Sinai Plane Crash - Metrojet 9268

Dechelski

New Member
Very sad news about the Sinai Plane Crash yesterday.

It is apparent that there are a lot of rumours are flying around that ISIS are responsible for bringing it down. That's certainly the rumour mill on social networks and even some news sites. It would seem likely given Russia's recent activity towards the insurgents.

Looking at the pictures though, would I be right in thinking that there isn't enough 'damage' evidence of a missile/buk etc?

Also, it's well known that certain Russian carriers do not comply with EU Air Safety regulations... Could it be that this is yet another example of poor maintenance? It is alleged that the co-pilot shared concerns relating to the safety of the aircraft with his wife some day's earlier.
Screen Shot 2015-11-01 at 12.11.39.png Screen Shot 2015-11-01 at 12.11.46.png
Any thoughts on potential causes of the crash, and/or can anyone Metabunk the theory that this was a terrorist related attack?
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
Well today ISIS did issue a statement claiming that they shot it down...

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...t-Terror-Monitor-jihadis-claim-responsibility

Earlier today Terror Monitor, an online terrorist monitoring organisation, said it had received a statement from Islamic State militants claiming responsibility for the attack.

The group, which watches terrorist groups around the world, tweeted an image of the Arabic statement and wrote: "#IslamicState (#ISIS) terror group claims downing of Russian aircraft in #Sinai."

The unverified statement, written in Arabic, says the flight crash was NOT a technical fault, as reported by security sources.

It goes on to say that the attack was "in response to Russian airstrikes that killed hundreds of Muslims on Syrian land"
Content from External Source
along with this video...
http://bcove.me/6fzn2rsu

(Sorry, can't find an embeddable version)

HOWEVER there are a couple of 'problems' with claim, according to organisations like Conflict Arms Research, ISIS is not known to have any of the heavy BUK type systems required to reach the 30,000ft the Airbus was flying at at time of loss. Their only know SAM systems arm man portable one with a maximum altitude of around 11,000ft. Whats more it is not unknown for terrorists groups to claim responsibility for events they didn't have a hand in for their own ends.

Then there are reports that the co-pilot raised issues about the state of the plane before take off..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-224-emerges-jet-abort-three-months-ago.html
Russian TV quoted Natalya Trukacheva, wife of the co-pilot who said their daughter 'called 'called him up before he flew out. He complained before the flight that the technical condition of the aircraft left much to be desired'.
Content from External Source
But this is all we have to go on at the moment, one terrorist claim and a claimed phone conversation from the co-pilot. Any additional speculation at this point would be fruitless and counter productive. The black boxes have been recovered and a tri-national, Egyptian, Russian and French team have been assembled to investigate. It is best to hold fire until the first official reports and more evidence are released before going into the whole thing in detail.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Flightradar24 has some interesting data on the last minute of the flight:
http://www.flightradar24.com/blog/crash-of-metrojet-flight-7k9268/

It appears to show the plane climbing towards 32,000 feet (the autopilot setting), but at 04:13:00 UTC there's a sudden oscillation in the reported altitude, combined with a variable but rapid decrease in ground speed, all lasting about 20 seconds until the reported groundspeed has gone from 407 knots to 62 knots.

This suggests some major control surface malfunction, which obviously covers a huge range of possibilities. But it's different to other crashes - i.e. not a control flight into terrain.

Much more analysis and speculation here:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/569907-breaking-news-airliner-missing-within-egyptian-fir.html
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
Flightradar24 has some interesting data on the last minute of the flight:
http://www.flightradar24.com/blog/crash-of-metrojet-flight-7k9268/

It appears to show the plane climbing towards 32,000 feet (the autopilot setting), but at 04:13:00 UTC there's a sudden oscillation in the reported altitude, combined with a variable but rapid decrease in ground speed, all lasting about 20 seconds until the reported groundspeed has gone from 407 knots to 62 knots.
Thats some wild data, at 04:12:57 it appears to show the plane climbed nearly 3,000ft in the next three seconds. Then fall some 4,000ft and shoot up again another 3,500ft in the next two seconds. Is it possible for an A-321-200 to make those 'fighter' type manouvers? Could this be erroneous data caused by the seemingly erratic flight profile? and if by design or accident the plane did go through those drastic manouvers who that result in the airframe breaking up at altitude, as the Russian experts are now claiming?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...t-brought-down-on-Egypts-Sinai-Peninsula.html

The Russian Airbus that crashed in Egypt broke apart "in the air," a senior official with Russia's Interstate Aviation Committee said Sunday.

"The disintegration happened in the air and the fragments are strewn over a large area," committee chief Viktor Sorochenko was quoted as saying by RIA-Novosti news agency in Cairo, where he is part of an international panel of experts from Russia, Egypt, France and Ireland.
Content from External Source
 

sharpnfuzzy

Active Member
I think that the data isn't necessarily erroneous and that the sensors could be validly reporting what they are sensing but that what they're sensing is erratic because the catastrophe has already happened.

I think that whatever went wrong was sudden and happened at around 04:12:58 in the data points below. Everything after it is just the consequence.

04:12:53 KGL9268 30.143 34.182 30875 407 335 512 32000
04:12:56 KGL9268 30.143 34.182 30875 407 335 512 32000
04:12:56 KGL9268 30.146 34.18 30675 408 336 576 32000
04:12:57 KGL9268 30.148 34.179 30750 408 336 576 32000
04:12:58 KGL9268 30.149 34.179 31100 408 335 -320 32000
04:13:00 KGL9268 30.151 34.178 33500 404 335 -3584 32000
04:13:00 KGL9268 30.153 34.177 30975 398 333 -5760 32000
04:13:00 KGL9268 30.153 34.177 30975 398 333 -5760 32000
04:13:00 KGL9268 30.154 34.176 29750 347 333 8000 32000
04:13:02 KGL9268 30.156 34.175 33275 342 335 -3904 32000
04:13:03 KGL9268 30.157 34.174 30650 296 332 -5696 32000
04:13:08 KGL9268 30.161 34.173 30825 246 351 4544 32000
04:13:11 KGL9268 30.177 34.162 29925 306 325 -6080 32000

04:13:11 KGL9268 30.177 34.162 29925 306 325 -6080 32000
...
 

Herman Aven

Member
HOWEVER there are a couple of 'problems' with claim, according to organisations like Conflict Arms Research, ISIS is not known to have any of the heavy BUK type systems required to reach the 30,000ft the Airbus was flying at at time of loss. Their only know SAM systems arm man portable one with a maximum altitude of around 11,000ft.
I'm curious about the source of the CAR claim. It's known there are some serious SAM's on the loose in that area for a few years now.

Nightmare in Libya: Thousands of Surface-to-Air Missiles Unaccounted Fo
r (ABC news Sept. 27, 2011)

...the government does not have a clear picture of how many missiles they're trying to track down...​

This probably will have included the S-125 (SA-3 Goa) and SA-6 Gainful according to Wikipedia and some other sources. As long as we don't have a good source stating the heavier items of these weapon caches all have been accounted for, it's more than likely an ISIS related group would have indeed the means, the motive and the location to have done this. It would therefore remain one of the main explanations for the observations so far.
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
I'm curious about the source of the CAR claim. It's known there are some serious SAM's on the loose in that area for a few years now.

Nightmare in Libya: Thousands of Surface-to-Air Missiles Unaccounted Fo
r (ABC news Sept. 27, 2011)

...the government does not have a clear picture of how many missiles they're trying to track down...​

This probably will have included the S-125 (SA-3 Goa) and SA-6 Gainful according to Wikipedia and some other sources. As long as we don't have a good source stating the heavier items of these weapon caches all have been accounted for, it's more than likely an ISIS related group would have indeed the means, the motive and the location to have done this. It would therefore remain one of the main explanations for the observations so far.
I was quoting a CAR rep speaking on BBC News 24 earlier today, the key words are 'Not Known to have..'. He didn't say 'didn't have' and he was referring to the Sinai area, not the general middle east. So missile not ruled out, but not the only possible cause. The above linked Telegraph article is now quoting an un-named French source claiming a bomb on board...
French experts believe Isil may have placed bomb on plane that crashed in Egypt on Saturday, with 17 children and 207 adults on board. Latest news here
Content from External Source
I can''t find any other sources for this claim at the moment, and have to go to work now, but will delve this claim deeper on my return.

But this all speculation at the moment
 

Rob

Member
At AVHerald, comments circulate about possible aft pressure bulkhead failure.
The horizontal stabilizers and APU seem to be missing..

22e6208806dcb0461a6b2cf659a27af9.jpg

If the aft tail section severed in mid-flight, that could explain the erratic oscillatory altitude behavior witnessed by the flightradar24 data

Also, it appears that this A321 suffered a tail strike in 2001, which could be related :
http://www.al-bab.com/blog/2015/november/egypt-crash-tail-strike.htm
 
Last edited:

Efftup

Senior Member.
The quote from ISIS/ISIL seems to say DOWNING the craft but doesn;t actually say SHOT DOWN.
But at this stage it is far too much speculation until a crash cause is found.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
There was some sort of in-flight break-up. That is certain. As Rob says, the tail section being found so far from the main wreckage may be a pointer.

Here is the AVHERALD report.

Pressurization problem or a bomb maybe. They will know soon.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
There was some sort of in-flight break-up. That is certain. As Rob says, the tail section being found so far from the main wreckage may be a pointer.

Here is the AVHERALD report.

Pressurization problem or a bomb maybe. They will know soon.

Some of the comments mention video footage of the plane exploding. Is that correct? I can't find anything.
 

qed

Senior Member

Russian airliner Metrojet says Saturday’s plane crash in Egypt, which killed all 224 people on board, was not caused by technical problems or pilot error.

The flight from the Egyptian beach resort of Sharm el-Sheikh to St Petersburg broke up over the Sinai peninsula.

We rule out a technical fault of the plane or a pilot error,” said Alexander Smirnov, deputy general director of Metrojet. “The only explainable cause is physical impact on the aircraft.” Pressed for an explanation about what could have caused this impact, Smirnov said he was not at liberty to discuss details because the investigation was ongoing.

The head of the Russian aviation agency said it was premature of Metrojet to comment on the possible cause since investigators do not have enough data to reach any conclusions. Alexander Neradko, who has arrived in Cairo, said fragments and the contents of the black boxes would need to be studied first.

According to Smirnov, the plane dropped 186mph in speed and about 5,000ft in altitude one minute before it crashed. “This isn’t flying, it’s falling. Apparently, the plane sustained damage before this [and] that became the reason for the fall,” Smirnov said.

The fact that the crew did not attempt to contact ground services meant the plane had “completely lost operational capabilities when the catastrophic situation began to develop” and was not able to put out a distress signal, Smirnov said. Passengers most likely died from stresses experienced after the plane broke up, he added.
Content from External Source
theguardian
 

tadaaa

Senior Member
It seems the early dissmisal of terrorism looks premature

But in a way a terrorist "event" will suit the Airline owners rather better than one of poor maintenance leading to structural failure
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Smirnov's ruling out of technical problem also seems premature, several planes have had sudden structural failures in flight before, JAL123 was mentioned, but also Aloha 243.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243
069bab335682771393acbab11a2054b3.png

Another others, including this mid-air disintegration due to faulty tailstrike repair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_611
http://China Airlines Flight 611 (callsignDynasty 611) was a regularly scheduled passenger flight from Chiang Kai-shek International Airport (now Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport) in Taoyuan County (now Taoyuan City),Taiwan to Hong Kong International Airport in Hong Kong. On 25 May 2002, the Boeing 747-209B operating the route disintegrated in mid-air and crashed into the Taiwan Strait 20 minutes after takeoff, killing all 225 people on board. The in-flight break-up was caused by improper repairs to the aircraft 22 years earlier
Content from External Source
Looking at this list, the other common causes are:
  • Mid-air collision
  • Bomb on board exploding
  • Missile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncon...Notable_decompression_accidents_and_incidents

However it's possible Smirnov has some additional information. We'll just have to wait and see.
 

Balance

Senior Member.
IMO, the metrojet exec is trying to assure it's customers they run a tight ship and that the aircraft was ship-shape and bristol fashion due to it's impeccable servicing, therefore it going "tech" is highly unlikely and therefore only an external impact (tail hitting the runway is an external impact isn't it?) can cause such a catastrophic mid-air breakup.
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.

Russian airliner Metrojet says Saturday’s plane crash in Egypt, which killed all 224 people on board, was not caused by technical problems or pilot error.

The flight from the Egyptian beach resort of Sharm el-Sheikh to St Petersburg broke up over the Sinai peninsula.

We rule out a technical fault of the plane or a pilot error,” said Alexander Smirnov, deputy general director of Metrojet. “The only explainable cause is physical impact on the aircraft.” Pressed for an explanation about what could have caused this impact, Smirnov said he was not at liberty to discuss details because the investigation was ongoing.

The head of the Russian aviation agency said it was premature of Metrojet to comment on the possible cause since investigators do not have enough data to reach any conclusions. Alexander Neradko, who has arrived in Cairo, said fragments and the contents of the black boxes would need to be studied first.

According to Smirnov, the plane dropped 186mph in speed and about 5,000ft in altitude one minute before it crashed. “This isn’t flying, it’s falling. Apparently, the plane sustained damage before this [and] that became the reason for the fall,” Smirnov said.

The fact that the crew did not attempt to contact ground services meant the plane had “completely lost operational capabilities when the catastrophic situation began to develop” and was not able to put out a distress signal, Smirnov said. Passengers most likely died from stresses experienced after the plane broke up, he added.
Content from External Source
theguardian

The BBC are taking a slightly different tack on this...
The Russian airline Kogalymavia has blamed "external influence" for Saturday's Sinai plane crash which killed 224 people.

A senior airline official said: "The only reasonable explanation is that it was [due to] external influence."

An investigation by aviation experts using data from the aircraft's "black boxes" has yet to give its conclusions.

The head of Russia's Federal Aviation Agency said it was premature to speculate on the cause of the crash.

"This kind of talk is... not based on any proper facts,"
Aleksandr Neradko said on Russian TV.

The Kremlin has also warned against speculation as to the possible causes of the crash.

James Clapper, the US director of national intelligence, said there was no "direct evidence of any terrorist involvement yet" adding: "It's unlikely, but I wouldn't rule it out."
Content from External Source
(My emphasis.)

My take is that 'External Influence' has different connotations to 'External Impact' and doesn't rule out an on board bomb, sabotage or fault with an external maintenance contractor. Also the fact that this is the airline issuing the statement and the Kremlin is distancing itself from the statement makes me think that this is the airline trying to cover its backside and joining the speculation mill.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
The unpalatable fact is that a missile or bomb is a much more desirable outcome for an airline than negligence on their part.
There is no way they could make a definitive statement like that so early in the investigation.
It also raises the possibility that the Egyptian investigation may be pressured into a certain outcome.

They already have form with the investigation of EA990.
 

Fallingdown

Active Member
[Broken External Image]:https://www.google.com/search?q=tail+section+metro+jet+crash&biw=568&bih=232&prmd=isnv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMIm6vWnffyyAIVyHs-Ch3gWQXP#imgrc=JqYjDWdoSZkqWM:
At AVHerald, comments circulate about possible aft pressure bulkhead failure.
The horizontal stabilizers and APU seem to be missing..

22e6208806dcb0461a6b2cf659a27af9.jpg

If the aft tail section severed in mid-flight, that could explain the erratic oscillatory altitude behavior witnessed by the flightradar24 data

Also, it appears that this A321 suffered a tail strike in 2001, which could be related :
http://www.al-bab.com/blog/2015/november/egypt-crash-tail-strike.htm


I noticed that the top section of the fuselage in the tail had a remarkably clean break compared to other sections . Just like aloha air flight 243 .

The Extertal impact could very well be the tail bump mishap .
 
Last edited:

BombDr

Senior Member.
If explosives was involved in any way, it will quickly reveal itself as that stuff's chemical signature is almost impossible to conceal.

I'm no expert on the airline industry, but following any disaster the spokesman's job is damage control. In this case however it seems like the spokesman is trying to sort the narrative in which they can object to any outcome they don't like.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
There is no way they could make a definitive statement like that so early in the investigation.

Yeah... it makes me feel nostalgic for the "old days" when Russia could be counted upon to lie about everything. Putin is bringing back those "good old days" too.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
[Broken External Image]:https://www.google.com/search?q=tail+section+metro+jet+crash&biw=568&bih=232&prmd=isnv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMIm6vWnffyyAIVyHs-Ch3gWQXP#imgrc=JqYjDWdoSZkqWM:



I noticed that the top section of the fuselage in the tail had a remarkably clean break compared to other sections . Just like aloha air flight 243 .

The Extertal impact could very well be the tail bump mishap .


The Japan Airlines 747 that crashed in the mid 80's lost its fin and rudder due to a failure of a tail strike repair, which caused a failure of the pressure bulkhead. This may be very similar.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The JAL a/c flew around for 20 minutes after the failure, and the pilots were able to report what was going on before it became totally uncontrollable.

The similar China 611 incident (tail strike, bad repair) was an in-air disintegration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_611#Flight_and_disaster

The final investigation report found that the accident was the result of metal fatigue caused by inadequate maintenance after an earlier tailstrike incident. On 7 February 1980, the aircraft was flying from Stockholm Arlanda Airport toTaoyuan International Airport via King Abdulaziz International Airport and Kai Tak International Airport on China Airlines Flight 009. While landing in Hong Kong, part of the plane's tail had scraped along the runway for several hundred feet.[24] The aircraft was depressurized, ferried back to Taiwan on the same day, and a temporary repair done the day after. A more permanent repair was conducted by a team from China Airlines from 23 May through 26 May 1980. However, the permanent repair of the tail strike was not carried out in accordance with the Boeing Structural Repair Manual (SRM). The area of damaged skin in Section 46 was not removed and the repair doubler plate that was supposed to cover in excess of 30 percent of the damaged area did not extend beyond the entire damaged area enough to restore the overall structural strength.

Consequently, after repeated cycles of depressurization and pressurization during flight, the weakened hull gradually started to crack and finally broke open in mid-flight on 25 May 2002, coincidentally 22 years to the day after the faulty repair was made upon the damaged tail. An explosive decompression of the aircraft occurred once the crack opened up, causing the complete disintegration of the aircraft in mid-air.[4]
Content from External Source
 

tadaaa

Senior Member
wow, the China 611 tragedy shows what a time lag there can be between the "repair" and the consequence of that repair

Begs the question why wasn't the weakening over the subsequent 22 years spotted
 

PeteSYD

Member
wow, the China 611 tragedy shows what a time lag there can be between the "repair" and the consequence of that repair

Begs the question why wasn't the weakening over the subsequent 22 years spotted
Indeed, particularly given that a streak of condensed tobacco smoke plainly demonstrated the presence and location of a leak when the wreckage was examined, yet was somehow overlooked during every maintenance inspection in the interceding 22 years.

Dynasty 611 is also interesting in that there were no distress calls made, and no evidence of any concerns recorded on the cockpit voice recorder; the aircraft fell out of the sky without warning.
 
Last edited:
Is it possible the plane hit a drone? Maybe a stealth drone?
I say this because there have been concerns about accidents over Syria.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-close-to-Russian-fighter-jet-over-Syria.html

I know there is a "no click" policy. That link has a very short article and short video.
Footage released by the Russian defence ministry shows a drone get uncomfortably close to one of its fighter jets over Syria
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member.
Seems unlikely. Between a filed flight plan and the crash location, there's no reason for such an aircraft to be nearby.

That said, if such an incident did happen there would certainly be evidence in the wreckage, so we can just wait and see.
 

Trailspotter

Senior Member.
The unpalatable fact is that a missile or bomb is a much more desirable outcome for an airline than negligence on their part.
There is no way they could make a definitive statement like that so early in the investigation.
There are other parties, for which a terrorist act is a much more desirable outcome. These include the aircraft manufacturer and it subsidiary that carried out the aircraft repair after the tail strike (represented in the crash investigation by Germany and France), the owner, who carried out recent comprehensive tests and inspection on the leased aircraft (Ireland) and, possibly, the engine manufacturer (USA). For the governments of the other two investigating parties, Russia and Egypt, the most desirable outcome is the opposite - anything but a terrorist act.
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
Reuters has just issued this statement...

The Russian airliner that crashed in Egypt on Saturday was not struck from the outside and the pilot did not make a distress call before it disappeared from radar, a source in the committee analyzing the black box recorders said.

The source declined to give more details but based his comments on the preliminary examination of the black boxes recovered from the flight. A civil aviation ministry source said earlier that the analysis of the flight recorders was ongoing.
Content from External Source
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/02/us-egypt-crash-boxes-idUSKCN0SR13D20151102
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
How often do planes scrape their tails on the ground? This is the third crash of a plane with that repair?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Quite often, depending on the aircraft geometry.

When I was still a mechanic we had several tail scrapes with BAe-146-300 jets over a 3-4 year period - but the slightly shorter -200 series never had any.

Many aircraft will have a "bumper" or other indicator on the fuselage under the tail to provide indication of a tail scrape that might otherwise go unnoticed.
 

David Coulter

Senior Member.
My take is that 'External Influence' has different connotations to 'External Impact' and doesn't rule out an on board bomb, sabotage or fault with an external maintenance contractor. Also the fact that this is the airline issuing the statement and the Kremlin is distancing itself from the statement makes me think that this is the airline trying to cover its backside and joining the speculation mill.

One has to be careful with translations from Russian - some people have translated that term differently. I take "external influence" at face value and to mean that the aircraft did not break up due to an inherent design flaw or aerodynamic loading cause by pilot error. The safety history of the model supports the former and the Flightradar24 data supports the latter (i.e., it was not over-speeding).

From watching all of the "Aircrash Investigation" histories (I think it is called "Mayday" in the US), I assume that tests for explosive residue would be the first thing that is done (they likely already have those results).
 

Fallingdown

Active Member
How often do planes scrape their tails on the ground? This is the third crash of a plane with that repair?


A earlier poster asked a pertinent question . " how many tail bumps are there per year"?

While I've looked to the figures I have been unable to find any data ?

My guess off the top my head would be at least 200 per year in the US alone?
 

PeteSYD

Member
A earlier poster asked a pertinent question . " how many tail bumps are there per year"?

While I've looked to the figures I have been unable to find any data ?

My guess off the top my head would be at least 200 per year in the US alone?

An aircraft may suffer a tail-strike, but if that aircraft is then properly inspected, and any damage is repaired to the manufacturers specifications, there is no danger. Japanair 123, Dynasty 611 and Aloha 243 were all down to unsatisfactory repairs and/or maintenance.
 

Rob

Member
The tail end of the tail end of the plane is photographed here (from the pprune thread) :
b4105fb6fece2969ea7e9c29d8286553.jpg
What you are looking at is the firewall against the APU compartment. This is AFT of the rear pressure bulkhead.
Interesting to note is the hole in the firewall (encircled in red) but also the heat damage to the skin (left corner) and the apparently near clean cut of this piece along the bulkhead.

It is not entirely clear what caused this damage, but it seems to me that the evidence suggests that the problem originated here (at the tail end), and that either a bomb in the bulk cargo area or a catastrophic failure of the rear pressure bulkhead due to other causes are likely candidates for this disaster.
 

tadaaa

Senior Member
it is being report in the UK media (Source 10 Downing Street) that a bomb is suspected as the primary cause of the crash


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34724604

"All flights due to leave the holiday resort for Britain this evening are affected, to allow UK experts to assess security, Downing Street said.

Flights have been suspended as a "precautionary measure" after "more information has come to light".
 

derwoodii

Senior Member.
ISIS challenges sceptics to prove it didn’t blow up Russian plane

http://www.news.com.au/travel/trave...up-russian-plane/story-fnizu68q-1227596696483

THE Islamic State group has insisted it brought down a Russian plane that crashed in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, providing no new details but challenging sceptics to prove otherwise.

The jihadist group had claimed on Saturday that it downed the Airbus in Sinai, where its Egypt affiliate is based, but provided no details, prompting scepticism about its involvement.
 
Top