It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russian airliner crashes shortly after take off

page: 6
20
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


No, I'm not telling you that. I was asking what witnesses, and you answered. Some witnesses on the ground, which I did not know. Thank you very much.

I've been gone and have not kept up with any more recent developments. If there is more information I will be interested in reading it.

Considering that the crew did not utter a word (like a certain USMC C-130 accident we discussed), I'm still guessing a bomb. Hope I'm wrong on that.




posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

It wasn't a bomb. They took off in icing conditions with the pitot heat off.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 04:31 PM
link   
At this point this is simply information, but the Daily Mail (don't shoot the messenger, I'm just posting what's out there), a portion of the CVR has been leaked that has the crew discussing an unknown technical problem with the aircraft. At one point, according to the article, they tell the tower that they may have to taxi back to the stand.

At this point, this is purely unconfirmed and could be made up from whole cloth. But it's information.

www.dailymail.co.uk...



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Now it's starting to make more sense. As the captain's airspeed indicator dropped to zero, the backup showed near 335 mph. Shortly after, the backup dropped to below 125 mph.

tass.com...



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 10:03 AM
link   
The first comments about the CVR say that it shows confusion in the cockpit, as the crew noticed the airspeed differential. According to the report,they attempted to determine why the instruments were showing differences in speed, and didn't recognize that the pitot system was frozen.

www.pravdareport.com...



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 10:39 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Now this is interesting. In 2011 an An-148 that was built for Myanmar was on a test flight, when it broke up in flight, killing two Burmese pilots and 4 Russian crew. During the investigation it was discovered that the airspeed indicator failed, causing the crew to push the nose down, to build up airspeed. In the subsequent dive, the aircraft exceeded Vne, and broke up.



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I'd put that in one of my first posts but didn't realise the airspeed indicator was the reason they'd descended that quickly. Is there no way airliners couldn't use a GPS speed indicator as well? I know the GPS in my car gives me my speed?



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Woody510

Right now, no. They probably could be built to do it, but pitot tubes are usually pretty bulletproof. Unless you get a bad batch, or have something get into one, they're usually pretty reliable.



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reminds me of another story from 2009 about an AirFrance flight that went down due to frozen pitots. The author provided a pretty good context to how it can happen even to experienced flight crews. All I can say is hindsight isn't always 20/20.


The final report on the 2009 AF447 crash is out today. I didn’t read the entire report but most of the blame was placed on faulty pitot-tubes, as had been expected. There is also a fair amount of discussion about the pilot’s actions but the head of the French BEA stated that “the same situation could have occurred with a different crew on board”.

I can appreciate that statement and the difficulty the AF447 pilots were in. Airline pilots are practically human robots, almost everything they do is a programmed procedure. That’s not to say there aren’t many times they have to exercise sound judgment but when it comes to basic flying procedures, they aren’t supposed to have to figure things out. When the pitot tubes became frozen the AF447 crew was presented with conflicting warnings and information that made no sense. The cockpit warnings and information weren’t reflective of the aerodynamic condition that the airplane was in, nor was it a situation the crew had been adequately trained to deal with. How do you react when one indication contradicts another? My condolences go out to the families of the passengers and crew.



source



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: spctr

There have been a number of near misses over the years. A 757 out of South America went down, killing all 189 on board because of issues with the pitot tubes. The aircraft sat for 20 days, and after 18, they uncovered the pitot tubes for an engine run. They left them uncovered for two days, and think that a mud dauber got into the captain's side pitot tube and made a nest. They began to get all kinds of erroneous readings after takeoff, and eventually hit the water.



posted on Feb, 15 2018 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Saratov put all their An-148s through checks after the crash, and they've begun to fly them again. All flights will be operated with the addition of a flight instructor added to the cockpit crew.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 05:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woody510
a reply to: Zaphod58

I'd put that in one of my first posts but didn't realise the airspeed indicator was the reason they'd descended that quickly. Is there no way airliners couldn't use a GPS speed indicator as well? I know the GPS in my car gives me my speed?


Your GPS gives groundspeed and not airspeed. An aircraft doesn't care how fast it's going across the ground. All limitations are based on airspeed. And it's indicated airspeed, not true airspeed that defines Vne.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: F4guy

It was just a thought on whether it could be adapted for an airliner as a sort of backup for incidents like this especially with both indicators showing different speeds and then varying.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Woody510yep,

Absolutely. Woody510...and you F4guy up there ...I have a hundred questions for ya.//...and we need a periscope camera to see the blind spots.....I'm all about avionics and safety....like entering a landing pattern on a non-controlled airfield....so tricky to see and be seen for the general aviation bunch


edit on 16-2-2018 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-2-2018 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-2-2018 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

No, he wasn't. If you look at the Russian manifest that includes their date of birth, passenger 32 was born in 1986, when the CFO of Rosatom was in college.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Why didn't the crew ask air traffic control for their speed, is that possible? I know it may only be ground speed, but at least it should get them out of a dangerous situation of going into a dive to gain speed



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: nelloh62

Step 1-49 of the bold print emergency checklist is fly the damn plane. Somewhere after about step 52 is talk to the ground. At less than 7,000 feet you don't have a lot of time if you are going into a stall.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: nelloh62

Step 1-49 of the bold print emergency checklist is fly the damn plane. Somewhere after about step 52 is talk to the ground. At less than 7,000 feet you don't have a lot of time if you are going into a stall.

And then you get to end of the checklist and realise there's nothing there to help when two engines go down.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


Glad you brought that up. What was the weather conditions at that departure airport?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the flight made it to about 6000MSL. If that is true, and given those witness statements from persons on the ground, at what point did they observe whatever it was that was seen near the engine, and did they view the aircraft through binoculars, or just naked eye?




top topics



 
20
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join