Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Richard Roskell's avatar

"Shooting down a civilian airliner is in the repertoire of the Chechens, the Russians and the Ukrainians."

You left out the Americans. Did you conveniently forget that the US Navy shot down a civilian Iranian airliner, killing all 274 people on board?

While one can't discount the possibility that the aircraft was struck by a missile, one thing I've learned after studying hundreds of airline incidents is not to jump to speculative conclusions, because they're frequently wrong. Especially when there is little data to go on. For example, while it appears the rear fuselage was penetrated from the outside, that kind of damage can be caused by the catastrophic failure of an engine. Such failures are rare, but not as rare as an airliner being intentionally shot down. Working against the possibility of a catastrophically failed engine - either from malfunction or missile - is video of the crash, which does not appear to indicate engine damage, fire, etc.

"Jammers would probably knock out all electronic communications while active."

That's probably incorrect in this instance. Jammers operate on specific frequencies that aren't used by civil airlines. In any case, fully operational communications would've been necessary for the flight to attempt a landing at Grozny, which apparently it did. Constant two-way communications are 100% essential in all commercial aviation.

Once again, the flight may have been intentionally or unintentionally targeted by a missile, but I recommend waiting for more information prior to jumping to conclusions.

Expand full comment
Dick Minnis's avatar

I've not flown the Embraer E190, but as a retired military and commercial airline pilot with 30 years of experience,, I have never encountered a jet that used compressed oxygen tanks to control pressurisation. What ever really happened, that particular detail is BS.

Dick Minnis

removingthecataract.substack.com

Expand full comment
31 more comments...

No posts