truth on hold Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 (edited) Whatever it was, the airline operators sound wholly irrepressible ruling out mechanical failure or pilot error at this early stage before the black boxes and other flight data are analyzed , By Ashley Halsey III November 2 at 12:50 PM Prevailing wisdom holds that once an airplane reaches cruising altitude its clear sailing, but at least half a dozen times a commercial jetliner has simply fallen to pieces without help from a bomb or missile, as some have suggested in the case of the Russian plane that crashed Saturday, killing all 224 on board. In one famous case the thin aluminum skin ripped open, in another a cargo hatch blew open, and the worst accident in aviation history, the 1985 crash of Japan Airlines Flight 123 that killed 520 people, a faulty repair caused the planes tail to fall off near cruising altitude. Despite the statements from the Russian airline Metrojet on Monday that the plane that crashed Saturday was in perfect working order, and their speculation that renegade militants may have launched a missile at it, the inquiry into what caused the Airbus A321-200 to crash in a rugged area of the Sinai Peninsula is in its nascent stage. Western investigators would take weeks or months before making a final determination of a cause. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/plenty-of-theories-by-not-enough-evidence-yet-in-crash-of-russian-plane/2015/11/02/1c49129c-8179-11e5-9afb-0c971f713d0c_story.html Edited November 2, 2015 by JTSP
Beef Jerky Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 Is it bad that I don't care what caused it?
dib Posted November 2, 2015 Posted November 2, 2015 Hmm, Russian airstrikes in Syria. Russian Airliner goes down in the middle east.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 All pure speculation on my part.... But Potential explosive decompression? Bulkhead failure? Some type of ignition source hitting the fuel supply? It was just a narrow body but could have been carrying small amounts of cargo. What was the cargo? Any hazmat onboard? Obviously a planted bomb or missile needs to be checked out More information will come out. Just depends how competant the Russians are and how much you believe them.
Dante Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 Putin won't take this well if it was taken down by a missile. Isis will get pounded. Should get even uglier over there than it already is. He can go at them all he want's as far as I'm concerned.
DC Tom Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 I'm going to go out on a limb here and say...gravity.
DC Tom Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 Putin won't take this well if it was taken down by a missile. Isis will get pounded. Should get even uglier over there than it already is. He can go at them all he want's as far as I'm concerned. For it to be a missile, ISIS would have had to smuggle a vehicle-mounted SAM (probably more than one vehicle) with search and tracking capability to hit an airliner at cruising speed and altitude. Smuggle it into the Sinai, one of the most heavily monitored areas on the planet. And launched it about 30 miles from the air defense zone of a country that would absolutely flip out if an unidentified X-band radar suddenly appeared out of nowhere. And that's if the bass-ackwards Islamist gomers actually know how to use the damned thing. I'd sooner believe it was an Israeli or Egyptian missile than it was an ISIS-launched missile. Doesn't preclude a bomb, of course.
/dev/null Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 I'm going to go out on a limb here and say...gravity. You and those silly laws
truth on hold Posted November 3, 2015 Author Posted November 3, 2015 (edited) All pure speculation on my part.... But Potential explosive decompression? Bulkhead failure? Some type of ignition source hitting the fuel supply? It was just a narrow body but could have been carrying small amounts of cargo. What was the cargo? Any hazmat onboard? Obviously a planted bomb or missile needs to be checked out More information will come out. Just depends how competant the Russians are and how much you believe them. If terrorists infiltrated the airport where it departed then a bomb or some other kind of sabotage is possible. Given that it's an Airbus it could have also succumbed to faulty computer readouts, like what contributed to the downed airfrance from brazil. Structural/mechanical failure cannot be ruled out (no matter what the airline operators says) as there have been instances. worst crash ever was just one such instance, and potentially like the Russian plane the tail section was where the problem manifested. http://youtu.be/Z7-7cauFy3Y Edited November 3, 2015 by JTSP
DC Tom Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 If terrorists infiltrated the airport where it departed then a bomb or some other kind of sabotage is possible. Given that it's an Airbus it could have also succumbed to faulty computer readouts, like what contributed to the downed airfrance from brazil. Structural/mechanical failure cannot be ruled out (no matter what the airline operators says) as there have been instances. worst crash ever was just one such instance, and potentially like the Russian plane the tail section was where the problem manifested. http://youtu.be/Z7-7cauFy3Y Basically, you just said "It could be anything." But tried to do it as though you sound like you know what you're talking about. And you don't. Air France 447 didn't crash due to "faulty computer readouts."
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 (edited) Basically, you just said "It could be anything." But tried to do it as though you sound like you know what you're talking about. And you don't. Air France 447 didn't crash due to "faulty computer readouts." Didn't AF447 Crash because the pitot tubes froze over and the co pilot lost situational awareness and put the plane in a low airspeed stall? And what happened to that Malaysian a320 that crashed over summer? Wasn't that similar? I can't remember Edited November 3, 2015 by drinkTHEkoolaid
truth on hold Posted November 3, 2015 Author Posted November 3, 2015 Didn't AF447 Crash because the pitot tubes froze over and the co pilot lost situational awareness and put the plane in a low airspeed stall? And what happened to that Malaysian a320 that crashed over summer? Wasn't that similar? I can't remember the design philosophy of Airbus is for automation, versus Boeing which is manual operation. When the pilots of AirFrance were getting inconsistent air speed readings they failed to make proper manual adjustments. In that case the plane stalled the entire way down and hit the water intact, whereas the Russian plane broke apart mid flight. The question is if computer or human error was involved, what could make a plane break apart?
Chef Jim Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 (edited) I'm going to go out on a limb here and say...gravity. Wait a minute. If gravity brought it down what the !@#$ got it up there in the first place? You just blew my mind. Edited November 3, 2015 by Chef Jim
truth on hold Posted November 3, 2015 Author Posted November 3, 2015 Not sure how credible "Armed Forces of the United Kingdom" is, but here's what the editor came out with: Burn marks point to bomb explosionMr Heyman said evidence of burning on the rear of the plane bolstered the theory that a bomb brought the airliner down. "There are apparently some scorch marks, evidence of burning, towards the tail end of the aircraft," he said. "I think the evidence is beginning to point towards some sort of small bomb on board... maybe from about a 60 per cent possibility now, as opposed to other options". http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-03/russian-airliner-crash-looks-like-an-explosion-military-analyst/6908220
Pete Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-02/infrared-satellite-reveals-heat-flash-time-russian-airplane-disaster While many have speculated that a missile may have struck a Russian commercial airliner that went down over Egypt's Sinai peninsula, U.S. officials are now saying satellite imagery doesn't back up that theory. A senior defense official told NBC News late Monday that an American infrared satellite detected a heat flash at the same time and in the same vicinity over the Sinai where the Russian passenger plane crashed. According to the official, U.S. intelligence analysts believe it could have been some kind of explosion on the aircraft itself, either a fuel tank or a bomb, but that there's no indication that a surface-to-air missile brought the plane down. That same infrared satellite would have been able to track the heat trail of a missile from the ground. "The speculation that this plane was brought down by a missile is off the table," the official said.
Deranged Rhino Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 I'm going to go out on a limb here and say...gravity. If only we understood how turbulence worked.
Recommended Posts