BREAKING NEWS: airliner missing within Egyptian FIR
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Schiphol
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Major components identification update
Major components which i have NOT found yet on pictures ... but hope someone else has (updates marked with ***):
a. top and aft section of the vertical tail structure,
b. rudder,
c. horizontal stabilizer (looks like it came clear off - which might suggest a high speed failure),
d. 4 of 8 passenger doors (it is easy to identify 3 in their proper position, 1*** maybe 2 without position),
e. 2 of the 2 engines *** both engines identified in pictures just now,
f. APU itself,
g. the majority of passenger seats *** by now 1 clear image from a Russian video of a triple-seat which separated from the plane at altitude.
h. *** nose landinggear itself – but expect to find that inside the NLG box which is clearly visible,
i. *** cargo doors and associated panels,
j. *** more (top) fuselage panels,
It might be possible that we already 'see' the complete fuselage. But the available photos are not good enough. You need to be able to measure the various 'sections'. *** we are getting better pictures.
Please note: At this stage a large number of items and components have already been moved from their original place and position. *** A number of items have already been removed from the site by now. Most of it assembled passenger baggage it seems.
An upset (suggested by preliminary and rough FR24 data, cause(s) unknown),followed by loss of control (causes unknown), high speed steep descent,overspeed failure of part of the tail and horizontal stabilizer, wing-fuselage inverting, going into a kind of flat rotation, losing both engines and APU during that rotation, and hitting the ground in that attitude ... could be one of the possible scenario's - based on the pictures that are available till now.
Only after rejecting such options, and only with clear possible evidence (like we had early on with MH17), would it be useful to spend time on more exotic(but not impossible) scenario's like bombs and missiles.
a. top and aft section of the vertical tail structure,
b. rudder,
c. horizontal stabilizer (looks like it came clear off - which might suggest a high speed failure),
d. 4 of 8 passenger doors (it is easy to identify 3 in their proper position, 1*** maybe 2 without position),
e. 2 of the 2 engines *** both engines identified in pictures just now,
f. APU itself,
g. the majority of passenger seats *** by now 1 clear image from a Russian video of a triple-seat which separated from the plane at altitude.
h. *** nose landinggear itself – but expect to find that inside the NLG box which is clearly visible,
i. *** cargo doors and associated panels,
j. *** more (top) fuselage panels,
It might be possible that we already 'see' the complete fuselage. But the available photos are not good enough. You need to be able to measure the various 'sections'. *** we are getting better pictures.
Please note: At this stage a large number of items and components have already been moved from their original place and position. *** A number of items have already been removed from the site by now. Most of it assembled passenger baggage it seems.
An upset (suggested by preliminary and rough FR24 data, cause(s) unknown),followed by loss of control (causes unknown), high speed steep descent,overspeed failure of part of the tail and horizontal stabilizer, wing-fuselage inverting, going into a kind of flat rotation, losing both engines and APU during that rotation, and hitting the ground in that attitude ... could be one of the possible scenario's - based on the pictures that are available till now.
Only after rejecting such options, and only with clear possible evidence (like we had early on with MH17), would it be useful to spend time on more exotic(but not impossible) scenario's like bombs and missiles.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lyubko
APU
Can anybody observe the APU on crash site pictures ?
APU
Can anybody observe the APU on crash site pictures ?
A0283
f. APU itself,
f. APU itself,
Isn't it still inside tail cone? There was screenshot from copter video with tail cone from other side.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As posted by http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9166715
this photo is interesting: http://www.newsit.gr/files/Image/201...sh_egypt21.JPG
I am having trouble locating this piece, but knowing it to be upside-down, it looks curious with the door buckling outwards and soot coming out of it.
SPECULATION_MODE=ON
Clean sharp cuts around a clean white tail missing rudder and HS, tailcone some distance away.. something may have happened in the tailcone attachment, losing that part, yanking the HS and rudder away... rest of the tail shaves off, rest of plane goes inverted, electrical wires shortcircuit and causes explosion...
SPECULATION_MODE=OFF
this photo is interesting: http://www.newsit.gr/files/Image/201...sh_egypt21.JPG
I am having trouble locating this piece, but knowing it to be upside-down, it looks curious with the door buckling outwards and soot coming out of it.
SPECULATION_MODE=ON
Clean sharp cuts around a clean white tail missing rudder and HS, tailcone some distance away.. something may have happened in the tailcone attachment, losing that part, yanking the HS and rudder away... rest of the tail shaves off, rest of plane goes inverted, electrical wires shortcircuit and causes explosion...
SPECULATION_MODE=OFF
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AO283...I tend to agree..structural failure around the circumference of the upper aft fuselage..tore away from the lower fuselage..THS (stab) failure/separation? but the upper rear fuselage doesn't appear to have failed due to overstess, looks like a clean good old-fashioned crack/failure to me...like most others here, just a guess...
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably the area is dangerous for helicopters / low-flying aircraft, if hostile groups are on the ground with access to manpads. This must make the search for airframe wreckage more complicated, requiring ground personnel to secure an area before helicopters can be deployed.
Perhaps the HS/rudder are in an area not yet explored, for these reasons?
Perhaps the HS/rudder are in an area not yet explored, for these reasons?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Estonia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this photo is interesting: http://www.newsit.gr/files/Image/201...sh_egypt21.JPG
I am having trouble locating this piece, but knowing it to be upside-down, it looks curious with the door buckling outwards and soot coming out of it.
I am having trouble locating this piece, but knowing it to be upside-down, it looks curious with the door buckling outwards and soot coming out of it.
The whole underside of the plane is sooted more or less and at least one separated engine fan is sooted too and has heat damage on painting.
The way fuselage is sooted could not have happened during level and stable flight.
without new info we will go around circles
However the longer the investigators keep silent (and this is an Egyptian led investigation, all other parties are subordinates), the more likely it is that they already know just do not admit that foul play was involved. The door panel with apparent shrapnel damage pointed out today also swings the pendulum in this direction.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who needs to make up rumours when you have the Telegraph?
Russian plane crash: investigators analysuing black boxes as cockpit recordings reveal uncharacteristic sounds - latest news - Telegraph
Summary of today's events
A transcript of cockpit recordings obtained by Russian news agency Interfax suggest that there were "sounds uncharacteristic of routine flight", and the crew did not send a distress signal.
A source said: "Judging by the recording, a situation on board developed suddenly and unexpectedly for the crew, and as a result the pilots did not manage to send a distress signal".
Russian news service Tass cited a source saying that "elements that were not part of the plane" were found at the crash site. They are being analysed - whether that is from a bomb or simply some luggage is unclear.
A transcript of cockpit recordings obtained by Russian news agency Interfax suggest that there were "sounds uncharacteristic of routine flight", and the crew did not send a distress signal.
A source said: "Judging by the recording, a situation on board developed suddenly and unexpectedly for the crew, and as a result the pilots did not manage to send a distress signal".
Russian news service Tass cited a source saying that "elements that were not part of the plane" were found at the crash site. They are being analysed - whether that is from a bomb or simply some luggage is unclear.
The Prune experts need to focus more on the aircraft fuselage ahead of the wings.
The tail may be secondary.
Look for evidence of sooting following aircraft trajectory prior to ground impact. Look for evidence of gyro loading in engines.
The more you depend on the black boxes the more likely they will cease functioning early in the event
The tail may be secondary.
Look for evidence of sooting following aircraft trajectory prior to ground impact. Look for evidence of gyro loading in engines.
The more you depend on the black boxes the more likely they will cease functioning early in the event
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
andrasz, in my previous experience with armchair investigation, in absence of any info from officials good beacons are internal urgent documents, released by authorities. In case of Red Wings disaster in VKO it was telegram about reverse engagement, in case of Kazan - telegram about go-around technique and so on.
As we doesn't see anything similar in this case - posted NOTAMs was not released AFTER accident and Kolavia A321 now allowed to fly - I think that real experts have not much more confidence in real reason then we, pprune detectives.
As we doesn't see anything similar in this case - posted NOTAMs was not released AFTER accident and Kolavia A321 now allowed to fly - I think that real experts have not much more confidence in real reason then we, pprune detectives.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tailstrike
Forgive my first post confusion, but why isn't there any real speculation here about the fact this was caused by a potentially improperly repaired tail strike?
I can't find any professional documents, relating to that repair, nor is there any clear suggestion as to whether a doubler was used, or whether it was taken back to skeleton.
Given the absence of this, surely, this has to be a major key to concluding this case? I highly believe that an improper repair / continued maintenance missed the beginning of metal fatigue, thus resulting in it's mid-air break up some 14 years later.
I can't see it being a bomb/device/etc - why would you detonate it over the Sinai desert? Surely if you wanted to send a real message, you would wait until it was on approach to St Petersburg? Even if this imaginary device wasn't on a timer, you would have to expect more shrapnel/scorch damage than what we have already seen in the photo's - surely?!
Is there any clear pictures of this plane that show the repaired tail strike, prior to it's demise on Saturday??? Can't we study those? Also, can't seem to find the repaired area on any of the crash photo's either... Is there something wrong with my eyes??
I can't find any professional documents, relating to that repair, nor is there any clear suggestion as to whether a doubler was used, or whether it was taken back to skeleton.
Given the absence of this, surely, this has to be a major key to concluding this case? I highly believe that an improper repair / continued maintenance missed the beginning of metal fatigue, thus resulting in it's mid-air break up some 14 years later.
I can't see it being a bomb/device/etc - why would you detonate it over the Sinai desert? Surely if you wanted to send a real message, you would wait until it was on approach to St Petersburg? Even if this imaginary device wasn't on a timer, you would have to expect more shrapnel/scorch damage than what we have already seen in the photo's - surely?!
Is there any clear pictures of this plane that show the repaired tail strike, prior to it's demise on Saturday??? Can't we study those? Also, can't seem to find the repaired area on any of the crash photo's either... Is there something wrong with my eyes??
According to RT.com:
13:13 GMT
The passengers who were sitting near the back of the plane died of so-called “explosive trauma,” sustaining 90 percent skin burns and having metal pieces in their bodies, Russian tabloid LifeNews reports, citing the results of a forensic examination. Those closer to the front of the plane died of different types of injuries, including blood loss, open cranio-cerebral traumas and multiple fractures. So far, there has been no official response to these reports.
The passengers who were sitting near the back of the plane died of so-called “explosive trauma,” sustaining 90 percent skin burns and having metal pieces in their bodies, Russian tabloid LifeNews reports, citing the results of a forensic examination. Those closer to the front of the plane died of different types of injuries, including blood loss, open cranio-cerebral traumas and multiple fractures. So far, there has been no official response to these reports.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Actually, according to Airbus confidential drawings (thank you Mr google) the whole tailcone subassembly is bolted to the rest of the empennage via attachment lugs at 4 points. None of those large lugs is visible in the crash photos. In TylerMonkey's photo (#581) showing "better detail" of the tailcone front firewall, the location of 1 of the missing lugs would be expected in the top left of the photo - in the position of the triangular hole in the outermost frame."
The lug attach areas are visible, and have obviously failed in tension. The support structure is pulled out and missing. The only fitting still present appears to be an alignment hole at the top.
As to the aft part of the fuselage breaking "clean", it is a skin failure just as I described. Go to the Greek site with the high res pic of the back door area. You can see where the skin tore cleanly at the top of the fuselage, it cracked and broke at the first rivet line, the rivets did not fail. About an inch or so of the skin joint is still attached to the rear frame.
The stringers failed just forward of their rear attach points, again no rivet failure.
That area of fuselage broke away from top down due to overstress in tension. Aerodynamic tail downforce or internal pressure can not be determined from the pic, but a good guess can be made,
The lug attach areas are visible, and have obviously failed in tension. The support structure is pulled out and missing. The only fitting still present appears to be an alignment hole at the top.
As to the aft part of the fuselage breaking "clean", it is a skin failure just as I described. Go to the Greek site with the high res pic of the back door area. You can see where the skin tore cleanly at the top of the fuselage, it cracked and broke at the first rivet line, the rivets did not fail. About an inch or so of the skin joint is still attached to the rear frame.
The stringers failed just forward of their rear attach points, again no rivet failure.
That area of fuselage broke away from top down due to overstress in tension. Aerodynamic tail downforce or internal pressure can not be determined from the pic, but a good guess can be made,
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Test panel
A Russian language video mentioned earlier in this thread showed three seats from rear of cabin, one of which appeared to show evidence of fragments passing through. Hard to tell definitively if from the front or back, but assuming there was a body in the seat, which the condition of the seats suggests, most probably from the rear.
A Russian language video mentioned earlier in this thread showed three seats from rear of cabin, one of which appeared to show evidence of fragments passing through. Hard to tell definitively if from the front or back, but assuming there was a body in the seat, which the condition of the seats suggests, most probably from the rear.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure this was already mentioned here:
Pathologists in St Petersburg separated victim's bodys/parts into two groups -- those seated in front and those towards the tail. Those who seated in front sustained mainly chest, stomach, legs, arms injures, internal organs tear. Deaths mainly resulted from loss of blood, shock and brain injures.
Those who seated in the rear were found to sustain explosion injures and heavy burns (more than 90%). Experts attributed this to fuel tank explosion or explosion device detonation. Also a lot of metal pieces and aircraft skin parts were found in body's of those seated in the rear.
Source
http://lenta.ru/news/2015/11/03/results/
Pathologists in St Petersburg separated victim's bodys/parts into two groups -- those seated in front and those towards the tail. Those who seated in front sustained mainly chest, stomach, legs, arms injures, internal organs tear. Deaths mainly resulted from loss of blood, shock and brain injures.
Those who seated in the rear were found to sustain explosion injures and heavy burns (more than 90%). Experts attributed this to fuel tank explosion or explosion device detonation. Also a lot of metal pieces and aircraft skin parts were found in body's of those seated in the rear.
Source
http://lenta.ru/news/2015/11/03/results/
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Cyprus
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Egypt contradicts Russian view
Report from Reuters :
Egypt’s civil aviation ministry said on Tuesday there were no facts to substantiate assertions by Russian officials that the Russian airliner that crashed in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula on Saturday broke up in mid-air.
Rahmi said there was no proof yet that the plane had broken up in flight. "This could be a long process and we can’t talk about the results as we go along,” he said.
Egypt’s civil aviation ministry said on Tuesday there were no facts to substantiate assertions by Russian officials that the Russian airliner that crashed in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula on Saturday broke up in mid-air.
Rahmi said there was no proof yet that the plane had broken up in flight. "This could be a long process and we can’t talk about the results as we go along,” he said.
