Kazakhstan passenger plane crash

[hampshireblue]

WTF was that at the end of the runway that they hit?

Different accident.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Drone activity in the area. GPS jamming occurring to destroy their navigation capability. Mistaken identity by Russians. Air defence missile believed to be destroying Ukrainian drone exploded beside the commercial airplane, peppering the fuselage with shrapnel.

After the explosion, it’s clear the aircraft became very difficult to control, which, with two operating engines (?), suggests hydraulic failure(s) making flight control difficult.

From video footage, when the aircraft is turning there are no spoilers visible. That would suggest loss of hydraulics. The fact that NONE are visible suggests multiple hydraulic systems were lost, as does the fugoidal flight path (rising and falling).

You may have noticed the landing gear was down, which is also a hydraulic function. However, as a safety back-up, the gear can be extended using gravity freefall and locking in place. Sadly, flight control back-ups are generally an alternate hydraulic system, which sometimes shares the load.

I am not an expert on the Embraer jet, but it is standard practice to have different aircraft systems use different hydraulic systems, BUT have CRITICAL SYSTEMS (like flight controls) use more than one hydraulic system, so that one backs up the other in case of failure.

Looking at the flight path, one recalls United 232, in Sioux City, Iowa on July 19, 1989. In that crash, the number 2 engine had an uncontained failure, with fan blade shrapnel piercing the exterior as it exploded.

As misfortune would have it, the DC-10 had one place in the hydraulic system where the THREE different systems came together. That location was in the tail of the aircraft and a piece of shrapnel destroyed it, leading to a total loss of hydraulic fluid, and thus pressure, to move the systems that were controlled by those hydraulics.

That aircraft had to be controlled by the use of the throttles, using differential thrust on the two good engines, to help maneuver the aircraft.

So, while there are significant similarities between the two aircraft flight paths, I don’t know for certain the cause is exactly the same. However, as a pilot for the last 35 years, they look eerily similar, with only the cause of the shrapnel penetrating the fuselage being different.

Because of the location, the parties involved, and the geopolitical realities, we may never know the full truth of what happened, but until I see something to refute my theory, I will continue to believe an air defence missile exploded in close proximity to the aircraft, penetrating the hull and destroying the ability to control the aircraft’s flight path…either due to hydraulic failure, cables being cut or electronic signals being interrupted…most probably the former.

That anyone survived is a miracle, just like with UAL 232. Two people showed heroic skills to almost get them to a runway and died in the act of trying to save the lives entrusted to them.

One thing I will say is that the radar cross-section and Infrared signature of an airliner are significantly larger than a small drone, and guided missiles tend not to be particularly good at discriminating between targets at that range. They tend to guide towards the largest (highest power) return within its field of regard (RF or IR) and would almost definitely had tracked towards the airliner in this instance. I personally doubt there was a drone anywhere near. It's more than likely the missile system operator just picked the wrong target.

Usually, missiles have a proximity fusing mechanism and are designed to detonate within a certain distance from its target. It's very lucky that the aircraft didn't break up on detonation of the missile's warhead.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

One thing I will say is that the radar cross-section and Infrared signature of an airliner are significantly larger than a small drone, and guided missiles tend not to be particularly good at discriminating between targets at that range. They tend to guide towards the largest (highest power) return within its field of regard (RF or IR) and would almost definitely had tracked towards the airliner in this instance. I personally doubt there was a drone anywhere near. It's more than likely the missile system operator just picked the wrong target.

Usually, missiles have a proximity fusing mechanism and are designed to detonate within a certain distance from its target. It's very lucky that the aircraft didn't break up on detonation of the missile's warhead.

Have you seen some of the drones?

The last one I saw looked like a Cessna 172…not a little 4 rotor Go Pro device!

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Have you seen some of the drones?

The last one I saw looked like a Cessna 172…not a little 4 rotor Go Pro device!

They are pretty big but still don't have the radar signature of an airliner. As a rough estimate a B737 (a similar size to the E190) is around 10m squared (depending on the aspect) and for reference an A380 is around 100m squared. Something like a Cessna 172 might be between around 4m squared at most.

Also, RCS isn't directly proportional to radar return signal power, so even a small difference in RCS can have a significant impact on the return signal at the receiver. A drone of that size in anywhere within the same radar resolution cell as the E190 would just be lost in the noise.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

They are pretty big but still don't have the radar signature of an airliner. As a rough estimate a B737 (a similar size to the E190) is around 10m squared (depending on the aspect) and for reference an A380 is around 100m squared. Something like a Cessna 172 might be between around 4m squared at most.

Also, RCS isn't directly proportional to radar return signal power, so even a small difference in RCS can have a significant impact on the return signal at the receiver. A drone of that size in anywhere within the same radar resolution cell as the E190 would just be lost in the noise.

You sound like a smart guy who isn’t in a war zone and just missed the last drone that blew up part of town!

I’m guessing, but I doubt there was much in the way of critical analysis involved in the shoot down.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

You sound like a smart guy who isn’t in a war zone and just missed the last drone that blew up part of town!

I’m guessing, but I doubt there was much in the way of critical analysis involved in the shoot down.

I'm sure it's been analys(z)ed extensively.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

If anything summed up how rotten Russian society is to its very core, its air traffic control sending these poor cunts across the Caspian Sea to serve as a cover up is the apotheosis.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

If anything summed up how rotten Russian society is to its very core, its air traffic control sending these poor cunts across the Caspian Sea to serve as a cover up is the apotheosis.

The GPS jamming wasn’t exactly kosher!!

 

[Keeper!]

They are pretty big but still don't have the radar signature of an airliner. As a rough estimate a B737 (a similar size to the E190) is around 10m squared (depending on the aspect) and for reference an A380 is around 100m squared. Something like a Cessna 172 might be between around 4m squared at most.

Also, RCS isn't directly proportional to radar return signal power, so even a small difference in RCS can have a significant impact on the return signal at the receiver. A drone of that size in anywhere within the same radar resolution cell as the E190 would just be lost in the noise.

Sadly is a war/conflict who is going to take a chance?

There is a reason western airlines won't fly in this region and this is it.