"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.
The US Navy wasn't a "local" when it shot down the civilian airliner over Iran. America wasn't even a belligerent at the time. The only conflict was between Iraq and Iran.
Very, very few countries have shot down civilian airliners. But mistakes can happen. Given its one in a billion rarity, describing it as being in a country's "repetoire" seems a bit like pointing fingers, no?
Further on the crash of Azerbaijan Airline's flight 8243... a video taken by a passenger looking out at the wing shows a section at the rear of the port wing fairing has been torn away. No other damage is visible and the aircraft appears to be under control and maintaining altitude. That damage alone would not lead to the aircraft crashing. However the oxygen masks in the cabin have been deployed, meaning the aircraft had depressurized, which is consistent with the holes seen in the fuselage after the crash. The damaged section of the wing fairing, with no other visible damage, is quite mysterious.
Some of the mysteries surrounding the tragedy are these:
1. Many reports are claiming that Grozny was being attacked by drones at the time, and that the Russians were attempting to shoot them down. This allegedly led to Flight 8432 being inadvertently targeted. The problem with that story is that if Russia was actively trying to shoot down drones around Grozny, there is no way that a civil airliner would've been given permission to attempt a landing. However the possibility exists that Flight 8432 was given permission to land prior to the threat of drones being detected. If drones suddenly appeared on radar screens, it's possible that there was inadequate time to coordinate the responses of civilian ATC and military AD. Perhaps in the heat of the moment, the Russian military acted prior to Flight 8432 being diverted from the area.
Short story: It's inconceivable that a routine civilian airline flight would be cleared into airspace where anti-aircraft defences are actively attacking targets. But it's not inconceivable that Flight 8432 was already attempting to land at Grozny when the threat from the drones was discovered.
2. Why did Flight 8432 leave the Grozny area and fly out over the Caspian Sea? Assuming that the aircraft had sustained damage, either from a missile or some other cause, the logical thing would've been to attempt a landing at the nearest available airport. Partially losing control of the aircraft and then electing to head out over a large body of water would be an unusual choice on the part of the pilots. It will be very interesting to get the data in the cockpit voice recorder in order to understand why this happened. One possibility is that the damage greatly inhibited the pilot's control over the aircraft and that time was needed for them to figure out what was wrong and how they could overcome the emergency. Nevertheless, the logical choice would've been to take that time over land, not out over the ocean.
Commercial air carriers always have to file flight plans, and the flights are tracked by air traffic control. There are emergency protocols established for lost communications that still allow successful completion of such flights. Controllers maintain proper air traffic separation in such instances.
Yes, it's true that should a communication failure take place that there are procedures to follow. However, maintaining two-way communications between the aircraft and ATC isn't the critical issue. *Navigating* the aircraft is always the primary concern. While not being able to speak to ATC is a serious situation, hitting a mountain or whatever is obviously much worse.
The frequencies used for aircraft voice communications and those dedicated to aviation navigation are in the same frequency bands. If you're jamming communications you're also going to affect navigation. However, there's no indication that the flight lost navigation and in fact, had it lost the ability to navigate it would not have attempted to land at Grozny. That would've been suicidal given the conditions at the time.
Assuming drones were attacking Grozny, the question is where did they come from? It's 500 km to Ukraine from there. Ukraine has drones with that capability, but they would most likely be autonomous, programmed to fly via GPS to a target. So if they were going to jam anything, it would be GPS signals which are at very different frequency from those used for basic ATC communication and navigation.
If the damage to Flight 8243 was caused by a missile, it appears likely that it was a missile that uses a proximity fuse to detonate near the aircraft, rather than having to strike the aircraft (Hit-to-kill.) This is indicated by the relatively small holes seen on the aircraft's rear fuselage. Had the missile warhead detonated on impact the hole would be much larger. Hit-to-kill MANPAD missiles also tend to rely on infrared seeking, which target the aircraft's hot engines. However in this instance there doesn't appear to be indications of damage to the aircraft's engines. There are exceptions to that however, as some NATO nations have MANPADS with proximity fuses. I don't know if Igla's have them, but it's perhaps unlikely as Igla's are light-weight weapons, and missiles with proximity fuses are relatively heavy.
Due to their increased weight, a proximity fused missile is more likely to be one fired by a dedicated AD installation, such as Russia's Tor weapon system. Recall Malaysian Airlines MH17 that was shot down over Ukraine. It was hit by a missile with a proximity fuse and what remained of the fuselage, when seen on the ground, was heavily and characteristically perforated.
Strangely, based on videos from inside the cabin of Flight 8243, the passengers do not appear harmed. Obviously if the thousands of pieces of shrapnel from a proximity warhead had struck the aircraft you would expect to see a lot of injuries. The possibility exists that only the very rear of the aircraft was struck by shrapnel, but in that case the aircraft probably wouldn't have depressurized, despite whatever other damage might have been caused. It's also the case that if only the very rear of the aircraft took all the shrapnel, that it would've likely destroyed the essential aircraft controls in that area. Keeping the flight airborne at that point would be very difficult if not impossible.
At the moment, pending further information, this incident is quite strange.
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.
You forgot that the big crimes of shooting down civilian planes in mid-flight were inaugurated by the United States on 6 October 1976 off the coast of Barbados when a Cuban airliner carrying the island's fencing team was shot down. Its US protected authors Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch, both working on behalf of the CIA, died in bed in Miami. Bosch published a book and with much defachatism titled it ‘We put the bomb and so what’.
usual full, prompt report and "lot's to chew on" . Very scary event for the whole region or even wider. Thanks for all your valuable work & articles in 2024 and look forward to many more. If applicable "Happy Holidays" to you and all loyal readers & supporters. G
Probably a dumb question for various technical reasons including the fuselage damage - which would then explain why no commentary, even Russian, seems to have appeared on the subject...
...But given there were hostile armed drones in the same area around Grozhny airport as J2-8243 when it first failed, can it be completely ruled out that a Ukrainian drone could have contributed to the fatal damage?
I don't understand why such a scenario seems to be ruled out by all commentary, without even being mentioned.
But they looked around for anything other than a Buk after MH-17... if a drone *could* have compromised J2-8243, why haven't they suggested that - unless they know what happened and know the flight recorders will clearly show that?
How about some older type of Russian air defence missile, one filled with metal balls to explode in proximity of the targeted aircraft rather precisely on the target? Could it not cause the damage on both the aircraft's body and on inner systems?
I'm guessing several countries on the flight plan still operate such air defences?
The most likely candidate would be the Pantsir. The prior system, still in use, is the Tunguska M1. These have rather decent-sized interceptor missiles (and 30mm guns). I would not rule out Pantsir or its predecessor. However, the amount of blast destruction was relatively light, suggesting a Manpads.
All of this speculation is interesting. My little bit......the plane was too far from the battle front for many of the first things to pop in to my mind to be likely. Eg: I doubt there are very many people walking around the ground carrying manpads or equivalent, so many that they fire them off at annoying sounds coming from the clouds. At least not in that region. On the front line it might be better to be safe than sorry but hundreds of miles from the fighting, I don't think so.
A Ukraine originated drone flying around looking for aircraft to shoot down way behind enemy lines? The Ukrainians dream of having the resources to spare to do such things. But dreams are all they have right now in that regard.
Inappropriate use of surface to air type anti-air? Possible of course, but if so it was the opposite of hair trigger response. The plane was flying around for a long time before it got that type of response if it happened. However, it could be that an operator spilled coffee on his desk and accidentally hit the big red button while cleaning up.
Again, it is possible that it was a terrorist type attack using simple means such as a commercially available drone against a plane when is landing or taking off and is highly vulnerable. Actually, it is a wonder that it doesn't happen all the time. But everything about this incident suggest the plane was in difficulty before it got in to range of commercial drones. And if Ukraine had the capability to do such things on a more sophisticated level, they would waste it on this target.
Normally, an investigation into this type of event would activate a crowd of people from the Brazilian government and the Brazilian manufacturer, the Azeri government, the Kazakhian government, the Chechnyan government, the Russian government, the Europeans and the Americans The Ukrainians would want in just to make sure they aren't falsely accused (and to see just how hard would it be for them to do such a thing if they decided to). The investigators would have the authority to stay as long as they want, go wherever they want and look at or into anything they want. Clearly that's not going to happen. So even those who accept the results will acknowledge that it is not the normal full scale investigation one would expect.
My guess: anything is possible including engine self destruction as mentioned elsewhere in the comments here. Dramatic engine failure is the most likely but least interesting cause.
The damage shown in the image of the tail looks to have been made by flechettes or ball shot. Is that a potential feature of the munition that you describe?
The destination of Grozny is NW of the departure of Baku. The thread of unraveling this mystery is: why did the plane try to land almost due north of Baku? Armenian or pro-EU Georgians causing havoc? Too soon to tell.
I had watched the video of the attempted landing multiple times before receiving your essay and it certainly looked like there was no visible fire (which appears to envelope the back half of the plane) until after the plane touched the ground.
A commercial jet would only dump fuel in an emergency immediately after takeoff if it was to heavy to return to land. Usually applies to a large trans con type aircraft, can't imagine that would matter to the Embraer E190.
Thanks for the clarification. I’ve been a passenger on that plane. It’s smaller than other long-haul planes. I was wondering if it could have dumped fuel and avoid or lessen to post crash fire. On takeoff, or perhaps only flying for 15 minutes, a large plane could be flying bomb, like a 757, or 767, on a coast to coast trip and then into buildings. Or not
My împression so far is that the flight crew made an amazing attempt to recover a near-impossible situation, and were in the end very unlucky not themselves to survive the landing
"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.
I was obviously referring to the "locals"
Of course others could do so but they were not "on location"
The US Navy wasn't a "local" when it shot down the civilian airliner over Iran. America wasn't even a belligerent at the time. The only conflict was between Iraq and Iran.
Very, very few countries have shot down civilian airliners. But mistakes can happen. Given its one in a billion rarity, describing it as being in a country's "repetoire" seems a bit like pointing fingers, no?
Further on the crash of Azerbaijan Airline's flight 8243... a video taken by a passenger looking out at the wing shows a section at the rear of the port wing fairing has been torn away. No other damage is visible and the aircraft appears to be under control and maintaining altitude. That damage alone would not lead to the aircraft crashing. However the oxygen masks in the cabin have been deployed, meaning the aircraft had depressurized, which is consistent with the holes seen in the fuselage after the crash. The damaged section of the wing fairing, with no other visible damage, is quite mysterious.
A day has passed but the available details of this accident are still few. Many questions remain. While some news agencies are publishing speculation as fact, CNN actually has a decent report which doesn't gloss over the unknowns. https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/26/asia/kazakhstan-plane-crash-questions-intl/index.html
Some of the mysteries surrounding the tragedy are these:
1. Many reports are claiming that Grozny was being attacked by drones at the time, and that the Russians were attempting to shoot them down. This allegedly led to Flight 8432 being inadvertently targeted. The problem with that story is that if Russia was actively trying to shoot down drones around Grozny, there is no way that a civil airliner would've been given permission to attempt a landing. However the possibility exists that Flight 8432 was given permission to land prior to the threat of drones being detected. If drones suddenly appeared on radar screens, it's possible that there was inadequate time to coordinate the responses of civilian ATC and military AD. Perhaps in the heat of the moment, the Russian military acted prior to Flight 8432 being diverted from the area.
Short story: It's inconceivable that a routine civilian airline flight would be cleared into airspace where anti-aircraft defences are actively attacking targets. But it's not inconceivable that Flight 8432 was already attempting to land at Grozny when the threat from the drones was discovered.
2. Why did Flight 8432 leave the Grozny area and fly out over the Caspian Sea? Assuming that the aircraft had sustained damage, either from a missile or some other cause, the logical thing would've been to attempt a landing at the nearest available airport. Partially losing control of the aircraft and then electing to head out over a large body of water would be an unusual choice on the part of the pilots. It will be very interesting to get the data in the cockpit voice recorder in order to understand why this happened. One possibility is that the damage greatly inhibited the pilot's control over the aircraft and that time was needed for them to figure out what was wrong and how they could overcome the emergency. Nevertheless, the logical choice would've been to take that time over land, not out over the ocean.
Commercial air carriers always have to file flight plans, and the flights are tracked by air traffic control. There are emergency protocols established for lost communications that still allow successful completion of such flights. Controllers maintain proper air traffic separation in such instances.
Yes, it's true that should a communication failure take place that there are procedures to follow. However, maintaining two-way communications between the aircraft and ATC isn't the critical issue. *Navigating* the aircraft is always the primary concern. While not being able to speak to ATC is a serious situation, hitting a mountain or whatever is obviously much worse.
The frequencies used for aircraft voice communications and those dedicated to aviation navigation are in the same frequency bands. If you're jamming communications you're also going to affect navigation. However, there's no indication that the flight lost navigation and in fact, had it lost the ability to navigate it would not have attempted to land at Grozny. That would've been suicidal given the conditions at the time.
Assuming drones were attacking Grozny, the question is where did they come from? It's 500 km to Ukraine from there. Ukraine has drones with that capability, but they would most likely be autonomous, programmed to fly via GPS to a target. So if they were going to jam anything, it would be GPS signals which are at very different frequency from those used for basic ATC communication and navigation.
If the damage to Flight 8243 was caused by a missile, it appears likely that it was a missile that uses a proximity fuse to detonate near the aircraft, rather than having to strike the aircraft (Hit-to-kill.) This is indicated by the relatively small holes seen on the aircraft's rear fuselage. Had the missile warhead detonated on impact the hole would be much larger. Hit-to-kill MANPAD missiles also tend to rely on infrared seeking, which target the aircraft's hot engines. However in this instance there doesn't appear to be indications of damage to the aircraft's engines. There are exceptions to that however, as some NATO nations have MANPADS with proximity fuses. I don't know if Igla's have them, but it's perhaps unlikely as Igla's are light-weight weapons, and missiles with proximity fuses are relatively heavy.
Due to their increased weight, a proximity fused missile is more likely to be one fired by a dedicated AD installation, such as Russia's Tor weapon system. Recall Malaysian Airlines MH17 that was shot down over Ukraine. It was hit by a missile with a proximity fuse and what remained of the fuselage, when seen on the ground, was heavily and characteristically perforated.
Strangely, based on videos from inside the cabin of Flight 8243, the passengers do not appear harmed. Obviously if the thousands of pieces of shrapnel from a proximity warhead had struck the aircraft you would expect to see a lot of injuries. The possibility exists that only the very rear of the aircraft was struck by shrapnel, but in that case the aircraft probably wouldn't have depressurized, despite whatever other damage might have been caused. It's also the case that if only the very rear of the aircraft took all the shrapnel, that it would've likely destroyed the essential aircraft controls in that area. Keeping the flight airborne at that point would be very difficult if not impossible.
At the moment, pending further information, this incident is quite strange.
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
Iran Air Flight 655
seems a replica as you suggest
absent a battleship
Mr. Bryen
You forgot that the big crimes of shooting down civilian planes in mid-flight were inaugurated by the United States on 6 October 1976 off the coast of Barbados when a Cuban airliner carrying the island's fencing team was shot down. Its US protected authors Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch, both working on behalf of the CIA, died in bed in Miami. Bosch published a book and with much defachatism titled it ‘We put the bomb and so what’.
I forgot nothing. I was only speaking about the "local" candidates for shooting down the Embraer. You should read more carefully.
usual full, prompt report and "lot's to chew on" . Very scary event for the whole region or even wider. Thanks for all your valuable work & articles in 2024 and look forward to many more. If applicable "Happy Holidays" to you and all loyal readers & supporters. G
Probably a dumb question for various technical reasons including the fuselage damage - which would then explain why no commentary, even Russian, seems to have appeared on the subject...
...But given there were hostile armed drones in the same area around Grozhny airport as J2-8243 when it first failed, can it be completely ruled out that a Ukrainian drone could have contributed to the fatal damage?
I don't understand why such a scenario seems to be ruled out by all commentary, without even being mentioned.
I cannot answer your question, which is a good one. I think if a drone strike actually happened, the Russians would have been trumpeting it.
But they looked around for anything other than a Buk after MH-17... if a drone *could* have compromised J2-8243, why haven't they suggested that - unless they know what happened and know the flight recorders will clearly show that?
Sorry, I really value your articles even though we don't agree on everything, something very natural. greetings
How about some older type of Russian air defence missile, one filled with metal balls to explode in proximity of the targeted aircraft rather precisely on the target? Could it not cause the damage on both the aircraft's body and on inner systems?
I'm guessing several countries on the flight plan still operate such air defences?
The most likely candidate would be the Pantsir. The prior system, still in use, is the Tunguska M1. These have rather decent-sized interceptor missiles (and 30mm guns). I would not rule out Pantsir or its predecessor. However, the amount of blast destruction was relatively light, suggesting a Manpads.
All of this speculation is interesting. My little bit......the plane was too far from the battle front for many of the first things to pop in to my mind to be likely. Eg: I doubt there are very many people walking around the ground carrying manpads or equivalent, so many that they fire them off at annoying sounds coming from the clouds. At least not in that region. On the front line it might be better to be safe than sorry but hundreds of miles from the fighting, I don't think so.
A Ukraine originated drone flying around looking for aircraft to shoot down way behind enemy lines? The Ukrainians dream of having the resources to spare to do such things. But dreams are all they have right now in that regard.
Inappropriate use of surface to air type anti-air? Possible of course, but if so it was the opposite of hair trigger response. The plane was flying around for a long time before it got that type of response if it happened. However, it could be that an operator spilled coffee on his desk and accidentally hit the big red button while cleaning up.
Again, it is possible that it was a terrorist type attack using simple means such as a commercially available drone against a plane when is landing or taking off and is highly vulnerable. Actually, it is a wonder that it doesn't happen all the time. But everything about this incident suggest the plane was in difficulty before it got in to range of commercial drones. And if Ukraine had the capability to do such things on a more sophisticated level, they would waste it on this target.
Normally, an investigation into this type of event would activate a crowd of people from the Brazilian government and the Brazilian manufacturer, the Azeri government, the Kazakhian government, the Chechnyan government, the Russian government, the Europeans and the Americans The Ukrainians would want in just to make sure they aren't falsely accused (and to see just how hard would it be for them to do such a thing if they decided to). The investigators would have the authority to stay as long as they want, go wherever they want and look at or into anything they want. Clearly that's not going to happen. So even those who accept the results will acknowledge that it is not the normal full scale investigation one would expect.
My guess: anything is possible including engine self destruction as mentioned elsewhere in the comments here. Dramatic engine failure is the most likely but least interesting cause.
There’s no safe travels in war zones.
The damage shown in the image of the tail looks to have been made by flechettes or ball shot. Is that a potential feature of the munition that you describe?
Possibly. US missiles used zirconium cubes and when spinning they would make a round hole
The destination of Grozny is NW of the departure of Baku. The thread of unraveling this mystery is: why did the plane try to land almost due north of Baku? Armenian or pro-EU Georgians causing havoc? Too soon to tell.
Interesting. Thanks.
I had watched the video of the attempted landing multiple times before receiving your essay and it certainly looked like there was no visible fire (which appears to envelope the back half of the plane) until after the plane touched the ground.
Is that consistent with your description?
there was no fire until the crash
No fuel dump. Maybe that wasn't functioning. It may not have made a difference. Not an expert. Pilots are heroes
A commercial jet would only dump fuel in an emergency immediately after takeoff if it was to heavy to return to land. Usually applies to a large trans con type aircraft, can't imagine that would matter to the Embraer E190.
Dick Minnis
Thanks for the clarification. I’ve been a passenger on that plane. It’s smaller than other long-haul planes. I was wondering if it could have dumped fuel and avoid or lessen to post crash fire. On takeoff, or perhaps only flying for 15 minutes, a large plane could be flying bomb, like a 757, or 767, on a coast to coast trip and then into buildings. Or not
My împression so far is that the flight crew made an amazing attempt to recover a near-impossible situation, and were in the end very unlucky not themselves to survive the landing
that is exactly how it was written in other reports
your obnoxious comment notwithstanding
incidentally, are you a pilot? I am,