BREAKING NEWS: airliner missing within Egyptian FIR
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hats off to PPRune ....
The threads on PPR are well moderated in my opinion - it is gaining popularity because it is well moderated and is now often quoted in the media . The reason to that is because the majority who contribute are involved somehow in the aviation industry and illustrate that with the technical knowledge expressed in the threads ..... This particular crash has some alarming issues - the amount of wreckage pictures being widely spread on the internet and the political ramifications already arising and still no definitive statement on the catalyst of the whole sad event .
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Torquay UK
Age: 95
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tail Fail
Prada:
The interesting part is that after the tail breaks off, HS failure and APU cone breakaway become much less likely. A HS failure on the other hand can result in APU cone break away but after the HS is gone the tail breakaway is much less likely. Even a scenario where a 'pressure event' causes both the APU cone ejection and a HS damage, one expects that this causes either the tail to break after which HS failure is less likely or one expects the HS to break off fully, after which the tail is much less likely to break off.
A possible scenario is that there were multiple explosions because of the fuel and that the first one blew off the APU cone. Problem is that the damage pattern offers only weak support for it. I think this is the puzzle at the moment.
The interesting part is that after the tail breaks off, HS failure and APU cone breakaway become much less likely. A HS failure on the other hand can result in APU cone break away but after the HS is gone the tail breakaway is much less likely. Even a scenario where a 'pressure event' causes both the APU cone ejection and a HS damage, one expects that this causes either the tail to break after which HS failure is less likely or one expects the HS to break off fully, after which the tail is much less likely to break off.
A possible scenario is that there were multiple explosions because of the fuel and that the first one blew off the APU cone. Problem is that the damage pattern offers only weak support for it. I think this is the puzzle at the moment.
HS Screwjack,, or support structure distorts/ disconnects for some reason
(One possible reason could be jackscrew thread or JS Nut thread worn and stripped)
HS now located only by rear pivot (behind icentre of pressure)
Airflow slams Hs to 90 degrees thus snapping off end stop, of and port HS
Instant disconnect of both flight recorders
Starboard HS and jack gear go too
Resulting shocks lead to general breakup/distribution of all tail parts
What is relative ground position distances of infant, both HS ,and tailcone parts??
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"HS Screwjack,, or support structure distorts/ disconnects for some reason"
Would have sheared the wing off from overload, not broken the tail. The HS has a limited range of motion, and the upper and lower support structure is still there.
Would have sheared the wing off from overload, not broken the tail. The HS has a limited range of motion, and the upper and lower support structure is still there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWIWAI6GmQQ
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Torquay UK
Age: 95
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suggest Hs no longer constrained Flipping straight to 90 degrees ,little pitch moment to airframe, only colossal drag.#
Support still there? where is the screwjack?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: wales
Age: 81
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i have extracted these figs from your link in your post
04:13:03 KGL9268 30.157 34.174 30650 296 332 -5696 32000
04:13:08 KGL9268 30.161 34.173 30825 246 351 4544 32000
04:13:11 KGL9268 30.177 34.162 29925 306 325 -6080 32000
04:13:11 KGL9268 30.177 34.162 29925 306 325 -6080 32000
04:13:12 KGL9268 30.179 34.161 29925 184 350 -4352
at 04.13.08 it suddenly changes heading by 19 deg clockwise, 3 sec later it has swung 26 deg back anti clock. and 1 sec later it has swung 25 deg clockwise
If those yaw figures and rates are correct would the VS withstand that?
04:13:03 KGL9268 30.157 34.174 30650 296 332 -5696 32000
04:13:08 KGL9268 30.161 34.173 30825 246 351 4544 32000
04:13:11 KGL9268 30.177 34.162 29925 306 325 -6080 32000
04:13:11 KGL9268 30.177 34.162 29925 306 325 -6080 32000
04:13:12 KGL9268 30.179 34.161 29925 184 350 -4352
at 04.13.08 it suddenly changes heading by 19 deg clockwise, 3 sec later it has swung 26 deg back anti clock. and 1 sec later it has swung 25 deg clockwise
If those yaw figures and rates are correct would the VS withstand that?
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Support still there? where is the screwjack?"
The fuselage rear assembly is the support, it is present at the crash. Turning 90 degrees is impossible as it was still attached a 2 of the 3 HS mount pins if you screw assy is disconnected.
With the pivot points still attached, the fuselage forms the range of movement limiter
Had it gone 90 degrees, there would be nothing left at all aft of the RPB.
Go look at the construction photos of the HS being mounted to the fuselage rear. Your scenario is not supported by the physical evidence at the crash site.
The fuselage rear assembly is the support, it is present at the crash. Turning 90 degrees is impossible as it was still attached a 2 of the 3 HS mount pins if you screw assy is disconnected.
With the pivot points still attached, the fuselage forms the range of movement limiter
Had it gone 90 degrees, there would be nothing left at all aft of the RPB.
Go look at the construction photos of the HS being mounted to the fuselage rear. Your scenario is not supported by the physical evidence at the crash site.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Berlin
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fr24 data with precision 0 is complete nonsense - if you dont want to expect a cycle in the path. some onboard system had no idea what is going on and guessing...
also... with precision 2 around 04:13:23/24 the plane jumps backwards (not shown in this image)
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Arizona
Age: 76
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm... FR24 + CVR
It looks like major structural damage (inferred from large TAS drop) occurred within less than 2 seconds from onset.
Either that bang lasted a couple of seconds or the CVR was cut off before the significant changes in VV and GS. I suspect the latter - that the initial event was sudden and took out the CFR, and the odd excursions in the flight data resulted from damage due to the initial event, rather than odd excursions being the cause of aircraft failure.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FDR CVR locations and damage
First 3 links to show installed location of FDR and CVR, CVR and then FDR
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9169622
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9165152 for CVR
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9165152 For FDR
NOTE - IMO to recover them- they were probably cut from wreckage and in areas we have not seen in photos although FDR has **only** dirt on bottom ?
attachment was to tail cone skin. Skin surrounded and was attached to major structure elements above and below jackscrew.
So where is jackscrew and HS internal Box ?
Not found ?- or not pictured ? - or removed for examination before pics taken ?
And therein lies the story ..
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9169622
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9165152 for CVR
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9165152 For FDR
NOTE - IMO to recover them- they were probably cut from wreckage and in areas we have not seen in photos although FDR has **only** dirt on bottom ?
attachment was to tail cone skin. Skin surrounded and was attached to major structure elements above and below jackscrew.
So where is jackscrew and HS internal Box ?
Not found ?- or not pictured ? - or removed for examination before pics taken ?
And therein lies the story ..
Last edited by CONSO; 8th Nov 2015 at 01:37. Reason: typos
My last post until meaningful new information comes up:
There are a number of theories circulating from knowledgeable posters which miss some demonstrated facts. I know the thread is becoming very long, but to make any meaningful analysis PLEASE read what has been written before, and consider ALL factual evidence, not just those that fit a particular theory. Most of the clues lie in pieces of the tail, the wreckage distribution clearly shows that the front part continued on for some distance after the initial failure and the loss of the tail and most of the rear fuselage.
The tail section failed in a way consistent with a structural failure in the lower rear fuselage, that caused the entire tail to pivot downwards in a matter of milliseconds due to the HS exerting the force it was designed to do. This is consistent with the FDR/CVR data stopping abruptly at the time of initial failure. To promote any HS failure as the initial cause you must demonstrate conclusively that the failure marks and patterns on the tail section wreckage may be interpreted otherwise.
The left HS failed by being bent UPWARDS at a 90 degree angle against the still intact rear fuselage skin, clearly evidenced by the fracture marks on the composite upper skin. If this is presumed to be a part of the initial failure, you must explain how this happened other than by extreme aerodynamic loads when the severed tail tumbled placing the HS flat into the slipstream. In particular, if it is suggested that the HS failed after a runaway trim placed the aircraft in an unusual attitude, what forces could have caused the tail to break off after the left HS parted while the wings remained intact, leaving no trace of the upset on the FDR. (Note: there is NO WAY any unintended deflection of any control surface to the full stop position can break the tail cleanly off the fuselage, the control surfaces themselves would fail first as demonstrated by the tail of AA587)
The tail and the tailcone with the APU landed relatively close to each other, the HS was much farther away (presumably back along the track, but we do not know this). This implies that the tail/APU structure remained joined for a time after the left HS departed (something corrobated by the relatively intact upper part of the frame joining the two pieces). We have not seen any photos of the right and central HS and it is quite possible it has not yet been found, but the fact that it is nowhere nearby also confirms that the HS separated earlier than the tailcone. This disproves any blasting off by a RPB rupture theory.
There definitely was an in-flight fire in the central section as the scorching and soot on the engines (especially the fan, which landed away from all other wreckage and has no ignitable components) and some fuselage components with soot on the outside but no traces of fire on the inside cannot be explained otherwise. With the engines still running until g-forces caused them to break off in an upward twist as the wings & front fuselage decelerated, they are the likeliest ignition source if the integrity of any of the tanks was lost. The fact that the plane had an ACT in addition to the integral central tank should be considered, but also the severed APU fuel line could have provided the spilled fuel if pressurized. In hot & heavy takeoff situations it is normal practice to run the APU for bleed air to avoid the thrust penalty on the engines. However all this has zero bearing on the accident sequence, the clues are in the tail which parted before any in-flight fire erupted.
EVERYTHING else coming from the media quoting unidentified sources needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, especially those that contradict observable evidence (eg. 'burnt' bodies in the back, heat flashes, etc.)
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.
There are a number of theories circulating from knowledgeable posters which miss some demonstrated facts. I know the thread is becoming very long, but to make any meaningful analysis PLEASE read what has been written before, and consider ALL factual evidence, not just those that fit a particular theory. Most of the clues lie in pieces of the tail, the wreckage distribution clearly shows that the front part continued on for some distance after the initial failure and the loss of the tail and most of the rear fuselage.
The tail section failed in a way consistent with a structural failure in the lower rear fuselage, that caused the entire tail to pivot downwards in a matter of milliseconds due to the HS exerting the force it was designed to do. This is consistent with the FDR/CVR data stopping abruptly at the time of initial failure. To promote any HS failure as the initial cause you must demonstrate conclusively that the failure marks and patterns on the tail section wreckage may be interpreted otherwise.
The left HS failed by being bent UPWARDS at a 90 degree angle against the still intact rear fuselage skin, clearly evidenced by the fracture marks on the composite upper skin. If this is presumed to be a part of the initial failure, you must explain how this happened other than by extreme aerodynamic loads when the severed tail tumbled placing the HS flat into the slipstream. In particular, if it is suggested that the HS failed after a runaway trim placed the aircraft in an unusual attitude, what forces could have caused the tail to break off after the left HS parted while the wings remained intact, leaving no trace of the upset on the FDR. (Note: there is NO WAY any unintended deflection of any control surface to the full stop position can break the tail cleanly off the fuselage, the control surfaces themselves would fail first as demonstrated by the tail of AA587)
The tail and the tailcone with the APU landed relatively close to each other, the HS was much farther away (presumably back along the track, but we do not know this). This implies that the tail/APU structure remained joined for a time after the left HS departed (something corrobated by the relatively intact upper part of the frame joining the two pieces). We have not seen any photos of the right and central HS and it is quite possible it has not yet been found, but the fact that it is nowhere nearby also confirms that the HS separated earlier than the tailcone. This disproves any blasting off by a RPB rupture theory.
There definitely was an in-flight fire in the central section as the scorching and soot on the engines (especially the fan, which landed away from all other wreckage and has no ignitable components) and some fuselage components with soot on the outside but no traces of fire on the inside cannot be explained otherwise. With the engines still running until g-forces caused them to break off in an upward twist as the wings & front fuselage decelerated, they are the likeliest ignition source if the integrity of any of the tanks was lost. The fact that the plane had an ACT in addition to the integral central tank should be considered, but also the severed APU fuel line could have provided the spilled fuel if pressurized. In hot & heavy takeoff situations it is normal practice to run the APU for bleed air to avoid the thrust penalty on the engines. However all this has zero bearing on the accident sequence, the clues are in the tail which parted before any in-flight fire erupted.
EVERYTHING else coming from the media quoting unidentified sources needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, especially those that contradict observable evidence (eg. 'burnt' bodies in the back, heat flashes, etc.)
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.
Last edited by andrasz; 8th Nov 2015 at 04:06.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE andraz
#1737 (permalink)
Great Post- agree with say 90 percent and especially the bit about video.
RE the quote above - I do take a bit of exception as to timing. Here is why. IF the tail section both both right and left HS plus VS were no longer connected to airplane- I believe there is NOT enough mass-momentum of the remaining tail structure to resist the very high bending loads involved to shear off the HS. - Of course it might be possible that since both HS wound up at 90 degrees to airstream, one HS ( left? ) broke first. And then the combination of VS and other HS would tilt into airstream at a low drag attitude and virtually fly off in a ' sideways' direction. Which **may** explain why jackscrew and HS BOX and RH HS have either yet to be found or have not been shown .
Which of course gets back to what was the initiating event ?
you must explain how this happened other than by extreme aerodynamic loads when the severed tail tumbled placing the HS flat into the slipstream
RE the quote above - I do take a bit of exception as to timing. Here is why. IF the tail section both both right and left HS plus VS were no longer connected to airplane- I believe there is NOT enough mass-momentum of the remaining tail structure to resist the very high bending loads involved to shear off the HS. - Of course it might be possible that since both HS wound up at 90 degrees to airstream, one HS ( left? ) broke first. And then the combination of VS and other HS would tilt into airstream at a low drag attitude and virtually fly off in a ' sideways' direction. Which **may** explain why jackscrew and HS BOX and RH HS have either yet to be found or have not been shown .
Which of course gets back to what was the initiating event ?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: wales
Age: 81
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: auckland, nz
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aerial back down flight path ...
Posted this a couple of days back ... this is Russian TV helicopter footage that seems to track from 'wings' crash site back along the whole track to parts seriously under discussion including one single set of three seats in the middle of nowhere on their own... may or may not be helpful to the real experts here, but it's unlike other footage or map of wreckage I've seen ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTgEgb0DWpQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTgEgb0DWpQ
Last edited by sopwithnz; 8th Nov 2015 at 03:20. Reason: addition and editing of a few words
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Additional FDR data gathering?
Could the FDR include a channel (or better two) for cabin pressure, with very high resolution? If two, one at each end. If there were to be an explosion aboard, there would be a sudden cabin pressure rise, then presumably, reduction in pressure. If two sensors, the timing and differential would give you an idea of the fore/aft cabin location.
It won't help here, but could help in a future crash to rule in or out, a cabin explosion...
To carry the idea to the next step, what if a cabin pressure change exceeding a certain "normal" rate, triggered a 7700 squawk - no pilot action required. ATC knows that a dramatic cabin pressure event has occurred - even if a battery powered self contained transponder is falling free, and sending mode C on the way down.
It won't help here, but could help in a future crash to rule in or out, a cabin explosion...
To carry the idea to the next step, what if a cabin pressure change exceeding a certain "normal" rate, triggered a 7700 squawk - no pilot action required. ATC knows that a dramatic cabin pressure event has occurred - even if a battery powered self contained transponder is falling free, and sending mode C on the way down.
@ CONSO
Your logic certainly requires some deeper thought. I would start with the left HS which was cleanly snapped off by an upward bending force at the weak point in the structure where the airfoil is mated to the much narrower HS centre section. Only aerodynamic drag could have done it this way. Pure speculation, but this weak point coud actually be a design feature to protect the hinge/jackscrew assembly so in case one HS fails in overload (eg. if hit by a departing engine), the plane can still remain controllable with the other HS.
I cannot envision a scenario where this could happen before the tail broke off, because in that case the entire plane would have needed to be in an attitude which would have also caused the wings to fail and especially the engines to depart. Since the wing-engines-forward fuselage stayed intact for some time and continued along the flight path in a descending trajectory (engines were found near the main wreckage), the tail must have parted complete.
As unlikely as it is, this suggests the HS must have parted after the initial failure and severance of the tail. One possible solution bridging this and your thoughts is that the left HS could have snapped off as the tail was pivoting down, a fraction of a second before the upper rear fuselage failed in tension, which may have provided the necessary counter force. Calculating the various forces at play here are beyond my abilities, but I'm sure there are people busy in Toulouse doing exactly this.
Your logic certainly requires some deeper thought. I would start with the left HS which was cleanly snapped off by an upward bending force at the weak point in the structure where the airfoil is mated to the much narrower HS centre section. Only aerodynamic drag could have done it this way. Pure speculation, but this weak point coud actually be a design feature to protect the hinge/jackscrew assembly so in case one HS fails in overload (eg. if hit by a departing engine), the plane can still remain controllable with the other HS.
I cannot envision a scenario where this could happen before the tail broke off, because in that case the entire plane would have needed to be in an attitude which would have also caused the wings to fail and especially the engines to depart. Since the wing-engines-forward fuselage stayed intact for some time and continued along the flight path in a descending trajectory (engines were found near the main wreckage), the tail must have parted complete.
As unlikely as it is, this suggests the HS must have parted after the initial failure and severance of the tail. One possible solution bridging this and your thoughts is that the left HS could have snapped off as the tail was pivoting down, a fraction of a second before the upper rear fuselage failed in tension, which may have provided the necessary counter force. Calculating the various forces at play here are beyond my abilities, but I'm sure there are people busy in Toulouse doing exactly this.
Last edited by andrasz; 8th Nov 2015 at 04:21.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HS issue
re #1742 (permalink)
IMO applying a bit of Ocams razor - a ** possible** probable ** simple version goers like this all in a few fractions of a second or a few seconds
a) Jackscrew/fitting/pin/ breaks ( why unknown )
b) Both HS flip nearly 90 degrees to airflow such that tension on top of airplane and compression on bottom - Plane pitches up.
c) Left? HS breaks off - plane starts to roll/yaw
d) combination stress at frame forward of PB on top rips top in tension, and buckles bottom in compression. This due to tension load and internal pressure load.
e) Right HS and VS combined pull ** foward ** of PB section off-
f) align themselves with relative wind- sort of a v wing along with HS box and most-all of jackscrew - and " fly" away
OK- IF My version is partially correct- expect to find RH HS - HS Box and Jack screw and pivots and maybe part of VS pretty much together.
Enough speculation - agree that more info needed- and especially the jackscrew system and RH HS.
Have a good evening
IMO applying a bit of Ocams razor - a ** possible** probable ** simple version goers like this all in a few fractions of a second or a few seconds
a) Jackscrew/fitting/pin/ breaks ( why unknown )
b) Both HS flip nearly 90 degrees to airflow such that tension on top of airplane and compression on bottom - Plane pitches up.
c) Left? HS breaks off - plane starts to roll/yaw
d) combination stress at frame forward of PB on top rips top in tension, and buckles bottom in compression. This due to tension load and internal pressure load.
e) Right HS and VS combined pull ** foward ** of PB section off-
f) align themselves with relative wind- sort of a v wing along with HS box and most-all of jackscrew - and " fly" away
OK- IF My version is partially correct- expect to find RH HS - HS Box and Jack screw and pivots and maybe part of VS pretty much together.
Enough speculation - agree that more info needed- and especially the jackscrew system and RH HS.
Have a good evening
Last edited by CONSO; 8th Nov 2015 at 04:39. Reason: correctd aft to forward of PB
@ CONSO
I do not see how b) would be possible. The movement of the HS is physically limited by the slots on both sides of the fuselage, which do not permit travel beyond permissible range, even in case of a jackscrew failure.
For the HS to be able to pivot 90 degrees around the rear hinges, the lower half of the support structure and the bottom of the fuselage would need to go first (which it apparently did at some point), but that would turn the HS downwards. On the video screencap it is clear that the left HS failed UPWARDS, meaning pressure came from the lower surface. That would require a 90 degree turn upwards, but this would be prevented by the VS which is clearly still in place.
Also I do not believe the control surfaces have sufficient structural strength to exert such pressure that would break the tail off. The fuselage when intact is very strong and resilient to any bending force. A downward pressure on the tail would simply pivot the aircraft around the centre of lift. If the pressure is sudden and strong enough, the HS would fail first and downwards, before the fuselage would (eg. BOAC 707 in mountain wave over Fuji in '66)
I really do not see any scenarios corrobated by evidence from wreckage where the HS failure could have been the initiator, even though that was my prime suspect too until the HS photos surfaced.
PS: It's a good morning here
I do not see how b) would be possible. The movement of the HS is physically limited by the slots on both sides of the fuselage, which do not permit travel beyond permissible range, even in case of a jackscrew failure.
For the HS to be able to pivot 90 degrees around the rear hinges, the lower half of the support structure and the bottom of the fuselage would need to go first (which it apparently did at some point), but that would turn the HS downwards. On the video screencap it is clear that the left HS failed UPWARDS, meaning pressure came from the lower surface. That would require a 90 degree turn upwards, but this would be prevented by the VS which is clearly still in place.
Also I do not believe the control surfaces have sufficient structural strength to exert such pressure that would break the tail off. The fuselage when intact is very strong and resilient to any bending force. A downward pressure on the tail would simply pivot the aircraft around the centre of lift. If the pressure is sudden and strong enough, the HS would fail first and downwards, before the fuselage would (eg. BOAC 707 in mountain wave over Fuji in '66)
I really do not see any scenarios corrobated by evidence from wreckage where the HS failure could have been the initiator, even though that was my prime suspect too until the HS photos surfaced.
PS: It's a good morning here
Last edited by andrasz; 8th Nov 2015 at 05:41.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Asia
Age: 62
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are some interesting discussions on the veracity of the video. I'm surprised that no one from government agencies has stated that the video is false. My recollection is that this is usually done.
DIBO provides a good analysis of why the video might be true. And the analysis suggest there may be an initial explosion and then an ignition of fuel. That sequence fits the possibility of an on board explosion and then an explosive ignition of aviation turbine fuel. That sequence fits some of the scenarios that have been put forward on this forum.
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. The first is Rayleigh scattering. Rayleigh scattering generally applies to gases not solids. A black smoke plume is a plume of unburnt carbon particulates, not gas. If we can see aircraft and white contrails at those altitudes in colours other than blue, I really don't see why we can't see black carbon at those altitudes, particularly because I don't think Rayleigh scattering applies so much in this instance. The second is in relation to the speed of the plume. The plume does look too slow (just simply comparing it to contrails), however, the aircraft may have rapidly decelerated after the explosion, and would have been losing altitude quickly. So the vector is complex in relation to the camera position. The aircraft may have very quickly moved from fast horizontal flight to a vector which has a slow horizontal component and a vertical component accelerating from +ve (still climbing) to -ve.
It is very normal to see thick black smoke when aircraft fuel catches fire in air. There are any number of reason for the whole of the end of the flight not being taken including such simple mistakes as running out of memory.
I'm not saying it's not a fake, but I don't believe the arguments for it being a fake so far are strong enough.
DIBO provides a good analysis of why the video might be true. And the analysis suggest there may be an initial explosion and then an ignition of fuel. That sequence fits the possibility of an on board explosion and then an explosive ignition of aviation turbine fuel. That sequence fits some of the scenarios that have been put forward on this forum.
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. The first is Rayleigh scattering. Rayleigh scattering generally applies to gases not solids. A black smoke plume is a plume of unburnt carbon particulates, not gas. If we can see aircraft and white contrails at those altitudes in colours other than blue, I really don't see why we can't see black carbon at those altitudes, particularly because I don't think Rayleigh scattering applies so much in this instance. The second is in relation to the speed of the plume. The plume does look too slow (just simply comparing it to contrails), however, the aircraft may have rapidly decelerated after the explosion, and would have been losing altitude quickly. So the vector is complex in relation to the camera position. The aircraft may have very quickly moved from fast horizontal flight to a vector which has a slow horizontal component and a vertical component accelerating from +ve (still climbing) to -ve.
It is very normal to see thick black smoke when aircraft fuel catches fire in air. There are any number of reason for the whole of the end of the flight not being taken including such simple mistakes as running out of memory.
I'm not saying it's not a fake, but I don't believe the arguments for it being a fake so far are strong enough.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Estonia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Breakup sequence
I wont repeat my earlier description of failjre sequence. Which i did backwards on facts we know. I just continue.
It is not exactly known when and why engines became separated. But at least left engine has ingested hot gases from fire. It means forward part was already falling backwards. Probably. At slow airspeed. Unusual attitude.
Rear seats were shedded one by one. We havent seen any large piece of floor or left side fuselage. It would suggest that breakup started on left side at floor level. Near act tank fuselage left side was shedded piece by piece. Until fuselage became weak enough to break close to wings. Thats when tail became separated by aerodynamic forces at high speed. Connection to fdr was lost in initial event or burst. Thats when fr24 shows fast ground speed reduction. Ripping of hs, vs and tailcone is a result of rear fuselage separation that enabled abrupt attitud changes. Also explai s close proximity of tail and apu.
It is not exactly known when and why engines became separated. But at least left engine has ingested hot gases from fire. It means forward part was already falling backwards. Probably. At slow airspeed. Unusual attitude.
Rear seats were shedded one by one. We havent seen any large piece of floor or left side fuselage. It would suggest that breakup started on left side at floor level. Near act tank fuselage left side was shedded piece by piece. Until fuselage became weak enough to break close to wings. Thats when tail became separated by aerodynamic forces at high speed. Connection to fdr was lost in initial event or burst. Thats when fr24 shows fast ground speed reduction. Ripping of hs, vs and tailcone is a result of rear fuselage separation that enabled abrupt attitud changes. Also explai s close proximity of tail and apu.