BREAKING NEWS: airliner missing within Egyptian FIR
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Moscow
Age: 54
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PrivtPilotRadarTech
Thanks to nehoria who posted in #497 big pictures of tail sections. And to Kulverstukas who helped posting the photos in right manner.
I have only highlighted what seemed suspicious to me, and asked flying colleagues (I am just an a/c engineer and single-prop pilot) to verify that such damages could not appear during normal ops.
I repeat it. The suspious dots looking like shrapnel damage from inside.
http://clip2net.com/clip/m0/487bf-clip-351kb.jpg
Mirosft's Shrapnel Photo
Rubber Stilts said: "post # 511 made by Mitrosft included an image of what looked like schrapnel holes in a grey plastic slab from the interior of the rear galley; if I remember correctly."
Yes, it looked like it had been hit by a spray of shrapnel, and the authorities (who are privy to much more information than we are) seem to be leaning to the bomb scenario. Surely by now they have analyzed any chemical signature left behind, and bits of the shrapnel embedded in that plastic piece. Thanks Mitrosft. I just checked, and verified that it is post #511, if you missed it. Thanks Rubber Stilts.
Rubber Stilts said: "post # 511 made by Mitrosft included an image of what looked like schrapnel holes in a grey plastic slab from the interior of the rear galley; if I remember correctly."
Yes, it looked like it had been hit by a spray of shrapnel, and the authorities (who are privy to much more information than we are) seem to be leaning to the bomb scenario. Surely by now they have analyzed any chemical signature left behind, and bits of the shrapnel embedded in that plastic piece. Thanks Mitrosft. I just checked, and verified that it is post #511, if you missed it. Thanks Rubber Stilts.
I have only highlighted what seemed suspicious to me, and asked flying colleagues (I am just an a/c engineer and single-prop pilot) to verify that such damages could not appear during normal ops.
I repeat it. The suspious dots looking like shrapnel damage from inside.
http://clip2net.com/clip/m0/487bf-clip-351kb.jpg
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Moscow
Age: 54
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only one panel on the rear door in the #511 photo shows the marks. Note also lack of distortion in this panel.
How would the adjacent panels escape similar damage?
How would the adjacent panels escape similar damage?
You can see similar scratsh near yellow arming lever and some on the right under Airbus - A ...
It is bunch of them on the trim panel which makes them look like blast shrapnel traces...
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's intriguing that this failure occurred at level-off. If the THS failed and slammed into the full DOWN position (nose-up trim) could the resulting force of it slamming against the stop cause sufficient loading for it break out of the tail, remembering that aerodynamic forces will also be grabbing the tail as it moves?
I'm not convinced it failed symmetrically/cleanly as some think. The side that we have seen may appear that way, but I suggest that the rest of it departed with the other half of the THS.
It is curious also that the underside of the hole where the THS "attaches" to the tail is missing. We can see the upper part of the tail around the hole, but the lower section immediately below is missing, like it was ripped out when the THS departed the aircraft.
As far as I'm aware, a failure of this kind has never occurred on Airbus aircraft before, so I think this would be the first time for this failure mode to occur "for real".
I know parallels have been drawn with the Alaska Airlines flight where the jack-screw failed, but in that instance the tail remained attached to the airframe for some time. What if in this instance, the whole THS and tail assembly failed immediately?
I'm struggling with the bomb theory for the fact that too much of the interior seems lacking in overall damage that can't be explained by disintegration/impact.
If we can trust the reports, that the passengers seated in the aft section suffered metal penetration is hardly surprising, as they are in a 400+ kts airflow with aircraft debris flying at them. It would make sense that the passengers in the forward section didn't suffer this, as they were shielded from the airflow. As for the blunt-force trauma and head injuries of the forward seated passengers, that would be explained by the forces imparted on them, both by the violent pitch-over, and of things flying around the cabin generally.
Note also that the passengers were found in two main groups, and there are no reports of anyone "missing", which had a bomb been detonated, I would have expected in the immediate vicinity of any device.
Have a look at the Comet crashes that were due to fatigue fractures - this crash looks far more like that.
It makes no sense that the tail would break up in the way it apparently has if it detached from the rest of the airframe first. Sure, it would tumble, but for a major part (THS) to detach like it apparently has pre-impact, it doesn't make sense.
I'm not convinced it failed symmetrically/cleanly as some think. The side that we have seen may appear that way, but I suggest that the rest of it departed with the other half of the THS.
It is curious also that the underside of the hole where the THS "attaches" to the tail is missing. We can see the upper part of the tail around the hole, but the lower section immediately below is missing, like it was ripped out when the THS departed the aircraft.
As far as I'm aware, a failure of this kind has never occurred on Airbus aircraft before, so I think this would be the first time for this failure mode to occur "for real".
I know parallels have been drawn with the Alaska Airlines flight where the jack-screw failed, but in that instance the tail remained attached to the airframe for some time. What if in this instance, the whole THS and tail assembly failed immediately?
I'm struggling with the bomb theory for the fact that too much of the interior seems lacking in overall damage that can't be explained by disintegration/impact.
If we can trust the reports, that the passengers seated in the aft section suffered metal penetration is hardly surprising, as they are in a 400+ kts airflow with aircraft debris flying at them. It would make sense that the passengers in the forward section didn't suffer this, as they were shielded from the airflow. As for the blunt-force trauma and head injuries of the forward seated passengers, that would be explained by the forces imparted on them, both by the violent pitch-over, and of things flying around the cabin generally.
Note also that the passengers were found in two main groups, and there are no reports of anyone "missing", which had a bomb been detonated, I would have expected in the immediate vicinity of any device.
Have a look at the Comet crashes that were due to fatigue fractures - this crash looks far more like that.
It makes no sense that the tail would break up in the way it apparently has if it detached from the rest of the airframe first. Sure, it would tumble, but for a major part (THS) to detach like it apparently has pre-impact, it doesn't make sense.
Last edited by ECAM_Actions; 5th Nov 2015 at 06:08.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bribery and corruption are rife within Egypt and I have seen it within aviation from airport security down to the airport check in staff. I myself was once stopped at Cairo and asked to pay a bribe to facilitate my passage through security and I was in full uniform and was just about to operate a flight.
Getting something airside at Sharm that should not have been will not have been rocket science. If these intelligence reports prove to be true, then I suspect this is a terrorist attack that has been carried out with incredible simplicity, that will leave many in bewilderment.
It's a toxic combination when you have an individual who is in a position of responsibility yet is poorly paid with mediocre training, along with a potential touch of religious empathy.
This is the scenario that I suspected from the start as soon as ISIS claimed responsibility, whilst many were still speculating on the feasibility of a surface to air attack.
Getting something airside at Sharm that should not have been will not have been rocket science. If these intelligence reports prove to be true, then I suspect this is a terrorist attack that has been carried out with incredible simplicity, that will leave many in bewilderment.
It's a toxic combination when you have an individual who is in a position of responsibility yet is poorly paid with mediocre training, along with a potential touch of religious empathy.
This is the scenario that I suspected from the start as soon as ISIS claimed responsibility, whilst many were still speculating on the feasibility of a surface to air attack.
Niner Lima Charlie wrote:
If accurate, this strikes me as important. Previously there has been talk of a (single) thermal event. Well, there was obviously a thermal event when the forward airframe and wings hit the desert - it's hard to think that all that fire damage occurred in flight. And if there was only one thermal event, that would argue for in-flight structural failure rather than an in-flight explosion, however caused. "More than one thermal events" is - if true - genuine news. And may be in and of itself sufficient data for assorted governments to presume an attack on the plane until they can be convinced otherwise.
In the US News today
The US Pentagon reported that the satellite saw two heat events, one while the airplane was at altitude, and one upon impact with the ground.
"There is a definite feeling it was an explosive device planted in luggage or somewhere on the plane," the official, who is familiar with the latest U.S. intelligence analysis of the crash said today.
The US Pentagon reported that the satellite saw two heat events, one while the airplane was at altitude, and one upon impact with the ground.
"There is a definite feeling it was an explosive device planted in luggage or somewhere on the plane," the official, who is familiar with the latest U.S. intelligence analysis of the crash said today.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Delete me
Age: 58
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's intriguing that this failure occurred at level-off. If the THS failed and slammed into the full UP position (nose-down trim) could the resulting force of it slamming against the stop cause sufficient loading for it break out of the tail, remembering that aerodynamic forces will also be grabbing the tail as it moves?
It is interesting to see many posts being deleted with no reason given by moderators.
With 1.2 million views already on this thread there are never going to be reasons given: we're too busy lowering the signal to noise ratio.
Senior Pilot
As I said before.
A repeat is a plea for a thread ban: if it was deleted it was because it was seen by a moderator as junk mail. We read all the posts: many here repeat stuff showing they have obviously failed to read the thread.
It's the internet; learn to live with it.
Senior Pilot
With 1.2 million views already on this thread there are never going to be reasons given: we're too busy lowering the signal to noise ratio.
Senior Pilot
As I said before.
A repeat is a plea for a thread ban: if it was deleted it was because it was seen by a moderator as junk mail. We read all the posts: many here repeat stuff showing they have obviously failed to read the thread.
It's the internet; learn to live with it.
Senior Pilot
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: EGKH
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pictures of the tailcone show a long section of pipework known to be (from schematics and factory photos previously posted) the APU fuel supply pipe.
_If_ the cone detached either as the initiating event or as a result of VS/HS fail, would not the yanking out of this pipe cause a fuel leak capable of causing an explosion? The length of the pipe shown probably isn't sufficient to reach the centre tank, but by my non-expert reckoning it would be forward of the RPB.
I'd have thought if the APU isn't running their would be an isolator on the fuel line hopefully at the tank, but what if that failed or was left open (yes I know, Mr Occam is getting less happy as I go on, but still...).
Lastly, is it at all possible that the APU was actually running during the flight? I imagine there would be plenty of cockpit indication of that but it would enable the fuel leak - or possibly even APU malfunction of some kind. From photos I'm not suggesting destructive failure of APU, but possibly vibration, along with corroded cone attachment due to skydrol leak assisting cone departure or somesuch ...
_If_ the cone detached either as the initiating event or as a result of VS/HS fail, would not the yanking out of this pipe cause a fuel leak capable of causing an explosion? The length of the pipe shown probably isn't sufficient to reach the centre tank, but by my non-expert reckoning it would be forward of the RPB.
I'd have thought if the APU isn't running their would be an isolator on the fuel line hopefully at the tank, but what if that failed or was left open (yes I know, Mr Occam is getting less happy as I go on, but still...).
Lastly, is it at all possible that the APU was actually running during the flight? I imagine there would be plenty of cockpit indication of that but it would enable the fuel leak - or possibly even APU malfunction of some kind. From photos I'm not suggesting destructive failure of APU, but possibly vibration, along with corroded cone attachment due to skydrol leak assisting cone departure or somesuch ...
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@mitrosft
The picture is too low resolution to know what the marks are but, the two doors were in place until that section hit the ground so whatever they are they are trivial to the cause to the crash.
The picture is too low resolution to know what the marks are but, the two doors were in place until that section hit the ground so whatever they are they are trivial to the cause to the crash.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ESSL
Age: 79
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The experts who had days to examine the wreckage would have concentrated on looking for evidence of an explosive device in the first place while waiting for the results of the analysis of the FDR and CVR. No confirmation of external cause has come from the Russians, Airbus or the Irish authorities who are in the loop. The first claim of a bomb came from Metrojet in a press release that was aimed at stopping examination of their operations. Now the UK government has stopped all flight to HESH claiming it was a bomb and flights there are unsafe. If there was such clear cut info would not the Russians and other EU carriers stopped flights. As far as I am aware there are no British AIB people involved in the investigation.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Somerset
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re: the suggestions about HS moving in an uncontrolled way to initiate +/- pitch stresses to damage airframe.
1 How long does it take for the the screwjack in normal controlled rotation to move from neutral/level flight to its maximum up or down position ?
2 If there is failure in the screwjack system (e.g. hydraulics or mechanical integrity loss) is the HS free to flutter, perhaps in response to PF responses with ailerons to control AofA ?
1 How long does it take for the the screwjack in normal controlled rotation to move from neutral/level flight to its maximum up or down position ?
2 If there is failure in the screwjack system (e.g. hydraulics or mechanical integrity loss) is the HS free to flutter, perhaps in response to PF responses with ailerons to control AofA ?
FE Hoppy,
I believe you are incorrect the photo that @mitrosft eludes to is one of the best indicators to me of an explosion of some variety at the rear of the aircraft. They are clearly puncture marks caused by some form of shrapnel.
Ivor
I believe you are incorrect the photo that @mitrosft eludes to is one of the best indicators to me of an explosion of some variety at the rear of the aircraft. They are clearly puncture marks caused by some form of shrapnel.
Ivor
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Metrojet suspends all Airbus flights after crash
Can anyone explain how an explosive device situated close to the R4 could blow off the entire tail section, and not blow off the doors? I'm not suggesting it isn't possible, just interested in the technicalities of such a scenario.
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there was such clear cut info would not the Russians and other EU carriers stopped flights. As far as I am aware there are no British AIB people involved in the investigation.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another "lucky" flight for Metrojet: pushback truck hit A321 at St. Petersburg bound for Sharm El Sheikh, all pax evacuated. Emergency services attending. Nose gear reportedly broken.
Source
http://lifenews.ru/news/168189
Source
http://lifenews.ru/news/168189
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Susier, it depends on the precise location of the device, but basically the doors and door frames are stronger than the fuselage skin.
Besides, there can be little doubt that there was a mid-air explosion. It is a matter of exactly why/how.
Besides, there can be little doubt that there was a mid-air explosion. It is a matter of exactly why/how.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is worth noting that the IAA (remember that Irish officials are directly involved in the investigation) has directed Irish airlines to cease operations not only to SSH, but all of Egypt.
https://www.iaa.ie/news.jsp?i=567&gc=99&p=106&n=124
https://www.iaa.ie/news.jsp?i=567&gc=99&p=106&n=124
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RTM Boy. It is the AAIU that's involved. You may find this press release of interest:
"Cairo, November 4th, 2015.
Following the tragic event involving Metrojet’s Airbus A321-200 (registration EI-ETJ), the Investigation Team has announced that the data from the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) has been extracted and validated. It will now be subject to detailed analysis by the investigators. The Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) is partially damaged and a lot of work is required in order to extract the data from it. Consequently, no further comment on the content of the CVR can be made. Examination of parts on site is continuing.
Egypt is leading the investigation with Accredited Representatives from Russia (State of Operator), Ireland (State of Registry), France (State of Design) and Germany (State of Manufacturer). Further information will be available in due course. END"
"Cairo, November 4th, 2015.
Following the tragic event involving Metrojet’s Airbus A321-200 (registration EI-ETJ), the Investigation Team has announced that the data from the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) has been extracted and validated. It will now be subject to detailed analysis by the investigators. The Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) is partially damaged and a lot of work is required in order to extract the data from it. Consequently, no further comment on the content of the CVR can be made. Examination of parts on site is continuing.
Egypt is leading the investigation with Accredited Representatives from Russia (State of Operator), Ireland (State of Registry), France (State of Design) and Germany (State of Manufacturer). Further information will be available in due course. END"