Russian jets crash within minutes of each other

[C J Campbell]

AP is saying two Russian jets crashed less than six minutes apart. Both
airplanes departed Moscow. One crashed 120 miles south of Moscow and the
other is presumed crashed 600 miles south of Moscow.

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

[HECTOP]

C J Campbell > wrote:
> AP is saying two Russian jets crashed less than six minutes apart. Both

I've been on the phone calling my friends at Siberia Airlines in the
middle of their night making sure they're alive, luckily they're all
accounted for, but a crew of their best friends is lost :-/


--
HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

[James M. Knox]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in
:

> AP is saying two Russian jets crashed less than six minutes apart. Both
> airplanes departed Moscow. One crashed 120 miles south of Moscow and the
> other is presumed crashed 600 miles south of Moscow.

Fuel problem???

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"James M. Knox" > wrote:

> "C J Campbell" > wrote in
> :
>
> > AP is saying two Russian jets crashed less than six minutes apart. Both
> > airplanes departed Moscow. One crashed 120 miles south of Moscow and the
> > other is presumed crashed 600 miles south of Moscow.
>
> Fuel problem???

Unlikely -- if it were a fuel problem, they would have had plenty of
time to get off some radio calls describing their problems. According to
the news, at least one got off a hijacking TXP code.

My thought is Chechen Islamist terrorists attempting to make a statement
about the upcoming Chechen elections.

[HECTOP]

Kyle Boatright > wrote:
> What fuel problem would cause a jet to go down *right now*?

TWA800

> Gimli Glider? It glided for 10-15 minutes before landing, and a Soviet
> airliner probably wouldn't do much worse..

There was a Gimli glider style landing performed by Tupolev Tu-204 (757 lookalike)
performed at night in Siberia after running out of fuel on the way to an alternate.
They were lucky to be flying a latest Tupolev, since the older Tu-154
(one of the involved in yesterday's crash) have no RATs and their hydraulic system
is completely dependent on the engines running (there are three of them plus APU after
all), once they flame out, the -154 becomes uncontrollable and enters agriculture.
Tu-134 on the other hand is old enough not to posesses hydraulic controls at all,
other than a yaw damper, so this shortcoming becomes an advantage in such case.

--
HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

[Kyle Boatright]

"James M. Knox" > wrote in message
2...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in
> :
>
> > AP is saying two Russian jets crashed less than six minutes apart. Both
> > airplanes departed Moscow. One crashed 120 miles south of Moscow and the
> > other is presumed crashed 600 miles south of Moscow.
>
> Fuel problem???

What fuel problem would cause a jet to go down *right now*? Airliners glide
decently and a crew with even a little training would get off a mayday call
and try and work the situation in the time it would take a flamed-out
airliner to go down. A back of the envelope figure is that an airliner
probably has a sink rate of 2500 fpm or less in glider mode... Remember the
Gimli Glider? It glided for 10-15 minutes before landing, and a Soviet
airliner probably wouldn't do much worse...

KB

[James M. Knox]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in

et:

>> Fuel problem???
>
> Unlikely -- if it were a fuel problem, they would have had plenty of
> time to get off some radio calls describing their problems. According
> to the news, at least one got off a hijacking TXP code.
>
> My thought is Chechen Islamist terrorists attempting to make a
> statement about the upcoming Chechen elections.

You are right, of course. At the time all I had heard was that they both
went down, within minutes of each other. No word about radio calls or not.
Based on later news, I agree that fuel issues are VERY unlikely.
Unfortunately, that brings up the distinct probability that it was
deliberate.

jmk

[Ash Wyllie]

James M. Knox opined

>Orval Fairbairn > wrote in

>et:

>>> Fuel problem???
>>
>> Unlikely -- if it were a fuel problem, they would have had plenty of
>> time to get off some radio calls describing their problems. According
>> to the news, at least one got off a hijacking TXP code.
>>
>> My thought is Chechen Islamist terrorists attempting to make a
>> statement about the upcoming Chechen elections.

>You are right, of course. At the time all I had heard was that they both
>went down, within minutes of each other. No word about radio calls or not.
>Based on later news, I agree that fuel issues are VERY unlikely.
>Unfortunately, that brings up the distinct probability that it was
>deliberate.

And if it were fuel issues, _lots_ of planes would be having problems.


-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

[G.R. Patterson III]

"James M. Knox" wrote:
>
> Fuel problem???

No. The BBC reported yesterday that an explosion was seen on one of the aircraft
before it went down and that the other plane sent indications of being hijacked (I
assume something like a transponder code) shortly before disappearing.

The report continued that any sort of mechanical problem would almost certainly have
allowed the flight crew time to radio a message.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Tom S.]

"Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
...
> James M. Knox opined
> And if it were fuel issues, _lots_ of planes would be having problems.

Must be that 80 octane stuff...

[Allen]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "James M. Knox" wrote:
> >
> > Fuel problem???
>
> No. The BBC reported yesterday that an explosion was seen on one of the
aircraft
> before it went down and that the other plane sent indications of being
hijacked (I
> assume something like a transponder code) shortly before disappearing.
>

The reporter I just heard on the news here said someone hit the SOS button
before the plane dropped off radar.

Allen

[David Herman]

"Allen" > wrote in message
m...

> The reporter I just heard on the news here said someone hit the SOS button
> before the plane dropped off radar.

Hmmm. Exactly which button would that be?

I guess all Russian airliners must have a big, red button in the middle of
the panel marked "SOS" (or maybe it's the little plastic gag "panic button"
that Sporty's sells?).

Sounds like a reliable report to me.


--
David Herman
N6170T 1965 Cessna 150E
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying Forum:
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying

[David CL Francis]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 at 20:51:11 in message
>, Kyle Boatright
> wrote:

>What fuel problem would cause a jet to go down *right now*? Airliners glide
>decently and a crew with even a little training would get off a mayday call
>and try and work the situation in the time it would take a flamed-out
>airliner to go down. A back of the envelope figure is that an airliner
>probably has a sink rate of 2500 fpm or less in glider mode... Remember the
>Gimli Glider? It glided for 10-15 minutes before landing, and a Soviet
>airliner probably wouldn't do much worse...

More recently wasn't there an Airbus (I forget which type) that lost
fuel over the Atlantic and glided some 70 nm(?) to the Azores and had
enough height left for a circuit before landing? Modern airliners are
efficient partly because they have very good Lift/Drag ratios.

I agree that the sink rate is around 2000 ft/min or so but it is
Lift/drag that gives you the distance. I guess that airliners cruise
around 250 knots IAS and that that is near the optimum Lift/Drag ratio
point.
--
David CL Francis

[Wizard of Draws]

On 8/26/04 9:41 AM, in article
, "James M. Knox"
> wrote:

>>
>> My thought is Chechen Islamist terrorists attempting to make a
>> statement about the upcoming Chechen elections.
>
> You are right, of course. At the time all I had heard was that they both
> went down, within minutes of each other. No word about radio calls or not.
> Based on later news, I agree that fuel issues are VERY unlikely.
> Unfortunately, that brings up the distinct probability that it was
> deliberate.
>
> jmk

Of what use is a terrorist act if nobody knows it's terrorism? If this is
terrorism in order to make a statement, the guys responsible need to work a
bit more work on their press releases.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
www.wizardofdraws.com
www.cartoonclipart.com

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Wizard of Draws" > wrote in message
news:BD53EFFD.1E032%jeffbREMOVE@REMOVEwizardofdraw s.com...
>
> Of what use is a terrorist act if nobody knows it's terrorism? If this is
> terrorism in order to make a statement, the guys responsible need to work
> a
> bit more work on their press releases.
> --

Maybe both their missions failed, in the same manner that the flight that
crashed in PA failed here, and because their real objectives weren't met
they felt there was no need to bring attention to themselves.

It is very hard to draw conclusions under the circumstances.

[Kyle Boatright]

"David CL Francis" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 at 20:51:11 in message
> >, Kyle Boatright
> > wrote:
>
> >What fuel problem would cause a jet to go down *right now*? Airliners
glide
> >decently and a crew with even a little training would get off a mayday
call
> >and try and work the situation in the time it would take a flamed-out
> >airliner to go down. A back of the envelope figure is that an airliner
> >probably has a sink rate of 2500 fpm or less in glider mode... Remember
the
> >Gimli Glider? It glided for 10-15 minutes before landing, and a Soviet
> >airliner probably wouldn't do much worse...
>
> More recently wasn't there an Airbus (I forget which type) that lost
> fuel over the Atlantic and glided some 70 nm(?) to the Azores and had
> enough height left for a circuit before landing? Modern airliners are
> efficient partly because they have very good Lift/Drag ratios.
>
> I agree that the sink rate is around 2000 ft/min or so but it is
> Lift/drag that gives you the distance. I guess that airliners cruise
> around 250 knots IAS and that that is near the optimum Lift/Drag ratio
> point.
> --
> David CL Francis

David,

Agree with your L/D vs glide range comment. My point went to the idea that
an airliner's sink rate is low enough that even with a complete flame out
(unless the airplane was already at very low altitude), there should be
plenty of time to get off a Mayday call and possibly relate the basics of
the problem to a controller.

KB

[David CL Francis]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 at 22:02:30 in message
>, Kyle Boatright
> wrote:

>Agree with your L/D vs glide range comment. My point went to the idea that
>an airliner's sink rate is low enough that even with a complete flame out
>(unless the airplane was already at very low altitude), there should be
>plenty of time to get off a Mayday call and possibly relate the basics of
>the problem to a controller.

In Macarthur Job's book where he describes the events when the BA 747
lost all 4 engines near Java he says that with all engines stopped at
37,000 feet the aircraft should take 23 minutes to sea level.

That certainly reinforces your point! It also suggests a 1600 ft/minute
descent rate. If the speed was 250k then, if I am right, it also implies
a glide L/D of around 15.

Airliners are _not_ bricks! :-)
--
David CL Francis