Ukrainian 737 down in Iran

a reply to: Zaphod58

Just heard on Fox news that evidence is pointing to an engine overheating.

There were three pilots on board. The least experienced had 7600 hours in the 737.

▪️Captain Volodymyr Gaponenko (11600 hours on Boeing 737, including 5500 hours as captain)
▪️Instructor pilot Oleksiy Naumkin (12000 hours on 737, including 6600 hours as captain)
▪️First Officer Serhii Khomenko (7600 hours on 737 aircraft).

a reply to: carewemust

It overheated when it caught fire after the missile hit. Engine problems don't cause the things that happened to this aircraft.

Certain groups trying to cool things down in the region by covering it up?

An initial assessment by Western intelligence has said that the Ukrainian airliner in Iran was not brought down by a missile, but actually suffered a technical malfunction.

A Canadian security source says there's evidence one of the engines overheated

twitter.com...

originally posted by: solidshot
Certain groups trying to cool things down in the region by covering it up?

An initial assessment by Western intelligence has said that the Ukrainian airliner in Iran was not brought down by a missile, but actually suffered a technical malfunction.

A Canadian security source says there's evidence one of the engines overheated

twitter.com...

SMH

a reply to: solidshot

Considering there's almost no way they've decoded and analyzed the recorder yet, there's almost no way they can say anything conclusively. And an engine overheating doesn't do this to an aircraft.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Don't know what engines this aircraft had fitted? but i remember an old video from a few years back of Rolls Royce saying their engines sent data straight back to HQ so they would likely know of a fault before the pilot? Would this aircraft have done that and just how much info would it have sent?

a reply to: solidshot

They're all CFM56 on the 737. Even sending data back only tells you it's overheating. Is it overheating due to damage? Because of an engine problem? Something else?

Even if the engine was overheating and caught fire, with a crew this experienced it's going to land. The transponder suddenly cut off at 8,000 feet, the aircraft caught fire, and broke apart before impact with the ground. That's a lot more than a technical problem with an overheating engine.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: solidshot

They're all CFM56 on the 737. Even sending data back only tells you it's overheating. Is it overheating due to damage? Because of an engine problem? Something else?

Even if the engine was overheating and caught fire, with a crew this experienced it's going to land. The transponder suddenly cut off at 8,000 feet, the aircraft caught fire, and broke apart before impact with the ground. That's a lot more than a technical problem with an overheating engine.

Makes you wonder about a bomb then, but I expect that will be an immediate thought for investigators, although there could be a possibility of a seriously damaged engine destroying control systems and/or fuel lines if parts escaped the engine pod

a reply to: smurfy
The "black box" should show if the T-handle was tripped and if the engine fire extinguisher was used. It could possibly show if the extinguisher cross-feed was actuated and the other engine's extinguisher was used. That would be the procedure for a major engine fire.

Personally I think it was a missile or a bomb that threw debris into the engine and damaging it enough to have caused the fire.

The war stopped because of the plane

originally posted by: Ove38
The war stopped because of the plane

No it didn't.

And by the way the war didn't even start, what are you talking about?

a reply to: Zaphod58

I was talking about the second image just above my post. The one you said looked like a fuselage bulkhead. The piece on the end looks like the tip of a wing to me. Although I will admit you probably know better than I considering your experience

originally posted by: RexKramerPRT

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: RexKramerPRT

Some may be, but others definitely aren't.

I agree. I think that's all the guy on Twitter was saying and probably why he only highlighted that one.

Here is another view of that piece of fuselage. The guy is correct in that most of what is claimed as holes in the low resolution images are in fact debris/rocks. There are a few holes.



Link to high res.

Image Link

originally posted by: tommyjo

originally posted by: RexKramerPRT

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: RexKramerPRT

Some may be, but others definitely aren't.

I agree. I think that's all the guy on Twitter was saying and probably why he only highlighted that one.

Here is another view of that piece of fuselage. The guy is correct in that most of what is claimed as holes in the low resolution images are in fact debris/rocks. There are a few holes.

Link to high res.

Image Link

Ooft. The piece of meat on the bone laying at 8 o'clock is disturbing.

a reply to: tommyjo

The holes that are there are consistent with shrapnel.

a reply to: smurfy

I'm doubting a bomb, just because of some of the damage pattern. It's entirely possible, but IMO not likely.

a reply to: RickyD

There's a little too much curve to it for a wing. That looks like the wall of the fuselage.

a reply to: RMFX1

A little kid still wearing his white shoes. Very sad.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yea after seeing the holes in the tail its hard to see how bomb shrapnel would do that from the inside of the plane. The impact direction is one way on those and they don't appear to be long and raked as if coming from the fuselage direction. If my understanding of SAM munitions is correct the missile doesnt actually connect with the plane rather blows up once it reaches the programmed distance away...allowing shrapnel to hit more of the target. Which looking at the tail would appear to have detonated somewhere behind a wing about parallel with the tail.