Kolavia A321 Crashes In Sinai / Egypt - Part 3

PlaneInsomniac · Tue Nov 03, 2015 12:21 pm

Unusual noise that is "not characteristic of normal flight" can be heard in the "last moments before disappearance" of the CVR recording:

http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/a...aeusche-an-Bord-von-Flug-9268.html

No further signs of any trouble in the CVR recording, apparently. Just normal cockpit conversations.

Pihero · Tue Nov 03, 2015 12:25 pm

Quoting liquidair (Reply 121):
Pihero, what's your take on the ADSB data from FR24?

I used three sources and they mainly check one another if we exclude the impossible ( like the 8000 ft/min climb just before the plunge to the ground).

Quoting ALAfly (Reply 191):
The tail section of the aircraft was found at coordinates N30.1527 E34.1858, 2230 meters/1.2nm south of the main wreckage and south of the last radar position.

Please be careful with sensationalism :
What Siumon referred to was the tail with the fin still attached to it. Those coordinates are the decimal equivalent of the more widely used aviation coordinates in degrees, minutes and seconds of angle.
Hence : N30.1527 E341858 is exactly 30.09.10 N 34.11.09 E
What is still missing is the tailplane / elevator and the pressure bulkhead.

anfromme · Tue Nov 03, 2015 12:26 pm

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 183):
Many experts have said that ISIS doesn't have the training to operate sophisticated surface to air systems. I hate to say thks, but I call BS. When Iraq fell[...]

Please read up-thread. The missile hypothesis has been discussed at length in this thread as well as parts 1 and 2 of it, and been roundly dismissed.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 185):
All this talk of missiles is great, but let's be real here. Why waste a perfectly good missile you can use against enemy fighters and bombers when a perfectly simple bomb does the same or even better of a job.

And that's on top of the logistical nightmare it would present to bring an SAM system from an IS-controlled area like Syria or Northern Iraq to the non-IS-controlled area of the Sinai.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 185):
No. If you want to take down an airliner, the easy way is to find a target (assuming this is isis related then a Russian carrier) operating a flight from a relatively insecure airport where your man on the inside loads a bomb along with the luggage. It's a 1,000 dollar solution not a multi-million dollar solution.

Quoting galleypower (Reply 187):
On the dailmail site

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...jet-apart-flight-data-reveals.html

On the one hand - thanks for the link. At 1:50 it definitely looks like the tail cone. The video also shows a few more pieces of debris I haven't seen before.
On the other hand - tabloid journalism at its worst. Somebody got hold of passenger names and started scouring Instagram and Facebook to grab a bunch of personal photos and use them without permission and with not even the slightest effort to pixelate faces or similar.

Aesma · Tue Nov 03, 2015 12:36 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 141):
I did a search in this thread for the word 'forbes' and nothing came up. This is an interesting article form Forbes suggesting that the executives and MetroJet should be barred from making comments about the investigation.

Egypt does not have a good track record on transparency so we will see the result.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngogl...tims-deserve-proper-investigation/

tortugamon

It's a bit strange when journalists ask people to be silenced...

ALAfly · Tue Nov 03, 2015 12:43 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 201):

Thank you, just my post is quote from Avherald as written in my post191.

GlenP · Tue Nov 03, 2015 12:51 pm

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 183):
Many experts have said that ISIS doesn't have the training to operate sophisticated surface to air systems. I hate to say thks, but I call BS. When Iraq fell, the Iraqi Army took off their uniforms, and joined the civilian population. That did not take away their ability to fight, or use the skills they learned in the Iraq Army. Now, we have several countries that have similar situations, where these trained military members have joined terrorist organizations. On 9/10/01, had you asked many of us our thoughts of any organization having the ability to hijack 4 planes, use them as weapons, and kill thousands....... Most of us would say it wasn't possible, or very unlikely.

But this isn't Iraq & Syria, it is part of Egypt & is several hundred miles from where mainstream ISIS/DAESH is operating.

The, self-proclaimed ISIS affiliate; which also claimed allegiance to al Qaeda, when the latter seemed to be the rising star amongst terrorist/militant groups, aren't even believed by your own intelligence agencies to have anything more sophisticated than shoulder launched, IR guided SAM systems.

Think about if. How are ISIS/DAESH going to move what will be a chuffing huge vehicle, complete with the missiles to fire from it, which are going to be in the order of 3m long, from Iraq - Egypt? Can't go straight south, because that takes you through Jordan & you're not very popular there; after burning one of their air force pilot alive. Or Saudi, where they blame you for a number of atrocities & are likely to shoot first & ask questions later. We could go southwest, but that would involve traversing Israeli territory & we'd be even less popular there. West leads you to Lebanon, where you've already lost several battles with the local army. East? Nope, that leads to Iran & they just happen to be a bunch of Shia, whom you've been happily massacring. North's out, now that Turkey's also bombing you & you've not got access to the Iraqi coast nor ships to transport the kit around the Arabian Peninsula & up the Red Sea.

Knowing the propensity for some of those stateside to dismiss anything said by anyone other than US Government agencies, it might just be worth reading this report, of a statement by your own, US, Intelligence agencies:

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsCont...hat-ISIS-was-responsible-for-.aspx

which dismisses the missile attack claims which, someone purporting to be ISIS made online.

aircatalonia · Tue Nov 03, 2015 12:53 pm

Is it possible that the airplane broke up in two stages? One that rendered the it uncontrollable and second stage, 30 seconds later, that broke the power lines feeding the ADS-B, thus preventing it from broadcasting?

EMAman · Tue Nov 03, 2015 1:07 pm

Quoting aircatalonia (Reply 206):
Is it possible that the airplane broke up in two stages? One that rendered the it uncontrollable and second stage, 30 seconds later, that broke the power lines feeding the ADS-B, thus preventing it from broadcasting?

Yes, it is possible, and in fact the most likely scenario in my view.

GlenP · Tue Nov 03, 2015 1:11 pm

People were asking about Irish participation in the investigation, due to this having been the country of registration for the aircraft & here's the update to show they've arrived:

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsCont...ian-plane-crash-investigation.aspx

IADCA · Tue Nov 03, 2015 1:28 pm

Quoting aircatalonia (Reply 206):
Is it possible that the airplane broke up in two stages? One that rendered the it uncontrollable and second stage, 30 seconds later, that broke the power lines feeding the ADS-B, thus preventing it from broadcasting?

Possible, as that would explain the positive climb rate at the end of the record. The notes show that there were 4 data points at 6:13:00, one of which shows positive vertical speed and the rest of which show negative. That's a couple seconds after the event started and is probably a key moment (and the suspiciously round number makes me, well, a tad suspicious).

mats01776 · Tue Nov 03, 2015 1:35 pm

Quoting IADCA (Reply 209):
Possible, as that would explain the positive climb rate at the end of the record. The notes show that there were 4 data points at 6:13:00, one of which shows positive vertical speed and the rest of which show negative.

Of course the airspeed and altimeter reading can be off the mark unless the pitot tube/static port is oriented as intended against the airflow at all times.

anfromme · Tue Nov 03, 2015 1:36 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 203):
It's a bit strange when journalists ask people to be silenced...

They didn't ask for anybody to be silenced. They just said he'd be better off keeping quiet and at the same time outlined the international rules for airplane crash investigations. Their argument is nicely summarised in the article itself:

Quote:
By already ruling out “technical fault of the plane or pilot error,” the airline violated one of the cardinal rules of accident investigation, which is to keep an open mind as all the facts are gathered and analyzed.

They're completely right, of course.
Once findings are made public and the airline's director disagrees with those findings (or an aspect of them), and he can present evidence to support his claim, that's a different discussion.
Having said that - even in that discussion the director's argument wouldn't be helped by the fact that he already made that premature announcement yesterday.

ranold76 · Tue Nov 03, 2015 1:58 pm

Quoting aircatalonia (Reply 206):
Is it possible that the airplane broke up in two stages? One that rendered the it uncontrollable and second stage, 30 seconds later, that broke the power lines feeding the ADS-B, thus preventing it from broadcasting?

Very possible, but wouldn't one assume that the said first break up would not have only rendered the aircraft uncontrollable, but also inhibited the pilots from communicating also? Why would the ADS-B continue working, but no voice etc? Did the first said break up affect everyone on the aircraft, including the cockpit?
Wouldn't you assume if it was failure of some kind, say in the aft area, that the pilots would have communicated to ATC etc?
Whatever occurred, occurred very suddenly imho.

Scorpio · Tue Nov 03, 2015 2:05 pm

How about this for a theory (warning: speculation):

From the images released (see video on Daily Mail site) it's clear that the horizontal stabiliser was not attached to the rest of the tail when it came down. The tail cone was also found in a different location.

How about this possible sequence of events: the rear pressure bulkhead failed (either due to incorrectly fixed tailstrike damage of because a bomb was located near it), and when it did, the blast was directed to the rear. I don't think this would've taken off the entire tail section with the tailfin (the part we've seen images of) but the force of the blast would've been directed at the area immediately behind the bulkhead. That's where the horizontal stabiliser is (it's one piece that runs directly through the tail). If that was blown off, it would've taken the tailcone with it. The rest of the tail would then have broken apart later, during the disintegration of the aircraft due to the aerodynamic forces.

If I were a betting man, I'd say the horizontal stabiliser was what was blown off the plane first.

WPIAeroGuy · Tue Nov 03, 2015 2:14 pm

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 213):

I think that's essentially what a lot of people are leaning towards, myself included as I posted earlier. The issue of course is exactly how it happened, it could be something other than a bomb or failed repair, those are just the easiest guesses.

BOAC1966 · Tue Nov 03, 2015 2:18 pm

Whilst acknowledging the debates on this thread re the bulkhead and the loss of stability in those last moments could there have been a mid air collision? The external force but not missile related? However speculation must give way to evidence based findings and these we await from the BEA team in particular. They have done some remarkable work in recent years.

United787 · Tue Nov 03, 2015 2:21 pm

Quoting brewfangrb (Reply 194):
Really? Are you sure you don't want to throw a few more superlatives in there? I love kids as much as anyone (I have 4 nieces under age 7 and a 3 year old nephew) but this is over the top.

I fail to see why this is over the top. Whenever there is a crash, these threads get into the technical details fairly quickly, which is the point of this website. But there is nothing wrong with being reminded about the human tragedy of this crash and the lives if affected, especially when they are still collecting bodies at the crash site. 224 people lost their lives, 25 of them children. In addition, scores more children were orphaned by many of the adults that were also taken from them.

The number one reason we all speculate and discuss these crashes for weeks and months and sometimes years afterwards is because we want to learn the why so lives can be saved in the future.

diverted · Tue Nov 03, 2015 2:37 pm

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKCN0SS1LH20151103

And it begins...
"No proof that plane broke up mid-air" -Egyptian Authorities

Quote:
CAIRO (Reuters) - Egypt’s civil aviation ministry said on Tuesday there were no facts to substantiate assertions by Russian officials that the Russian airliner that crashed in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula on Saturday broke up in mid-air.

I guess the wreckage scattered around wouldn't have been the first hint?

Regardless, I guess they're just trying to keep rumours from flying.

lancelot07 · Tue Nov 03, 2015 2:51 pm

Quoting diverted (Reply 217):
"No proof that plane broke up mid-air"

The terms "break up" and "mid-air" leave some room for interpretation.
It seems as if the plane did not break into 1000 pieces at cruise, but it may have lost vital parts. It seems that from cockpit through the wings, it came down in one piece, and -somewhat surprising if it lost the tail high up- not nose down.
"Mid-air" can be almost anything.

We have to be patient not not jump at every bit of news from the media.

trent900 · Tue Nov 03, 2015 2:51 pm

The main probable cause for me at the moment is a bulkhead failure, but that still doesn't answer the question as to why the found fan module ( picture in reply 54) is covered in soot and burn marks. There must have been a fairly fierce fire during the breakup for it to get in this state.

D.

pvjin · Tue Nov 03, 2015 3:08 pm

Quoting ranold76 (Reply 212):
Very possible, but wouldn't one assume that the said first break up would not have only rendered the aircraft uncontrollable, but also inhibited the pilots from communicating also? Why would the ADS-B continue working, but no voice etc? Did the first said break up affect everyone on the aircraft, including the cockpit?
Wouldn't you assume if it was failure of some kind, say in the aft area, that the pilots would have communicated to ATC etc?

At that point pilots had probably more important things to think about than communicating to the ATC. If an aircraft falls uncontrollably from 30k feet there will be no one to rescue, so trying to get the aircraft under control is absolutely the very first priority. Sadly, in this case that probably wasn't even theoretically possible due to a severe structural failure of some sort.

Quoting United787 (Reply 216):

I don't really get the emphasis on children among those who died, aren't all human lives equally important and age of the victims pretty irrelevant? A Finnish newspaper even had a headline that named the youngest individual victim, as if that's somehow relevant to the bigger picture.

[Edited 2015-11-03 07:12:34]

md80fanatic · Tue Nov 03, 2015 3:09 pm

Quoting aircatalonia (Reply 206):
Is it possible that the airplane broke up in two stages? One that rendered the it uncontrollable and second stage, 30 seconds later, that broke the power lines feeding the ADS-B, thus preventing it from broadcasting?

The only way to have a 2nd stage breakup -is- to still have control of the plane. Once control is lost the fuselage tube flies into the oncoming air squarely, taking the natural path of least resistance. Aerodynamic forces that would further break a plane to pieces can only be encountered by applying significant force, because any change in trajectory is instantly met by corrective forces returnng the plane to the slipstream.

WingedMigrator · Tue Nov 03, 2015 3:15 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 201):
What is still missing is the tailplane / elevator and the pressure bulkhead.

Is the bulkhead not still attached to the rear fuselage?

United787 · Tue Nov 03, 2015 3:18 pm

Quoting pvjin (Reply 220):
I don't really get the emphasis on children among those who died, aren't all human lives equally important and age of the victims pretty irrelevant? A Finnish newspaper even had a headline that named the youngest individual victim, as if that's somehow relevant to the bigger picture.

Of course, all lives are equally important. I am not a psychologist but I am sure there are pretty good reasons why the loss of a child seems to pull on the heart of people stronger. Look at the Syrian boy that washed up on the Turkish beach and that image has had on Europe and the world.

[Edited 2015-11-03 07:19:24]

exfss · Tue Nov 03, 2015 3:18 pm

Every image I see and everything I read about this crash bring me to china airline 611, which had also a tailstrike.

If the RPB decompress, would it be possible that it take the HS away,
(which has not been found yet),
then because of the CG of the plane plane pitch nose down, lose the whole tail.
(it is obvious that the tail falled vertically)
and then become a uncontrolable plane, controlled only by the wing,
get lift by speed ,climb, lose lift, fall, get lift, and so on til it hit the ground upside down.

cat3appr50 · Tue Nov 03, 2015 3:19 pm

Replying to United787 post #216:
Thx for your comment. I just logged in and saw your post and the response to my original post. As I noted in that original post the objective analysis and final investigation conclusions of all aircraft crashes is about determining the root cause in order to make sure that it doesn’t happen again….and all of that exhaustive work is done because innocent people including children (in this case 25) have lost their lives in a horrific crash.

I can assure that I understand aviation (and engineering, technology, etc.) very well and in depth, and can and will balance the human element with the technical element as my posts typically do. Commercial airplane travel exists because of passengers/people.

a3xx900 · Tue Nov 03, 2015 3:21 pm

http://www.focus.de/panorama/welt/ab...losion-an-bord-hin_id_5059746.html

German news magazine "Focus" reports that injuries on bodies show signs of explosion on board.

N14AZ · Tue Nov 03, 2015 3:28 pm

Quoting a3xx900 (Reply 226):
German news magazine "Focus"

Yes, the very same FOCUS that was so clever to report on their webpage that rescue teams can hear survivors screaming out of the wreckage....

How could this doctor already know by now...? The press coverage of this crash is very unprofessional...

lancelot07 · Tue Nov 03, 2015 3:34 pm

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 227):
How could this doctor already know by now...?

especially with the bodies of the victims having been brought to Russia.
Focus is not better than Daily Mail.

PlaneInsomniac · Tue Nov 03, 2015 3:36 pm

Well, if it was a bomb I just hope it didn't come in a package mailed with love from Amsterdam.

pvjin · Tue Nov 03, 2015 3:41 pm

Quoting United787 (Reply 223):
Of course, all lives are equally important. I am not a psychologist but I am sure there are pretty good reasons why the loss of a child seems to pull on the heart of people stronger. Look at the Syrian boy that washed up on the Turkish beach and that image has had on Europe and the world.

True, that's why tabloids and such tend to report that way, it's useful at making people buy news stories. Perhaps I've watched too many Syrian war videos, but personally I'm pretty immune to that kind of reporting, only thing that has really shocked me within last few years was the MH17 case, something totally unusual and out of this world.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 227):
How could this doctor already know by now...? The press coverage of this crash is very unprofessional...

I agree, standards of modern day mainstream "journalism" can't possibly go any lower.

hivue · Tue Nov 03, 2015 3:43 pm

Quoting United787 (Reply 216):
The number one reason we all speculate and discuss these crashes for weeks and months and sometimes years afterwards is because we want to learn the why so lives can be saved in the future.

It's highly unlikely that anyone posting on these forums winds up as a result making material contributions to aviation safety and saving lives. And those few that might probably don't glean anything useful from a.net discussion/speculation that they can't get more reliably elsewhere. We post here because we're interested in aviation and we're trying to satisfy our curiosity. Lets make sure we keep our perspective.

Unflug · Tue Nov 03, 2015 3:47 pm

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 227):
Yes, the very same FOCUS that was so clever to report on their webpage that rescue teams can hear survivors screaming out of the wreckage....

Wouldn't expect anything else from the FOCUS.

In this case they are actually citing Sputnik:

http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20...xplosion-a321-forensic-expert.html

a3xx900 · Tue Nov 03, 2015 3:51 pm

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 227):
Yes, the very same FOCUS that was so clever to report on their webpage that rescue teams can hear survivors screaming out of the wreckage....

How could this doctor already know by now...? The press coverage of this crash is very unprofessional...

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 228):
Focus is not better than Daily Mail.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 230):
standards of modern day mainstream "journalism" can't possibly go any lower.

I'm sorry I forgot to add that Focus is not a very trustworthy source. And indeed, so far it seems no other news service picks up on this report. So probably bogus.

lancelot07 · Tue Nov 03, 2015 4:04 pm

Quoting a3xx900 (Reply 233):
So probably bogus.

yes and no.
Here also is room for interpretation. "Explosion" as in use of explosives, or as in "explosive decompression", which is called so for good reason.

It is so easy to jump to wrong conclusions from small pixels of informations.

[Edited 2015-11-03 08:07:24]

alfa164 · Tue Nov 03, 2015 4:51 pm

Quoting aircatalonia (Reply 206):

Is it possible that the airplane broke up in two stages? One that rendered the it uncontrollable and second stage, 30 seconds later, that broke the power lines feeding the ADS-B, thus preventing it from broadcasting?

Quoting IADCA (Reply 209):
Possible, as that would explain the positive climb rate at the end of the record. The notes show that there were 4 data points at 6:13:00, one of which shows positive vertical speed and the rest of which show negative. That's a couple seconds after the event started and is probably a key moment (and the suspiciously round number makes me, well, a tad suspicious)

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 213):
How about this possible sequence of events: the rear pressure bulkhead failed (either due to incorrectly fixed tailstrike damage of because a bomb was located near it), and when it did, the blast was directed to the rear. I don't think this would've taken off the entire tail section with the tailfin (the part we've seen images of) but the force of the blast would've been directed at the area immediately behind the bulkhead. That's where the horizontal stabiliser is (it's one piece that runs directly through the tail). If that was blown off, it would've taken the tailcone with it. The rest of the tail would then have broken apart later, during the disintegration of the aircraft due to the aerodynamic forces.

You are likely correct. Once the rear structural failure - whether caused by a small bomb or rupture of the rear pressure bulkhead - allowed the tail section to flex, then pitch control becomes almost impossible. Even if there were a way out of it, it is so confusing to both the crew and any computers that is is well nigh impossible.

The pitching aircraft then multiplies that flexing, with more tension and flexing between the fuselage and the tail. At some point, separation occurs.

Many components in modern airliners are designed to bend, but not break, but the airframe itself, obviously, has limits.

Quoting trent900 (Reply 219):
The main probable cause for me at the moment is a bulkhead failure, but that still doesn't answer the question as to why the found fan module ( picture in reply 54) is covered in soot and burn marks. There must have been a fairly fierce fire during the breakup for it to get in this state.

Any fuel remaining in the engine area could have burned, either during the downward spiral or upon impact, causing the soot and burn marks.

slvrblt · Tue Nov 03, 2015 4:51 pm

Quoting kevin (Reply 168):
The news on a Russian website says a US satellite detected a heat signature at the moment of the crash (before the impact). Which adds sabotage to the list of my suspicions. How easy was it for ISIS to infiltrate or pay off a member of the ground staff at SSH (which I guess is not as heavily secured as CAI) and plant a bomb? I would guess it was not hard at all. A bit of a wild card but not at all impossible

I'm still more of the opinion it was a suicide bomber; it's the favored method of terror organizations. I'm sure it wasn't that hard for ISIS to get someone to substitute as a suicide bomber as a tourist and get on the flight.

OMP777X · Tue Nov 03, 2015 5:01 pm

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 234):
yes and no.
Here also is room for interpretation. "Explosion" as in use of explosives, or as in "explosive decompression", which is called so for good reason.

It is so easy to jump to wrong conclusions from small pixels of informations.

Exactly. Especially when quotes are translated two or three times over. The initial way I interpreted this was also that the injuries passengers showed were indicative of an explosive decompression (e.g. missing limbs, shrapnel wounds). It seems to me that the 8 sq. mile debris field and the condition of the debris lends itself to that conclusion. It broke apart at altitude and continued to break apart on its spiral downward toward the desert.

Best,

OMP777X

lowbank · Tue Nov 03, 2015 5:02 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 231):
It's highly unlikely that anyone posting on these forums winds up as a result making material contributions to aviation safety and saving lives. And those few that might probably don't glean anything useful from a.net discussion/speculation that they can't get more reliably elsewhere. We post here because we're interested in aviation and we're trying to satisfy our curiosity. Lets make sure we keep our perspective.

there may not be many, but when i sit down and do PFMEA's and DCM/FVRA' s the knowledge of previous failures and some of the reports people dig up on here that I have susequently read are foremost in my mind.

For those that dont know process failure mode and effect analysis, rather than explain you can google it.

Feature Verification risk analysis. this is done on every dimension on the drawing and gets a score, if severity is 10 then that can bring a plane down and has to be mitigated. if you dont do that correctly you will be jailed for corporate manslaughter in the event of people being killed.

IADCA · Tue Nov 03, 2015 5:05 pm

Quoting mats01776 (Reply 210):
Of course the airspeed and altimeter reading can be off the mark unless the pitot tube/static port is oriented as intended against the airflow at all times.

That's an interesting point. I'd imagine Airbus has some idea what the readouts would look like in certain failure modes (flat spin, extreme pitch and yaw oscillations, etc).

caoimhin · Tue Nov 03, 2015 5:09 pm

As to the RPB failure theory, what of the apparent fact that the tail section seems to have separated forward of the bulkhead? It looks like a relatively clean break in some sections.

If it did rupture, wouldn't you expect the break to be aft of the bulkhead?

lowbank · Tue Nov 03, 2015 5:10 pm

alfa164,
I humbly disagree, that nose cone has been sudject to high temperatures for an amount of time for it to blister. thats been coming from in front of of the engine.
I cannot explain it but i have looked at loads of crash photos and pay particular attention to the engine ones, never seen that before. I have inspected actual blades from several engine failures, never seen them sooted before.
its strange and I cannot explain it.
please dont dismiss it so simply.

maartent · Tue Nov 03, 2015 5:22 pm

Maybe this is helpful:

http://www.flightradar24.com/blog/me...9268-extended-mode-s-data-decoded/

jreuschl · Tue Nov 03, 2015 5:50 pm

I'm actually surprised for all of the ways the media try to hype something without facts that none of them seem to bring up the repair history of the aircraft as a result of a hard landing.

ranold76 · Tue Nov 03, 2015 5:53 pm

Quoting maartent (Reply 242):
Maybe this is helpful:

http://www.flightradar24.com/blog/me...oded/

04:13:14Z onward is where things get strange.
Climbing, but then rough level altitude, all while vspeed goes from + to - and sudden drops of TAS and GS.
Hmmm. Even the source suggests from there onward can't be considered reliable.

[Edited 2015-11-03 09:56:34]

Backseater · Tue Nov 03, 2015 6:35 pm

It would be interesting to know the precise time stamp of the IR event, if one was detected from space?

Some hypotheses (but no answers!).

If the RPB/tail structure failed due to metal fatigue, I would "guess" that the ensuing explosive decompression would not yield a detectable IR event, as most of the energy would end up as kinetic energy propelling the parts being blown away.

If the IR event happened at T just before the a/c began its wild trajectory, it might have been a fuel tank explosion (how could SBIRS miss that one!) or a bomb (powerful enough to release significant heat outside the hull). Missile buffs would also expect that!

If the IR event happened seconds or tens of seconds after T, probably a fuel explosion as the a/c disintegrated for some other initial cause.

If the IR event was detected much, much later than T: fire/heat flash after ground impact.

Pihero · Tue Nov 03, 2015 6:48 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 222):
Quoting Pihero (Reply 201):
What is still missing is the tailplane / elevator and the pressure bulkhead.

Is the bulkhead not still attached to the rear fuselage?

No. what is still attached to the fuselage is the APU firewall.
The pressure bulkhead is located about one meter ahead of the firewall.

The missing pieces are then the flight control surfaces of the tail section, namely :
- The rudder
- The tailplane, otherwise known as the horizontal trimmable surface or THS
- The elevator

Examining the fuselage parts, there can be seen sooting patterns that could only happen in a movement of airstream.
The destruction of the wings is altogether a different occurrence.
The panel which is -IMHO - the one under R2 door with the toboggan door on it shows traces of something which is to me an inflight fire. Nothing else could have made similar marks.

Quoting Lowbank (Reply 241):
that nose cone has been sudject to high temperatures for an amount of time for it to blister. thats been coming from in front of of the engine.

How is this scenario : aircraft spins around its yaw axis ; one engine goes forward, the other backward ; with the aircraft forward speed reduced, we could well see that engine reverse its flow... it's still provided with a lot of fuel so the engine is on fire from the combustion chambers to the front... of course, it stops turning... you only have a big blow torch which scorched the fan and the nose cone and blistered the paint.

osiris30 · Tue Nov 03, 2015 7:00 pm

Quoting slvrblt (Reply 236):

I'm still more of the opinion it was a suicide bomber; it's the favored method of terror organizations. I'm sure it wasn't that hard for ISIS to get someone to substitute as a suicide bomber as a tourist and get on the flight.

Possible, but given the PAX roster, unlikely as (if I understand correctly) almost all were Russian vacationers who flew in from Russia. Given the makeup, it's not impossible, but much more likely a bomb in the cargo hold would do just as well and be easier to plant.

Quoting IADCA (Reply 239):

That's an interesting point. I'd imagine Airbus has some idea what the readouts would look like in certain failure modes (flat spin, extreme pitch and yaw oscillations, etc).

They probably have some idea (or could simulate it to find out). Which is why they will be asked for that information and will provide it when asked to the authorities. Ofcourse that doesn't necessarily mean we'll hear about it any time soon.

Quoting caoimhin (Reply 240):
As to the RPB failure theory, what of the apparent fact that the tail section seems to have separated forward of the bulkhead? It looks like a relatively clean break in some sections.

If it did rupture, wouldn't you expect the break to be aft of the bulkhead?

Hard to say. We don't know if there was fatigue or stress damage in that area. You could have had pre-existing damage that after a failure elsewhere then let go. Not the most likely scenario, but not impossible.

LH707330 · Tue Nov 03, 2015 7:20 pm

Quoting HALtheAI (Reply 192):
From latest reports, CVR/FDR stopped recording right after some weird sounds are heard. ADS-B continued to transmit for ~22 secs after problem begins. Black boxes are located in the tail. Therefore, separation of the tail at the start seems very likely. Breakup of the aircraft, and hence the cessation of the ADS-B signal, happens a while later, possibly due to aerodynamic loads that the aircraft wasn't designed to handle. The fireball on breakup could've been caused by sparks from exposed wiring or metal/metal contact as the aircraft disintegrates and the fuel is released.

Quoting dc863 (Reply 193):
If you lose the entire tail suddenly during cruise the plane is likely to pitch up or down suddenly. At that point the outer portions of the wings are going to snap off along with the engines. Yet when you look at the main crash site, the wings are intact and the engines deposited not far away.

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 213):
How about this possible sequence of events: the rear pressure bulkhead failed (either due to incorrectly fixed tailstrike damage of because a bomb was located near it), and when it did, the blast was directed to the rear. I don't think this would've taken off the entire tail section with the tailfin (the part we've seen images of) but the force of the blast would've been directed at the area immediately behind the bulkhead. That's where the horizontal stabiliser is (it's one piece that runs directly through the tail). If that was blown off, it would've taken the tailcone with it. The rest of the tail would then have broken apart later, during the disintegration of the aircraft due to the aerodynamic forces.

I think some of these ideas are good. I'd postulate:
1. Bomb in rear cargo hold blows up, blows a hole in the lower fuselage, cuts CVR/FDR links and bends the tail up
2. Aircraft briefly pitches up before tail separates, horizontal stabilizers fold away somewhere in this process
3. Aircraft enters flat spin and sheds engine(s), disrupting electrics and cutting ADS-B. Engine gets oriented backward relative to airflow and surges, blowing hot combustion gases up past the fan, causing the blistering

I'm not sure we can trust the Daily Fail on their account of the blunt force trauma in the nose and the shrapnel in the rear of the aircraft, but if that's true, then I'd go with some version of the above.

joejosh999 · Tue Nov 03, 2015 7:45 pm

Can we please use Occam's razor and go with the simplest explanation?
We know the aircraft had prior tail strike and repair.
We know that in the past this has resulted in explosive decompression/hull loss of other aircraft.
We know that the airline in question is low-cost/poor maintenance/ has not paid their employees for 2 months.

Can we please assign first to Incompetence (maintenance related breakup) before we all go Rambo and choose Malice (terrorist bomb)?

The simplest explanation, especially one explained by incompetence, is often the most likely, and Until we see evidence of a bomb, should be the operative theory.

The missing HS is key.
And still missing.
I would expect it to be at the very start of the debris field, I.e. One of the first bits to leave the airplane.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net