Pilot was Vladimir Vodopivec (64) from Belgrade, Serbia.

Edited Google translation from very early Serbian media news, here:

EKSKLUZIVNO Srpski pilot spasao putnike posle eksplozije u avionu

EXCLUSIVE Serbian pilot rescued passengers on the plane after the explosion.

Pilot Vladimir Vodopivec (64) from Belgrade has managed this morning to safely lanad the plane with 74 passengers and crew at the airport in Mogadishu in Somalia after an explosion blew off part of the fuselage near the right wing of the aircraft, 'Blic' learns. International media assess that the pilot "did impossible work", because the incident passed without casualties.

- Half an hour after we took off from the airport in Somalia, at 3,300 meters high there was a terrible explosion. Passengers began to cry, and I immediately went back to the airport. Fortunately, no one was seriously injured - says Vladimir Vodopivec.

...

Experienced pilot had similar thoughts.

- I think it was a bomb, but fortunately it did not damage the control system, so I was able to come back and I land at the airport. This had never happened to me. We lost cabin pressure. Thank God everything ended well - said Vodopivec immediately after the incident to his friend.

Vodopivec, born in Belgrade, is an experienced pilot who worked in Yugoslavian and than Serbian JAT, then in "Montenegro Airlines", and in recent years in Africa, as employed in the "Dalo Airlines". Soon, says his friend, he would retire.

http://ocdn.eu/images/pulscms/ZTc7MD...c7b6a511cd.jpg

the pilot is an experienced 64yo Captain Vlatko Vodopivec that worked for JAT and Montenegro Airlnes, flown with him couple of times, his voice is convincing :)

While I agree with everything here regarding the ability to maintain airworthiness, the statement about pax vulnerability seems open to question.

For more details.

http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/ima...d3fc220_18.jpg

"Somalia's ambassador to the United Nations, Awale Kullane, was on board the plane, Reuters news agency reported. He posted video of the incident on Facebook."

https://youtu.be/jMHWd5Mhh1g

Somalia investigates possible bomb blast on airliner - Al Jazeera English

It obviously wasnt caused by a bad food fart.
Now,having never flown in and out of there,I guess airlines would stop serving that city/country until proper screening is done?

well knowing the Somali aviation authorities, the investigation will take the shape of " nothing happened, move along nothing here to see "


You are spot on about Turkish as I stated earlier. There is a lot more to this that I cant go into.


I do think the international community need to take the lead with this and take a good hard look at procedures in place, security wise and the real reasons behind this.

Plane departure was delayed for one hour. Assuming timed device, if it was on schedule, explosion would have happened at cruise altitude, not at 3300 meters.

Looking at the crack protuding more than one frame forward, this might have already been far beyond the required damage tolerance capability and that crack my have grown up to the door if the fuselage would have been fully pressurized...
Crack stoppers are required to stop a two bay crack (one frame/one stringer lost, two skin panels cracked). Initial damage beyond this might indeed cause full desintegration.

Many major news sites are beginning to accept that beside the two injured passengers, one male passenger in his 50s was lost through the gap, and his body is being brought to Mogadishu.

From the position of the damage it doesn't appear that the device was either at floor level or in an overhead locker, rather at torso level of a seated passenger. This could imply various things, from an deliberately fired explosive hidden on the person of a pax to a grenade accidentally detonated in someone's pocket - and Mog is a place where grenades are routinely carried. None of these obviously lend themselves to being a timed device. The choice of position, right over the wing, the strongest point of any aircraft, also does not indicate a bomber with much clue of optimising his efforts. If you had the gumption to make an explosive belt wouldn't you also know enough to set it off somewhere more vulnerable, or instruct your drone to do so?

location of explosion
 

How about, as was suggested for the crash in Egypt, something stuffed in a life jacket pouch under a seat? That's below window level, pretty much at the level of the centre of the hole.

I think that until there is some evidence, it's unfair to conclude that the deceased passenger was the bomber.

I was thinking the same. How often are these areas thoroughly checked (in terms of the life jacket being there I mean)? And when they are checked, I would doubt that it would be more than just a perfunctory check (quick "feel" check).

I'm also curious as to how long the aircraft was on the ground prior to departure? Had it night stopped?

You might notice most of the stains on the outside of the airplane seem to originate from the bottom of the hole then sweep upward along the path of the airflow over the wing. That would suggest to this untrained observer the initial punch through was there, and the balance of the hole might have been simple propagation of the failure. If that's true we can be glad the airplane was still climbing at a relatively low speed -- 350 knot winds could have done some serious peel back of the skin. .

Damage tolerance and luck
 

See photo at # 40 for a bit more damage - and many improvements have been made since then in structural analysis. :D

Other decompression issues
 

Interesting article in Seattle Times today

Timeline: 8 emergency landings after explosions, structural damage | The Seattle Times

Originally published February 3, 2016 at 2:22 pmUpdated February 4, 2016 at 6:23 am
Goes on listing other similar incidents

Includes pics of the Hawaii convertible 737

I agree that the news is touting the pilots words about the luck of the explosion at lower altitude. However I fail to see a structural tie-in with this fact. Simply citing past incidents with different outcomes does not justify a conclusion.

Pressure differentials and blow-down rates need be considered vs structural concerns and routings of critical control cables etc.

I hope that we don't get too deep into this as it only helps the bad guys

I agree with lomapaseo here. One of the most significant hazards to aviation safety and security today (to safety and security generally) arises directly from the vast amount of information available via the internet. We can't prevent much of it but we certainly shouldn't be contributing to it.

I think the pilot & crew deserve congrats - it sounds like a text book handling of a very non-standard occurrence

kept calm, got people away from the damage and landed in one piece

just goes to show good people aren't just with the big airlines......

Yes, they did a great job. And just look at composition of that group: The flight crew included Serbian pilot, Italian co-pilot, two flight attendants from Greece, two from Kenya and one from Bosnia.

"When we heard a loud bang, the co-pilot went back to the cabin to inspect the damage, and I took over the commands as the procedure demands," the Serbian pilot told AP, adding that the engines and hydraulics functioned normally so he had no problem flying the aircraft back to Mogadishu.

"Smoke came into the cockpit, but it was mostly concentrated in the back of the aircraft," he said by phone. "The stewardesses did a great job calming down the passengers and following the emergency procedure."

Kullane, Somalia's deputy ambassador to the United Nations, said in a social media post that he "heard a loud noise and couldn't see anything but smoke for a few seconds." When visibility returned, he realized "a chunk" of the plane was missing.

"I think for the first few seconds and minutes ... I was terrified and most people were terrified," he said. "Of course, we give credit to the pilot who landed that plane."

Harry, I don't mean to disagree with what you wrote but one or two things occur to me over the reporting and appearance of this matter.

Firstly this kind of event is very much at the forefront of many air travellers minds and is thus exceptionally news-worthy. So it attracts vastly more publicity and emotion than would an event with almost identical characteristics, a simple pax window failure, a matter just as "non standard" but of far greater concern to the industry as a whole than mere poor security at Mog (well, what else would you expect?).

A minor (as it is at FL140) and unfixable decompression be it a popped out window or one blasted out) is hardly an event to tax a below average crew as there is virtually nothing anyone can do to affect matters; true, in the latter case everyone is more shocked by a bigger bang but after that, as long as the airframe is controllable, it's just an adrenaline fuelled unpressurised diversion with nothing particularly special to do. (no doubt someone will chirp up about smooth handling - that isn't special)
I doubt anything said or done by the cc would prevent or assist pax from getting themselves out of harm's way after a few seconds of Oh Christ! Oh sh!t! Oh dear!

The drama (very much media induced simply through our habitual exposure to it) of a situation can easily be misconstrued as related to the hazard and thus by implication (esp by the media) to the complexity/skill required in dealing with it. That isn't necessarily the case, and I submit certainly isn't here.

Daallo may well be a place to go looking for good people but experience also tells us that they don't exactly fit the profile you'd normally use if going to find them. They are, after all, firmly on the EU banned list and what can be read about them or their history on the internet doesn't inspire confidence.

However the pilots evidently did OK - just as they are expected to do - (cabin crew are an unknown at present I believe) and pats on the back are certainly appropriate but I don't think anything particularly deserving great accolades occurred, just an uneventful diversion after a pressurisation fault with an unusually dramatic cause. And some particularly bad security.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the bomber is the person that was ejected. They also noted that the bomber was able to bypass a number the security measures as he arrived in a wheelchair.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/somali-jet-blast-may-have-been-caused-by-suicide-bomber-1454603775

I've seen a couple reports (https://www.yahoo.com/travel/passeng...172542766.html) that the passenger "caught fire" before being sucked out of the airplane.

Since there was undoubtedly an explosion (and assuming the report that the passenger caught fire is accurate), it seems very odd that any sort of bomb would cause someone to catch fire - most explosives won't result in combustion of something that wasn't highly flammable.

Right.

While evidence is incomplete it may be best to be somewhat open minded.

Will the BEA be on the case ?

@ tdracer - Well, remember that the "shoe bomber" was caught and stopped because people noticed him trying to set fire to his shoe.

With IEDs, the methodology can be very - weird.

Additionally - obviously the explosion (and they can be very "firey" - see http://www.drum.army.mil/mountaineer.../explosion.jpg

....had to come before the aircraft was breached, and thus before anyone could be sucked out.

Combine those with the fact that shocking events can lead to "stop-action" memory - and witness accounts are memories of the event - and I just don't see a mystery.

Bang - flame - hole - suck - in short order.

"However the pilots evidently did OK - just as they are expected to do - (cabin crew are an unknown at present I believe) and pats on the back are certainly appropriate but I don't think anything particularly deserving great accolades occurred, just an uneventful diversion after a pressurisation fault with an unusually dramatic cause. And some particularly bad security."

Surely you don't mean that.... Since they're on a EU (or worldwide) ban list a bomb exploding on a passenger airline becomes "just an uneventful diversion"? Not in my book... (and merely a SLF)...

A terror attack with a happy ending. :}

GF

Saffi
It was reported that the CC managed the movement of SLF to the rear with consideration of the weight of each SLF so as to keep the C of G in range so I would say their cool heads and people skills were a very important part of the positive outcome.

A suicide bomber would detonate it at cruise altitude. I read in a link above that the ejected person was a man about 60 years old, maybe someone else "helped" him with carry on.

Higher altitude effects ???
 

phoenix said groooan - and what difference would it have made except for some very uncomfortable passengers and possibly an injury nor two ? Why do you think a higher altitude with a higher delta p ( inside to outside ) would have done more structural damage ?

Higher airspeed in the cruise vs quite early in the climb, plus lower ambient pressure could have contributed to a lot more damage, especially as it would likely result in explosive decompression with a massive differential rather than rapid decompression with a moderate delta.

Explosive decompression
 

" would likely result in explosive decompression with a massive differential"

Please explain what you mean by explosive ( not counting the bomb ).


IMO - A higher delta p would/may open a slightly larger hole to the nearest circumferential/stringer in the skin.

And you believe ??:confused:

Define "massive differential" in physics terms, not structural words

At higher altitudes due to the greater pressure differential the airflow would be much higher through the same sized initial breach made by the bomb (reaching 'explosive' pressure expansion rates), possibly causing more secondary damage that could then be further propagated by the greater slipstream loads on exposed surfaces.


However I'm no expert, it could well be that the additional secondary loads would make little difference and we would see no more than current damage, most of which I'm sure was caused by the initial blast. There was the United 747 which had a cargo door failure that ripped a good part of the cabin wall open at cruise altitude, there was no visible further damage caused by secondary aerodynamic forces, and the aircraft landed fine just like this one.

.bet he had to remove his belt and his shoes before boarding nevertheless.

Effective, 'ain't it ?

Higher TRUE airspeed yes, indicated, no! For a Tas of around 450 kts we normally have an IAS of around 220 at fl 400.

Re comments about "a happy ending" or other references to the bomber being the victim (one of two victims actually, as another person, seated close to the explosion, is in hospital with serious burns):

There is a reasonable case to be made that the person nearest the bomb (the person ejected) did not know of the bomb. Enough said.

Somalia airport official's car bombed
 

No determination yet on whether this is related, but interesting coincidence.

Three killed in Somalia car bomb targeting airport official: police

"Saffi
It was reported that the CC managed the movement of SLF to the rear with consideration of the weight of each SLF so as to keep the C of G in range so I would say their cool heads and people skills were a very important part of the positive outcome."

I was referring to the "uneventful diversion" part ;) Crew did a great job, best possible outcome it seems.

It seems that there are people here who appear not to know or understand what "explosive decompression" is. There bizarrely seems to be a view that it somehow is or results in an explosion or forced dynamic disintegration of the airframe. Quite how this sort of misunderstanding comes about is a bit of a puzzle.

Explosive decompression merely refers to the speed of a decompression. A small-ish hole like this one would not result in explosive decompression, the air would exit over a period of a second or few with a woosh. If a door blew out it might be all but instantaneous and thus deemed "explosive". This has no effect in itself on the airframe - the damage that caused it is the dangerous event.

Of course it is arguable that delta 8psi in the cruise might momentarily exacerbate the bomb damage while it exhausts but it would be tiny compared to the effects of slipstream.

Explosive decompression that results in differential pressure in places not designed to take it (one or two events have distorted the cabin floor resulting in jammed controls, for instance) can cause horrendous problems, but is still nothing to do with an explosion!

I'm chuckling at a mental picture of cabin crew coolly assessing the weight of each pax and directing them to particular zones while feeding the figures back to someone in the galley who is carefully preparing a dropline load-sheet and correcting errant pax positions. Still, it could have happened, I suppose. Probably weren't enough pax on board to have had much effect this time but it's a consideration for the future if everyone flees an event to one end of the aircraft.
I daresay it was more a case of "those at the front cried forward, and those at the rear cried back!"
(with apologies to McCaulay.)

btw, I'm not saying the cc didn't do a good job of keeping cool, I'm not sure we know or whether it affected the outcome.