I'm surprised no one has brought it up yet. My first reaction when I heard about it yesterday that a missile brought it down. So far, there is no official word on the cause of the crash but that's one of the things that is being investigated. Several airlines have ceased flying in that region as a result similar to what we saw in the Ukraine last year.

Did the Islamic insurgents have a missile capable of bringing down that plane? If not, who could have done it? Or was it just a mechanical failure of some type?

Knowing how competent our leadership is, we probably have been giving advanced surface to air missiles to some crazy bastards in the region for some time now.

Okay, well, maybe not.

That said, It's highly likely some pretty advanced weaponry has fallen into ISIS' hands along with everything else they got from Libya.

(11-01-2015 11:27 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I'm surprised no one has brought it up yet. My first reaction when I heard about it yesterday that a missile brought it down. So far, there is no official word on the cause of the crash but that's one of the things that is being investigated. Several airlines have ceased flying in that region as a result similar to what we saw in the Ukraine last year.

Did the Islamic insurgents have a missile capable of bringing down that plane? If not, who could have done it? Or was it just a mechanical failure of some type?

ISIS claimed to bring it down, but I'm not sure anybody believes that yet.

I have been told never to fly on Russian airlines because their maintenance is gawd awful.

Quote:I'm surprised no one has brought it up yet. My first reaction when I heard about it yesterday that a missile brought it down.

I read that the pilot had reported difficulty minutes before the break-up. That pretty much eliminates a missile.


UPDATE: Latest reports refute the earlier report that the pilot radioed he was having problems. So a missile or bomb appears to be back on the table. I wouldn't put it past Putin to take down one of his own so he can blame ISIS.

I would be quite surprised if ISIS affiliates have large missiles capable of shooting down aircraft in the Sinai. As dangerous as Syria and eastern Ukraine may be, Sinai is pretty tame compared to them -- the Egyptians have done an okay job at stopping them from gaining much of a foothold.

(11-01-2015 01:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 11:27 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I'm surprised no one has brought it up yet. My first reaction when I heard about it yesterday that a missile brought it down. So far, there is no official word on the cause of the crash but that's one of the things that is being investigated. Several airlines have ceased flying in that region as a result similar to what we saw in the Ukraine last year.

Did the Islamic insurgents have a missile capable of bringing down that plane? If not, who could have done it? Or was it just a mechanical failure of some type?

ISIS claimed to bring it down, but I'm not sure anybody believes that yet.

yeah, if they have a missile that can reach that high that's no bueno.

(11-01-2015 01:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 11:27 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I'm surprised no one has brought it up yet. My first reaction when I heard about it yesterday that a missile brought it down. So far, there is no official word on the cause of the crash but that's one of the things that is being investigated. Several airlines have ceased flying in that region as a result similar to what we saw in the Ukraine last year.

Did the Islamic insurgents have a missile capable of bringing down that plane? If not, who could have done it? Or was it just a mechanical failure of some type?

ISIS claimed to bring it down, but I'm not sure anybody believes that yet.

Russia can't be trusted to tell the truth so who knows wtf happened.
Reports said the pilot complained to his family about the airplane/maintenance.

The aircraft was an Airbus machine. I've only flown on Russian airliners a few times but what they have in the way of western aircraft are pretty nice and most are new, and even new by our standards.

(11-02-2015 11:24 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The aircraft was an Airbus machine. I've only flown on Russian airliners a few times but what they have in the way of western aircraft are pretty nice and most are new, and even new by our standards.

Apparently something happened to the tail of the aircraft years ago and there is speculation it may have not been fixed properly. Who knows if we will ever find out the real reason of the crash though.

It's an airbus a-321.. so that in itself is problematic.

This plane had a tailstrike in the past. It can take years years of repeated pressurizations for the bulkhead to give way in a explosive decompression.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_123

(11-02-2015 11:36 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-02-2015 11:24 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The aircraft was an Airbus machine. I've only flown on Russian airliners a few times but what they have in the way of western aircraft are pretty nice and most are new, and even new by our standards.

Apparently something happened to the tail of the aircraft years ago and there is speculation it may have not been fixed properly. Who knows if we will ever find out the real reason of the crash though.

I watch the **** out of those air crash investigation shows and I want to say there was one on the very same topic.

The issue is that Russia has such a poor reputation for aircraft maintenance, pilot training, and safe flying regulation adherence that most people will simply shrug and say

"Meh, another Russian aircraft crash"

Combine Russia's history of unsafe airline operations with Egypt's abysmal security situation, and God only knows what the real story will be.

My guess is that Russia wants to make it ISIS so they can try to sell their adventure in Syria (even though Russia doesn't appear to be in Syria to fight ISIS as much as it is there to fight the non-ISIS Assad opposition)

(11-02-2015 12:08 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-02-2015 11:36 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-02-2015 11:24 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The aircraft was an Airbus machine. I've only flown on Russian airliners a few times but what they have in the way of western aircraft are pretty nice and most are new, and even new by our standards.

Apparently something happened to the tail of the aircraft years ago and there is speculation it may have not been fixed properly. Who knows if we will ever find out the real reason of the crash though.

I watch the **** out of those air crash investigation shows and I want to say there was one on the very same topic.

Same here. There are 3-4 of them that are really good.

(11-02-2015 11:53 AM)No Bull Wrote:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_123

Why on Earth was JAL using a 747 for a domestic flight in the first place? Tokyo to Osaka is like Mew York to Philly. I'm impressed they got 500+ people to buy that ticket.

(11-02-2015 12:32 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The issue is that Russia has such a poor reputation for aircraft maintenance, pilot training, and safe flying regulation adherence that most people will simply shrug and say

"Meh, another Russian aircraft crash"

Combine Russia's history of unsafe airline operations with Egypt's abysmal security situation, and God only knows what the real story will be.

My guess is that Russia wants to make it ISIS so they can try to sell their adventure in Syria (even though Russia doesn't appear to be in Syria to fight ISIS as much as it is there to fight the non-ISIS Assad opposition)

,

When a rare event takes place, it seems appropriate to provide recognition of this special situation. Therefore, as difficult as it is for me to admit this, I totally agree with you.

This is beginning to look a lot like TWA 800.

(11-03-2015 08:53 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  This is beginning to look a lot like TWA 800.

It is. Heat signature may indicate an explosion of some sort. TWA 800 left a lot of questions about what ignited the center fuel tank...they really never located the electrical short that cause the explosion... I think proceedures for empty center fuel tanks were changed as a result of TWA 800's explosion though...

(11-03-2015 09:49 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(11-03-2015 08:53 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  This is beginning to look a lot like TWA 800.

It is. Heat signature may indicate an explosion of some sort. TWA 800 left a lot of questions about what ignited the center fuel tank...they really never located the electrical short that cause the explosion... I think proceedures for empty center fuel tanks were changed as a result of TWA 800's explosion though...

I still remember the CIA video...

NOT a missile..... blah blah blah.... NOT a missile....

(11-03-2015 11:30 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-03-2015 09:49 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(11-03-2015 08:53 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  This is beginning to look a lot like TWA 800.

It is. Heat signature may indicate an explosion of some sort. TWA 800 left a lot of questions about what ignited the center fuel tank...they really never located the electrical short that cause the explosion... I think proceedures for empty center fuel tanks were changed as a result of TWA 800's explosion though...

I still remember the CIA video...

NOT a missile..... blah blah blah.... NOT a missile....

I've posted before that although I don't hold to many conspiracy theories (eg. 911, Kennedy, etc) I've never been quite comfortable with the explanation of TWA 800.

(11-03-2015 11:34 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(11-03-2015 11:30 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-03-2015 09:49 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(11-03-2015 08:53 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  This is beginning to look a lot like TWA 800.

It is. Heat signature may indicate an explosion of some sort. TWA 800 left a lot of questions about what ignited the center fuel tank...they really never located the electrical short that cause the explosion... I think proceedures for empty center fuel tanks were changed as a result of TWA 800's explosion though...

I still remember the CIA video...

NOT a missile..... blah blah blah.... NOT a missile....

I've posted before that although I don't hold to many conspiracy theories (eg. 911, Kennedy, etc) I've never been quite comfortable with the explanation of TWA 800.

me either...