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

BREAKING NEWS: airliner missing within Egyptian FIR

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

BREAKING NEWS: airliner missing within Egyptian FIR

Old 8th Nov 2015, 07:40
  #1741 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 77
Posts: 1,458
It is pretty clear to me at this point that whatever caused the failure along the frame in the crown of the aircraft ahead of the rear doors was the primary cause of this accident. The direction of the line of failure is indicative that only the lower part of the structure was performing its function. The area of the initial line of failure is in a production joint. See attached picture of a new A321 tail assembly. The different primer colors highlight the different sections. (Source NYTimes.com article on new Airbus Mobile Alabama assembly plant)

The direction of tear is symmetric on both sides of the aircraft. See this picture from hamster3null. When you consider that aircraft are typically designed with a 50% safety factor above maximum load, it is surprising that the tear propagated as far as it did vertically before it turned forward.

If it was a fatigue failure, then there should be adequate evidence from the failed skin at the top of the rear fuselage section to make that determination.
(You do not have to have the opposite side of the failure to prove evidence of fatigue, the two sides will mirror each other.)
If it was entirely an instantaneous type failure from overstress, that also will be evident, in which case we will have a good case for an internally planted explosive device.

I suspect that electrical signals and hydraulics to the tail are routed along the crown of the aircraft. Can anyone verify this?

Last edited by Machinbird; 9th Nov 2015 at 02:14. Reason: To acknowledge and expand failure at a production joint.
Machinbird is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2015, 08:22
  #1742 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 19
With the downward moment of the HS the upper surface is under tension and therefore would possibly be the first part to rupture with an over pressure.
If there was a bomb in the rear of the aircraft then the blast and secondary blast would be reinforced due to the divergent duct effect.
It would appear then that your conclusions seem pretty accurate as we continue to speculate on the final outcome.
auntyice is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2015, 08:27
  #1743 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Swansea
Posts: 61
Posted by Budleon:
ThadBeier has put forward some very solid points on why it might be fake. There are two elements of ThadBeier's ideas I'd like to challenge though. [snip]
Rayleigh Scattering doesn't occur in the object being viewed (in this case the smoke), it occurs in the intervening gaseous atmosphere. It is particularly noticeable against dark or black objects because, by definition, they are not emitting or reflecting any light themselves, and so only the blue light scattered into the observer's line of sight is visible. For an aircraft at an altitude of 6 miles, 30 degrees above the horizon, the slant range to the observer is approximately 12 miles. Try looking at a mountain or similar 12 miles away and you'll readily see the blue tint over it.

Deceleration. At TOC, the aircraft will have had an airspeed of around 400 knots, or around 700 feet per second. To decelerate to an average speed of 232 feet per second in half a second would require a deceleration of many tens of g's. In fact, under a linear deceleration, it would have had to have come to rest well before the half second was up in order to achieve that average speed, suffering a deceleration of some 66g in the process. All while continuing on in an essentially unchanged attitude, as portrayed in the video. Unlikely.

Finally, I suggest following ThadBeier's advice and googling his filmography. I am not normally given to accepting "arguments from authority" at face value, but I think that you'll find that he is more than amply qualified to opine on the veracity of visual effects. Probably as well qualified as anyone on the planet.
DespairingTraveller is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2015, 08:37
  #1744 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 31
I've reversed the sequence I was going to show these so that the "new" information is first. This is the aft end of N106US, the plane on US Air Flight 1549, Sullenberger's "Miracle on the Hudson," during the NTSB investigation. Point C is a point of reference through all photos. These are my annotations of a photo found here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/patric...57623272797240

From the NTSB report "The tail cone was separated from the original attachment points except for the right hand side lower location and no longer retained its conical shape. The auxiliary power unit (APU) was still attached to the remaining structure of the tail cone. "The lower third of the aft pressure bulkhead was sheared away." This is a photo taken from part of the NTSB report Document 43 ATC 3B - JFK and EWR Radar Files Filing Date March 19, 2009 0 page(s) of Data Photos

All of the struts and cross bracing shown in this picture are flight structural members and not just for support during assembly. Some of these are missing from the second photo of Flight 1549 and all of the lower ones have yet to be seen in the Metrojet crash photos.

This is the same aft frame #77 as above on the crash we're discussing. There has been some discussion that the spindly structure left of point A could be part of the THS control assembly. It might be part of the mechanical cable system for the rudder and horizontal trim, as something like this can be seen in the first picture near the THS controller.
The fittings from the next section aft, the tail cone with APU, are still attached to points A and B here and in the photo from Flight 1549.

Frame #77 is at the curved aft end of this section so the light area next to point B in the previous photo is this skin. The flight recorder notice is a reference point back to the other photos.
sardak is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2015, 09:16
  #1745 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Earlier in the thread somebody asked if there were any images of the outside of the door which had the "marks" on the upper interior panel.

In the Russian TV video linked a few posts ago, the door is shown at 38 seconds - direct linke here.
JRM2010 is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2015, 09:38
  #1746 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Lat..x Long..y
Posts: 211
Mute Israel

I too have been boggled from the onset of this active searching thread why, especially considering how close the event took place near the reactive "Bibi's" hot spot border that Israel is speechless..... It just doesn't add up! That event took place soon after that track change away from Israel as has been shown from the trackers and all other photos depicted. The ATC tapes might help point under which Controller that doomed Airliner was being supervised. From initial reports it certainly fid not seem it was under Cairo ACC controllers...mention was made of Cyprus and Turkey!!!

Centre fuel tank mischief ( including fuel leaks) should rule out. This plane had flown over 50,000 hours...i wonder how many cycles...and if integrity of fuel tanks has been analysed via maintenance and techlog records?

Originally Posted by oleostrut View Post
Israel is absolutely silent on the whole matter. For those of us that have slightly deviated from military instructions (not Israeli, necessarily) when operating under their guidance, you know how accurate their equipment is. They saw and recorded the entire event.

With Israel's experience with the Sinai, they watch that airspace very closely.

Of course, the US knows as well from their various satellites monitoring in real time.

If it were a purely structural breakup, the major powers would have been clued in.

Judge the past by the actions in the present.

Last edited by Vc10Tail; 8th Nov 2015 at 10:44.
Vc10Tail is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2015, 09:39
  #1747 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Where it is comfortable...
Age: 55
Posts: 708
Before we all jump on the bandwagon, that "increased chatter" could have gone something like this:

- Congrats, brothers, the Caliph sends his blessings.
- That's nice, for what ?
- The plane ?
- What plane ?
- The one that just crashed. We thought you did it...
- No we didn't. Maybe Ahmed's cell ?
- Hang on. Ahmed, was it you ?
- Me what ?
- Well if it was none of us, who did it ?
- Never mind who did it, we should say we did! Anyone good in video editing ?
andrasz is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2015, 10:00
  #1748 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: NO
Posts: 38
Sorry for going back in time, but while we've been looking at the right hand side of the tail a lot, I'm curious about the skin damage front and aft (fold and tear, respectively) of the left hand door. Seems atypical - but perhaps down to the ground impact?
RYFQB is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2015, 11:16
  #1749 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,131
Originally Posted by oldoberon View Post
I ask the question again would those rapid degree of heading changes cause the VS to fail or and what do the they indicate ie what could be the cause.
You might want to bear in mind firstly that those are track, not heading, values (FR24 appears not to know the difference and uses both terms interchangeably).

Secondly, and more importantly, the track values are GPS-derived and are subject to the issues described in previous posts (for example at one point the FR24 GPS coordinates show the aircraft apparently going backwards, which clearly didn't happen).

So I don't think the data supports an AAL587 scenario here.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 8th Nov 2015, 11:24
  #1750 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: UK
Age: 67
Posts: 8
I have made a little comic below to illustrate my thoughts.
I understand that the top of the fuselage near the tail section is on a “pull” load, holding the nose up, whist the underside is on a “push” load, see arrows. (sorry, English is not my native language) What do the stress engineers here think of the following thought: We know there has been a fire in the hold, for whatever reason. This would damage/weaken the structure of the lower part of the fuselage. With the tail pushing down the floor crumples up, the stress on the rivet-joint of the top of the tail section to fuselage is too great and rivets sheer off leaving a large gap following the loss of cabin pressure etc. Depending where the data and power cables for the black boxes run, this could be the moment where these are damaged. Before or during this process outer panels are ripped off from the fuselage hitting the HS etc.

Now, the question is: how do I insert a picture....

Hope this will work

Last edited by Ruimte Aap; 8th Nov 2015 at 11:45.
Ruimte Aap is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2015, 11:28
  #1751 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 56
Posts: 376
Great post Andrasz (#1737 at 0310). Very helpful to summarise the knowns and help keep things on track. I personally found your analysis of the damage and likely sequence very interesting. Engineering background?

The one thing I take exception to is the last paragraph

MODS, could we banish all this nonsense talk about the video to a separate thread on jet-blast ? A) the aircraft was NOT downed by a missile B) those with knowledge of video making / editing have conclusively demonstrated it is fabricated. It has ZERO credibility, it was released hours after the news were already splashed over every conceivable news site, the persistent discussion adds a totally unnecessary clutter on this thread swamping meaningful posts.
Given we don't know what happened, I believe it is a mistake to dismiss something as an irrelevant and meaningless nuisance.

We have a video that increasingly seems to fit the likely circumstances of the explosion. Both our understanding of the crash. And our understanding of what the SBIRS system saw. Not all this information was out before the video was released.

No one has put forward an alternative event or explanation for this this video.

No government body has dismissed this. They obviously have the ability to determine it is a fake. Egypt and Russia in particular both have an incentive to denounce it as a fake if they knew it to be. Even Western governments with no direct involvement in this tragedy would likely chose to reassure their citizens it was a fake (and ISIS couldn't bomb at aircraft with this degree of reliability).

Some people here with significant expertise (Thadbeier) are persuasive it is a fake. Others (DIBO) have presented impressive analysis it is likely genuine. This is often the case with expert opinion.

Some people here initially said you couldn't get that clear an image of an aircraft at FL330 - until others here did just that.

This video is of central importance. If true, then it was a bomb. If it was a bomb, the precise breakup sequence is no longer particularly critical. It is very interesting. But it is not that critical. The bomb is the critical issue.

Egypt and Russia don't want this to be a bomb. People are circumspect about Egypt's expertise and agenda. People are circumspect about Russia's agenda. The bodies are all in Russia. Apparently debris samples are being tested for explosive residue in Russia. So what will we all think if Egypt and Russia say "no bomb?"

Like it or not, that video may (or may not) turn out to be the one piece of transparent evidence we have. And people call it irrelevant.
slats11 is online now  
Old 8th Nov 2015, 11:54
  #1752 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: wales
Age: 77
Posts: 316

thank you I was not aware of the situation of FR24 interchanging the terms and also the fact this was GPS derived, which I agree at that stage of events makes them dubious.

Last edited by oldoberon; 8th Nov 2015 at 12:02. Reason: insert "not"
oldoberon is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2015, 13:23
  #1753 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: San Antonio, TX USA
Age: 57
Posts: 139
Free Flapping HS

I don't want to get involved in this, but just thought I'd point out one thing if I might. If the HS is ever free to move about it's pivot point (ie sans jackscrew) it will align itself with the oncoming air (weathervaning), not slam to one or the other stop. It's takes the path of least resisitence.
md80fanatic is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2015, 13:26
  #1754 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: france
Age: 35
Posts: 4
Reuters : Investigators '90 percent sure' of bomb on crashed Russian plane
"The indications and analysis so far of the sound on the black box indicate it was a bomb," said the Egyptian investigation team member, who asked not to be named due to sensitivities. "We are 90 percent sure it was a bomb."
dccdz is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2015, 13:28
  #1755 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Where it is comfortable...
Age: 55
Posts: 708
@ slats11

Anyone with basic understanding of the dynamics and effects of an explosion at 31 thousand feet at 400 knots would and should instantly recognise that the video cannot show this accident, smoke will never propagate that way under those conditions.

Also such black smoke comes from a sustained incomplete combustion of heavy carbon compounds (heavy fuels, plastics, rubber, etc.), a bomb (especially high explosives)will give off a puff of white smoke, as the essence of a chemical explosion is instantaneous complete combustion. Obviously the makers of the video did not consider this (of course not, because the video was made when everybody was getting excited about a missile, and the video was made to fit that theory).

If above not sufficient, we know that whatever happened resulted in a near-instantaneous break-up of the airplane, which we do not see on the video. The wreckage provides ample evidence that a (likely fuel fed) fire erupted in the air AFTER the breakup.

I do not wish to dwell on this any longer, those who want to believe rather than think will never listen to reason. The video was created with a laymans understanding of what such an explosion would look like, as this forum is proof that many are falling for it.

This does not mean that it was not a bomb, or IS did not do it (though there are plenty of other loonies out there with an axe to grind, some of them carry Russian passports), it simply means that the video is a fake, full stop.

PS: not engineering, bean counting. But I have learned to recognise the people who know more about a subject than I do, and listen to them.

Last edited by andrasz; 8th Nov 2015 at 13:38.
andrasz is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2015, 13:29
  #1756 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Veracity of video is irrelevant

Interesting as it may be to discuss, I don't see that it matters that much whether the video is real or not.

If it is fake it doesn't mean that the bombing hypothesis is wrong. It's quite plausible that the perpetrators might have a fake video ready to support their claim rather than go to the trouble of filming the actual event.
Solidfuel is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2015, 13:38
  #1757 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 81
Posts: 699
we will all be angry if it does turn out to be a bomb.
That might be the case but it will be of more concern if this was a structural failure.

To some extent we can take precautions against outsiders taking action even though these actions may only be to reassure passengers and to make it more difficult for the perpetrators. Structure failures would reflect on the airworthiness of a lot of aircraft currently in service with far more repercussions.

funfly is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2015, 13:53
  #1758 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Somerset
Posts: 17
" If the HS is ever free to move about it's pivot point (ie sans jackscrew) it will align itself with the oncoming air (weathervaning), not slam to one or the other stop. It's takes the path of least resisitence."

If the jackscrew lower trunnion fails, the HS may initially align itself to the dominant airflow, but the remainng JS may then jam ( especially if the PF tries to correct a sudden change in pitch) on some part of the supporting structure and cause the HS to create max upthrust on the tail.

Rather like accidentally switching off your car ignition key, causing the lock to operate and jam the steering wheel unless you wiggle it to release the lock.)

Witness marks of the end of JS having flailed around might support that suggestion, however unlikely a 'cheese hole' it might be.
sarabande is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2015, 13:59
  #1759 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 803
Originally Posted by oleostrut View Post
Would have sheared the wing off from overload, not broken the tail.

Not necessarily. At 280kts IAS at 30kft and ~Mach 0,75 it probably won't break off, no matter the AOA. Stall speed at that Mach number in clean config at the given weight should be at least 150 - 160kts. 280kts will give you between 3 and 3,5g. That shouldn't suffice to shear the wings off.
henra is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2015, 13:59
  #1760 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 81
Posts: 699
Apart from political influence, is there any suggestion that the final diagnosis might well be related to the costs and placement of liability?
funfly 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.