Russian civilian aircraft goes off radar, reportedly crashes over Egypt

a reply to: markosity1973

Ice. There were a number of incidents of frozen pitot tubes that resulted in near accidents, but the crews were able to recover the aircraft, even in very calm, clear weather. The Thales pitot tubes had heater issues that prevented the pitot heat from melting the ice. It was recommended that they change to a different manufacturer that didn't have the same issue.

Oh Great, ISIS can now shoot down aircraft!

DailyBeast article from six months ago reporting from Sanai.
MANPADS surface to air missile obtained by Lybians from Kadafi who bought from China.

So Hillary/CIA supplied "rebels" with weapons to overthrough Kadafi and the spoils of war get taken to Sanai by Al Aqsa branch of ISIS. The killded many Egyptian solders since establishing territory in Sanai.

a reply to: Zaphod58

How unfortunate would it be for the pitot tubes to make yet another appearance in an accident investigation. I was really hoping they wouldn't be an item of interest in this investigation.

a reply to: justwanttofly

The profile from the transponder data looks a lot like frozen tubes. It'll have to be verified through the recorders, but that's what it looks like.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord


I sis is known to have the Russian made Igla 9K38 however its only effective to 13500 ft. This aircraft was well above that and out of range. It's highly unlikely they would have anything capable of reaching 30000 ft. If they did this would be a huge threat to the west. Looking at the pictures I saw from the crash I don't see anything to indicate an explosion. So if Isis took down the plane it would likely be sabotage. Since they didn't say how they downed the plane I guess that can't be ruled out.

originally posted by: Bone75
Why can't planes be designed to break into sections where the fuselage doubles as a capsule that parachutes safely to the ground in the event of an imminent crash?

Because people want to pay $99 for a return trip to a tropical vacation spot.

People suffer from Cognitive Dissonance when it comes to air travel. Ask most people what they think is important when flying and they will say things like: safety, best trained pilots, best trained technicians, newest and best maintained equipment...

When they actually buy a ticket? "What is the lowest price possible??"

Que the Russian revenge in 3. . . .2. . . . 1.. . . .0

So as I thought it seems the pilots did not issue a distress call nor ask to land.

That plane broke up mid air suddenly. What caused it to break up remains to be seen....Maybe the pilots had a fault lost control and it broke up due to flying outside the parameters of the aircraft.

And in reply to the person who said there is no evidence to suggest it broke up mid air I would say all the evidence so far to me points towards that plane breaking up mid air. You don't get bodies spread over that distance when a plane hits the floor in 1 peice.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

I doubt it was a terrorist act in this particular case - unless a bomb went off on board. As others have mentioned though, it sounds far more like a technical problem that caused the pilots to lose control and crash.

Even the Russians are playing down the terror angle of the event at this stage.

a reply to: ashpack

The debris field is three miles. They don't day what that debris is though. You can see bodies thrown that far with a low altitude breakup. All the aircraft debris appears to be close together though.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ashpack

The debris field is three miles. They don't day what that debris is though. You can see bodies thrown that far with a low altitude breakup. All the aircraft debris appears to be close together though.

Well let's wait and see! I've followed most air crashes that have ever happend. If that plane did not break up in the air I shall eat my hat!

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

I doubt it was a terrorist act in this particular case - unless a bomb went off on board. As others have mentioned though, it sounds far more like a technical problem that caused the pilots to lose control and crash.

Even the Russians are playing down the terror angle of the event at this stage.

Well of course they would, it would make their decision to assist Assad equate to direct repercussions to the citizenry. I suppose it comes down to probability though, accidental, mechanical, terrorist (state sponsored or otherwise) and weather. Am I missing any?

I suspect somewhere between mechanical and terrorism being the highest. It being a Russian plane with everything transpiring as it is, could easily be a message to Putin. Because apparently in the 21st century shooting down passenger planes is akin to duck hunting or just passing time.

originally posted by: Leonidas

originally posted by: Bone75
Why can't planes be designed to break into sections where the fuselage doubles as a capsule that parachutes safely to the ground in the event of an imminent crash?

Because people want to pay $99 for a return trip to a tropical vacation spot.

People suffer from Cognitive Dissonance when it comes to air travel. Ask most people what they think is important when flying and they will say things like: safety, best trained pilots, best trained technicians, newest and best maintained equipment...

When they actually buy a ticket? "What is the lowest price possible??"

You be surprised. Seating and lay-overs (mostly layover considerations) take precedence....even over price. Of course some don't have that luxury but more times than not people will pay a couple hundred more to not have to connect twice before arriving or having to sit for hours in an airport.

More experienced travelers have noticed a trend of timeliness with some carriers over others, whereas others have different luggage/baggage experience that dictates which carriers they will entertain regardless of price.

But yes, by and large, those with limited funds will seek out the low economical fare.

Reports that the Tail of the plane hit the tarmac during landing in 2001 in Cairo and was seriously damaged it was obviously repaired but there are many instances of planes going down from dodgy repairs or failure to keep a check on previous maintenance work.

There may have been an explosive decompression in the tale resulting in an emergency decsent and the possible break up of the plane during the descent. No tail will bring any plane down pretty quickly.

RIP. Tragic stuff, as plane crashes always are

Personal speculation: Not sure how accurate and reliable FlightRadar 24 data is but there's an interesting rapid ascent at 4:12 in the final moments

What do rapid ascents usually tell us? That they are making evasive manouvers of something (other traffic, missiles?) ? That they are trying to "throw back" terrorists pounding on doors? I don't know myself other than that if the data is good then the rapid ascent is likely connected in some way. And possibly an indicator that it wasn't entirely "out of the blue". Almost looks like it all transpired in the space of a minute and ended in a very nasty manner.



That said the airspeed doesn't change during that apparent ascent so maybe a stall isn't out of the question, conflicting data (ala pitot tube style scenario) and no visible horizon but at that altitude you'd think they could make a recovery. And now today's reports of it breaking up in flight but no indication yet whether that was what caused the descent or if the breakup happened because of the rapid descent. Many questions...

A technical fault that caused a rapid ascent followed by a breakup? The only one I can think of is a rudder/aileron jamming or something forcing the plane to ascend beyond its operational limits and that isn't common in Airbus planes? Anyway I think most people can agree that in-flight breakups on modern jets, even if they are Russian (who have poor aviation record) are far and few between and only happen in exceptional circumstances.

a reply to: ashpack

If the aft bulkhead let go I would expect damage more along the lines of Japan 123. This aircraft still had its vertical fin it appears. The fin was found with the wreckage, not away from it.

a reply to: ashpack

The aircraft may have broken up in flight, but after what ever happened was well under way, and at a fairly low altitude.

ETA: There was some kind of hole in the fuselage. They found one body of a girl 5 miles from the impact. There are no reports of major structural failure. That could indicate a bomb blew a hole in the fuselage.

I am intrigued that the so called "expert" immediate called out an "technical failure" as soon the story hits. That ISIS claimed responsible doesn't shock me but there are probably 30 other groups which claimed responsibility but don't have a media presents so we want hear from them.

Now whats interesting is that Russia immediately invalidated Kogalymavia licenses not even a day after the crash.

As with the GermanWings flight, I have a feeling that there is much more to this story but not sure if we every will know considering Russia will take the lead of the investigation.

Sad that it is another Airbus. Airbus had really bad luck the past years...

a reply to: flyandi

This isn't the first time Kogalymaviahas been under investigation though. They had a horrible record at the first investigation, and I wouldn't be shocked at all if they went back to cutting corners after the followup inspect.