Posted on 11/02/2015 7:51:40 AM PST by Navy Patriot
Don’t forget the fatal Alaska Airlines flight that crashed by nosediving due to an improperly maintained jackscrew in the tail.
The AIRLINE is claiming it was not airframe failure.
The Russians will be more effective in their fight against ISIS than the Americans will be because Putin will not put restrictions on his forces like Obama will put on ours. Let Putin fight ISIS. Putin is no muzzie.
Remember ISIS was proud to say they did it! The fools should have kept quiet and said it was Allahs Will. But No! They took credit—so Russia now has every right to hit back hard. A new chance to test their nukes and turn iSIS Land into a glowing wastland. War will be over when all of ISIS is dead or dying of radiation poisoning. No Islamic nation will dare to oppose Russia after that demonstration.
Flight data reported by the transponder indicates the airplane had wide oscillations in altitude before breaking up. The flight data isn't perfectly reliable, but I think it's enough to indicate that it wasn't a sudden explosion in flight, which would have terminated the data reporting.
It could indicate they were caught in convective activity, but I haven't followed this closely to determine if they were in the vicinity of thunderstorms. At that speed, they are already in the "yellow arc" -- which means the structural limits of the airplane can be exceeded by sudden updrafts or downdraft.
The airplane did have a tail strike over a decade ago. If pitch control was lost or compromised, they would have lost the ability to maintain altitude.
Yes, duty of authority to err to the safe.
Every point correct.
Yes.
Or what really happened to TWA800.
Or a few/dozen/hundred/thousand others...
✔ ✔ and ✔
“indicates the airplane had wide oscillations in altitude before breaking up”
That is what you might expect to see if the tail section broke off. The section that was repaired a few years ago but could have had further latent damage.
The enemedia again, I'll never forge what the US Government did to so many ordinary Americans that just looked up in the sky and reported that they saw a missile trail.
Yup, that's what I thought, too. But, it was nice for someone else to explicitly post it. :-)
Something that occurred to me afterwards: even if there was no convective activity, it's possible that Clear Air Turbulence could have induced this.
It wouldn't normally be an issue, but if there was undetected damage from the previous tail strike, CAT could have finally stressed it to fail -- especially after a decade of stress to make it worse.
A lot of people were ignored, discredited and smeared by the gov’t and its agencies. I haven’t been in a commercial airliner since July 1996. If I can’t drive there, I don’t need to go there.
We may never be told the truth, a’la TWA 800, but an examination of the wreckage will reveal what caused the plane to disintegrate. Bombs leave residue and long term unrepaired damage, say from a tail impact during a landing 11 or 12 years ago, should be detectable. But whether any of the truth becomes public will be up to the Russians and they don’t exactly have a fabulous record on that score (not that we do lately either).
Had the same thought; my knowledge of Russian tort law is non-existent, but I would imagine the liability for the airline and its insurance carriers would be lower if the crash could be blamed on “external factors.”
It would be interesting to know if the Airbus was purchased or leased by the airline. Some of the lease agreements may include contract maintenance by an outside firm (in some cases, another carrier), ensuring the aircraft was well-maintained. If the Russian firm purchased the jet outright, then it was likely repaired by their maintenance staff and it’s no secret that some of those outfits cut corners and don’t maintain jets to the same standards as western carriers.
Also, there have been few details about who had access to the jet on the ground. Did the airline have their own baggage handlers/security on the ramp, or did they contract it out with a local firm?
At this point, I think the only potential cause that can be ruled out is a MANPAD; the jet was above the envelope for shoulder-fired SAMs when the pilot declared an emergency. However, you can extend the range if the missile is fired from a peak elevation. The most advanced MANPADs can reach targets up to 23,000 ft; the jet was at 31K when it ran into trouble; there are peaks in the 7-8,000 foot range in the southern Sinai, but it looks like they are west of the plane’s flight path.
But what kind of AA did Syria have at bases that were overrun by ISIS forces in the past 4 years and are they all accounted for?
I’m just saying.....
:-) Those are some well built tanks the ISIS boys are riding around in. (ours).
Somewhere I heard that the 31,000 height is - wishful thinking.
It was really lower - when the facts come out. I heard.
The airplane was not Russian. It was being chartered from an Irish company.
Here’s a scary fact: there are upwards of 100,000 MANPADs that remain unaccounted for on the world arms market. Most were exported by the U.S., Russia and China and simply disappeared after delivery—sometimes in circumstances like those in Syria and Libya; a government falls, or is threatened, and the weapons vaults are cleaned out.
If it’s any consolation, most of the missing MANPADs are first-generation SA-7/14s or U.S.-made Redeyes, well past their service life. And the terrorists who sometimes acquire these weapons know very little about proper maintenance or employment. However, there are also examples of our troops capturing old MANPADs from the Taliban in Afghanistan. Based on the serial number, the weapon should have been junk, but when they plugged the battery in, the gripstock and missile powered up, and the weapon was still operational.
In some instances, a shoulder-fired SAM should not be sufficient to bring down a jetliner. However, it all depends on where the missile strikes the jet, proximity to fuel and electrical systems, etc. Since the jet had only been airborne a few minutes, it probably had a full fuel load, so plenty of JP-8 to power a fire or explosion if a missile hit the Airbus.
Still think the MANPAD scenario is a longshot, at best. Bomb or maintenance-related mechanical failure is much more likely.
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.