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

A321 explosion at Mogadishu

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

A321 explosion at Mogadishu

Old 9th Feb 2016, 07:44
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,422
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by jolihokistix View Post
Another question that everyone must have thought but no-one has yet asked, to my knowledge. What is likely to happen to this airframe? Is it repairable, I wonder?
Clearly the damage is repairable.

Whether that will happen depends on a number of factors, not least on how much residual value there is in a 19-year-old airframe.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 10:14
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: another place
Posts: 735
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So if the passenger was checked in on Turkish airlines, were they the target? They have some political decent in certain regions.
Deep and fast is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 10:21
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Clearly the damage is repairable.

Whether that will happen depends on a number of factors, not least on how much residual value there is in a 19-year-old airframe.
... and to some extend whether OEM wants another hull loss on the record.


Another "having thought of" ...
Perhaps FL140 has some relation. Typically somewhere above FL100 the fasten seatbelt is turned off and a bit later passengers are allowed to turn on approved electronic devises, give that a minute more and that could coincide with near FL140. Assuming a climb rate of 1-2,000 fpm.
MrDK is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 12:04
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Woodbridge, Suffolk
Age: 70
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
On the question of repairs...

I'm slightly rusty and stand to be corrected here but I think this is right:

From an insurance point of view, aircraft are treated much like ships. The policy is an Agreed Value Policy (not like your car). The OEM doesn't really have a say in whether the airframe is repaired or is treated as a Constructive Total Loss ("CTL") - which is what happens when the estimated cost of repair gets close to the agreed value, and there is a risk that it might exceed it - the matter is negotiated between the underwriters and the insured, which is when your broker really earns his pay, but the OEM can, and occasionally does, offer to repair at a figure below the hull value. A CTL means that the hull underwriters pay the agreed value and leave the insured owner to dispose of the remains.

In this case there is another question - if the loss was due to a bomb, it is a War Peril and as such the War Risks policy pays and the hull loss does not figure on the OEM's record of losses.

My hunch is that this aircraft will be a CTL due to the difficulty of making temporary repairs at Mogadishu - an airport that I last flew out of aboard an Aden Airways DC3...

Another case of a bomb in the lifejacket pouch (post 51) was the PAL 747 - PR 434 - in 1994 - one pax lost, aircraft diverted and landed.

Last edited by Methersgate; 9th Feb 2016 at 13:53.
Methersgate is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 12:16
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 45
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My hunch is a quick on site repair (basically glue or nail a plate on) and then fly to the south of France (Perpignan) unpressurized. There it either gets repaired or stripped for spare parts, whichever gives most residual value.
procede is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 13:16
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
thf's post Al Jereera

This is what I have been alluding to.

In fact the Turkish flight in question had been cancelled for two days straight including the day of the incident itself citing "winds out of limits".
The conditions in Mogadishu were standard Mogadishu ...pretty much straight down the track 20kts .. which leads to some questions of course.
Teddy Robinson is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 13:38
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Somewhere out there...
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'd imagine that a quick and dirty boilerplate repair would be achievable by any sheet metal worker worth their salt. Cut out the damaged skin panel with nice rounded corners, generously stop drill the cracks, drop in a flush repair panel, and put a 3-4 frame wide boilerplate repair panel over the top picking up on the existing fastener holes. That would be sufficient to ferry fly the old bird back unpressurized to facility where a permanent repairs can be carried out. There were aircraft flown out of the Balkans in worse shape. Aluminum structures are remarkably repairable.
Busbert is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 15:23
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Age: 57
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Another "having thought of" ...
Perhaps FL140 has some relation. Typically somewhere above FL100 the fasten seatbelt is turned off and a bit later passengers are allowed to turn on approved electronic devises, give that a minute more and that could coincide with near FL140. Assuming a climb rate of 1-2,000 fpm.
Not a lot of attention is given to requirements for electronic devices to be turned off on these routes, I would postulate that this pax had even less of an inclination to adhere to these requirements if he was read into the objectives with the device...

One could further not disregard the probability that he had no control over the device at the one end of the scale, or that he had no disclosure from the courier/maker as to the intention of the device at the other end...
flyems is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 15:39
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Age: 57
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
iPad battery failure, or atomic powered Heart Pace-Maker
I'd be interested in data, specifically the means of getting fission from Pu-238, and the burn rate expected from a battery to produce this sort of effect?
flyems is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 15:46
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Age: 57
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
To me it seems remarkably lucky that the individual believed to be responsible for this was allocated the seat they were.
I've not had the pleasure of this specific airline for a couple of years but they used to have a free seating policy?
flyems is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 15:49
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One could further not disregard the probability that he had no control over the device at the one end of the scale, or that he had no disclosure from the courier/maker as to the intention of the device at the other end...
Agreed, it's quite possible the 'bomber' thought he was a courier - 'deliver this laptop to Mr. X, it's very important' and had no idea he was on a one-way trip.

As for the repairability of the aircraft - based on the photos I've seen it should be a straight forward repair, basically replace a couple skin panels and stringers. As Busbert notes, aluminum panels can be readily repaired and the industry has had lots of practice. Recall that the United 747 that lost the cargo door out of Honolulu suffered far worse damage yet was repaired and returned to service.
tdracer is online now  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 18:54
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Albuquerque USA
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
pacemaker red herring

Originally Posted by flyems
iPad battery failure, or atomic powered Heart Pace-Maker
I'd be interested in data, specifically the means of getting fission from Pu-238, and the burn rate expected from a battery to produce this sort of effect?
Some hundreds or a few thousands of Pu-238 powered pacemakers were made and implanted in patients a few decades ago. As with the RTGs on deep space probes, this is a different isotope of Plutonium than that of interest for bombs. The mechanism is natural spontaneous decay, so no "means of getting fission" is employed at all--it would decay just sitting on the shelf. The amount of Pu-238 was in the range of 2 to 4 Curies. By the definition of a Curie, that means the radioactive decay events per second were in the range of 70 to 150 billion. As Pu-238 has an 88 year half life, and these devices were manufactured a while ago, the current rate would be less.

For most of us watts are more natural units than curies or disintegrations, so perhaps it may help to say that at time of manufacture the thermal decay heat was about a tenth of a watt (obviously electric power generation was rather less).

Pu-238 is not the stuff you want to make bombs of, and is actually regarded as a contaminant by bomb makers.

A speculation that the Mogadishu event could have been pacemaker caused is ill-informed and foolish. None of the battery types used have potential for so energetic an event. Especially not the atomic-powered ones.
archae86 is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 20:43
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: BRS/GVA
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I can guess where you work archael86, with your NM address and knowledge
hoss183 is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 23:53
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
WSJ article - Feb 9, 2016

Somali Plane Revelations Add to Fears of Insider Attacks - WSJ

From the above article:

Minister says an aviation worker was involved in Daallo Airlines attack

By Robert Wall and Heidi Vogt
Updated Feb. 9, 2016 5:42 p.m. ET
LONDON—Somalia’s transport minister on Tuesday said that an employee at the country’s civil aviation office aided the bombing of a Djibouti-bound plane last week, reinforcing concern among security experts that insider attacks are among the biggest threats to commercial flights.
...
Surveillance footage released by Somali officials over the weekend purports to show two men walking together through the airport terminal. One of the men takes an item from under his arm and passes it to a third man, walking in the opposite direction.

Somalia’s minister for transport and aviation, Ali Jama Jangali, Tuesday said that one of the men shown in the security camera footage was an airport employee who had worked “for a number of years” in the civil aviation office. “When he was recruited and how he was recruited, at what point he started working with them, all that is under investigation,” Mr. Jangali said. The other man in the video—the one who actually handed off the laptop—wasn't an airport employee, he said.
...
Somalia’s transport minister Mr. Jangali acknowledged there were “lapses” and “negligence,” though he did not provide details. “We are trying to ensure that those lapses never happen again,” he said.

Last edited by airman1900; 10th Feb 2016 at 00:19. Reason: Added more from article
airman1900 is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2016, 05:16
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Seattle
Age: 62
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So what side of safety are the stuffy pilots going to pontificate now on?

It seems there are plenty of opinions claiming USA/TSA security is annoyingly unnecessary. How does that compare to the breeches happening tarmac side in the rest of the Americas, Europe, Africa, ME &'Asia? Having your choices into countries of risk, whether on the origin or destination end, describe your preferred security measures ?

I'd welcome what works and the retort from others why it doesn't. We'll never have a perfect world. Our jobs are to keep pax, cargo and ourselves safe. Inconvenience to employees is not factored into this strategy. It just is a way of life. So, in light of tarmac breeches happening around continents, what security is worth sticking to?
CityofFlight is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2016, 07:19
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Age: 57
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A speculation that the Mogadishu event could have been pacemaker caused is ill-informed and foolish. None of the battery types used have potential for so energetic an event. Especially not the atomic-powered ones.
That it had even been mentioned...
flyems is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2016, 10:06
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tarmac breeches (sic) would be terribly uncomfortable, wouldn't they?
Imagine the mess when you ironed them!
Wageslave is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2016, 11:14
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by CityofFlight View Post
So what side of safety are the stuffy pilots going to pontificate now on?

It seems there are plenty of opinions claiming USA/TSA security is annoyingly unnecessary. How does that compare to the breeches happening tarmac side in the rest of the Americas, Europe, Africa, ME &'Asia? Having your choices into countries of risk, whether on the origin or destination end, describe your preferred security measures ?

I'd welcome what works and the retort from others why it doesn't. We'll never have a perfect world. Our jobs are to keep pax, cargo and ourselves safe. Inconvenience to employees is not factored into this strategy. It just is a way of life. So, in light of tarmac breeches happening around continents, what security is worth sticking to?
Or as it was put by the Roman Juvenal a couple of millennia ago
Who watches the watchmen?

So this has been a problem for a long time. At some point you have to trust someone and that trust can be misplaced. For example, a regime where crossing into airside is controlled has to trust that a pilot will not give a bootful of left rudder at a critical moment, so as the pilot is trusted not do that, confiscating his 6ml pot of yoghurt is a little foolish. Slightly different level for flight attendants but not much. Why should TSA be allowed to cross back and forth groundside to airside all the time without search - they could be split groundside crew and airside crew, etc etc.

As with all security it is people security that is always the weak point and is the most difficult to enforce as who watches the watchmen?
Ian W is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2016, 14:06
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Who Watches Who

Who Watches the Watchmen
Before we get too paranoid

it is the unseen who watches the watchmen

That is where the corrective action needs to go so I don't expect it ever to become visible to the public masses.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2016, 16:46
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A year ago or so, I watched a security officer take a litre bottle of water through the security check. I asked for the supervisor and mentioned what I had just witnessed. He was courteous and understanding but said that it was permitted for security staff to bring food and bottles air side. I pointed out that it would only take one rogue (or threatened) staff member to bring in one or several bottles, which were ehm not filled with H2O, over a period of time and then, on a given day, pass them on to a "passenger". Even though he shared my concerns as far as I know the dispensation still stands! This is BRUSSELS, not some vague third world airport!
Hotel Tango 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 © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.