Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Safety
Russian A-321 in Egypt >

Russian A-321 in Egypt

Search

Notices
Safety Accidents, suggestions on improving safety, etc

Russian A-321 in Egypt

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 11-02-2015, 08:41 AM
  #11  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777
100% wrong. The Russians have already categorically ruled out any sort of systems failure or pilot error.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/wo...T.nav=top-news

“We absolutely exclude the technical failure of the plane, and we absolutely exclude pilot error or a human factor,” Aleksandr A. Smirnov, a former pilot and the airline’s deputy director for aviation, said."

I only wish our western accident investigation processes were so quick and thorough
Yes they blamed Ukrainians for MH17 before the plane hit the ground.
FDXLAG is offline  
Old 11-03-2015, 12:28 AM
  #12  
Gets Weekends Off
 
PILOTGUY's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2005
Posts: 522
Default

Originally Posted by Dougdrvr
Sounds fishy that a loaded A321 could make it to 31,000 feet in 23 minutes after take off? Never flown the A321 but I've always heard they were somewhat of a dog when it comes to climb performance.
I have thought about that as well. I have not flown the 321 either, but several of my friends do and say it is way underpowered.
One puckering photo my friend took at cruise, FL340, near max TOW, showed cruise speed and vls touching.
I would not have been comfortable.

I have definitely lost hope for the news stations ever getting it right, or giving realistic possibilities.
PILOTGUY is offline  
Old 11-03-2015, 06:10 PM
  #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Adlerdriver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,989
Default

Originally Posted by PILOTGUY
One puckering photo my friend took at cruise, FL340, near max TOW, showed cruise speed and vls touching.
Bad judgement always been a problem with this friend of yours?
Adlerdriver is offline  
Old 11-03-2015, 08:10 PM
  #14  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
Default

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/rus...6916?cid=sm_tw

Last edited by iceman49; 11-03-2015 at 08:21 PM.
iceman49 is offline  
Old 11-04-2015, 04:17 AM
  #15  
Junior Senior
 
LNL76's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: Whiskey Papa
Posts: 2,851
Default

If this turns out to be the cause, I will say I'm surprised it took this long to happen. US airlines/airports AND the government had better smarten up before it's too late here.
LNL76 is offline  
Old 11-04-2015, 04:13 PM
  #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2014
Posts: 923
Default

This picture shows a clean break forward of the vertical stabilizer, but on the TOP of the fuselage:

http://cdn4.scmp.com/sites/default/f...?itok=fAkC27qn

Wasn't China Airlines 611 broken at the bottom of the structure first, and if so, would that have created a clean break at the top? It will be interesting to see what a metallurgist makes of it.
Flightcap is offline  
Old 11-04-2015, 06:07 PM
  #17  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,075
Default

Originally Posted by LNL76
If this turns out to be the cause, I will say I'm surprised it took this long to happen. US airlines/airports AND the government had better smarten up before it's too late here.

I disagree. I have complete faith that my government is serious about keeping me safe.

Hetman is offline  
Old 11-04-2015, 06:11 PM
  #18  
whatever
 
Vital Signs's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Posts: 421
Default

Maybe not the case here but......

Someone should also keep an eye out for 400 SAMS that were "displaced"

'400 surface-to-air missiles' were 'STOLEN' from Libya during the Benghazi attack, says whistle-blowers' attorney | Daily Mail Online

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...-digenova-says
Vital Signs is offline  
Old 11-04-2015, 11:32 PM
  #19  
Moderate Moderator
Thread Starter
 
UAL T38 Phlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Default

Originally Posted by Flightcap
This picture shows a clean break forward of the vertical stabilizer, but on the TOP of the fuselage:

http://cdn4.scmp.com/sites/default/f...?itok=fAkC27qn

Wasn't China Airlines 611 broken at the bottom of the structure first, and if so, would that have created a clean break at the top? It will be interesting to see what a metallurgist makes of it.
My degree is mechanical engineering, and I've done some accident-investigation work.

Just as in electriciy, where an electron takes the path of least resistance, so too goes fracture propagation.

It might result in a clean break, seen here.....or it might not. Too many variables. Often times, the last portion to fail shows signs of twisting and deformation, as it carries loads never intended for it. This may result in a jagged edge.

Keep in mind that in positive-g flight, the top of any fuselage will mostly be tensile (tension) loads, while the bottom will be in compression, due to the fuselage's weight, plus the typical download of the horizontal stabilizer.

Failure in tension is mostly governed by material strength...steel stronger than aluminum, etc. Each alloy has specific numbers.

Failure in compression is usually about column-buckling, and that is complex with many variables.

Now, if there were a sudden catastrophic INCREASE in cabin pressure, tensile loads would increase (like over-inflating a balloon), whiles compression loads would decrease.

Enough to cause a failure? Or a clean break?

Too early to say.
UAL T38 Phlyer is offline  
Old 11-04-2015, 11:41 PM
  #20  
Moderate Moderator
Thread Starter
 
UAL T38 Phlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Default

I'm dubious.

To start, there are scads of Stingers missing from our "help" to the Afghanis 30 years ago. Estimates range from hundreds to low thousands.

But the bigger question for the article: why would the CIA store 400 stingers in a country with no air threat?

As to his claim that embassies were closed because someone could fire a Stinger at it.....too much Hollywood. The warheads in a MANPAD are basically a grenade, so an RPG would be worse, and God knows how many of those are out there.

Finally: if he actually knew how these things guide (assuming they still work), he would know it's not a point-and-shoot Bazooka.

You could aim it at a building, and it might jink and go after a Shwarma Stand.
UAL T38 Phlyer is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Jack Bauer
Safety
25
05-17-2012 05:58 AM
Jesse
Foreign
2
12-07-2011 02:54 PM
MichaelG
Foreign
13
07-29-2009 01:30 AM
stoki
Hangar Talk
26
08-21-2008 06:21 PM
ToiletDuck
Hangar Talk
22
02-14-2008 05:30 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices