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 Disappears from Radar

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   
I can't help but notice all the wreckage from the pictures. Sure a lot of wreckage. *hint*

My prayers go out to all the victims and their families.

AAC




posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
I can't help but notice all the wreckage from the pictures. Sure a lot of wreckage. *hint*


Yep. There's usually quite a bit left when they don't hit a reinforced concrete building at around 500 mph. Looks to me like fire might be responsible for the casualties instead of impact.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
It is my understanding that the many of the aircraft flown by Russian airlines are poorly maintained. Several Russian carriers have been denied access to Western airports because of the aircraft not being up to minimum standards. Think about it. A fire, no landing gear and a high speed belly landing all in the same incident. To me that says poor maintance and poor flight crew training. There should be an investigation and if I'm right I'd favor prison time for the employees and the death sentance for the management involved, right up to the owner.


Pulkovo airlines are considered the safest in Russia, and at least on par with the rest of Europe. This particular aircraft was less than 15 years old, and has received major service in 2001, as well as regular maintenance in accordance with European standards. Most Russian airlines (particularly those with flights to Europe), like Pulkovo, Aeroflot, Sibir, and a few others are considered modern and safe. They maintain their aircraft sctrictly and carefully.

The gear failure might have resulted from the fire or stalling. It is too early to speculate that the cause was poor maintenance, which does not seem likely right now. Plus having the gear intact would not have helped much if the airplane was in free fall when it hit the gorund. It might have started out as an emergency landing procedure, but by the time it crashed the pilot was not in control.

This particular jet is a Soviet equivalent to Boeing 727, and has an old design. however Russia cannot and will not replace all of its passenger jets with western 737 and Airbus 300, because Tupolevs offer advantages for Russia other jets do not have. They are able to land and take off from short runways, and are better suited for intense cold weather in the winter. Russia and Ukraine are actually building a new passenger jet together now (Antonov), which they plan to offer in European market as a cheaper and more fuel efficient competitor to 737 and Airbus 300.

There were alot of airplane accident in Russia this year (including an Armenian airliner), but nearly all of them were due to severe weather. To some extent this might be pilot error, due to bad expertise of training on what to do in bad weather. As I heard it from Russian media sources, this jet tried to climb over the severe thunderstorm, which can be very dangerous, and required good judgement on behalf of the pilot.

[edit on 23-8-2006 by maloy]



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   
This certainly was a tragedy... but it got me quite startled since it came on CNN just as I was exiting the hotel room to catch a flight home from San Jose


Did it seem a bit odd that they released the number that had died so early? I mean they have the records and all of the exact number of people that were on the flight, but did it seem they were ruling out any survivors very early on?



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
[edit on 23-8-2006 by AnAbsoluteCreation]



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
I can't help but notice all the wreckage from the pictures. Sure a lot of wreckage. *hint*


Yep. There's usually quite a bit left when they don't hit a reinforced concrete building at around 500 mph. Looks to me like fire might be responsible for the casualties instead of impact.


I'm not remembering flight 93 hitting a steel reinforced wall, yet no wreckage there. Sorry to go off topic.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by maloy
Pulkovo airlines are considered the safest in Russia, and at least on par with the rest of Europe. This particular aircraft was less than 15 years old, and has received major service in 2001, as well as regular maintenance in accordance with European standards. Most Russian airlines (particularly those with flights to Europe), like Pulkovo, Aeroflot, Sibir, and a few others are considered modern and safe. They maintain their aircraft sctrictly and carefully.


Untill it is proven otherwise I'll stand by my statement. Too many things went wrong with that aircraft for it to be just bad luck. I'd be saying the same if it was a US or European carrier. This is not a cheap shot at Russia. This is an educated guess after being an aircraft mechanic for over 10 years.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Just to compare... Does anyone have any numbers on (for example) the common S80, 737, or other comparable aircraft in common American and United fleets? If our aircraft are this old, could these planes be subject to drastic overhauls in the near future?



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   
The point is this aircraft was not old at all by any standards. It is difficult to blame it on maintenance, because such a new jet required little of it if any. They are now saying severe turbulance and weather conditions were definitely an issue in the crash- whether they were the main issue remains to be seen.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
I'm not remembering flight 93 hitting a steel reinforced wall, yet no wreckage there. Sorry to go off topic.


I was referring to the plane that hit the Pentagon. Flight 93 is an example of what happens when you hit the ground at a steep angle. This plane was supposed to be making a belly landing. This usually means a shallower angle and slower speeds.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
I'm not remembering flight 93 hitting a steel reinforced wall, yet no wreckage there. Sorry to go off topic.


I was referring to the plane that hit the Pentagon. Flight 93 is an example of what happens when you hit the ground at a steep angle. This plane was supposed to be making a belly landing. This usually means a shallower angle and slower speeds.


Yeah and when Flight 93 hit the ground..it did a magic belly flop and disappeared into thin air. See that's what happened at the Pentagon. When it did a belly flop, it magically went POOF..but tragically it had already hit that reinforced concrete wall as it did the belly flop which made a explosion. Too bad. Maybe we should teach those Russians how to crash right so there's no messy plane debris.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join