Russian Jet Crash

When making a post, please ensure it complies with this site's Main Rules at all times.
  • https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6…lane-crash.html

    I see a russian jet came hurtling down to do a belly flop landing, and burn up on Moscows Sheremetyevo airport .

    Couple of observations:

    People at the back where the fire was died cos the morons at the front stopped to grab thier hand luggage whilst evacuating.

    Pilot says it was a lightning strike. This is odd. Clearly the jet has suffered a catastrophic fire in the tail section., which has then spread forwards.

    When lightning strikes an aircraft, the traditional all alumium alloy body acts like a Faraday cage and conducts the bolt round the jet and off the bottom, with no damage. Modern aircraft started using composite materials - layers of resins and carbon fibre with layers of copper foil. This doesnt act as a faraday cage so well, and its possible the composite failed when struck, letting some of the bolt pass thru the jet and igniting a fire. If this is the case, it means these jets arent safe to fly near a thunderhead. This jet is a halfway point, it has composite wings and tail and a metal body. So i wonder if the body was struck and the bolt tracked backwards down the jet until it found a weakness, an entry point, at the junction of the body and tail.

    Apart from 9 aircraft being recalled a few years ago because they had cracks in the tail, its otherwise been a reliable aircraft, thers been one or two cockups but thats more to do with rubbish support (one jet was grounded cos he engines were removed for servicing and it was then discovered there was no substitute engines to swap them out with to keep the jet working)

    Thers also some confusion, official reports say the plane caught fire upon hard landing and the undercarriage collapsing, but ther is mobile phone footage from passengers showing a fire before the landing.

    So, was there a crack in the tail skin that let the bolt penetrate? This is my theory........but i suspect they will deny the fire caught midair, and claim the lightning strike only caused an avionics failure, and the fire was a result of the landing

  • More footage coming out.....

    Theres some good clear footage of the landing. It shows no flames, the plane bounces up about 30 feet, flops back down, and the tail strikes the ground and theres a fireball from that contact point, the undercarriage collapses and the fire erupts. The plane is almost level just before impact, suggesting there was no elevator control - which there wouldnt be if the control lines were destroyed or damaged inside the tail section.

    Still doesnt make sense. One of the tests performed on a plane before its certified airworthy is a test wherby the tail is scraped along the ground at V1 with the nose raised, to ensure it survives it.

    The fact the fire erupts as a fireball suggests to be the fire was already burning inside the forward tail section, and the tail impact broke open the tail, causing an in rush of air and a flashover, just the same as if you open the door on a house fire.

    Be intersting to see what the black boxes say, the russians, like the french, arent beyond tampering with the data if it suits them. It it might suit them, they are hoping to sell 300 of these modified for 96 passengers to foriegn airlines.

  • More

    "A survivor of the Moscow air disaster has sparked fury after he walked from the airport with a backpack he had rescued from the burning plane, prompting claims he had blocked other passengers from escaping.

    Dmitry Khlebushkin demanded a refund and complained about his treatment by Aeroflot staff as he left Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport last night, while relatives of 41 victims mourned their loss.

    The 'overweight' Russian has become a focal point of anger after several passengers were seen retrieving luggage while others tried to flee.

    According to reports in Russia, only three passengers behind Khlebushkin - who was sitting in seat 10C - survived the inferno. "

    And according to FlightRdar24, the plane squawed 7700 ("I have an emergency") only 5 minutes in

  • The excessively heavy landing probably pushed the landing gear through the wings and ruptured the full fuel tanks , the sparks did the rest , as for taking your luggage , if true the moron responsible must be prosecuted.

    • Staff Notice

    I wonder if it will be a computer trying to fly into the ground like Boeing and Airbus.:/

    History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.

    4312-gwban-gif

  • The excessively heavy landing probably pushed the landing gear through the wings and ruptured the full fuel tanks , the sparks did the rest , as for taking your luggage , if true the moron responsible must be prosecuted.

    Doesnt explain why they squawked 7700 five minutes in, nor does it explain the lack of elevators on the approach. Also why did the pilot report a lightning strike? You are ignoring all these, and your theory doesnt explain them, althouhg may contribute to the disaster. Any explanation has to include all the facts.

  • I wonder if it will be a computer trying to fly into the ground like Boeing and Airbus.:/

    No the russian planes arent that smart. The key to this is what happened just before and just after they squawked 7700 and went round.

    Also its only Airbus that do it. On such planes they have whats called Lore Precedence, ie whos set of rules take precedence. The aircraft has several sets of Lore. On an Airbus, the computer has the last say, ie it can override the human. but on Boeings the human can flick a switch and take over from the Computer.

  • Doesnt explain why they squawked 7700 five minutes in, nor does it explain the lack of elevators on the approach. Also why did the pilot report a lightning strike? You are ignoring all these, and your theory doesnt explain them, althouhg may contribute to the disaster. Any explanation has to include all the facts.

    It wasn't on fire before the final massive impact , it obviously had control issues but unlike the BA Boeing 777 crash landing where the impact smashed the landing gear through the wings , this little Sukhoi was laden with fuel , hence the massive fireball.

  • It wasn't on fire before the final massive impact , it obviously had control issues but unlike the BA Boeing 777 crash landing where the impact smashed the landing gear through the wings , this little Sukhoi was laden with fuel , hence the massive fireball.

    We'll the point is it might have had an internal fire in the tail, i already put this up in my intial posts if you read them. Plus, the intial fireball cam from the tail, there are no fuel tanks at the rear. Look at the video of the landing. The tail ruptured and a fireball ensued , and it was half a second before the undercarriage then collapsed rupturing the fual tanks. The Clues as to the tail fire are the ones you keep ignoring


    1. lightning strike penetrates composite tail, lights fire. Captian radios strike

    2. warning lights in cockpit would show fire, plane squawks 7700 and turns back

    3. tail fire destroy elevator avionics

    4. lack of elevator causes excessive approach speed

    5. tail impact breaks tail, fire in tail flashover

    6, tanks rupture and ignite.

    Heres the entire sequence, starting at 26 seconds into this video

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Notice the tail erupts first after hitting the ground, but there are no fuel tanks at the rear, and the wings only catch light when the undercarriage collapse about half a second later. This shows there was already a fire in the tail, and as i already pointed out, this is a flashover fireball, like if you open the door in a house fire and let the air in. The sudden influx of oxygen makes it boom. whats more the wing tanks do not rupture on first contact,. before the tail hits the ground, but only on second impact when the undercasrriage collapse, by which time the tail fire is exposed and burning..#

    Heres the tail section cutaway:


    Nothing in there that would cause a fireball, but an oxygen starved fire would when the tail broke.

    So thats my theory, based on the visual and other evidence. Bet you a ham sandwich im not far off right :P

  • More supporting evidence, Pravda says:

    " The latest report said the Superjet 100 suffered electric failure and loss of comms due to a lightning strike soon after takeoff. The main landing gear collapsed on the third touchdown after two initial bounces off the runway. When the engines touched the runway fire broke out and passengers were seen fleeing from the stricken Sukhoi Superjet."

    Although thats not what the video shows, it shows the tail breaking on 2nd touchdown impact and a fireball from the back first

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!