So the Russian aircraft broke apart in the air

[malaise]

and debris was spread over seven square miles.
Scary shite!

[Eleanors38]

1. Though operated by a Russian airline, the aircraft was an Airbus (European consortium).

[Renew Deal]

4. What is the smile for?

[Eleanors38]

7. To indicate a friendly correction.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

15. Not really so much a correction as needless nitpickiing

The nationality of the airline is almost referenced when referring to a crash.

When speaking of the Malaysian Airlines 370, no one says "the American aircraft", even though it was a Boeing.

[Eleanors38]

16. The manufacturer of an airline should be mentioned. Including Boeing.

I know that DU is on edge lately about a lot of things posted (including smilies).

[SickOfTheOnePct]

18. Then mention it

without making a snarky "correction"

The OP's reference was just fine.

[Eleanors38]

22. You are imagining stuff. I Will post in my usual manner...

You stand corrected.

[cherokeeprogressive]

23. I dig your usual manner just fine.

[Eleanors38]

25. ...and it all started with a smilie.

[riversedge]

26. I shake my head!!

[CreekDog]

61. why? you criticize others freely?

is it because you agree with that poster's politics?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

30. Thanks but no thanks

I don't need corrections from you.

[Duckhunter935]

28. Nothing snarky there

Gee, thin skin?

[Eleanors38]

71. ok.

[pnwmom]

19. It was an old plane. The maintenance probably matters more than the manufacturer

at this point.

[Eleanors38]

21. Could be. Some Airbuses have had problems with sensors icing up...

This caused catastrophic crashes when the pilots lost all visual sense of their altitude, speed, direction and trajectory. Rapid speed at a steep angle can result in a plane coming apart. Then again, a hard landing in the plane's earlier history, with possible undetected stress damage, can show up later.

If the investigation is half-way competent, such causes as non-fuel explosiins and missiles should be readily detected.

[pnwmom]

24. Did you see the photo below? It shows how the fuselage skin had partly peeled off,

making it look as if there was a force driving it from the inside out. Like a bomb.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7307308

[Eleanors38]

27. The "inside" forces and chemical residue will be the determinants.

[CreekDog]

62. you're right, poorly maintained, 18 year old Boeings *never* crash

[Eleanors38]

65. Haven't heard about Boeings never crashing, but the 737 in Hawaii managed to lose

Part of its forward cabin space and a flight attendant on an intra-Island run. Poor traumatized survivors, still strapped in, at 400+ mph in the open air. Cause of that one was persistent and "undetected" corrosion (salt air) which led to metal fatigue. They also had earlier crashes due to steering hydraulic in the rear locking up in a just-so position. At least 2 catastrophic crashes from this.

[2naSalit]

54. Indeed.

From friends I know who have traveled on the Russian airlines they commented about how poorly maintained they were and made the flight pretty scary. Doesn't matter what brand you have, if you don't maintain whatever it is, it will eventually come apart and often that sort of things happens at the worst time, like in flight.

[Major Nikon]

57. Many other factors come to mind

Pilot error and weather for instance.

[treestar]

51. this

the aircraft is going to be identified first by the country whose airline it is, and that's always the way, so it's not so clever to make the distinction about where it was made.

[brush]

55. I think the reason was that it was a major manufacturer . . .

Last edited Mon Nov 2, 2015, 07:49 AM - Edit history (1)

that built the plane.

In other words, a type of plane we could all travel on, which is scary since it's reported it just fell apart in mid-air.

We'll have to see if there was another reason for the disaster though.

[Eleanors38]

69. "Cleverness" aside, my original point was to i.d. the manufacturer. In a friendly manner.

So we can all have more info. Crashes are caused by poor maintenance, pilot error, faulty repair, etc. Some, like the old Lockheed Electra or the British Comet, come apart due to structural design and harmonics of the engines.

[LiberalArkie]

2. Maybe a surface to air fired from southern Syria?

[Duckhunter935]

8. Way out of range

you would need one of the big systems like a BUK nearby at 30,000 feet, not one of the SA-7/14/16/18s. those are under 20000 feet engagement altitude. The engagement range of even the BUK is well under 100K

[LiberalArkie]

11. Ok, I was wondering since Russia has moved men and equipment into Syria in preparation

of arial bombing and such.

[applegrove]

29. At some point that plane had had work done on its tail. Maybe it came apart in the air.

[Duckhunter935]

38. I read that also

I am sure it will be looked at. JAL lost a 747 that way from a bad repair on the rear pressure bulkhead. Tail blew out.

[leveymg]

3. I think we all know what that usually means.

[Major Nikon]

60. ...

[leveymg]

66. Gallows humor, Captain. But, he has lots of seniority, so he probably got away with it. Maybe,

more than once.

[smirkymonkey]

5. So if it broke apart in the air I am assuming that means it was shot down?

ISIS did claim responsibility initially. Is there any evidence yet as to what actually caused the crash?

[pampango]

6. It might also have been a bomb on board. That could cause a mid-air disintegration also.

I wonder is ISIS' claim was specific about the manner in which the plane was destroyed.

[smirkymonkey]

14. I just found this on the Daily Mail...

"Aviation sources claim the tail section of the aircraft shows evidence of 'the fuselage skin peeling outwards possibly indicative of a force acting outwards from within' - possibly a bomb - which could be linked to the earliest moments of the aircraft's disaster sequence

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3299019/Co-pilot-s-wife-says-safety-doubts-doomed-Russian-jet-crashed-killing-224-emerges-jet-abort-three-months-ago.html#ixzz3qGt8NkLU

I know the Daily Mail is a right wing rag, but sometimes they have the most up to date info on breaking news items, as well as photos.

[malaise]

44. They have very good photos and sometimes

reliable breaking news

[backscatter712]

39. Not yet. Though the black boxes have been recovered, so we might have some ideas soon.

My best guess is that it was most likely some sort of mechanical or structural failure - just a good old fashioned accident.

It's also possible that a bomb may have been placed onboard, like Pan Am 103, though that's harder to pull off these days with tightened airport security.

But none of us know until the investigators come up with something and show their evidence.

[BooScout]

9. They have been saying...

That it was too high to be shot down by surface to air. That leaves a whole lot of unknowns though.

[malaise]

10. That's the opposite of what the same people said

re the one that went down in Ukraine

[BooScout]

12. I'm just repeating what I heard on the news....

I had the same thinking about the plane that went down in the Ukraine.

[malaise]

13. I know

The misinformation and disinformation is breath-taking.

[Adrahil]

17. It wasn't too high to be hit by Buk-type missile....

But who would be shooting that in the Sinai? It was too high to be hit by a small missile like a shoulder-launched MANPAD.

If it was terrorism, it was likely to be a bomb in the aircraft.

[Duckhunter935]

32. I agree more likely a bomb

Or cabin pressure vessel structure failed causing airframe failure

[jmowreader]

35. In the Daily Mail piece they talk about a Chinese 747 that broke up in 2002

The 747 had suffered a tail strike 22 years earlier, was repaired, and the repair just gave way. This Airbus had suffered a tail strike earlier AND it was close to the end of its service life. Airbus Industrie rates A319s at 60,000 hours service lifespan; this specimen had 56,000 hours.

I'm not buying the "bomb" hypothesis, and this is why:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3299019/Co-pilot-s-wife-says-safety-doubts-doomed-Russian-jet-crashed-killing-224-emerges-jet-abort-three-months-ago.html#ixzz3qGt8NkLU

Look at the very first picture, the one with the metal curling outward. There's insulation in the picture, and none of it's scorched. A bomb would scorch some of the insulation. No...I think this plane just fell apart in midair, probably starting in the same region as the tail strike repair.

[Adrahil]

36. That could be the case....

I think there is a better than even chance that this airline performed substandard maintenance and inspections.

[jmowreader]

37. Since the airline is in Russia, there's a VERY strong possibility of that

Russia is proof positive "unfettered capitalism" is always a bad idea.

[Eleanors38]

68. I noticed lack of scorching as well. Are faulty landing-related repairs readily visible?

[jmowreader]

72. Not sure, but this doesn't look like missile damage either

Since missiles come from outside the plane, the curling would go in.

So...I'm thinking one of two possibilities: failed repair, not necessarily of the tail strike (as old as that plane is and the proximity of the damage in that photo to a cargo door, why couldn't someone sometime have hit the plane with a forklift?); or the plane was just wore the hell out and broke up in flight.

[malaise]

45. Truth is we don't know

yet

[Duckhunter935]

31. It would have to have been something like a

BUK that these people do not have like the one supplied to the pro-Russians in Ukraine. As we had said all along in Ukraine and has been confirmed.

[nilesobek]

20. My condolences to the families of the dead.

[rjsquirrel]

33. Rampant mindless speculation

from people without facts or relevant knowledge seems to be the norm whenever a plane goes down. DU included.

They'll figure out how it came down. Until then, unless you're an engineer or a pilot, give it a rest.You aren't an expert because you took a fight once.

[malaise]

46. Hmmmmmmmmmm

looking a fight?

[pinboy3niner]

49. Once again we are faced with the age-old question...

Last edited Mon Nov 2, 2015, 03:04 AM - Edit history (1)

Fight or flight?

[malaise]

56. You win

You're cracking me up here

[Eleanors38]

70. Watch out with that Smilie!

[Logical]

48. LOL, someone is grumpy! Lighten the fuck up. This is a discussion board. nt

[pinboy3niner]

58. Took a fight? Who do you think we are...

?

[Submariner]

34. If it ain't Boeing I ain't going is my usual general feeling

American Airlines has always used a Boeing 757 in recent years between Los Angeles and Hawaii, but last night I had to fly on an Airbus A321S just after I had read that is the plane model that broke up over the Sinai. I didn't need to know that.

So with only 22 people on the flight last night, I got 3 seats to spread across and sleep hoping to be sound asleep if it broke up. Lets hope this is not a fuselage flaw problem that cannot be detected.

[msongs]

40. 22 people? amazing, our flights are always packed like sardines nt

[Submariner]

59. Huge plane with only 22

Returning to Maui from a business trip in San Juan I had to fly late Saturday instead of the usual late Friday and was super surprised as well, since there are usually ZERO seats available making that last 5 hour leg a tough cramped trek.

The Flight Attendant said the Saturday night LAX to OGG flights are typically a vacant flight, but they have to get the big jet back anyway to haul a full load of vacationers home on the Sunday morning flight to LAX.

I'm flying late Saturday from now on.

[Jesus Malverde]

63. Nice tip...nt

[roamer65]

42. Airbus planes are very dependable, along with Boeing.

Bombardier Canadair jets are reliable as well. I absolutely REFUSE to ride on any plane with a propeller.

I rode on an Airbus A320 through the "Storm from hell" on a flight out of SF in 1997. That little sucker stayed in the air, wings flapping all the way...just like a goose.

[roamer65]

41. One...pray for the families.

Two...pray that it was not bombed or shot down. Unconfirmed reports I am reading lead me to believe this is going to get VERY ugly if IS's claim is deemed to be true.
If IS took that plane down, we may be very close to first actual warfare use of nuclear weapons since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Codeine]

43. Oh good grief.

Nobody is going to nuke anyone. Jesus.

[malaise]

47. Hmmmmmmmmmmm

Please!

[Logical]

50. Ummmm, no we are not. nt

[davidn3600]

52. The plane suffered "substancial damage" in 2001 when the tail hit the runway

The Russian passenger jet that crashed in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula with 224 people on board broke apart in flight and debris from the tail section was found separate from the rest of the fuselage, suggesting that section may have split off in the air, according people familiar with the investigation.

Some aviation officials have suggested the cause of Saturday’s crash could be mechanical failure, though it was still too early to draw a firm conclusion. The midair breakup left debris scattered over approximately 8 square miles, the head of the Russian-led Interstate Aviation Committee, Viktor Sorochenko, said Sunday.

The plane involved had suffered substantial damage in 2001 when the tail struck the runway on landing in Cairo, according to the Flight Safety Foundation’s Aviation Safety Network. That event has captured the attention of safety experts and investigators given that the tail section debris was located apart from the rest of the plane, according to two people knowledgeable about early steps of the investigation.

After climbing gradually to more than 33,000 feet, the jet dropped some 6,000 feet in about 22 seconds, according to preliminary radar data posted Saturday by a commercial website. In roughly 60 seconds, the data shows the plane’s speed dropping to about 100 miles per hour, slower than the forward speed needed to continue safe flight. According to the data, which hasn’t been confirmed by investigators, the plane had been cruising at roughly 460 miles per hour.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-egyptian-teams-search-for-evidence-at-sinai-crash-site-1446383507

That sort of reminds me of Japan Airlines flight 123 back in the 1980s. With that plane the tail was damaged and a repair done incorrectly. Several years later during a flight, when the plane got to cruising altitude, the repair gave way and the decompression blew off the tail. The plane crashed into the side of a mountain.

[malaise]

53. Seems possible

What an awful way to die

[NutmegYankee]

64. One thing to keep in mind - Airbus designs their aircraft to not allow overstressing.

Boeing allows the pilot full control, including bending the plane if they wanted through the controls, but Airbus has systems that counteract dangerous flight commands to prevent damage. It's unlikely the pilot overstressed the plane to failure.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

67. Sure but catastrophic failure of some or all of the controls could overwhelm that system.

The bomb/ missile theory doesn't make sense with the mayday call(s) and request for nearby airport location. Unless the hit was small enough to not cause immediate loss of control that subsequently cascaded to total loss of control.

The CVR will be crucial. Whatever the problem was, it kept them too busy to communicate the problem with ATC.