nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

wandererz

Ukrainian Airlines 737 with 180 people.

No confidence left in Boeing whatsoever.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7863359/Ukrainian-passenger-plane-carrying-180-people-crashes-near-Tehran-local-media.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

cnocbui

IE 222 wrote: »

Well then there should be no reason to have any doubts as the Ukrainians have echoed anything the Iranians have said. It's likely some of the information the Iranians have released was sourced from the Ukrainians.

That is untrue. The Iranians have stated a technical problem with the plane, caused the crash, the Ukrainians withdrew their initial parroting of the Iranian statement - probably after they saw images of the shrapnel pierced skin panels and parts.

Fox news is now reporting the Iranians are claiming the recorders were badly damaged and that some of the data has been lost. https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukrainian-passenger-plane-never-radioed-for-help-before-crash-black-boxes-damaged-iranian-investigators-say

Why am I not surprised?

Cookiemunster

Nijmegen wrote: »

The radar used by the civil authorities, which is what I would presume they're talking about when they say it went off radar, is reliant on the transponder though.

Again, that is not how radar works. RADAR (RAdio Detecting And Ranging) sends an omni directional radio wave out and gets a ping (reflection) back off any object it makes contact with. All transponders do is identify what the ping on the radar is.

Supercell

The share price didnt move much yesterday in comparison to the previous week, which says a lot about how people feel whether it was a Boeing plane fault or not in my opinion.
How come there was so many Canadian's on this and zero Americans?, seems strange, dont know what to think about that.

Letwin_Larry

L1011 wrote: »

I wouldn't write off technical issues same as I wouldn't write off a shoot down. Coincidences happen.

Nearly everyone was convinced the AA crash in late 2001 was terrorism - so soon after takeoff and crashing in a residential area. It was a mechanical failure enduced by bad piloting

some years ago i heard a PhD Mathematician give a very interesting talk on coincidences, chance, game theory etc.. tbh i didn't fully understand it, but the gist as i could gather was,

it is not odd that coincidences happen, but it would actually be weirder if they did not!

Caranica

Supercell wrote: »

How come there was so many Canadian's on this and zero Americans?, seems strange, dont know what to think about that.

Read the thread, it's all been explained!

IE 222

cnocbui wrote: »

That is untrue. The Iranians have stated a technical problem with the plane, caused the crash, the Ukrainians withdrew their initial parroting of the Iranian statement - probably after they saw images of the shrapnel pierced skin panels and parts.

Fox news is now reporting the Iranians are claiming the recorders were badly damaged and that some of the data has been lost. https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukrainian-passenger-plane-never-radioed-for-help-before-crash-black-boxes-damaged-iranian-investigators-say

Why am I not surprised?

Not a singal person or country has suggested or claiming it was a missile strike. Trump would of been very quick off the mark if he had the slightest inkling of a missile.

rolion

IE 222 wrote: »

Not a singal person or country has suggested or claiming it was a missile strike. Trump would of been very quick off the mark if he had the slightest inkling of a missile.

Good point ! On MH17 they knew in what...minutes !?

IE 222

rolion wrote: »

Good point ! On MH17 they knew in what...minutes !?

Its was still burning on the ground

goingnowhere

cnocbui wrote: »

That is untrue. The Iranians have stated a technical problem with the plane, caused the crash, the Ukrainians withdrew their initial parroting of the Iranian statement - probably after they saw images of the shrapnel pierced skin panels and parts.

Fox news is now reporting the Iranians are claiming the recorders were badly damaged and that some of the data has been lost. https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukrainian-passenger-plane-never-radioed-for-help-before-crash-black-boxes-damaged-iranian-investigators-say

Why am I not surprised?

Unlikely the Iranian have the equipment to read and decode a 737-NG flight recorder, didn't look too badly beat up in the photos

Normally the investigators would try to access the box and if that fails, take it apart and transplant the memory board into a new unit, Iranian's again won't be able to do this.

Many airlines have a QAR fitted as well which is much more detailed, while not designed to survive a crash in some cases they do and thats a credit card sized module which is easy enough to access with a pc but the magic is the software to decode what the data means.

Would be important to match the serial numbers on the recorders with the production records also...

Letwin_Larry

IE 222 wrote: »

Not a singal person or country has suggested or claiming it was a missile strike. Trump would of been very quick off the mark if he had the slightest inkling of a missile.

not necessarily. there were no Americans on board that we know of, so Donald may not be that concerned.
after all he has won a major coup vis a vis the Iranians by taking out their top general/terrorist, and suffered little or no damage as a consequence.
from his press conference he seems to be more concerned about striking some kind of deal with the Iranians.

the world is now a safer place thanks to his decisive and audacious action, so the deaths of these people might be considered by some to be a price worth paying.
a frightening scenario, but such is the nature of international conflict.

banie01

IE 222 wrote: »

Not a singal person or country has suggested or claiming it was a missile strike. Trump would of been very quick off the mark if he had the slightest inkling of a missile.

I'd be very much leaning towards this view.
The US had likely every ISTAR asset available to them pointed at Iran over the last few weeks.
Monitoring every military movement, prep and launch.

If an Iranian missile took down the plane, the US certainly know that it happened and likely which unit down to the individual launcher that fired it.

That leaves 2 possibilities IMO.
1. That the Iranian story regarding a technical issue and crash, however coincidental is basically correct.
or
2. The US are giving the Iranian regime enogh rope to hang themselves.
To spin their story of a crash and painting themselves into a corner.
Then when the iranians are committed, the US releases their evidence to show the iranians as untrustworthy and liars.

Given how quick Trump is to lay blame, option 2 would seem to be beyond the ken of the current US administration IMO.
Only way would be if they havent actually told Don

Discodog

I would of thought that, at 8000 feet, a 50 caliber on the back of a pickup truck could down it. The Iranians must of been expecting retaliation especially as Trump promised it.

At that height it was noisey & could easily spook the Iranians especially as it was dark.

faoiarvok

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Again, that is not how radar works. RADAR (RAdio Detecting And Ranging) sends an omni directional radio wave out and gets a ping (reflection) back off any object it makes contact with. All transponders do is identify what the ping on the radar is.

That is how a combined primary & secondary radar works.

A secondary only radar is a “co-operative” surveillance system that requires the aircraft transponder to respond to its interrogations. No transponder, no target.

I don’t know which type of radar coverage was available at that location and time.

ETA: The Iranian AIP makes no mention of primary radar available for radar services, only MSSRs (Monopulse Secondary Surveillance Radar). Doesn’t necessarily disprove the existence of primary radar for civil use, but I’d find it odd for them not to mention if it was there.

banie01

Discodog wrote: »

I would of thought that, at 8000 feet, a 50 caliber on the back of a pickup truck could down it. The Iranians must of been expecting retaliation especially as Trump promised it.

At that height it was noisey & could easily spook the Iranians especially as it was dark.

But then you would also have to assume that the Iranians had deployed lashed up technicals on the departure path of an International airport?

That said lashed up technical managed to engage and down a target at 8k vertical moving at @300kph in a climb and at an unknown horizantal distance?
but lets say within 3km on the ground.

That gives a slant distance of in and about 3km to target.
Using a russian 12.7mm or 14.5mm both of which have an effective range of @2km means the likelihood of it being a lucky shot by a trigger happy machine gunner even less likely than a catastrophic engine failure.

The likelihood of even bracketing the Jet at that range with a machine gun is very low, the Jet is fully flight capable on one engine and whilst the Jet isnt designed for combat redundancy a lucky hit by a machine gun isnt taking out jet with widely spaced engines separated by a fuselage isnt happening unless an API round hits the cockpit.

If it was shot down, it was a missile.

However, doesn't this particular model have the CFM engine that is slated to be wrapped in new Kevlar shrouds?
The engine that has previously failed and exploded?
Flinging shrapnel out of the cowling on an SWA flight if memory serves?

Adding the link to WapO CFM story confirming known issue and FAA fix

No Machine gunor missile strike needed for this failure and very lucky escape for the airframe.

wcooba

banie01 wrote: »

However, doesn't this particular model have the CFM engine that is slated to be wrapped in new Kevlar shrouds?
The engine that has previously failed and exploded?
Flinging shrapnel out of the cowling on an SWA flight if memory serves?

Those engines are used in MAX not NG variant - no?

I think one of plausible theories is also a drone collision

IE 222

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

not necessarily. there were no Americans on board that we know of, so Donald may not be that concerned.
after all he has won a major coup vis a vis the Iranians by taking out their top general/terrorist, and suffered little or no damage as a consequence.
from his press conference he seems to be more concerned about striking some kind of deal with the Iranians.

the world is now a safer place thanks to his decisive and audacious action, so the deaths of these people might be considered by some to be a price worth paying.
a frightening scenario, but such is the nature of international conflict.

What.

Fritzbox

No 737 has ever been lost due to uncontained engine failure, not in recent years anyway - I don't think any airliner has been lost to such a failure in along time.
If the Ukrainian plane had suffered an uncontained engine failure it should be very easy to search for any fragments of the engine where they fell off the aircraft all along the flight path.

IE 222

banie01 wrote: »

I'd be very much leaning towards this view.
The US had likely every ISTAR asset available to them pointed at Iran over the last few weeks.
Monitoring every military movement, prep and launch.

If an Iranian missile took down the plane, the US certainly know that it happened and likely which unit down to the individual launcher that fired it.

That leaves 2 possibilities IMO.
1. That the Iranian story regarding a technical issue and crash, however coincidental is basically correct.
or
2. The US are giving the Iranian regime enogh rope to hang themselves.
To spin their story of a crash and painting themselves into a corner.
Then when the iranians are committed, the US releases their evidence to show the iranians as untrustworthy and liars.

Given how quick Trump is to lay blame, option 2 would seem to be beyond the ken of the current US administration IMO.
Only way would be if they havent actually told Don

Option 2 will also do the USA no favours and question there credibility and why they would hide such info. Trump announced days before the crash they were watching their every move and know exactly what they were doing with their military movements ect.

IE 222

faoiarvok wrote: »

That is how a combined primary & secondary radar works.

A secondary only radar is a “co-operative” surveillance system that requires the aircraft transponder to respond to its interrogations. No transponder, no target.

I don’t know which type of radar coverage was available at that location and time.

ETA: The Iranian AIP makes no mention of primary radar available for radar services, only MSSRs (Monopulse Secondary Surveillance Radar). Doesn’t necessarily disprove the existence of primary radar for civil use, but I’d find it odd for them not to mention if it was there.

I'm sure the flight was tracked on multiple radars. The military would have primary as well and been monitoring everything very closely given the other going ons

banie01

wcooba wrote: »

Those engines are used in MAX not NG variant - no?

Nope the CFM-56 is used on the NG series and the NTSB has issued a retrofit recommendation on foot of the SWA 3472 incident in 2016.

Fritzbox wrote: »

No 737 has ever been lost due to uncontained engine failure, not in recent years anyway - I don't think any airliner has been lost to such a failure in along time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1380

Good airmanship and a dint of luck are all that prevented a total airframe loss in this instance in 2018.

thats 2 such instances in the last 4 years, how many are required before its considered as a possiblity for airframe loss?

Kevlar shroud and retrofit were recommended by NTSB and Boeing agreed to this retrofit in Nov 2019.
Given the number of NG airframes flying that engine, it will be quite a while before the work is even making a dent in flying numbers.

faoiarvok

IE 222 wrote: »

I'm sure the flight was tracked on multiple radars. The military would have primary as well and been monitoring everything very closely given the other going ons

I expect they do as well, just replying to cookiemunster’s incorrect explanation of radar, and assuming that the statement made about the loss of radar contact was based on the civil ANSP’s equipment.

banie01

IE 222 wrote: »

Option 2 will also do the USA no favours and question there credibility and why they would hide such info. Trump announced days before the crash they were watching their every move and know exactly what they were doing with their military movements ect.

oh I'd agree with your assessment there.
What is far more likely IMO is that it was an uncontained engine failure and the US know that but rather than confirm a further Boeing technical failing.
Will sit on their hands.

We are dealing with a US administration that seems to not have a cogent plan our indeed any sense of strategy regarding how it handles statecraft.

I do however believe that if the US had evidence of a SAM launch (and given their surveillance capability if it happened, they do!) that it would already be broadcast far and wide.

caff

banie01 wrote: »

Nope the CFM-56 is used on the NG series and the NTSB has issued a retrofit recommendation on foot of the SWA 3472 incident in 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1380

Good airmanship and a dint of luck are all that prevented a total airframe loss in this instance in 2018.

thats 2 such instances in the last 4 years, how many are required before its considered as a possiblity for airframe loss?

Kevlar shroud and retrofit were recommended by NTSB and Boeing agreed to this retrofit in Nov 2019.
Given the number of NG airframes flying that engine, it will be quite a while before the work is even making a dent in flying numbers.

Reading the ntsb report they state it wasn't a containment failure but a fan blade out incident https://www.flightglobal.com/in-depth/boeing-commits-to-ntsbs-recommended-cfm56-fan-cowl-redesign/135468.article

Fritzbox

banie01 wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1380

Good airmanship and a dint of luck are all that prevented a total airframe loss in this instance in 2018.

thats 2 such instances in the last 4 years, how many are required before its considered as a possiblity for airframe loss?

Kevlar shroud and retrofit were recommended by NTSB and Boeing agreed to this retrofit in Nov 2019.
Given the number of NG airframes flying that engine, it will be quite a while before the work is even making a dent in flying numbers.

Like I said, no 737 airframe was ever lost. Apart from the damage to the engine nacelle, the only other airframe damage was a broken window.

Whatever happened to the aircraft over Tehran, occurred extremely fast and did not provide the pilot any time to respond or to radio back to the airport.

banie01

caff wrote: »

Reading the ntsb report they state it wasn't a containment failure but a fan blade out incident https://www.flightglobal.com/in-depth/boeing-commits-to-ntsbs-recommended-cfm56-fan-cowl-redesign/135468.article

Which breached the containment that should have been offered by the shroud, leading to an uncontained failure.

The NTSB also raised issue with the fact that due to grandfathering the shrouds as designed were not tested for containment and if they had been, would have resulted in a certification failure.

IE 222

This would suggest the plane pretty much made 180 degree turn and flew a bit longer than expected.

banie01

Fritzbox wrote: »

Like I said, no 737 airframe was ever lost. Apart from the damage to the engine nacelle, the only other airframe damage was a broken window.

Whatever happened to the aircraft over Tehran, occurred extremely fast and did not provide the pilot any time to respond or to radio back to the airport.

And a dead passenger and if memory serves 8 injured.

The mode of failure in this instance is very relevant, the enging threw parts that breached the containment of the shroud.

Luckily in this particular instance whilst in cruise, leaving the pilots a far simpler reaction process to control the engine and pressurisation loss.

Now lets assume a similar incident during climb out, but with more fuselage damage?
Loss of power, loss of hydraulics and trying to regain control with possibly damaged flight surfaces?

What would a likely outcome be?
From a known and acknowledged engine/airframe issue?

You have a similar attitude on the Max thread, dismissing out of hand any comcerns raised regarding the design, its certification or any potential "boeing" issue.
Why?

I for one am not laying blame at Boeing for this particular incident yet, but the mode of known failures on other NG incidents would present a mode of failure that fits the details, scant as they are.
That we currently have to hand.

Fritzbox

I have not actually denied that the cause of the crash may have been an uncontained engine failure - nobody knows for sure - just that it is very unlikely. As you say, the details are scant, unfortunately, the Iranians are not the most transparent country when it comes to aviation safety. There is usually one or two airframe losses with fatalities in Iran every year.

Storm 10

Over on pprune they have a picture of a spent Tor Missile found near the crash site post number 190 and 241

https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/628650-ukrainian-aircraft-down-iran-13.html

GM228

Storm 10 wrote: »

Over on pprune they have a picture of a spent Tor Missile found near the crash site post number 190 and 241

https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/628650-ukrainian-aircraft-down-iran-13.html

Unverified images that were spread via social media yesterday which no major news organisation has run with....

....there's probably a reason why no one (at least no one reputable) is running with the story