Thanks for the graphs. The granular data does confirm that the altitude gain, speed, track were perfectly steady up to the very last data point. Not even the slightest leveling off.
So that would seem to indicate that it was an instantaneously catastrophic event that immediately cut off ADS-B transmission. Not a normal engine fire or damage that would reduce thrust first before causing massive damage.
That's how most uncontained engine failures look like. Everything going smooth until, suddenly, *bang*, there's a few more holes in your jet than you'd really like.
Usually the uncontained high energy failure doesn’t simultaneously cause loss of all electrical power, as indicated by the instantaneous loss of ADS-B. In fact, I can’t think of one. Think QF 32 or WN1380-a 737NG no less. I’d love to know how they determined it was an overheated engine and said engine caused an explosion.
They didn't. It's propaganda. It's the same news outlet that said the rockets killed dozens of American soldiers and destroyed lots of our tanks. (Which I'm happy they're doing, because it means they did a fireworks show, told lies to their people to tamp down unrest, and can now go back to "normal" for now.)
But absent any call from the plane, which they have admitted, they can't say it was "a technical fault" (or "a mechanical problem" as we say in the US) with any semblance of credibility.
I don't remember an uncontained engine failure that put as much shrapnel into the tail as it did into the wings and fuselage. For me, that's a big concern that will need to be explained.
So far, the media sources aren't articulating a specific suspected cause that makes rational sense. In order to "know" it was a mechanical issue right away, you would likely have to know what that issue was. That's possible, like if the guys who worked on it at Teheran had an "oh crap" moment as the plane was going down the runway, like finding some part they forgot to reinstall. But that would be seriously-unlikely, and would then lead to a more-specific explanation than "the engine overheated". That's not an explanation that makes sense to anybody that knows anything about aviation, and depends upon a certain amount of ignorance in the listener.
I am a firm believer that coincidence in time doesn't prove causation, so we have to analyze the crash independently of the context in which it happened. However, given that transport-category-aircraft hull-losses are so incredibly-rare, that one would happen on the same night in the capital of the same country that was conducting military action in a heightened state of military alert, the relationship between the two absolutely has to be explored.
Last edited by wjcandee
on Wed Jan 08, 2020 11:04 pm, edited 5 times in total.