This is a really simplistic diagram of the fuel system of the Airbus A321. I also know some will simply look at the diagram and know where I am going with this.
The TWA 800 jet was a Boeing 747-100. But, there are only a few ways to deliver fuel to the jet's engines. In that is the understanding there is overlap in 'vulnerability' to jet travel between designs and companies.
The Center Tank. It is at the center of the diagram. I was thinking about the fuel in the jet and having a far different mix of volatility. I suppose that could happen seeing there are different fueling companies to every airport. The fuel is usually a local company.
If there was an explosion that destroyed the jet completely it would come from the fact the fuel tanks of the jet were connected to the delivery system of the jet engines/turbines.
Most jet engines have the capacity to turn off the fuel if a fire is evident. However, I don't believe there is an interruption to the turbines if there is a sudden explosion in the center tank. The flash would travel immediately to the jet engines with fuel flow and the jet would be lost as well as damage to the engines.
I did see some resemblance of the jet 'fins' of the turbines between the two crashes and again the TWA flight fell into water. So, there is visual inspection of the jet crash site that matters. Visual inspection begins to tell the story. And the Russian jet is completely dissolved of it's integrity from a visual field and what I can discern by pictures. Pictures will be taken of the crash site as well, so my observations are not completely novice.
I would expect a missile would provide asymmetrical destruction. I would expect the pieces on the ground to appear differently from being struck at an impact area from an external source. I don't see that. It looks to be a symmetrical debris field which would result if the explosion was from the inside.
The company does have some obligation in this. It was their jet and it is their responsibility to return the remains to their families.
The investigation will take up to a year to complete. I hope there will be peace for the families and that is everyone's responsibility. This was an international flight and passengers are completely dependent on good will between countries and promises of safe travel.
31 October 2015
By Jamie Doward
...The plane first started flying in 1993 (click here) and went into commercial operation the following year. More than 900 have been made. The two-engine jet can carry up to 220 passengers and is capable of flying up to 3,000 nautical miles while carrying a maximum passenger payload. “Like each member in Airbus’ A320 family of jetliners, the A321 offers the lowest fuel burn, emissions and noise footprint in its class,” Airbus says.
The last high-profile incident involving an A320 jet was in March, when Germanwings flight 4U9525 crashed in the French Alps with the loss of 150 passengers and crew. In this case the plane was deliberately crashed by the co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz.
The previous November a Lufthansa A321 plane had lost altitude over Spain. The Aviation Safety Network says there have been 16 serious incidents involving the A321 since 1996, only one of which was fatal. In 2010 an Airblue A321 with 152 passengers crashed in Islamabad....
There are only a few ways a jet loses altitude. The pilot can take the jet to a lower latitude or there is loss to propulsion to the turbines. Jet turbines don't produce their own air flow. The turbine ceases to turn if the air flow is inhibited by a reduction in the rotation of the turbine through reduced fuel flow.
The loss of altitude is more than I expected to read about the A321. That is an issue and needs investigation and as far as I am concerned it can't be dismissed in this specific investigation of the Russian jet.
Jets don't glide, they fall out of the sky like a rock.
