Russian military plane with 91 on board crashes en route to Syria

Those with more knowledge and expertise can correct me, but I remember reading that large passenger planes have backup-systems for adjusting the flaps and other functions. If the regular (hydraulic?) system fails, you can still adjust the flaps by some sort of wires or something?
 
Aragorn said:
Those with more knowledge and expertise can correct me, but I remember reading that large passenger planes have backup-systems for adjusting the flaps and other functions. If the regular (hydraulic?) system fails, you can still adjust the flaps by some sort of wires or something?

Yes, as far as I know all the critical systems in planes are backed up 3 or 4 times. But considering that the plane was crashing from the height of 250m with the speed about 360 km/h it might be the neither pilots nor board systems had time to react.
 
Here is the briefing by the russian foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova, from December 27, 2016. It is neatly seperated into 33 different portions/points of interest. Well worth the read. Point 26 is called "Response to the Tu-154 plane crash", and Zakharova says:

Maria Zakharova said:
What can you say about the Tu-154 tragedy, considering the openly anti-Russia statements by some foreign officials? What about the terrorist attack version?

Maria Zakharova: Before making any statements, we should wait for the experts to present their conclusions. So far, they are not investigating the crash but are collecting the debris and material and other evidence.

I see what you are referring to. There have been many publications and television programmes to this effect, but I suggest that we don’t listen to those who believe that they have the right to speak about it. In my opinion, nobody has the right to speak about it now, because, as I learned before this briefing, only one flight recorder has been retrieved from the sea, but the data it contains is yet to be decoded. What is there to talk about? First, experts must assess the information at their disposal in accordance with the established procedure and Russian law. We will be able to talk about versions after that, not before.

We have agencies that regularly provide available information, but I will not direct you to them, because it would be unprofessional to talk about any versions now. No official can discuss versions now, because the matter rests with experts. Versions will be discussed after they accumulate the material evidence and make their conclusions.

And any statements and political assessments are inappropriate at this stage. Let the experts do their work in peace. Everything possible is being done to establish the truth, to learn what happened; this work involves many people, equipment and other components. The search for the plane’s parts and human remains goes on around the clock. The Defence Ministry and other ministries and agencies involved in this process regularly provide information virtually in real time. Therefore, it will be inappropriate now to speak about any versions, which include a broad range of issues.

Here is the press conference on youtube:

 
Just listened to this interesting video from Joseph Farrell; he believes Russia is aware there was probably some nefarious plot behind it but are holding back from saying so outright since there'll be people in Russia who will demand a reaction, and such incidents could be considered provocations of war so they're biding their time, and probably collecting evidence too. The fact it coincides both with the death of the Ambassador (and now i think about it, the expulsion of the Russian diplomats from the US) as well as the NATO auditor who according to Farrell may have been one person who would have some knowledge of any behind the scenes activity, Farrell believes may tie in with Obamas recent comments on covert or overt reaction to 'Russian hacking' the US election.

His theory is there was probably a bomb on board and that there's some kind of elite Mafia style war going on since certain elites are panicking after the Trump election, Killary's rejection, Brexit, Syria, that Obama is trying to cause long lasting discord between US and Russian relations and so on.

There may be more but that's what i gathered.


Streamed live on Dec 29, 2016


Over during the run up to the Christmas holiday, there were very strange, seemingly unrelated, stories which broke, and some have only been updated just today. Joseph reviews the death of the NATO Auditor General, the assassination of Andrei Karlov, the Russian ambassador to Turkey, and the crash of the Russian military aircraft in Sochi:
 
The 'black box' was found a couple days ago. What is taking so long to analyze? The voice recording part is fastest, as we have seen from info leaks. But there are lots of other things these boxes record:

FDR (Flight Data Recorder) recorded the following parameters until 1960:
» pressure altitude
» indicated airspeed
» magnetic heading
» normal acceleration
» microphone keying.

Usually FDR is combined with CVR (Cockpit Voice Recorder), latter of which records pilot voice, any sound in the cockpit that can be heard, including engines or what sound gets in from outside.

After around 1960 it became a lot more complex:
..modern jet aircraft far exceed this, and are fitted with FDRs that can record thousands of parameters covering all aspects of the aircraft operation.
The FDR retains the last 25 hours of aircraft operation and, like the CVR, operates on the endless-loop principle. As FDRs have a longer recording duration than CVRs, they are very useful for investigating incidents and accidents.

The signals recorded can be anything from control surface positions to auto-pilot mode and from switch positions to smoke alarms. So FDRs will usually record anything that pilots have control over (rudders, flaps) - that can be turned, switched, operated, etc.. - from the cockpit as well as other parts of the plane and outside measurements too.

I found this list of Aircraft Condition Monitoring System codes most satisfying:
Pilots on this forum are trying to find out what abbreviated readouts their airplanes produce, when they are able to get those printed or recorded. Look at the "machine code" abbreviations Airbus (ACMS) uses for example to dump data: (highly interesting!)
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/189295-airbus-acms-alpha-codes.html

BLACK BOX DATA TYPES AND HOW THEY ARE USUALLY VISUALIZED:

How is the data recorded?
1. The parameters are recorded as raw binary data (1s and 0s)
2. The format used is ARINC standard (Aeronautical Radio, Incorporated)
3. Parameters to be recorded are determined by the DFDAU , NOT the recorder! = Digital Flight Data Acquisition Unit, the processor on an aircraft that feeds data to the black box flight data recorder.
10Dtw0P.jpg


What airplane working parts does a black box record?
A10Q0213-appendix-c.png


Before impact:
a11h0002-figure-18.png


Flight Data Recorder explanation with pictures:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/investigations/q0302.shtml

Black box data can be read / displayed as "excel table" too:
Check out the headers!
Mag heading = magnetic heading
_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Course_(navigation)
Co3HqdV.jpg


For us this could be the most interesting and easiest to read black box recording data type:
VMKHkY2.jpg


How hard it is to recover from a damaged recorder?

We 'computer technicians' know that when the data recorder in a computer is damaged its a very costly and lengthy operation to professionally recover data in a lab. Worst case scenario is your disk is sent to a laboratory, where your data is recovered and will cost you approximately 4 times the price of your entire computer: Add engineer man-hours and lab hours and any material costs for recovery.

Damage types:
FDR can withstand heat (1100°C) and crash (3,400 g) shock, but damage - burn-, water-, oil-, shock-, crush-, etc.. - can be partial, making the data recovery process last longer and possibly resulting in entirely missing or fragmentary damaged flight data. Hopefully the TU-154 FDR tape was not damaged 'at the exact spot', where it recorded the crash.
We know that Russians love exceptionally well built, hardy old stuff that "works for thousand years" and "can withstand an apocalypse", so tapes are possible in case of the TU-154.

fkC5gL1.jpg



Are black boxes always in pristine condition?

Another interesting point to consider:

(Dave Robinson, 25+ year career as an Aeronautical Industry Professional)
I can however point out that like all other aircraft systems, the CVR and FDR units and their associated connections require regular inspections and periodic maintenance.

It is however not extremely unusual to find the older style (magnetic tape storage) units in a non-functional (broken tape) state when removed for maintenance or to be replaced by a more modern digital (integrated circuit) type storage unit.

Thus depending on the length of inspection and maintenance cycles, older malfunctioning units can go undetected for a number of flights, depending on what type of cockpit indication there is regarding the status of the CVR and the FDR (may only be a light indicating power is being supplied to the recorders but no indication as to whether they are indeed recording).

Intermittent power supplied due to corroded connectors or wiring can also lead to recording dropouts and indications in the cockpit can go unnoticed if such are provided in the first place.

Unfortunately because these units are quite expensive, some airlines and commercial operators resort to purchasing and installing second hand units (removed from decommissioned aircraft) sold through the aftermarket supply chain. Although such units will have been inspected and given a certificate of airworthiness and a certificate of conformance and compliance, their reliability naturally diminishes with age and thus the MTBUR (mean time between unscheduled replacement) is likely less than that originally specified by the manufacturer because the older the unit, the more likely it has been exposed to conditions beyond the scope of those taken into account by the manufacturer when originally determining its useful life.

The above answer does not address the specific case you are thinking of. It only serves to indicate that CVRs and FDRs do indeed fail and such failures can go undetected for some time and it has happened on more that one occasion whereby the prior failure was only detected in the aftermath of an accident, much to the disappointment of the accident investigators.
_https://www.quora.com/Why-would-a-cockpit-voice-recorder-not-record-the-last-dialogue-before-a-crash#
 
State-run Sberbank has written off loans taken out by the victims of the Russia’s Tu-154 airplane crash last Sunday, according to Transport Minister Maksim Sokolov.

Major Russian bank wipes out Tu-154 plane crash victims' debt
https://www.rt.com/business/372163-sberbank-write-off-debts-tu154/

The minister confirmed victims’ relatives will have to apply either through Sberbank or offices assigned by the Defense and Labor Ministries.

Sokolov said that he will negotiate with other Russian banks to do likewise.

Sberbank will provide compensation payments to the victim’s families during the New Year holidays, said the minister.

“Some branches will work during the holidays to implement the payments, the work won’t stop even after January 1,” said Sokolov.

Earlier this week, Russia's Sogaz insurance company said it will pay compensations to the families of the military officers. Russia’s Social Insurance Fund will financially support the families of the victims as well.

Russia’s VTB24 bank has also taken steps to support the relatives by paying extra compensation. The lender said it will write off the debts as well.
 
Aragorn said:
Those with more knowledge and expertise can correct me, but I remember reading that large passenger planes have backup-systems for adjusting the flaps and other functions. If the regular (hydraulic?) system fails, you can still adjust the flaps by some sort of wires or something?

Having reviewed the posts here and following this tragic event, I'm just reviewing and have no answers; and with the Tupolev 154 (with many variant designs) it has three rear engines, and the one description of a hydraulic failure relates to an article on DC 10's (only one rear engine):

Fear of Flying: Hydraulic Loss Is One of Worst - http://articles.latimes.com/1989-07-20/news/mn-5188_1_hydraulic-system

According to the DC-10 manual, loss of the hydraulic system driven by the tail engine would render the lower half of the rudder inoperative, making steering difficult. It also would reduce control of the flaps at the rear surface of the wings, making it hard for the pilot to slow the big jet for a safe landing.

But backup systems operating off the two wing-mounted engines should have made the plane flyable, experts said.

A civil aviation expert who asked not to be named theorized that the No. 2 engine failed "catastrophically"--blowing apart and severing all the hydraulic lines in the tail of the plane. That would disable the entire steering rudder as well as the critical flaps in the horizontal stabilizer, which allow the pilot to raise or lower the jet's nose.

With the words said from the 'Voice Recorder' (prior post) the words "Stands off" were spoken, and not sure what that refers to. In looking at aircraft pilot terms, the only thing that comes up as being similar is "STANDARD AIR (Standard Atmosphere)" and a few other terms which use the word Standard, mostly relating to air speed at ceiling or sea level.

As background to how these planes have performed in flight history, Wiki lists the Tupalov 154 as been better than average with the following description:

Incidents and accidents

Between 1970 and December 2016 there have been 110 serious incidents involving the Tu-154,[31] and 69 hull losses, 30 of which did not involve fatalities.[32] Of the fatal incidents, five resulted from terrorist or military terrorist action (two other war-time losses were non fatal), several from poor runway conditions in winter (including one in which the airplane struck snow plows on the runway), cargo overloading in the lapse of post-Soviet federal safety standards, and mid-air collisions due to faulty air traffic control. Other incidents resulted from mechanical problems (two cases prior to 2001), running out of fuel on unscheduled routes, pilot errors (including inadequate flight training for new crews), and cargo fires; several accidents remain unexplained.

The Tu-154 is described as having an average (or better than expected) safety record considering its length of service and heavy use in demanding conditions where other airliners are unable to operate.[4] On January 2, 2011, Russia's Federal Transport Oversight Agency advised airlines to stop using remaining examples of the Tu-154 (B variant) until the fatal fire incident in Surgut had been investigated.[33] Its operation in Iran ceased in February 2011 due to a number of crashes and incidents involving the type (almost 9% of all Tu-154 losses have occurred in Iran). This grounding compounded the effects of US embargo on civil aircraft parts, substantially decreasing the number of airworthy aircraft in the Iranian civil fleet.[34] In 2010 there were two fatal losses of the Tu-154 due to pilot error and/or weather conditions (a Polish presidential jet attempting a rural airfield landing in heavy fog, the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash, and a Russian-registered plane that suffered engine stall after a crew member accidentally de-activated a fuel transfer pump). Following these accidents, in March 2011 the Russian Federal Bureau of Aviation recommended a withdrawal of remaining Tu-154Ms from service.[35] In December 2010, Uzbekistan Airways also declared that it will cease to operate Tu-154s from 2011.[36]

Going down the list of particulars, a few happened after takeoff:

- 1980 - Aeroflot Flight 4225 stalled and crashed on climb out after entering a downdraft. This accident remains the worst in Kazakhstan.

- 1984 - Aeroflot Flight 3519 crashed following double engine failure and in-flight fire.

- 1985 - Aeroflot Flight 7425 stalled and crashed due to crew errors and fatigue. This accident is the deadliest in Soviet history, the deadliest in Uzbekistan, and the worst-ever accident involving the Tu-154.

This comes up often enough - Failed to take off and overran the runway due to overloading and center of gravity problems.

- 1994 - China Northwest Airlines Flight 2303 broke apart in mid-air and crashed shortly after takeoff due to a maintenance error. The crash remains the worst in China.

- A number of engine fires

So, very few takeoff crashes listed - nothing that suggested directly that hydraulic failures have been an issue as crashes were mostly on landing, inflight fires, and other reasons, such as the center of gravity (weight) which, as was said, comes up at least three or four times.

If interested, the following was reviewed as simulations of the TU 154 systems checks, including hydraulics on takeoff mode just to see what type of systems and alarms were involved.

Part 3 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCFotP7VI9g
Part 4 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ygncfIy3Dw

I'm sure the Russians will not let investigative stones, such as security, maintenance and access etc. be left not turned over.

So damn sad.
 
Re: Russian military plane with 91 on board disappears en route to Syria

Anam Cara said:
[...] Russian Defense Ministry aircraft Tu-154 flew on December 25 with (from) the Chkalovsky airfield near Moscow and was directed to the air base "Hmeymim" in the Syrian Latakia. In Sochi, the aircraft stopped to refuel, which had not been known in advance. At 5:27 Moscow time the plane disappeared from radar after two minutes after taking off from the airport of Adler. Later it became known that the ship fell into the Black Sea near Sochi coast. The study of radar data showed that the aircraft was wrecked 6 km from the coast.

There's something in this earlier report, that Anam Cara Posted, that might have been skimmed over. For the most part, I've been concentrating on the situation of the plane crash and it's after effects of retrieving plane and body parts. In the above quote, if I'm reading the information correctly, the aircraft flew out of Chkalovsky airfield near Moscow, and was heading to Hemeimeem, which serves as the main hub for the Russian air campaign in Syria. BUT - for some reason - the aircraft stopped to refuel, which had not been known in advance. WHY - would the plane have to be refueled in Sochi - if it just came from Moscow's Chkalovsky airfield? And if I'm reading the information correctly, the stop in Sochi was "unscheduled" ("had not been known in advance"?)

I came across an earlier report, the day it happened, (which I can't seem to locate now and it's driving me NUTS) that when the plane stopped in Sochi for refueling, no one exited or boarded the plane while the Tu-154 plane sat on the airfield for approximately two hours - before eventually taking off? I'm still searching for that report.


New eye witnesses of Tu-154 crash questioned
http://tass.com/world/922846

"New eye witnesses of the crash have been found and questioned, one of the witnesses made a video of the plane taking off and crashing into the sea," she said. "Apart from this video, the video of the Tu-154 plane landing at the Sochi airport as well as videos showing the plane taxing toward the parking stand and its passengers going through passport control, were also retrieved by investigators."

In the report above, the last sentence, "and its passengers going through passport control" I'm taking it as a reference to when the passengers boarded the plane in Moscow's Chkalovsky airport?


Quote from: Niall
"Currently, 15 bodies and 239 body parts have been recovered from water," the ministry said in a statement.

The severe dismemberment of its passengers suggests that the plane was subject to extreme force, which is not what happens to people on a plane that supposedly crashed like this:

Quote from: RBTH

A key witness to the tragedy is an employee of the FSB (Federal Security Service) Border Guard, who was on a speedboat near the Black Sea coast at the moment of the disaster early on Dec. 25, reports the Kommersant business daily, citing a source in the law-enforcement agencies.

The witness told the investigators that after take-off the plane immediately began to descend toward the sea instead of gaining altitude and that it appeared that it intended to land on the water. The plane's position was strange, said the witness: It was descending at a low speed with an unnaturally turned-up nose.

Kommersant writes that the border guard compared the landing aircraft to a motorcycle speeding on its back wheel alone. In an instant, according to the FSB source, the Tu-154 touched the sea's surface with its tail, which broke off upon impact, crashed into the waves and quickly sank.

Niall's quotes of "severe dismemberment of its passengers" and "after take-off the plane immediately began to descend toward the sea instead of gaining altitude" and "an unnaturally turned-up nose" and when "the Tu-154 touched the sea's surface with its tail, which broke off upon impact, crashed into the waves and quickly sank" gives the impression - something was holding the plane back from reaching altitude? Could the problem be "faulty wing flaps " as quote by Palinurus? And possible "sabotage" as suggested by Laura?


Quote from: Palinurus
The latest news suggests that faulty wing flaps could've been the main cause of the crash according to transcripts from the voice recorder:

Quote from: Laura
Could the flaps have been sabotaged?
 
My condolences to the family's and the Russian Federation, of the tragic loss of life. I will always remember the gifts they gave of sacrifice, and devotion for others.
The true commitment of Service To Others.

This is a recent commentary of another possible scenario. It does pose some interesting questions, and i have added some other info with this possibility of what may have happen. Conjecture.

The flash of light mentioned in the video (was captured by a cam), could have been a tail engine Flame Out. Due to a possible and complete electrical system failure. Pitch black.

Flameout
Air & Space Magazine September 2006
http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/flameout-9043856/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPn8G7enbF4


Airbus A320 at 6,000ft 49.5 dBA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JU2seSmZY0

Francuski okręt szpiegowski w Gdyni Poland (NATO Member)
OPUBLIKOWANO: Czwartek, 27 Października 2016, 10:00
http://www.defence24.pl/478617,francuski-okret-szpiegowski-w-gdyni
6cc4ad935ffef19ce5213874203fd25c.png

Navire espion français Dupuy-de-Lôme - French spy ship Dupuy-de-Lôme
5146b5e1b39d9bdc1d174ed801b87ebc.jpeg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ship_Dupuy_de_L%C3%B4me_(A759)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AFHvZ0Na0M

There is an equation that struck me as to what was the true altitude, attitude, air speed, distance, at which the stall and free fall started (tail down), at 2 minutes after take off.

So using https://www.flightradar24.com/43.45,39.96/8 i did a ruff screen copy of the take off of a totally different aircraft last night from Sochi. At roughly two minutes plus.
d163496e51d32520e246531c076baede.png


Can a large passenger aircraft recover from a stall?
http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/11766/can-a-large-passenger-aircraft-recover-from-a-stall/11773#11773
It depends on the aircraft type. For instance, Tu-154 cannot recover from stall unless a special stall-recovery parachute is installed in its tail. The parachute normally is only installed during development testing, and never on the regular airlines.----answered Jan 16 '15 at 20:40

That's interesting. Can you provide a link for a source on that? The wiki article doesn't seem to contain anything about either the inability to recover from a stall or the parachute. I'm curious why it would be unable to recover from a stall. Is its design aerodynamically unstable? That would be very unusual for an airliner. – reirab Jan 16 '15 at 20:57

@reirab there are several reasons. First, its tail is overloaded because of 4 engines (3 main and 1 aux) inside. There is no way to lower the nose after stall. Second, the wings shadow out the engines and the elevator at high attack angle making encreasing engine power and elevator useless. Third, at high attack angles the turbulent air from wings reaches the engines often triggering surging, and at even higher angles air hunger in the engines (due to wing shadowing) starts, making increasing power impossible. Engines just go off. The parachute is meant to rise the tail to reduce the angle. – Anixx Jan 16 '15 at 21:22

That sounds like a deep stall. Is it possible to stall a Tu-154 without entering deep stall? If so, would such a stall be recoverable by normal means? Also, it would probably be good to add that information to your answer rather than just having it in the comments. A source would be great for those of us interested in further reading, too, if you can find one. –

reirab Jan 16 '15 at 21:32
@reirab from deep stall Tu-154 cannot recover even with a parashute... Stall longer than 2-3 sec means certain death for a regular liner. – Anixx Mar 26 '15 at 20:27
 
Re: Russian military plane with 91 on board disappears en route to Syria

angelburst29 said:
Anam Cara said:
[...] Russian Defense Ministry aircraft Tu-154 flew on December 25 with (from) the Chkalovsky airfield near Moscow and was directed to the air base "Hmeymim" in the Syrian Latakia. In Sochi, the aircraft stopped to refuel, which had not been known in advance. At 5:27 Moscow time the plane disappeared from radar after two minutes after taking off from the airport of Adler. Later it became known that the ship fell into the Black Sea near Sochi coast. The study of radar data showed that the aircraft was wrecked 6 km from the coast.

There's something in this earlier report, that Anam Cara Posted, that might have been skimmed over. For the most part, I've been concentrating on the situation of the plane crash and it's after effects of retrieving plane and body parts. In the above quote, if I'm reading the information correctly, the aircraft flew out of Chkalovsky airfield near Moscow, and was heading to Hemeimeem, which serves as the main hub for the Russian air campaign in Syria. BUT - for some reason - the aircraft stopped to refuel, which had not been known in advance. WHY - would the plane have to be refueled in Sochi - if it just came from Moscow's Chkalovsky airfield? And if I'm reading the information correctly, the stop in Sochi was "unscheduled" ("had not been known in advance"?)

Yes, it was "unscheduled" meaning that there are only 2 airports around where aircrafts usually land for refueling. One in Adler (near Sochi) and another in Mozdok. The crew was planning to refuel in Mozdok but due to weather conditions had to land in Adler. Interestingly, that doesn't exclude the possibility of sabotage since it's still possible that saboteurs were awaiting for the aircrafte in BOTH Adler and Mozdok. The version of sabotage (though not officially) is discussed on the Russian-speaking Internet, too. They assume putting miniature explosive device on one of the flaps.
 
Re: Russian military plane with 91 on board disappears en route to Syria

Altair said:
The version of sabotage (though not officially) is discussed on the Russian-speaking Internet, too. They assume putting miniature explosive device on one of the flaps.

Yes, it seems many Russians find it hard to accept that this accident was a "simple" technical error, due to many inconsistencies and the silence from the authorities, who were too eager to declare that there was no chance for it to be terror related. That's why such theories draw attention on the Russian web. And that's why probably officials prefer to say nothing at all. In times like this I wish I could be a fly on the walls of FSB headquarters.
 
It is possible to sabotage anything on any plane, but it is very hard to do and highly unlikely. Have in mind that the two most dangerous spots in flight are taking off and landing. Some of the world's heaviest air plane disasters could have been easily avoided if the disaster occurred at higher altitude than it was. In last Concord flight for example. They would have better chances and time if they was already at higher altitude.
 
Ocean said:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/747851/russia-plane-crash-panic-new-footage-final-words

Final words of Russian plane crash crew reveal panic as first underwater footage emerges
The final words from the cockpit of the stricken Tu-154 military jet show the Russian flight crew in panic as the plane lost height.

[...] The recording of the cockpit exchanges between the flight deck crew comprising the captain, Major Roman Volkov, his co-pilot, a navigator and an engineer.


I'm still looking for an earlier report which stated the plane and passengers sat on the air field for about two hours, waiting to get refueled.

In an article that Ocean posted, it also stated that the first bodies being recovered, shortly after the crash - were severely damaged - like all the bones in their bodies were broken, plus the large amount of body fragments. I wonder, if the cause is due to sudden impact with the water at high speed or if there was also an internal explosion, of some kind?

Another thing I find ironic, the Russian band was to perform a New Year's concert for Russian soldiers and in another twist, Obama ordered 35 Russian diplomats and their families out of the U.S. with a set deadline of just 72 hours to pack up and leave. Russia sent one of it's own planes to bring them home - resulting in those diplomats and their families spending New Years Eve "in mid-air" on a plane, arriving around 2:30 AM in Russia?
The "timing of both events" leads me to suspect the Tu-154 military jet was "sabotage"!


Officials say 15 bodies have been retrieved along with "numerous" fragments of bodies.

This comes as macabre descriptions have emerged about the appalling damage to bodies pulled out of the Black Sea after the crash of the Tu-154 military aircraft soon after taking off.

The first women to be pulled from the water suffered serious deformities, said a diver. He said: "She had no eyes."

The account, reported by Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper, said: "She was a woman in her forties. There was a red suitcase floating next to her.

"She was wearing a coat that was badly torn. "And she was all broken... as if she had no bones..."

"Two military men, in uniforms... also torn... young. Around 30-35... And their bodies were all broken..."

"That is it, I can't talk more about it, it's hard."

Asked if there was fire or evidence of an explosion in their bodies, he said: "God knows... Their clothes were wet...

"And it's hard to say by skin on face whether it was burnt or scratched off when hitting something hard at impact..."

The condition of the bodies may give investigators vital clues as to the cause of a crash that led to the deaths of almost 70 members of one of the world's great military bands, including the Alexandrov Ensemble's dancers and singers.

In total 15 bodies have been pulled from the water, and 225 body parts have been found at the crash site.

Russian law enforcement has closed off Sochi's beaches after claims looters were stealing possessions from the 92 killed in this week's air horror.

Law enforcement sources said "homeless people" were searching the shore for possessions of those lost in the disaster.

A FSB security service coast guard told Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper that divers "don't talk much" about what they are seeing as they try to salvage bodies from the wreckage.

He said: "They don't talk to anyone much. They get out of the water looking darker than dark and go off.

"Our task now is not to let anyone to the beach.

"They come here early in the morning to search for anything that sea could have brought.

"When I was on duty on the first day, the waves brought somebody's remains, a phone charger, a toiletry bag, couple of shoes and a sport bag right to my feet.

"Some of my colleagues saw jewellery. We mustn't allow even a smallest bit being picked up by somebody else."

He said bodies could be washed up on Sochi's beaches in the coming days.

He said: "Today and tomorrow are key days when sea either gives them away, or take them.


Russian authorities have confirmed that a group of diplomats expelled from the United States have boarded a special flight and are on their way home.

Russia evacuates expelled diplomats from United States
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/01/01/504416/Russia-US-diplomats-row/

Moscow had earlier sent a special plane to evacuate the diplomats and their families. The 35 staffers were ordered by US President Barack Obama to leave the country on December 29 after accusing them of engagement in espionage for Russia.


Plane with Russian diplomats expelled from US lands in Moscow
http://tass.com/world/923649

The plane of the Russian government’s Rossiya Special Flight Detachment, carrying Russian diplomats who were declared persona non grata in the United States, landed in Moscow early on Monday.

The plane with the diplomats and their families on board departed from Washington’s Dulles International Airport on Sunday afternoon.
 
Два подкаста только на русском языке
Two podcast Russian Language Only
14:26
13:14

Official statements: how is investigating the crash of Tu-154
29/12/2016, 21:28
http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3185430
Официальные заявления: как идет расследование крушения Ту-154
29.12.2016, 21:28

В четверг прошел первый после крушения Ту-154 брифинг правительственной комиссии по расследованию обстоятельств катастрофы самолета Минобороны над Черным морем. Официальные лица — в том числе министр транспорта Максим Соколов и генерал-лейтенант Сергей Байнетов — сообщили несколько новых, ранее неизвестных фактов. Так, полностью не исключена версия теракта. Однако общее число гипотез, которые проверяет следствие, сократилось в два раза. О том, какие еще заявления прозвучали на брифинге, рассказала корреспондент "Коммерсантъ FM" Полина Смертина. Петр Косенко и Олег Богданов обсудили новые сведения о катастрофе с экспертами в сфере авиации

Thursday was the first after the crash of the Tu-154 briefing of the government commission of inquiry into the Defense Ministry plane crash over the Black Sea. Officials - including Transport Minister Maxim Sokolov, Lieutenant General Sergei Bajnetov - reported several new, previously unknown facts.

So, not completely ruled out a terrorist attack version. However, the total number of hypotheses, which checks a result, halved.

On what other statements were made at the briefing, told the correspondent of "Kommersant FM" Pauline Smertin. Kosenko Peter and Oleg Bogdanov discussed new details about the crash with experts in the field of aviation
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom