Flag, downvote--it won't change my mind.
Iran crash: Ukrainian passenger plane crashes with 170 on board
211–220 of 220 posts
Re: Iran crash: Ukrainian passenger plane crashes with 170 on board
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given how many other aircraft depart tehran on that same route to the northwest that would be a massive error given how close it is to the airport.
That is what makes it problematic, but then again MH17 was also flying a regular route. People on edge make mistakes, and this plane was not flying on schedule which could have been what caused them to misidentify the plane. In a normal situation they'd investigate but this was not a normal situation.
Eh to be fair there were plenty of NOTAMs out warning against the routes MH17 was on. However, the amount of garbage in NOTAMs makes it incredibly difficult for people to parse and take appropriate action. There are some great efforts by folks like Ops Group to try uplevel this space but it's difficult when people are overly broad with warnings for the sake of covering their ass legally. Then there are the situations where two countries are arguing over airspace boundaries, etc.
Re: Iran crash: Ukrainian passenger plane crashes with 170 on board
#213It’s being reported there was an “engine failure”. I’d assume that engine failure and fire detection systems are pretty good, not to mention that pilots train on engine fires/failure and single engine procedures regularly. Are there situations where pulling the fire handle to extinguish a fire or shutting down an engine wouldn’t be adequate to alleviate some sort of grave failure?
If the turbine disk disintegrates, it's liable to slice through the entire width of the airplane. This can sever all sorts of connections -- there have been crashes due to this in the past. It's an unlikely thing to happen today, or ever, but it would certainly account for the rapid crash.
IIRC engine cowling is supposed to contain most catastrophic failures, obviously there have been situations where this doesn't happen so no idea how stringent those requirements are
Re: Iran crash: Ukrainian passenger plane crashes with 170 on board
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the turbine disk disintegrates, it's liable to slice through the entire width of the airplane. This can sever all sorts of connections -- there have been crashes due to this in the past. It's an unlikely thing to happen today, or ever, but it would certainly account for the rapid crash.
IIRC engine cowling is supposed to contain most catastrophic failures, obviously there have been situations where this doesn't happen so no idea how stringent those requirements are
Cowling could contain a single blade failure, but not a full disk failure.
Re: Iran crash: Ukrainian passenger plane crashes with 170 on board
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
Multiple small holes in the aircraft shell is generally not caused by hitting the ground, and is indicative of a missile strike.
In the case of a missile strike, wouldn't the aircraft disintegrate in the air?
Aircraft may partly disintegrate, but this is not the main mode of operation of air defense systems.
The main mode of operation is to produce a relatively small near-by explosion that creates a wave of moving particles (shrapnel). Shrapnel causes the destruction of everything it touches.
Engines, radio transmitters, communications, and sadly... people.
Re: Iran crash: Ukrainian passenger plane crashes with 170 on board
#216If Iran shot down that Ukrainian plane, killing all those women and children, drop a nuke on them.
Re: Iran crash: Ukrainian passenger plane crashes with 170 on board
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it was built 3 years ago. Does proper engineering prevent future failures if the assembly process becomes flawed at a later time? For example using cheaper materials, ignoring cracks, not properly training new employees etc.
> Does proper engineering prevent future failures No. Never. The plane could have had a defect. The parts could have had a defect. Maintenance could have caused damage. Or, the machine was perfect. It just hit the wrong number of birds at the wrong angle. Or experienced one of countless random errors that can take down a good plane. (It could also be malice.)
[deleted]
Re: Iran crash: Ukrainian passenger plane crashes with 170 on board
#218(Edit: We don't know what caused this incident. Speculation follows. It's best to not form conclusions until the experts examine the evidence.) It looks like it was shot down with an air defense missile. You can see the plane on fire as it falls to the earth. Video taken during the crash, the plane is clearly engulfed in flames: https://mobile.twitter.com/isna_farsi/status/121475622529397... Video of the aftermath /…
> It looks like it was shot down with an air defense missile. You can see the plane on fire as it falls to the earth. Come on. Don't do this. Planes are complex machines. They're pressurized and propelled by a continuous explosion. There are lots of ways for things to go wrong. A good rule of thumb in aviation is to ignore the first 24 hours of news. There are no facts. Everyone is an armchair crash investigator. And…
This comment didn’t age well
Re: Iran crash: Ukrainian passenger plane crashes with 170 on board
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It looks like it was shot down with an air defense missile. You can see the plane on fire as it falls to the earth. Come on. Don't do this. Planes are complex machines. They're pressurized and propelled by a continuous explosion. There are lots of ways for things to go wrong. A good rule of thumb in aviation is to ignore the first 24 hours of news. There are no facts. Everyone is an armchair crash investigator. And…
This comment didn’t age well
Yes it did. It was basically just "don't jump to conclusions", which is the correct way to approach any of these kinds of events.
See also: https://dartcenter.org/blog/skeptics-guide-to-media-coverage...
Re: Iran crash: Ukrainian passenger plane crashes with 170 on board
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
"A three year old Boeing 737-800, which does not have any known safety issues." That is what we heard after the first 737-Max crash as well. Then came another one and the same line was spewed all over.
Exactly, it’s the safest passenger plane model until it isn’t.
Can’t edit this anymore but just want to update the record that I was wrong. I was being charitable but it was indeed downed by the Iranian government.