Russian jets crash within minutes of each other

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


"James M. Knox" wrote:

Fuel problem???

No. The BBC reported yesterday that an explosion was seen on one of the
aircraft
before it went down and that the other plane sent indications of being
hijacked (I
assume something like a transponder code) shortly before disappearing.


The reporter I just heard on the news here said someone hit the SOS button
before the plane dropped off radar.

Allen

"Allen" wrote in message
m...

The reporter I just heard on the news here said someone hit the SOS button
before the plane dropped off radar.

Hmmm. Exactly which button would that be?

I guess all Russian airliners must have a big, red button in the middle of
the panel marked "SOS" (or maybe it's the little plastic gag "panic button"
that Sporty's sells?).

Sounds like a reliable report to me.


--
David Herman
N6170T 1965 Cessna 150E
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying Forum:
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 at 20:51:11 in message
, Kyle Boatright
wrote:

What fuel problem would cause a jet to go down *right now*? Airliners glide
decently and a crew with even a little training would get off a mayday call
and try and work the situation in the time it would take a flamed-out
airliner to go down. A back of the envelope figure is that an airliner
probably has a sink rate of 2500 fpm or less in glider mode... Remember the
Gimli Glider? It glided for 10-15 minutes before landing, and a Soviet
airliner probably wouldn't do much worse...

More recently wasn't there an Airbus (I forget which type) that lost
fuel over the Atlantic and glided some 70 nm(?) to the Azores and had
enough height left for a circuit before landing? Modern airliners are
efficient partly because they have very good Lift/Drag ratios.

I agree that the sink rate is around 2000 ft/min or so but it is
Lift/drag that gives you the distance. I guess that airliners cruise
around 250 knots IAS and that that is near the optimum Lift/Drag ratio
point.
--
David CL Francis

On 8/26/04 9:41 AM, in article
, "James M. Knox"
wrote:


My thought is Chechen Islamist terrorists attempting to make a
statement about the upcoming Chechen elections.

You are right, of course. At the time all I had heard was that they both
went down, within minutes of each other. No word about radio calls or not.
Based on later news, I agree that fuel issues are VERY unlikely.
Unfortunately, that brings up the distinct probability that it was
deliberate.

jmk

Of what use is a terrorist act if nobody knows it's terrorism? If this is
terrorism in order to make a statement, the guys responsible need to work a
bit more work on their press releases.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
www.wizardofdraws.com
www.cartoonclipart.com

"Wizard of Draws" wrote in message
news:BD53EFFD.1E032%jeffbREMOVE@REMOVEwizardofdraw s.com...

Of what use is a terrorist act if nobody knows it's terrorism? If this is
terrorism in order to make a statement, the guys responsible need to work
a
bit more work on their press releases.
--

Maybe both their missions failed, in the same manner that the flight that
crashed in PA failed here, and because their real objectives weren't met
they felt there was no need to bring attention to themselves.

It is very hard to draw conclusions under the circumstances.

"David CL Francis" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 at 20:51:11 in message
, Kyle Boatright
wrote:

What fuel problem would cause a jet to go down *right now*? Airliners
glide
decently and a crew with even a little training would get off a mayday
call
and try and work the situation in the time it would take a flamed-out
airliner to go down. A back of the envelope figure is that an airliner
probably has a sink rate of 2500 fpm or less in glider mode... Remember
the
Gimli Glider? It glided for 10-15 minutes before landing, and a Soviet
airliner probably wouldn't do much worse...

More recently wasn't there an Airbus (I forget which type) that lost
fuel over the Atlantic and glided some 70 nm(?) to the Azores and had
enough height left for a circuit before landing? Modern airliners are
efficient partly because they have very good Lift/Drag ratios.

I agree that the sink rate is around 2000 ft/min or so but it is
Lift/drag that gives you the distance. I guess that airliners cruise
around 250 knots IAS and that that is near the optimum Lift/Drag ratio
point.
--
David CL Francis

David,

Agree with your L/D vs glide range comment. My point went to the idea that
an airliner's sink rate is low enough that even with a complete flame out
(unless the airplane was already at very low altitude), there should be
plenty of time to get off a Mayday call and possibly relate the basics of
the problem to a controller.

KB

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 at 22:02:30 in message
, Kyle Boatright
wrote:

Agree with your L/D vs glide range comment. My point went to the idea that
an airliner's sink rate is low enough that even with a complete flame out
(unless the airplane was already at very low altitude), there should be
plenty of time to get off a Mayday call and possibly relate the basics of
the problem to a controller.

In Macarthur Job's book where he describes the events when the BA 747
lost all 4 engines near Java he says that with all engines stopped at
37,000 feet the aircraft should take 23 minutes to sea level.

That certainly reinforces your point! It also suggests a 1600 ft/minute
descent rate. If the speed was 250k then, if I am right, it also implies
a glide L/D of around 15.

Airliners are _not_ bricks! :-)
--
David CL Francis