Russian airliner crashes in central Sinai - Egyptian PM

[MaxYakov]

Egypt: Russian delegation visits plane crash site in the Sinai

Egypt: Russian delegation Ghoulish camera crew visits plane crash site in the Sinai

But Thanks for posting, anyway.

[Tywais]

Source - Russian.rt.com

[craigt3365]

I think the Russians will show them what happen when you miss with Russia.

I remember how successful Operation Barbarossa was at the beginning and then the worm turned and they how vengeful they could be

ISIS will be begging to the UN for peace

So they convinced you fairly easily then.

Sorry to say I trust Putin's Russia more than EU England or USA

A very sad and disturbing comment.

[JHolmesJr]

The challenge now will be to determine what caused a sudden catastrophic breakup - so sudden that the pilot didn't communicate.

Gee i wonder what that might be.

[craigt3365]

Why is it that everyone is afraid to say it was a Bomb?

Perhaps because there is no evidence yet? It's all pure speculation at this point.

[Usernames]

I think the Russians will show them what happen when you miss with Russia.

I remember how successful Operation Barbarossa was at the beginning and then the worm turned and they how vengeful they could be

ISIS will be begging to the UN for peace

ISIS doesn't need to deal with the Russian winter.

[Thorgal]

I think the Russians will show them what happen when you miss with Russia.

I remember how successful Operation Barbarossa was at the beginning and then the worm turned and they how vengeful they could be

ISIS will be begging to the UN for peace

ISIS doesn't need to deal with the Russian winter.

ISIS has perhaps also a 'Lend and Lease' agreement... Edited November 2, 2015 by Thorgal

[MaxYakov]

The challenge now will be to determine what caused a sudden catastrophic breakup - so sudden that the pilot didn't communicate.

Gee i wonder what that might be.

Well Gee, I'm wondering why you're quoting NeverSure in a box that has my name on it.

Try to pay more attention when mangling nested replies, OK, Holmes?

Edited November 2, 2015 by MaxYakov

[Chicog]

Must be very irritating to Putin that he can't try and sanitise the crash scene this time.

[MaxYakov]

Must be very irritating to Putin that he can't try and sanitise the crash scene this time.

Who says he can't "try" ... and have the attempt botched like the last one?

Edited November 2, 2015 by MaxYakov

[NeverSure]

Once again. The reason they know the plane came apart at altitude and speed is the wide distribution of the wreckage. The breakup had to be severe and not just a tail falling off or anything similar.

Pieces fall at different rates and travel different distances due to cross sectional density and wind resistance. Throw five fist sized rocks as far as you can, and then throw five fist sized wadded up pieces of paper as far as you can. You get the idea.

The challenge now will be to determine what caused a sudden catastrophic breakup - so sudden that the pilot didn't communicate.

Cheers.

That wouldn't be nearly as challenging as fabricating the cover-up. I don't think they can try to pin this one on that video. Extreme Clear Air Turbulence, maybe?

Interesting aeronautical engineering question:

Would the plane pitch up or down if the tail (rear fuselage) suddenly separated at cruise?

P.S.: The pilot needs a functioning radio in order to communicate.

This brings to mind another question: How isolated is the flight deck from the effects of explosive decompression in the cabin (assuming the door is closed as it should have been)?

"Interesting aeronautical engineering question:

Would the plane pitch up or down if the tail (rear fuselage) suddenly separated at cruise?"

The plane would pitch nose down immediately and severely. Planes are always made to be nose heavy considering that the lift is at the wings. The part of the tail called the elevator is always pushing down on the rear to keep the plane at the attitude the pilot needs including level. A tail heavy plane would be dangerously unstable and engineers long ago figured out it has to be nose heavy. Think of the toy balsa wood gliders we had as kids, and how they had a piece of lead we pressed into the front.

When a plane is loaded with fuel, passengers and luggage, serious weight and balance calculations are made to assure the plane isn't too heavy and that it for sure isn't tail heavy.

If the tail had come off the plane would have gone into a steep dive and wreckage wouldn't have been scattered like it was. This plane had to disintegrate to a large extent at speed and high altitude to create such a large debris area.

Cheers.

[Lampang2]

Bomb

[Chicog]

If the tail had come off the plane would have gone into a steep dive and wreckage wouldn't have been scattered like it was. This plane had to disintegrate to a large extent at speed and high altitude to create such a large debris area.

Cheers.

I don't know what you are talking about, but it isn't a "large debris area".

Again, look at the images.

It's two, relatively small areas, one with the majority of the airframe, and the other with the tail end by the looks. The stuff scattered around could be anything, including cargo.

The plane did not disintegrate over a distance, it separated into two parts, one large, one small.

The main crash site; note that the wings look like they landed intact.

The tail end:

Wreckage map:

The more I look at this, the more I believe separation of the tail near the rear bulkhead.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Chicog

[NeverSure]

"It is too early to draw conclusions," MAK executive director Viktor Sorochenko said. "Disintegration of the fuselage took place in the air, and the fragments are scattered around a large area [about 20 square kilometers]", the official added. LINK

[T_Dog]

AvWeb does a good summary here.

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/3170-full.html?ET=avweb:e3170:498739a:&st=email#225107

[NeverSure]

I reckon bad repair, metal fatigue, tail fell off. It's happened before. But I could be wrong. That's as far as my guessing will go.

My guess as well, providing there is no evidence of a rear fuselage bomb detonation (or maybe even if there is evidence).

What we know:

1) The rear fuselage (tail section) separated from the main fuselage at some altitude (photos and statements).

2) The plane slowed drastically and gained altitude following the event (FR data - 400 knots to 60 knots)

3) The main fuselage hit with a relatively flat attitude and the main portion of the fuselage and

wings stayed together on the way down (reportedly inverted - photos and statements).

4) The engines were not in close proximity to the wings (photos).

5) I and others have noticed that the the horizontal stabilizers are not to be seen in the rear fuselage photos. Their positions relative to the rear fuselage would be very informative I should think (photos).

6) The A321's FDR/CVR are located in the non-pressurized area aft of the pressure bulkhead.

If the rear fuselage separated and carried the FDR/CVR with it, they immediately lost input/power.

If a sudden rear fuselage separation was the root cause of this crash,the FDR/CVR will probably

not have data subsequent to the separation. (A321 tech specs).

My guess: The investigators already have a pretty good idea what happened by inspecting the separated

rear fuselage or they will very soon. Based on a sudden rear fuselage separation, I would put money on

the CVR/FDR not having any useful data (other than that everything was normal at final recording - which in itself would be informative).

A very tragic event, RIP to all and condolences to family and friends.

With all due respect, not a chance. If the tail came off the plane couldn't slow and gain altitude. The horizontal bits on the tail - the horizontal stabilizer (the small wing back there) and the elevator(s) which are part of that but separate at the back of those "wings" always push down on the tail to compensate for the nose heavy plane.

If the tail comes off two things happen. The plane gets even more nose heavy but more important, there is no longer the downward force on the tail which keeps the nose up. That plane is going nose low into a dive immediately and severely with no chance of recovery.

That scenario doesn't provide any reason for the very large and widespread debris field which can only be explained by a catastrophic breakup of the plane at speed and high altitude.

Cheers.

[dcutman]

In addition, the U.S. intelligence community has determined with a high confidence that there was no external event -- in other words, no missile or other object impacting from outside the aircraft -- that caused the structural failure of the plane. Sources in the intel community told CBS News the conclusion was drawn based on imagery of the plane and the crash site.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-metrojet-plane-egypt-crash-mechanical-impact-black-boxes/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cbsnews%2FNokX+%28Breaking+News%3A+CBS+News%29

Glad to see the "U.S. intelligence community" (CIA?) is quick in making determinations about this crash. So everyone should feel a lot better now they (CIA?) are highly confident a missile did not bring this plane down. Why would anyone doubt what these guys have to say.

[NeverSure]

"The size of the debris field indicates a catastrophic event, according to aviation experts."

"All signs prove that the structure of the plane disintegrated in the air at a high altitude," Russian transport agency head Alexander Neradko said.

"...the debris is scattered over an area covering almost eight square miles.

A child's body was found some five miles from the site of the main wreckage."

LINK

[Chicog]

I don't know what images are in your head but they aren't the ones showing the crash site(s).

[phazey]

Something bothers me. No footage of the rear fuselage - nothing after the wing debris, and then the tail section.

(In before mid-air with Israeli drone.....one for the theorists).

[NeverSure]

"...the debris is scattered over an area covering almost eight square miles." LINK

Photographs of various places can't give the distance between debris sites. The body of a little girl was found five miles from the largest wreckage. Link above.

[MaxYakov]

I don't know what images are in your head but they aren't the ones showing the crash site(s).

The RT aerial video posted HERE indicates that the entire fuselage aft of the wing box, which is indeed a substantial portion of the aircraft, was not represented in the wing/forward fuselage debris field and was scattered all over the desert.

Edited November 2, 2015 by MaxYakov

[TheCruncher]

Something bothers me. No footage of the rear fuselage - nothing after the wing debris, and then the tail section.

(In before mid-air with Israeli drone.....one for the theorists).

What you mean no footage of the rear fuselage.

In the youtube posted in post #178, isn't that the tail at 1:15 ?

[phazey]

Something bothers me. No footage of the rear fuselage - nothing after the wing debris, and then the tail section.

(In before mid-air with Israeli drone.....one for the theorists).

What you mean no footage of the rear fuselage.

In the youtube posted in post #178, isn't that the tail at 1:15 ?

The rear cabin, in between the tail and the wing roots. Please correct me on that one.

[Tywais]

My comments in the below photo on the forward section. Based on the graphs, the climb/descent rates changed drastically in the last 22 seconds, oscillating. The forward speed, not air speed but forward ground speed as it is radar tracked data, went from 400kts to <100 knots in about 30 seconds with a burst change in altitude from 30,000 to 33,000 just prior to that. Certainly indicates a mid air breakup with the forward section either flat spinning down or just flat fall. It did not nose in.

[JHolmesJr]

Bomb

Blown to smithereens.

[MaxYakov]

I reckon bad repair, metal fatigue, tail fell off. It's happened before. But I could be wrong. That's as far as my guessing will go.

My guess as well, providing there is no evidence of a rear fuselage bomb detonation (or maybe even if there is evidence).

What we know:

1) The rear fuselage (tail section) separated from the main fuselage at some altitude (photos and statements).

2) The plane slowed drastically and gained altitude following the event (FR data - 400 knots to 60 knots)

3) The main fuselage hit with a relatively flat attitude and the main portion of the fuselage and

wings stayed together on the way down (reportedly inverted - photos and statements).

4) The engines were not in close proximity to the wings (photos).

5) I and others have noticed that the the horizontal stabilizers are not to be seen in the rear fuselage photos. Their positions relative to the rear fuselage would be very informative I should think (photos).

6) The A321's FDR/CVR are located in the non-pressurized area aft of the pressure bulkhead.

If the rear fuselage separated and carried the FDR/CVR with it, they immediately lost input/power.

If a sudden rear fuselage separation was the root cause of this crash,the FDR/CVR will probably

not have data subsequent to the separation. (A321 tech specs).

My guess: The investigators already have a pretty good idea what happened by inspecting the separated

rear fuselage or they will very soon. Based on a sudden rear fuselage separation, I would put money on

the CVR/FDR not having any useful data (other than that everything was normal at final recording - which in itself would be informative).

A very tragic event, RIP to all and condolences to family and friends.

With all due respect, not a chance. If the tail came off the plane couldn't slow and gain altitude. The horizontal bits on the tail - the horizontal stabilizer (the small wing back there) and the elevator(s) which are part of that but separate at the back of those "wings" always push down on the tail to compensate for the nose heavy plane.

If the tail comes off two things happen. The plane gets even more nose heavy but more important, there is no longer the downward force on the tail which keeps the nose up. That plane is going nose low into a dive immediately and severely with no chance of recovery.

That scenario doesn't provide any reason for the very large and widespread debris field which can only be explained by a catastrophic breakup of the plane at speed and high altitude.

Cheers.

Well sir, with equivalent due respect, all you have to do is explain why what was left of the aircraft after the event (tail loss) apparently didn't nose-down, go into a high-velocity dive and create a big crater in the desert, do you not?

What you are perhaps not considering is that it was traveling at 400+ knots at cruise altitude when the event occurred. The crew would not have had time or even the consideration to idle the engines. It is known that under-wing/pylon-mounted engines under power will tend to increase pitch attitude and wing angle of attack and lift/planing effect unless this is countered by the horizontal stabilizers. It is possible (apparently probable) that this, coupled with an already positive angle of attack of the wings would offset the presumed nose-heaviness caused by the loss of the tail section (maybe just it initially and the remainder of the fuselage later) including the APU.

The engine-maintained positive angle of attack would explain both the ADS-B radar reports (flightradar24.com and HERE) some apparent phugoids with altitude variations and the loss of speed from 400+ knots to less than 100 knots. At that point or before the wings would have stalled and then it apparently went into some kind of falling scenario. At some point it inverted and this is probably when it shed its engines because they are mounted with shear-pins designed to protect the wing. Remember that AF 447 was in a relatively flat stalled (15 degrees pitch) condition for four minutes, thoroughly confusing the crew, albeit the air frame was intact.

The bottom line is that we can all have our beliefs or theoretical concepts as to what would occur with an A321 at cruise altitude, power and speed which suddenly sheds its rudder and horizontal stabilizer, but I think we have to go with what empirical evidence we have. The question remains as to why, with it presumably minus the entire aft fuselage, it didn't go nose down into the desert like a big lawn dart?.

I think the answer is that it is because it was a partial and (apparently) disintegrating A321 aircraft and it was not a lawn dart. Any answer more complicated than that is well above my knowledge level. Any volunteers?

Edited November 2, 2015 by MaxYakov

[slipperylobster]

I don't understand why anyone would pay any attention to RT.

Probably the most unreliable source of information on the planet....

"state run, propaganda outlet"

you are not going to get any perspective there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

Edited November 2, 2015 by slipperylobster

[scubascuba3]

Now the jury is out lets have a speculative vote on the cause. Based on everything ive read, heard and seen and the fact i was let on board with a scuba diving knife in my hand luggage at sharm, I'm voting it's a bomb taken on board.

[slipperylobster]

Now the jury is out lets have a speculative vote on the cause. Based on everything ive read, heard and seen and the fact i was let on board with a scuba diving knife in my hand luggage at sharm, I'm voting it's a bomb taken on board.

foul play.

they either confess to gross negligence (the pilot called his wife on that)

or it was a planned event (hostile attack from a bomb).

either way....it's foul. So sad that a broken plane was sent up in the air. The fact that it was broken/in horrible condition, makes it hard to look at the alternatives.

cat is pretty much out of the bag. Nobody believes the pilot was inept...just had not choices in the matter (would not it be great if a russian pilot could refuse to fly a broken aircraft)? I read that this airplane had chronic engine problems...and a botched tail repair job. Both problems being critical.

Happy that...even in Thailand....a pilot can delay/abort a flight if he had knowledge that his plane was unsafe. Insisting on flying a broken aircraft is beyond belief. He was ordered to continue on with the flight. Now this.

Edited November 2, 2015 by slipperylobster