MH17 Crash In Ukraine. Known info in OP.

[Venom800tt]

I was trying to add to that rather than disagree; I also disagree that anything like a complete plane performed a slow looping circle. Three minutes from 34,000 feet to 0 is over 11,000fpm, that alone would destroy an aircraft almost entirely in the first 25-or-so-seconds. From that point there could still be significant returns from large, flattening pieces of aircraft skin.

Just to add my bit of aircraft knowledge, an 11,000 fpm descent rate would not destroy a 777, unless it were to overspeed on its way down. 11,000 fpm is only 125 mph, which is well within the design tolerances of your typical commercial aircraft. Descent rates in that range are used when performing an emergency descent due to cabin pressurization failure or some other issue that requires a lower altitude to be achieved rapidly.

Also, FDR devices are usually mounted in the empennage of an aircraft, while all the air data computers are in the nose. If anything happens to cut that line of communication between the computers, the FDR stops recording that channel of data, but continues reading what channels are still active.

 

[Scaff]

Just to add my bit of aircraft knowledge, an 11,000 fpm descent rate would not destroy a 777, unless it were to overspeed on its way down. 11,000 fpm is only 125 mph, which is well within the design tolerances of your typical commercial aircraft. Descent rates in that range are used when performing an emergency descent due to cabin pressurization failure or some other issue that requires a lower altitude to be achieved rapidly.

Also, FDR devices are usually mounted in the empennage of an aircraft, while all the air data computers are in the nose. If anything happens to cut that line of communication between the computers, the FDR stops recording that channel of data, but continues reading what channels are still active.

Yep and all data stopped recording on all channels, along with the voice recorder at exactly the same time, all of which is strong evidence for the destruction of the flight from a single event.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Just to add my bit of aircraft knowledge, an 11,000 fpm descent rate would not destroy a 777, unless it were to overspeed on its way down. 11,000 fpm is only 125 mph, which is well within the design tolerances of your typical commercial aircraft. Descent rates in that range are used when performing an emergency descent due to cabin pressurization failure or some other issue that requires a lower altitude to be achieved rapidly.

Also, FDR devices are usually mounted in the empennage of an aircraft, while all the air data computers are in the nose. If anything happens to cut that line of communication between the computers, the FDR stops recording that channel of data, but continues reading what channels are still active.

If you were flying an intact airframe you could fly at a max ROD of 12,000fpm but the aircraft would then be out of service (remember that vertical descents cause a massive pressure change across the fuselage, presuming that in your emergency the whole thing didn't already blowout). This wasn't a vertical descent however, the plane already had around 500kigs of forward momentum at the point of impact (one would expect the cruise at FL34 to be in the order of 320kias equating to about 500kigs, wind and pressure depending).

The rate of descent is added to that. Clearly the plane was catastrophically damaged at this point and wasn't making a controlled descent, or at least wasn't descending in control (slight difference).

The FDRs on the 777 are both at the for'd tail-root of the empannage (as you say), in this event the empannage and upper fuselage appear to have separated almost instantly (I haven't seen a report which confirms that, that's my own view from studying the wreckage and locations). The FDR will have had 0 channels to record - the only remaining connected channels would be the now-unpowered tail-control surfaces. The empannage-APU would not have time to cycle-up and the cockpit crew would have no viable connection to begin that cycle.

 

[Scaff]

If you were flying an intact airframe you could fly at a max ROD of 12,000fpm but the aircraft would then be out of service (remember that vertical descents cause a massive pressure change across the fuselage, presuming that in your emergency the whole thing didn't already blowout). This wasn't a vertical descent however, the plane already had around 500kigs of forward momentum at the point of impact (one would expect the cruise at FL34 to be in the order of 320kias equating to about 500kigs, wind and pressure depending).

The rate of descent is added to that. Clearly the plane was catastrophically damaged at this point and wasn't making a controlled descent, or at least wasn't descending in control (slight difference).

The FDRs on the 777 are both at the for'd tail-root of the empannage (as you say), in this event the empannage and upper fuselage appear to have separated almost instantly (I haven't seen a report which confirms that, that's my own view from studying the wreckage and locations). The FDR will have had 0 channels to record - the only remaining connected channels would be the now-unpowered tail-control surfaces. The empannage-APU would not have time to cycle-up and the cockpit crew would have no viable connection to begin that cycle.

The interim report does state that given the location of the cockpit debris and the speed of the craft at the point of last data being recorded on the FDR are consistent with the aircraft breaking up (at the very least the front cockpit area) at the time of last FDR recording.

 

[Venom800tt]

If you were flying an intact airframe you could fly at a max ROD of 12,000fpm but the aircraft would then be out of service (remember that vertical descents cause a massive pressure change across the fuselage, presuming that in your emergency the whole thing didn't already blowout). This wasn't a vertical descent however, the plane already had around 500kigs of forward momentum at the point of impact (one would expect the cruise at FL34 to be in the order of 320kias equating to about 500kigs, wind and pressure depending).

The rate of descent is added to that. Clearly the plane was catastrophically damaged at this point and wasn't making a controlled descent, or at least wasn't descending in control (slight difference).

The FDRs on the 777 are both at the for'd tail-root of the empannage (as you say), in this event the empannage and upper fuselage appear to have separated almost instantly (I haven't seen a report which confirms that, that's my own view from studying the wreckage and locations). The FDR will have had 0 channels to record - the only remaining connected channels would be the now-unpowered tail-control surfaces. The empannage-APU would not have time to cycle-up and the cockpit crew would have no viable connection to begin that cycle.

I guess I should have specified a plane that was not structurally damaged lol
Any major structural damage would indeed cause the plane to break up at such a vertical speed.

 

[Dotini]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29548942#
Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans has said that one of the 298 people killed in the downing of a Malaysia Airlines plane over eastern Ukraine was found wearing an oxygen mask.

His revelation casts doubt on the theory that all on board died instantly when the plane was hit by a missile.

An initial report last month said flight MH17 broke up in mid-air after being hit by "objects" that "pierced the plane at high velocity".

Rebel leaders deny shooting it down.

 

[Grayfox]

I think the O2 masks deploy automatically on planes these days if there is a loss of cabin pressure, all it would take is for some one that was alive long enough to put it on.

 

[GTsail]

****
His revelation casts doubt on the theory that all on board died instantly when the plane was hit by a missile.

Who was promoting a theory that everyone died instantly?

I would think that after a external missile strike, quite a number of the passengers on flight MH17 would still be alive after the missile strike. Sadly, perhaps even after flight MH17 broke up in mid-air, and during the un-controlled descent towards the impact with the ground.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Dotini]

Who was promoting a theory that everyone died instantly?

I would think that after a external missile strike, quite a number of the passengers on flight MH17 would still be alive after the missile strike. Sadly, perhaps even after flight MH17 broke up in mid-air, and during the un-controlled descent towards the impact with the ground.

Respectfully,
GTsail

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-passengers-on-mh17-died-2014-7
Passengers probably did not suffer and were not aware of what happened, according to Doug Richardson, the editor of I.H.S. Jane's Missiles & Rockets.

Richardson told Time magazine that the Buk missile allegedly used to shoot down the plane normally detonates right before it reaches its target, releasing shrapnel in a way that's designed to cut through multiple parts of an airplane. The explosion would have caused the plane to suddenly lose pressure.

"The decompression would have been quick, and the passengers would have been knocked out before they knew what was happening," Richardson told Time.

David Cenciotti of The Aviationist gave a similar statement to Fox News, concurring that the missile probably caused a massive decompression.

"It's not easy to guess what may have happened, but I think that the aircraft was invested by the shock wave of the missile," he wrote. "The blast and the shrapnel would cause immediate decompression, fire, lack of electric power, inability to move control surfaces."

After the TWA Flight 800 explosion, trauma surgeon James Vosswinkel conducted a full study into that crash. This disaster was of a different nature, but much of his research is also applicable in this case.

His findings reported that after a midair explosion, trauma would be caused by the blast itself, followed by the immediate deceleration of the plane, and then the fall of the aircraft. He told Bloomberg that the loss of cabin pressure would have caused hypoxia within seconds, meaning that everyone would have lost consciousness.

"No one was conscious or experienced that fall," he said.

 

[TenEightyOne]

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-passengers-on-mh17-died-2014-7
Passengers probably did not suffer and were not aware of what happened, according to Doug Richardson, the editor of I.H.S. Jane's Missiles & Rockets.

Richardson told Time magazine that the Buk missile allegedly used to shoot down the plane normally detonates right before it reaches its target, releasing shrapnel in a way that's designed to cut through multiple parts of an airplane. The explosion would have caused the plane to suddenly lose pressure.

"The decompression would have been quick, and the passengers would have been knocked out before they knew what was happening," Richardson told Time.

I wasn't aware that there might be any doubt that some passengers might still have been alive when the plane hit the ground. Hpyoxia from depressurisation certainly won't kill you in the few seconds it takes to grab the mask, it possibly wouldn't even kill you in the 2 minutes it takes to get from 34,000 to 10,000 feet.

TWA800 has no relevance in terms of effect-on-passengers as it was a relatively low altitude explosion in an aircraft that was still climbing and at a lower speed. It looks like Bloomberg are trying to cross-hack those med findings.

 

[GTsail]

***
Richardson's quote: "The decompression would have been quick, and the passengers would have been knocked out before they knew what was happening,"

Richardson said "probably did not suffer" and "quick", which is not the same as "instantly".

I would say that evidence of one passenger with their oxygen mask on would mostly confirm Richardson's theory that the cabin decompression was quick and that most passengers did not suffer. If all the passengers had their masks on, then I would think that Richardson's theory was wrong.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[TenEightyOne]

I would say that evidence of one passenger with their oxygen mask on would mostly confirm Richardson's theory that the cabin decompression was quick and that most passengers did not suffer. If all the passengers had their masks on, then I would think that Richardson's theory was wrong.

That's ludicrous, how? It shows that one passenger had on oxygen mask on when they were found. It doesn't go to anything outside that fact.

I agree however that people are reading the expert comments to mean that hypoxia would be quick in terms of seconds; it wouldn't by any means. There's no guarantee that it would occur within the 120 seconds before the plane was in breathable air, and therefore no certainty that passengers not killed by the initial disruptive trauma died before their cabin reached the ground.

 

[Dotini]

Even if only one passenger was found wearing the mask, it suggests the aircraft cabin pressure monitoring systems continued to operate, masks dropped, and at least one passenger had time to react to mask availability and don a mask.

Thus this widely believed scenario is defective:
-a missile allegedly used to shoot down the plane normally detonates right before it reaches its target, releasing shrapnel in a way that's designed to cut through multiple parts of an airplane...
- the explosion would have caused the plane to suddenly lose pressure....
- the decompression would have been quick, and the passengers would have been knocked out before they knew what was happening...
- the missile probably caused a massive decompression...
- the aircraft was invested by the shock wave of the missile...
- the blast and the shrapnel would causing immediate decompression, fire, lack of electric power, inability to move control surfaces...

There's a much better hypothesis.

 

[Scaff]

Even if only one passenger was found wearing the mask, it suggests the aircraft cabin pressure monitoring systems continued to operate, masks dropped, and at least one passenger had time to react to mask availability and don a mask.

Thus this widely believed scenario is defective:
-a missile allegedly used to shoot down the plane normally detonates right before it reaches its target, releasing shrapnel in a way that's designed to cut through multiple parts of an airplane...
- the explosion would have caused the plane to suddenly lose pressure....
- the decompression would have been quick, and the passengers would have been knocked out before they knew what was happening...
- the missile probably caused a massive decompression...
- the aircraft was invested by the shock wave of the missile...
- the blast and the shrapnel would causing immediate decompression, fire, lack of electric power, inability to move control surfaces...

There's a much better hypothesis.

Its not defective at all and you've failed to explain why it is in anyway.

Oh and you know a lot better than to make a claim and not support it, yet you have done so on two counts here.

First with the claim that it means it could not ave been a missile and the second as to the 'better' hypothesis.

Now I fail to see why a missile detonating at the front of the plane could not have caused massive damage to the front, severed the front section, while allowing a person at the rear of the plane enough time to grab an oxygen mask (which deploy at the moment of decompression - they do not require an ongoing active system to deploy - just to function).

 

[Dotini]

This is all wrong, too. Does not fit the facts.

 

[Scaff]

This is all wrong, too. Does not fit the facts.

Why doesn't it?

Why does the above mean that a single person (allegedly) would not be able to put on a mask?

What is the better hypothesis?

 

[Dotini]

Why doesn't it?

What is the better hypothesis?

The graphic shows the missile arising and exploding from below the target, and peppering major areas of the underside of the plane, including wings and flaps, with bits of shrapnel. The Buk missile shrapnel consists of metal bars wrapped around the explosive warhead.

The actual MH17 debris show no such damage. Round entry holes, strangely consistent with 30mm anti-tank cannon rounds, were found exclusively in the 41 section, consistent with an attack on the pilots coming from above the 777 by a fighter jet.

This better hypothesis starts with an air-to-air heat-seeking missile taking out one engine, causing loss of cabin pressure, deployment of masks, and the plane to begin a turning descent during which it was strafed.

 

[TenEightyOne]

That's just silly, and a heat-seeker doesn't work so differently from a radar-guided missile at termination.

That infographic shows the wrong missile too, a 777 is about 75m long while the missile is about 5m. Changing the scale changes the impact of the drawing.

So far I haven't seen anything that doesn't support the idea that an airburst beside the nose of the aircraft destroyed the front, removed the forward cabin ceiling and began the plane's fall/break up.

Shortly after I think the empannage/rear section broke up through sheer aerodynamic force.

What are these "quick decompressions" that render people instantly unconscious?

 

[Scaff]

The graphic shows the missile arising and exploding from below the target, and peppering major areas of the underside of the plane, including wings and flaps, with bits of shrapnel. The Buk missile shrapnel consists of metal bars wrapped around the explosive warhead.

And you can vouch for the graphics accuracy in what way?

The actual MH17 debris show no such damage. Round entry holes, strangely consistent with 30mm anti-tank cannon rounds, were found exclusively in the 41 section, consistent with an attack on the pilots coming from above the 777 by a fighter jet.

Odd then that at present the investigation doesn't agree with you on that.

This better hypothesis starts with an air-to-air heat-seeking missile taking out one engine, causing loss of cabin pressure, deployment of masks, and the plane to begin a turning descent during which it was strafed.

Which doesn't match the vast bulk of the evidence from the Voice Recorder (which shut off at the moment of impact), the Data Recorder (which shut off at the moment of impact), the lack of emergency calls and the layout of the debris field. It also raises the issue that ATC from both the Ukraine and Russia show the only aircraft within a 30km radius at that point to be other commercial flights.

Your 'better' hypothesis kind of falls apart the moment you go through the official report, but not to worry because a politician says someone might have reached for a mask.

 

[Dotini]

That's just silly, and a heat-seeker doesn't work so differently from a radar-guided missile at termination.

That infographic shows the wrong missile too, a 777 is about 75m long while the missile is about 5m. Changing the scale changes the impact of the drawing.

So far I haven't seen anything that doesn't support the idea that an airburst beside the nose of the aircraft destroyed the front, removed the forward cabin ceiling and began the plane's fall/break up.

Shortly after I think the empannage/rear section broke up through sheer aerodynamic force.

What are these "quick decompressions" that render people instantly unconscious?

I'm hypothesizing a heat seeker physically struck one engine.

I'm saying outright that the angle of the shots, or shrapnel, into the plane were from ABOVE, and INTO the COCKPIT ONLY.

 

[Scaff]

I'm hypothesizing a heat seeker physically struck one engine.

Its a poor hypothesis that isn't validated by a single piece of the objective evidence in the inter-rim report.

I'm saying outright that the angle of the shots into the plane were from ABOVE.

Based on what objective information?

The Russian and Ukrainian ATC both confirm that at the moment the aircraft was struck that the only other aircraft in a 30km range were commercial flights.

 

[Dotini]

Based on what objective information?

Haven't you seen the detailed, published shrapnel damage diagrams? I have.

 

[Scaff]

Haven't you seen the detailed, published shrapnel damage diagrams? I have.

Yes I have, and you are making a subjective interpretation of them.

I've also fully read the interim report. Nothing on either of them confirms that it was 30mm cannon fire at all.

I also notice that you have utterly ignored all of the objective evidence from the report that nonsense your hypothesis and failed to actually address a good number of points. You have also still failed to say why and how you know it was an attack from above.

 

[Rage Racer]

I'm hypothesizing a heat seeker physically struck one engine.

There are no heat seekers used on such missiles. The Buk uses a semi-active radar guidance system, and all SAM systems of such range use radar guidance. Heat seekers are only used in small range missiles, particulary MANPADs (Igla, Strela, etc.).

 

[TenEightyOne]

There are no heat seekers used on such missiles. The Buk uses a semi-active radar guidance system, and all SAM systems of such range use radar guidance. Heat seekers are only used in small range missiles, particulary MANPADs.

He's saying that the heatseeker was air-launched rather than surface-launched, I think.

@Dotini, I don't recall any suggestion that all the passengers would have died instantly whatever the cause of the initial explosion so I'm not sure how a passenger's use of an emergency mask would lead a theory one way or the other?

 

[Rage Racer]

He's saying that the heatseeker was air-launched rather than surface-launched, I think.

Or that.
I just told that to let know (or remind) that it couldn't be a ground-launched heat seeker.

Edit:
If it was a heat seeker, then it could be an R-60 (NATO name AA-8 Aphid) - a small range air-to-air missile that can be carried by a Su-25.

 

[Dotini]

I hope one day the investigation will be complete and we'll all know the truth. War and politics could get in the way. In the meantime, all we have are crumbs accidentally dropped by a crumby politician. I posted his remark. But there's else really nothing new to speak about. We must wait.

But just now I must be off to my fencing lesson.

 

[TenEightyOne]

But just now I must be off to my fencing lesson.

Good lord, they're finally teaching you to stay on one?

 

[Scaff]

I hope one day the investigation will be complete and we'll all know the truth. War and politics could get in the way. In the meantime, all we have are crumbs accidentally dropped by a crumby politician. I posted his remark. But there's else really nothing new to speak about. We must wait.

But just now I must be off to my fencing lesson.

Hold on a second.

You made a very specific and direct claim, one that you still need to explain.

"I'm saying outright that the angle of the shots into the plane were from ABOVE."

Enjoy the fencing and then please address it on your return.

 

[Dotini]

Hold on a second.

You made a very specific and direct claim, one that you still need to explain.

"I'm saying outright that the angle of the shots into the plane were from ABOVE."

Enjoy the fencing and then please address it on your return.

Well, thank you, I've been taking private lessons and attending class for almost a year now. I'm still at the novice level - but making progress, the Provost says. I wish I'd started this 50 years ago. It's almost as fun as kart racing!

As for the angle of entry being from above, it must be so, since the flight deck is located high, well up in the top of the 41 section, and the entry holes were inflicted primarily just below the pilot's left window (as well as even higher a few frames aft) where the window and riddled body panel are in the upper left quadrant of the body section. Plus, I recall reading of similar entry holes in the flight deck itself, further confirming the firing angle must have been from above. It is even possible that some entry holes were discovered on the opposite side of the fuselage, or exit holes on the same side, ruling out a single missile explosion or strafing attack. I will allow that a Buk missile could have performed anomalous to specification, and exploded above the aircraft rather than below it.

Whatever.

I'm not trying to sell anyone a book. It merely pleases me to note the problems in the mainstream story. I'm an infracaninophile.

Pending the outcome of a decent investigation, I'm willing to be proved wrong and served a dish of crow.