Kolavia A321 Crashes In Sinai / Egypt - Part 2

EMAman · Sun Nov 01, 2015 11:27 am

CNN are reporting this morning a mid-air break up. This certainly could be entirely consistent with the bomb theory, however, it certainly gives a lot of weight to the bulkhead theory, particularly in view of the historic repair and the reports that are starting to come in about the condition of the aircraft. I am not favouring a missile based on the fact that ISIL supposedly do not have the capability and the state of the wreckage that I have seen is not consistent with a missile. CI611 all over again??

cougar15 · Sun Nov 01, 2015 11:30 am

Quoting Qantas744er (Reply 134):
Regarding the fuel: Russian operators have been tankering as much as possible within Russia, to save on refueling outside the country. This due to the devaluation ofnthe ruble and thus significant increase in foreign fuel costs.

A321 wont make it there & back at full load with tankered fuel from origin!

lancelot07 · Sun Nov 01, 2015 11:36 am

Quoting EMAman (Reply 146):
The captains wife has been saying that he had many concerns about the condition of the aircraft. Does anybody believe that this is a credible lead in the investigation?

I don't believe any pilot in civil aviation would fly a plane with known serious issues.
And i do not know when pilots were informed which aircraft they will fly.

liquidair · Sun Nov 01, 2015 11:45 am

Quoting EMAman (Reply 150):

But the fr24 plot shows - to + 6000FPM descent then climb... Within 20 seconds. Would that much difference be possible to explain if the bulkhead went?

tu204 · Sun Nov 01, 2015 11:46 am

Quoting cougar15 (Reply 151):
A321 wont make it there & back at full load with tankered fuel from origin!

They took on additional fuel in SSH.

HALtheAI · Sun Nov 01, 2015 11:54 am

Quoting EMAman (Reply 150):
CNN are reporting this morning a mid-air break up. This certainly could be entirely consistent with the bomb theory, however, it certainly gives a lot of weight to the bulkhead theory, particularly in view of the historic repair and the reports that are starting to come in about the condition of the aircraft. I am not favouring a missile based on the fact that ISIL supposedly do not have the capability and the state of the wreckage that I have seen is not consistent with a missile. CI611 all over again??

I agree. In the ADS-B data, the A321 had an autopilot target altitude of FL320, and was at FL300 when the trouble seemed to start. It had been climbing at 500fpm in the minutes prior and so the pressure differential between the inside and outside of the aircraft would've been steadily increasing.

While a small bomb can't be ruled out yet, I don't see how it could've been a missile. A shoulder-fired one can't reach that altitude, and while a vehicle-based one could, but its much bigger warhead would've likely caused catastrophic damage immediately. ADS-B continued to transmit for ~22 seconds after the incident started on 7K9268, while on MH17 it stopped instantly. Furthermore, a missile would've been picked up on both Egyptian and Israeli radars, unless you believe in wacky cover-up theories.

by738 · Sun Nov 01, 2015 12:01 pm

Has MetroJet been grounded? thought I caught something on the news

Airbus747 · Sun Nov 01, 2015 12:07 pm

Quoting by738 (Reply 156):

Still see a few flying, one left SSH a short while ago (EI-ETL)

[Edited 2015-11-01 04:08:39]

Thunderboltdrgn · Sun Nov 01, 2015 12:07 pm

Quoting by738 (Reply 156):
Has MetroJet been grounded? thought I caught something on the news

it seems to be conflicting info regarding orders to Metrojet to ground their A321s until the cause is known.

http://mobile.twitter.com/ReutersAero/status/660777316168134656

wjcandee · Sun Nov 01, 2015 12:13 pm

Quoting EMAman (Reply 150):
CNN are reporting this morning a mid-air break up.

CNN are idiots.

Kaiarahi · Sun Nov 01, 2015 12:16 pm

Quoting tu204 (Reply 145):
From what I can gather, the investigation will be Egyptian/Russian with assistance from French and German specialists.

I guess this needs to be said yet again.

According to Annex 13 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation:
- Egypt (state of occurrence) will lead (unless it delegates - there's no obvious reason to do so)
- France (state of design / manufacture) is a required participant
- Ireland (state of registration) is a required participant
- Russia (state of operator) is a required participant
- ??? (state of engine manufacturer) is a required participant
- Ukraine (and any other country whose nationals were pax) have the right to observe.

wjcandee · Sun Nov 01, 2015 12:18 pm

Quoting EMAman (Reply 146):

The captains wife has been saying that he had many concerns about the condition of the aircraft. Does anybody believe that this is a credible lead in the investigation?

No. More background noise.

EMAman · Sun Nov 01, 2015 12:32 pm

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 152):
I don't believe any pilot in civil aviation would fly a plane with known serious issues.

It is not to say he had much choice in the matter. One assumed he needed to remain in employment!!

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 159):
CNN are idiots.

OK granted, but most other news agencies are consistently reporting this theory too, so it can be taken as a lead, at least until it is disproven.

Quoting liquidair (Reply 153):
But the fr24 plot shows - to + 6000FPM descent then climb... Within 20 seconds. Would that much difference be possible to explain if the bulkhead went?

I suspect it is possible for the front section of the plane to continue climbing briefly (the ADS-B is at the front) even with the tail missing - like TWA 800 - in fact the climb could have been more rapid to start with due to the reduced weight and drag of losing the tail section.

Horstroad · Sun Nov 01, 2015 12:37 pm

Quoting EMAman (Reply 162):
the climb could have been more rapid to start with due to the reduced weight and drag of losing the tail section.

The horizontal stabilizer produces downward lift. Gravity also forces it downwards. So with the tail missing you would expect the nose to go down as the tail does not balance it out anymore.

[Edited 2015-11-01 04:37:56]

EMAman · Sun Nov 01, 2015 12:51 pm

Quoting horstroad (Reply 163):
The horizontal stabilizer produces downward lift. Gravity also forces it downwards. So with the tail missing you would expect the nose to go down as the tail does not balance it out anymore.

Well perhaps I misread the original post anyway, because actually it says that the ADSB showed a decent before a climb. Perhaps it did descend, and then climbed briefly following some further failure event.

AIRWALK · Sun Nov 01, 2015 12:56 pm

Quoting EMAman (Reply 164):
Well perhaps I misread the original post anyway, because actually it says that the ADSB showed a decent before a climb. Perhaps it did descend, and then climbed briefly following some further failure event.

That could be the result of a phugoid, not with completely erratic climb and descent rates though

EMAman · Sun Nov 01, 2015 1:27 pm

Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 165):
That could be the result of a phugoid, not with completely erratic climb and descent rates though

Quoting EMAman (Reply 162):
Quoting liquidair (Reply 153):
But the fr24 plot shows - to + 6000FPM descent then climb... Within 20 seconds. Would that much difference be possible to explain if the bulkhead went?

How accurate is this anyway, and there is no element of the time period for which the +/- were each sustained for.

WesternDC6B · Sun Nov 01, 2015 2:10 pm

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 116):
Where did you read this? I just find it unbelievable that anything besides the FDR and CVR still work after looking at the crash site. Not to mention getting service in the Sinai? I can't get service in the elevator in my building a kilometer from the tower, never mind in the middle of a desert.

While I don't t doubt some electronics surviving the impact, this whole "cell phones ringing in the wreckage" story sounds like just that: a story. It adds to the drama and helps sell airtime and newspapers. Nothing more.

CF-CPI · Sun Nov 01, 2015 2:10 pm

Quoting liquidair (Reply 153):
Would that much difference be possible to explain if the bulkhead went?

The A321 is fly by wire so I'd rule out any issues with cables and controls in the manner that would have happened back in the day (Turkish DC-10 becoming uncontrollable from the cockpit, etc). The tail itself appeared relatively intact, and IIRC was with the main body of wreckage. If the bulkhead blew, then, we're talking damage to the internal mechanisms.

I am just speculating like the rest of you, but bulkhead blowout would be consistent with cruise flight, where pressure differential has maxed out.

Kaiarahi · Sun Nov 01, 2015 2:22 pm

Update on composition of the investigation team - Germany, as the state of manufacture, is included separately from France, as the state of design. No mention of Ireland (state of registration).

From the BEA website:

" In accordance with international provisions the BEA, representing the State of Design of the aeroplane, is participating in the investigation with its German counterpart, the Bundesstelle für Flugunfalluntersuchung (BFU), representing the State of Manufacture, while their Russian counterpart, the Interstate Aviation Committee (MAK), will be representing the State of the Operator.

A first team, consisting of two BEA Safety Investigators, accompanied by six technical advisers from Airbus, will leave for Egypt tomorrow, Sunday 1st November. The team will be joined by two Safety Investigators from the BFU, as well as four Safety Investigators from the MAK.

The BEA reminds you that communication on the progress of the investigation is the sole responsibility of the Egyptian civil aviation authorities."

GlenP · Sun Nov 01, 2015 2:27 pm

Further to the somewhat, confused messages regarding Metrojet operations of A321s, the Egyptian newspaper, Al Ahram, is reporting that operations by the airline have been suspended, pending the results of the investigation.

The, somewhat brief, article can be found here:

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsCont...t-to-suspend-flights-after-cr.aspx

Btblue · Sun Nov 01, 2015 2:28 pm

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 168):

I am just speculating like the rest of you, but bulkhead blowout would be consistent with cruise flight, where pressure differential has maxed out.

I think this is possible.

The reason most people were wearing seat belts is because it's common for airlines to indicate the importance of wearing a seat belt despite the seatbelt lights going off. Given the timing of the flight - early morning all pax would have been up all night, tired and likely wanted to sleep so left their seat belts on.

The tail section has a clean break just fore of the horizontal stabiliser. I'm curious if this is due to force on that section as a result of a dive following a climb.

Regarding engine trouble (the pilot allegedly radioed in with engine problems), uncontained failure, or detachment damaging the wing leading edge, slats, resulting in sharp bank with attempted correction by the pilot pulling back (climb) and inverted stall and breakup.

crownvic · Sun Nov 01, 2015 2:30 pm

206 replies on Pt 1 and now 120 replies on Pt 2 and all useless except for the photos and reply 77

AYVN · Sun Nov 01, 2015 2:34 pm

Has there been any press conference by the investigating group? There are still so many unconfirmed news that it is very hard to even guess what happened.
Main questions in my mind are:
1. Was there radio communication after things get out of normal flight? Some early reports even give details what words were used but then in later news this was denied.
2. Are the plane parts in small area or even 8 km area some news agencies are reporting?

EMAman · Sun Nov 01, 2015 2:35 pm

Quoting crownvic (Reply 172):
206 replies on Pt 1 and now 120 replies on Pt 2 and all useless except for the photos and reply 77

Dont agree, people are just discussing the possibilities based on the skant information available at this time

Some speculation and points are more valid and better constructed than others, but thats what you will always get on a public forum!!

osiris30 · Sun Nov 01, 2015 2:36 pm

Quoting crownvic (Reply 172):

206 replies on Pt 1 and now 120 replies on Pt 2 and all useless except for the photos and reply 77

1) congrats on adding to the count
2) congrats on complaining about the number of useless posts and getting said number wrong!

As with every single crash thread in the history of a.net there will be mountains of misinformation and speculation. Dont like it? Don't read it! Just wait for the investigators report in a few years and ignore it until then.

trnswrld · Sun Nov 01, 2015 2:42 pm

I agree EMAman,
according to crownvic crash threads should be nothing more than the news headline, any pictures, and pretty much no posts from users....got it.

In all seriousness, I do understand what he is saying though, obviously some posts are ridiculous and it does get annoying, but this is a message forum afterall. I mean, what else are we gonna do on here if we aren't going to post stuff? Every message forum is the same way with all sorts of topics not just aviation. You want to really get pissed off, try reading the comments section on Yahoo news page. OMG, after reading some of the crap people say there makes this site seem darn near perfect!

PanAm1971 · Sun Nov 01, 2015 2:49 pm

Quoting tu204 (Reply 145):
http://ria.ru/world/20151101/1311751608.html (in Russian), body of a 3 y/o girl found 8km from the main crash site. If this is true it obvioisly points to an inflight breakup.

And BBC News is reporting that there is evidence of an inflight breakup.

crownvic · Sun Nov 01, 2015 3:09 pm

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 175):

yes my bad when I started to post it was at 120 but was delayed when I hit the post message..either way I agree and get frustrated at all the speculation on a public forum

pvjin · Sun Nov 01, 2015 3:10 pm

Quoting PanAm1971 (Reply 177):

Now also Finnish news website Iltalehti.fi is reporting that Russian officials have confirmed an in flight breakup.

flyingturtle · Sun Nov 01, 2015 3:11 pm

Quoting PanAm1971 (Reply 177):

Yes, and:
- debris spread over 20 square kilometers, if the reported debris trail of 8 km length is true, then it would amount to a 2.5 km wide debris field... --> is there a rule of thumb to calculate the breakup altitude?
- 163 bodies have been found yet
- ISIS and their compadres are not known to possess weapons which could down the airplane from this height

David

Aither · Sun Nov 01, 2015 3:13 pm

The pilot did no radio an engine failure but a problem with the communication system according to newspapers.

How it could not be a bomb, a missile, or someone crazy taking controls ? modern aircraft don't explode mid air, even when there is an engine breakup.

[Edited 2015-11-01 07:13:47]

aircatalonia · Sun Nov 01, 2015 3:15 pm

Quoting pvjin (Reply 179):

This almost proves foul play, doesn't it? Has any modern airliner ever broken up in flight by accident?

flyingturtle · Sun Nov 01, 2015 3:17 pm

Quoting crownvic (Reply 178):
yes my bad when I started to post it was at 120 but was delayed when I hit the post message..either way I agree and get frustrated at all the speculation on a public forum

A hint to make a.nut a much more pleasant experience: Watch out for people known to contribute valuable inputs. It's really helpful to know their user names - even without caring if said people are actually aviation professionals, or what relevant experience they own. As an a.nutter since 2004, you should know that.

David

EMAman · Sun Nov 01, 2015 3:17 pm

Quoting Aither (Reply 181):
How it could not be a bomb, a missile, or someone crazy taking controls ? modern aircraft don't explode mid air, even when there is an engine breakup.

Actually the focus is on a mid-air breakup, which could have several explanations. Including a structural failure. The bomb theory remains a strong possibility, but information available at present does not favour the missile theory. "Someone crazy at the controls" does not explain a mid air break up or explosion at all. Also note that there is a difference between a mid air break up and an explosion!

EMAman · Sun Nov 01, 2015 3:19 pm

Quoting aircatalonia (Reply 182):
This almost proves foul play, doesn't it? Has any modern airliner ever broken up in flight by accident?

Yes, several examples come to mind - CI 611, TWA 800 and AA 586 are the best and most recent examples.

This far from proves foul play,.

RetiredWeasel · Sun Nov 01, 2015 3:19 pm

Quoting aircatalonia (Reply 182):
This almost proves foul play, doesn't it? Has any modern airliner ever broken up in flight by accident?

Yes: TWA Flight 800 . Of course if you're wearing a tin hat, then you'd believe this accident was the biggest coverup that 450 people could dream up.

Finn350 · Sun Nov 01, 2015 3:20 pm

Quoting aircatalonia (Reply 182):
This almost proves foul play, doesn't it? Has any modern airliner ever broken up in flight by accident?

Rare, but structural failures happen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_structural_failures

Three most recent in commercial aviation

2002-05-25 China Airlines Flight 611 faulty repair: tail section broke off, causing aircraft to disintegrate

2001-11-12 American Airlines Flight 587 overuse of rudder leading to loss of vertical stabilizer

1992-10-04 El Al Flight 1862 engine broke off, knocked off adjacent engine, ripped of slats; stall and crash on attempted landing

HALtheAI · Sun Nov 01, 2015 3:22 pm

Quoting aircatalonia (Reply 182):
This almost proves foul play, doesn't it? Has any modern airliner ever broken up in flight by accident?

Besides the others mentioned, there's also Lauda 004.

enilria · Sun Nov 01, 2015 3:26 pm

Quoting francoflier (Reply 107):
Egypt has already started to proffer its own truths to save face...
They'd rather blame the airplane straight away rather than acknowledge the presence of islamist radical activists on its soil and its lackadaisical airport security.

Perhaps, but then why deny there was a distress call about the engine?

Quoting SAS A340 (Reply 117):
""According to Russian news media, investigators will looking through Domodedovo Airport who was the plane's base. Investigators will also take samples of jet fuel at the site where the plane was last refueled, the Russian city of Samara.""
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article21680956.ab

Ok.... that can´t be right... right? regarding the fuel? Don´t you refuele from the airport you take off from? or did it come from Samara with no passengers?

Quoting dc863 (Reply 120):
Depends on how expensive fuel is at that particular station. Some airlines during the '73/'74 Oil Embargo would tank up at airports where fuel was cheaper along their route. Of course that's a dire situation.

Russia is probably subsidizing fuel to Russian airlines, so it is cheaper to "tanker" fuel to the these points and just top-off.

ltbewr · Sun Nov 01, 2015 3:32 pm

Many are very concerned if this was a bomb or missile attack. If it were to be, that would be very chilling to the airline industry. It is something none of us want to see happen or become a trend by nationalistic or terrorist groups used to get attention in the worst way by murdering innocents for their grievances.

We have to keep an open mind, even us 'armchair amateur investigators',

The apparent debris field suggests a partial break up at some altitude, in a narrow v-shaped pattern, That would further suggest some control and forward movement of the a/c as it came to the ground. Some of the debris could have been picked up by the wind and spread out as well. The published movements of the aircraft in it's final minute suggest this too but will have to be confirmed by the FDR and CVR. This could be explained by a bomb, a massive and aircraft engine failure with subsequent structural failure or a structural failure from a long ago pressurized bulkhead damage or poor repair.

kmz · Sun Nov 01, 2015 3:39 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 2):

we can't rule out faulty pitot tubes providing false data to the flight Computer, right?

Backseater · Sun Nov 01, 2015 3:41 pm

Remotely controlled bomb? If the ISIL video is genuine (link in thread 1), the only sure way to film the explosion is to have detonated the bomb from the ground while the a/c was on its expected flight path, just overhead. No problem getting a radio signal to be received in the cargo hold. Fuel ignited later. Second incendiary device?

GlenP · Sun Nov 01, 2015 3:41 pm

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 190):
Many are very concerned if this was a bomb or missile attack.

Sorry, but it is so unlikely to have been the result of a missile attack as to render that a dead end line of enquiry.

Shoulder launched systems couldn't engage an aircraft at that altitude; bearing in mind that all except Blowpipe, Javelin & HVM/Starstreak (the latter is known as both due to the RA deciding it didn't want to risk the operators being known as "Streakers"), rely on IR seekers for guidance & it is extremely unlikely that, even if they could reach that altitude, they would be able to lock on to the target.

Other SAM systems would require dedicated vehicles & specialised radars, but there is no indication whatsoever of the Sinai based militants having access to these systems.

EMAman · Sun Nov 01, 2015 3:48 pm

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 192):
Remotely controlled bomb? If the ISIL video is genuine (link in thread 1), the only sure way to film the explosion is to have detonated the bomb from the ground while the a/c was on its expected flight path, just overhead. No problem getting a radio signal to be received in the cargo hold. Fuel ignited later. Second incendiary device?

Remote control bomb possible but not for the reason you suggest, as most commentators have written the ISIS video off as a phoney animation. Unfortunately youtube had removed the video before I could look for myself.

EMAman · Sun Nov 01, 2015 3:51 pm

Quoting GlenP (Reply 193):
Sorry, but it is so unlikely to have been the result of a missile attack as to render that a dead end line of enquiry.

Agree:

1. Primary radar would have detected a streak - the israelis would have good coverage - havent seen this come forward yet

2. ISIS are widely reported not to have the capability of hitting a target at 31,000 ft

3. The wreckage is not entirely consistent with a missile strike

4. The ADS-B decent profile on FR24 is very different to MH17, which just switched off immediately

GlenP · Sun Nov 01, 2015 3:58 pm

The video posted as purporting to show ISIS downing the

Quoting EMAman (Reply 194):
Remote control bomb possible but not for the reason you suggest, as most commentators have written the ISIS video off as a phoney animation. Unfortunately youtube had removed the video before I could look for myself.

Having seen it, you didn't miss much.

It shows an unidentifiable airliner, almost from a 6 o'clock level, with a very poorly animated flash & smoke. All the time it flits between colour & monochrome.

Not in any way convincing, but the press lapped it up.

GlenP · Sun Nov 01, 2015 4:02 pm

Quoting EMAman (Reply 195):
2. ISIS are widely reported not to have the capability of hitting a target at 31,000 ft

The militant group in Sinai isn't the same as ISIS in Iraq & Syria. They are only thought to have acquired shoulder launched SAM systems. As an ex-RA missile operator, I can assure you that 31 000 ft is far too high an altitude for an engagement with such systems.

Btblue · Sun Nov 01, 2015 4:05 pm

Daily Mail has some new images from the crash site:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-329...es-jet-abort-three-months-ago.html

There appears to be a great deal of soot around the rear of the tail (below):

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Manuel Mueller

The horizontal and vertical stabilisers separated - a great deal of soot around where the APU is and, as noted on another forum, there is what appears to be a leakage of fluid from the horizontal stabiliser.

Is this fluid flammable? Could there be a case of a non operated control of the elevator creating the sudden climb and stressing the structure... (elevator is missing on the crash pic yet stabiliser is still in place) Given that this aircraft had a repair made to tail area it's possibly more susceptible to stress?

[Edited 2015-11-01 08:06:54]

[Edited 2015-11-01 08:08:30]

RayChuang · Sun Nov 01, 2015 4:07 pm

Quoting GlenP (Reply 193):
Other SAM systems would require dedicated vehicles & specialised radars, but there is no indication whatsoever of the Sinai based militants having access to these systems.

I have to disagree here. the 9K33 Osa (known by the NATO code name SA-8 Gecko were sold in large quantities by the former Soviet Union to Arab client states during the 1970's and 1980's. As such, given that the entire launch system fits in a relatively small military vehicle, ISIS/ISIL militants could jury-rig an entire launch system on the back of two pickup trucks. Given the maximum engagement altitude of the 9K33 is 12,000 meters (39,000 feet), that makes it plausible the A321 was shot down from a jury-rigged 9K33 launch system.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net