Airbus A321 Crashes in Sinai

[TenEightyOne]

Wasn't JAL123 the one that stayed airborne for about 30 minutes after losing the tail before crashing into a mountain?

Yes. There's a difference in the way that the rear sections of 747s and an A321s are pressurised but principally a faulty repair in that section could lead to the in-flight loss of an airframe.

 

[Sanji Himura]

View attachment 471520

What is the green line in the graph? Having a bit of difficulty reading it.

 

[Swagger897]

What is the green line in the graph? Having a bit of difficulty reading it.

Altitude... Corresponds with numerical data on the left.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Okay, a nearly 30k climb in altitude in 20 minutes (give or take) is a bit out of the ordinary, I think. Where was the ATC in instructing them to climb that fast?

 

[Swagger897]

Okay, a nearly 30k climb in altitude in 20 minutes (give or take) is a bit out of the ordinary, I think. Where was the ATC in instructing them to climb that fast?

Not really. From takeoff to around 12,000 feet, a 737 normally climbs at a rate of 2,500-3,500 feet per minute, and after about 17,000 it's near 1,500-2,000 fpm. After 27,000 feet it's 500-1,000.

So 30K in 20 minutes is only 1,500 fpm average, more than achievable in an Airbus.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Okay, a nearly 30k climb in altitude in 20 minutes (give or take) is a bit out of the ordinary, I think. Where was the ATC in instructing them to climb that fast?

Faster climbs are cheaper and passengers notice no difference. s @Swagger897 said the first stage of the climb (right up to the last couple of minutes in fact) is normal.

 

[Touring Mars]

The airline have apparently ruled out a technical fault, blaming 'external activity'...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34697416

 

[Dennisch]

Trying to save their own ass.

Apparently the company hasn't paid salaries in 2 months, and there where serious concerns about the technical state of the craft.

 

[mister dog]

Trying to save their own ass.

Apparently the company hasn't paid salaries in 2 months, and there where serious concerns about the technical state of the craft.

Already renamed the airline also whilst they were at it.

 

[Robin]

It seems like they may blame the terrorists (which is easy when they claimed responsibility) just to hide their own technical failings. I would hope some independent body looks into this.

 

[Dennisch]

It seems like they may blame the terrorists (which is easy when they claimed responsibility) just to hide their own technical failings. I would hope some independent body looks into this.

Putin will get right on it.

 

[Sanji Himura]

It seems like they may blame the terrorists (which is easy when they claimed responsibility) just to hide their own technical failings. I would hope some independent body looks into this.

There is reportedly a team of experts looking at the black box data. A statement from the airline at this point in the game, especially when the Egyptian government has yet to release its findings, is dubious at best and a cover up at worst.

 

[TenEightyOne]

There is reportedly a team of experts looking at the black box data. A statement from the airline at this point in the game, especially when the Egyptian government has yet to release its findings, is dubious at best and a cover up at worst.

From a jurisdiction point-of-view it's in the hands of the Egyptians with technical support from Airbus, the FDR manufacturers and the airline's home country.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Daily Mail is reporting that the explosion is similar to the 1988 Lockerbie, Scotland crash. In that crash, the bomb that was used reacted to barometric pressure, and was smuggled on to the plane by way of a cassette recorder.

Link is by way of Allenbwest.com, but burn after reading:

http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/11/n...ous-evidence-emerges-for-russian-plane-crash/

 

[TenEightyOne]

Daily Mail is reporting that the explosion is similar to the 1988 Lockerbie, Scotland crash. In that crash, the bomb that was used reacted to barometric pressure, and was smuggled on to the plane by way of a cassette recorder.

Link is by way of Allenbwest.com, but burn after reading:

http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/11/n...ous-evidence-emerges-for-russian-plane-crash/

The Mail's a bit of a turd, as we mostly know.

The Russian line is strange, if it's based on the following photo then I'd speculate that it isn't enough evidence. The Russians are also saying that their pilots "made no mistakes" which, while honourable, is something that simply isn't known until the FDR and CVR have been analysed.

Here's the photo from Daily Mail, there are helpful arrows to show skin that's been peeled outwards. There's no evidence yet to say whether that happened in-flight or if it's damage from the tail section breaking up as it hit the ground. If in-flight then it would be a sign of an explosive decompression, it'll require chemical analysis to say whether or not that decompression was caused by a third-party explosive on the flight.

The Mail does have this, interesting if true... I need another source though

Asked about Metrojet's claim of an external impact, the head of the Russian aviation agency, Alexander Neradko, decried Metrojet's comments as 'not based on any real facts'.

He urged aviation experts 'to refrain from drawing conclusions' at this stage of the probe.

 

[eran0004]

Here is data from Flightradar24: the X axis shows time in seconds, I've placed 0 time at the point where the altitude pattern changes from smooth climb to jagged spikes. Ground speed and altitude has been converted from knots and feet to metric units.

To start with, it's impossible for the aircraft to be displaced by over 1000 meters in the vertical direction in a fraction of a second, as you can see indicated at +4 time, so to start with I think we can assume that the altitude data is not correct at that point. But it's data that was recieved, so it must have been transmitted and something other than an altitude change must have caused the data to spike like that.

Maybe the shockwave of an explosion, or a rapid decompression?

 

[Swagger897]

Here is data from Flightradar24: the X axis shows time in seconds, I've placed 0 time at the point where the altitude pattern changes from smooth climb to jagged spikes. Ground speed and altitude has been converted from knots and feet to metric units.


View attachment 472955

To start with, it's impossible for the aircraft to be displaced by over 1000 meters in the vertical direction in a fraction of a second, as you can see indicated at +4 time, so to start with I think we can assume that the altitude data is not correct at that point. But it's data that was recieved, so it must have been transmitted and something other than an altitude change must have caused the data to spike like that.

Maybe the shockwave of an explosion, or a rapid decompression?

If it were to be hit by something, I'm thinking it threw it up in the air... But still, awkward trajectories to attempt to plan that..

 

[TenEightyOne]

so it must have been transmitted and something other than an altitude change must have caused the data to spike like that.

Maybe the shockwave of an explosion, or a rapid decompression?

Very likely a pressure wave around the sensor as you imply. I'd suggest that the first up/down spikes don't suggest a change in physical altitude for the aircraft but that the remainder of the graph does. Hard to say if there were attempts to control the remainder of the descent, but it's likely

 

[Swagger897]

Does the tail of an Airbus not contain the black box? Or are these graphs from the radios near the front?

 

[Rage Racer]

From what I've heard on the TV, an explosive decompression is very likely. But what caused it is not yet known. Bomb on board is not ruled out, too.

Kogalymavia is a small and cheap airline company that was penalised for violations of safety regulations multiple times. Fortunately, the bigger of the Russian airlines have much better reputation (BTW, I was flying to Italy this September with Red Wings). The Investigative Commitee is now searching the Kogalymavia's documents for the data about that Airbus A321. But, anyway, it is still too early to make a scapegoat of the company until the cause is found out.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

If it were to be hit by something, I'm thinking it threw it up in the air... But still, awkward trajectories to attempt to plan that..

It still wouldn't match that data. F=MA, etc.

Okay, a nearly 30k climb in altitude in 20 minutes (give or take) is a bit out of the ordinary, I think. Where was the ATC in instructing them to climb that fast?

I've been on quite a few flights in narrow body aircraft that followed just such a flight path. It's standard procedure on most short haul flights and on a longer journey would likely save money without any major downside.

Daily Mail is reporting

They don't report, they spread fear and unfounded rumours.

 

[Swagger897]

It still wouldn't match that data. F=MA, etc.

No it wouldn't.. (as in you're right, my original guess is wrong)

I'll have to read if the sensors are measured by barometric pressure or if has any sort of intelligent GPS (Ground Proximate System).

 

[Beeblebrox237]

I'll have to read if the sensors are measured by barometric pressure or if has any sort of intelligent GPS (Ground Proximate System).

That's a good shout. It would be very interesting to know the exact method that data was acquired, particularly if any of the sensors were on the aircraft and how they sampled.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Very likely a pressure wave around the sensor as you imply. I'd suggest that the first up/down spikes don't suggest a change in physical altitude for the aircraft but that the remainder of the graph does. Hard to say if there were attempts to control the remainder of the descent, but it's likely

If there were mayday calls, which there was none, I could see such a scenario possible.

The ground speed is a lot more telling of the story, however. You don't go from 200m/s to 0 in what is, I assume, less than 20 seconds on a simple engine failure. There would have to be some indication of gliding on that chart, and I'm not seeing it.

 

[Swagger897]

If there were mayday calls, which there was none, I could see such a scenario possible.

The ground speed is a lot more telling of the story, however. You don't go from 200m/s to 0 in what is, I assume, less than 20 seconds on a simple engine failure. There would have to be some indication of gliding on that chart, and I'm not seeing it.

D/T would answer that...

 

[TenEightyOne]

The ground speed is a lot more telling of the story, however. You don't go from 200m/s to 0 in what is, I assume, less than 20 seconds on a simple engine failure. There would have to be some indication of gliding on that chart, and I'm not seeing it.

Nose up, speed down. Nose down, speed up. That's on the chart. What you're right about (if that's what you mean) is that you can't see if that was a human interaction or simply a function of an out of control plane. I'm also pretty sure that "a simple engine failure" has already been ruled out?

As for the altitude data... you don't just throw a plane up and down like that, that isn't actually an altitude measurement but an air pressure measurement. Planes at the same altitude can be at different heights above land.

 

[Dennisch]

The US claims that their satellite imagery shows a bright flash near the plane.

Meanwhile we are still waiting for the US imagery of MH17.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The US claims that their satellite imagery shows a bright flash near the plane.

Meanwhile we are still waiting for the US imagery of MH17.

If so it would be very interesting evidence. A shoulder-launcher couldn't hit the plane at that altitude and Egypt say that the entire overflight region is firmly within their control.

There's a picture of the frontal wreckage on the BBC - I continue to think that this arrived at the ground intact and not pointing completely down, the wings are unnaturally "intact".

 

[Dennisch]

To me it looks like it's missing the complete rear half of the plane.

 

[TenEightyOne]

To me it looks like it's missing the complete rear half of the plane.

There is that, of course

I meant that the wings haven't been destroyed or separated either in-flight or on impact. I wonder if the angle-of-attack was massively reduced just before it hit

The separation must be close behind there, as I noted earlier in the thread the tail must have had some fuselage in front of it when it hit in order to have escaped as much damage as it did.