This is so sad...Tunisair ATR-42 ditched before coast of Sicily
Moderator: Latest news team
-
HorsePower
- Posts: 1589
- Joined: 12 Jan 2005, 00:00
- Location: France
Says who ? Says a journalist.
If the Italian fuel indeed is bad, there should be Alitalia crashes by dozens. Actually, AZ has an excellent rate (says airdisaster.com).
The fact that the fuel truck has been sealed till investigation, online indicates that the Italian CAA takes the investigation seriously.
If the Italian fuel indeed is bad, there should be Alitalia crashes by dozens. Actually, AZ has an excellent rate (says airdisaster.com).
The fact that the fuel truck has been sealed till investigation, online indicates that the Italian CAA takes the investigation seriously.
I read that it was the fuel quality or the fuel quantity (not enough fuel on board).HorsePower wrote:the fuel quality provided to the aircraft in Italia is considered as the main hypothesys of the crash.
http://www.hln.be/hln/cch/det/art_107776.html
I wonder how old that ATR-42 was
I don't know if the quality of the Italian fuel is bad. I only know that the quality of the Italian press is bad.
Sky TG24 television says that the plane was put on hold for 20 minute before landing at Bari, and therefore had to take on some fuel. And the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera says that the plane took 240 litres fuel at Bari.
Well folks, this is the ultimate proof that the fuel was bad, isn't it? (message for the Corriere della Sera: an ATR 72-500 has a fuel load of 5.000 litres).
This story now goes around the world like the Toronto crash ("the plane has landed in the middle of the runway"). Wonder when somebody will tell that the hole in the ozone layer is responsible, because the engine ignition failed, and satellite pictures proof there's a problem specially above Italy (because of Berlusconi).
Of course it could have been a fuel related problem. But please let's wait till we get some reliable information to conclude.
Sky TG24 television says that the plane was put on hold for 20 minute before landing at Bari, and therefore had to take on some fuel. And the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera says that the plane took 240 litres fuel at Bari.
Well folks, this is the ultimate proof that the fuel was bad, isn't it? (message for the Corriere della Sera: an ATR 72-500 has a fuel load of 5.000 litres).
This story now goes around the world like the Toronto crash ("the plane has landed in the middle of the runway"). Wonder when somebody will tell that the hole in the ozone layer is responsible, because the engine ignition failed, and satellite pictures proof there's a problem specially above Italy (because of Berlusconi).
Of course it could have been a fuel related problem. But please let's wait till we get some reliable information to conclude.
-
B744skipper
- Posts: 1509
- Joined: 21 Apr 2004, 00:00
It was aircraft TS-LBB:luchtzak wrote:I read that it was the fuel quality or the fuel quantity (not enough fuel on board).HorsePower wrote:the fuel quality provided to the aircraft in Italia is considered as the main hypothesys of the crash.
http://www.hln.be/hln/cch/det/art_107776.html
I wonder how old that ATR-42 was
General information Serial number 258
Type 72-202
First flight date 12/03/1991
Test registration F-WWLE
Source: http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/inde ... p=atr&nb=1
LX-LGX wrote:Of course it could have been a fuel related problem. But please let's wait till we get some reliable information to conclude.
Don't blow yourself up, LX-LGX.
This is about aviation, not journalism.
By citing possible causes of the incidents, we are just trying to uncover the truth. Your system of just 'wait and see' is working in the opposite direction, it leaves all of them who want to cover up things that might go unnoticed.
We are for transparency, and trust the members of the forum, they will tell us when it are calumnies about calamities.
Slanderers or the ones that calumniate are easily and quickly recognised here, do not worry about that.
Investigations have to look into each datail possible. If not all clues lead to a successful conclusion, we learn a lot about aviation. Do not see any harm in that, LX.LGX.
-
Airbus330lover
- Posts: 889
- Joined: 21 Jul 2005, 00:00
- Location: Rixensart
Don't worry, I don't have any problems at all with comments on my comments. But I hate it, when rumours become official, thus blaming crew or ground staff for an incident.
The story about the bad fuel probably started like this: at the bar of his London budget hotel, an Italian journalist hears about some doubts about fuel worldwide. The ex-husband of the assistant bookkeeper from Parmalat, who happens to be also in that hotel, tells him that everybody cheats in Italy. "Even airlines, you know: some fuel companies book Jet A1 fuel for foreign carriers as exported = the Italian State then doens't get all the taxes".
The journalist then phones his editor in chief, and tells him he has heard there was fuel problem. The next day, the newspaper states that an anonymous source, close to Palermo airport, had said that the fuel wasn't clean.
Check, double check, triple check: it's not common sense in journalism anymore.
The story about the bad fuel probably started like this: at the bar of his London budget hotel, an Italian journalist hears about some doubts about fuel worldwide. The ex-husband of the assistant bookkeeper from Parmalat, who happens to be also in that hotel, tells him that everybody cheats in Italy. "Even airlines, you know: some fuel companies book Jet A1 fuel for foreign carriers as exported = the Italian State then doens't get all the taxes".
The journalist then phones his editor in chief, and tells him he has heard there was fuel problem. The next day, the newspaper states that an anonymous source, close to Palermo airport, had said that the fuel wasn't clean.
Check, double check, triple check: it's not common sense in journalism anymore.
-
Airbus330lover
- Posts: 889
- Joined: 21 Jul 2005, 00:00
- Location: Rixensart
I said it more that on time in this forum and in other forums.LX-LGX wrote: Check, double check, triple check: it's not common sense in journalism anymore.
Wait until the official rapport will be closed.
About journalists: Whe have on earth a dozen of good airline journalists.
All the guys who gives comment now are journalists without any experience in aviation but in sensionalism.
See AF in toronto... first it was Luthansa, a few minutes later it was a 737 from Germany operated by Lufthansa, after it was (on CNN) a A380 and finnaly a AF340.
-
Aviator-o-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: 28 Dec 2004, 00:00
it is said that the wreckage is in deep waters.
Real problem is that it is in the same location where the americans shot down an airliner and which was never recovered. (they always denied it) Imagine that rescue workers look for the Tunisair wreckage and find that other airplane with clear missile impact marks. Would be a bit embarrasing.
Before every body starts bashing me, please guys, do your home work first and come back later.
Real problem is that it is in the same location where the americans shot down an airliner and which was never recovered. (they always denied it) Imagine that rescue workers look for the Tunisair wreckage and find that other airplane with clear missile impact marks. Would be a bit embarrasing.
Before every body starts bashing me, please guys, do your home work first and come back later.
-
HorsePower
- Posts: 1589
- Joined: 12 Jan 2005, 00:00
- Location: France
here we go brothers:
1980 June 27th. Italy, near Sicily, Island of Ustica: Itavia (aero Transporti Italiani) DC-9, flight 870, experienced severe damage in flight, broke up, and plunged into the Mediterranean Sea near the island; all 81 people aboard died; a military maneuver is suspected as cause for the crash
I didn't say it, it comes from:
http://www.emergency-management.net/avi ... 9_1989.htm
1980 June 27th. Italy, near Sicily, Island of Ustica: Itavia (aero Transporti Italiani) DC-9, flight 870, experienced severe damage in flight, broke up, and plunged into the Mediterranean Sea near the island; all 81 people aboard died; a military maneuver is suspected as cause for the crash
I didn't say it, it comes from:
http://www.emergency-management.net/avi ... 9_1989.htm
you like this report?
At 20.56 hours on June 27, 1980, an Italian DC-9 from the Itavia company was on a flight from Bologna to Palermo on Sicily. Suddenly the tower at Ciampino near Rome lost contact with the plane which, seemingly without reason, dived into the Mediterranean killing all 81 on board. The next day some remains of the plane were found near the island (of) Ustica while the main body had sunk to a depth of 3,500 meters. An investigation of some of the dead bodies found at sea, pointed to some kind of external explosion or outside impact as the cause. Fragments from the undercarriage were found in the dead bodies which speaks against the theory of an explosion within the aircraft.
Analysis of metallic fragments convinced the investigation committee that the DC-9 was shot down by a military missile. Remains of phosphorus, common in missiles, were found in the bodies.
An anonymous military source, who contacted an Italian journalist the same night, claimed that the plane was hit by a missile. At a senatory inquest ten years later, a sergeant at a military control centre admitted that he had seen the plane disappear off the screen. Previously it had been categorically denied that the military had kept the plane under surveillance. The plane's radar echo was followed, on a parallel course, by another target. Then it was hit by a third (unknown?) object on a crossing trajectory and the resulting cascade of debris, seen on radar, was thrown in the same direction as the crossing object had moved. [1]
At 20.56 hours on June 27, 1980, an Italian DC-9 from the Itavia company was on a flight from Bologna to Palermo on Sicily. Suddenly the tower at Ciampino near Rome lost contact with the plane which, seemingly without reason, dived into the Mediterranean killing all 81 on board. The next day some remains of the plane were found near the island (of) Ustica while the main body had sunk to a depth of 3,500 meters. An investigation of some of the dead bodies found at sea, pointed to some kind of external explosion or outside impact as the cause. Fragments from the undercarriage were found in the dead bodies which speaks against the theory of an explosion within the aircraft.
Analysis of metallic fragments convinced the investigation committee that the DC-9 was shot down by a military missile. Remains of phosphorus, common in missiles, were found in the bodies.
An anonymous military source, who contacted an Italian journalist the same night, claimed that the plane was hit by a missile. At a senatory inquest ten years later, a sergeant at a military control centre admitted that he had seen the plane disappear off the screen. Previously it had been categorically denied that the military had kept the plane under surveillance. The plane's radar echo was followed, on a parallel course, by another target. Then it was hit by a third (unknown?) object on a crossing trajectory and the resulting cascade of debris, seen on radar, was thrown in the same direction as the crossing object had moved. [1]
-
B744skipper
- Posts: 1509
- Joined: 21 Apr 2004, 00:00
These are the kills of US fighter aircraft against the Libyan Air Force, there where no US losses.HorsePower wrote:I remember also they shot down some lybian fighters. Anyone can confirm this?
19Aug81 VF-41 F-14A AJ107 L.Mucynski J.Anderson AIM-9L Su-22M-2K LARAF
19Aug81 VF-41 F-14A AJ102 H.Kleeman D.Venlet AIM-9L Su-22M-2K LARAF
Mar86 VF-33 F-14A T.Bucchi Haimgartner Maneuver MiG-25PD 1025FS/LARAF
4Jan89 VF-32 F-14A AC202 H.Cook S.Collins AIM-7M MiG-23MF LARAF
4Jan89 VF-32 F-14A AC207 J.Connely L.Enright AIM-9M MiG-23MF LARAF
Source:
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_302.shtml
Look here for more information about the US-Libyan encounters:
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_356.shtml
I'm sorry regi, but were does it state that the Americans have shot down the aircraft? I can agree that a military missle looks like the cause for the aircraft to go down, but there have been more Air Force around that place. I thought there was a popular Air Base down there from where several NATO AF's conducted their training.A military maneuver is suspected as cause for the crash
So why plane the Americans right away, and that even without any sources that point into US direction.
I know that the US has been in the area over the Libyan dispute, but only after the incident happened:
The US started shooting live missles only after August 1981:The US monitored the developments related with Libyan with great concern, and already in mid-February 1981, a carrier battle group (CVBG) of the US 6th Fleet "exercised"
In August 1981, the US administration deployed two CVBGs - one lead by the carrier USS Forrestal (CV-59), and another by USS Nimitz (CVN-68) - off the Libyan coast, with the official explanation, that the ships and their aircraft were to conduct live missile-firing exercises, and also exercise the right of free passage through waters considered as international by the Americans, but „territorial“ by the Libyans.
-
B744skipper
- Posts: 1509
- Joined: 21 Apr 2004, 00:00
Look here for different theories, and facts about the incident, including much information about what/where was happening with military aircraft:
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_355.shtml
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_355.shtml
Why the Americans? Because they had the capability.
The general idea is that they shot at a Libyian plane that was tailing the DC-9. The missile hit the civil plane.
We have to leave the idea that as long as the military doesn't confirm its own mishaps it hasn't happened. Not only the USA made big mistakes, also the Russians did. (the downing of the Korean airliner was on purpose but was afterall politically - and morally - a big disaster.)
And the shooting of the Tu-154 by a Ukrain rocket is another good example of "don't believe the military, go for your own finding"
That incident was only confirmed by the Ukrains after Wolfram bullets (the balls in the head of the rocket to penetrate the target) were discovered in some bodies and wreckage parts.
The general idea is that they shot at a Libyian plane that was tailing the DC-9. The missile hit the civil plane.
We have to leave the idea that as long as the military doesn't confirm its own mishaps it hasn't happened. Not only the USA made big mistakes, also the Russians did. (the downing of the Korean airliner was on purpose but was afterall politically - and morally - a big disaster.)
And the shooting of the Tu-154 by a Ukrain rocket is another good example of "don't believe the military, go for your own finding"
That incident was only confirmed by the Ukrains after Wolfram bullets (the balls in the head of the rocket to penetrate the target) were discovered in some bodies and wreckage parts.