originally posted by: Rosinitiate
The Russian passenger jet that crashed in Sinai, Egypt, must have been damaged by a force in flight and couldn’t have just broken apart, the
airline of the ill-fated Airbus A321 said.
That's it so far. As such, I'm not sure T&C about quoting an entire story from another source, but it's just one sentence so far.
So the official position out of Russia was an external influence brought down the plane. They (he- the owner) doesn't accuse anyone thus far for all
we know it hit a really large bird but doubtful.
I really hope this doesn't lead back to western nations and I really hope this doesn't point the finger at Russia itself. There are a lot of chess
pieces at play, center board is no doubt the ME and is becoming crowded.
The normal, basics of this type of situation do back up more or less exactly what the airline has said: For an airliner to break in two mid air, over
30,000 feet (over less actually), with no great storm, no sudden cold air meets hot air very large differential (wouldn't be at this time of year over
Egypt), nearly always means there was some external force.
That's what an expert would say in nearly all situations, while experts aren't allowed to discuss specific situations before all of the information
about a crash is out there. So, it's typically what an airline itself would say, having made its own meantime enquiries and where it can seem like
there is not going to be any evidence of major technical fault yet. A lot of airlines will make the same statement in these same situations - they
could well have complied with basic regulations in repairs and upkeep, and so are publicly defining their position.
It's interesting, the reports about the pilot's complaints. But then why was he flying? If he went ahead and flew a plane which he knew was not safe,
he himself would be liable, at least partly, for harm or death resulting, both morally and perhaps for huge sums of money if he survived. Pilots with
knowledge have legal responsibilities beyond to their employers alone, and duties to act / refrain from acting in certain ways in certain
It could be that the plane met basic safety standards (so the pilot submitted to the company demands to fly a jet he didn't want to) but that the
pilot did not believe, somehow, these were sufficient. Interesting, but even then might he not have moral (if not legal obligations) to do more than
complain to a company who doesn't seem interested in anything but making schedules. (But maybe legal also, depending on some variables.) If there was
and is a discrepancy between official safety standards and what the pilot himself thought personally, it would have major consequences in flying
An article mentioned possible repair to the tail 11 years ago, with a 3 month repair job then.
Of course, experts say things about planes being "safe", while protocols about repair jobs and, for example, how long they're good for are only proven
insufficient if ever a plane undergoes some sort of incident (usually serious) or crash. Again, so the airline would be right to make their "external
influence to blame" statement early, if it seems it could only be the safety / repair protocol which was wrong, and not the company's.
It could be that the plane didn't have a good enough repair job or a good enough repair for 11 years of good use without further action. Whether this
is due to faults in the repair or after maintenance - or protocols.
With no event to make the pilot make extremes of fast rudder control movements to different directions in mid air (which might possibly make some jets
break in two), it's difficult to see that this could have happened without any external influence, or a bad repair, or a repair / safety protocol
(applying to all Russian airlines) which will be shown to be unacceptable.
The only 3 possibilities, it seems, and the two other than external influence may be more rare than external influences in statistics, especially with
the two Malaysian jets going down recently, one known to be by terrorism.
External influences may mean sabotage in advance of flying instead of or with a incident physically attacking the plane in mid air, from inside (bomb
/ shooting) or outside (missile etc) the aircraft.
Technical difficulties are one thing, but everyone knows an, intact, untampered with, safety inspected plane can't just break in two without external
influence in mid flight in good conditions. Again, unless there is a major problem with a safety / repair protocol.
It's hard to believe the airline would be so adamant now if it were lying seriously about technical issues. As the repercussions for it would only be
much worse still, if to blame.
My money is on external influence. Who knows what current ISIS members (or friends) have had prior connections with the CIA or NASA and new, covert
secret technology that may actually be quite simple to reproduce?
That's certainly not unlikely. (Remembering Saddam Hussein himself was a former CIA spy who kind of "defected" away. So indeed all of this terrible
ISIS state of affairs, as it's undeniably causably linked to the Iraq invasion by US / UK and made upon mountains of absolute lies from 911 to WMDs,
can be seen conceivably to stem from a shadowy American agenda to hit Saddam for hosting a Middle Eastern country leadership while forsaking his CIA
agenda upon it. Then, being exemplary, ignoring the US's Petro-dollars regime. This doesn't really seem besides the point, in the conspiracy allowing
interim period of knowledge for this downed plane, before the real reasons are established. Tbh, even if this plane crashed due to a poor repair job,
these conspiracy or wider angle examinations are still rarely beside the point today, in much of what you can discuss. It's also the way the world
functions now - for better in talking rather than worse in silence.)
edit on 2-11-2015 by bw1000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 11/2/2015 by eriktheawful because: Mod Note: Removed Exnews Tag