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".
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.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.
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.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
I could well be wrong, but going on their statement I don't think that's the case here.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.
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.
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
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.
That is a little unfair, that was the government in office at the time.which you sort of understand, apart from the fact that, the UK security services lost all credibility after the 45 mins claim
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:-
That is a little unfair, that was the government in office at the time.
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.point taken BombDr - I suppose we should wait for the Chilcot enquiry to report its findings
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.
Some of the comments mention video footage of the plane exploding. Is that correct? I can't find anything.
Which could be due to an explosion.More likely an aft bulkhead failure,
[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.
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.
[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.
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.
[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
If the HS and VS broke first, why the Engine and spezially the Fan show burn Marks?
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?
That would be ABSENCE of burning on the ground. I may be wrong but the ground around and under the wreck looks 'unburnt'
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.
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.
Please also notice that the lower Side of the Pieces are burned. The Fuselage is lying backwards. So it is impossible that the Top Side is unburned while lower is Burned. Also the Piece 2L was not moved. It is seen at this first Pic that was published.
So it is a question of whether the burning happened mid-air or upon impact
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 ?
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.I agree. Bombs leave a readily detectable explosive residue. If it was present, then that should be established by now.
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.