Posted on 09/14/2008 2:30:01 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
Russian jet crash kills all 88 on board
Photo: AFP
PERM, Russia (AFP) - An Aeroflot Boeing-737 jet crashed near a Ural mountains city Sunday killing all 88 passengers and crew on board, after reportedly catching fire in the sky, the airline said.
There were 21 foreigners and seven children on the jet which came down as it prepared to land in Perm on a flight from Moscow. The wreckage cut off the Trans-Siberian railway.
"It was burning while still in the sky and it looked like a falling comet," one female witness told Russia's Vesti-24 television.
The jet narrowly missed a main residential area as it fell shortly after 5:00 am (2300 GMT Saturday).
Aeroflot confirmed there were no survivors and said the dead included nine people from Azerbaijan, five from Ukraine and one each from France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Switzerland, and Turkey.
One passenger was also said to be American but US officials were reportedly checking that information.
(Excerpt) Read more at asia.news.yahoo.com ...
Ping!
Darnski.
I wonder if the guy was the Russian Ron Brown.
Funny how nobody ever talks about the Flight 587 crash in Queens on November 12, 2001 which killed 262.
Almost certainly a shoe bomb, the NTSB just covered it up.
Like it never even happened.
One would think that the Jihadists would be happy to take the credit if they were the perps.
How does a shoe bomb cause the rudder to snap off?
I recall that the crash of 587 was a result of a jack screw problem.
Seems it ran the elevator to the limit and still kept turning, stripping itself.
That POS Blakely was saying it wasn't terrorism hours after the accident, and they concocted a story to make it so.
Lots of eyewitnesses heard a bang and the thing came down in flames.
Because the Pilot had a heavy foot?
You have got to be kidding.
That’s why the rudder landed on the ground long before the plane did...
Watch the Russians blame someone like the Georgians or Ukrainians.
“That’s why the rudder landed on the ground long before the plane did...”
Losing the rudder would not generally cause an aircraft to crash on take-off (or at any other time). Losing a rudder would only impact the aircraft’s turning ability, but it would have next to nothing to do with the aircraft’s ability to get aloft and stay there.
...because nobody believed that their could be another weird fatal crash out of JFK involving an aircraft load of innocents put into the ground by muslims. And since that one I think someone caught on because there hasn’t been another.
Egypt Air, and a couple of others comes to mind.
BUT..
Then there is this http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/others/airbusfatalflaws.html
Wrong.
(Continuing) A rudder would aid in take-off if there was a flank wind that created a drift or yaw in the aircraft’s flight, but it would just keep the aircraft headed in the desired direction and not affect lift.
Let me rephrase that.
Dead wrong.
Losing the rudder would not generally cause an aircraft to crash on take-off (or at any other time). Losing a rudder would only impact the aircraft’s turning ability,
Unfortunately they didn’t lose just the rudder. They lost the entire vertical stabilizer, hence no or very little lateral control, besides being fly by wire, which might have been of some value had the computer been programmed to compensate for the loss which I’m betting was never thought of.
“Wrong.”
Sorry to disappoint you. Pray, tell me how a missing rudder would cause an aircraft to lose its lift.
“Dead wrong.”
I’m waiting for your lesson in aerodynamics. A brief primer would suffice.
I was responding to DB’s implication that the loss of the rudder caused the aircraft to crash. The loss of the rudder would have next to no affect on an aircraft’s lift. But the loss of the entire tail assembly, though, which includes the elevators, would certainly affect lift.
To emphasize my last post,
It was the elevator control that failed.
If I recall, the jack screw kept turning, locking the elevator into a full up position.
It is pretty damn hard to fly if the sick is stuck in a full up position.
“If I recall, the jack screw kept turning, locking the elevator into a full up position. It is pretty damn hard to fly if the sick is stuck in a full up position.”
Wasn’t there a problem with a jack screw on the MD-80 some years back? I think an Air Alaska MD-80 crashed due to that problem.
I never heard Flight 587 blamed on a jack screw. I think people are mixing up the Alaskan Air flight, which (maybe?) was a 727 that had a stripped jack screw and the elevator could not be maintained under control.
There were reports of fire coming out of the rear side of Flight 587 before it crashed as I recall. The “official” conclusion was that the pilot flying the plane swung the rudder back and forth completely immediately after encountering wake turbulence from a preceding aircraft; a 747, and that this cause the tail to snap off.
NOW interestingly, I looked at reports on the 737 that crashed in 1994 (I was traveling to the East coast for training at that time and had just arrived in Connecticut when this happened). Also, a 737 in South America crashed with similar problems (which led them back to the 1994 crash).
What they found was something a mechanic had noted: An actuator for the rudder would behave strangely, not leaving any metal debris because the filter would catch that, but after this actuator (if that’s the correct term - it was like a plunger) was exposed to very cold temperatures, like while in flight, and then hot hydraulic fluid pumped, it would begin to pop in and out; pushing the rudder from one extreme to the next. It would also not respond properly to correction from the cockpit. In both cases, it appeared the pilot was applying the proper correction, under normal circumstances. However, there was no way to know, and no way to correct this problem.
Both 737’s were lost with all life as they rolled over and corkscrewed into the ground.
As I watched that investigation, it made me wonder about the rudder actuator on the Flight 587 plane. The difference was, this was immediately after takeoff, so it doesn’t appear it would have been subjected to the cold at altitude long enough.
Both 737’s were on landing approach when they crashed. And like the 587 crash, the 1994 crash occurred immediately (or more precisely the rudder problem occurred immediately) after crossing wake turbulence, both having been warned by ATC.
Yes, that’s the one. I couldn’t recall if it was a 727 or an MD-8x model.
So sad. I know many Americans go to Perm to adopt children.
Prayers for the souls of those onboard.
Modern jets are inherently unstable without the vertical stabilizer. There's nothing to keep the nose pointed forward. The plane can simply rotate on a horizontal plane without any form of overriding control. Airplanes don't fly well sideways. With modern aircraft the fuselage extends as far in front of the wings as it does behind so it doesn't not act as a stabilizing force (if there's more fuselage in front than behind then it is a positive feedback system without a vertical stabilizer). Flight 587 lost the entire vertical stabilizer (not just the "rudder" flap) in flight.
Here are the videos that I referenced in my post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HheI27FVeec - 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F_WTkqF7sA&feature=related - 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO3Atxz04L0&feature=related - 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIcFEe-u7yo&feature=related - 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNdSa3ODySs&feature=related - 5
Boeing engineer found out the valve REVERSED on the RUDDER.
SCARY. But this has been addressed, it appears on the 737.
Correction.
The other plane with the problem like US Air 427 was United 585 in Colorado Springs. Not South America as I said in my post.
Um, no. No coordinated flight without a rudder.
There have been alot of things I have thought were terrorist attacks, like the Egypt flight that went down and the black box heard a Muslim pilot who was forcing the airplane downward saying Allah Akbar (we now know the significance of that statement with all the beheadings) and they swear it wasn’t a terrorist attack. Their logic was “He had no reason to kill himself”, but neither did the goons on 09/11.
I think they do this to either claim “Our war on terror is working”, or “It’s not terror, go back to sleep”.
“It was burning while still in the sky and it looked like a falling comet,”
Definitely Obama’s fault.
Just picking up on this thread...the flight data recorder clearly showed the over-reaction by the co-pilot to wake turbulence from a departing JAL 747. It then showed that the plane lost yaw control due to the vertical stabilizer snapping off. It was found in the water along the terminal flight path. Losing the vertical stabilizer would not cause the plan to lose lift, but would cause uncontrolled sideslip and loss of control, which will result in a stall.
If you want to rebut the findings of the NTSB on this topic, which would mean that you suspect a wide-ranging government conspiracy among the investigation team, you could at least bring a fundamental understanding of the actual events and some notion of aviation/aerodynamics. Otherwise you should leave the conclusions to experts or put on the tin-foil hat.
Prayers for the family and friends of those who lost their life and for the emergency workers.
“Um, no. No coordinated flight without a rudder.”
Um yes. An aircraft can fly without a rudder, aas a rudder has nothing to do with lift (i.e., an aircraft would have virtually no problem getting airborne and staying airborne without a rudder). The only thing a missing rudder would affect is turning, and even at that a good pilot can turn a multi-engined aircraft by adjusting his engines (i.e., increasing the thrust on one side and decreasing it on the other, etc.); it’s awkward, but certainly doable (as countless WWII bombers proved with rudders shot away). As long as the vertical stabilizer is intact even yaw could be controlled. Again, an aircraft is still aerodynamically capable of maintaining flight (i.e., lift) without a rudder.
“Modern jets are inherently unstable without the vertical stabilizer.”
You weren’t talking about the vertical strailizer: You were talking about the rudder, which is the movable, vertical “flap” at the trailing edge of the vertical stabilizer. The vertical stabilzer combats drift and yaw. The rudder, along with the ailerons, allows for turning.
Why do keep posting nonsense about the “rudder”. The entire vertical stabilizer of the plane was snapped off by control inputs. The plane was in a climbing bank at about 250kts when this occurred. The forces on the aircraft were not benign at this point, and excessive side-slip led to aerodynamic stall almost immediately.
Your argument that planes can be flown without rudders, and that some planes have flown without significant stabilizers in place, all reference a specific situation with it’s own flight dynamics. If you had read the NTSB report you could perhaps understand this, but apparently you’d rather just post uninformed general comments than have a position based on on knowledge.
Your attitude is an insult to those who died. How is your uninformed conspiracy theory any less insulting than that of the 9/11 conspiracy nuts? By falsely attributing this incident to terrorism in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you actually reinforce the outrageous claims of others.
Another attempt by you to apply puddle-depth knowledge and generalizations rather than discuss the facts of the incident. Do you deny that the vertical stabilizer, in it’s entirety, broke from the aircraft? If so, did the conspirators somehow plant an identical one in Jamaica Bay and rush to the crash site to remove evidence of the one on the plane? You know the stabilizer I’m talking about, the one filmed and photographed being lifted from Jamaica Bay after the crash?
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20011130X02321&key=1
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The in-flight separation of the vertical stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond ultimate design that were created by the first officer's unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs. Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics of the Airbus A300-600 rudder system design and elements of the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program.
Seems to me that losing a rudder would affect yaw stability, and too much yaw can induce roll. Then there’s the issue of what else was affected by the rudder being ripped from the aircraft. Fly by wire, sensors and software could have all dealt with the sudden loss in unexpected ways which would have given the guy on the other end of the wire (pilot) a hell of a hard time, and not a lot of time (and sky) to deal with it.
Sorry, you’re correct. When I first posted I was picturing the entire vertical stabilizer missing, and not just the rudder.
ping
bfl
Well actually I was.
My use of the word “rudder” was not precise. I do think of the vertical tail fin as the “rudder” which is not technically correct. I knew the entire vertical tail fin snapped off and thought you did too as that was a well known detail of flight 587 which is what we were discussing.
” By falsely attributing this incident to terrorism in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you actually reinforce the outrageous claims of others.”
Show me where in any of my posts that I attributed this crash to terrorism! Show me and the rest of FR! You are so full of yourself that you jump to conclusions at the drop of a hat. SHOW ME!
Your original posts siad nothing about the vertical stabilizer: You only mentioned the rudder. You never mentioned the vertical stabilizer until others did. I was merely responding to your comment about the rudder, and nothing more. You say you’re an electrical engineer. Perhaps you should stick with that and stay away from aerodynamics.
I thought you were the poster DB. Thus, forget my comment about being an electrical engineer and your previous post being only about the rudder. Other than that, I stand by the rest of my post. Again, I insist you show me where I said that crash was the result of terrorism.
What is your f***ing problem?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
