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

Shrapnel propagation in environment full of different objects, toilets, food trolleys, partitions, or even humans - personnel would definetly be at galley during climb - would make a lot of shadows, reflections or ricochets.
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...

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.

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.

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.

The first deviation in altitude was a sudden loss of 250ft followed by a climb, and however unreliable the subsequent barometric altitude figures were it looks like it dropped suddenly at TOC then climbed severely, which might support your theory?

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

Paulmoscow, wrong, at this leg hot meal is served.

The HS detachment seems to have taken most of the fuselage below it when it went. Surely the long pipe section implies that the APU tail cone detachment preceded HS detachment, and if so rules out HS detachment as cause of the curious clean detachment of APU taile cone?

@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 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.

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 ?

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

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.

The Irish authorities have also suspended flights to SSH and they are involved in the investigation.

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

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.

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

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"