What's new

Russian SU-30 fighter jet crashes into building in Siberia, killing two

Hamartia Antidote

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Nov 17, 2013
Messages
35,188
Reaction score
30
Country
United States
Location
United States

23 Oct 2022
Two pilots have been killed when a Russian fighter jet crashed into a two-story residential building in the city of Irkutsk in southern Siberia.
Video of Sunday’s crash showed the aircraft dove almost vertically before hitting the building in a fireball, sending dense black smoke into the sky.

 
Last edited:

23 Oct 2022
Two pilots have been killed when a Russian fighter jet crashed into a two-story residential building in the city of Irkutsk in southern Siberia.
Video of Sunday’s crash showed the aircraft dove almost vertically before hitting the building in a fireball, sending dense black smoke into the sky.

Once is coincidence, twice in a week is conspiracy.


Thanks God there are no civilians dead/injured.
 

So this must also be sabotage?
They didnt crash in residential areas

A fighter jet crashing in residential building is pure terrorism for the people of the country, you can't feel secure if things like that happens twice by week.

You see a fighter jet flying over you and it can crash over you head any moment, if you are in Russia.
 
They didnt crash in residential areas

A fighter jet crashing in residential building is pure terrorism for the people of the country, you can't feel secure if things like that happens twice by week.

You see a fighter jet flying over you and it can crash over you head any moment, if you are in Russia.
how hard is it to avoid residential areas ?
 
It must be easy when I've never seen fighter jets by pairs crashing in residential buildings in a week
It must be easy when I've never seen fighter jets by pairs crashing in residential buildings in a week
And I have never seen a fighter jet crashing due to rain covers not being removed by incompetent personnel and also missed by pilots in pre-flight checks.

Certainly removing rain covers is more difficult than avoiding resident buildings in flight emergencies, right?

 
And I have never seen a fighter jet crashing due to rain covers not being removed by incompetent personnel and also missed by pilots in pre-flight checks.

Certainly removing rain covers is more difficult than avoiding resident buildings in flight emergencies, right?


Forget something is a mental slip, it can happen to everyone.

The first crash past week was a deliberate and conscious act of pilot cowardice, or the airplane electronic systems working in a very strange way.

About the second crash little is known yet, but the 2 pilots were unconscious before the crash.
 
And I have never seen a fighter jet crashing due to rain covers not being removed by incompetent personnel and also missed by pilots in pre-flight checks.

Certainly removing rain covers is more difficult than avoiding resident buildings in flight emergencies, right?

As someone who have been around jets, F-111 and F-16, I can say that this story is of zero help. What is this 'rain cover'? Anything that is attached to a jet that can prevent flight is usually tagged with that famous 'Remove Before Flight' red streamer. So what is this 'rain cover' thingie the article was talking about?

Now here is my suspicion...

It has been reported that a British F-35 pilot realised the rain cover was still on and tried to abort take-off but was too late to stop the jet before the end of HMS Queen Elizabeth’s runway.​

The pilot ejected, that mean the jet was moving and building up speed.

Modern avionics depends on air data via the pitot/static probes.


There is something call the 'Central Air Data System' computer or CADC.


The flight control computer (FLCC) can also have the CADS inside it as a subsystem, but usually, the FLCC and CADC are distinct units in the avionics compartment.

If the jet is static, pitot (ram air) would be zero and static would be something like 29.92 baro or whatever pressure above sea level. On the takeoff roll, static pressure would not change but pitot would change. Now the CADC and FLCC begins to work together to calculate various flight control responses, namely, we have a changing variable -- ram air. Then once the jet is airborne and gain altitude, static baro pressure would change and the FLCC and CADC would have a second changing variable. And so on and on...

Now, you can do keywords search for 'F-35 pitot tube' and see where the jet's pitot/static probes are located. Each probe would have a 'rain cover' with that red 'Remove Before Flight' streamer attached. It would be absolutely ridiculously bonkers to have the ground crew and the pilot to miss two red streamers. If this is true, the pilot should have his wings removed and probably cashiered out of the service, and the ground crew decerted. The pilot is one person, then we have the crew chief and the assistant crew chief, then we have someone on the fire watch, so we are looking at several people missing the two red streamers. I doubt this is the case. There has to be something that affects the critical air data component that can be seen only after the jet is moving. The F-35 flight data is projected onto the helmet's visor so that mean the pilot could have noticed airspeed zero as he is on that takeoff run. My opinion is that the words 'rain cover' are misleading given understanding of basic avionics air data system knowledge and how ground operations work. Am just speculating here but I think am on the correct investigating path.
 
Here the official truth about first crash last week:

Birds caught in engine caused Su-34 aircraft crash in Yeysk — security agencies​



Naughty seagulls

tenor.gif


If that is truth I wonder if there is some artificial way of handle the movement of group of birds to move in one particular direction, using directional sounds or something like that.

Or a drone with a piece of food.

Drir.gif
 
Last edited:
As someone who have been around jets, F-111 and F-16, I can say that this story is of zero help. What is this 'rain cover'? Anything that is attached to a jet that can prevent flight is usually tagged with that famous 'Remove Before Flight' red streamer. So what is this 'rain cover' thingie the article was talking about?

Now here is my suspicion...

It has been reported that a British F-35 pilot realised the rain cover was still on and tried to abort take-off but was too late to stop the jet before the end of HMS Queen Elizabeth’s runway.​

The pilot ejected, that mean the jet was moving and building up speed.

Modern avionics depends on air data via the pitot/static probes.


There is something call the 'Central Air Data System' computer or CADC.


The flight control computer (FLCC) can also have the CADS inside it as a subsystem, but usually, the FLCC and CADC are distinct units in the avionics compartment.

If the jet is static, pitot (ram air) would be zero and static would be something like 29.92 baro or whatever pressure above sea level. On the takeoff roll, static pressure would not change but pitot would change. Now the CADC and FLCC begins to work together to calculate various flight control responses, namely, we have a changing variable -- ram air. Then once the jet is airborne and gain altitude, static baro pressure would change and the FLCC and CADC would have a second changing variable. And so on and on...

Now, you can do keywords search for 'F-35 pitot tube' and see where the jet's pitot/static probes are located. Each probe would have a 'rain cover' with that red 'Remove Before Flight' streamer attached. It would be absolutely ridiculously bonkers to have the ground crew and the pilot to miss two red streamers. If this is true, the pilot should have his wings removed and probably cashiered out of the service, and the ground crew decerted. The pilot is one person, then we have the crew chief and the assistant crew chief, then we have someone on the fire watch, so we are looking at several people missing the two red streamers. I doubt this is the case. There has to be something that affects the critical air data component that can be seen only after the jet is moving. The F-35 flight data is projected onto the helmet's visor so that mean the pilot could have noticed airspeed zero as he is on that takeoff run. My opinion is that the words 'rain cover' are misleading given understanding of basic avionics air data system knowledge and how ground operations work. Am just speculating here but I think am on the correct investigating path.
I simply shared it according to his IQ. His post was like most people here is full of speculation. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to back down.
He could have used a lot better arguments to actually discredit VVS but alas, just like Russian supporters, the quality of pro- Western users here is terrible. Almost like both opposite sides of same coin.
 
If in a forum you can't do speculation, what is the purpose of a forum? to be the mirror of only official sources? Then it's not needed a forum.

First crash was treated as strange by all western mass media.
 
Another idea to use birds as a weapon, it's giving them hallucinogens drugs, so they maybe will attack as kamikazes against fighters jets.
 
Back
Top Bottom