An Azerbaijani passenger jet carrying 67 people crashed in Kazakhstan Wednesday morning killing 38 people and leaving 29 survivors, according to the country’s officials.
Other forums are saying this was an anti aircraft missile that brought this plane down. Lots of holes in the skin of the tail of the airplane. Flight data recorder readout will definitely be interesting.
If Russia said it was a bird strike, it’s like they said he fell out of a high rise building. You have to believe them.)
Why would anyone be videoing an airliner like this for such a long time unless they knew something is going to happen? There are lots of takes offs and landings every day. Why this one?
The right rear hydraulic/jackscrew access hatch #3 was open BEFORE the crash. It can clearly be seen just below the elevator root leading edge. That alone cannot cause a crash. That door uses pressure relief type latches, opening the door if a depressurization occurs. I’m assuming, but don’t know for sure, that prevents the rudder from blowing apart if the rear pressure bulkhead blows for some reason. The rudder and elevator are peppered with shrapnel holes from an external explosion. Some holes are blown outward, and some inward. Shrapnel entering the skin from one side and exiting the other would do this. The question is if the pressure shock wave from an explosion could have both triggered the pressure relief latches to open the door, and also cause a hyraulic leak compromising control surface authority. I don’t know, just wondering.
Uhhhhm, I’m not a metallurgical expert, but I don’t think those perforations on the empennage are due to bird strikes. What’s amazing is how 29 passengers in the broken rear half of the fuselage survived at those impact forces. Found these video clips on a French news site which are pretty impressive yet sobering (https://www.francetvinfo.fr/).
But there’s much speculation in forums, including this one, much of it garbage talk.
But wouldn’t the holes you describe be from shrapnel coming from both sides?
Yes, missiles are often fired in pairs to ensure one hits, BUT explosion of wings from fuel during the crash is plausible.
People like to photograph airplanes, do it often.
It’s very clear in the video that the crew has no hydraulics and are fighting the phugoid effect of the aircraft’s power and speed changes with whatever they could similar to how the crew of United 232 did in saving so many people in its crash landing. The after crash photos also clearly show shrapnel damage to the empennage most likely from a surface to air missile.
At this early point it is difficult to even know what ‘Russia’ said.
The airline is not Russian, I read, but headed from Azerbaijan to Russia, diverted to Kazakhstan because of weather.
It could be. Depends on the number of missiles, and the location of the explosions. All the testimony said was some of the holes were bent inward, and some outward. Nothing more can determined other than a probable missile attack. Obviously, the fire at ground impact was wing tank fuel. There was no fire prior to impact. There is no mechanical malfunction that could create the damage shown in the aftermath video.
Elementary, Watson. I didn’t see and post-crash photos, but I did see no fire and no explosion until the crash. Regardless of “other posts,” I think a missile attack wouldn’t wait until then. So much for that.
I also find it suspicious that a “bystander” would be screaming his way through a lengthy video at all. What prompts anyone to record THAT flight among hundreds of others on any given day? You just don’t “notice” something’s going wrong unless you are intensely watching, prompted by something unusual.
In my mind the dotted lines connect the video to the crash.
Would have to be two missiles - one each side, which is plausible.
My suggestions of fuel tank explosion in the crash was of both wings exploding thus shrapnel from both sides.
Some people point to rocks in the soil under the crash, thus possibility of forward fuselage throwing rocks up as it skidded across the ground.
There’s too much speculation, and loose talk like your ‘evidence’ which in reality is information that has not been vetted.
I notice there are a number of comments on the video by the person taking it, and by other near by, not sure what language it is. Anyone know how to translate it? It might be quite interesting!
A probable missile attack would be evident in the pre-crash video. No explosion, no fire, no flames. BUT…those holes in the stabilizer appear to be bullet holes from ground fire. If the control systems were damaged, the would explain the erratic flight path.
I “love” the posts on here that complain about speculation and then go on to speculate. A lot of people don’t understand that many missiles don’t actually hit a target. They are designed to explode near a target and pepper it with shrapnel to bring it down. So no, the lack of fire prior to the crash does NOT rule out a missile attack. Also, survivors all say there were two loud booms. Two missiles, then. The hydraulic door #3 was dangling open prior to the crash. This is visible on the video. It is secured with pressure-release latches that blow open in the event of a pressure wave. Like an exploding missile nearby would create. The wobbly radar track is probably nothing more than compromises hydraulics.
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.