the eye-witness by RTL nieuws. Worth reading.

The witness had been interviewed and the photo's had been given to the criminal investigation team. ALso, it is reported by NOS and RTLnieuws that the USA has transfered all their data to the criminal investigation team too, including the launch data they never share.

The most important questions now: who manned this Buk and who gave the orders? And why shoot MH17 in the first place?
blackbird69 is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2014, 01:00
  #1511 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Midpoint between equator and North Pole
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
GSOB
Buk's warhead has 6000 or more striking elements. The very local impact means that almost all that charge was absorbed by the cockpit. However the deck's floor has a small number of holes.
FYI: very rough estimate. Surface area of a sphere

A = 4 pi R^2.

For a 10-m radius A = 1,200 sq.m.

Shrapnel density: 6000/A = 5 pcs per sq. m.
ASIP is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2014, 05:04
  #1512 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Samara, Russia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
FYI: very rough estimate. Surface area of a sphere
FYI: a HE shell (a kind Buk's warhead belongs to) produces expanding disk of striking elements. If time is applied then the hit cloud can be described as a cone.

Here is a static picture of it at some moment:
GSOB is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2014, 08:12
  #1513 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Samara, Russia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The photographs were used
I have made the following picture with the photos, region map and preliminary report's weather data are joined:
GSOB is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2014, 19:02
  #1514 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Midpoint between equator and North Pole
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
GSOB:
a HE shell (a kind Buk's warhead belongs to) produces expanding disk of striking elements. If time is applied then the hit cloud can be described as a cone.
Not true. With some idealization, the shrapnel forms a cylinder expanding in radius and height. It's neither disk nor cone. Anyway, the surface area is many hundreds of sq. m. depending on the distance from the explosion to the plane.
Shrapnel density is not high.
ASIP is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2014, 21:28
  #1515 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Netherlands
Age: 54
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
More on the report

Location of the field is south of Snizhne.

See the dutch report:

http://www.rtlnieuws.nl/sites/defaul...alyse_v1.0.pdf

The report doesn't proof that this is the launch site. It is circumstantional evidance. It only shows it is out of the ordinary. It can be used to support other launch data or photo's made from another direction.

There are more reports on burining marks in fields around Eastern Ukraine, but these all concerned Grad rockets or artillery. None of these fields were ploughed after their use to erase the burning marks. The ploughed up area is very suspicious.

The other data showed that the supposed launch site is on high ground and partially shielded by trees.

Conclusions of the report (translated from dutch)

(chapter 2.3)
Using the satelite images and the open sources pictures it was possible to determine the location of the recognition marks. These recognition marks were used to determine a vision line to the base of the smoke trail. The exact location of the launch site can not be determined by this analysis, because the lowest part of the smoke trail is not visible. However, the vision line crosses a field (out of the ordinary) that is suspected to be launch location of the BUK missile.
******
(chapter 3.3)
Based on recent and historical satelite images it can be concluded that the shape and colour of the suspected field deviates from earlier years and surrounding fields. landsat images from 2003-2014 and google images from 2010 - 2014 show a stable field that never before has shown this shape.

When we take a look on the image of july 21st 2014, we see that the grain in surrounding fields is being harvested. The investigated field shows no traces of a normal harvest, most likely it has been ploughed. Only in the bottom area a few traces of straw an be seen. Satelite pictures hardly show any vegitation. Black stains are visible in the northwest corner and these are probably burn marks.

It is noteworthy that a wall of earth was erected around the field. This could have been made to contain the fire in the patch and prevent the burning of the weat in the rest of the field.

Based on the vision line analysis and the burning mark analysis we conclude that it is possible that the smoke trail stemmed from this field.
*******

I guess it is very interesting to talk to the farmer who owns the field. He might have helped the Buk crew by setting up a perimeter.
blackbird69 is offline  
Old 25th Dec 2014, 07:07
  #1516 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Samara, Russia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not true. With some idealization, the shrapnel forms a cylinder expanding in radius and height. It's neither disk
A thin cylinder (that is with the height much lesser than it's radius) is usually
called a disk.

nor cone.
The cone is an area formed by that expanding disk during the event. All
objects within that area would be hit by striking elements.

Anyway, the surface area is many hundreds of sq. m. depending on the distance from the explosion to the plane.
The @blackbird69's post i answered was about the small size of the damage
area. 'Many hundreds of sq. m.' would produce a much larger area of holes in
the fuselage.

Shrapnel density is not high.
It depends on the ratio of the average speed of striking elements to the difference between the speeds of the missile and it's target.
If the speed difference is much lesser than the average speed of HE (as in
the case of a MANPAD hitting into the aircraft's tail) then holes would be
densely distributed throughout a relatively small area. If the speed difference
is close to the average speed of HE (that is the case of MH17) then the hit
area would be greater and less dense of holes.

Anyway holes must be evenly distributed throughout the damage area, not
the patches of holes as on the deck's floor.
GSOB is offline  
Old 25th Dec 2014, 15:36
  #1517 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Midpoint between equator and North Pole
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
GSOB
The @blackbird69's post i answered was about the small size of the damage
area. 'Many hundreds of sq. m.' would produce a much larger area of holes in the fuselage.
Those many hundreds of sq. m. refer to the surface of the expanding shrapnel. All thousands of fragments are distributed over this surface, 360 degrees. Hence, the fragment density cannot be high if the warhead detonated at more than 10 m from the plane. Intersection of the shrapnel front surface with the fuselage is a projection of the fuselage, i.e. it's a flat surface in order of 10 sq.m. It is physically impossible to have many fragments in the fuselage. Without accurate knowledge about the warhead and circumstances of the explosion we cannot give accurate numbers, but estimate should be in order of dozens to, may be, about a hundred of fragments that could hit the cockpit.

I have no doubt that the investigation team can find competent experts who produce more accurate data.


GSOB
It depends on the ratio of the average speed of striking elements to the difference between the speeds of the missile and it's target.
If the speed difference is much lesser than the average speed of HE (as in
the case of a MANPAD hitting into the aircraft's tail) then holes would be
densely distributed throughout a relatively small area. If the speed difference is close to the average speed of HE (that is the case of MH17) then the hit area would be greater and less dense of holes.
This is true in principle but is useless practically as you do not have any reliable data on the Buk warhead expansion after the detonation.
The fragment velocity decreases with flying distance. The shrapnel front surface expands as a square of the flying distance.

GSOB
Anyway holes must be evenly distributed throughout the damage area, not
the patches of holes as on the deck's floor.
Both your statements are assumptions. We've got not enough data. We cannot confirm or reject them.

But if you are talking about the patterns inside the cabin, the uneven hole distribution is expected due to shrapnel ricochets, path deviations and absorption by airframe structural components.
ASIP is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2014, 14:47
  #1518 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Eastern Europe
Age: 60
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by blackbird69
The most important questions now: who manned this Buk ?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29108454
Lena.Kiev is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2014, 19:55
  #1519 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Finland
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I often read that it is estimated that BUK has exploded far above the center line of MH17...
But to me it would seem (by looking at the explosion damage of cockpit parts) that the MH17 cockpit has gone inside the explosion.

The radius of the BUK warhead explosive destruction is far less than 10m.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxN...blE/view?pli=1

Also some initial shrapnell track analysis have indicated that explosion might have been on the level of cockpit windows:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxN...QmM/view?pli=1
sotilaspassi is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2014, 07:53
  #1520 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Samara, Russia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I often read that it is estimated that BUK has exploded far above the center line of MH17...
But to me it would seem (by looking at the explosion damage of cockpit parts) that the MH17 cockpit has gone inside the explosion.
Here is my estimation of the shrapnel traces:



And with greater resolution
http://sf.uploads.ru/faFXy.png

Last edited by GSOB; 30th Dec 2014 at 09:35.
GSOB is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.