2 civilian airliners down south of Moscow

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...ash/index.html

Within 4 minutes of each other. Both took off from Domodedovo

Coincidence, or...?

Pete
-----------------------------------------------
(CNN) -- Two passenger planes have crashed in Russia Tuesday night, Russian
officials and a news organization said.
A passenger jet carrying 34 passengers and eight crew members in the Tula
region crashed about 160 kilometers (100 miles) south of Moscow, the
ministry reported.

A second plane went down about 160 kilometers (100 miles) from
Rostov-on-Don, in southern Russia, government-run news agency Ria Novosti
reported.

A ministry spokeswoman said she could only confirm that the second plane had
been lost to radar.

The first plane disappeared from radar at 10:56 p.m. (2:56 p.m. ET), a
ministry spokeswoman said.

The Tupolev-134 had taken off from Moscow's Domodedovo Airport and was en
route to Volgograd, in southern Russia.

The second plane, a Tupolev-154, disappeared at 11 p.m. (3 p.m. ET) after
having taken off from the same airport en route to Sochi in southern Russia,
Ria Novosti reported.

There was no immediate word how many people were aboard the second plane.

The Tupolev-154 is a standard medium-range airliner on domestic flights in
Russia, according to aviation websites.

"Pete" wrote in message
...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...ash/index.html

Within 4 minutes of each other. Both took off from Domodedovo

Right now they are saying that Russian sources report eyewitnesses seeing
the 134 explode in mid-air before coming down.


Coincidence, or...?

If the reports of a mid-air explosion for the 134 are correct, then I'd
imagine that losing two aircraft at about the same time, from the same
departure point, puts things a bit outside the likely coincidence realm.

Brooks

snip

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Pete" wrote in message
...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...ash/index.html

Within 4 minutes of each other. Both took off from Domodedovo

Right now they are saying that Russian sources report eyewitnesses seeing
the 134 explode in mid-air before coming down.


Coincidence, or...?

If the reports of a mid-air explosion for the 134 are correct, then I'd
imagine that losing two aircraft at about the same time, from the same
departure point, puts things a bit outside the likely coincidence realm.

Agreed, although that's a might big if. The number of a/c which are reported
by eyewitnesses to have exploded/been on fire before crashing but which were
subsequently found not to have been, is rather large. Another possibility,
assuming no explosion, would be a fuel contamination problem at Domededovo.
If the Tu-154 which disappeared had tanks that were more full than the other
before being topped up, that might explain the longer delay before problems
surfaced, depending on the order in which fuel is drawn. OTOH, the lack of
any radio comms from either a/c would be considered highly suspicious with
western a/c -- considering the reported state of Russian civil aviation and
ATC I don't know that we can jump to the same conclusion in this case.

Guy

Guy Alcala wrote:

Kevin Brooks wrote:


"Pete" wrote in message
. ..

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...ash/index.html

Within 4 minutes of each other. Both took off from Domodedovo

Right now they are saying that Russian sources report eyewitnesses seeing
the 134 explode in mid-air before coming down.


Coincidence, or...?

If the reports of a mid-air explosion for the 134 are correct, then I'd
imagine that losing two aircraft at about the same time, from the same
departure point, puts things a bit outside the likely coincidence realm.


Agreed, although that's a might big if. The number of a/c which are reported
by eyewitnesses to have exploded/been on fire before crashing but which were
subsequently found not to have been, is rather large. Another possibility,
assuming no explosion, would be a fuel contamination problem at Domededovo.
If the Tu-154 which disappeared had tanks that were more full than the other
before being topped up, that might explain the longer delay before problems
surfaced, depending on the order in which fuel is drawn. OTOH, the lack of
any radio comms from either a/c would be considered highly suspicious with
western a/c -- considering the reported state of Russian civil aviation and
ATC I don't know that we can jump to the same conclusion in this case.

Guy



I would be surprised if it was fuel contamination - Domodedovo is now
Moscow's premier airport and Eastline, the owners, have spent millions
updating it.

I was there last Monday - see :-
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/...004_day03.html

for a ramp tour and the facilities would put many western airports to
shame. It is as modern as they come.

That is not to say that fuel contamination is impossible - just unlikely
IMHO.

I was also surprised when I heard that the two a/c had departed from
Domodedovo - the security we experienced was very tight - and we were an
authorised party with prior permissions, passes etc.

I could have understood it if the flights had begun at Vnukovo, Bykovo
or even Sheremetyevo - but Domodedovo ?

Ken

They start from the same point, in Russian media poor fuel is one discussed
thing.
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Pete" wrote in message
...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...ash/index.html

Within 4 minutes of each other. Both took off from Domodedovo

Right now they are saying that Russian sources report eyewitnesses seeing
the 134 explode in mid-air before coming down.


Coincidence, or...?

If the reports of a mid-air explosion for the 134 are correct, then I'd
imagine that losing two aircraft at about the same time, from the same
departure point, puts things a bit outside the likely coincidence realm.

Brooks

snip

Vello wrote:

They start from the same point, in Russian media poor fuel is one
discussed thing.

The obvious problem with that idea is that poor fuel would usually
just stop the engines, leaving them 30,000 feet or so of gliding
descent in which to report their difficulties and attempt power-off
landings.

It seems rather likely that some form of malice was at work and that
the technical investigations will merely discover whether hijacking
or bombs or some other form of sabotage was used.

"Robert Briggs" wrote in message
...
Vello wrote:

They start from the same point, in Russian media poor fuel is one
discussed thing.

The obvious problem with that idea is that poor fuel would usually
just stop the engines, leaving them 30,000 feet or so of gliding
descent in which to report their difficulties and attempt power-off
landings.


Gas turbines are pretty tolerant of fuel quality and
if this was the problem I'd expect a lot more than 2
aircraft to be affected.

Keith

Keith Willshaw wrote:

Gas turbines are pretty tolerant of fuel quality and
if this was the problem I'd expect a lot more than 2
aircraft to be affected.

Very true. Jet A is basically kerosene. Not exactly a high tech fuel.
Turbines will burn almost any similar rubbish within reason.

It would be *very* tricky to fuel just 2 a/c - and no others - with
contaminated fuel.


Graham

Robert Briggs wrote:

Vello wrote:

They start from the same point, in Russian media poor fuel is one
discussed thing.

The obvious problem with that idea is that poor fuel would usually
just stop the engines, leaving them 30,000 feet or so of gliding
descent in which to report their difficulties and attempt power-off
landings.

See Air Transat and Air Canada for practical examples.


Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:
Robert Briggs wrote:
Vello wrote:

They start from the same point, in Russian media poor fuel is one
discussed thing.

The obvious problem with that idea is that poor fuel would usually
just stop the engines, leaving them 30,000 feet or so of gliding
descent in which to report their difficulties and attempt power-off
landings.

See Air Transat and Air Canada for practical examples.

Well, I *did* consider ending along the lines of "... report their
difficulties and look for a Russian Gimli."