2 civilian airliners down south of Moscow

"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?tmp...ia_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