Plane Crash Today --Azerbaijanian E190 passenger jet

An Azerbaijanian passenger jet with 67 souls on board crashed today.
link

Inital reports indicate it was a bird strike, but there is compelling evidence now showing signs of a shrapnel damage to the fuselage and total loss of hydraulics.



Incredibly there are apparently 32 survivors.

Allow me to add that if true, it was probably a tragic accident, and not intentional.

It could have just been an accident, or it could have been the Jet hit some drone or something when flying which damaged it. Could be anything, I can't see this being blamed on Russia with no real evidence to back it, could have been anyone who did that if in reality it was shot at. I am not going to just believe propaganda. Even if it was a Russian that shot it down, it could be considered a friendly fire incident.. a soldier with a weapon that shot at anything he saw.

a reply to: Springbok

Allow me to add that if true, it was probably a tragic accident, and not intentional.

just like it was back in 2014 when putins boy started the war in the donbas and shot down MH17.

and if you believe that i got a bridge i can sale real cheap.

a reply to: rickymouse

You are absolutely right in not believing anything without further proof. These kind of incidents spawn all kinds of theories and I am no aircraft crash investigator.

But the video evidence of the damage to the tail and fuselage of the aircraft is interesting.

I hope it was just a bird strike and not anyone else, but if it was a missile of some sort, the jet got into trouble over Russian controlled territory, so certain conclusions will be drawn from that fact.

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: Springbok

Allow me to add that if true, it was probably a tragic accident, and not intentional.

just like it was back in 2014 when putins boy started the war in the donbas and shot down MH17.

and if you believe that i got a bridge i can real cheap.

I always wanted to own a bridge

Right now, I am just posting what I saw in the Youtube video, and prefer not to add motive, if the missile allegation turns out to be true.

ATS doesn't allow question marks in subject headers, so I do know it appears like I am stating the allegation as fact.

They definitely weren't birds. I'm not a pilot, but there's a flying club here, we (the fire department) have regular contact with them and I know what bird strikes look like. not like that.

First of all, the impacts are lateral. A typical bird strike comes from the front and often hits the nose, the wings on the front side and the tail.
Then these are really violent impacts, birds are soft, there are no traces of blood or feathers to be seen and one that hits from the side at perhaps 50kmh never has enough energy to penetrate the outer shell like that.

Then you have to look at the vertical tail. Look at the impact points. They come from diagonally above, which to me says that the plane was in a turn and therefore the vertical tail was angled, assuming that the shots were coming from the ground.

Let's assume it was a rocket, then it could well have come from above. The auxiliary engine is usually located at the back to first get power to the barge and then start up the actual turbines. This also creates heat at the back of the exhaust pipe. It doesn't have to have been a projectile, it could also have been a heat-seeking rocket with a fragmentation warhead. which came flying from above and behind. This also makes sense because the front engines are covered by the wings and the next clearly visible heat signature is the exhaust pipe of the auxiliary turbine at the back.

In addition, the hit on the tail unit is a bullseye. If the horizontal stabilizer, which is also used for trimming, is damaged, then good night.

a reply to: Naftalin

Thanks for your post.

Any chance that the actual ground impact could have caused those "shrapnel" punctures on the fuselage? In other words, bits of the front of the plane thrown up as it hit the ground? It was a pretty violent collision.

a reply to: Springbok

Maybe, the impact hole angle -from all I see in the photos- do not fit in my opinion but I can not exclude it. It just not fit with bird strike and the ones I saw. I am no expert. It was for interest and good cameradry, we do not have to do anything as fire department about bird strike. Was like, hey, these people had bird strike wreck their plane, want to see?



My condolences to the families that lost someone

Just adding to thread ... happen to be reading on it

Passenger is recording from inside jet as crash happens - Video on X

Bullet holes in fuselage of crashed jet - Video on X

Some good videos and info here — Passenger jet crashes in Kazakhstan, leaving 38 dead, 29 survivors - LINK

a reply to: tarantulabite1

its SAM shrapnel. Same as the previous"accidental" shoot down,OR the impossible heat seeking missile from a SU-25 frogfoot at a impossible to reach altitude for it to be at with any weapons at all on it. Russians even faked satellite images of it.
Point is THIS was intentional and i almost bet you Russia blames Ukraine for it.

originally posted by: Springbok
a reply to: rickymouse

You are absolutely right in not believing anything without further proof. These kind of incidents spawn all kinds of theories and I am no aircraft crash investigator.

But the video evidence of the damage to the tail and fuselage of the aircraft is interesting.

I hope it was just a bird strike and not anyone else, but if it was a missile of some sort, the jet got into trouble over Russian controlled territory, so certain conclusions will be drawn from that fact.

Yeah, I kind of figure that Zelinski's military would also shoot at a passenger jet to put the blame on Russia too. Propaganda in war is real, one side will do things so it can blame it on the other and Ukraine's government most certainly would do that. Russia may control that area, but I am sure there are Ukrainian soldiers there yet. Ukraine is trying to promote Russia doing bad things so it increases it's ability to gain more weapons and funding for it's war with Russia. So I cannot discount that they would shoot at a passenger jet just so they could blame it on Russia because Russia controls that area. It may have been Russia, but so far there is no evidence showing that.

originally posted by: tarantulabite1
Just adding to thread ... happen to be reading on it

Passenger is recording from inside jet as crash happens - Video on X

Bullet holes in fuselage of crashed jet - Video on X

Some good videos and info here — Passenger jet crashes in Kazakhstan, leaving 38 dead, 29 survivors - LINK

It appears that the bullets were shot from the side of the jet. On top of the tailfin, on side of the upper fin, and on the side of the jet. They were not fired from the ground unless they shot it as it was landing. It could have been a jet or Drone that shot it from the side too, but a Jet would have been visable to radar most likely. A drone would have been possibly too small for radar to pick up.

My guess would be someone shot at it either just before landing on the ground....or someone actually shot at it after it crashed from a malfunction so they could say it was shot by Russians and that shooting caused the jet to crash. I think the latter is most likely the case, they wanted to blame a malfunction on the Russians to gain support for Ukraine. They look like bullet holes to me.

I looked at a video, but cannot understand what it said, and the pilot did not look that panicky. The passenger department video probably could be showing evidence of bullet holes on X someone posted too, but I am not sure what is going on and you would think the passengers would be more frantic if bullet holes were shot into the plane when they were flying.

It is sad that there is so much deceit these days that you cannot be sure if something is real anymore. but the bullet holes appear to have been shot at the plane from the same level or maybe just a touch higher from that side.

We probably will never know for sure what happened with that incident, because in war each side tries to blame the other side for everything under the sun to make themselves look better. Actually, that happens a lot in society here in America too, people make up stories or slam other people to make themselves look better than the other person a lot here in America.

Edit, I did not want to erase anything I said previously, but I guess they are saying it is sam shrapnel now as someone up higher had said. I do not know what Sam shrapnel actually is, I am not a military person at all. I don't even know how Sams work, or who has them. I was just looking at the holes and figured it was a machine gun. An article also stated that someone inside was hit it appeared, so it was probably a real event. But who shot the missile, that is the question. Can they identify the shrapnel properly, and can we trust the people who are examining the shrapnel? Does Ukraine use Sams, or could they have got some Sams during the war with Russia and used them to stage an event?

It is bad when you cannot believe anyone in war.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: tarantulabite1

its SAM shrapnel. Same as the previous"accidental" shoot down,OR the impossible heat seeking missile from a SU-25 frogfoot at a impossible to reach altitude for it to be at with any weapons at all on it. Russians even faked satellite images of it.
Point is THIS was intentional and i almost bet you Russia blames Ukraine for it.

It sure looks like SAM shrapnel. Russian radar guided SAMs typically go up above the target and descend down on it at high speed and then detonate a warhead that is basically a shaped charge with hundreds of little metallic balls imbedded in it. It's basically a big shotgun blast. The balls are usually pyrophoric (containing metals like Barium), which means they catch on fire as soon as they penetrate the skin of the target. The idea is to ignite fuel and other combustible parts of the target, if possible. The warhead is commanded to detonate an optimal distance away from the target so that there is a high probability of multiple hits. A heat seeking missile detonates on impact and has to actually make contact with the target.

My guess is that Russia interpreted it as a hostile target and shot it down. They will probably deny everything, of course.

I suspect that the fact that the landing gear were down when the aircraft contacted the ground is what saved half the passengers' lives. When the main gear contacted the ground, the back half of the plane probably broke off and skidded away. Since it didn't contain any fuel, it didn't catch on fire. It looks like a number of bodies were thrown clear however, and they didn't survive.

Several leading and trusted aviation expert channels are now running with the missile theory.

These are respected channels like
blancolirio, who specialises in aircraft accident analysis.

To me, the preponderance of evidence is now heavily in favour of a missile being the cause of the crash, and the pilots deserve all the praise and respect in the world for piloting that jet to the point where there were actual survivors, and not a big smoking hole in the ground.

I think this is too big to be covered up, so now it's going to be an exhausting blame game. I see there is already sides being taken, even on this site.

a reply to: rickymouse

SAM is just an abbreviation for (S)urface to (A)ir (M)issile (SAM). They are used by virtually all military's and come in hundreds of different varieties.

What's odd about this event is...it's a long way from Ukraine. This incident is about 600 miles (+/-) from the nearest fighting in Ukraine, all the way across the Caspian Sea.

After watching all the videos, it looks like they stalled the wing right before they got to the airport. Doesn't look like they had any flaps deployed as they slowed. The gear was down, but no flaps that I could see. Looked like they were trying to turn a sharp base leg final and stalled the wing right in the beginning of the turn.