http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/08/24/russia.planecrash/index.html

Within 4 minutes of each other. Both took off from Domodedovo

Coincidence, or...?

Pete
-----------------------------------------------
(CNN) -- Two passenger planes have crashed in Russia Tuesday night, Russian
officials and a news organization said.
A passenger jet carrying 34 passengers and eight crew members in the Tula
region crashed about 160 kilometers (100 miles) south of Moscow, the
ministry reported.

A second plane went down about 160 kilometers (100 miles) from
Rostov-on-Don, in southern Russia, government-run news agency Ria Novosti
reported.

A ministry spokeswoman said she could only confirm that the second plane had
been lost to radar.

The first plane disappeared from radar at 10:56 p.m. (2:56 p.m. ET), a
ministry spokeswoman said.

The Tupolev-134 had taken off from Moscow's Domodedovo Airport and was en
route to Volgograd, in southern Russia.

The second plane, a Tupolev-154, disappeared at 11 p.m. (3 p.m. ET) after
having taken off from the same airport en route to Sochi in southern Russia,
Ria Novosti reported.

There was no immediate word how many people were aboard the second plane.

The Tupolev-154 is a standard medium-range airliner on domestic flights in
Russia, according to aviation websites.

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/08/24/russia.planecrash/index.html
>
> Within 4 minutes of each other. Both took off from Domodedovo

Right now they are saying that Russian sources report eyewitnesses seeing
the 134 explode in mid-air before coming down.

>
> Coincidence, or...?

If the reports of a mid-air explosion for the 134 are correct, then I'd
imagine that losing two aircraft at about the same time, from the same
departure point, puts things a bit outside the likely coincidence realm.

Brooks

<snip>

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "Pete" > wrote in message
> ...
> > http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/08/24/russia.planecrash/index.html
> >
> > Within 4 minutes of each other. Both took off from Domodedovo
>
> Right now they are saying that Russian sources report eyewitnesses seeing
> the 134 explode in mid-air before coming down.
>
> >
> > Coincidence, or...?
>
> If the reports of a mid-air explosion for the 134 are correct, then I'd
> imagine that losing two aircraft at about the same time, from the same
> departure point, puts things a bit outside the likely coincidence realm.

Agreed, although that's a might big if. The number of a/c which are reported
by eyewitnesses to have exploded/been on fire before crashing but which were
subsequently found not to have been, is rather large. Another possibility,
assuming no explosion, would be a fuel contamination problem at Domededovo.
If the Tu-154 which disappeared had tanks that were more full than the other
before being topped up, that might explain the longer delay before problems
surfaced, depending on the order in which fuel is drawn. OTOH, the lack of
any radio comms from either a/c would be considered highly suspicious with
western a/c -- considering the reported state of Russian civil aviation and
ATC I don't know that we can jump to the same conclusion in this case.

Guy

>From: "Pete"
>
>
>Coincidence, or...?
>Pete

Coincidence.....or Richard Reid redux?

Here is some more:
Dave


BUCHALKI, Russia (Aug. 25) - A Russian airliner crashed and another apparently
broke up in the air almost simultaneously after they took off from the same
Moscow airport Tuesday night, officials said, raising fears of terrorism and
leaving little hope that any of at least 89 people on board could have
survived.

Authorities said rescuers found wreckage from a Tu-154 jet, which was carrying
at least 46 people, about nine hours after it issued a distress signal and
disappeared from radar screens over the Rostov region, some 600 miles south of
Moscow.

Officials made conflicting statements about whether the signal indicated a
hijacking or an SOS and the claims could not be independently confirmed.

At about the same time the Tu-154 jet disappeared, a Tu-134 airliner carrying
43 people crashed in the Tula region, about 125 miles south of Moscow,
officials said. The Emergency Situations Ministry later said that everybody on
board the Tu-134 was killed.

The planes had left Moscow's Domodedovo airport within 40 minutes of each other
Tuesday night and disappeared from radar screens about 11:00 p.m, officials
said.

President Vladimir Putin ordered an investigation by the nation's main
intelligence agency, the Federal Security Service, and security was tightened
at airports across the country.

Authorities have expressed concern that separatists in war-ravaged Chechnya
could carry out attacks linked to this Sunday's election to replace the
region's pro-Moscow president, who was killed by a bombing in May. Rebels have
been blamed for a series of terror strikes that have claimed hundreds of lives
in Russia in recent years.

Witnesses reported seeing an explosion before the first plane crashed and
suspicions of terrorist involvement were compounded when officials said the
Tu-154 airliner had issued a signal indicating the plane was being seized.

However, the Interfax news agency later quoted an unnamed Russian law
enforcement source as saying the signal was an SOS and no other signals were
sent.

Earlier, Interfax had quoted another source in Russia's ''power structures'' as
saying the signal indicating a seizure or hijacking came at 11:04 p.m., shortly
before the plane disappeared from radar. Emergency and Interior Ministry
sources in southern Russia, speaking on condition of anonymity, also told The
Associated Press a distress signal indicated an attack was activated.

Interfax reported that emergency workers spotted a fire in the Rostov region,
where the Tu-154 went missing. But rainy weather hampered the search efforts
and it took hours before any wreckage was found. A flight data recorder from
the plane was recovered, Emergency Situations Minister Sergei Shoigu said,
according to Interfax.

The regional Emergency Situations Ministry chief Viktor Shkareda told AP the
plane apparently broke up in the air and that wreckage was spread over an area
of some 25-30 miles. Body parts have also been found along with fragments of
the plane, Interfax quoted federal Emergency Situations Ministry as saying. It
said the parts were found near Gluboky, a village north of the regional capital
Rostov-on-Don.

Shkareda said 52 people were aboard the plane, while emergency officials in
Moscow put the number of passengers and crew at 46.

In the Tula region, rescuers found fragments of the Tu-134 jet's tail near the
village of Buchalki. Emergency Situations Ministry spokeswoman Marina Ryklina
said later there were no survivors.

At about the same time that the Tu-134 crashed, the Tu-154 lost contact with
flight controllers, Ryklina said. Interfax, citing Russia's Interstate Aviation
Committee, said 44 passengers and an unknown number of crew were abroad.

The Tu-154 took off from Moscow's Domodedovo airport at 9:35 p.m. Tuesday and
the other plane left 40 minutes later, state-run Rossiya television reported.

The Tu-154 belonged to the Russian airline Sibir, which said that the plane had
been in service since 1982.

Quoting unnamed aviation officials and security experts, Russian news agencies
said authorities were not ruling out terrorism and suspicions were heightened
by the fact that the two planes disappeared around the same time.

ITAR-Tass reported that the authorities believe the Tu-134 fell from an
altitude of 32,800 feet. It said the plane belonged to small regional airline
Volga-Aviaexpress and was being piloted by the company's director, and quoted
dispatchers as saying 34 passengers and seven crew were aboard. Ryklina put the
numbers at 35 and eight - a total of 43.

Interfax quoted a Domodedovo airport spokesman as saying no foreigners were on
the passenger lists for either plane.

Authorities said the Tu-134 was headed to the southern city of Volgograd, where
Volga-Aviaexpress is based, while the plane that crashed in the Rostov region
was flying to the Black Sea resort city of Sochi, where Putin is vacationing.

When Russia's U.N. Ambassador Andrey Denisov was told of the initial report of
two near-simultaneous crashes, he said, ''Now we have to see if there's
terrorism.''

In Washington, a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity Tuesday
evening, said it was the understanding of American officials that the two
Russian planes disappeared within four minutes of each other, which ''in and of
itself is suspicious.''

AP-NY-08-25-04 0209EDT

Guy Alcala wrote:

> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
>
>>"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/08/24/russia.planecrash/index.html
>>>
>>>Within 4 minutes of each other. Both took off from Domodedovo
>>
>>Right now they are saying that Russian sources report eyewitnesses seeing
>>the 134 explode in mid-air before coming down.
>>
>>
>>>Coincidence, or...?
>>
>>If the reports of a mid-air explosion for the 134 are correct, then I'd
>>imagine that losing two aircraft at about the same time, from the same
>>departure point, puts things a bit outside the likely coincidence realm.
>
>
> Agreed, although that's a might big if. The number of a/c which are reported
> by eyewitnesses to have exploded/been on fire before crashing but which were
> subsequently found not to have been, is rather large. Another possibility,
> assuming no explosion, would be a fuel contamination problem at Domededovo.
> If the Tu-154 which disappeared had tanks that were more full than the other
> before being topped up, that might explain the longer delay before problems
> surfaced, depending on the order in which fuel is drawn. OTOH, the lack of
> any radio comms from either a/c would be considered highly suspicious with
> western a/c -- considering the reported state of Russian civil aviation and
> ATC I don't know that we can jump to the same conclusion in this case.
>
> Guy
>
>

I would be surprised if it was fuel contamination - Domodedovo is now
Moscow's premier airport and Eastline, the owners, have spent millions
updating it.

I was there last Monday - see :-
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/models_pages/mos2004_day03.html

for a ramp tour and the facilities would put many western airports to
shame. It is as modern as they come.

That is not to say that fuel contamination is impossible - just unlikely
IMHO.

I was also surprised when I heard that the two a/c had departed from
Domodedovo - the security we experienced was very tight - and we were an
authorised party with prior permissions, passes etc.

I could have understood it if the flights had begun at Vnukovo, Bykovo
or even Sheremetyevo - but Domodedovo ?

Ken

They start from the same point, in Russian media poor fuel is one discussed
thing.
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Pete" > wrote in message
> ...
> > http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/08/24/russia.planecrash/index.html
> >
> > Within 4 minutes of each other. Both took off from Domodedovo
>
> Right now they are saying that Russian sources report eyewitnesses seeing
> the 134 explode in mid-air before coming down.
>
> >
> > Coincidence, or...?
>
> If the reports of a mid-air explosion for the 134 are correct, then I'd
> imagine that losing two aircraft at about the same time, from the same
> departure point, puts things a bit outside the likely coincidence realm.
>
> Brooks
>
> <snip>
>
>

Vello wrote:
>
> They start from the same point, in Russian media poor fuel is one
> discussed thing.

The obvious problem with that idea is that poor fuel would usually
just stop the engines, leaving them 30,000 feet or so of gliding
descent in which to report their difficulties and attempt power-off
landings.

It seems rather likely that some form of malice was at work and that
the technical investigations will merely discover whether hijacking
or bombs or some other form of sabotage was used.

"Robert Briggs" > wrote in message
...
> Vello wrote:
> >
> > They start from the same point, in Russian media poor fuel is one
> > discussed thing.
>
> The obvious problem with that idea is that poor fuel would usually
> just stop the engines, leaving them 30,000 feet or so of gliding
> descent in which to report their difficulties and attempt power-off
> landings.
>

Gas turbines are pretty tolerant of fuel quality and
if this was the problem I'd expect a lot more than 2
aircraft to be affected.

Keith

My local paper this morning said the southernmost plane sent a hijack code
just before it went off radar.

--

B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/08/24/russia.planecrash/index.html
>
> Within 4 minutes of each other. Both took off from Domodedovo
>
> Coincidence, or...?
>
> Pete
> -----------------------------------------------
> (CNN) -- Two passenger planes have crashed in Russia Tuesday night,
Russian
> officials and a news organization said.
> A passenger jet carrying 34 passengers and eight crew members in the Tula
> region crashed about 160 kilometers (100 miles) south of Moscow, the
> ministry reported.
>
> A second plane went down about 160 kilometers (100 miles) from
> Rostov-on-Don, in southern Russia, government-run news agency Ria Novosti
> reported.
>
> A ministry spokeswoman said she could only confirm that the second plane
had
> been lost to radar.
>
> The first plane disappeared from radar at 10:56 p.m. (2:56 p.m. ET), a
> ministry spokeswoman said.
>
> The Tupolev-134 had taken off from Moscow's Domodedovo Airport and was en
> route to Volgograd, in southern Russia.
>
> The second plane, a Tupolev-154, disappeared at 11 p.m. (3 p.m. ET) after
> having taken off from the same airport en route to Sochi in southern
Russia,
> Ria Novosti reported.
>
> There was no immediate word how many people were aboard the second plane.
>
> The Tupolev-154 is a standard medium-range airliner on domestic flights in
> Russia, according to aviation websites.
>
>

In article <VP6Xc.135504$sh.122307@fed1read06>, Darrell
> wrote:

> My local paper this morning said the southernmost plane sent a hijack code
> just before it went off radar.

A report that has not been discounted by Russian authorities.

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================

John A. Weeks III wrote:

> In article <VP6Xc.135504$sh.122307@fed1read06>, Darrell
> > wrote:
>
>> My local paper this morning said the southernmost plane sent a hijack
>> code just before it went off radar.
>
> A report that has not been discounted by Russian authorities.
>
> -john-
>

....which proves, yet again, how little journalists understand: setting the
transponder/IFF to emergency mode is done in a hijacking - or any other
emergency. All it does is to show the plane with a different display on the
radar screen.
--
Mailman


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Mailman wrote:

>...which proves, yet again, how little journalists understand: setting the
>transponder/IFF to emergency mode is done in a hijacking - or any other
>emergency.

Uhhh...no. The ICAO transponder emergency distress code is 7700 while hijacking
is (I think??) 7200. There's also one for NORDO (No Radio) which I think is
7600.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"BUFDRVR" > wrote
> Mailman wrote:
>
> >...which proves, yet again, how little journalists understand: setting the
> >transponder/IFF to emergency mode is done in a hijacking - or any other
> >emergency.
>
> Uhhh...no. The ICAO transponder emergency distress code is 7700 while hijacking
> is (I think??) 7200. There's also one for NORDO (No Radio) which I think is
> 7600.

7500 for hijack. Your other guesses are correct. 77 and 76 came from the old
64 code days. Back when there was only 10 airplanes within a hundred miles of
an airport :-) 00 was the intercept code, and 11 was the interceptor weapons free
code (nuclear). 12 was contact flying below 12kft.

In article >,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

> Mailman wrote:
>
> >...which proves, yet again, how little journalists understand: setting
> >the
> >transponder/IFF to emergency mode is done in a hijacking - or any other
> >emergency.
>
> Uhhh...no. The ICAO transponder emergency distress code is 7700 while
> hijacking
> is (I think??) 7200. There's also one for NORDO (No Radio) which I think
> is
> 7600.
>
Hijack is 7500. For some reason I haven't fathomed, the FAA ATC
procedure is to contact the aircraft by radio and ask "Sir, please
confirm you are squawking 7500."

Has it occurred that just maybe, here and there, a hijacker just might
not notice the transponder code was changed?

"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote
>
> Hijack is 7500. For some reason I haven't fathomed, the FAA ATC
> procedure is to contact the aircraft by radio and ask "Sir, please
> confirm you are squawking 7500."

That's just one option. There are other radio code phrases. We used to
get new ones all the time when we filed.

Robert Briggs wrote:

> Vello wrote:
> >
> > They start from the same point, in Russian media poor fuel is one
> > discussed thing.
>
> The obvious problem with that idea is that poor fuel would usually
> just stop the engines, leaving them 30,000 feet or so of gliding
> descent in which to report their difficulties and attempt power-off
> landings.

See Air Transat and Air Canada for practical examples.


Graham

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> Gas turbines are pretty tolerant of fuel quality and
> if this was the problem I'd expect a lot more than 2
> aircraft to be affected.

Very true. Jet A is basically kerosene. Not exactly a high tech fuel.
Turbines will burn almost any similar rubbish within reason.

It would be *very* tricky to fuel just 2 a/c - and no others - with
contaminated fuel.


Graham

Howard Berkowitz wrote:

> Hijack is 7500. For some reason I haven't fathomed, the FAA ATC
> procedure is to contact the aircraft by radio and ask "Sir, please
> confirm you are squawking 7500."

Oh great ! What presence of mind ! What berk thought that one up ?

> Has it occurred that just maybe, here and there, a hijacker just might
> not notice the transponder code was changed?

Mercuns just love to screw up the admin way.


Graham

>...which proves, yet again, how little journalists understand: setting the
>transponder/IFF to emergency mode is done in a hijacking - or any other
>emergency. All it does is to show the plane with a different display on the
>radar screen.

Well, that depends if he squawks emergency, or if he squawks the hijack code.
Two different numbers - and I doubt many folks would dial in the wrong one
(although it has happened in the past).

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...

>
> It would be *very* tricky to fuel just 2 a/c - and no others - with
> contaminated fuel.

One inadvertantly (or purposly) contaminated fuel truck could manage that
trick quite well. But I think we would know by now.

Vaughn

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > It would be *very* tricky to fuel just 2 a/c - and no others - with
> > contaminated fuel.
>
> One inadvertantly (or purposly) contaminated fuel truck could manage
that
> trick quite well. But I think we would know by now.
>
> Vaughn
>

Trouble is IRC Moscow like most airports uses pipelines to the gates
rather than refuelling trucks.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

(Krztalizer) wrote:

>>...which proves, yet again, how little journalists understand: setting the
>>transponder/IFF to emergency mode is done in a hijacking - or any other
>>emergency. All it does is to show the plane with a different display on the
>>radar screen.
>
>Well, that depends if he squawks emergency, or if he squawks the hijack code.
>Two different numbers - and I doubt many folks would dial in the wrong one
>(although it has happened in the past).


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040826/ap_on_re_eu/russia_plane_crash

It appears the Sibir airline's people are saying "activated an
emergency signal". The cockpit data recorders' info is detailed
somewhat in the article.

In article >,
Pooh Bear > wrote:

> Howard Berkowitz wrote:
>
> > Hijack is 7500. For some reason I haven't fathomed, the FAA ATC
> > procedure is to contact the aircraft by radio and ask "Sir, please
> > confirm you are squawking 7500."
>
> Oh great ! What presence of mind ! What berk thought that one up ?

Any hijacker who knows what "squawking 7500" means will certainly know
enough about the rest of the system to either respond correctly or turn
the system back to the right freq.

The ones who *don't* know what it means won't catch the significance of
the message (and in the early moments of the hijack, they won't be
hearing the radio anyway).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Pooh Bear wrote:
> Robert Briggs wrote:
> > Vello wrote:
> >
> > > They start from the same point, in Russian media poor fuel is one
> > > discussed thing.
> >
> > The obvious problem with that idea is that poor fuel would usually
> > just stop the engines, leaving them 30,000 feet or so of gliding
> > descent in which to report their difficulties and attempt power-off
> > landings.
>
> See Air Transat and Air Canada for practical examples.

Well, I *did* consider ending along the lines of "... report their
difficulties and look for a Russian Gimli."

>From: "Vaughn"
>Date: 8/26/2004 5:20 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> It would be *very* tricky to fuel just 2 a/c - and no others - with
>> contaminated fuel.
>
> One inadvertantly (or purposly) contaminated fuel truck could manage
>that
>trick quite well. But I think we would know by now.
>
>Vaughn

Assuming a truck on the scale of an R-5 and full fuel loads on both aircraft it
is not likely both aircraft would be able to be refueled from the same truck.
Of course it depends on initial fule levels in both aircraft

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Vaughn"
> >Date: 8/26/2004 5:20 AM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >>
> >> It would be *very* tricky to fuel just 2 a/c - and no others - with
> >> contaminated fuel.
> >
> > One inadvertantly (or purposly) contaminated fuel truck could manage
> >that
> >trick quite well. But I think we would know by now.
> >
> >Vaughn
>
> Assuming a truck on the scale of an R-5 and full fuel loads on both
aircraft it
> is not likely both aircraft would be able to be refueled from the same
truck.
> Of course it depends on initial fule levels in both aircraft

And the odds that both aircraft would then crash at about the same time,
even though one had been in the air quite a bit longer and covered a lot
more distance away from the departure point? The fuel bit has been a
long-shot from the get-go when you consider that fact, along with the
transponder signal reported to have been received from one aircraft. If the
latest reports indicating that no out-of-the-ordinary conversations were
heard on the CVR's proves to be true, then you can nail the coffin door shut
on "bad fuel".

Brooks

>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

>From: "Kevin Brooks"
>Date: 8/26/2004 2:24 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "Vaughn"
>> >Date: 8/26/2004 5:20 AM Central Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >
>> >"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> It would be *very* tricky to fuel just 2 a/c - and no others - with
>> >> contaminated fuel.
>> >
>> > One inadvertantly (or purposly) contaminated fuel truck could manage
>> >that
>> >trick quite well. But I think we would know by now.
>> >
>> >Vaughn
>>
>> Assuming a truck on the scale of an R-5 and full fuel loads on both
>aircraft it
>> is not likely both aircraft would be able to be refueled from the same
>truck.
>> Of course it depends on initial fule levels in both aircraft
>
>And the odds that both aircraft would then crash at about the same time,
>even though one had been in the air quite a bit longer and covered a lot
>more distance away from the departure point? The fuel bit has been a
>long-shot from the get-go when you consider that fact, along with the
>transponder signal reported to have been received from one aircraft. If the
>latest reports indicating that no out-of-the-ordinary conversations were
>heard on the CVR's proves to be true, then you can nail the coffin door shut
>on "bad fuel".
>
>Brooks
>
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

There is absolutely no reason the crashes could be purely coincidental. The
odds of that being the case are extremely long however.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
> >Date: 8/26/2004 2:24 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >From: "Vaughn"
> >> >Date: 8/26/2004 5:20 AM Central Daylight Time
> >> >Message-id:
>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> It would be *very* tricky to fuel just 2 a/c - and no others - with
> >> >> contaminated fuel.
> >> >
> >> > One inadvertantly (or purposly) contaminated fuel truck could
manage
> >> >that
> >> >trick quite well. But I think we would know by now.
> >> >
> >> >Vaughn
> >>
> >> Assuming a truck on the scale of an R-5 and full fuel loads on both
> >aircraft it
> >> is not likely both aircraft would be able to be refueled from the same
> >truck.
> >> Of course it depends on initial fule levels in both aircraft
> >
> >And the odds that both aircraft would then crash at about the same time,
> >even though one had been in the air quite a bit longer and covered a lot
> >more distance away from the departure point? The fuel bit has been a
> >long-shot from the get-go when you consider that fact, along with the
> >transponder signal reported to have been received from one aircraft. If
the
> >latest reports indicating that no out-of-the-ordinary conversations were
> >heard on the CVR's proves to be true, then you can nail the coffin door
shut
> >on "bad fuel".
> >
> >Brooks
> >
> >>
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> There is absolutely no reason the crashes could be purely coincidental.

I assume you meant to put a "not" in there after "could".

The
> odds of that being the case are extremely long however.

The odds of it being a fuel problem are even more remote.

Brooks

>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Two Russian jetliners crashed within close proximity 6 minutes apart?
There was reports one plane sent a signal being hijacked via
aircraft's transponder 'squack ident' whatever and witnesses saw the
planes exploded before it hit the ground.

My experience with airplanes I'm kind of speculate something Russian
authorities not telling. One plane reportedly intercepted by Russian
military fighters. What did the jet fighters do? Fearing it might be a
Russian 9/11 copy cat, they shotdown the firt Turpolev jetliner. Well,
somehow the Russian ATC radar showing the 'squack ident' from the
hijacked plane. Russian jetfighters shotdown the wrong plane. Then
they downed the hijacked plane.

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 04:52:02 GMT, 4moreyears >
wrote:

>Two Russian jetliners crashed within close proximity 6 minutes apart?
>There was reports one plane sent a signal being hijacked via
>aircraft's transponder 'squack ident' whatever and witnesses saw the
>planes exploded before it hit the ground.
>
>My experience with airplanes I'm kind of speculate something Russian
>authorities not telling. One plane reportedly intercepted by Russian
>military fighters. What did the jet fighters do? Fearing it might be a
>Russian 9/11 copy cat, they shotdown the firt Turpolev jetliner. Well,
>somehow the Russian ATC radar showing the 'squack ident' from the
>hijacked plane. Russian jetfighters shotdown the wrong plane. Then
>they downed the hijacked plane.

That *looks* like English, but...

Phil
--
"Me fail English? That's unpossible!"
Ralph Wiggum

>From: "AbsolutelyCertain"
>Date: 8/27/2004 1:15 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Phil Miller" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 04:52:02 GMT, 4moreyears >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Two Russian jetliners crashed within close proximity 6 minutes apart?
>> >There was reports one plane sent a signal being hijacked via
>> >aircraft's transponder 'squack ident' whatever and witnesses saw the
>> >planes exploded before it hit the ground.
>> >
>> >My experience with airplanes I'm kind of speculate something Russian
>> >authorities not telling. One plane reportedly intercepted by Russian
>> >military fighters. What did the jet fighters do? Fearing it might be a
>> >Russian 9/11 copy cat, they shotdown the firt Turpolev jetliner. Well,
>> >somehow the Russian ATC radar showing the 'squack ident' from the
>> >hijacked plane. Russian jetfighters shotdown the wrong plane. Then
>> >they downed the hijacked plane.
>>
>> That *looks* like English, but...
>
>It might be Texan.

Moronics?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

>From: "Kevin Brooks"
>Date: 8/26/2004 10:44 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
>> >Date: 8/26/2004 2:24 PM Central Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >
>> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >From: "Vaughn"
>> >> >Date: 8/26/2004 5:20 AM Central Daylight Time
>> >> >Message-id:
>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It would be *very* tricky to fuel just 2 a/c - and no others - with
>> >> >> contaminated fuel.
>> >> >
>> >> > One inadvertantly (or purposly) contaminated fuel truck could
>manage
>> >> >that
>> >> >trick quite well. But I think we would know by now.
>> >> >
>> >> >Vaughn
>> >>
>> >> Assuming a truck on the scale of an R-5 and full fuel loads on both
>> >aircraft it
>> >> is not likely both aircraft would be able to be refueled from the same
>> >truck.
>> >> Of course it depends on initial fule levels in both aircraft
>> >
>> >And the odds that both aircraft would then crash at about the same time,
>> >even though one had been in the air quite a bit longer and covered a lot
>> >more distance away from the departure point? The fuel bit has been a
>> >long-shot from the get-go when you consider that fact, along with the
>> >transponder signal reported to have been received from one aircraft. If
>the
>> >latest reports indicating that no out-of-the-ordinary conversations were
>> >heard on the CVR's proves to be true, then you can nail the coffin door
>shut
>> >on "bad fuel".
>> >
>> >Brooks
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>> There is absolutely no reason the crashes could be purely coincidental.
>
>I assume you meant to put a "not" in
there after "could".

I did, thanks for pointing it out.

>
>The
>> odds of that being the case are extremely long however.
>
>The odds of it being a fuel problem are even more remote.
>
>Brooks
>
>>
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 23:15:37 -0700, "AbsolutelyCertain"
> wrote:

>
>"Phil Miller" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 04:52:02 GMT, 4moreyears >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Two Russian jetliners crashed within close proximity 6 minutes apart?
>> >There was reports one plane sent a signal being hijacked via
>> >aircraft's transponder 'squack ident' whatever and witnesses saw the
>> >planes exploded before it hit the ground.
>> >
>> >My experience with airplanes I'm kind of speculate something Russian
>> >authorities not telling. One plane reportedly intercepted by Russian
>> >military fighters. What did the jet fighters do? Fearing it might be a
>> >Russian 9/11 copy cat, they shotdown the firt Turpolev jetliner. Well,
>> >somehow the Russian ATC radar showing the 'squack ident' from the
>> >hijacked plane. Russian jetfighters shotdown the wrong plane. Then
>> >they downed the hijacked plane.
>>
>> That *looks* like English, but...
>
>It might be Texan.

Does it parse any better if it is Texan?


Phil
--
Pfft...English! Who needs that? I'm never going to England.
Homer J. Simpson

>Fearing it might be a
>Russian 9/11 copy cat, they shotdown the firt Turpolev jetliner. Well,
>somehow the Russian ATC radar showing the 'squack ident' from the
>hijacked plane. Russian jetfighters shotdown the wrong plane. Then
>they downed the hijacked plane.

The witnesses to the crash of one of the aircraft heard three booms, then a
falling airliner. Given the Russian government's penchant for avoiding the
truth in such events, I am surprised no one has yet suggested a US submarine
caused the tragedy.

>
>From: 4moreyears

Ok, now you are just trying to scare us.

Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

>
>> That *looks* like English, but...
>
>It might be Texan.

Hey hey hey now. It might be from the Crawford area, but the rest of the
Republic isn't known for such classic blunders, such as getting into a land war
in Asia.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

>From: (Krztalizer)
>Date: 8/27/2004 2:19 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Fearing it might be a
>>Russian 9/11 copy cat, they shotdown the firt Turpolev jetliner. Well,
>>somehow the Russian ATC radar showing the 'squack ident' from the
>>hijacked plane. Russian jetfighters shotdown the wrong plane. Then
>>they downed the hijacked plane.
>
>The witnesses to the crash of one of the aircraft heard three booms, then a
>falling airliner. Given the Russian government's penchant for avoiding the
>truth in such events, I am surprised no one has yet suggested a US submarine
>caused the tragedy.
>
>>
>>From: 4moreyears
>
>Ok, now you are just trying to scare us.
>
>Gordon
><====(A+C====>
> USN SAR
>

Dammit, Gordon, U.S.N. flying subs are still top secret. I'm reporting you to
the rules board of the Marblehead Yacht Club.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Krztalizer wrote:
> 4moreyears wrote:
>[i]
> > Fearing it might be a Russian 9/11 copy cat, they shotdown the firt
> > Turpolev jetliner. Well, somehow the Russian ATC radar showing the
> > 'squack ident' from the hijacked plane. Russian jetfighters shotdown
> > the wrong plane. Then they downed the hijacked plane.

AAMOF (and ignoring all those typos), that is the first suggestion I
have seen to provide a specific cause for the "external interference"
(or some such) that I saw mentioned in one news report.

Of course, a simpler explanation for "external interference" would
simply be that someone apart from a duly authorised member of the
airline's staff did something untoward.

> The witnesses to the crash of one of the aircraft heard three booms,
> then a falling airliner. Given the Russian government's penchant
> for avoiding the truth in such events, I am surprised no one has yet
> suggested a US submarine caused the tragedy.

Well, since the Royal Navy can attack Afghanistan by submarine ...

In article >,
Phil Miller > wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 23:15:37 -0700, "AbsolutelyCertain"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Phil Miller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 04:52:02 GMT, 4moreyears >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Two Russian jetliners crashed within close proximity 6 minutes apart?
> >> >There was reports one plane sent a signal being hijacked via
> >> >aircraft's transponder 'squack ident' whatever and witnesses saw the
> >> >planes exploded before it hit the ground.
> >> >
> >> >My experience with airplanes I'm kind of speculate something Russian
> >> >authorities not telling. One plane reportedly intercepted by Russian
> >> >military fighters. What did the jet fighters do? Fearing it might be a
> >> >Russian 9/11 copy cat, they shotdown the firt Turpolev jetliner. Well,
> >> >somehow the Russian ATC radar showing the 'squack ident' from the
> >> >hijacked plane. Russian jetfighters shotdown the wrong plane. Then
> >> >they downed the hijacked plane.
> >>
> >> That *looks* like English, but...
> >
> >It might be Texan.
>
> Does it parse any better if it is Texan?

Worse, if anything.

In article >,
(Krztalizer) wrote:

> >
> >> That *looks* like English, but...
> >
> >It might be Texan.
>
> Hey hey hey now. It might be from the Crawford area, but the rest of the
> Republic isn't known for such classic blunders, such as getting into a land
> war in Asia.

Just getting deeper into an existing one? (Where, exactly, was LBJ from?)

(Krztalizer) wrote in message >...
> >Fearing it might be a
> >Russian 9/11 copy cat, they shotdown the firt Turpolev jetliner. Well,
> >somehow the Russian ATC radar showing the 'squack ident' from the
> >hijacked plane. Russian jetfighters shotdown the wrong plane. Then
> >they downed the hijacked plane.
>
> The witnesses to the crash of one of the aircraft heard three booms, then a
> falling airliner. Given the Russian government's penchant for avoiding the
> truth in such events, I am surprised no one has yet suggested a US submarine
> caused the tragedy.
>
> >
> >From: 4moreyears
>
> Ok, now you are just trying to scare us.
>
> Gordon
> <====(A+C====>
> USN SAR
>
> Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

Geez, is the loon population gone into a decline. It took what? 30
posts before the first one showed up. I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I say.

Harry K

Hexogen explosive traces found in the Tu-154 wreck (confirmed/ reported from
Russia). One Chechenian women suspected since nobody asked for her
(speculation). Islambouli Brigades allegedly took responsibility.

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

Nele VII wrote:

> Hexogen explosive traces found in the Tu-154 wreck (confirmed/ reported
> from Russia). One Chechenian women suspected since nobody asked for her
> (speculation). Islambouli Brigades allegedly took responsibility.

Widely disbelieved - they have taken responsability for a lot of other
things in the past, which were later proven to be bogus.

> NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

....except for our patented, genetically modified ones! Never again need your
loved one moan "and if you prickle us don't we bleed?"
--
Mailman


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

BUFDRVR wrote:

> Mailman wrote:
>
>>...which proves, yet again, how little journalists understand: setting the
>>transponder/IFF to emergency mode is done in a hijacking - or any other
>>emergency.
>
> Uhhh...no. The ICAO transponder emergency distress code is 7700 while
> hijacking is (I think??) 7200. There's also one for NORDO (No Radio) which
> I think is 7600.

That would show or not, depending on the interrogator. I have no idea what
kind of coverage (and with what equipment) the Russians have. Even the
old(er) IFF on some Western military radars cannot always tell them apart.
--
Mailman


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In article >,
on 27 Aug 2004 07:23:04 GMT,
Krztalizer attempted to say .....

> >
> >> That *looks* like English, but...
> >
> >It might be Texan.
>
> Hey hey hey now. It might be from the Crawford area, but the rest of the
> Republic isn't known for such classic blunders, such as getting into a land war
> in Asia.

That's reserved for Presidents who hail from Massachusetts........


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Pooh Bear > wrote in message >...
> Howard Berkowitz wrote:
>
> > Hijack is 7500. For some reason I haven't fathomed, the FAA ATC
> > procedure is to contact the aircraft by radio and ask "Sir, please
> > confirm you are squawking 7500."
>
> Oh great ! What presence of mind ! What berk thought that one up ?

someone has a good presence of mind. let look at this:

"'Aircraft X', confirm your squawk, 'Center X'". thats taken what 7
words, how long does it take to say ?

now consider the following:
1. when an emergency code is squawked, say for example a 7500 squawk,
the controller doesnt leap in his chair exclaiming "A Hijack! A
Hijack! what do i do?" for someone else say, "****! get the president
on the phone!" rather:

an emergency squawk initiates a set procedure, which will involve the
controller requiring radio silence from everyone else on that freq.
and will likely provide an alternate freq. for everyone else to change
to and other aircraft will be vectored from the vicinity. the
controllers will implement an action plan or rather set procedure
depending on what the situation requires.

2. transponders have a couple of different methods of entereing the
squawk code, some have numeric keypads, others have rotating dials.
some also have a feature to shortcut to a specific code.

accidental input of a specific code, has happened, does happen and
will happen. Personally speaking, durin the very first days of
instruction, a few moons ago now, i was advised to enter transponder
codes from the back first, to prevent any accidental emergency code
squwaks (with the rotational dial transponder its possible as you are
winding through the numbers to trigger an emergency code) and so set
off the alam bells at the handling control center.

3. controllers are pretty capable people, believe it or not, and their
familiarity with their daily profession enables them to make accurate
judgement calls on many situations.

A controller asking an aircraft transmitting an emergency squawk to
confirm, is going to get perhaps only a few alternative responses:

- the pilot responds with "'Center X', thats a negative on the 'x'
squawk, we're good here, please confirm correct squawk, thanks for
the heads up "aircraft x'"

- the controller gets no response, which is an indication as to a
problem.

- an unusual response occurs, which again is an indication as to a
problem.

now, just before people go off on a tangent that the pilot could have
a gun to his head and is lectured on how to respond, controllers are
pretty adept at working things out for themselves. a controller can
pretty much figure out if you have a problem with something from vocal
cues. furthermore pilot are pretty adept at dealing with problems,
there was one instance during a hijack that the pilots keyed the mic
during the hijackers vocal outbursts in the cockpit so not only could
the control center hear, but also it was on the tapes. thats not
mentioning the basic issue of has the aircraft deviated from the
flight plan, has it changed heading or altitude ?

listening to the tower tapes of an emergency situation, before all the
other pilots on the frequency changed off to the alternative assigned
frequency, there were a few blind transmissions from other pilots just
quickly and simply "good luck guys, god be with you" though i am not
particularly religious nor sentimental, it's something to give to a
flight crew in a ****ty situation.

as another side note, a friend of mine worked out rather rapidly
during flight that he lost the ability to transmit, could recieve
fine, but not transmit. which of course led him to input 7600
transponder code. the controller obviously came back to attempt to
make communication (bear in mind the controller only knows its lost
comms) and at the controllers call attempts, he hit ident. the
controller pretty much worked out rather rapidly, that the pilot could
hear and not talk, and so an easy day was had by all, as the
controller issued him with vectors, confirming by replying with the
ident.

so, after considering the above, is it more appropriate to say 7 words
and confirm the situation, or go all out into full blown emergency
situation. presence of mind yes. berk, no.

>
> > Has it occurred that just maybe, here and there, a hijacker just might
> > not notice the transponder code was changed?

which is irrelevant either way. if it hasnt been changed he will
continue with his plan, if it has, he will continue with his plan. but
the ability remains to provide a non verbal indication of an emergency
situation.

>
> Mercuns just love to screw up the admin way.

hardly.

>
>
> Graham

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
> >Date: 8/26/2004 2:24 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >From: "Vaughn"
> >> >Date: 8/26/2004 5:20 AM Central Daylight Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> It would be *very* tricky to fuel just 2 a/c - and no others - with
> >> >> contaminated fuel.
> >> >
> >> > One inadvertantly (or purposly) contaminated fuel truck could manage
> >> >that
> >> >trick quite well. But I think we would know by now.
> >> >
> >> >Vaughn
> >>
> >> Assuming a truck on the scale of an R-5 and full fuel loads on both
> aircraft it
> >> is not likely both aircraft would be able to be refueled from the same
> truck.
> >> Of course it depends on initial fule levels in both aircraft
> >
> >And the odds that both aircraft would then crash at about the same time,
> >even though one had been in the air quite a bit longer and covered a lot
> >more distance away from the departure point? The fuel bit has been a
> >long-shot from the get-go when you consider that fact, along with the
> >transponder signal reported to have been received from one aircraft. If the
> >latest reports indicating that no out-of-the-ordinary conversations were
> >heard on the CVR's proves to be true, then you can nail the coffin door shut
> >on "bad fuel".
> >
> >Brooks
> >
> >>
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> There is absolutely no reason the crashes could be purely coincidental. The
> odds of that being the case are extremely long however.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


more than the unlikely odds of an aircraft crashing multiplied by two.
if the odds of being in an aircraft crash are in excess of 14 million
to one, the odds of two aircraft departing the same airport on the
same day, within 40 minutes of each other, both involving inflight
catastrophic loss.

i have no idea how many zero's the odds would involve !

(Krztalizer) wrote in message >...
> >Fearing it might be a
> >Russian 9/11 copy cat, they shotdown the firt Turpolev jetliner. Well,
> >somehow the Russian ATC radar showing the 'squack ident' from the
> >hijacked plane. Russian jetfighters shotdown the wrong plane. Then
> >they downed the hijacked plane.
>
> The witnesses to the crash of one of the aircraft heard three booms, then a
> falling airliner. Given the Russian government's penchant for avoiding the
> truth in such events, I am surprised no one has yet suggested a US submarine
> caused the tragedy.
>

oh just wait, there's still the conspirowhacko's to come up with
something. were there any US warships on excerise in the area ?
denial will lead to cover up theories i am sure.

>f the odds of being in an aircraft crash are in excess of 14 million
>to one, the odds of two aircraft departing the same airport on the
>same day, within 40 minutes of each other, both involving inflight
>catastrophic loss.
>
>i have no idea how many zero's the odds would involve !

The odds have now become moot, with the announcement that explosive residue has
been found among the debris. Its inevitable that the other impact site will
reveal some similar agent at work. We're counting angels on the head of a pin
while Islamist 'soldiers' strike civilians the world over - I have no doubt
they will be found to be the culprits in this case. During the Yugoslav wars
of succession, I supported the hard-pressed Muslim civilians and I still do.
But when I pass a middle eastern man on the street, I see him now as a
potential enemy soldier, someone to be wary of. That this alienates me from a
billion of my fellow men bothers me, however I understand we are at war.
These airliners were downed by enemy action.

>From: (running with scissors)
>Date: 8/28/2004 5:43 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
(Krztalizer) wrote in message
>...
>> >Fearing it might be a
>> >Russian 9/11 copy cat, they shotdown the firt Turpolev jetliner. Well,
>> >somehow the Russian ATC radar showing the 'squack ident' from the
>> >hijacked plane. Russian jetfighters shotdown the wrong plane. Then
>> >they downed the hijacked plane.
>>
>> The witnesses to the crash of one of the aircraft heard three booms, then a
>> falling airliner. Given the Russian government's penchant for avoiding the
>> truth in such events, I am surprised no one has yet suggested a US
>submarine
>> caused the tragedy.
>>
>
>oh just wait, there's still the conspirowhacko's to come up with
>something. were there any US warships on excerise in the area ?
>denial will lead to cover up theories i am sure.

They were going to overfly the WW2 Nazi nuclear test sites denyev has been
telling us about and might have seen the disc aircraft teuton was telling us
about. These sites have been classified by the United States for 75 years and
only those two have been brave enough to speak up about it. As a result of this
a mercury powered disc shapped missile was fired from the secret Nazi
underground Antarctic base using tarver guidance (no pitot tubes) and released
two optical nukes in the .001 kt range to bring down the two airliners. In a
few days maron will tell us the USAF was involved in refueling the disc missile
in flight.

I defy anyone to provide proof this didn't happen.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
|| They were going to overfly the WW2 Nazi nuclear test sites denyev has
been
| telling us about and might have seen the disc aircraft teuton was telling
us
| about. These sites have been classified by the United States for 75 years
and
| only those two have been brave enough to speak up about it. As a result of
this
| a mercury powered disc shapped missile was fired from the secret Nazi
| underground Antarctic base using tarver guidance (no pitot tubes) and
released
| two optical nukes in the .001 kt range to bring down the two airliners. In
a
| few days maron will tell us the USAF was involved in refueling the disc
missile
| in flight.
|
| I defy anyone to provide proof this didn't happen.
|
| Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




Dan, you weren't there - you have no right to comment on it.





Cheers


Dave Kearton

In article >,
(running with scissors) wrote:

> Pooh Bear > wrote in message
> >...
> > Howard Berkowitz wrote:
> >
> > > Hijack is 7500. For some reason I haven't fathomed, the FAA ATC
> > > procedure is to contact the aircraft by radio and ask "Sir, please
> > > confirm you are squawking 7500."
> >
> > Oh great ! What presence of mind ! What berk thought that one up ?
>
> someone has a good presence of mind. let look at this:
>
> "'Aircraft X', confirm your squawk, 'Center X'". thats taken what 7
> words, how long does it take to say ?

Note that I did not make the statement about presence of mind. While I
don't have the procedure in front of me, those are not the words said by
ATC. Those words specifically are confirming a squawk of 7500.

Consistent with controller workload, occasional random squawk
verification requests might be a decent idea, to decrease suspicion. Of
the recent crop of hijackers, their English was imperfect, and a routine
query just might get by -- it might not.
>
> now consider the following:
> 1. when an emergency code is squawked, say for example a 7500 squawk,
> the controller doesnt leap in his chair exclaiming "A Hijack! A
> Hijack! what do i do?" for someone else say, "****! get the president
> on the phone!" rather:

I certainly did not suggest that was the procedure, which indeed would
be asinine.
>
>
> 2. transponders have a couple of different methods of entereing the
> squawk code, some have numeric keypads, others have rotating dials.
> some also have a feature to shortcut to a specific code.
>
> accidental input of a specific code, has happened, does happen and
> will happen. Personally speaking, durin the very first days of
> instruction, a few moons ago now, i was advised to enter transponder
> codes from the back first, to prevent any accidental emergency code
> squwaks (with the rotational dial transponder its possible as you are
> winding through the numbers to trigger an emergency code) and so set
> off the alam bells at the handling control center.

And a simple confirmation request doesn't draw attention to 7500.
>

>
> now, just before people go off on a tangent that the pilot could have
> a gun to his head and is lectured on how to respond, controllers are
> pretty adept at working things out for themselves.

You seem to be making quite a few assumptions about tangents.

[snip explanations of tangents]

> so, after considering the above, is it more appropriate to say 7 words
> and confirm the situation, or go all out into full blown emergency
> situation. presence of mind yes. berk, no.
>

Were the words what you suggested, I would have less concern. Specific
confirmation of 7500, for exactly the reasons you mention below, do not
make sense from a human factors standpoint.

While terrorists may not be courteous enough to be repetitive, any 7500
is sufficient to alert NORAD. Fighters always can be recalled, but if
the hijacking is real and a suicide attack is a real possibility, time
is urgent. I can easily see a pilot's last living act to be changing the
squawk before a hostile takes his life, and control of the aircraft.
> >
> > > Has it occurred that just maybe, here and there, a hijacker just
> > > might
> > > not notice the transponder code was changed?
>
> which is irrelevant either way. if it hasnt been changed he will
> continue with his plan, if it has, he will continue with his plan. but
> the ability remains to provide a non verbal indication of an emergency
> situation.
>
> >
> > Mercuns just love to screw up the admin way.
>
> hardly.
>
> >
> >
> > Graham

Pete wrote:

> http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/08/24/russia.planecrash/index.html
>
> Within 4 minutes of each other. Both took off from Domodedovo
>
> Coincidence, or...?


Explosives Found in Both Crashed Russian Jets

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6094456


Use of the Explosive Hexogen at a Glance

A Look at Cases Where the Powerful Explosive Hexogen Was Found


November 1999: In St. Petersburg, Russia, police arrest a man found
with four sections of a missile warhead carrying high explosives.
ITAR-Tass said the segments contained hexogen.

September 1999: In Moscow, apartment bombings killed some 300 people.
Authorities blame Chechen separatists for the explosions, which
involved hexogen.


http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040827_1071.html



Probe Into Russian Plane Crashes Centers on 2 Female Passengers

In particular, officials are seeking more information on two female
passengers with Chechen surnames. No relatives have come forward to
claim the women's remains, as happened with all the other victims.

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=24C44A60-D909-4A0D-ABF132CBA0884C7D&title=Probe%20Into%20Russian%20Plane%20Crashes%20C enters%20on%202%20Female%20Passengers


Chechnya 'Black Widows' linked to sabotage of Russian jets

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/28/wruss28.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/08/28/ixnewstop.html


'Black widows' link to air crashes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1293205,00.html

....

What might the Russians do?

Two 100 MT solutions for Grozny are:

1 Lo-tech -- drop a huge iron ball on the city that strikes it at 1
km/sec.


Distance from Impact: 0.00 km = 0.00 miles

Projectile Diameter: 585.00 m = 1918.80 ft = 0.36 miles
Projectile Density: 8000 kg/m3

Impact Velocity: 1.00 km/s = 0.62 miles/s

Energy before atmospheric entry:
4.19 x 1017 Joules = 1.00 x 102 [megatons] TNT


http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/


2 Hi-tech -- resurrect two big things for a sub-orbital 100-MT
mission.

(Ground burst is chosen if winds take the fallout toward terrorist
refuges or toward "uncooperative" neighboring nations of Russia.)


"We can build the full-power version of THIS:"

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/vulkan.htm

http://k26.com/buran/Info/Hercules/vulkan.html

http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/graphics/v/vulkanlv.gif


"to launch the full strength version of THIS!"

http://www.vniief.ru/museum/photo_08_e.html

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/Tsarbmb.jpg



Thermal radiation radius (3rd degree burns) 77.1 kilometres

Air blast radius (widespread destruction) 33.0 kilometres
Air blast radius (near-total fatalities) 12.5 kilometres

Ionizing radiation radius (500 rem) 7.5 kilometres


Fireball radius (minimum) 2.7 kilometres
Fireball radius (airburst) 3.3 kilometres
Fireball radius (ground-contact airburst) 4.4 kilometres

Fireball duration 35.7 seconds


http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Nuke.html

>From: "Dave Kearton"
>Date: 8/28/2004 7:03 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>|| They were going to overfly the WW2 Nazi nuclear test sites denyev has
>been
>| telling us about and might have seen the disc aircraft teuton was telling
>us
>| about. These sites have been classified by the United States for 75 years
>and
>| only those two have been brave enough to speak up about it. As a result of
>this
>| a mercury powered disc shapped missile was fired from the secret Nazi
>| underground Antarctic base using tarver guidance (no pitot tubes) and
>released
>| two optical nukes in the .001 kt range to bring down the two airliners. In
>a
>| few days maron will tell us the USAF was involved in refueling the disc
>missile
>| in flight.
>|
>| I defy anyone to provide proof this didn't happen.
>|
>| Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
>
>
>Dan, you weren't there - you have no right to comment on it.
>
>
>
>
>
>Cheers
>
>
>Dave Kearton

I read about it in a book.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

(Krztalizer) wrote in message >...
> >f the odds of being in an aircraft crash are in excess of 14 million
> >to one, the odds of two aircraft departing the same airport on the
> >same day, within 40 minutes of each other, both involving inflight
> >catastrophic loss.
> >
> >i have no idea how many zero's the odds would involve !
>
> The odds have now become moot, with the announcement that explosive residue has
> been found among the debris.

not for those damn conspirowhcko's it isnt.

> Its inevitable that the other impact site will
> reveal some similar agent at work. We're counting angels on the head of a
> pin

i dont know what that means ?

> while Islamist 'soldiers' strike civilians the world over - I have no doubt
> they will be found to be the culprits in this case.

claimed responsibility included the basis of russian acts against the
chechen muslims.

During the Yugoslav wars
> of succession, I supported the hard-pressed Muslim civilians and I still do.

i supported no side and still dont, all made claims against the other
side for doing the same thing as they were doing.

> But when I pass a middle eastern man on the street, I see him now as a
> potential enemy soldier, someone to be wary of.

thats hardly a sound basis to work on is it, concluding that everyone
from a geographical region is an islamic fundamentalist.

That this alienates me from a
> billion of my fellow men bothers me,

i shouldnt think it's that alone that alienates you

> however I understand we are at war.

really! at war with who? what is the capabilities of this state, of
whom we are at war with, tell me about their air force, their navy, or
army. what's the history of their military forces and previous
involvements.

> These airliners were downed by enemy action.

really! with technology able to provide guided weapons from a
distance, their military forces must be a little underfunded if guided
weaponry has to be hand carried, their ground forces wont serve too
well will they? whats the political basis of this state we are at war
with ? can their forces lobby for increased military spending, you
would think they would have thought about that before getting into a
war.

personally speaking, it has the representation of an act of terrorism.

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: (running with scissors)
> >Date: 8/28/2004 5:43 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> (Krztalizer) wrote in message
> >...
> >> >Fearing it might be a
> >> >Russian 9/11 copy cat, they shotdown the firt Turpolev jetliner. Well,
> >> >somehow the Russian ATC radar showing the 'squack ident' from the
> >> >hijacked plane. Russian jetfighters shotdown the wrong plane. Then
> >> >they downed the hijacked plane.
> >>
> >> The witnesses to the crash of one of the aircraft heard three booms, then a
> >> falling airliner. Given the Russian government's penchant for avoiding the
> >> truth in such events, I am surprised no one has yet suggested a US
> submarine
> >> caused the tragedy.
> >>
> >
> >oh just wait, there's still the conspirowhacko's to come up with
> >something. were there any US warships on excerise in the area ?
> >denial will lead to cover up theories i am sure.
>
> They were going to overfly the WW2 Nazi nuclear test sites denyev has been
> telling us about and might have seen the disc aircraft teuton was telling us
> about. These sites have been classified by the United States for 75 years and
> only those two have been brave enough to speak up about it. As a result of this
> a mercury powered disc shapped missile was fired from the secret Nazi
> underground Antarctic base using tarver guidance (no pitot tubes) and released
> two optical nukes in the .001 kt range to bring down the two airliners. In a
> few days maron will tell us the USAF was involved in refueling the disc missile
> in flight.
>
> I defy anyone to provide proof this didn't happen.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

damn ! you know i think i read about that.. it had an 8-track
installed by tarver engineering of tehachapi, ca. and had a structure
using negative cabin pressure, also by tarver engineering. i cant
remember though it it used splaps amid its control surfaces though!

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: (running with scissors)
> >Date: 8/28/2004 5:43 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> (Krztalizer) wrote in message
> >...
> >> >Fearing it might be a
> >> >Russian 9/11 copy cat, they shotdown the firt Turpolev jetliner. Well,
> >> >somehow the Russian ATC radar showing the 'squack ident' from the
> >> >hijacked plane. Russian jetfighters shotdown the wrong plane. Then
> >> >they downed the hijacked plane.
> >>
> >> The witnesses to the crash of one of the aircraft heard three booms, then a
> >> falling airliner. Given the Russian government's penchant for avoiding the
> >> truth in such events, I am surprised no one has yet suggested a US
> submarine
> >> caused the tragedy.
> >>
> >
> >oh just wait, there's still the conspirowhacko's to come up with
> >something. were there any US warships on excerise in the area ?
> >denial will lead to cover up theories i am sure.
>
> They were going to overfly the WW2 Nazi nuclear test sites denyev has been
> telling us about and might have seen the disc aircraft teuton was telling us
> about. These sites have been classified by the United States for 75 years and
> only those two have been brave enough to speak up about it. As a result of this
> a mercury powered disc shapped missile was fired from the secret Nazi
> underground Antarctic base using tarver guidance (no pitot tubes) and released
> two optical nukes in the .001 kt range to bring down the two airliners. In a
> few days maron will tell us the USAF was involved in refueling the disc missile
> in flight.
>
> I defy anyone to provide proof this didn't happen.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

damn ! you know i think i read about that.. it had an 8-track
installed by tarver engineering of tehachapi, ca. and had a structure
using negative cabin pressure, also by tarver engineering. i cant
remember though if it used splaps amid its control surfaces though!

Howard Berkowitz > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (running with scissors) wrote:
>
> > Pooh Bear > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > Howard Berkowitz wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hijack is 7500. For some reason I haven't fathomed, the FAA ATC
> > > > procedure is to contact the aircraft by radio and ask "Sir, please
> > > > confirm you are squawking 7500."
> > >
> > > Oh great ! What presence of mind ! What berk thought that one up ?
> >
> > someone has a good presence of mind. let look at this:
> >
> > "'Aircraft X', confirm your squawk, 'Center X'". thats taken what 7
> > words, how long does it take to say ?
>
> Note that I did not make the statement about presence of mind. While I
> don't have the procedure in front of me, those are not the words said by
> ATC. Those words specifically are confirming a squawk of 7500.

if you note, i wasnt responding to your post, but rather the one that
made a comment as to the berk, that thought up the basis of a
confirmation.

and i have had those words said to me on using an incorrect xpndr
code.

>
> Consistent with controller workload, occasional random squawk
> verification requests might be a decent idea, to decrease suspicion.

suspicion of what ? if the aircraft hasnt deviated from its flight
plan or any vectored deviations, what is the concern?

Of
> the recent crop of hijackers, their English was imperfect, and a routine
> query just might get by -- it might not.

what recent crop of hijackers ? do you think if a controller during an
interchange with a flight crew suddenly has unusual voice to deal
with, with an unusual request or statement and a deviation from
altitude or heading its not going to be considered as perhaps a little
unusual?

> >
> > now consider the following:
> > 1. when an emergency code is squawked, say for example a 7500 squawk,
> > the controller doesnt leap in his chair exclaiming "A Hijack! A
> > Hijack! what do i do?" for someone else say, "****! get the president
> > on the phone!" rather:
>
> I certainly did not suggest that was the procedure, which indeed would
> be asinine.

i didnt say you did.

> >
> >
> > 2. transponders have a couple of different methods of entereing the
> > squawk code, some have numeric keypads, others have rotating dials.
> > some also have a feature to shortcut to a specific code.
> >
> > accidental input of a specific code, has happened, does happen and
> > will happen. Personally speaking, durin the very first days of
> > instruction, a few moons ago now, i was advised to enter transponder
> > codes from the back first, to prevent any accidental emergency code
> > squwaks (with the rotational dial transponder its possible as you are
> > winding through the numbers to trigger an emergency code) and so set
> > off the alam bells at the handling control center.
>
> And a simple confirmation request doesn't draw attention to 7500.

umm so you are saying that a controller asking for a confirmation of
the code you are squawking is not going to lead a pilot to think "umm,
why is he asking me that, perhaps i sould turn my head a little and
see what i am squawking, then again, naah! i really cant be bothered!"
do you think if a pilot is asked to confirm his altitude or heading
he carries on blindly? when a controller is asking you to 'confirm'
something, its because something needs attention.

> >
>
> >
> > now, just before people go off on a tangent that the pilot could have
> > a gun to his head and is lectured on how to respond, controllers are
> > pretty adept at working things out for themselves.
>
> You seem to be making quite a few assumptions about tangents.

hardly assumptions.

>
> [snip explanations of tangents]

gee thanks!

>
> > so, after considering the above, is it more appropriate to say 7 words
> > and confirm the situation, or go all out into full blown emergency
> > situation. presence of mind yes. berk, no.
> >
>
> Were the words what you suggested, I would have less concern. Specific
> confirmation of 7500, for exactly the reasons you mention below, do not
> make sense from a human factors standpoint.

huh ! what ? so from a human factors aspect, you suggest that a full
scale alert and conatinment situation should be initiated, with no
confirmation that a threat exists.

from a human factors standpoint, the situation the flight crew, the
controllers, the military pilots, the chain of command, everyone
between and connected are going to have a lot more human factors to
deal with in going into a full scale alert and containment situation
instead of saying seven words. confirming the validity of a situation
before taking repercussive action is part of human factors. aww ****,
you know what, next time i get an odd indication, **** it, i am going
to squawk 7700, divert, hit an emergency descent and get the runway
foamed and land gear up, wether its on the MEL or not. thats so much
better huh!

>
> While terrorists may not be courteous enough to be repetitive, any 7500
> is sufficient to alert NORAD. Fighters always can be recalled, but if
> the hijacking is real and a suicide attack is a real possibility, time
> is urgent. I can easily see a pilot's last living act to be changing the
> squawk before a hostile takes his life, and control of the aircraft.

well then you cant see very well at all then.

> > >
> > > > Has it occurred that just maybe, here and there, a hijacker just
> > > > might
> > > > not notice the transponder code was changed?
> >
> > which is irrelevant either way. if it hasnt been changed he will
> > continue with his plan, if it has, he will continue with his plan. but
> > the ability remains to provide a non verbal indication of an emergency
> > situation.
> >
> > >
> > > Mercuns just love to screw up the admin way.
> >
> > hardly.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Graham

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: "Dave Kearton"
> >Date: 8/28/2004 7:03 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >|| They were going to overfly the WW2 Nazi nuclear test sites denyev has
> been
> >| telling us about and might have seen the disc aircraft teuton was telling
> us
> >| about. These sites have been classified by the United States for 75 years
> and
> >| only those two have been brave enough to speak up about it. As a result of
> this
> >| a mercury powered disc shapped missile was fired from the secret Nazi
> >| underground Antarctic base using tarver guidance (no pitot tubes) and
> released
> >| two optical nukes in the .001 kt range to bring down the two airliners. In
> a
> >| few days maron will tell us the USAF was involved in refueling the disc
> missile
> >| in flight.
> >|
> >| I defy anyone to provide proof this didn't happen.
> >|
> >| Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Dan, you weren't there - you have no right to comment on it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Cheers
> >
> >
> >Dave Kearton
>
> I read about it in a book.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

The Tarvernautics guide to Injuneering by chance?

(running with scissors)
>Date: 8/30/2004 4:38 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
(B2431) wrote in message
>...
>> >From: (running with scissors)
>> >Date: 8/28/2004 5:43 PM Central Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> (Krztalizer) wrote in message
>> >...
>> >> >Fearing it might be a
>> >> >Russian 9/11 copy cat, they shotdown the firt Turpolev jetliner. Well,
>> >> >somehow the Russian ATC radar showing the 'squack ident' from the
>> >> >hijacked plane. Russian jetfighters shotdown the wrong plane. Then
>> >> >they downed the hijacked plane.
>> >>
>> >> The witnesses to the crash of one of the aircraft heard three booms,
>then a
>> >> falling airliner. Given the Russian government's penchant for avoiding
>the
>> >> truth in such events, I am surprised no one has yet suggested a US
>> submarine
>> >> caused the tragedy.
>> >>
>> >
>> >oh just wait, there's still the conspirowhacko's to come up with
>> >something. were there any US warships on excerise in the area ?
>> >denial will lead to cover up theories i am sure.
>>
>> They were going to overfly the WW2 Nazi nuclear test sites denyev has been
>> telling us about and might have seen the disc aircraft teuton was telling
>us
>> about. These sites have been classified by the United States for 75 years
>and
>> only those two have been brave enough to speak up about it. As a result of
>this
>> a mercury powered disc shapped missile was fired from the secret Nazi
>> underground Antarctic base using tarver guidance (no pitot tubes) and
>released
>> two optical nukes in the .001 kt range to bring down the two airliners. In
>a
>> few days maron will tell us the USAF was involved in refueling the disc
>missile
>> in flight.
>>
>> I defy anyone to provide proof this didn't happen.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>damn ! you know i think i read about that.. it had an 8-track
>installed by tarver engineering of tehachapi, ca. and had a structure
>using negative cabin pressure, also by tarver engineering. i cant
>remember though it it used splaps amid its control surfaces though!
>

Have you noticed there is no longer a tarver engineering web site or such a
company in California anymore? Then again tarver has been very quiet lately.
Coincidence?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

(running with scissors)
>Date: 8/30/2004 6:11 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
(B2431) wrote in message
>...
>> >From: "Dave Kearton"
>> >Date: 8/28/2004 7:03 PM Central Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >|| They were going to overfly the WW2 Nazi nuclear test sites denyev has
>> been
>> >| telling us about and might have seen the disc aircraft teuton was
>telling
>> us
>> >| about. These sites have been classified by the United States for 75
>years
>> and
>> >| only those two have been brave enough to speak up about it. As a result
>of
>> this
>> >| a mercury powered disc shapped missile was fired from the secret Nazi
>> >| underground Antarctic base using tarver guidance (no pitot tubes) and
>> released
>> >| two optical nukes in the .001 kt range to bring down the two airliners.
>In
>> a
>> >| few days maron will tell us the USAF was involved in refueling the disc
>> missile
>> >| in flight.
>> >|
>> >| I defy anyone to provide proof this didn't happen.
>> >|
>> >| Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Dan, you weren't there - you have no right to comment on it.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Cheers
>> >
>> >
>> >Dave Kearton
>>
>> I read about it in a book.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>The Tarvernautics guide to Injuneering by chance?

That was a technical tome discussing pitot ports, splaps, optical nukes,mud
wasps....etc, too far over my head, y'know.

I read it in his updated autobiography "My Life As An Expert On Everything." It
seems the Russians immediately contacted him for his services. You should read
the section where he says he was authorized the SEA Service Medal even though
he didn't go. He actually did say that in this NG.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>>"Vaughn" > wrote in message
>>> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message

>> >
>> > It would be *very* tricky to fuel just 2 a/c - and no others - with
>> > contaminated fuel.
>>
>> One inadvertantly (or purposly) contaminated fuel truck could manage
>that
>> trick quite well. But I think we would know by now.
>>

>Trouble is IRC Moscow like most airports uses pipelines to the gates
>rather than refuelling trucks.
>

Sheremetyevo uses fuel bowsers drawn by large 8x8 cab-overs.

Not sure about Domodedovo.

The Tu134 was CCCP 65080.

The stewardess who died on this flight was the daughter of the
stewardess saved by a miracle in a crash during the 80s.

> (B2431) wrote:

>>The witnesses to the crash of one of the aircraft heard three booms, then a
>>falling airliner. Given the Russian government's penchant for avoiding the
>>truth in such events, I am surprised no one has yet suggested a US submarine
>>caused the tragedy.
>>

>
>Dammit, Gordon, U.S.N. flying subs are still top secret. I'm reporting you to
>the rules board of the Marblehead Yacht Club.
>

But what you are all trying to ignore is that the U.S.N flying subs
technology was all stolen from Nazi projects at the end of the war.

Dora-Nordhausen was so full of them they had to blow it up to conceal
the remaining subs.

"funkraum" > wrote in message
...
>> (B2431) wrote:
>
>>>The witnesses to the crash of one of the aircraft heard three booms,
>>>then a
>>>falling airliner. Given the Russian government's penchant for
>>>avoiding the
>>>truth in such events, I am surprised no one has yet suggested a US
>>>submarine
>>>caused the tragedy.
>>>
>
>>
>>Dammit, Gordon, U.S.N. flying subs are still top secret. I'm reporting
>>you to
>>the rules board of the Marblehead Yacht Club.
>>
>
> But what you are all trying to ignore is that the U.S.N flying subs
> technology was all stolen from Nazi projects at the end of the war.
>
> Dora-Nordhausen was so full of them they had to blow it up to conceal
> the remaining subs.

Well at least you didn't spill the beans about the submersible aircraft
carriers....
Ooopss.. Damn, now I have to hunt down everyone on the NG and kill
them.
I hate it when that happens.....

;^)

The CO

funkraum wrote:
>>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>>
>>>"Vaughn" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
>
>
>>>>It would be *very* tricky to fuel just 2 a/c - and no others - with
>>>>contaminated fuel.
>>>
>>> One inadvertantly (or purposly) contaminated fuel truck could manage
>>
>>that
>>
>>>trick quite well. But I think we would know by now.
>>>
>
>
>>Trouble is IRC Moscow like most airports uses pipelines to the gates
>>rather than refuelling trucks.
>>
>
>
> Sheremetyevo uses fuel bowsers drawn by large 8x8 cab-overs.
>
> Not sure about Domodedovo.
>
> The Tu134 was CCCP 65080.
>
> The stewardess who died on this flight was the daughter of the
> stewardess saved by a miracle in a crash during the 80s.
>
The one who landed in <bignum> feet of snow?

--
Marc Reeve
Some guy at a desk somewhere ^reverse^ for email

> Marc Reeve > wrote:
>>funkraum wrote:

>> The stewardess who died on this flight was the daughter of the
>> stewardess saved by a miracle in a crash during the 80s.
>>
>The one who landed in <bignum> feet of snow?
>

The very scene I was thinking of but, no it was a crash near
Sverdlovsk caused by a fire on board and the aircraft came down in
thick forest.