BREAKING NEWS: airliner missing within Egyptian FIR

[rog747]

this is either door 2 or 3 L or R emergency exit slide panel which is below the door

edit its door 2
as door 3 panel has a rear wing root fairing

[Prada]

bulkhead or not

a) is that the rear PB?

No this is not pressure bulkhead.

Pressure bulkhead is connected to fuselage here:


And it looks like this from inside:

[thcrozier]

Digital sensor corrosion.

The marks on the door panel are unusual. If you look at the nearby painted components fainter distortions are also visible. Those may or may not actually be there; they look like they could possibly be corrosion on the camera's digital sensor. In several of the shots including blue sky, sensor corrosion is obvious.

http://petapixel.com/2014/12/10/leic...-replacements/

The examples attached are not from the accident site. They simply show the types of image flaws that sensor corrosion can create; but similar flaws are evident in quite a few accident site photos.

[VolLibre]

APU airworthiness directive A321

Is this relevant?. If not, sorry for adding to the noise.

We are issuing this AD to prevent oil vapor leakage from the APU AC generator, which, when combined with an electric arc at the electrical receptacle, could result in a fire or explosion in the APU compartment during flight

[Islay]

22/04
If there was a significant leak from one of the rudder PCU's then this would/should have been picked up, at least during a daily or the numerous A checks between the C/D checks. Any Hydraulic fluid replenishment is done from a central point to fill that respective hyd system ( not filled at the point of leak) and yes any uplift of Hyd fluid should be recorded in the tech log. I can't imagine any airline would allow a significant leak to carry on for that amount of time without rectifying it. The marks on the rudder could easily be damaged paint from a previous leak. This would only be rectified during a repaint.

[G-CPTN]

Here's a thought.

Some usually 'inert' device (like a laptop computer) that suffered a thermal runaway resulting in a fire and subsequent explosion.

Not a terrorist action (so satisfies the 'Kremlin').

Wasn't there a recent event where a credit-card reader battery overheated causing a diversion?

[TURIN]

Don't think it is the RPB repair but am drawn to that skydrol which might be irrelevant. Still looking for answers as to whether it would need top up and whether that would be recorded in any kind of tech log. What are the consequences of Skydrol leak and where would it go- where would messy top ups go if they are needed. Still waiting for an engineer to tell me "there are no consequences worth note".

Hydraulic uplifts are recorded in the Tech log during normal line operations. The operator should have a process in place to monitor this. If regular uplifts are necessary a leak will be obvious. Manufacturers give limits in the AMM of what constitutes a seep, drip, running leak etc. But of course some operators will bend the rules.....
The worst thing about skydrol is it stings like buggery.

[LiamNCL]

That scorched hatch a few posts up looks like its from just under the L2 / R2 door

[Prada]

in flight heat damage

Lancair70, that part of fuselage is from just under the second door. The door that is located in front of wings.
there is actually similar pieces from opposite sides of these doors that have similar fire and heat damage.

http://www.keri.ee/crash/siinai3.jpg

if you look at the nose, then you can see that underside of nose is also covered with soot.

Russian medics said that main reason of occupants death was fire and blunt trauma.

Now back to speculation,
Regarding all this, it seems like after plane has lost its fuselage behind wings, its broken fuel tanks fuelled a large fireball around the plane. While remaining plane was falling backside down. It takes several minutes to fall and burn. If you look at the flames direction then it coincides with the probable falling attitude. The closer to the wings, the more heat damage there is.

Also there was a picture of a separated engine fan having similar sooting and heat damage. Thus, wings and engines must have been inside the fireball of falling plane.

[hamster3null]

Potentially curious observation.

First image: tail cone, containing the APU:

http://cdn1.img.sputniknews.com/imag...1029478002.jpg

Second image: the rest of the tail:

http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content...569.cached.jpg

Other side:
http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscm...-2880-1000.jpg

In the second image, you can see the line where the tail cone was attached. (We now have the entire tail except for HS and the rudder.)

The curious part is that the skin of the tail cone is badly sooted, but corresponding skin in the second image is clean.

This suggests that there was fire/smoke inside the tail, while the whole assembly was still in the air (and possibly attached to the rest of the fuselage), that's what caused the tail cone to separate (otherwise, I can't see a good reason why it would break off in midair), and the smoke was leaking out through the tail cone attachment line.

Note that there's no evidence of fire on the rear passenger door, so the fire was likely localized aft of the APB.

You can also infer the location of the APB from the third image. Parts forward of the APB have minimal damage, which could have been caused purely by ground impact. Parts aft of the APB are badly shredded as if by internal explosion.

However, I don't see how an explosion in that area could have caused the tail to break off entirely the way it did. It could have been the other way around. An explosion in an overhead bin (towards the rear, left side, judging by the fact that we're missing more skin on the left than on the right), causing decompression, causing the tail to break off, which severs the fuel lines to the APU, which leads to an explosion behind the APB that separates the tail cone and horizontal stabilizers, which land separately from the rest of the tail.

[Foxxster]

Just heard on radio that a satellite picked up a heat spike at the time of the 'event'. Clearly some kind of explosion but no confirmed cause, possible bomb or engine or fuel explosion.

Bit vague I know but interesting they are using all technology to help in the investigation.

[AirScotia]

If a bomb of any kind was involved, I imagine autopsies would show this to be the case. However, have autopsies been done?

According to this CBS news piece Satellite detected heat flash at time Russian jetliner went down - CBS News,

A Russian government plane brought 130 bodies and partial remains to St. Petersburg. The city is holding three days of mourning through Tuesday.

If true, it seems the bodies have been removed from Egypt to Russia before detailed examination could be done? And how could those bodies have been definitively identified as Russian - given that four were from Ukraine and one from Belarus?

The article also suggests that the USA has not been invited to participate in the investigation:

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the U.S. offered support for the investigation, but he added that he's not aware of any resources that have been dedicated to it so far.

[TylerMonkey]

Better detail . . .

[porterhouse]

Exactly, a heat spike would be obvious when fully fueled airliner crashed to the ground from high altitude, unless they can precisely synchronize it to determine it happened mid-air this is hardly interesting piece of news.

[hamster3null]

Originally Posted by LiamNCL

Wasnt that tail cone dirty and marked before the crash as people have been noting ?

OK, I've realized my mistake. I was assuming that the tail cone is upright (and I guess there's no reason it should be). But it's actually on its side, and we're looking at what used to be the top, directly underneath the rudder. And yes, other pictures show staining in that area even before the crash.

[onetrack]

The investigators will also be verifying who worked at the airport that day and who was able to gain access to the aircraft, including ground staff, pax, crew, an aviation inspector perhaps?

Good luck with that part of the investigation, pal. After having been stranded as a pax in Cairo airport overnight, and watching the lip-service paid to security between landside and airside, I can assure you, I never want to transit Egypt again, nor be part of their air travel system.

Many people seem to assume that terrorist organisations are some kind of highly organised groups with tight control over their members. The exact opposite is true.
These people are criminally-inclined sociopath nutters who regularly break up into small splinter groups, and who will fight each other as bitterly as they will fight European or Christian countries.

It's becoming more and more likely - despite the inadequate amount of evidence being released - to assume that a bomb brought down this aircraft and that said bomb was easily placed in the rear of the cargo hold by a terrorist from a small splinter group originating from Syria - which individual was intent on venting their hatred on a Russian civilian aircraft and Russian civilians, due to Russian warplane activity in his family or fighter friends environment.

No need for them to claim responsibility or make a big noise about it - they have carried out their revenge, and any attempt to gain pyschological advantage by advertising that they were responsible, would only bring intense and immediate electronic, military and investigative scrutiny upon them. Far better to operate like a cockroach and avoid the limelight. And human cockroaches describes ME terrorists particularly well.

The fact that a large portion of the fuselage between the wings and the tail is no longer intact - as one would expect in the case of a HS or pressure bulkhead failure, leads to the inevitable conclusion that only a bomb could be responsible.

The A321 is a basically-sound construction aircraft, with no important known weaknesses - and pressure bulkhead failures are a particularly rare event - but they have assumed a greater fear than deserved amongst many people, who tend to place a far greater chance of this event happening, than is likely to occur.

[log0008]

Does anyone know how far apart the tail and the tail cone were found? I am confused as to why the tail would break twice, such as if the tail separated from the aircraft first (it appear to be the ripped apart where as the cone is at a meeting point) why would the cone then fall off pre impact with the ground?

[A0283]

@hamster3null - complete tail?

Hamster, you suggest we have the whole tail apart from the HS/THS?

As far as i have seen in the available pictures, we only have the bottom half or so of the 'leading edge' of the vertical tail, and part of the lower structure.
The top of the leading edge, the top of the tail, the complete 'box' structure, and the rudder are still missing.

In one very small picture we apparenlty see the tailcone with the APU access doors open. But as far as i have seen there is no proof that the APU is still inside.

Would be interesting to know if you have seen pictures showing these items.

+++

If we use the available pictures as 'evidence', then uptill now i have not seen any damage that looks like a bomb or missile. There are 2+1 'holes' that look a bit strange, but these can have multiple explanations. Also, quite a lot of structure is missing (no pictures) or severely burned. So, it appears far too soon to focus on these types of causes, or even use words like 'only' or 'inevitable'. In quite a few cases you can only clearly see that kind of damage after a reconstruction. With MH17 being an exception because of the hi res pictures of the hi to lo penetrations of the cockpit floor and pilot seats.

In general at this stage of an investigation all scenario's and options are open. In this case, with the low quality and low resolution of the photos, i would even say 'wide, wide open'.

[Toruk Macto]

Are there pok marks over some of the lining where the fire bottle is ( which also seems to be dintted ) ? Plus some of the struts seem to be hit by something ? The door that has holes in it , is that a rear door ? If a bomb was placed on board could there been more than one ?

[lomapaseo]

Now back to speculation,
Regarding all this, it seems like after plane has lost its fuselage behind wings, its broken fuel tanks fuelled a large fireball around the plane. While remaining plane was falling backside down. It takes several minutes to fall and burn. If you look at the flames direction then it coincides with the probable falling attitude. The closer to the wings, the more heat damage there is.

Also there was a picture of a separated engine fan having similar sooting and heat damage. Thus, wings and engines must have been inside the fireball of falling plane.

The engine sooting is likely coming in from the front. TWA 800 had soot patterns across the wings at angles corresponding to spinning as it fell.

PA103 snapped its tail off from aero loads generated from the primary break ahead of the wings.

Gyro loads on the engines may be part of the evidence of yes or no?