- 20,620
- NJ/USA
- Blitzbay
- Blitzbay
Boat or train to trusted airport? Possibility?
Airbus A321 Crashes in Sinai
- Thread starter TenEightyOne
- 170 comments
- 7,318 views
- 6,425
- KCCO
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
At least they apparently have the CVR working now, it was very badly damaged and they were struggling get any data from it initially.
It also transpires that a Thomson holiday jet had to take action to avoid an Egyptian surface-to-air missile about a month ago. The closeness of the incident is being slightly overplayed by The Telegraph but nonetheless that kind of incident shouldn't take place in civilian traffic airspace. Food for thought.
The intelligence agency consensus, as it has been for quite some time now, is that a bomb was smuggled aboard. The same Telegraph article linked above seemingly shows baksheesh changing hands for faster passages through the airport. Some things about Egypt apparently never change.
Checking some information about the flight data from the Lockerbie bombing, it seems to be similar but not as widespread (a smaller bomb perhaps).
I can say though that even if they lose one or both engines they should be able to glide (as they were on cruise speed and altitude this was possible), structural damage on the tail fin might not compromise the whole airframe, and even if it did they would still have time to send a distress signal (again, I don't think an structural fault on the plane would cause a complete disintegration and instrument failure in mid air for a plane as modern as the a321).
I can say though that even if they lose one or both engines they should be able to glide (as they were on cruise speed and altitude this was possible), structural damage on the tail fin might not compromise the whole airframe, and even if it did they would still have time to send a distress signal (again, I don't think an structural fault on the plane would cause a complete disintegration and instrument failure in mid air for a plane as modern as the a321).
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
That Daily Mail article on Pg. 2 of this thread for starters. Obviously you would need a second source.
None, I'm not trying to quote a source and claim "I'm right", but the characteristics of the debris distribution are similar to the disintegrated 747, differences are size of the plane, fuel load (and possibly the size of the explosive itself), to illustrate, here is a satellite image of the debris field from the Metrojet flight:
(note the blue flags distribution)
Now, from Pan Am flight:
The distribution is identical, so an explosion in mid air is almost certain, big differences are the fuel load and the position of the explosive (possibly in a cargo hold).
Also, in the A321 the cargo areas are distributed differently:
On the A321 there is a cargo hold at the back, almost at the rear, which might make it look similar to the JAL 123 incident.
I'm just describing what I'm seeing, I'm no aviation authority or anything, but I see most of the characteristics of a plane bombing.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 6,425
- KCCO
Never heard of that incident before..None, I'm not trying to quote a source and claim "I'm right", but the characteristics of the debris distribution are similar to the disintegrated 747, differences are size of the plane, fuel load (and possibly the size of the explosive itself), to illustrate, here is a satellite image of the debris field from the Metrojet flight:
(note the blue flags distribution)
Now, from Pan Am flight:
The distribution is identical, so an explosion in mid air is almost certain, big differences are the fuel load and the position of the explosive (possibly in a cargo hold).
Also, in the A321 the cargo areas are distributed differently:
On the A321 there is a cargo hold at the back, almost at the rear, which might make it look similar to the JAL 123 incident.
I'm just describing what I'm seeing, I'm no aviation authority or anything, but I see most of the characteristics of a plane bombing.
As far as cargo loading, almost all cargo is put in the forward compartment first for CG% loads, and any excess is in the back.
With that said, it could be possible that no one was looking at the aft cargo and someone could've just walked right up and chucked a case in...
If it is correct, and the plane was brought down by an explosion, the problem would be what caused it?
I don't think an explosive decompression occurred, unlike 747's airframe (which is larger, more susceptible to structural damage) the A321 is has more structural integrity (several incidents with the airframe being somewhat compromised often manage to land, unless human error overtakes and causes more deaths by simply ... crashing), this is evident taking into account JetBlue Airways Flight 292 and US Airways Flight 1549.
ISIS needs to be stopped, no government form like that should be allowed to exist, they bomb a passenger plane as air strikes retaliation, no wonder why UK is restricting flights there.
- 6,041
- Puget Sound
- Crash852
Larger does not equal more susceptible to structural damage, and neither does smaller equal more structural integrity. Both 747s and A320s are designed to carry the loads that their respective intended missions require, along with the continued safe operation given the associated possible failure modes. If anything, the 747 structure would be beefier simply because it is designed to take off, carry and land with more load.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 6,425
- KCCO
I'm having a hard time believing this:
Luggage and fuel compartments are completely split apart, and fuel lines run inside of the center tanks that feed the wings to begin with.
I'm not sure of right now the range that an A321 has by just using wing tanks, but maybe I'll look that up in a few minutes.
- 5,489
- mid west USA
- Otaliema
In the tank not likely, near it ok. In would require the bomb be placed prior to fueling and someone would have noticed that as the tanks take a while to access, even with the "easy" access hatches the layers of sealing and bolts have to be removed to get into them. Now getting a small bomb on the plane near a tank so that is ruptures it would only take seconds if you knew the air frame of a the plane. eg put in to a wheel well. strong magnet on the side of it. Just walk up, plop walk away.
- 6,425
- KCCO
Highly doubt one could just slam it up a wheel well, as walkarounds are quite thorough.
Edit: Looks like the wing tanks only have about 27,500 max capacity, and the flight from HESH->ULLI would take anywhere from 30,000lbs to 35,000lbs of fuel. However, not including required reserve minimums, taxi reserves, and pilot discretion reserves.
That said, you get around near 40,000lbs of fuel for a flight as such... But that said, it's only a minimal amount in the center tanks. If the aircraft separated right at the tail however, I find it hard to believe that the bomb being in the aft compartment strategically placed near the center tanks, that any significant explosion would have then split the plane more direct center.
Last edited:
- 5,489
- mid west USA
- Otaliema
Agreed was just an example. In theory it could be done. Do a "spot check" after the intial walk around. But I do agreed it's not probable. More likely is in luggage or as @Liquid suggested a planted maintenance guy got it in during normal pre-flight work
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
1860nm
Hugely unlikely, I'd say. I don't go with the fuel tank theory either, most likely it was sealed in a baggage crate and avoided inspection. Or it was mailed in something like a printer cartridge. You don't just take fuel tanks in/out of a large passenger plane (which an A321 is, although far from the largest). The tanks are made so that seals and access points are serviceable, I don't know if it might be possible to introduce an item through one of those seals... but then you have the difficulty of attaching something inside the tank. Fuel kills sticky stuff and you can hardly pop a couple of bolts in the tank skin. You then also have the problem that the aircraft was quite early on the route, the tanks (especially in a climb) would have fuel in/out of them for trim all the time - the Airbus A321 uses wing fuel last of all and moves the remaining amounts around for trim.
The only interesting thing about the fuel tank theory is that the A321 does have two additional tanks in the area where the explosion appears to have occurred (equidistant between the wing root and the empannage), other Airbuseses in that family don't. I still think that the bomb may have been near a fuel tank rather than in one.
- 6,425
- KCCO
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
That's total range, you said wing-tank range... so of the 4000+nm on full fuel (no wingtip tanks on 321 like there are on 31x and 320 so it's all available all the time) the 320 design aim was 1860 on wing-fuel-only. I'm guessing that with improvements in engine efficiency and tank balancing on the 321 that the wing-tank range will have remained very similar.
- 6,425
- KCCO
whoops.... I did say wing tank range..
- 5,489
- mid west USA
- Otaliema
That the reference to the magnetized wheel well example.
But still very very remote chance as any crew worth it's beans would have checked the spot check.
- 6,425
- KCCO
Just read the bottom half of your post now that I had the time...1860nm
Hugely unlikely, I'd say. I don't go with the fuel tank theory either, most likely it was sealed in a baggage crate and avoided inspection. Or it was mailed in something like a printer cartridge. You don't just take fuel tanks in/out of a large passenger plane (which an A321 is, although far from the largest). The tanks are made so that seals and access points are serviceable, I don't know if it might be possible to introduce an item through one of those seals... but then you have the difficulty of attaching something inside the tank. Fuel kills sticky stuff and you can hardly pop a couple of bolts in the tank skin. You then also have the problem that the aircraft was quite early on the route, the tanks (especially in a climb) would have fuel in/out of them for trim all the time - the Airbus A321 uses wing fuel last of all and moves the remaining amounts around for trim.
The only interesting thing about the fuel tank theory is that the A321 does have two additional tanks in the area where the explosion appears to have occurred (equidistant between the wing root and the empannage), other Airbuseses in that family don't. I still think that the bomb may have been near a fuel tank rather than in one.
Those tanks are the stabilizer tanks, as you say for trimming purposes. All fuel from takeoff until completely empty in those stab tanks is used first to push the center of gravity forwards.... Otherwise, you'd have that incident with the cargo 747 that crashed in the Middle East due to the CG being clear behind the wings.
CG is big in a plane, it's like, huge. All cargo for the most part is placed in the front, and then remaking parcels are put in the aft cargo areas.
Location here is key, and unless we have footage of the man throwing it in the aft compartment, I have high doubts it was a bomb, especially for it being in that compartment. With the amount of people who take carry-ons versus checked baggage.... I just have high doubts about this guess...
Similar threads
- Locked
