Plane carrying 200 Russian tourists may have crashed near Egypt
67 replies, posted
[QUOTE=BlackPhoenix;49020310]I've verified balance of energy and it says that aircraft really DID do these manuvers [/QUOTE]
I'm sorry mate, but basic physics would disagree, there is no way that an aircraft can descend 2000+ft then over 6 seconds ascend 700+ feet without G-forces enough to stress the aircraft to the point of breaking; pilots are taught to go with the fall.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/I7AJnDw.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Bradyns;49020388]I'm sorry mate, but basic physics would disagree, there is no way that an aircraft can descend 2000+ft then over 6 seconds ascend 700+ feet without G-forces enough to stress the aircraft to the point of breaking; pilots are taught to go with the fall.[/QUOTE]
The timestamps are not entirely correct here (they are timestamps of ADS-B stations) and speed are not in sync. Here's all the ADS-B data (last column is receiving station ID):
[code]
04:12:52Z.166 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.138 34.185 P 30850 7327 406 336 512 A 2593
04:12:52Z.174 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.138 34.185 P 30850 7327 406 336 512 A 2132
04:12:52Z.670 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.141 34.183 P 30875 7327 406 336 512 A 2614
04:12:56Z.216 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.143 34.182 P 30875 7327 407 335 512 A 2593
04:12:53Z.892 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.143 34.182 P 30875 7327 407 335 512 A 2132
04:12:56Z.474 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.146 34.18 P 30675 7327 408 336 576 A 2614
04:12:57Z.942 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.148 34.179 P 30750 7327 408 336 576 A 2593
04:12:58Z.444 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.149 34.179 P 31100 7327 408 335 -320 A 2132
04:13:00Z.502 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.151 34.178 P 33500 7327 404 335 -3584 A 2614
04:13:00Z.616 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.154 34.176 P 29750 7327 347 333 8000 A 2593
04:13:00Z.258 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.153 34.177 P 30975 7327 398 333 -5760 A 2132
04:13:00Z.062 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.153 34.177 P 30975 7327 398 333 -5760 A 2614
04:13:03Z.544 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.157 34.174 P 30650 7327 296 332 -5696 A 2593
04:13:02Z.636 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.156 34.175 P 33275 7327 342 335 -3904 A 2132
04:13:08Z.018 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.161 34.173 P 30825 7327 246 351 4544 A 2593
04:13:11Z.964 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.177 34.162 P 29925 7327 306 325 -6080 A 2593
04:13:11Z.950 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.177 34.162 P 29925 7327 306 325 -6080 A 2132
04:13:12Z.414 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.179 34.161 P 29925 7327 184 350 -4352 A 2593
04:13:13Z.424 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.179 34.161 P 29925 7327 169 357 -3968 A 2132
04:13:16Z.660 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.181 34.161 P 28375 7327 132 350 -6336 A 2593
04:13:14Z.124 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.18 34.161 P 29925 7327 162 359 -4352 A 2132
04:13:19Z.014 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.183 34.161 P 28375 7327 93 353 7744 A 2593
04:13:19Z.508 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.183 34.161 P 27925 7327 99 354 7808 A 2132
04:13:22Z.944 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.183 34.161 P 27925 7327 62 351 6528 A 2132
04:13:21Z.976 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.183 34.161 P 28375 7327 62 351 6528 A 2593
[/code]
If you approximate velocity drop from going between 30800 ft and 33500 ft, from energy ballance:
[code]
(9390 m * 9.81) + (209^2 m/s)/2 = 113960 J/kg
(10210 m * 9.81) + (X^2 m/s)/2 = 113960 J/kg
X = sqrt(2*(113960 - (10210 m * 9.81))) = 166.1 m/s = 322 knots
[/code]
So it ought to have done a rapid climb, although not necessarily as rapid as might seem at first.
4000ft...
The result is still the same though.
[QUOTE=BlackPhoenix;49020400]The timestamps are not entirely correct here (they are timestamps of ADS-B stations) and speed are not in sync. Here's all the ADS-B data (last column is receiving station ID):
[code]
04:12:52Z.166 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.138 34.185 P 30850 7327 406 336 512 A 2593
04:12:52Z.174 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.138 34.185 P 30850 7327 406 336 512 A 2132
04:12:52Z.670 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.141 34.183 P 30875 7327 406 336 512 A 2614
04:12:56Z.216 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.143 34.182 P 30875 7327 407 335 512 A 2593
04:12:53Z.892 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.143 34.182 P 30875 7327 407 335 512 A 2132
04:12:56Z.474 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.146 34.18 P 30675 7327 408 336 576 A 2614
04:12:57Z.942 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.148 34.179 P 30750 7327 408 336 576 A 2593
04:12:58Z.444 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.149 34.179 P 31100 7327 408 335 -320 A 2132
04:13:00Z.502 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.151 34.178 P 33500 7327 404 335 -3584 A 2614
04:13:00Z.616 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.154 34.176 P 29750 7327 347 333 8000 A 2593
04:13:00Z.258 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.153 34.177 P 30975 7327 398 333 -5760 A 2132
04:13:00Z.062 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.153 34.177 P 30975 7327 398 333 -5760 A 2614
04:13:03Z.544 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.157 34.174 P 30650 7327 296 332 -5696 A 2593
04:13:02Z.636 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.156 34.175 P 33275 7327 342 335 -3904 A 2132
04:13:08Z.018 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.161 34.173 P 30825 7327 246 351 4544 A 2593
04:13:11Z.964 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.177 34.162 P 29925 7327 306 325 -6080 A 2593
04:13:11Z.950 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.177 34.162 P 29925 7327 306 325 -6080 A 2132
04:13:12Z.414 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.179 34.161 P 29925 7327 184 350 -4352 A 2593
04:13:13Z.424 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.179 34.161 P 29925 7327 169 357 -3968 A 2132
04:13:16Z.660 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.181 34.161 P 28375 7327 132 350 -6336 A 2593
04:13:14Z.124 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.18 34.161 P 29925 7327 162 359 -4352 A 2132
04:13:19Z.014 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.183 34.161 P 28375 7327 93 353 7744 A 2593
04:13:19Z.508 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.183 34.161 P 27925 7327 99 354 7808 A 2132
04:13:22Z.944 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.183 34.161 P 27925 7327 62 351 6528 A 2132
04:13:21Z.976 0x4ca9bf KGL9268 30.183 34.161 P 28375 7327 62 351 6528 A 2593
[/code][/QUOTE]
I'll wait until the BBFR recovery until I start speculating to any degree the scenario.
NB: Apt use of the BB code for coding.
I don't get where are you getting IAS and TAS from though.
The only speed I see there is GS which is the 9th column.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;49020405]I'll wait until the BBFR recovery until I start speculating to any degree the scenario.
NB: Apt use of the BB code for coding.[/QUOTE]
It's not correct to speculate on severeness of the maneuvers (time data is not correct and ADS-B doesn't give good data on sudden changes, with velocity and altitude hardly being in sync), but all seems to indicate it did some pretty scary motions before stalling out.
[quote]I don't get where are you getting IAS and TAS from though.
The only speed I see there is GS which is the 9th column.[/quote]
You can estimate IAS from altitude and TAS, and before the off-nominal process started, TAS wouldn't be significantly different from GS, it was almost level by then.
It's entirely possible there was only one rapid ascent, and we have two peak points only because the timecodes are wrong (and the two peaks come from different stations). In this case, it would be a rapid ascent, but well within plane perfomance.
[QUOTE=BlackPhoenix;49020400]
[code]
(9390 m * 9.81) + (209^2 m/s)/2 = 113960 J/kg
(10210 m * 9.81) + (X^2 m/s)/2 = 113960 J/kg
X = sqrt(2*(113960 - (10210 m * 9.81))) = 166.1 m/s = 322 knots
[/code]
So it ought to have done a rapid climb, although not necessarily as rapid as might seem at first.[/QUOTE]
Ah refreshed and saw this. Makes enough sense to me.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/CdDeR51.png[/IMG]
There was only one rise up after all. This is same data, except each receiving station more or less synchronized (removed time offsets between them). Speed indication is lagging behind the altitude data (it seems to be inherent to ADS-B) by about 2 seconds.
Again, don't necessarily believe that it peaked at 33500+ ft, this only indicates that it sharply rose before stalling, only the black boxes can tell exactly what happened.
Energy balance (including the velocity lag):
[img]http://i.imgur.com/SFF1TYT.png[/img]
2000+ ft in a few seconds, what.
I don't get it.
The aircraft should have gained velocity as its altitude dropped.
[editline]1st November 2015[/editline]
Well, unless something catastrophic happened to it.
[QUOTE=download;49020660]The aircraft should have gained velocity as its altitude dropped.
[editline]1st November 2015[/editline]
Well, unless something catastrophic happened to it.[/QUOTE]
Initially it seems to maintain it's total energy, losing velocity as it ascends, then estimated indicated airspeed drops below stall value and it stalls out, rapidly losing energy as wings no longer keep it up in air, instead brake it (simply put).
[url]http://avherald.com/h?article=48e9abe4[/url]
[quote]
Egyptian media report with reference to an Egyptian government meeting that the crew reported engine (V2533) trouble, subsequently lost control of the aircraft and communication ceased.
[/quote]
But rightfully it shouldn't stay that way shouldn't it? Of course, the data is short but unless the plane was completely vertical during the stall it should have pitched or banked to face down and regain speed.
[editline]1st November 2015[/editline]
Ah fuck I completely disregarded my point about it being GS and not KIAS.
Once the VS gets extreme the difference between GS and KIAS would already be huge.
[QUOTE=adam1172;49020729]Ah fuck I completely disregarded my point about it being GS and not KIAS.
Once the VS gets extreme the difference between GS and KIAS would already be huge.[/QUOTE]
That's a good point, the energy 'drop' is probably more significant than it really was because it would mostly gain downwards velocity as potential energy bled into kinetic.
Apparently ISIS has claimed the crash
[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;49020887]Apparently ISIS has claimed the crash[/QUOTE]
I am an official representative of Anonymous and I claim this crash as our own doing.
Terrorist groups claim responsibility for everything.
The statement claiming it was them was posted on a site for IS supporters apparently, take it with a grain of salt I guess
[url]http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/is-eist-crash-russisch-toestel-egypte-met-224-doden-op~a4175265/[/url]
This video allegedly shows the plane being shot down, take this with a grain of salt also:
[video=youtube;wYvZ0u6vqQY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYvZ0u6vqQY[/video]
Here's an English source by the way [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11967725/Russian-plane-crash-Isil-claims-it-brought-down-airliner-that-crashed-in-Sinai-with-224-people-on-board-latest-news.html[/url]
Wow, 16 years ago the exact same thing happened.
Flight 990 was also brought down by an Egyptian Extremist.
Doesn't help that Mohammed Atta was Egyptian too. What the fuck is up with Egypt and aerial attacks?
Bodies have been found in a 5 km radius. Mid air breakup?
[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;49020914]The statement claiming it was them was posted on a site for IS supporters apparently, take it with a grain of salt I guess
[url]http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/is-eist-crash-russisch-toestel-egypte-met-224-doden-op~a4175265/[/url]
This video allegedly shows the plane being shot down, take this with a grain of salt also:
[video=youtube;wYvZ0u6vqQY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYvZ0u6vqQY[/video]
Here's an English source by the way [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11967725/Russian-plane-crash-Isil-claims-it-brought-down-airliner-that-crashed-in-Sinai-with-224-people-on-board-latest-news.html[/url][/QUOTE]
That does seem consistent with the flight profile, you can see it slow down then tip over.
[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;49020914]The statement claiming it was them was posted on a site for IS supporters apparently, take it with a grain of salt I guess
[url]http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/is-eist-crash-russisch-toestel-egypte-met-224-doden-op~a4175265/[/url]
This video allegedly shows the plane being shot down, take this with a grain of salt also:
[video=youtube;wYvZ0u6vqQY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYvZ0u6vqQY[/video]
Here's an English source by the way [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11967725/Russian-plane-crash-Isil-claims-it-brought-down-airliner-that-crashed-in-Sinai-with-224-people-on-board-latest-news.html[/url][/QUOTE]
I'm feeling like that's pretty fake. Wasn't the plane at cruising altitude? It looks mighty close, even for a zoomed in camera. The smoke and such looks very "clean" as well. I suspect that the blur and shakiness is obscuring editing.
From BBC's live page
[quote]Russian Transport Minister Maxim Sokolov says the plane could not have been downed by a missile fired by jihadist militants. "Such reports cannot be considered true," he tells the Interfax news agency, according to BBC Monitoring.
"We are in close touch with our colleagues from Egypt and their air traffic authorities, and they have nothing at the moment which could confirm such fabrications," he adds.[/quote]
[QUOTE=download;49020660]The aircraft should have gained velocity as its altitude dropped.
[editline]1st November 2015[/editline]
Well, unless something catastrophic happened to it.[/QUOTE]
Unless the pilots kept pulling back on the stick, which would have kept the plane flat as it lost altitude.
The sudden crazy climb, followed by losing airspeed and then dropping again sounds similar to [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447"]Air France 447[/URL].
[QUOTE=smurfy;49021045]From BBC's live page[/QUOTE]
Whilst I think it's totally possible for there to have been a mechanical failure, and that's the more likely answer, a Russian minister saying "it cannot be considered true" pretty much seems to mean "we don't want it to be true".
[QUOTE=Itsjustguy;49019813]Karma ?
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Awful post" - Craptasket))[/highlight][/QUOTE]
How would you feel if it was 200 Latvians? Fucking cool it with the Russophobia.
[QUOTE=smurfy;49021045]From BBC's live page[/QUOTE]
Well, that was that then
Russia will make it out to be whatever russia wants it to be for leverage, a casus belli of sorts.
[QUOTE=Ridge;49021049]Unless the pilots kept pulling back on the stick, which would have kept the plane flat as it lost altitude.
The sudden crazy climb, followed by losing airspeed and then dropping again sounds similar to [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447"]Air France 447[/URL].[/QUOTE]
There would be absolutely no reason for the pilots to pull back on the stick though. (other than disorientation of course)
Because stall is basically the plane going its critical angle of attack, the standard procedure is to firewall the throttle and pitch down.
Just to clarify things for everyone. Because ADS-B data is intended for ATC and TCAS, GPS based ground speed is given instead of airspeed.
Ground speed is the speed of the aircraft in a parallel relative to the ground.
Airspeed is the true speed of the aircraft.
Which brings us to this, (I'm going to use metric for convenience)
[IMG]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32814946/ASvGS.png[/IMG]
Imagine each line representing the speed of the aircraft, and in both cases the airspeed is 200m/s
If the aircraft is relatively flat, and all other factors are discounted (winds etc) then Airspeed=Ground Speed. Hence the blue bar and red bar being of the same length.
However in scenario 2, if a positive pitch or a negative pitch is present, Pythagoras's theorem comes and and the distance covered by the plane will be shorter. Hence ground speed will register as slower.
So for example, if a plane were to stall and fall at a negative pitch of 70° while having an airspeed of 400kias, the GS would show as 88kts instead.
PS yes that is a black 2d image of an A321
[QUOTE=adam1172;49021255]Ground speed is the speed of the aircraft in a parallel relative to the ground.
Airspeed is the true speed of the aircraft.[/QUOTE]
Just to add on to it, there are three important speeds:
1. Ground speed - horizontal speed of the aircraft.
2. True airspeed - true speed of aircraft relative to the surface
3. Indicated airspeed - shows the pressure of external air upon the body of the plane. It's a measure of plane performance. The plane stalls when indicated airspeed is below a threshold (not enough pressure on the wings -> not enough lift).
Indicated velocity of 250 knots would be 250 knots true velocity at sea level. Indicated velocity of 250 knots would be around 400 knots true velocity at 30,000 ft because of reduced air pressure.
ADS-B does not record indicated or true airspeed.
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;49021065]Whilst I think it's totally possible for there to have been a mechanical failure, and that's the more likely answer, a Russian minister saying "it cannot be considered true" pretty much seems to mean "we don't want it to be true".[/QUOTE]
No he's saying it cannot be considered true because it's impossible. Rebels in the Sinai, or ISIS for that matter don't have access to vehicle based AA, and manpad systems can't hit passenger planes at 31,000 ft.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
