BREAKING NEWS: airliner missing within Egyptian FIR
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Midwest US
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To me, it appears that the HS and VS had to be damaged before the separation of the tail section. Had that section separated first, I don't think sufficient forces would have been generated to do the damage. The VS appears to have split which could only happen if the aft mounting points were pushed rearward relative to the front mounting points.
My sequence would be HS/VS failure (reason TBD), HS tore off tail cone/APU, tail section is torn off by tumbling or spinning, fuselage rear section now has an open end and is torn apart by aerodynamic forces up to the stronger wing box, remainder of aircraft catches fire and falls vertical, mostly intact.
While this doesn't rule out foul play, it does make it less likely. A bomb in the passenger compartment or in the cargo hold is probably not going to cause failure of the HS and VS.
My sequence would be HS/VS failure (reason TBD), HS tore off tail cone/APU, tail section is torn off by tumbling or spinning, fuselage rear section now has an open end and is torn apart by aerodynamic forces up to the stronger wing box, remainder of aircraft catches fire and falls vertical, mostly intact.
While this doesn't rule out foul play, it does make it less likely. A bomb in the passenger compartment or in the cargo hold is probably not going to cause failure of the HS and VS.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Schiphol
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Major components still missing - update nr 3
Major components which i have NOT found yet on pictures ... but hope someone else has:
a. top and aft section of the vertical tail structure,
b. rudder - so we are close to having the four corners but are not there yet,
c. horizontal stabilizer - we now probably have one side, but the center box and the other side are still missing,
d. 4 of 8 passenger doors (it is easy to identify 3 in their proper position, *** 1 or maybe 3 without position, so at least 2 still missing),
e. both engines identified (including fans and spinners) - but left/right unknown, and apparent difference in burn marks and fractures,
f. APU itself not explicitely identified - muffler visible, and end cover of tailcone/exhaust found,
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, and 3+3 possible,
h. nose landing gear itself – but expect to find that inside the NLG box,
i. probably a number of large (top) fuselage panels - again some look very clean and untouched by fire, while others appear to have burned up,
j. all righthand side cargodoors - you would expect to find some as the fuselage appears to be inverted,
k. winglet of the right wing,
We do not know the status immediately after the accident. So we do not now how much of the wreckage has been moved early on. So at this stage we do not know from the pictures how much of the fuselage we actually see. It may well be that the fuselage has been 'raked apart' early on to extract the victims (which of course had priority). If the fuselage has not been raked, and is complete over its length, then the fuselage appears to be broken, and the broken sections positioned in a zig zag. But with some of the top panels lost before reaching the ground. At this stage, based on the pictures, it could well be that an aft section part is still missing.
What is rather unexpected is the difference in burn marks. On some parts the burning has been severe, while their direct neighbours appear to be untouched. A striking example appears to be the Main Equipment Center. The lower left shows burned wire bundles (isolation burned off but metal wires still 'springy'), but directly next to that they appears to be clean and untouched. The wirebundles at the back of the MEC look good too. Almost looks like a kind of flash instead of longer duration burning. Which gives hope for possible data extraction from a number of avionics boxes in the racks of the MEC.
a. top and aft section of the vertical tail structure,
b. rudder - so we are close to having the four corners but are not there yet,
c. horizontal stabilizer - we now probably have one side, but the center box and the other side are still missing,
d. 4 of 8 passenger doors (it is easy to identify 3 in their proper position, *** 1 or maybe 3 without position, so at least 2 still missing),
e. both engines identified (including fans and spinners) - but left/right unknown, and apparent difference in burn marks and fractures,
f. APU itself not explicitely identified - muffler visible, and end cover of tailcone/exhaust found,
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, and 3+3 possible,
h. nose landing gear itself – but expect to find that inside the NLG box,
i. probably a number of large (top) fuselage panels - again some look very clean and untouched by fire, while others appear to have burned up,
j. all righthand side cargodoors - you would expect to find some as the fuselage appears to be inverted,
k. winglet of the right wing,
We do not know the status immediately after the accident. So we do not now how much of the wreckage has been moved early on. So at this stage we do not know from the pictures how much of the fuselage we actually see. It may well be that the fuselage has been 'raked apart' early on to extract the victims (which of course had priority). If the fuselage has not been raked, and is complete over its length, then the fuselage appears to be broken, and the broken sections positioned in a zig zag. But with some of the top panels lost before reaching the ground. At this stage, based on the pictures, it could well be that an aft section part is still missing.
What is rather unexpected is the difference in burn marks. On some parts the burning has been severe, while their direct neighbours appear to be untouched. A striking example appears to be the Main Equipment Center. The lower left shows burned wire bundles (isolation burned off but metal wires still 'springy'), but directly next to that they appears to be clean and untouched. The wirebundles at the back of the MEC look good too. Almost looks like a kind of flash instead of longer duration burning. Which gives hope for possible data extraction from a number of avionics boxes in the racks of the MEC.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: U.S.
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Olodberon....
RE: post 714... I think you and the guy you were responding to both missed the point. If you look carefully at the section on the stand you can see vent hole and a louver. Everything to the right of that is missing on the crashed piece. So what he is showing with the red line is that what is to the RIGHT is missing. As noted also in post 701.
But more importantly to me, if you compare that picture, with the above drawing, and then of the pressure bulkhead with the fire bottle, the crashed piece with the fire bottle shows a diagonal cut running top to bottom for front starboard to rear port sides. As if sheared at an angle across the longitudinal axis.
Maybe the bit aft of the pressure bulkhead is now just an empty shell and it crushed on hitting the ground. Then the APU is not attached to this fire bottle bit but to the cone pictured in post 715.
No clue if that is significant, just trying to get the bit ps to fit in my head.
RE: post 714... I think you and the guy you were responding to both missed the point. If you look carefully at the section on the stand you can see vent hole and a louver. Everything to the right of that is missing on the crashed piece. So what he is showing with the red line is that what is to the RIGHT is missing. As noted also in post 701.
But more importantly to me, if you compare that picture, with the above drawing, and then of the pressure bulkhead with the fire bottle, the crashed piece with the fire bottle shows a diagonal cut running top to bottom for front starboard to rear port sides. As if sheared at an angle across the longitudinal axis.
Maybe the bit aft of the pressure bulkhead is now just an empty shell and it crushed on hitting the ground. Then the APU is not attached to this fire bottle bit but to the cone pictured in post 715.
No clue if that is significant, just trying to get the bit ps to fit in my head.
Last edited by Newfie; 4th Nov 2015 at 00:52.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Russian-language media report that so far no traces of explosives have been found on the wreckage.
http://www.rbc.ru/society/02/11/2015...794715abbcf395
http://www.rbc.ru/society/02/11/2015...794715abbcf395
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: wales
Age: 81
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A321 stage 1 assembly
In the video you can clearly see the back end assembly and that heavy frame at the end of the main fuselage just aft of the RPB you can also see the HS being fitted followed by the rudder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OQigxFYIUg
BTW now realise those tubular parts are not the screw jack but have no idea what they are, there appears to be 4 lower and 4 upper, they may even be adjustable length like a turnbuckle, if so are they tensioning/strengthening devices for the frame to enable it to cope with loads from the HS, there are 2 vertical movent ones and two horizontal movement ones at top and bottom, it is hard to see the horizontal ones as they are gong forward and hidden by the structure, post 663 shows them from within the HS compartment looking aft.
looking at the left hand fuselage of the two, you can just make out the rear door , going aft as you get to the HS compartment the skin changes colur to a greyish shade, is thus the approx area of the RPB, trying to get a visual handle on the size of the HS compartment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OQigxFYIUg
BTW now realise those tubular parts are not the screw jack but have no idea what they are, there appears to be 4 lower and 4 upper, they may even be adjustable length like a turnbuckle, if so are they tensioning/strengthening devices for the frame to enable it to cope with loads from the HS, there are 2 vertical movent ones and two horizontal movement ones at top and bottom, it is hard to see the horizontal ones as they are gong forward and hidden by the structure, post 663 shows them from within the HS compartment looking aft.
looking at the left hand fuselage of the two, you can just make out the rear door , going aft as you get to the HS compartment the skin changes colur to a greyish shade, is thus the approx area of the RPB, trying to get a visual handle on the size of the HS compartment
Last edited by oldoberon; 4th Nov 2015 at 02:17. Reason: add image and question 2nd edit replace image qith smaller one
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: wales
Age: 81
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to Newfie
But more importantly to me, if you compare that picture, with the above drawing, and then of the pressure bulkhead with the fire bottle, the crashed piece with the fire bottle shows a diagonal cut running top to bottom for front starboard to rear port sides. As if sheared at an angle across the longitudinal axis.
However my reason for replying is to ask for a post number showing what you believe to be a diagonal crack, bear in mind all the pictures showing the firewall and firebottle the section is on its side the actual top is at the left
this is now in the same orientation as the drawing ie top is top
Last edited by oldoberon; 4th Nov 2015 at 01:38. Reason: add image
So, what happened first? tail was broken off or something happened to the fuselage between wings and tail?
The two engine fans would have felt it also but the engine casing damage would be 90 deg out of phase
In the preceeding photos of the section with remnants of the fin, there does not seem to be any tailcone structure below where the tailplane is mounted.
That indicates a downward overload on the tailplane mounts, keeping in mind that once the jackscrew or attachments failed, there would be no survivable outcome
That indicates a downward overload on the tailplane mounts, keeping in mind that once the jackscrew or attachments failed, there would be no survivable outcome
That is the LEFT Horizontal Stabilizer on the video.
On the below link there is a very good photo of the entire structure, which is attached to the airframe through hinges at the rear of the center section and the trim actuator through the large hinge at the front:
More of the horizontal stabilizer - Wandering Aramean
The fact that the HS is shorn off flush with the fuselage side is indicative of failure due to aerodynamic loads. If the attachment structure would have failed, the HS would have parted in one piece (it is a very strong structure, in several prior accidents we have seen the entire tail sections with HS attached survive ground tumbles relatively intact). This in turn suggests that the entire tail section broke off in one piece, and aerodynamic loads snapped off the HS (and probably the rudder and trailing edge of the VS) as it tumbled (I cannot envision an attitude of an intact airframe that would result in this damage while keeping wings intact).
Kulverstukas' new photo of the tail section which we have not seen before shows that the upper part of the frame supporting the HS/VS structure is intact, and that is also the section where the tailcone cleanly broke off. (Here is a photo of tail section while under construction: http://blog.wandr.me/2015/09/airbus-...ttachment/008/). The VS attachment structure is essentially undamaged, the buckling of the VS is the result of ground impact (the damage is such that it could not have stayed together in the air). As the tailcone and the tail piece were found close apart (both shown on the initial video and the satellite map of the wreckage) it is reasonable to assume that they remained attached for some time after the HS was broken off. The right HS probably took out the HS support hinges with a clean break (which is evident on Kulverstukas' photo), together with all of the lower fuselage up to the RPB, those parts have not yet appeared on any photos.
All this in turn would confirm that the initial failure occurred somewhere before the tail, and eliminate the RPB as a possible culprit.
@Kulverstukas, any snippets of information in Russian media regarding the location of the HS ?
@lomapaseo, could you elaborate what makes you suggest any initial failure forward of the wings ? To all appearances the wing and forward fuselage came down in one piece, while the rear fuselage disintegrated completely quite early (if not first) in the breakup sequence. Do you see any evidence for an in flight T/R deployment?
As for FR24, they themselves confirmed that data received during the upset cannot be considered reliable, especially GS & VS data which are all derived from 3D GPS position which itself is unreliable given the circumstances.
On the below link there is a very good photo of the entire structure, which is attached to the airframe through hinges at the rear of the center section and the trim actuator through the large hinge at the front:
More of the horizontal stabilizer - Wandering Aramean
The fact that the HS is shorn off flush with the fuselage side is indicative of failure due to aerodynamic loads. If the attachment structure would have failed, the HS would have parted in one piece (it is a very strong structure, in several prior accidents we have seen the entire tail sections with HS attached survive ground tumbles relatively intact). This in turn suggests that the entire tail section broke off in one piece, and aerodynamic loads snapped off the HS (and probably the rudder and trailing edge of the VS) as it tumbled (I cannot envision an attitude of an intact airframe that would result in this damage while keeping wings intact).
Kulverstukas' new photo of the tail section which we have not seen before shows that the upper part of the frame supporting the HS/VS structure is intact, and that is also the section where the tailcone cleanly broke off. (Here is a photo of tail section while under construction: http://blog.wandr.me/2015/09/airbus-...ttachment/008/). The VS attachment structure is essentially undamaged, the buckling of the VS is the result of ground impact (the damage is such that it could not have stayed together in the air). As the tailcone and the tail piece were found close apart (both shown on the initial video and the satellite map of the wreckage) it is reasonable to assume that they remained attached for some time after the HS was broken off. The right HS probably took out the HS support hinges with a clean break (which is evident on Kulverstukas' photo), together with all of the lower fuselage up to the RPB, those parts have not yet appeared on any photos.
All this in turn would confirm that the initial failure occurred somewhere before the tail, and eliminate the RPB as a possible culprit.
@Kulverstukas, any snippets of information in Russian media regarding the location of the HS ?
@lomapaseo, could you elaborate what makes you suggest any initial failure forward of the wings ? To all appearances the wing and forward fuselage came down in one piece, while the rear fuselage disintegrated completely quite early (if not first) in the breakup sequence. Do you see any evidence for an in flight T/R deployment?
As for FR24, they themselves confirmed that data received during the upset cannot be considered reliable, especially GS & VS data which are all derived from 3D GPS position which itself is unreliable given the circumstances.
Last edited by andrasz; 4th Nov 2015 at 04:04.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Near St Lawrence River
Age: 53
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Explosive decompression? Similar to China flight 611?
By looking at tail wreckage with VS at horisontal, missing THS and rudder, you can say that the tail cone was expulsed like an airsoft bullet, it ripped off everything around it.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ventura, California
Age: 65
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Translations
I've made this comment several times over the years here in this forum and I'll say it again:
I'm completely bilingual in Spanish and English. That fact gives me the advantage of knowing how hard it is to convey meaning from one language to another.
When I hear people taking translations such as "toy", or "brought down", or "external" across languages to literally convey the meaning intended by the speaker, I can't believe they have the experience to know they may not understand at all.
I may be wrong - I only know two languages; but that's what I think.
I'm completely bilingual in Spanish and English. That fact gives me the advantage of knowing how hard it is to convey meaning from one language to another.
When I hear people taking translations such as "toy", or "brought down", or "external" across languages to literally convey the meaning intended by the speaker, I can't believe they have the experience to know they may not understand at all.
I may be wrong - I only know two languages; but that's what I think.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: California
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To me, it appears that the HS and VS had to be damaged before the separation of the tail section. Had that section separated first, I don't think sufficient forces would have been generated to do the damage. The VS appears to have split which could only happen if the aft mounting points were pushed rearward relative to the front mounting points.
My sequence would be HS/VS failure (reason TBD), HS tore off tail cone/APU, tail section is torn off by tumbling or spinning, fuselage rear section now has an open end and is torn apart by aerodynamic forces up to the stronger wing box, remainder of aircraft catches fire and falls vertical, mostly intact.
While this doesn't rule out foul play, it does make it less likely. A bomb in the passenger compartment or in the cargo hold is probably not going to cause failure of the HS and VS.
My sequence would be HS/VS failure (reason TBD), HS tore off tail cone/APU, tail section is torn off by tumbling or spinning, fuselage rear section now has an open end and is torn apart by aerodynamic forces up to the stronger wing box, remainder of aircraft catches fire and falls vertical, mostly intact.
While this doesn't rule out foul play, it does make it less likely. A bomb in the passenger compartment or in the cargo hold is probably not going to cause failure of the HS and VS.
We basically need two explosions, one inside the HS/VS bay and the other inside the passenger cabin. The first would knock out the APU and split the VS between mounting points, the other would blow a hole in the roof and tear off the tail.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flightradar24 has released a revised data set
Metrojet 9268 Extended Mode-S Data Decoded | Flightradar24 Blog
Most important additions are GPS-derived groundspeed & vspeed.
Metrojet 9268 Extended Mode-S Data Decoded | Flightradar24 Blog
Most important additions are GPS-derived groundspeed & vspeed.
If we plot again the data including the new GPS computed GS and VS, to my eyes at least still only very limited conclusions can be made:
(Altitude data up to about the 347 second mark is from pressure altitude. Raw GPS-derived altitude is substituted afterwards with no attempt to match them).
After the event at 331 seconds, the GPS Vertical Speed remains negative until the end of data, averaging about -10,000 fpm. So that "zoom climb" reflected from the pressure altitude probably didn't actually happen.
That likely also means there's no real "phugoid" motion where the aircraft periodically regains some altitude before dropping again. But there are periods where the descent slowed down.
The TAS remain fixed at a few values throughout, so it is probably garbage past 331 seconds.
Originally Posted by peekay4
still only limited conclusions can be made
However there is one aspect of the FR24 data which is intriguing. By now it is increasingly clear that an in-flight breakup occurred, with complete loss of control the moment the tail section broke off early in the sequence. Data continued to be received from the aircraft for 25 seconds after the start of the upset, which at least indicates that the relevant systems were powered and transmitting (never mind the data). Can someone with knowledge of the bus power/avionics systems provide a plausible scenario for this ? Is this indicative of the engine generators continuing to supply power until loss of signal, or would there be some automatic reversion to battery power (which would remain available as it is in the front bay) after the engines would have shorn off ? Given the G forces involved it is unlikely the crew would/could do anything.
Last edited by andrasz; 4th Nov 2015 at 04:23.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ventura, California
Age: 65
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peekay:
Assuming the plane broke in half somewhere in the interval you've charted, I wonder if the data is coming from the back or the front?
Also, can you establish a time function between the peaks and valleys?
Your chart is impressive and brings all sorts of thoughts to mind, not the least of which is what would someone inside have experienced.
Assuming the plane broke in half somewhere in the interval you've charted, I wonder if the data is coming from the back or the front?
Also, can you establish a time function between the peaks and valleys?
Your chart is impressive and brings all sorts of thoughts to mind, not the least of which is what would someone inside have experienced.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's hard to compute a function because we don't know which data points (if any) may be considered reliable. E.g., even the GPS-derived altitudes don't match the GPS-derived vertical speeds.
It is a stark picture that something catastrophic happened.
It is a stark picture that something catastrophic happened.
(Cannot find the English language button on the Arabic website, but a long shot anyway to offer as food for thought.)
TBS/JNN (fairly reputable Japanese news source) reported on Japan Yahoo news this morning:
????????????????????????(TBS??JNN?) - Yahoo!????
that the Egyptian newspaper "Al Masry Al Youm", エジプトの新聞アルマスリ・アルヨウム紙は３日、エジプトやロシア、フランスの専門家からなる調査委員会の関係者の話として、ブ ラックボックスの解析結果を報じました。それによると、機内で何らかの異常が発生し、機体後方の右側部分の壁面が損傷した結果、墜落に至ったということです。
(My translation Japanese to English from here: "reported on the 3rd, that people close to the specialist investigating team from Egypt, Russia and France have said that analysis of the black box data suggests the occurrence of some kind of abnormality inside the aircraft body, then damage to the right rear wall of the aircraft causing its resultant crash."
TBS/JNN (fairly reputable Japanese news source) reported on Japan Yahoo news this morning:
????????????????????????(TBS??JNN?) - Yahoo!????
that the Egyptian newspaper "Al Masry Al Youm", エジプトの新聞アルマスリ・アルヨウム紙は３日、エジプトやロシア、フランスの専門家からなる調査委員会の関係者の話として、ブ ラックボックスの解析結果を報じました。それによると、機内で何らかの異常が発生し、機体後方の右側部分の壁面が損傷した結果、墜落に至ったということです。
(My translation Japanese to English from here: "reported on the 3rd, that people close to the specialist investigating team from Egypt, Russia and France have said that analysis of the black box data suggests the occurrence of some kind of abnormality inside the aircraft body, then damage to the right rear wall of the aircraft causing its resultant crash."
Last edited by jolihokistix; 4th Nov 2015 at 04:54.