BREAKING NEWS: airliner missing within Egyptian FIR
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ventura, California
Age: 65
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The mention of a "thermal signature" has me wondering if they are able to do a spectral analysis of the fireball as seen from the satellite. Done right, this can tell the analyst what is burning (at least on the elemental level), and at what temperature.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True
@ILS27LEFT
I have not seen more than one video -- I think it's only one but with differently edited versions and presentations.
But I did see the original statement of claim published by the local Sinai-based sub group of Isis/Daesh who claimed responsibility very swiftly after the crash within the first 24 hours.
One extra detail that chilled me was the Arabic date on the 'claiming presentation' -- it was the group's assertion it 'brought down' the plane on the first anniversary of the Sinai group's signed allegiance to Isis/Daesh.
Makes it less than random.
Trying to find the link but not so easy now .. brb.
I have not seen more than one video -- I think it's only one but with differently edited versions and presentations.
But I did see the original statement of claim published by the local Sinai-based sub group of Isis/Daesh who claimed responsibility very swiftly after the crash within the first 24 hours.
One extra detail that chilled me was the Arabic date on the 'claiming presentation' -- it was the group's assertion it 'brought down' the plane on the first anniversary of the Sinai group's signed allegiance to Isis/Daesh.
Makes it less than random.
Trying to find the link but not so easy now .. brb.
P.S. for user above ...The video is not the DC9 but the correct aircraft type I am afraid. Very clear.
https://youtu.be/xW9lUPLQag8
I agree that video quality is bad and it looks like a typical fake but due to the fact that too many technical details are perfectly correct ( e.g. aircraft type, altitude, location of explosion, weather, etc) I have to now trust this video. If fake the authors knew absolutely everything about this incident before all of us which is basically impossible e.g. the burnt bodies sitting at the rear indicate explosion located at the rear and so on.
Last edited by ILS27LEFT; 6th Nov 2015 at 20:15.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: auckland, nz
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@oleostrut
Thx .. do you have a link for that ? The only google refs I can find for such a DC9 crash in the Congo says it took place on TO not at altitude ?
http://aviation-safety.net/database/...?id=20080415-0
It is deeply troubling to me that this many days after the video was first published, with thousands seeking evidence, no-one has presented proof or evidential doubt of what flight/explosion is actually shown.
Clearer version on this link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8-5lo191p8
Thx .. do you have a link for that ? The only google refs I can find for such a DC9 crash in the Congo says it took place on TO not at altitude ?
http://aviation-safety.net/database/...?id=20080415-0
It is deeply troubling to me that this many days after the video was first published, with thousands seeking evidence, no-one has presented proof or evidential doubt of what flight/explosion is actually shown.
Clearer version on this link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8-5lo191p8
Last edited by sopwithnz; 6th Nov 2015 at 20:18. Reason: adding comment and url
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The available clues do not have to be conclusive or even the "only reasonable explanation" to take such steps. They only have to be sufficiently feasible that to ignore the potential for additional loss of life would be reckless and irresponsible.
CYA
The mention of a "thermal signature" has me wondering if they are able to do a spectral analysis of the fireball as seen from the satellite
Last edited by auraflyer; 7th Nov 2015 at 04:17.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's hard to believe the bad guys were in just the right place and time to video a bomb blast. The video seems to indicate an explosion on the left side of the aircraft. I would think that if it was a 'shoot down', the missile would have hit one of the engines, assuming it was homing in on the heat.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Thx .. do you have a link for that ? The only google refs I can find for such a DC9 crash in the Congo says it took place on TO not at altitude ?"
The very first video released claiming responsibility did not show an aircraft in flight, just a closeup of the plane burning on the ground. Lots of propaganda along with the pics.
I do not have a link to the video, but I do have a copy I could send you or post/send screenshots.
The very first video released claiming responsibility did not show an aircraft in flight, just a closeup of the plane burning on the ground. Lots of propaganda along with the pics.
I do not have a link to the video, but I do have a copy I could send you or post/send screenshots.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Moscow
Age: 54
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some Russian media, via FB
Unnamed source in MI-6: C-4 explosive (traces discovered) packed in dark liquor bottle with unknow type of fuse. In the rear cargo bay. Set by Russians passengers, who checked their baggage in, got their boarding passes, but never boarded.
No official confirmation or denial yet. So please don't blame me.
Unnamed source in MI-6: C-4 explosive (traces discovered) packed in dark liquor bottle with unknow type of fuse. In the rear cargo bay. Set by Russians passengers, who checked their baggage in, got their boarding passes, but never boarded.
No official confirmation or denial yet. So please don't blame me.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Filmed how
Okay, I know things about cameras, not planes.
I understand that the video circulating seems to be a mobile phone filming a screen that's showing the footage of the plane exploding.
What I'd like to throw into the mix is just how the plane was filmed in the first place?
The perspective seems to be wrong for a plane that is at 33,000 ft filmed from the ground. Not to mention that kind of camera lens would be needed to film an aircraft that close at 6 miles up.
Your average camcorder, even one with even 100x digital zoom wouldn't look like that, nor would a broadcast camera with a real zoom.
If it's genuine, was that footage filmed from something also airborne?..
I understand that the video circulating seems to be a mobile phone filming a screen that's showing the footage of the plane exploding.
What I'd like to throw into the mix is just how the plane was filmed in the first place?
The perspective seems to be wrong for a plane that is at 33,000 ft filmed from the ground. Not to mention that kind of camera lens would be needed to film an aircraft that close at 6 miles up.
Your average camcorder, even one with even 100x digital zoom wouldn't look like that, nor would a broadcast camera with a real zoom.
If it's genuine, was that footage filmed from something also airborne?..
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: auckland, nz
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@livesinafield:
do you know the details of the crashing plane it shows ? that would be helpful. I want it to be BS and agree with you. But no-one so far can source the footage. ...
@oleostrut ... understand, thx. no need for more.
do you know the details of the crashing plane it shows ? that would be helpful. I want it to be BS and agree with you. But no-one so far can source the footage. ...
@oleostrut ... understand, thx. no need for more.
Last edited by sopwithnz; 6th Nov 2015 at 20:35. Reason: addressing livesinafield and ole0strut
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: N52 E21
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Set by Russians passengers, who checked their baggage in, got their boarding passes, but never boarded.
When this rule was cancelled?
Consequences of bomb versus no-bomb for the organisation of the investigation
In general, internationally, if a possible bomb becomes the main lead, then the safety investigation will take second seat to a criminal investigation. Does somebody know which Egyptian authority should take over from the (safety) accident investigators if it becomes a criminal investigation. And how the safety investigation will be subordinated 'under' that.
Is there for instance a special (military) police authority, which will get assistance from the military (specialists). Next to getting support from foreign labs and specialists as is usual in these cases.
Is there for instance a special (military) police authority, which will get assistance from the military (specialists). Next to getting support from foreign labs and specialists as is usual in these cases.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Milland
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Implausible
Respectfully, because I am not a professional pilot or even a private pilot (yet) but I reckon to know more about aviation, and take more of an interest, than the average joe; my first post and hopefully not last.
ILS27LEFT: I had a quick look on YT and could only find one video, which appears to be the same as I watched the other day. It shows a dirty great missile - though not actually being fired. It also appears to show smoke from the tail of the aircraft struck; are missiles not heat-seeking and therefore more likely to strike an engine? Or proximity exploding and therefore not likely to create a single impact point right at the tail as appears to be the case here? And why would black smoke emerge from the tail of an airliner anyway? And would a missile that size not in any case inflict considerably more damage than a) the video shows and b) is evidenced by the wreckage? (I also read in an earlier post about light being on the wrong side, but I have to say I can't tell. And where are the con trails pre-strike?)
Given these observations and the lack of any missile launch/flight trail observed by IR satellites and the fact that IS in that area are not believed to have the tech, the SAM idea has to be a non-starter. Which immediately rubbishes the video I found - though admittedly I don't know its source - which implies a connection between said dirty great missile and the downing of an aircraft.
So, discounting a SAM, as I think is consensus anyway, the other option is a bomb. Seems to me there are three ways to detonate it:
a. pressure/altitude
b. timer
c. remote from the ground.
Now, in order to film this event the camera would have to be extremely close to the flight path.
For a. they'd have had to be directly under the aircraft just as the nominated altitude was reached, possibly needing to know QNH at that point? Implausible.
For b. they'd have had to be directly under the aircraft just as the timer reached its appointed moment. Implausible, given the unpredictability of actual departure time, weather and winds, routing, etc.
For c. they'd have had to be directly under the flight path (how hard is this to predict within a margin of 2-3 miles? I don't know but I'd imagine quite tricky) and known which flight was overhead and had the technology to detonate the bomb remotely from about 6 or 7 miles, which, again, I've read elsewhere is not necessarily easy. For mine, also implausible.
Alternatively, there was a whole network of IS cameramen with remote detonators stationed all over the desert, waiting... Naaah; implausible.
IMHO this video cannot be of the downed Metrojet because of the implausibility of actually being in place to film it at exactly the right moment. Yet they haven't disowned it, or even stopped it being released as they surely would have done if they had indeed brought it down with a bomb but NOT filmed it and if, as they say, they will release 'how we did it' later. Seems to me IS actually had nothing to do with it. I'm still on the side, supported by the evidence in the wreckage, of some sort of mechanical or structural problem.
Or what am I missing?
And condolences to those who lost family and friends in the tragedy. I hope those on board didn't suffer.
ILS27LEFT: I had a quick look on YT and could only find one video, which appears to be the same as I watched the other day. It shows a dirty great missile - though not actually being fired. It also appears to show smoke from the tail of the aircraft struck; are missiles not heat-seeking and therefore more likely to strike an engine? Or proximity exploding and therefore not likely to create a single impact point right at the tail as appears to be the case here? And why would black smoke emerge from the tail of an airliner anyway? And would a missile that size not in any case inflict considerably more damage than a) the video shows and b) is evidenced by the wreckage? (I also read in an earlier post about light being on the wrong side, but I have to say I can't tell. And where are the con trails pre-strike?)
Given these observations and the lack of any missile launch/flight trail observed by IR satellites and the fact that IS in that area are not believed to have the tech, the SAM idea has to be a non-starter. Which immediately rubbishes the video I found - though admittedly I don't know its source - which implies a connection between said dirty great missile and the downing of an aircraft.
So, discounting a SAM, as I think is consensus anyway, the other option is a bomb. Seems to me there are three ways to detonate it:
a. pressure/altitude
b. timer
c. remote from the ground.
Now, in order to film this event the camera would have to be extremely close to the flight path.
For a. they'd have had to be directly under the aircraft just as the nominated altitude was reached, possibly needing to know QNH at that point? Implausible.
For b. they'd have had to be directly under the aircraft just as the timer reached its appointed moment. Implausible, given the unpredictability of actual departure time, weather and winds, routing, etc.
For c. they'd have had to be directly under the flight path (how hard is this to predict within a margin of 2-3 miles? I don't know but I'd imagine quite tricky) and known which flight was overhead and had the technology to detonate the bomb remotely from about 6 or 7 miles, which, again, I've read elsewhere is not necessarily easy. For mine, also implausible.
Alternatively, there was a whole network of IS cameramen with remote detonators stationed all over the desert, waiting... Naaah; implausible.
IMHO this video cannot be of the downed Metrojet because of the implausibility of actually being in place to film it at exactly the right moment. Yet they haven't disowned it, or even stopped it being released as they surely would have done if they had indeed brought it down with a bomb but NOT filmed it and if, as they say, they will release 'how we did it' later. Seems to me IS actually had nothing to do with it. I'm still on the side, supported by the evidence in the wreckage, of some sort of mechanical or structural problem.
Or what am I missing?
And condolences to those who lost family and friends in the tragedy. I hope those on board didn't suffer.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Queensland
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the minimum known circumstances, a good guess would be more than 50% chance that the breakup of the aircraft was the result of a technical malfunction involving the VS / HS and the pressure bulkhead.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: New Jersey USA
Age: 66
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@The Sultan:
I don't have data to disprove this, so I suppose it must be considered possible... but not plausible!
In numerous accident investigations, the last recorded moments of flight data parameters proved to be of great interest and value. Probably, the companies that make DFDRs are well aware of this. Certainly, accident investigation committees (such as the US NTSB) would protest vehemently against a large data loss when an FDR is "knocked out."
I don't have time at the moment to review the FAA CFRs for flight data recorders, but they are pretty thorough and probably include some maximum duration of data permitted to be lost on disconnection. As far as my web search disclosed, actual durations of lost data on disconnection are less than two seconds.
As to "the supplier" of data, in modern fly-by-wire ships like the lost A381, this is an AFDX digital buss operating at 10 megabits / second (minimum). In the case of a disconnect, the last frame may be lost, but this is a matter of milliseconds at most.
________________________________________________________
What you heard about loss of as much as two minutes is true ... but NOT about FDRs! Quick-access recorders (QARs), intended for use in airline operations and quality analysis, are NOT designed as an aid to accident investigation. For example, CVRs and FDRs are hardened against violent impact, extreme heat, and submersion ... QARs are not. I found an accident report saying that a QAR lost two minutes of data because of its buffering.
One common misperception is that FDR's record real time. Before digital they may have, but now the data supplier or the actual recorder buffers the data before writing it to memory. I have heard as long as the last two minutes can be lost.
In numerous accident investigations, the last recorded moments of flight data parameters proved to be of great interest and value. Probably, the companies that make DFDRs are well aware of this. Certainly, accident investigation committees (such as the US NTSB) would protest vehemently against a large data loss when an FDR is "knocked out."
I don't have time at the moment to review the FAA CFRs for flight data recorders, but they are pretty thorough and probably include some maximum duration of data permitted to be lost on disconnection. As far as my web search disclosed, actual durations of lost data on disconnection are less than two seconds.
As to "the supplier" of data, in modern fly-by-wire ships like the lost A381, this is an AFDX digital buss operating at 10 megabits / second (minimum). In the case of a disconnect, the last frame may be lost, but this is a matter of milliseconds at most.
________________________________________________________
What you heard about loss of as much as two minutes is true ... but NOT about FDRs! Quick-access recorders (QARs), intended for use in airline operations and quality analysis, are NOT designed as an aid to accident investigation. For example, CVRs and FDRs are hardened against violent impact, extreme heat, and submersion ... QARs are not. I found an accident report saying that a QAR lost two minutes of data because of its buffering.
Last edited by Etud_lAvia; 7th Nov 2015 at 05:08.