Sinai Plane Crash - Metrojet 9268
- Thread starter Dechelski
- Start date
Balance
Senior Member.
Again I can't help thinking this is politically motivated spin. We (UK) did something similar (boycotted Egypt) over the terrorist gunman attack on the beach when the rest of the world carried on business as usual.
Ray Von Geezer
Senior Member.
Do you mean the Tunisia beach attack, or the Egypt alert earlier this year? I'm pretty sure with those it was down to the airlines to decide whether to withdraw travel on government advice. I think the government actually stepping in to stop flights is pretty rare.
Ray Von
The government won't physically stop the flights, but if there is a Foreign Office "do not travel" warning in place, then tourists' holiday insurance won't cover them, they won't travel, and there will be nobody on the flights. So the government's action effectively stops the flights.
(Incidentally, one of the cheapest holidays I ever had was near Sharm el Sheikh, booked not long after 9/11. They were desperate for tourists as the numbers had almost dried up. There were more staff than guests at our hotel.)
Ray Von Geezer
Senior Member.
I could well be wrong, but going on their statement I don't think that's the case here.
The current status that there's an advice against all travel to North Sinai and all but essential travel to South Sinai. For flights out of Egypt, this is the statement:-
https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/egypt
That certainly seems like the carriers couldn't fly out, even against advice.
There is a significant possibility that the crash was caused by an explosive device. As a precautionary measure, we are now advising against all but essential travel by air to or from Sharm el Sheikh. UK carriers will not take passengers directly to Sharm el Sheikh airport. We are working with the Egyptian authorities and air carriers to put special security measures in place which will permit travellers in Sharm el Sheikh to return by air, whether as scheduled at the end of their stay or before that if they wish. British nationals affected by this should contact their tour operators or carriers to arrange an orderly departure.
We are not raising the threat level in the resort. The above advice applies only to air travel to and from Sharm el Sheikh.
Carriers will not be permitted to fly from Sharm el Sheikh until we are satisfied that it is safe for them to do so.
We have deployed consular staff to Sharm el Sheikh, who will be on hand at the airport and the resort, to assist British nationals.
Ray Von
Balance
Senior Member.
Yes, I did mean Tunisia (my bad). But the government, whether by direct order or suggestion the effect is the same - all airlines to the UK grounded until further notice. People reporting of being escorted back to their hotel by UK embassy staff after waiting for hours at the airport.
tadaaa
Senior Member
I know what you mean, and off course any vague attempt to get answers is met the with the catch all response of "we don't talk about security matters"
which you sort of understand, apart from the fact that, the UK security services lost all credibility after the 45 mins claim
BombDr
Senior Member.
That is a little unfair, that was the government in office at the time.
BombDr
Senior Member.
That seems reasonable, not just following this event, but there has been multiple attacks against Egyptian security forces in Sinai.
I don't really see it as politically motivated as Balance suggests. What would the British government stand to gain?
tadaaa
Senior Member
point taken BombDr - I suppose we should wait for the Chilcot enquiry to report its findings
BombDr
Senior Member.
We will be waiting for a while. There is a rumour going around the Army that they are hanging on for the former military chiefs to die before publishing.
I am pretty appalled they have been given a right to reply, and make their representations on the taxpayer, but I'm drifting off topic to will stop now.
Gridlock
Senior Member.
Definitely smells like they know for sure that it was brought down by a bomb, but are deferring to the usual protocols regarding the investigators' primacy.
So they ran the pre-attack SIGINT etc data through analysis and things lined up. Later in the story they explicitly state;
The assessment was reached by looking at intelligence gathered before and after the plane crashed while travelling from Egypt to Russia, the official told CNN.
Washington did not have evidence of a specific threat prior to the crash. But “there had been additional activity in Sinai that had caught our attention,” the official said.
“While the investigation is still ongoing we cannot say categorically why the Russian jet crashed,” a Number 10 spokeswoman said.
Rob
Member
Here is that video :
Remember, we don't know if this is the same plane, or even if the video is real or faked.
But if this is the Metrojet plane, that explosion was not subtle, and clearly catastrophic.
Last edited:
Laurence W
New Member
[1] The flight profile shows a sudden gain in altitude just before the drop (link and graphic below). It's hard to see how that fits with an explosion. More likely an aft bulkhead failure, with the tail becoming semi-detached and the pilot fighting to control the aircraft before the final plunge. The tail landed roughly three miles from the rest of the plane. Some trigonometry should yield the altitude at which the two parts separated completely.
[2] ISIS claim of downing the plane not credible. If they did it, why are they being coy about exactly how they did it? Watch for the their 'revelations' to track information leaking from the investigations.
[3] Russia wants a conclusion not linked to Syria intervention. Egypt wants a conclusion that doesn't scare the tourists. US and UK would like this to be a consequence of Russia's Syria policy. Additionally, UK & France pray it's not an issue with the aircraft, since they are senior partners in the conglomerate that builds Airbus planes. Everyone involved has skin in the game. Statements on all sides - including "our" side - should be treated with caution.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...b177c0-840c-11e5-8bd2-680fff868306_story.html
[2] ISIS claim of downing the plane not credible. If they did it, why are they being coy about exactly how they did it? Watch for the their 'revelations' to track information leaking from the investigations.
[3] Russia wants a conclusion not linked to Syria intervention. Egypt wants a conclusion that doesn't scare the tourists. US and UK would like this to be a consequence of Russia's Syria policy. Additionally, UK & France pray it's not an issue with the aircraft, since they are senior partners in the conglomerate that builds Airbus planes. Everyone involved has skin in the game. Statements on all sides - including "our" side - should be treated with caution.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...b177c0-840c-11e5-8bd2-680fff868306_story.html
Attachments
Last edited:
Which could be due to an explosion.
Gridlock
Senior Member.
TWA800 climbed post-explosion, and trigonometry would be less accurate than either radar returns (you can bet the area is well covered, even if the owners are reluctant to share) or simply seeing when the black boxes lost all data aft of X.
Edit - Black boxes being in the tail, it would be when they lost all power and data I suppose. But trig will fail to be accurate as you are dealing with aerodynamic shapes.
sharpnfuzzy
Active Member
There were simulations done that showed that the fuselage of TWA800 would have climbed post-explosion. However the main difference between that accident and this one is that TWA800 had the front section of fuselage blow off. Therefore the centre of gravity moved aft and made the fuselage tail heavy which would contribute to the climb. In this case the rear of the fuselage was blown off which would move the centre of gravity forward and make the plane nose heavy. That to me makes the sudden climb suspect.
I don't think that gain in altitude is real. I could be wrong but I think that the explosion has already happened at that point and any data after that is unreliable. Those readings could be caused by the fact that the fuselage is now tumbling or in some kind of severe angle of attack and the onboard systems are just trying to make sense of the erratic things they are sensing. ADS-B data is not precise enough and is no substitute for an FDR when things go wrong.
sharpnfuzzy
Active Member
I'm leaning towards fake, just doesn't look right for this scenario. I can't see how you could get the plane to appear as large as it does in the full frame with a cell phone camera when it's at 30,000 ft. Aircraft fly at that altitude over my house all the time and even with a decent camera with a decent optical zoom they never appear that large in the full frame. Also the explosion and smoke look off to me.
Spectrar Ghost
Senior Member.
That was more or less exactly my conclusion as well. Another thing to note is the plane stays intact (no tail separation) and seems to remain straight and level after the 'explosion'.
There are two interesting Pieces found nearby Fuselage.
Both are normaly placed below 2. Emergency Door left and right (2L-2R).
Thats the right Piece. Left side is Top
Clear to see the Burn Marks. At the 2.Pic right Side, the dark fileds, looks for massiv heat from Inside Cargo.
Same as by the Engine, no burn Marks around the Piece at the Ground.
Thats the 2L Piece. At the side viewed as the Bottom, normaly the Door 2 is placed.
Right Side is normaly Botton, left Top.
Also here, Fuselage is 20m away left, no burn Marks at the ground. But massic burn Marks at the Bottom. There must be a very hot heat inside the Cargo at these Places.
That is the Place where the first Piece is normaly placed
Both are normaly placed below 2. Emergency Door left and right (2L-2R).
Thats the right Piece. Left side is Top
Clear to see the Burn Marks. At the 2.Pic right Side, the dark fileds, looks for massiv heat from Inside Cargo.
Same as by the Engine, no burn Marks around the Piece at the Ground.
Thats the 2L Piece. At the side viewed as the Bottom, normaly the Door 2 is placed.
Right Side is normaly Botton, left Top.
Also here, Fuselage is 20m away left, no burn Marks at the ground. But massic burn Marks at the Bottom. There must be a very hot heat inside the Cargo at these Places.
That is the Place where the first Piece is normaly placed
Rob
Member
I think triumph61 has a point.
There surely seems to be fire damage (for example that left engine intake) that suggests the plane was on fire in the air.
There has been much discussion on the forums about the sequence by which this disaster unfolded, and there seem to be two theories that match with the photographic evidence that we have available :
1) The problem started in the tail. Possibly an explosive rear pressure bulkhead failure (possibly due to a bomb in the aft cargo hold, or a structural failure due to that tail strike or so).
Under this scenario, the tail gave in first and lost its horizontal stabilizer due to the blast.
After that the plane lost control, spinned down and engine fire erupted on the way down.
2) The problem started further forward. Possibly due to a bomb in the front cargo hold, or a TWA 800 - like explosion in the center fuel tank. Plane catches fire right away. Control over main wings is lost after full failure of hydraulics.
Plane ends up in a spin and looses its tail on the way down.
In this puzzle, there is one piece of evidence that has almost been overlooked.
It's the horizontal stabilizer.
As far as I know, there is only one picture of it (taken from a Russian news video).
That's this image :
I am no expert, but does it look like this piece was ripped off by a (bomb) blast, before the plane lost control ?
Or did it simply snap off by mere massive aerodynamic forces AFTER the plane lost control ?
There surely seems to be fire damage (for example that left engine intake) that suggests the plane was on fire in the air.
There has been much discussion on the forums about the sequence by which this disaster unfolded, and there seem to be two theories that match with the photographic evidence that we have available :
1) The problem started in the tail. Possibly an explosive rear pressure bulkhead failure (possibly due to a bomb in the aft cargo hold, or a structural failure due to that tail strike or so).
Under this scenario, the tail gave in first and lost its horizontal stabilizer due to the blast.
After that the plane lost control, spinned down and engine fire erupted on the way down.
2) The problem started further forward. Possibly due to a bomb in the front cargo hold, or a TWA 800 - like explosion in the center fuel tank. Plane catches fire right away. Control over main wings is lost after full failure of hydraulics.
Plane ends up in a spin and looses its tail on the way down.
In this puzzle, there is one piece of evidence that has almost been overlooked.
It's the horizontal stabilizer.
As far as I know, there is only one picture of it (taken from a Russian news video).
That's this image :
I am no expert, but does it look like this piece was ripped off by a (bomb) blast, before the plane lost control ?
Or did it simply snap off by mere massive aerodynamic forces AFTER the plane lost control ?
All Pieces behind the Wings doesn´t have Marks of Burning. In my GDrive there is a collection of Pics.
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5INjAze86wxSWVaTVBpTWZkY2M&usp=sharing
BTW, on the Fan and Piece 2L are "white Stripes" visible. Looks like white Colour.
Anyone have a Idea what it could be?
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5INjAze86wxSWVaTVBpTWZkY2M&usp=sharing
BTW, on the Fan and Piece 2L are "white Stripes" visible. Looks like white Colour.
Anyone have a Idea what it could be?
Rob
Member
On this disaster, the pprune thread continues to show level headed responses sustained by evidence.
One of the latest posts suggests a failure of the HS jackscrew as the primary initiator :
This scenario makes sense, and seems to be sustained by the photographic evidence available.
Also, the FDR and the CVR are both located in the compartment of the HS jackscrew (right behind the rear pressure bulkhead) so the initiation of this disaster in this area could also explain why the FDR stopped recording before ANY abnormalities were recorded, and the CVR recorded only a fraction of a second (a "noise") before it also terminated recording.
If the HS jackscrew indeed was the first to give in, the question is why ? And if the reason was a bomb, then why didn't the investigators find any trace of explosives yet, now 10 days after this disaster unfolded ?
One of the latest posts suggests a failure of the HS jackscrew as the primary initiator :
This scenario makes sense, and seems to be sustained by the photographic evidence available.
Also, the FDR and the CVR are both located in the compartment of the HS jackscrew (right behind the rear pressure bulkhead) so the initiation of this disaster in this area could also explain why the FDR stopped recording before ANY abnormalities were recorded, and the CVR recorded only a fraction of a second (a "noise") before it also terminated recording.
If the HS jackscrew indeed was the first to give in, the question is why ? And if the reason was a bomb, then why didn't the investigators find any trace of explosives yet, now 10 days after this disaster unfolded ?
Last edited:
You don´t know if the Investigators found yet something about explosives. At the Tail is nowhere Burnmarks/Explosionmarks visible.
No one knows exact where the HS Pieces found at the Ground and only two Pics are published.
At pprune they are so fixed at Tail Section that they closed their eyes for other possible things.
I have marked something at this 2R Piece. Clear to see that inside the Cargo must be very Heat.
Also the Piece 2L
This is also 2L
No one knows exact where the HS Pieces found at the Ground and only two Pics are published.
At pprune they are so fixed at Tail Section that they closed their eyes for other possible things.
I have marked something at this 2R Piece. Clear to see that inside the Cargo must be very Heat.
Also the Piece 2L
This is also 2L
vooke
Active Member
sharpnfuzzy
Active Member
Would there not have been an enormous explosion when the main fuselage hit the ground? It was still full of fuel as it was only 23 or so minutes after take off. What is the evidence that suggests that all the burn marks and soot had to happen before impact with the ground?
vooke
Active Member
That would be ABSENCE of burning on the ground. I may be wrong but the ground around and under the wreck looks 'unburnt'
sharpnfuzzy
Active Member
But if there was a large explosion it could scatter pieces all over the place. The pieces with the soot on them are not that large and to me it seems like they could just have been ejected from the location where the explosion and burning occurred.
vooke
Active Member
You are right. But the parts are not exactly small. Please look at th images on posts 60-62. Look at the engine as well, totally burnt but the ground beneath it is again 'unburnt'. Would you countenance an explosion that hurls the heavy engine so far away from the explosion? So it is a question of whether the burning happened mid-air or upon impact
Spectrar Ghost
Senior Member.
That picture looks like the ground is pretty charred out to a meter and a half or so from the wing. Notice how the soil lightens to the far right.
Whitebeard
Senior Member.
You don't need a huge explosion to bring down a plane, look at Lockerbie for example large lumps of that wreck, including the cockpit section showed little signs of burning.
All you need to do is punch a large enough hole to start an explosive decompression and physics will take care of the rest.
If the bomb was located near the tail, then the resultant decompression could well rip the tail off before any combustion of the fuel tanks, especially if that tail section had already been weakened by an earlier tail strike and subsequent repair. (although at this stage I still wouldn't rule out a structural failure as the soul cause of the crash)
Also remember that in this case the plane had not refueled at Sharm el-Sheikh, it had last fueled at Samara so the tanks were not full, and thus contained less fuel to burn.
Again compare this to Lockerbie where a much larger plane fully fueled caused this...
(also note The 747 wing at Lockerbie hit a location with a lot of stuff to burn on the ground, ie houses, rather than a barren desert.)
All you need to do is punch a large enough hole to start an explosive decompression and physics will take care of the rest.
If the bomb was located near the tail, then the resultant decompression could well rip the tail off before any combustion of the fuel tanks, especially if that tail section had already been weakened by an earlier tail strike and subsequent repair. (although at this stage I still wouldn't rule out a structural failure as the soul cause of the crash)
Also remember that in this case the plane had not refueled at Sharm el-Sheikh, it had last fueled at Samara so the tanks were not full, and thus contained less fuel to burn.
from... http://www.theguardian.com/world/li...-passenger-plane-crashes-in-egypts-sinai-live
Russia’s Investigative Committee said on Saturday it was checking fuel samples from the airliner’s last refuelling stop, in the Russian city of Samara, news agency RIA Novosti reported.
Again compare this to Lockerbie where a much larger plane fully fueled caused this...
(also note The 747 wing at Lockerbie hit a location with a lot of stuff to burn on the ground, ie houses, rather than a barren desert.)
Last edited:
tadaaa
Senior Member
I am always weary when someone says something is "impossible"
I am not saying you are necessarily wrong - but I find the implied certainty, without access to anything like the full facts a bit strange
sharpnfuzzy
Active Member
Right exactly. Also, does it matter and make any difference overall? Do the sooting/burn marks really point to or rule out a specific cause?
The fuselage and engines could have caught fire anywhere between 30,000ft and the ground (maybe closer to the ground as there is more oxygen). Probably couldn't have been a slow on-going fire on board because the event that occurred was very sudden as per FDR/CVR.
Also, the tail sections don't seem to have any soot on them so they probably separated before the fire that burned everything else happened. All the parts with soot on them are from near the wings where all the fuel is (cockpit has no soot on it). And if you're saying that the soot-ing is somehow indicative of a bomb, I think that bombs large enough to bring down a plane leave much more conclusive evidence than just soot and that evidence should be obvious to the investigators.
Soot or no soot, we're still no closer to knowing what happened. Structural failure, bomb, centre fuel tank explosion, hit by meteorite, are all still equally possible at this point.
TWCobra
Senior Member.
On this disaster, the pprune thread continues to show level headed responses sustained by evidence.
One of the latest posts suggests a failure of the HS jackscrew as the primary initiator :
And if the reason was a bomb, then why didn't the investigators find any trace of explosives yet, now 10 days after this disaster unfolded ?
I agree. Bombs leave a readily detectable explosive residue. If it was present, then that should be established by now.
occams rusty scissor
Senior Member.
Just a guess - perhaps the investigators are holding off on releasing this so as to prevent giving ISIS further credibility. Or, that the tests are inconclusive as yet and don't want to prematurely release info.
vooke
Active Member
The point is there are strong indications of mid air combustion. Triump tried to show that the burning was somewhat inside the fuselage. Whether this was caused by a bomb inside the plane is another question
