A-321 crash – Comment on HMG decision
Subject: A-321 crash – Comment on HMG decision.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015
From: Andrei Liakhov <email@example.com>
A-321 crash – Comment on HMG decision.
My money is on a technical defect. It is either a computer glitch which the crew tried to correct and swang the aircraft into critical G or the tail was weakened in a previous incident and reached critical metal fatigue (like the famous 757 accident when the vertical fin fell off in midflight).
I need to explain the first in more detail – A321 is a full fly by wire aircraft with no hydraulic booster backup like US or Russian designed airliners. On top of that the French designers think that computer is more intelligent than pilot and have built in the ability of the computer to override pilot decision if the comp thinks the pilot made a mistake.
The stick is operated by a program called “I-shoot” which imitates a real steering column.
Now, judging by the flight patten of the last 2,5 minutes the sequence of events could have been as follows:
1. The on board computer erroneously commands the plane to descend (gently at this stage – 100 m/minute).
2. The crew detects the descend at c. 8200 meters;
3. The crew attempts to manually correct the computer error;
4. I-shoot detects what it thinks is the erroneous action requiring correction when the plane climbs back to c.9,100 m and overrides the pilot push;
5. Plane dives and gains speed;
6. The crew attemps to correct what they think is the obvious I-shoot error;
7. By the time pilots manage to switch off/re-program I-shoot (no idea whether possible on this particular as-321), the plane reaches critical dive speed;
8. When the crew attempts finally to get it out of the dive the tail (bulkhead 13 judging by the photos) fails and falls off;
9. It sends the plane into almost vertical dive;
10. At this point everyone is dead;
11. At 8 above the US satellite detects a thermal burst typical for catastrophic loss of pressure (caused by massive leak of very warm (+24 C) air into -35C environment.
As to the bomb theory – a bomb could only be brought onto the plane by one of local service teams – cleaners or ground mechanics.
It was reported that the tail fell off mid flight some 46 seconds before the crash. Thus if it was a bomb, it could only have been placed in the rear of the plane near the bulkhead No.13 (last in the passenger cabin). There is neither a luggage compartment nor any technological entry points in this section. Thus it could only have been placed by the cleaners (into one of kitchen spaces, as the toilets are to the front of the kitchen and the back door landing) – the only ground crew which are left in the plane unsupervised by the crew.
Level of sophistication required of a bomber to achieve such a clean cut break off of the tail (judging by the photos I have seen) has never been seen before.
The initial examination did not confirm presence of traces of combustible substances in the tail section. If that was a small bomb designed only to weaken the structure to cause a “natural” rupture – these traces will be very difficult to find.
Terrorists are usually very unsophisticated people. They do not usually attempt to conceal traces of their explosive devices.
Having regard to the totality of the above and what I have seen to date in terms of evidence – I am inclined to think that the crash was caused by a technical fault (Or a combination of several defects) rather than by a bomb.
However, it will only become clear once several quote sophisticated chemical tests are carried out on the relevant parts of the fuselage. Until then – any theory remains just that – a theory. Precautionary move by HMG to suspend commercial flights to Sharm Al Sheikh may be justified. However the explanation given publicly just plays into ISIS propaganda of omnipotent force present everywhere. Not good.