Two Russian Civilian Airlines Lost on Radar

[raedor 8]

Then theres no question.....

...the strange thing is, usually the Chechens claim responsibility for thier acts of violence, i've heard of nobody claiming it.

a spokesman of the chechen rebels around Aslan Baschadow that they are not responsible for these crashes.

[theavonlady 2]

...the strange thing is, usually the Chechens claim responsibility for thier acts of violence, i've heard of nobody claiming it.  

On the contrary! They denied it. Check the major news articles. Somewhere it's mentioned.

edit: just ask Raedor!

[Akira 0]

A hostage situation was not voice radioed but apparently by transponder, which can easily be explained by a variety of circumstances (possibly trying to switch to the emergency frequency).

An "exploding" airliner can easily be explained. The main source of that information is witnesses who are notoriously unreliable. The "explosion" could have easily been teh plane breaking up due to overstress (especially if diluted fuel, killed the engines and power, and the pilot was trying to over-correct, or if there was bad weather, as has been reported).

[bn880 5]

Doubt that overstress theory.

[Badgerboy 0]

A hostage situation was not voice radioed but apparently by transponder, which can easily be explained by a variety of circumstances (possibly trying to switch to the emergency frequency).

An "exploding" airliner can easily be explained. The main source of that information is witnesses who are notoriously unreliable. The "explosion" could have easily been teh plane breaking up due to overstress (especially if diluted fuel, killed the engines and power, and the pilot was trying to over-correct, or if there was bad weather, as has been reported).

Good point about the transponder code.

7500 is the hijack code, while 7600 for example is for loss of comms, and 7700 is for an emergency.

Only takes a couple of digits to get it wrong.

[Supah 0]

A hostage situation was not voice radioed but apparently by transponder, which can easily be explained by a variety of circumstances (possibly trying to switch to the emergency frequency).

An "exploding" airliner can easily be explained. The main source of that information is witnesses who are notoriously unreliable. The "explosion" could have easily been teh plane breaking up due to overstress (especially if diluted fuel, killed the engines and power, and the pilot was trying to over-correct, or if there was bad weather, as has been reported).

Lets say the fuel came from a tanker of which the inside of the tank had started to corrode. The corroded metal flakes off, flakes get in to fuel. Fuel is pumped in to airplanes tanks, fuel with flakes get into fuel lines clogging it up. Pressure builds in the fuelline, after a while the line breaks spilling fuel all over a hot running engine ..... There are lots of options. If one of its engines caught fire that would qualify as a pretty dangerous situation Not saying this explains it but is a likely scenario. Guess we will have to wait for them to find blackboxes if those were carried.

[Akira 0]

Doubt that overstress theory.

Why? I can name you half a different over-stress accidents in the last 20-30 years, and these were on newish planes, not ones from the Cold War.

And given the possible emergency situation, with loss of power, possible foul weather, and extreme pilot stress, it is indeed a possibility, especially considering major sections of the plane were found in different locations, indicating SOMETHING failed first.

EDIT: In fact found this. Same airplane type (not saying this is the cause though):

Date of Accident: 06 June 1994

Airline: China Northwest Airlines

Aircraft: Tupolev TU-154B

Location: Xi'an, China

Registration: B-2694

Previous Registrations: ---

Flight Number: 2303

Fatalities: 160:160

MSN: ---

Line Number: ---

Engine Manufacturer: ---

Engine Model: ---

Year of Delivery: ---

Accident Description: The aircraft broke up in-flight after a malfunction in the autopilot overstressed the airframe. Mechanical error.

[bn880 5]

Basically, we have to give this time to find the truth. A lot of speculation, but really we have no contrete sources of information to make educated guesses.

I don't think 2 planes had bad fuel and both pilots overstressed airframes, that's all.

[Akira 0]

Basically, we have to give this time to find the truth. A lot of speculation, but really we have no contrete sources of information to make educated guesses.

I don't think 2 planes had bad fuel and both pilots overstressed airframes, that's all.

Indeed. Just throwing possibilities out there (as I am taking an Aviation Safety course now).

I don't believe the possibility of BOTH pilots overstressing, though it is possible in one (where two main pieces of the plane were found).

[Akira 0]

Flight Data Recorders have been recovered and are being analyzed. I am not sure if they contained CVR's as well.

EDIT:

Quote[/b] ]The flight data recorders -- three from the larger Tu-154 and two from the Tu-134 -- may make clear what happened.

The cockpit voice recorder, particularly, would tell investigators if anything happened inside the cockpit.

Investigators said all five recorders were in good shape on the outside, but they could not vouch for the integrity of the recordings within until they opened them in Moscow.

Apparently the dumbass press is lumping the CVRs with the FDRs.

[theavonlady 2]

Reports coming in now that the planes may have collided.

[Akira 0]

Reports coming in now that the planes may have collided.

How could they have collided? I thought they were a hundred miles away from each other???

[Mister Frag 0]

It isn't easy for flaked-off metal chips to cause such failure.

First of all, you'd need a lot of flaked-off metal to do this. Second, there are filters, both mesh filters and magnetic ones, to deal with different types of fuel contamination (though I'm not sure how the Tupolevs are equipped). There are also filters to deal with water contamination (condensation).

Two separate planes crashing within minutes of each other (almost at the top of the hour) is just too weird. To me that is a probable sign of a coordinated attempt to take control of the flights.

[edc 0]

It really sounds like there are way too many coincidences to not be some sort of terrorist act. Though, it does seem different than most of the other Chechen terrorist attacks(ie, most Chechen terrorist attacks have been in subways, theaters, etc, around Moscow or other major cities). Have they ever tried to hijack or bomb a plane before? The hijacking transponder code is intriguing. I'm not sure why they would hijack an airliner and just crash it(ie, not crash it into something). Though I guess people like that wouldn't be the most logical or rational people.

The fuel thing sounds like kind of a stretch. I could maybe see and engine exploding or catching on fire, but I doubt they whole aircraft would disentegrate, not once, but twice.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Have they ever tried to hijack or bomb a plane before?

Yes. The one I remember is this one in 2001

Bloody end to Chechen hijack

Chechen terrorists also planned to capture a russian nuke sub. Not that unlikely if you check in wich condition the fleet and the security around is.

Makes me shiver...

Anyway, there are a lot of possibilities for the plane accident right now.

Edit: I revised my opinion after reading some articles and reading more detail. I´m pretty sure it was a terrorist attack.

Sunday elections..timed...emergency signals....voice comms

Looks very much like terrorists.

[MSpencer 0]

In the airline industry, Aeroflot is viewed as the worst airline in the world, FYI. It's always had safety problems, and this isn't any different than what's happened in the past. They don't even know how many people were on the plane. US carriers know their names since TWA 800. I have family working for the airlines, TWA got hit big because they didn't have the exact names! The FAA came down hard on them, they don't do that on Russia. Chances are nobody will know exactly who died.

Diluted fuel is a possibility, but I doubt it. Aviation fuel is normally checked for stuff like that. It's possible for someone to dilute the fuel on the ground, but it's hard to do because you would probably have to pump water into the plane's fuel tanks until it reached half capacity, and even then, it wouldn't even take off. If it was diluted fuel, the engines would probably not even start, but then again, we're not talking about Pratt and Whitneys or Rolls-Royces here. They've got numerous safety features that the TU-134 and TU-154 engines don't.

Midair collisions are pretty impossible in the sky. The only danger is on the ground (Remember Singapore Airlines?) when someone might taxi onto a taxiway without alerting ATC, but that is far fetched. The sky is big. It's hard to ram your equivalent of a 727 into the equivalent of a 737 in the air, especially with ATC vectoring you away from other aircraft. Also, can anyone explain the 3+ minute difference in the dropping of radar signatures? Nope. They would be very, very close together, then they'd vanish.

9/11-2? No. No way. If it was an attempt, it was poorly executed by total amatures. When you plan an operation like 9/11, you don't make mistakes. That's why it was so successful. Nobody makes mistakes when doing operations like that.

Bombs? Possible. It would explain the explosion, and that parts of the fuselage are strewn about and not still together. Jets are hearty, even abused Russian copies of Boeing and Airbus airliners. They can crash into the ground at 600 knots and they'll still be relatively together. Look at the AA A300 that fell out of the sky after leaving JFK. Then look at the Pan Am 747 that got blown up. The whole first class cabin was practically in one piece. Even TW800. It blew up and it was in relatively large pieces. I was actually at the memorial service in JFK and I saw the plane reconstruction from all the debris. There were big parts almost intact. The Aeroflot airliners look the same.

Mechanical? Possible. There have been many problems like that. The NTSB report on TW800 was the spark in the centerline fuel tank (I personally believe it was an AEGIS missile because of the missile exhaust on the seats and the massive holes in the aircraft, but that's just me.) caused the explosion. This is plausible for this situation also, and the effects are similar to that of a bomb. In 1998ish, a Delta MD80's engines had a problem. One of the fans came out of the engine housing and into the aircraft, chopping up two employees on it's way out. Seats 32E and F. I've sat there many times on standby tickets and I can't say I like it. Feels a bit unsafe since that, but then again, how could that cause an explosion, and that doesn't explain one of the planes. It only explains that plane engines are not infallible.

The Chechens are making sense on this one. Maybe the GOVERNMENT says they didn't do it, but what about the people? Chechen terrorists even take video tapes of their murders of Russian soldiers. If the government did sponsor it, they'd probably be invaded by Russia again. I don't blame them for shirking responsibility if they caused it.

To be honest, most people ignore the blatant facts. It had to be a bomb or a mechanical. All 747 holding airlines post-TW800 report pulled the faulty plug out of the fuel system. All MD80 engines were put under increased scrutiny after the 1998 incident. Airport security was practically tripled after Lockerbe. Time will tell what caused this, but my money is on a bomb.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]In the airline industry, Aeroflot is viewed as the worst airline in the world, FYI.

Actually since the break up of the Soviet Union, Aeroflot has made significant safety strides. pre-breakup they averaged about a crash or two a year. After, and when they become subject to Western safety standards, their accident rate dropped. It also helped that at the breakup, Tupoluv, and Ilyushin had access to Western systems and avionics, and the air carriers had access to safety training.

Also, Aeroflot now is not the Aeroflot of the Soviet Union. Upon the breakup, Aeroflot was broken up into a variety of state carriers.

Also, Aeroflot wasn't one of the airlines involved in this accident.

Quote[/b] ]Diluted fuel is a possibility, but I doubt it. Aviation fuel is normally checked for stuff like that. It's possible for someone to dilute the fuel on the ground, but it's hard to do because you would probably have to pump water into the plane's fuel tanks until it reached half capacity, and even then, it wouldn't even take off. If it was diluted fuel, the engines would probably not even start, but then again, we're not talking about Pratt and Whitneys or Rolls-Royces here. They've got numerous safety features that the TU-134 and TU-154 engines don't.

Diluted fuel is more likely to take down a general aviation plane. One would hope or think, that a fuel carrier would not dilute their fuel, whether by accident or not. Fuel is contracted out, much like catering, so neither airline would necessarily be responsible for it.

But in the case of diluted fuel, the engines would indeed start, and would quite possibly even get them off the ground. The engines might run roughly as a clue that something is wrong. But the only real clue, would be when the engines quit altogether.

Quote[/b] ]Midair collisions are pretty impossible in the sky. The only danger is on the ground (Remember Singapore Airlines?) when someone might taxi onto a taxiway without alerting ATC, but that is far fetched. The sky is big. It's hard to ram your equivalent of a 727 into the equivalent of a 737 in the air, especially with ATC vectoring you away from other aircraft. Also, can anyone explain the 3+ minute difference in the dropping of radar signatures? Nope. They would be very, very close together, then they'd vanish.

Mid air collisions are rare, but hardly impossible. The DHL collision over Switzerland a couple years ago, comes to mind, when a 757 hit a TU-154B. When it comes down to it, if in that situation, it is almost impossible for humans to see a plane traveling towards them, at any angle.

Airlines follow airways, and do not just wander about, even when on GPS. ATC is responsible for separation, except in certain circumstances, where the rule is "see-and-avoid" (a extremely inadequate rule it turns out).

But I agree. Radar information would have said right away if it was a collision, and an "investigation" would not be necessary (again, reference the Switzerland collision).

Quote[/b] ]Bombs? Possible. It would explain the explosion, and that parts of the fuselage are strewn about and not still together. Jets are hearty, even abused Russian copies of Boeing and Airbus airliners. They can crash into the ground at 600 knots and they'll still be relatively together. Look at the AA A300 that fell out of the sky after leaving JFK. Then look at the Pan Am 747 that got blown up. The whole first class cabin was practically in one piece. Even TW800. It blew up and it was in relatively large pieces. I was actually at the memorial service in JFK and I saw the plane reconstruction from all the debris. There were big parts almost intact. The Aeroflot airliners look the same.

Bombs and over-stress would explain both (or some sort of structural failure). But as I already said, it is highly unlikely that structural failure hit two planes 3 minutes apart. But then again I remember when A300 went down in NY around 9/11/2003. People were convinced it was terrorism, and explosions were reported there too.

Explosions can easily be explained by any form of break-up, with the subsequent breach and ignition of the wing tanks.

But large parts would be expected in most situations. As you stated, airliners are sturdy, and the amount of explosive needed to bring one down is relatively small. But large pieces are only possible, when the plane breaks up prior to impact with the ground (like PA103). So evidence is that there was a structural failure prior to ground impact.

If it is a high speed impact with the ground or mountain (9/11 United, Pentagon 757, Columbia American 757, Tokyo 747SP, US Airways 737) the plane will disintegrate, sometimes into amazingly small pieces.

Quote[/b] ]Mechanical? Possible. There have been many problems like that. The NTSB report on TW800 was the spark in the centerline fuel tank (I personally believe it was an AEGIS missile because of the missile exhaust on the seats and the massive holes in the aircraft, but that's just me.) caused the explosion. This is plausible for this situation also, and the effects are similar to that of a bomb. In 1998ish, a Delta MD80's engines had a problem. One of the fans came out of the engine housing and into the aircraft, chopping up two employees on it's way out. Seats 32E and F. I've sat there many times on standby tickets and I can't say I like it. Feels a bit unsafe since that, but then again, how could that cause an explosion, and that doesn't explain one of the planes. It only explains that plane engines are not infallible.

I won't even get into the TWA800 evidence (and half-brained conspiracy theories).

But other than that I will agree with you. Again, mechanical on two planes within 3 minutes of each other? Fishy to say the least.

Also, that is why most airline manufactures are now staying with under-wing designs. In case of an UEF, damage is localized and away from the passenger cabin.

But again. Because of the statistical unlikely hood of dual mechanical or structural failures, I too will remain with terrorism until the report comes out.

[MSpencer 0]

Quote[/b] ]Also, Aeroflot wasn't one of the airlines involved in this accident.

They have the same planes, same personnel, and same maintenance crews. I don't care if they made strides in safety, in reality, the only stride is the order of brand new 737s which will eventually go to hell. That's why for Europe, I'd fly BA (Well for an ID90, yeah), and for the US, I fly AA (Free).

Quote[/b] ]Diluted fuel is more likely to take down a general aviation plane. One would hope or think, that a fuel carrier would not dilute their fuel, whether by accident or not. Fuel is contracted out, much like catering, so neither airline would necessarily be responsible for it.

You underestimate the economic situation in Russia. People will do ANYTHING to save money in Russia. The economy is totally gone, Putin is helping it, but the economy just exploded after the fall of the Soviet Union. Think of what US carriers do to cut costs! Let's take some examples.

From Flagship News, the AA newspaper:

Delta is asking for 1 billion from it's pilots.

United is considering dumping a ton of pensions.

US Airways is asking for 800 million from employees

United is being denied financial aid.

From other sources:

American is laying off thousands of ramp workers.

American is taking away the 45 minutes extra air time. It's now 30.

United is laying off a good portion of it's employees.

From 1st hand accounts:

US Airways is firing people for no reason. But it ends up biting them in the ass because they come back, win their cases, and walk home with backpay and full benefits, plus emotional damages. Wonderul legal strategy boys, go get em.

Delta is offerring a $250,000 payoff to all employees who want to leave now (Pension cut).

They're taking drastic measures, now think of how bad it is in Russia! The economy's still ailing over 13 years after the Iron Curtain fell, and now they've got two crashes to consider, and Aeroflot which is now the 355 airlines of Russia must answer for it's safety lapses. A bomb or a mechanical caused this.

Quote[/b] ]But in the case of diluted fuel, the engines would indeed start, and would quite possibly even get them off the ground. The engines might run roughly as a clue that something is wrong. But the only real clue, would be when the engines quit altogether.

The pilots would probably feel decreased lift, and the controls would be sluggish. Gas prices are high, in fact many airlines are having problems with gas prices, and that means that people will try to cut costs. I would think that the pilots would declare an emergency and put her down if the engines were running roughly, and the lift was decreased. But then again, pilots are starting to think with dollar signs.

[Shalashaska 0]

Just a minor though, not as well into this subject as most are.

Perhaps the Chechens did in fact hijack the planes, but they were blown out of the sky from the Russian Air force, maybe out of fear of a 9-11 for their nation?

We've been shown the boldness of Chechen terrorists, as well as a sometimes equally bold reaction by Russian Authorities (The hostage situation involving the theader?). I wouldnt rule out sabotage even if the planes are in shoddy shape.

[MSpencer 0]

I doubt it. Highly doubt it.

[ozanzac 0]

Mspencer, The russian government still has a 51% stake in Aeroflot. I would be VERY suprised if this accident is a result of cost cutting.

Futhermore. Aeroflot IS modernising it's fleet. Among its fleet are Boeing 767's and 777's, as well as Airbus A-310's. But this is irelevant......CONSIDERING NEITHER OF THE PLANES WERE AEROFLOT!

The Planes that crashed came from Sibir Airlines (set up from Aeroflot Siberia), or Siberia Airlines, which has a couple of Airbuses to its name, and the other from the small regional airline of Volga-Aviaexpress.

Predjudice such as 'Oh, those poor Russian's, They'll do anything for a buck' shows just how very poorly informed you are. Yes, dollars do make the world go round, but the situation of the domestic market in Russia is very different to the over-saturated market of america.

Quote[/b] ]The FAA came down hard on them, they don't do that on Russia. Chances are nobody will know exactly who died.

Oh really? Statements like that are extremly arrogant. Especially when one of the airlines created an English page regarding the victims of the accident, even though none of the passengers were english speaking. http://english.s7.ru/1047/list.shtml.

I see fuel contamination as the most probable cause of the accidents if hijacking was not.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]They have the same planes, same personnel, and same maintenance crews. I don't care if they made strides in safety, in reality, the only stride is the order of brand new 737s which will eventually go to hell. That's why for Europe, I'd fly BA (Well for an ID90, yeah), and for the US, I fly AA (Free).

As I stated before, this is not Aeroflot.

I have heard very many first hand accounts of teh new Aeroflot, and they are all different then your pre-Cold War version of them.

Drastic measures do not include diluting fuel, which would be stupid anyway as the plane would not run correctly. And as stated, fuel is contracted out, and the airline would have very little to do with it, as the fuel comes from a tank truck.

And the pilots would not feel decreased lift, as that is a function of the wings, but as I stated, engines running roughly, mostly through their gauges as fluctuating RPMs, and possible load bangs as the engines "backfire" or a compressor stall is caused.

[MSpencer 0]

Let's go through airplanes 101.

Engines create thrust which in turn causes air to go over the wings, causing lift. Less thrust from less potent fuel which makes the engine run horribly would in turn cause less lift.

And it IS Aeroflot. Same people, same airplanes, probably same fuel, in reality it's Aeroflot under a new name primarily using the same old crappy airliners which are ready to fall apart.

Quote[/b] ]The russian government still has a 51% stake in Aeroflot. I would be VERY suprised if this accident is a result of cost cutting.

So you're an economist now? How do you know they're not cutting costs? The Russian government, as with all governments, hates to spend money if it can cut costs. Airlines cut costs all the time.

Quote[/b] ]The Planes that crashed came from Sibir Airlines (set up from Aeroflot Siberia), or Siberia Airlines, which has a couple of Airbuses to its name, and the other from the small regional airline of Volga-Aviaexpress.

I don't care if all the planes they have are 777s and they had one TU154 and one TU134, two A310s didn't crash, two Tupelovs crashed. This also cements my proof that Sibir Airlines IS Aeroflot!

Quote[/b] ]Predjudice such as 'Oh, those poor Russian's, They'll do anything for a buck' shows just how very poorly informed you are. Yes, dollars do make the world go round, but the situation of the domestic market in Russia is very different to the over-saturated market of america.

I never said that, stop putting words into my mouth, and stop trying to call me a racist.

I'm not sure YOU understand the economic situation in Russia. How about proof? Hmm?

After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia's economy collapsed. Here we are 13 years later, and it's just returning, but it's still ailing. Any airline will do anything for extra money. In fact, I cited the entire industry as being at fault, so why don't you actually read my post before you respond with this crap that I'm a racist and a bigot?

Quote[/b] ]Futhermore. Aeroflot IS modernising it's fleet. Among its fleet are Boeing 767's and 777's, as well as Airbus A-310's. But this is irelevant......CONSIDERING NEITHER OF THE PLANES WERE AEROFLOT!

Quote[/b] ]The Planes that crashed came from Sibir Airlines (set up from Aeroflot Siberia),

Conflicting statements within literally 2 sentences of each other. Oh please. Make sense.

"Wait, it's not Aeroflot! But then again it was made from Aeroflot! But wait that means that it wasn't Aeroflot directly! No wait they were Aeroflot planes! No I mean it wasn't Aeroflot!"

Stop attempting to confuse me and call me a bigot, and try reading a post before responding with a hair brained response to try and demonize me as a racist.

[Pathy 0]

I agree with Ozanzac and Akira actually....i'd like to know how much do you actually know about Russian airlines? Because you do sound as if your just coming out with some slightly racist crap about how everything in Russia is poor and falling apart. When i was in Russia most things seemed very modern and just as good as the UK...some things even better, of course some things worse (thier Lada police cars made me laugh)....plus the girls on the check-in desk at Moscow airport are SHIT HOT

[MSpencer 0]

Again, the economy is coming back together, but if you start to really look at how badly screwed Russia was in 1995, and look now, you can see a drastic change. Yes, the cars are new and the country's coming back together, but it's hard enough for a country that hasn't had a crash like that of 1991's airlines to stay in business.

Just think about it. 14 years after what was essentially Russia's great depression, fuel prices are at an all time high and passenger loads are decreasing. People cut costs, it's just a fact of business. Airlines do it ruthlessly, because jets are expensive. The old TU airliners more so, that's why all of the Eastern Bloc airlines are switching to Airbus and Boeing. At least admit this, the TU154 and TU134 have less reliable engines than those of western airliners. They're also gas hogs, which means more money must be thrown into gas than with other aircraft. Ok, couple thousand dollars more right there.

Russia's still got an ailing economy, kind of like 1930s US, getting back to a world power's economy but still fragile. Not totally unstable, but not the most stable economy out there. There at like a 1950s Japan level. Getting there, but still a long road to full economic recovery. I have to applaud Putin now, because he's made literal leaps in economic policy.

So then you have to tack on more money for the less efficient, older engines (Think 707-era engines. Gas hogs and dirty.) and the economy is still fragile. Ready to cut costs yet? Everyone does.

Now let's look at it in the eyes of the gas provider. You're providing jet fuel, but petroleum is expensive... very expensive. Gas prices are simply on the rise, but the airlines refuse to pay more, so what do you do? You could add fuel to the water at the risk of problems with the engines, but then again, you're no aeronautical engineer, so the worst that could happen is that maybe the engines won't start once. Or at least you think.

Well this has saved you a couple hundred thousand dollars, by simply making it a fuel mix, so you're happy. Company's doing fine, and the airlines aren't paying any more for their gas. What they don't know can't hurt them, right?

In any event, I'm not saying racist remarks. I'm not saying "those stupid russians suck economically", no, I'm saying they're still in a rocky time period, and their economy is recovering from arguably the worst depression in human history. I'm PRAISING Putin, not calling him a moron!

Plus it was probably sabotage or a bomb. 3 minutes apart? Isn't that a bit odd?