747focal, fuel quality will have to be looked at, as it's possible that this could have been caused be a fuel problem. However no mayday calls have been reported for either aricraft (so far), they went down within 3 minutes of each other, one appears to have exploded and the other appears to have made a hijacking call, and Putin has ordered a full scale investigation.

Contaminated fuel is possible, but I doubt it.

Wino, it's not really necessary for both aircraft to experience problems at about the same time on the clock after takeoff. It would depend on which tanks were fillled, and when those tanks were switched to wouldn't it?

According to the BBC's website, preliminary investigation of the wreckage would seem to suggest there was no terrorist act. Chechen rebel leaders have denied any involvement.

Airplanes don't generally just fall to bits do they? At least the Russian authorities are reacting with very level heads thus far.

InTheAir:
rOnce again confusion reigns. So far this morning I have heard.

"both airplanes made a hijack distress signal"

"one airplane made a hijack distress signal"

"both planes made a hijack or some kind of other distress signal"

Anybody have any ATC news confirming what the Russian pilot(s) were squaking prior to going down? or is this more nonsense from our wonderful media?
================================
2 InTgeAir:
Soviet aircraft have a special "high jack" button - you can press it by your foot and high jack signal will go to the ATC independently of squawk setting.

The Interfax and ITAR-Tass news agencies later quoted an unnamed law enforcement source as saying that the signal was an SOS and that no other signals were sent.

Oleg Yermolov, deputy director of the Interstate Aviation Committee, said that it is impossible to judge what is behind the signal, which merely indicates "a dangerous situation onboard" and can be triggered by the crew during a hijacking or a potentially catastrophic technical problem (indeed fuel contamination?).

BTW it seems that the TU-134 was piloted by the Siber company director himself.

Flight Safety,

WHile what you say is generally true. By and large all large aircraft are operated in similar manner where the engines are fed from their wing for take off (to allow gravity feed if necesary) and then switching to the center tank or center of the aircraft and working your way out for the duration of the flight (for wing bending issues)

Furthermore, single point refueling allows for a pretty good swirl through all the tanks. Making that even tougher isolate a contaminated tank.

Then you can get into the type of refueling error. Avgas will choke the turbine wheel with lead deposits untill the engine fails.
Particulate contamination will do other things including clogging the pick up. etc.... The worst refueling error I ever had was actually a service of the LAVs with Jetfuel in a 727. (Not kidding) the FE on my aircraft discovered it before takeoff from the US Mail hub in indianpolis in 1995 or so. Mechanics didn't believe him so he took a water bottle and used it to suck up the fluid in the Lav and sprayed it out all over the ramp and lit it on fire. THAT got everyone's attention. Orders sent out for emergency returns for all aircraft and not to use the Lavs... several other aircraft turned out to have a similar problem. Training issues with the ground support staff....

Cheers
WIno

Of course, knowing as little as every one.....

If it was fuel contamination, one would imagine the pilots being able to transmit further info, as opposed to just an SOS. The odds of both engines, or all three failing at the exact same time is slim.

Not knowing about electrical system on these types of airplanes, vis a vis engine failure and radio transmissions, however, it seems likely, that it is similar to western types with backup generation or at least battery power.

Would fuel contamination and subsequent loss of any power have caused such extensive destruction of the a/c on landing? Poor people.

Being a frequent traveller within the CIS there is a loophole, I discovered, in airport security. It is a while since I travelled through one of the major airports but this loophole certainly exists at the 'regionals'.
I was travelling from Dnepropetrovsk Airport last month and I was bringing back with me, a cigarette lighter in the form of a hand pistol, believe me it looks authentic!
As you enter such an airport all baggage is x-rayed, my 'pistol' showed-up and it was agreed it would need to travel in my hold luggage.
Thereafter you proceed to the check-in desk (with your hold & hand luggage), having already been thru the only security check one has every opportunity to move things between bags before checking-in. Thereafter it's onwards to the departure lounge and the aircraft without any further security check(s).
One has every opportunity to transfer item(s) from their hold luggage to their hand luggage, I easily had the opportunity to take my 'pistol' into the cabin with me!

Yes, but it was detected, was it not,
And I assure you, had it been real, they would not have been so accomodating.

Cheers
Wino

Let me clarify, it was detected, agreed that it should travel in the hold but I could have very easily switched it to my hand baggage once thru the one and only security check which is before one checks one's bags in.
Wonder if there was some guy in a cabin last evening wandering around with an imitation firearm! Think about it!

Here are some details:


VOLGA AVIAEXPRESS
Vol ZHI 1303 Domodevodo -> Volgograd
Take-off 22 :16 (22 :20)
T-134 RA65080
Pax : 34 + 8
Dsp Radar : 22 :56


SIBIR AIRLINES
Vol S7 1047 Domodevodo -> Sochi
Take-off 21 :35 (21 :25)
T-154 RA85556
Pax : 44 + 8
Dsp Radar : 23 :00

Crewlist:
(Moscow Domodedovo - Sochi (Adler))

Captain Gurbev Mihail Leonidovich - 1956 - Pilot, 1st Class (Moscow)
Pilot Andrushenko Jorii Vladimirovich - 1970 - Pilot, 2nd Class (Moscow)
Flight Navigator Koroli Jorii Vladimirovich - 1964 - Pilot, 1st Class (Moscow)
Flight Engineer Ermolaev Andrei Vladimirovich - 1966 - Pilot, 2nd Class (Moscow)
Chief Purser Blikovskaia Olga Sergeevna - 1963 - (Barnaul)
Flight Attendant Ivanov Sergei Vladimirovich - 1966 - (Barnaul)
Flight Attendant Tarsukova Iana Gennadievna - 1974 - (Barnaul)
Flight Attendant Hudeeva Marina Petrovna - 1979 - (Barnaul)



Sochi is one of President Poutine's vacation place

What about fuel contamination ?

About fuel contamination - do not think, please, that military AN-124 Ruslan crashed due to bad fuel - it is OFFICIAL version only. Real (suspected by military pilots)- overloading with a freight for the money making for Chief Flight Division.
========================================
Two crashes from one airport at the same time meens two bombs set on the same time...

Russian A/C crashed within minutes of each other
 

I cannot believe how people cannot add one and one and conclude a logical answer to this. Consider first the story about the Syrian bandsmen which originated at:

http://www.flightattendants.org/ubbt...0/Number/71534

Then consider that both Russian a/c apparrently exploded within minutes of each other.

It appears that the first observation was of a dry run in which a team of terrorists were testing out the possibility of assembling two or three ingredients (carried seperately) in the toilets which themselves might be innocuous enough, (e.g. Sugar, weedkiller, oil, batteries, wire wool) but which when put together would make a bomb.

The second recent and very sad double explosion (with reports of hijacking or some kind of pax unrest) seems to be the execution or further testing of this process.

I would say we should be on the lookout for more of these because if the testing process is complete then we could be in for a blitz.

Wino,

Just for clarification, I was suggesting that chechen separatists were a paticularly unfortunate russian problem.

Just wanted to clear that up so as to avoid any misunderstanding. I agree that terrorism is truly a global problem, but reading this thread, there now seems to be some doubt as to who, if anybody, commited this malfeasant act. I guess that only time and investigatory work will tell.

Regards from the kitchin

INTEL101, I'm not entirely convinced that extremist suicide bombers would blow themselves up "for the cause" just for practice purposes. I think they want to die killing Americans.

Two Russian A/C down
 

Avman, good point, unless the Chechen division of al Quaeda saw this as an actual "production operation" against the Russians as well as a live test.

Intel 101: The story of the Syrian musicians on the Northwest flight has already made it into the catalog of Urban Legends. see:



You might want to read what are purported to be excerpts from the report of the Federal air marshals who were on that flight, regarding the behavior of the frightened woman, Annie Jacobsen.

As far as Chechens doing dry runs for al Qaeda, maybe so, maybe not. However, I have not seen metal detectors deployed to American theatres or cinemas after 20 or 30 armed Chechen terrorists took about 1000 theatre-goers hostage in Moscow in January 2002, with disastrous consequences there. Nor have I heard of special continuing precautions being taken against terrorists imploding apartment buildings by accessing the natural gas lines, letting the gas pool in a confined space, and setting it alight. This supposedly was/is another Chechen technique.

Returning to subject
 

There may be some hypothetical comparisons of Chechens doing dry runs for Al Queda, but I think this is most doubtful. These two incidents in Russia were not dry runs. If, in fact, they were terrorist involved, then they were the real thing. Luckily they did not involve the maximum amount of passengers that the aircraft could carry, very much like the United which crashed in Pennsylvania.

If it was a terrorist attack, what better way to get on a plane that's half empty, because there are plenty of seats and the ticket agent will be happy to have a couple more pax, instead of trying to hijack a plane with a stand-by ticket which makes you more and more visible as you pace around the check-in counter.

As far as contaminated fuel is concerned, my minimal knowledge of octanes would preclude that a plane would explode if the kerosine was mixed with water. Rather, you would have an engine flameout. Even if both engines flamed out on the 134 and all three went on the 154, the cockpit crew would have plenty of time to notify ATC of their situation.

There has been a mention that Soviet aircraft have an SOS button. If the situation was not extremely dire, the radio works just as well and better by explaining the problem. It only takes a few seconds. If the SOS button is meant both for emergencies and hijacks, those on the ground will never know because it is a signal and a signal only that an aircraft is in serious trouble.

Back to the fuel. If some tanker truck had filled both planes up with diesel fuel by mistake, I don't think that they could even start their engines, much less take off. If it were gasoline, they probably would have burned out the engines shortly after startup.

So, where does it leave us. One plane, the Tu-154 scattered over a 25 kilometer radius and the other, a Tu-134 pretty much intact. It seems to me that the 154 definitely went through a heavy explosion, as did the 134, but not as intense. Witnesses on the ground saw them both explode in the air, and not on the ground.

It is difficult to comprehend that if both planes suffered engine-out problems that they would explode in the air. And here I'm taking a chance: Maybe Russia and Putin don't want this to be a terrorist tragedy. Just maybe.

Fuel contamination causes engines to conk out.

As far as I'm aware, it doesn't cause in-flight break-ups.

Yet Sibir is convinced that the scale of the Tu-154 wreckage field indicates that there was an explosion on board.

Looks likes most of the "no terrorism" reports originate with Mr. Ignatchenko's remarks earlier today. Remember, it took several days to establish that Pan Am 103 was brought down by a bomb.

_________________________________________________


Russia Investigates Cause of 2 Plane Crashes

Officials Say Initial Examination Shows No Evidence of Terrorism

By Peter Baker and Susan B. Glasser
Washington Post Foreign Service

Wednesday, August 25, 2004; 3:29 PM

MOSCOW, Aug. 25 -- Russian investigators said they found no evidence Wednesday that terrorists brought down two passenger jets that crashed almost simultaneously, killing all 90 people aboard, suggesting that the twin tragedies could be a horrific coincidence of technical malfunctions or human carelessness.

Investigators scouring the grassy fields where the two airplanes fell nearly 500 miles apart recovered flight recorders but discovered no signs of bomb blasts that might have downed the aircraft, officials said. Although not ruling out terrorism, authorities opened a criminal investigation into possible negligence and put the transportation minister in charge of the probe.

...Investigators said they were checking the condition of the aircraft, the type of fuel used, weather conditions and pilot mistakes as well as potential sabotage. Russia's aging fleet of civilian airliners has been a source of concern for years.

"I just think we're talking about negligence," said Sergei Ignatchenko, the chief spokesman for the Federal Security Service, the domestic successor to the KGB, in a telephone interview. "Our planes have already used up their resources. Unfortunately, they're still used and they're still flying."

Ignatchenko acknowledged the improbability of catastrophic trouble afflicting two planes at the same time without terrorist intervention. "It's too much of a coincidence," he agreed. "We're not denying terrorism. It's one version and we're checking it, of course. But as of now on the sites we haven't discovered any explosives or any trace of any violence. That's why we're saying the main reason is the violation of safety rules."...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug25.html