Ukranian Airlines Flight PS752 Crash (See mod note/warning in post 270)

IE 222

Should there not be some debris where the plane was hit as opposed to supposedly finding the head of a missile at the crash site seen as the plane flew for another few miles. Do these not explode beside the plane or can they lodge themselves into the interior somehow.

Would the low altitude help the plane stay intact.

GM228

CPTM wrote: »

I just dont understand how this happens by mistake. If you're sitting with your finger on a red button waiting to shoot down enemy planes, surely you would have a copy of all scheduled commercial flights due to depart your international airport that day at the very least.

It had a fast rate of ascent which is similar to that used by military aircraft in an active warzone and it is possible an automated defence system was activated mistaken it for a military aircraft.

smurfjed

Of all the people on boards tho, I'd be certain that you more than most would agree that Comms were at the back of the flight crews mind during their brief time trying to save the airframe?
Aviate, navigate and communicate.

ok so they were busy, what about the transponder?

Discodog

IE 222 wrote: »

Should there not be some debris where the plane was hit as opposed to supposedly finding the head of a missile at the crash site seen as the plane flew for another few miles. Do these not explode beside the plane or can they lodge themselves into the interior somehow.

Would the low altitude help the plane stay intact.

They use proximity fuses & explode close to the target. They produce lots of shrapnel.

GM228

GM228 wrote: »

It had a fast rate of ascent which is similar to that used by military aircraft in an active warzone and it is possible an automated defence system was activated mistaken it for a military aircraft.

And it was delayed as well I believe which could add confusion.

banie01

smurfjed wrote: »

ok so they were busy, what about the transponder?

Have no clue, nor have I claimed to.
But the 1st sentence of the post you quoted from would have made that clear, I thought?

Any opinion on it yourself?

Nijmegen

I think a point a lot of people don’t consider when wondering why “the Iranians” would shoot down a 737, it’s not “the Iranians” it’s some young conscript, possibly using antiquated soviet hardware, on the night that Iran fired missiles directly at the Americans. The chances for an accidental shoot down under those circumstances is very real. As for why you’d put a SAM site at the end of your runway, it’s so you can shoot down a bomber coming to crater the runway.

IE 222

Apparently this is the strike.

https://twitter.com/NarimanGharib/status/1215334836937928705?s=20

CPTM

wcooba wrote: »

This flight was delayed by almost an hour.

But that's easily available information to track. This flight could have very likely been full of Iranian citizens. Anyways, I would have thought anyone firing missiles would have a flight radar24 screen in front of them to quickly check anything unusual but I suppose they're not as sophisticated as some boardsies!. Perhaps an automated system that wasn't smart enough to know commercial flights can sometimes be delayed.

the_syco

scotchy wrote: »

Iran are denying it was hit with a missile.

It would explain why they're not handing over the black boxes.

=-=

A few photos on Funker530 show SA-15 missiles that are said to have been found "under the flight path of the Ukrainian passenger jet". The Tor air-defense system that would have launched said missiles is fairly old.

If this turns out to be true, I'd say most airlines will decide not to fly to Iran.

Nijmegen

Wow. Very sad. If that video is confirmed as legit, you can clearly see the missile come up head on at the aircraft before it detonated.

fritzelly

So two missiles fired, possible 3, they were making sure it was going down.

CPTM

CPTM wrote: »

But that's easily available information to track. This flight could have very likely been full of Iranian citizens. Anyways, I would have thought anyone firing missiles would have a flight radar24 screen in front of them to quickly check anything unusual but I suppose they're not as sophisticated as some boardsies!. Perhaps an automated system that wasn't smart enough to know commercial flights can sometimes be delayed.

You're kidding right? You must be kidding if you imagine an Irani using what is likely an American website to check its airspace.

Can you imagine that conversation after getting bombed.. "But sir, flightrader said it was a passenger plane!"

wcooba

CPTM wrote: »

But that's easily available information to track. This flight could have very likely been full of Iranian citizens. Anyways, I would have thought anyone firing missiles would have a flight radar24 screen in front of them to quickly check anything unusual but I suppose they're not as sophisticated as some boardsies!. Perhaps an automated system that wasn't smart enough to know commercial flights can sometimes be delayed.

It is actually quite possible it was automated response. The main threat for Iranian infrastructure are Israeli missiles and I remember reading somewhere they bavar SAM system uses fuzzy logic.

I think picture of Iranians some paint here is incorrect. Iran is not Afghanistan with some guerilla fighters using some random ex-Soviet equipment...

skallywag

CPTM wrote: »

Anyways, I would have thought anyone firing missiles would have a flight radar24 screen in front of them to quickly check anything unusual....

I sit beside a guy at work who has commanded an anti-aircraft missile system during a war, which has fired on aircraft.

Your comment just made him smile

splashuum

One would of had to have been VERY naive to believe this was anything other than an accidental attack by Iran. Has intuition and common sense gone completely out the window? Sad

skallywag

splashuum wrote: »

One would of had to have been VERY naive to believe this was anything other than an attack by Iran. Has intuition and common sense gone completely out the window? Sad

I believe the Iranians fired on the aircraft believing it was an attacking enemy.

Just like the US did to an Iranian airliner, or MH17 etc,

smurfjed

or MH17 etc,

how was this ever considered an “attacking enemy”

Letwin_Larry

scotchy wrote: »

BBC and Sky leading with Megan and Harry FFS

i know. i say the headlines 'The knives are out for them' or words to that effect, and i immediately thought, what the heck! is Trump ratcheting things up again?. then as i read further, it was all about Megan & Harry.
that's the DailyMail for ya.

smurfjed

Any opinion on it yourself?

so you are considering a loss of electrical power, it’s highly unlikely due to system redundancies, for example we have two engine driven electrical generators, an apu generator, a hydraulically powered generator and finally two batteries, so it’s pretty hard to lose the left radio which is considered the primary radio.

skallywag

smurfjed wrote: »

how was this ever considered an “attacking enemy”

How did the US Navy think that an Iranian airliner was an 'attacking enemy'?

IE 222

fritzelly wrote: »

So two missiles fired, possible 3, they were making sure it was going down.

https://twitter.com/alihashem_tv/status/1214756252749877250

Supposedly the flash at 4 seconds is the second one hitting it and the debris falling out afterwards. The plane does seem to descend quicker after that point although this would of been a good 1-2 minutes later given where the transponder was lost and were the aircraft impacted the ground.

I'm still not fully convinced on this. I think Trump would of used this info more to his advantage, maybe this is his way of pressuring the Iranians into allowing the NTSB in or getting hold of the black boxes. Other than the US nobody else is claiming it was shot down.

Letwin_Larry

skallywag wrote: »

How did the US Navy think that an Iranian airliner was an 'attacking enemy'?

i think the euphemistic term is called "the fog of war".
sadly and with tragic consequences bullets, and missiles go astray and/or innocent people and passenger aircraft get confused for legitimate enemy targets.

banie01

smurfjed wrote: »

so you are considering a loss of electrical power, it’s highly unlikely due to system redundancies, for example we have two engine driven electrical generators, an apu generator, a hydraulically powered generator and finally two batteries, so it’s pretty hard to lose the left radio which is considered the primary radio.

The missile strike now appears to have been head on and the cockpit was likely wiped out fairly instantly.

If that is what happened, complete loss of Comms, control and flight deck.

The total loss of Comms doesn't tally with my original theory of an uncontained engine failure.
Which in any case has been superseded by the new information from Iraq and US sources.


The information that's trickling out seems to think it was 3 launches with 2 impacts and at least 1 from a head on aspect.

skallywag

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i think the euphemistic term is called "the fog of war".

Very much so.

The Iranian airliner was climbing while the lad on the US ship thought it was descending and they fired. In his mind he was scared ****less and saw something that was not true.

Discodog

It explains why both the US & Iran said there would be no further military action. Trudeau is now confirming it & saying that Iran won't release the recorders.

the_syco

fritzelly wrote: »

So two missiles fired, possible 3, they were making sure it was going down.

They hit the US, they expected retaliation. They probably thought the plane was a bomber.

IE 222 wrote: »

I think Trump would of used this info more to his advantage

I think the US intel community isn't as forthcoming to Trump after he released a photo from their spy satellite.

CPTM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You're kidding right? You must be kidding if you imagine an Irani using what is likely an American website to check its airspace.

Can you imagine that conversation after getting bombed.. "But sir, flightrader said it was a passenger plane!"

skallywag wrote: »

I sit beside a guy at work who has commanded an anti-aircraft missile system during a war, which has fired on aircraft.

Your comment just made him smile

Ok fair enough, maybe not flightradar24, but you know what I mean. To put it another way, if they aren't double checking for commercial flights using SOME kind of technology I'm surprised this kind of thing doesn't happen all the time.

Ps, would your colleague be up for an AMA on here sometime?! I sit beside a guy who speaks at length about the burger he made over the weekend.

L1011

A thread-banned user came back and posted some gubbins again. I've removed the posts quoting them, and they won't be back

skallywag

CPTM wrote: »

Ps, would your colleague be up for an AMA on here sometime?!

I doubt it very much, it was not the nicest time of his life.

It was during the NATO attacks on Serbia by the way. They spent most of their time moving around and trying not be obliterated from above. As brave as a face he put on it at the time he openly tells me that he was sihting himself constantly during that time.