Russian Airliner, 'shot down'?

[Workingman]

A stall at 30,000+ ft would induce a nosedive. At ~65 knots there is not enough forward speed to keep the plane flying. Without the rudder and elevators there is no way out. What is left would probably fall in the same way as a 'whirligig' from Sycamore trees, it would spin in a flat plane. The pictures, to me, indicate that is what happened.

The debris field from main to tail is about 800m, yet bodies were recovered some 8km away.

Catastrophic fuselage failures have not been seen for many years, certainly not with an Airbus - think De Haviland Comet in the 1950s.

I have no idea what happened, but I do fear we are not being told anything like the truth.

[Suff]

Bit like the plane which "disappeared" into the smoking hole in the US at 9/11. First and last time it's ever happened in an aircraft investigation. At leas this one is more normal, but not quite what we would expect.

I don't think I've ever heard of an aircraft breaking up in mid air in the last 30 years. They are simply too strong.

[Workingman]

It is 25 years since I worked with aircraft, but my 'Theory of Flight' studies with the RAF make me question this disaster.

The sudden rise, drop, rise and drop of the aircraft do not seem to be a Fly by Wire (FBW) incident.

Imagine a plane in level flight. It suddenly loses its tail, a key component in level flight. Its forward movement gives it lift due to its wings. The loss of speed due to engine failure and lack of power then causes it to descend. But there is enough falling speed for the remainder for to rise again before falling.

It is quite complicated and, to me, only an independent investigation of the black boxes will tell.

I am not certain that we will get that.

The Egyptians will not want their tourist industry destroyed. The Russians will not want their recent actions in Syria to be a catalyst for anti-Russian acts, and the West will certainly fear similar events from not-so-secure airfields worldwide..

[Suff]

That would then, however, leave us all open to terrorist acts from less secure airports all over the world.

If the news did leak, then all of these places could lose tourism radically... Not quite the response you would think they would want. I'm beginning to feel like a mushroom.

[Workingman]

Yes, there are billions of mushrooms, some of them flying.

We both know the meaning.

[Suff]

Lots of similarity, including the climb and the fuel burn of the wing after it separated and the motion of the plane...

I wonder how well they will finally investigate. Flight 800 took 4 years to give final conclusions.

Another point in the story says

A noise recorded on the last few tenths of a second of the CVR was similar to the last noises recorded from other airplanes that had experienced in-flight breakups.

[Workingman]

Key to the report of TWA 800:

New requirements were developed for aircraft to prevent future fuel tank explosions.

Most airliner tanks are in the wings, though some long-haul flights may have auxiliary tanks.They are isolated, under normal circumstances, so that a fault in one will not affect another. This does not mean that fuel transfer is stopped from one to another.

I am going to sit on the fence with this, but I do have an idea it was not accidental, pilot error or poor servicing.

[Suff]

I am going to sit on the fence with this, but I do have an idea it was not accidental, pilot error or poor servicing.

Seems entirely unlikely. Too much time and legislation has gone into stopping that kind of event fro happening again. Jet fuel is not, in it's native state, quite so flammable and at that altitude, it's pretty damned cold too when outside of the heated area of the plane.

[pederito1]

Another crash in Sudan, oh dear glad my flying days are over. The Egyptian one is intriguing as well as tragic. What facts do we have? 1 The aeroplane was at cruising height and altitude. 2 The passengers were wearing seat belts indicating some turbulence. 3 The tail section broke off and the fuselage on one side was bent out. 3 The tail section had previously been damaged and repaired. 4 There is no evidence of a missile strike on the wreckage as in MH 17. 5 The plane lurched violently up and down after the tail broke off. 6 It broke up completely at high altitude.
This leaves then I think two possibilities either a bomb in the rear section OR a mechanical failure of the repair when perhaps the plane hit an air pocket. I do
not know the extent of the previous damage but am sure the Russians would rather blame a bomb and they wouldn`t falsify the evidence..er.. would they?

[Workingman]

Latest news is that all flights from Sharm el Sheikh to the UK are suspended until full security checks are carried out. There are no flights leaving the UK to the resort.

Regarding the Russian Airbus A321 the UK government says:

Number 10 has said it believes the plane "may well have been brought down by an explosive device".

"While the investigation is still ongoing we cannot say categorically why the Russian jet crashed.

"But as more information has come to light we have become concerned that the plane may well have been brought down by an explosive device.

"In light of this and as a precautionary measure we have decided that flights due to leave Sharm for the UK this evening will be delayed.

"That will allow time for a team of UK aviation experts, currently travelling to Sharm, to make an assessment of the security arrangements in place at the airport and to identify whether any further action is required. We expect this assessment to be completed tonight.

"In terms of flights from the UK to Sharm, there are no more departures today."

The PM is to chair a meeting of COBRA at 6:45 pm.

I suppose that this was always on the cards.