'No survivors' after Russian plane crash, officials say

[EnterpriseSovereign]

A Russian passenger jet which went 'missing' with 217 passengers, and seven crew members, on board has crashed in Egypt.

The plane, which was flying from Egypt's Sharm el-Sheikh to Russia's St. Petersburg, lost contact with air traffic control about 25 minutes after take off and the Egyptian Prime Minister's office confirmed it had crashed early this morning.

According to Egyptian and Russian officials none of the passengers and crew on board the plane survived the crash.

Source

IS claiming they did this could backfire on them if it results in the Russian air force actually fighting them as opposed to simply propping up Assad.

[Channel72]

IS didn't do this, and are likely not capable of doing anything like this. If any actual IS members claimed to do this, they are just making up bullshit to sound tough, and the Russian authorities are perfectly aware of that.

[Zaune]

Radio news said the crash investigators think it broke up in mid-air while at cruising altitude. If IS had the hardware needed for that then they'd be shooting down Russian fighters with it.

[K. A. Pital]

If IS really hit a plane on cruise altitude, with what? Manpads are not nearly enough; we are talking advanced mobile AA systems... Not even remotely possible, I think. Unless they hit it with a suicide bomber onboard or something.

[Bernkastel]

I've read that missiles have been apparently been ruled out, so a suicide bomber does seem like a possibility. Though I've just read an article with an official from Metrojet, the relevant Russian Airline, stating that it could only have been an external impact on the plane. Hopefully, some evidence will surface that will clear this up.

[Broomstick]

Of course ISIS/ISIL/DAAESH/whatever we're calling them this week would take credit for it regardless. They'll take credit for any Bad Thing that happens to someone not them whether or not ISIS/etc. are involved or not.

I'm kind of wondering when commercial airlines are going to stop over-flying active combat areas. It just seems like a dumb idea in today's world. Actually, I'm pretty sure it's always been a dumb idea.

Now, on to the wreck - the authorities involved are saying it broke up at altitude, which is weird, because that's a very rare event. It could be an on board bomb, it could be some extreme structural problem, it could be the pilot(s) overstressed the airplane, it could have been a meteor from outer space... and if some of those seem unlikely, well, yes, they are.

I'll be very interested in what the black boxes show.

[Edi]

Of course ISIS/ISIL/DAAESH/whatever we're calling them this week would take credit for it regardless. They'll take credit for any Bad Thing that happens to someone not them whether or not ISIS/etc. are involved or not.

I'm kind of wondering when commercial airlines are going to stop over-flying active combat areas. It just seems like a dumb idea in today's world. Actually, I'm pretty sure it's always been a dumb idea.

Now, on to the wreck - the authorities involved are saying it broke up at altitude, which is weird, because that's a very rare event. It could be an on board bomb, it could be some extreme structural problem, it could be the pilot(s) overstressed the airplane, it could have been a meteor from outer space... and if some of those seem unlikely, well, yes, they are.

I'll be very interested in what the black boxes show.

From the Guardian:

The aircraft, built in 1997, suffered a tail strike in 2001, where the rear end of the plane touches the runway on takeoff. It underwent extensive repairs. On Monday, Oksana Golovina, a spokeswoman for the company that owns Metrojet, said the repaired area had been inspected in 2014. “The airplane was 100% ready to fly, in working order, otherwise it wouldn’t have taken off,” she said.

There is precedent for structural failure from similar causes, a Japanese Airlines plane flying the Tokyo - Osaka route had its tail shorn off and fell because the structural repairs were not adequate. So it's all open yet.

[Broomstick]

A tail strike, while not exactly common, is not as uncommon as people want to think. There are airplanes out there with repaired tails flying just fine. If a repair was going to fail I would expect it do so sooner than 14 years out, but I'm certain it will be investigated. The tail, or part of it, falling off certainly could result in a crash.

[Edi]

Yep. These investigations take more time than the prevailing media news cycle has patience, so there is no rush to jump to conclusions.

[Adam Reynolds]

Yep. These investigations take more time than the prevailing media news cycle has patience, so there is no rush to jump to conclusions.

Not to mention that even when investigators reach the logical conclusion based on actual evidence, there is still a rush to find someone to blame rather than accepting that it was a system that failed. Look at TWA 800. Even years after the NTSB and FBI conclusively ruled that it was accidental rather than intentional, people still wanted a scapegoat and so blamed it on a missile strike or whatever other thing they could that would have a person being responsible. Yet another terrible consequence of the narrative fallacy in action.

It's loosely the same problem with things like climate change and financial crisis. Because no one person or group is responsible, it is difficult for people to accept it as a problem. There isn't a good enough story that they can tell themselves.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

A tail strike, while not exactly common, is not as uncommon as people want to think. There are airplanes out there with repaired tails flying just fine. If a repair was going to fail I would expect it do so sooner than 14 years out, but I'm certain it will be investigated. The tail, or part of it, falling off certainly could result in a crash.

Japan Airlines Flight 123
China Airlines Flight 611
There is a precedent for this, albeit rare. In each of these, the botched repair resulted in failure 7 years and 22 years later, respectively. In the Japan Airlines flight, it actually failed after 2,300 more flights than Boeing's estimates.

[Edi]

Well, the Russian airline in question has, in Russia, a reputation for neglect, carelessness, incompetence, greed and total indifference toward the lives and safety of its passengers. Things like fixing damaged cabin windows with duct tape and similar stuff being routine, maintenance deferred or outright ignored and skipped, similar charming stuff. The Russian air traffic authorities had also issued an order forbidding the airline from flying Airbus A321 type planes, presumably due to the safety issues.

So most likely cause in light of the news about such things coming out of Russia is that the plane did indeed suffer catastrophic structural failure due to insufficient maintenance. If the airline has that kind of rep and is basically blacklisted to begin with, no bomb, missile or outside impact needed. And if it indeed is due to something like this, heads are going to roll. Putin will make a graphic example of the airline management and owners.

[Purple]

I'm kind of wondering when commercial airlines are going to stop over-flying active combat areas. It just seems like a dumb idea in today's world. Actually, I'm pretty sure it's always been a dumb idea.

My guess would be when someone figures out an app that tells you which flights are doing it before you book your tickets. For as long as they can make profit from doing this sort of thing they will. A couple hundred corpses here and there don't tend to bother them much.

[Sea Skimmer]

I'm kind of wondering when commercial airlines are going to stop over-flying active combat areas. It just seems like a dumb idea in today's world. Actually, I'm pretty sure it's always been a dumb idea.

They've figured out to stop flying over Syria and Iraq; but only because the USAF and Iraqis and Saudis told them to stop.

Meanwhile in the latest win from this, the airline is sort of 'leaking' information online trying to claim that its poor plane was in fact hit by an Egyptian drone. The ass covering is strong in this one.

[Broomstick]

An unnamed "US official" is claiming it was a bomb, put on the plane by ground crew or baggage handlers and coming from ISIS. But nothing official, no one is named, etc.

You know, I wish people would just shut the hell up until we have actual evidence.

Although I don't think the Russians will react well if it turns out it is a bomb.

[K. A. Pital]

ISIS will be so very fucked if it is a bomb. Russia has been bombing Al-Nusra and Jaish Al-Fatah, one of the Gulf state jihadist "ISIS-lite" creatures, but if it really was ISIS, at least in Syria they will be routed.

[Purple]

If that happens I wonder how long it will take internet retards to start claiming it was a Russian false flag all along. Like I am surprised they ain't already.

[AniThyng]

A western false flag to goad Russia into doing their dirty work fighting Isis, surely.

[Purple]

A western false flag to goad Russia into doing their dirty work fighting Isis, surely.

Nonsense, the west would newer do anything like that. For it would be wrong, and the west does no wrong, ever. OTAN and the EU are infallible paragons of morality standing as a bulwark against the evil hordes of Putin and his flaming eye atop mount Ural.

(the above is my view of western propaganda and a parody of it)

[Dartzap]

Although it is pretty easy to imagine false flag operations, there is some merit to the idea of something being snuck aboard - according to many Brits who have flown out of the airport in Sharm recently (or so they were saying on a BBC facebook link), the security is pretty shite, to the extent that passport checks arnt done, and metal detector alarms are ignored, and tourists just generally show the way to the nearest airlock.

Doesn't exactly sound like the hardest place in the world to infiltrate, does it?

[Grumman]

If that happens I wonder how long it will take internet retards to start claiming it was a Russian false flag all along. Like I am surprised they ain't already.

Maybe they aren't that stupid. It's not like they'd need to fake casus belli - if Russia had killed every single member of ISIL last week, the only reason anyone would complain is the smell.

[cosmicalstorm]

Definetly a bomb. Will Putin bomb Sinai?

[Broomstick]

Why, are you eager for war, death and destruction?

I'm all for Putin taking a bit of time to consider his response rather than just unleashing hell. I mean, why the fuck bomb Sinai indiscriminately, almost certainly killing lots of innocent people completely uninvolved in this instead of actually going after the culprits?

WTF is wrong with you?

[Mr Bean]

Why, are you eager for war, death and destruction?

I'm all for Putin taking a bit of time to consider his response rather than just unleashing hell. I mean, why the fuck bomb Sinai indiscriminately, almost certainly killing lots of innocent people completely uninvolved in this instead of actually going after the culprits?

WTF is wrong with you?

For cosmicalstorm perspective it may be that old line that "At this point there are no civilians they fled, died, joined the enemy or are fighting with us" thus every bomb dropped is dropped either on our own forces or on theirs. To be blunt there's a lot of Americans who look at the entire middle east in that light going on our second decade of war it's starting to become a not unpopular viewpoint, remember stuff like the Dresden bombings happened not that long ago and WWII style massive bombing campaigns do have a very visual appeal.

Never mind mind the thousands or millions that may die... Russian media simply won't cover it, when studies are done American media will attack it if it does not serve the current administrations goals and ignore it otherwise. That's why multi year long wars in countries not featuring oil reserves get little play.

[Thanas]

Bombing Syria would be one thing, but bombing Sinai? That's a special level of stupid.