... Alexander Smirnov, deputy general director of the airline, insisted the tragedy could only be the result of some “mechanical impact on the aircraft.”... He declined to elaborate on the theory of an “impact.”
November 2, 2015
"The break-up of a Russian passenger jet in mid-flight over the Sinai peninsula was not caused by malfunction or pilot error..."
"... the airline said Monday, deepening the mystery over the disaster but leaving open probes into some kind of plot or attack."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
20 comments:
The airline has significant financial incentive to ensure this is looked at as a terrorist attack rather than a malfunction due to the aircraft itself or maintenance.
However, then why would news reports - early ones to be sure - claim surefire evidence that the pilot was calling in flight troubles immediately beforehand?
Has Hillary! claimed it was because of a YouTube video yet?
I am looking forward to more articles and posts about what a strategic genius Putin is and how he is keeping the Russian people safe (in the Bushian sense).
The Airbus A321 has a fairly low fatal crash rate. But for some reason I just don't like flying in Airbus aircraft.
It's a statement by just the airline, not the investigators. No airline outside Russia or China would make a statement like this while the wreckage was still being gathered and the flight recorders haven't even been opened. It's meaningless.
One of our drone operators probably thought it was a charter plane carrying a load of jihadis to the annual convention of 'TUDE!, (Terrorists United to Destroy Everything!), and so they shot it down, down, down to the ground.
Raise your hand if you are inclined to believe the official Russian explanation of the cause of the crash.
Right now they are debating whether it was Ukrainian nationalists or Georgian separatists (who were in
Siani for a conference), or maybe that lesbian rock band.
The whole concept of air travel in the Middle East I find problematic and travel on a Russian airline even more so. Seeng the pyramids will remain on my bucket list indefinitely.
Actually they do not know the cause yet. And once they find out they might lie about it anyway.
Ordinarily I would jump on the idea it was shot down, but one must keep in mind it was a Russian plane. Built indifferently and maintained the same way. So it isn't unrealistic to believe it reached the end of its useful life at 30,000 feet.
Rusty said...
Ordinarily I would jump on the idea it was shot down, but
in this case it would tread on the Putin is a genius crap that I have been spewing recently.
ISIS has claimed responsibility. You can bet if it's true, the Russians won't waste any time agonizing over why the jihadists don't like them. The killing will commence immediately. They might start anyway just because ISISsaid they did it.
The Airbus is Anglo French built.
TreeJoe said...
The airline has significant financial incentive to ensure this is looked at as a terrorist attack rather than a malfunction due to the aircraft itself or maintenance.
However, then why would news reports - early ones to be sure - claim surefire evidence that the pilot was calling in flight troubles immediately beforehand?
I've a private pilot who has studied aviation for 45 years. It's been my experience that early news reports following a crash are almost always wrong, often massively so. Based on that, I don't put much faith in early news reports about anything. Michael Crichton was right:
“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”
Some people are starting o blame the central fuel tank, which you can be sure is not the case either. It wasn't in the cae of TWA Flight 800 to Paris in 1996, where missile theory (both versions, terrorist and friendly fire) was part of the cover-up.
[That really was probably a small explosion, caused by smuggled goods, maybe firecrackers, (or something else that created a small hole in the fuselage) followed by a small fuel leak that created a fire on the outside the airplane, which eventually ripped the fuselage. The missile theory was invented in the Clinton White House.]
This plane did fly over an area where it could have been shot down by the right kind of missile, which would not have been in the possession of ISIS. You can't hide a missile attack.
It's probably either mechanical failure or structural failure. Structural failure (metal fatigue) is very possible, as there was an accident in 2005 like that, involving an airplane whose fuselage had been repaired after a 2002 incident.
AReasonableMan said...
Rusty said...
Ordinarily I would jump on the idea it was shot down, but
in this case it would tread on the Putin is a genius crap that I have been spewing recently.
Just leave it as your usual spewing crap about which you know nothing. You and farmer should get together. That way you'd both be the smartest guy in the room.
Bitter. Bitter. Bitter.
Tell us again what a strategic genius Uncle Putin is. I love that story.
Given that the bodies were all burned, and that the aircraft broke-up at altitude, the only thing you can conclude is that the plane blew up.
The only way for a plane to blow up and burn the passengers like a blowtorch is if the fuel tanks rupture.
The only way for the fuel tanks to rupture and ignite would be a structural failure.
A structural failure can occur when the pressure bulkheads fail, or a weapon is detonated.
If a weapon was detonated, the parts on the ground will readily show this, and if the pressure bulkheads failed, they will be visible as well.
My own feeling, this being an Airbus, is that the aircraft experienced a bulkhead failure and the aircraft disintegrated in a ball of flame.
I would no sooner get on an Airbus, than ride a nuclear weapon to its target wearing a cowboy hat and yelling Yippee!
According to Aviation Week, this particular aircraft suffered damage to the rear fuselage in 2001. In the past, there have been accidents where improper repairs to bulkheads have caused crashes years after the incident. That's one possibility that's being examined.
Debris analysis will also be key for efforts to determine whether a structural failure of the fuselage occurred because of a maintenance issue or another reason. The aircraft, last registered as EI-ETJ (and on lease from ILFC to Kogalymavia, operating under the Metrojet brand) had been involved in a tail strike on November 1, 2001, when it flew as F-OHMP for Lebanese carrier Middle East Airlines (MEA). In what looked like an unstable approach to Cairo International Airport’s runway 5R, the aircraft suffered severe rear fuselage damage upon landing. The aircraft was subsequently repaired and returned to service in early 2002, no details about the repair have become public so far.
Inflight break-ups because of structural failure are extremely rare, but have happened in the past. On May 25, 2002, a China Airlines Boeing 747-200 (registered B-18255) flew a scheduled service from Taipeh to Hong Kong and disappeared from radar during cruise flight at 35,000 ft. The accident report concluded that the crash was highly likely to have been caused by a structural failure in the rear lower fuselage that could be traced back to a February 7, 1980, tail strike in Hong Kong after which the aircraft had not been properly repaired.
On April 28, 1988, an Aloha Airlines Boeing 737-200 lost part of the upper fuselage on a flight from Hilo to Honolulu. It diverted and landed in Maui. The accident investigation concluded that corrosion had not been detected and caused the failure of a lap joint.
The single worst airliner accident of all time (JAL 123) happened in Japan for the same reason.
More flight data available here.
I wonder what US, Israel, or others' ELINT would show. Wonder if it is a ruse of some sort.
AReasonableMan said...
Bitter. Bitter. Bitter.
Tell us again what a strategic genius Uncle Putin is. I love that story.
See.
This is what makes you a moron.
I have never broached the subject of Putins intellect.
However you seem to think all conservatives and classic liberals think alike and follow the same narrative.
Since somebody you don't agree with once mentioned that that Putin guy must be pretty smart.
I'll give him this.
He's a lot cagier than Obama.
They don't.
Post a Comment