2 civilian airliners down south of Moscow

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

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


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

One inadvertantly (or purposly) contaminated fuel truck could manage that
trick quite well. But I think we would know by now.

Vaughn

"Vaughn" wrote in message
...

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


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

One inadvertantly (or purposly) contaminated fuel truck could manage
that
trick quite well. But I think we would know by now.

Vaughn


Trouble is IRC Moscow like most airports uses pipelines to the gates
rather than refuelling trucks.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
"Vaughn" wrote in message
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message


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

One inadvertantly (or purposly) contaminated fuel truck could manage
that
trick quite well. But I think we would know by now.


Trouble is IRC Moscow like most airports uses pipelines to the gates
rather than refuelling trucks.


Sheremetyevo uses fuel bowsers drawn by large 8x8 cab-overs.

Not sure about Domodedovo.

The Tu134 was CCCP 65080.

The stewardess who died on this flight was the daughter of the
stewardess saved by a miracle in a crash during the 80s.

funkraum wrote:
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

"Vaughn" wrote in message

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message


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

One inadvertantly (or purposly) contaminated fuel truck could manage

that

trick quite well. But I think we would know by now.



Trouble is IRC Moscow like most airports uses pipelines to the gates
rather than refuelling trucks.



Sheremetyevo uses fuel bowsers drawn by large 8x8 cab-overs.

Not sure about Domodedovo.

The Tu134 was CCCP 65080.

The stewardess who died on this flight was the daughter of the
stewardess saved by a miracle in a crash during the 80s.

The one who landed in bignum feet of snow?

--
Marc Reeve
Some guy at a desk somewhere ^reverse^ for email

From: "Vaughn"
Date: 8/26/2004 5:20 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:


"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


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

One inadvertantly (or purposly) contaminated fuel truck could manage
that
trick quite well. But I think we would know by now.

Vaughn

Assuming a truck on the scale of an R-5 and full fuel loads on both aircraft it
is not likely both aircraft would be able to be refueled from the same truck.
Of course it depends on initial fule levels in both aircraft

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Vaughn"
Date: 8/26/2004 5:20 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:


"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


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

One inadvertantly (or purposly) contaminated fuel truck could manage
that
trick quite well. But I think we would know by now.

Vaughn

Assuming a truck on the scale of an R-5 and full fuel loads on both
aircraft it
is not likely both aircraft would be able to be refueled from the same
truck.
Of course it depends on initial fule levels in both aircraft

And the odds that both aircraft would then crash at about the same time,
even though one had been in the air quite a bit longer and covered a lot
more distance away from the departure point? The fuel bit has been a
long-shot from the get-go when you consider that fact, along with the
transponder signal reported to have been received from one aircraft. If the
latest reports indicating that no out-of-the-ordinary conversations were
heard on the CVR's proves to be true, then you can nail the coffin door shut
on "bad fuel".

Brooks


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 8/26/2004 2:24 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Vaughn"
Date: 8/26/2004 5:20 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:


"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


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

One inadvertantly (or purposly) contaminated fuel truck could manage
that
trick quite well. But I think we would know by now.

Vaughn

Assuming a truck on the scale of an R-5 and full fuel loads on both
aircraft it
is not likely both aircraft would be able to be refueled from the same
truck.
Of course it depends on initial fule levels in both aircraft

And the odds that both aircraft would then crash at about the same time,
even though one had been in the air quite a bit longer and covered a lot
more distance away from the departure point? The fuel bit has been a
long-shot from the get-go when you consider that fact, along with the
transponder signal reported to have been received from one aircraft. If the
latest reports indicating that no out-of-the-ordinary conversations were
heard on the CVR's proves to be true, then you can nail the coffin door shut
on "bad fuel".

Brooks


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

There is absolutely no reason the crashes could be purely coincidental. The
odds of that being the case are extremely long however.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired