Flight OG269: At Least 88 Bodies Found At Phuket Airport Crash Site

[wpcoe]

As I said before, none of the survivors seem interested in the plane in the video, You can see them slowly walking away. This says to me that when it was shot, it was already obvious there were to be no more survivors. no one can say the camera did not help anyone get out. He might be one of the heros for all you know.

In the very first seconds of that video, if you watch carefully, you can see somebody emerging from an overwing exit and sliding off the trailing edge of the wing.

The only reason I caught that was a link to another version of the video (supposedly the original) only downloads the first few seconds and stops. I repeatedly viewed those first few seconds, trying to get the rest of the video to load.

[Old Man River]

Although the pilot has final say of the aircraft and everyone will blame him, I think he was trying to do the right thing, got caught in a wind shear, and had no possibility of recovery. The weather front came at him faster than he expected. Weather was the major cause of this accident. End of story. We'll let the black boxes speak and I never believe the "press" anyway. I've yet to see then tell the correct story about anything.

As I wrote in a previous posting, this all sounds like the 1985 Delta crash in Dallas which was one of the first recorded wind shear related crashes. Following this wind shear related crash, major airports in the US upgraded their radar equipment to include Doppler capabilities. I don't know what radar capabilities Phuket airport had, but it has been reported that some of their wind shear related radar wasn't working. The airport also doesn't have grooved runways and its emergency response showed to be slow. Couple all this with an overworked pilot who already had work related problems in the past, and it was a disaster waiting to happen. For those interested, below is a description of what happened in the 1985 Delta crash at DFW:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As the aircraft flew over Louisiana, a thunderstorm formed directly in its path. The aircraft began its descent procedures over Louisiana, heading over the planned descent route. Captain Conners then recognized the forming thunderstorm and took action to change the plane's heading to avoid the turbulent weather.

At Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, weather was also poor and an updraft formed as a result of a powerful thunderstorm. Because the storm clouds were white, the storm was almost impossible to detect for Flight 191's crew.

At about 1500 feet above ground level (460 m), First Officer Price reported seeing lightning in one of the clouds ahead.

At 800 feet (240 m) above ground level, the aircraft accelerated without crew intervention. Although it was supposed to land at 149 knots IAS (276 km/h), it accelerated instead to 173 knots IAS (320 km/h). Price tried to stabilize the aircraft's speed, but Conners had recognized the aircraft's speed increase as a sign of wind shear, and he warned Price to watch the speed. Suddenly, the airspeed dropped from 173 to 133 knots IAS (320 to 246 km/h), and Price pushed the throttles forward, giving temporary lift. The airspeed then suddenly dropped to 119 knots IAS (220 km/h); on the cockpit voice recording Conners can be heard saying "Hang on to the son of a bitch!"

When Price tried to avoid a stall by pushing the nose down, the aircraft's vertical speed increased to 1,700 ft/min (520 m/min) before it came into contact with the ground.

Delta Flight 191 first impacted the ground on a field about 6,300 feet north of the approach end of runway 17L and bounced back into the air, then, while crossing State Highway 114, it came down again on top of a vehicle, killing its occupant. The aircraft skidded onto the airfield, collided with two 4-million US gallon (15,000 m³) water tanks at a speed of 220 knots, and exploded into flames. Most of the survivors of Flight 191 were located in the rear section of the aircraft which broke free from the main fuselage before the aircraft hit the water tanks.

[bina]

from the passenger list;

it should be ADI naim and not as spelled.

also, at least here in israel, there are reports that are claiming that the israeli crews that went to thailand to help in body identification are complaining about thai beauracracy, and that the thai authorities close down the area early in the afternoon not allowing sufficient time to id additional bodies. in case any one cares, the israeli 'red cross ' group, criminal pathology crew, police and the religious 'body collector id crew' (who are experts in pathology and body parts id) all flew out to help. toegether with Yeki Oved (security ministry SEA) they are working with the iranians to help id 18 of the 24 iranian bodies as the iranians are not able to provide dental records, dna etc very quickly or easily... nice to see cooperation among enemies.

tzahi (izthak) biton was not killed during the tsunami (he was vacationing in that area at the time) but as israeli papers say, his luck ran out this time.

*a synopsis of maariv articles on the internet in hebrew

bina

Edited September 19, 2007 by bina

[mr_hippo]

In my time, I have been a paramedic supervisor at a major Saudi International Airport and worked for the Royal Saudi Air Force as an aero-evac medic at three of their weapons delivery ranges. I have never been to HKT so cannot comment on specifics.

What was the weather like at the time of the crash? It affects response time. You do not want a driver going too fast and endangering the rest of his crew.

What equipment is at HKT - 2WD or 4WD? I had one occasion when my 2WD ambulance got bogged down in soft sand and had to be towed to the scene by a back hoe!

What communication is used between tower and emergency crews - landline, PA, radio?

How familiar with the airport were the crews on duty?

Did the tower give clear and concise directions to the emergency crew. I have been sent in the wrong direction more than once.

What were the crews doing at the time of the emergency? They don't sit in the cab for the whole shift.

How far away were the emergency crew when they got the alarm?

Someone mentioned a 45 minute wait for the buses to pick up the injured - would you bring more vehicles onto an unsafe site? I assume that all those waiting for the bus had been triaged (assessed) and were in no need of further emergency medical assistance.

All incidents are different and we can't compare response time.

[JetsetBkk]

As I said before, none of the survivors seem interested in the plane in the video, You can see them slowly walking away. This says to me that when it was shot, it was already obvious there were to be no more survivors. no one can say the camera did not help anyone get out. He might be one of the heros for all you know.

In the very first seconds of that video, if you watch carefully, you can see somebody emerging from an overwing exit and sliding off the trailing edge of the wing.

It looks to me like two people exit the plane and slide down the wing. Both appear to be wearing white shirts and one of them - on the left - was wearing long dark trousers.

The camera stays on the plane for about 7 seconds and then one of the survivors wearing a white T-shirt with horizontal grey stripes jumps into camera shot and says something like "Are you hurt?". He stays in camera shot and looks at the plane and the people walking away from it.

He then walks up to the camera (I don't think the camera zooms in to him) and he says something which I do not believe is English, while putting both hands on his head like footballers do when they've missed an open goal.

The camera then follows him as he talks to another able-bodied survivor who is wearing a black T-shirt with "I'm with stupid" written on the front. 'White T-shirt' says "F***cking happy to be alive" which elicits a disapproving chuckle from the cameraman. He then says "It's f***cking insane that we've actually been in a f***ing plane crash."

The cameraman then pans back to the people still walking away from the plane and then zooms in on a bloodied survivor, who is told a couple of times to sit down by 'white T-shirt' but ignores him until he gets to the edge of the runway.

Up to you what you make of this video and the actions of these survivors. I will be kinder than before when I said 'white -T-shirt' was "posing" for the camera and "chatting". Instead, I will say that 'white T-shirt', cameraman, and 'I'm with stupid' all lost the opportunity to prove themselves heroes. I pray to God I would do better.

[Old Man River]

In my time, I have been a paramedic supervisor at a major Saudi International Airport and worked for the Royal Saudi Air Force as an aero-evac medic at three of their weapons delivery ranges. I have never been to HKT so cannot comment on specifics.

What was the weather like at the time of the crash? It affects response time. You do not want a driver going too fast and endangering the rest of his crew.

What equipment is at HKT - 2WD or 4WD? I had one occasion when my 2WD ambulance got bogged down in soft sand and had to be towed to the scene by a back hoe!

What communication is used between tower and emergency crews - landline, PA, radio?

How familiar with the airport were the crews on duty?

Did the tower give clear and concise directions to the emergency crew. I have been sent in the wrong direction more than once.

What were the crews doing at the time of the emergency? They don't sit in the cab for the whole shift.

How far away were the emergency crew when they got the alarm?

Someone mentioned a 45 minute wait for the buses to pick up the injured - would you bring more vehicles onto an unsafe site? I assume that all those waiting for the bus had been triaged (assessed) and were in no need of further emergency medical assistance.

All incidents are different and we can't compare response time.

All very valid info from someone who does know.

How many minutes in response time is the international standard for an airport this size?

[jumnien]

It's psychologically a bit curious that some of the same people who seem reluctant to criticize the behaviour of the pilot are eager to criticize the behaviour of some of the survivors. That's what makes TV so fun!

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

How many minutes in response time is the international standard for an airport this size?

The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO)

Response Time- Extract

9.2.21 (Standard). - The operational objective of the rescue and fire fighting service

shall be to achieve a respone time not exceeding three minutes to any point of

each operational runway, in optimum visibility and surface conditions.

9.2.22 Recommendation. - The operational objective of the rescue and fire fighting

service shall be to achieve a response time not exceeding two minutes to any

point of each operational runway, in optimum visibility and surface

conditions.

Edited September 19, 2007 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[mr_hippo]

How many minutes in response time is the international standard for an airport this size?

I have been away from the job for a long time so I am reluctant to hazard a guess but you are right in thinking that it varies from field to field. To put a blanket time of 1 minute for all fields is stupid. HKT is smaller than BKK and DMK so there will be a variation. IIRC, there is a standard that says within x minutes of the arrival of the first responders (or until 50% of foam used), others have to be on site and operational.

In the video, who are the two exiting the aircraft? They could either be passengers or medics who have seen some badly injured passenger(s) on the outside.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

How many minutes in response time is the international standard for an airport this size?

I have been away from the job for a long time so I am reluctant to hazard a guess but you are right in thinking that it varies from field to field. To put a blanket time of 1 minute for all fields is stupid. HKT is smaller than BKK and DMK so there will be a variation. IIRC, there is a standard that says within x minutes of the arrival of the first responders (or until 50% of foam used), others have to be on site and operational.

In the video, who are the two exiting the aircraft? They could either be passengers or medics who have seen some badly injured passenger(s) on the outside.

You may disagree with them but the International Civil Aviation Organization does have standards that do not account for the size of the field. The standards do take into account visibility and road surface conditions but not the size of the field. The current standard says three minutes under optimal conditions.

"Note 1.— Response time is considered to be the time

between the initial call to the rescue and fire fighting service,

and the time when the first responding vehicle(s) is (are) in

position to apply foam at a rate of at least 50 per cent of the

discharge rate specified in Table 9-2.

Note 2.— To meet the operational objective as nearly as

possible in less than optimum conditions of visibility, it may be

necessary to provide suitable guidance and/or procedures for

rescue and fire fighting vehicles."

http://dcaa.slv.dk:8000/icaodocs/Annex%20X...%20AMDT%207.pdf

Edited September 19, 2007 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[Mrjlh]

As the aircraft flew over Louisiana, a thunderstorm formed directly in its path. The aircraft began its descent procedures over Louisiana, heading over the planned descent route. Captain Conners then recognized the forming thunderstorm and took action to change the plane's heading to avoid the turbulent weather.

At Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, weather was also poor and an updraft formed as a result of a powerful thunderstorm. Because the storm clouds were white, the storm was almost impossible to detect for Flight 191's crew.

At about 1500 feet above ground level (460 m), First Officer Price reported seeing lightning in one of the clouds ahead.

At 800 feet (240 m) above ground level, the aircraft accelerated without crew intervention. Although it was supposed to land at 149 knots IAS (276 km/h), it accelerated instead to 173 knots IAS (320 km/h). Price tried to stabilize the aircraft's speed, but Conners had recognized the aircraft's speed increase as a sign of wind shear, and he warned Price to watch the speed. Suddenly, the airspeed dropped from 173 to 133 knots IAS (320 to 246 km/h), and Price pushed the throttles forward, giving temporary lift. The airspeed then suddenly dropped to 119 knots IAS (220 km/h); on the cockpit voice recording Conners can be heard saying "Hang on to the son of a bitch!"

When Price tried to avoid a stall by pushing the nose down, the aircraft's vertical speed increased to 1,700 ft/min (520 m/min) before it came into contact with the ground.

Delta Flight 191 first impacted the ground on a field about 6,300 feet north of the approach end of runway 17L and bounced back into the air, then, while crossing State Highway 114, it came down again on top of a vehicle, killing its occupant. The aircraft skidded onto the airfield, collided with two 4-million US gallon (15,000 m³) water tanks at a speed of 220 knots, and exploded into flames. Most of the survivors of Flight 191 were located in the rear section of the aircraft which broke free from the main fuselage before the aircraft hit the water tanks.

I remember the 1985 Delta crash well now that you mentioned it. I worked for an electronics company design radar systems at the time. We kick the "Doppler" program in to full gear that year because of this crash. I was not at all involved in that accident but I spent many months working along side NTSB trying to come up with ideas. I remember very well what one investigator told me and it applies quite well with this accident. Don't believe anything any one tells you, from witness, victims and especially the press. First thing you do is gather all the pictures you can and any audio tapes. Pictures don't lie and people unknowingly fill in the blanks when they tell the story. Study the pictures first. Sounds simple but those people are trained to read the physics of what happened just through the pictures alone.

Remember all the backseat quarter backing that went on in the press about it and editorials. Wish I could pull up the news stories and editorials. They crucified the pilot until they got the report out. And didn't they finally hail him as a hero for trying to save lives? I can't recall but I think they did. At that time we didn't have a really good handle on low altitude windshear during thunderstorms. I think NTSB started a major review of past accidents which started to help us (radar company's) in the development of systems that could detect wind shear issues.

And by the way...yes we need black boxes.... but its professional engineers who interpret them! not the press or chat rooms!

[mr_hippo]

My reply on 'response times' was based on what the general public preceives them to be - the time from alarm to 'on scene'.

[TBWG]

Hi

Perhaps some aviators can clarify for me if you abort 2 landings and go-around twice are you then obliged to divert to another airport?

Just out of interest.

Thanks

TBWG

[jumnien]

Go arounds are not limited in general aviation and one need not divert after 2 go arounds. Airlines may have different policies, but many factors would come into play. Trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is, however, some people's definition of insanity.

Edited September 19, 2007 by sunrise07

[peterpanner]

Hi

Perhaps some aviators can clarify for me if you abort 2 landings and go-around twice are you then obliged to divert to another airport?

Just out of interest.

Thanks

TBWG

Here is a document that handles this subject

http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:8he05J...t=clnk&cd=3

[UnknownPoster]

"Vutichai confirmed that three of six systems designed to detect a dangerous weather phenomenon known as wind shear were not working when the passenger jet crashed, but said that may not have caused the tragedy."

[Supaporn]

Hi

Perhaps some aviators can clarify for me if you abort 2 landings and go-around twice are you then obliged to divert to another airport?

Just out of interest.

Thanks

TBWG

There is no 'obligation' or 'requirement' to divert after any number of failed attempts. Conditions (weather, fuel state, airport conditons, etc) and pilot judgement should dictate that. Sometimes no attempt is made to land at a destination airport as conditions are not conducive to it. Usually fuel state will dictate that no further attempts are feasible due to no 'holding' time (fuel) is available to wait out the adverse conditions and the divert to the alternate airport is initiated. Often times on extened legs that is about all the fuel that would be available to a pilot - 1 or 2 attempts and then just enough fuel to go to the alternate. To play with that little remaining fuel to continue to attempt landings in adverse/marginal weather/conditions is fool hardy with a perfectly good alternate available.

[JetsetBkk]

It's psychologically a bit curious that some of the same people who seem reluctant to criticize the behaviour of the pilot are eager to criticize the behaviour of some of the survivors. That's what makes TV so fun!

If that's aimed at me, I will respond by saying that I am not reluctant to criticise the pilot, but I have nothing more to add than has already been posted.

[TAWP]

But you have criticised the survivors for having 'lost their chance of being heroes'. You will note that NONE of the them in the video has stepped forward and claimed to be heroes. Infact, they have repeatedly said they tried to get out as fast as possible and get away from the aircraft.

Seeing as info is coming in that the center fuel container did indeed explode upon crashing and breaking up of the body they where rightly afraid for their lives and moved away before it did, as it might havfe done - they cannot know they aren't technicians - if unlucky.

Reserve praise for those that deserve it and shame for those that deserve it. But shaming some for not aspiring to perform actions leading to praise...is backwards. I doubt most people would act differently.

And in another note: No, 45 minutes to pick up survivors isn't 'ok', no-matter what reasons you can think up. Not all wounds are fully visible externally and chock is a killer.

[jumnien]

It's psychologically a bit curious that some of the same people who seem reluctant to criticize the behaviour of the pilot are eager to criticize the behaviour of some of the survivors. That's what makes TV so fun!

If that's aimed at me, I will respond by saying that I am not reluctant to criticise the pilot, but I have nothing more to add than has already been posted.

No, this wasn't aimed at you. But it is psychologically interesting that you thought it was!

[keemapoot]

Meanwhile, a Boeing whistleblower is claiming that the new dreamliner would be even worse in a crash such as Phuket, as nobody would survive such a crash with fire.

Seattle (WA) – A fired Boeing senior aerospace engineer says the company's upcoming 787 Dreamliner airplane is unsafe. Vince Weldon, who worked for Boeing for 46 years, claims the mostly composite plastic plane will be weaker in crashes than comparable metal planes. He also says toxic fumes will be released from the burning wreckage.

Weldon is trying to prevent the FAA from certifying the plane and wants Boeing to spend several more years testing the plane. The Dreamliner is the first commercial passenger jet that uses mostly composite materials instead of traditional metals like steel and aluminum.

Weldon was fired last year and tried to claim whistleblower protection through the OSHA. The agency denied his claim.

Boeing is vigorously denying any claims that the 787 Dreamliner is more dangerous than metal airplanes. Boeing spokesperson Lori Gunter told the Seattle Times that Boing wouldn't create an unsafe product and added, "We fly on those airplanes. Our children fly on those airplanes."

[jumnien]

Vince Weldon; isn't that the guy in the new Airbus commercial?

[keemapoot]

Vince Weldon; isn't that the guy in the new Airbus commercial?

That's a good one. However, I'm now watching the Fox news and they are interviewing an expert about his opinion, Stephen Trimble, Flight International Editor, and Boeing will need to prove to the government that the engineer is wrong. The issue is toxic fumes and burning of the composites.

[Mid]

Instruments not functioning on Phuket crash plane

Malaysia Sun

Wednesday 19th September, 2007

Thai crash investigators, looking for clues into the cause of a plane crash on Phuket, have discovered wind detection systems on the McDonnell Douglas MD-82 plane were not working properly.

The plane, operated by budget carrier One-Two-Go, slammed onto the runway in heavy rain before ploughing into an embankment and breaking up in flames.

The Department of Aviation investigators say the pilot had put the landing gear down on approach to Phuket airport, but retracted it and tried to pull up.

When the pilot pulled back on the throttle, the accident happened.

Investigators say three of six systems designed to detect a dangerous weather phenomenon known as wind shear were not working when the passenger jet crashed, killing 89 people.

snip

malaysiasun.com

didn't quite get this one right Mr Sun ............................

[ThaidleHands]

chrislarsson. A little hint. Look at the position of the flaps and control surfaces.

Correct. Flaps indicate to me he had them in a lift position because of the lower airspeed. They are not fully deployed for a landing.

This is a reasonable assumption. It would also be instructive to know the position of the slats.

His aileron is in up position on the left and down on the right. Now that I think about it he was correcting to the left not right as I originally said.

This may not be the case at all. If the hydraulic circuit is broken those surfaces can be moved into place by hand with little effort and most certainly by aerodynamic forces or subsequent impacts whether with the ground or parts shed by the disintegrating plane.

It is vitally important to wait for the evidence in in the Flight Data Recorder which will indicate the moment to moment position of flight surfaces, control inputs and certain cockpit switches, as well the plane's attitude, speed and other performance chacteristics. Conclusions should not be drawn from visual evidence alone.

The wheels are retracted. If in a down position on a hard landing they would have sheared off...

Again, this may not be the case at all.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6...=aircraft+crash

This hard landing of that MD-80 (for most purposes identical to the MD-82 lost at Phuket) is sufficient to cause the aircraft to shed the entire empanage, but the main landing gear stays on.

That video also seems to show (although it may be just poor video quality) the flexion of the airframe at nearly the precise point forward of the wings where the Phuket plane broke into sections.

Plus you would see deep gouges in the earth which as the picture shows are not there. And none of the other pictures available show it either. Nor do you find any landing gear parts any where. At least they haven't been shown to my knowledge. This also coincides with what the tower controllers said, "wheels where up".

Absense of evidence is not evidence of absence, as the saying goes. It may well be the wheels were down and separated immediately from the airframe and bounced into the jungle. Alternately the tail and wing part may have moved in a few big hops before spearing into the hillside and falling rather than skidding into its final position.

That latter notion could be borne out by looking at the survival pattern of those immediately behind the break. Because of the angle of impact, those on the port side enjoyed a little more time while their section decelerated, while those on the starboard side were seated in the crumple zone. Again, only the full report will tell the tale.

Those seeking to interpret survivor locations would do well to be aware of what seats were vacant as well as those occupied by fatalities, as well as the nature of the injuries -- so far unclear - of each passenger. There are more specific potential modes of dying in an aircraft than might be initially apparent, and this tragedy is too fresh to go into the gory forensic details.

I haven't met any one on a plane yet that was able to "see" the wheels down. You can't see them from inside the plane on this model. What people on the plane "heard" was the movement of the flaps. It is also possible he lowered and then re-raised the wheels and passengers heard that.

Although the pilot has final say of the aircraft and everyone will blame him, I think he was trying to do the right thing, got caught in a wind shear, and had no possibility of recovery. The weather front came at him faster than he expected. Weather was the major cause of this accident. End of story. We'll let the black boxes speak and I never believe the "press" anyway. I've yet to see then tell the correct story about anything.

Regarding the possibility that the wheels were not down, there are only two general conclusions that can be drawn.

Either the wheels were never put down, whether: through oversight; through a highly improbable multiple system failure; or (again improbably) through the plane being forced well below its normal glideslope before the normal point on approach where they would be deployed.

Or the wheels were put down and brought up again to clean up the profile of the plane and regain airspeed during a missed approach which, tragically, could not be completed because of as yet undetermined factors.

[mr_hippo]

And in another note: No, 45 minutes to pick up survivors isn't 'ok', no-matter what reasons you can think up. Not all wounds are fully visible externally and chock is a killer.

Shock 'can' be a killer - not shock 'is' a killer. Would you put more lives in possible danger? If I phoned you up later and told you to get enough buses to transport up to 100 PAX to a certain location, how long would it take you? What experience have you had in disaster planning and management?

[JetsetBkk]

But you have criticised the survivors for having 'lost their chance of being heroes'. You will note that NONE of the them in the video has stepped forward and claimed to be heroes. Infact, they have repeatedly said they tried to get out as fast as possible and get away from the aircraft.

Seeing as info is coming in that the center fuel container did indeed explode upon crashing and breaking up of the body they where rightly afraid for their lives and moved away before it did, as it might have done - they cannot know they aren't technicians - if unlucky.

Reserve praise for those that deserve it and shame for those that deserve it. But shaming some for not aspiring to perform actions leading to praise...is backwards. I doubt most people would act differently.

I understand your criticism, but I stand by mine of the apparently able-bodied survivors. It is clear that self-preservation is a very strong natural instinct and helped save many lives that day.

I didn't say they pretended to be heroes, but that they lost an opportunity to be. Shame? It's up to them if they feel shame - it depends on what sort of person they each think they are and whether they each lived up to their own expectations.

[mr_hippo]

I didn't say they pretended to be heroes, but that they lost an opportunity to be. Shame? It's up to them if they feel shame - it depends on what sort of person they each think they are and whether they each lived up to their own expectations.

I think this is the stupidest post that I have ever read! "I've survived an air crash, I'm OK but I'll go back into the inferno and be a hero!" What utter poppycock! I would not ask you what you would do but if you are ever in a situation like that I only wish for one thing for you - that someone behind you had a clean pair of underpants for you and a roll of toilet paper!

[chrislarsson]

After reading the posts here and news from other sources, this seems to be the most likeley scenario to me.

The first landing attempt was aborted very early. No witnesses or survivors have reported on this, so it doesn't seem like they were aware of it.

In the second attempt, the pilot decided to abort the landing about 100 meters from the runway. He pulled up the landing gear and accelarated the engines. Here something went terribly wrong, and the plane kept loosing altitude anyway until it hit the ground.

The speculation goes that this may have been due to wind shear. These winds can change direction very fast and they can be vertical, i.e. pushing the plane downwards even when trying gain altitude.

About the response time that many are mentioning in, the first fire fighters arrived relatively fast (don't know how many minutes). But they did not have adequate capacity to put the fire out. First after 20 -30 minutes did assistance arrive with serious capacity to fight the fire.

Like someone mentioned before, news sources and witnesses can not be trusted, so this is pure speculation. But isn't speculation what this discussion forum is about?

What I don't like is when people are blaming, judging or in other ways pointing fingers at people or other parties based on speculation. There will be a time for this when all the facts are out.

[chrislarsson]

Just some more rambling.

When hitting the ground, the plane breaks into two parts at the 17th row. According to survivors (all from behind the 17th row) the plane is filled with smoke immediately. Two British guys (the ones declared heroes) open the door at row 24A. Two Swedish guys (the ones in the well-known video now suspected of not being heroes) open the other door at row 25A. Almost all passengers from row 22 and backwards manage to escape out of the plane.