Talk:2016 Russian Defence Ministry Tupolev Tu-154 crash

Admin help

Page Missing Russian flight TU-154 was created when the aircraft was missing and half an hour before page 2016 Russian Defence Ministry Tupolev Tu-154 crash was created. When the news broke about the crash, WWGB simply copy+pasted content from the old page, created a new page and redirect the old page instead of performing the page move. I was attempting to perform a SWAP but WWGB continues to edit and hence I am seeking for admin help rather than getting into 3RR. Please do the needful. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

This is clearly the page attracting most editing interest. It seems the above editor wants creation rights. Happy to agree! WWGB (talk) 07:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• WWGB, that what you were after else with someone of your experience, you would not have engaged in copy+paste of content and redirected the page. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@AKS.9955: I'd like to remind everyone that there's no ownership of articles. Everyone, and anyone, can edit an article. And although many members tout their list of created articles, they're meaningless. The quality of an edit matters more than the quantity.

I see that the current article grew from a single line, and was expanded by different editors. I suggest that you drop this and continue with constructive contributions. —Hexafluoride ^{Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk} 08:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves advises placing a history merge template in these cases. I have done so.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem has now been fixed by a history merge :) -- Toddy1 (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Toddy1. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Why not use Russian wikipedia for sources?

Russian wikipedia version has much more information, which is sourced. Is there any reason not to use those, seeing as others are not yet available with such in-depth information? So this article can be more useful75.73.150.255 (talk) 13:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

We can't use the Russian Wikipedia article as a source here. That said, we can use sources from the Russian Wikipedia article (indeed, from any other language article) in this article. Just needs editors proficient in English and the source language to interpret those sources. I'm ru-0 so can't help with this. Mjroots (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

However, sources in English are highly preferred. Non-English sources are harder to verify for most English-speaking/reading editors. They should be used only when they provide information not found in English sources. 104.169.44.33 (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Source for "ISIS in Chechnya" claimed responsibility?

That's a pretty big claim with no source.99.250.219.110 (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Minor fixes needed

Who translates 1.5 km to 1 mile? And if the infobox lists "survivors" as "0" then there's obviously no need to say "(all)" after "fatalities". That just seems like weird bad writing. GMRE (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

That's the standard conversion using the convert template with 0 decimal places. Do you think 0.93 miles would be better? Defining the number of survivors as 0 is more open to question, and is indeed quite redundant if fatalities says "all". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

If it happend at sea, it's actually unclear to people unfamiliar with kilometers what kind of miles were used. And in either case it's generally stupid to state incorrect units like that. I'm pretty sure that average americans already know that a km is "about a mile, give or take something", so there's no sane reason to mistranslate the amount. Saying "about a mile", or not translating it at all would both be better options. GMRE (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Since km are reported to one decimal place, so should the distance in miles. Done. WWGB (talk) 12:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I originally added the info, and it translated to 2 decimal places. 1.5 km is pretty much a mile, and close enough for a conversion, but I wouldn't object to a one decimal place conversion if that is desired. Mjroots (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Alexandrov Ensemble

64 out of how many?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

According to Alexandrov Ensemble choir#The size of the choir the number of members varies. WWGB (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

All the choir except for three soloists. 68 artists and other employees of the Ensemble were onboard, mainly the choir. Шурбур (talk) 08:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Pilot error?

Forum chat is that pilot error is the cause. Apparently flaps were retracted in error and the a/c stalled. This source in Russian may be of use. Mjroots (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

That's very interesting. I'm surprised, as I've only just found a BBC source that seems to confirm that it was the FDR not the CVR that had been recovered and sent for analysis. The BBC News at Six tonight described it as "the black box flight recorder" and showed what looked very much like an FDR, submerged in water, inside a container, and said it held data "on the aircraft's speed and altitude, fuel and engines." It showed it being opened at the laboratory in Moscow: see 09:58 onwards Also surprised that, if the CVR has indeed been recovered, that it's been analysed so quickly, and the content leaked. So I assume that report has come from Sochi ATC. This would fit very neatly with the pilot error/ technical failure hypothesis. It wouldn't explain, of course, any flash "purportedly" caught in surveillance cameras. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Forum chat is that the flash has nothing to do with the crash, occurring some 30 minutes later. Mjroots (talk) 08:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

So the CVR was recovered, analysed and leaked by yesterday? The article should be updated if any RS could be found. I see that the flaps hypothesis has now appeared in the Sky News source used in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

TASS now reports preliminary analysis of data retrieved from the cockpit voice recorder, but makes no mention of any flaps problem. It also mentions a third recorder. Unsurprisingly, the Tupolev Tu-154 article says nothing about data or voice recorders. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

BTW this source says, quoting several news agencies and newspapers, that: 1) the tape was found outside the third box, so it is damaged by water; 2) that emergency on board took 10 sec; 3) that Maksim Sokolov said a technical malfunction caused the crash (from Iterfax); 4) that 20 bodies and 239 fragments of bodies were found. However, I do not have the time to trace these to their original sources. I also suggest to close these two topics (Pilot error? and BBC), and start a new one, it's a little bit confusing. WikiHannibal (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC report

Quite startled to see that the recently added BBC report says this: "The latest findings allegedly come from a cockpit conversation stored on the flight's main "black box" data recorder, which was found underwater about a mile from the shore." That doesn't sound quite right to me. I've yet to see confirmation that the CVR has even been recovered, let alone analysed. Or are the FDR and CVR integrated into a single storage unit on the Tu-154?? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Sources specifically mention both recorders; the analysis started and some (e. g. http://tass.com/world/923122) claim it might by completed as soon as Friday. WikiHannibal (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

They do now, yes. So perhaps previous reporting was in error. But in fact TASS now mentions three? I guess we just have to wait. But it would be nice to know where the recording of the pilot came from. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

No, they are separate units. But outer protection cases of voice recorder and data recorder look almost the same. See here: CVR is on the left, FDR is on the right. Such visual similarity has raised some controversy in the pilot forum community at first - exactly which recorder had been recovered and analyzed. But then, Interfax agency has reported on December 27 that all three recorders are found (sealed CVR, sealed FDR, non-sealed quick-access FDR). Igusarov (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2016

Add {{Pp-semi}} template.

--186.145.98.162 (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Arjayay (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

"Problem with the flaps"

The Life.ru news portal was reported to have obtained a recording of one of the pilot's last words, indicating a problem with the flaps. The pilot was reported to have said: "Commander, we are going down."

Those two sentences are a complete non-sequitur. There's no relation between "problem with the flaps" and the pilot's quoted words. Can someone fix that? I know it's pretty much verbatim of the Reuters article, but ... --88.114.12.148 (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Those are the words reported. It's a summary. Why do you see them as "a complete non-sequitur"? One might very well assume that a problem with the flaps led to the aircraft going down and ultimately crashing. You have access to the Life-ru source, so by all means suggest an improvement. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting for the official report. Life.ru has published exactly four words: "Закрылки, с*ка! --- Командир, падаем!", which literally translates as "Flaps, b*tch! -- Captain, falling!" That doesn't explain much, so I wouldn't jump to any conclusion... Igusarov (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation and a fair suggestion. I have just trimmed slightly, since one of the sources is Reuters. But I have no objection if others think this whole paragraph should be removed for now. It is problematic. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a non-sequitur because I would have expected the pilot's quoted words to mention flaps if they indeed "[indicated] a problem with the flaps". The ibtimes.co.uk source at least has a two-sentence quote. --88.114.12.148 (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

What does "Flaps, b*tch!" mean? Would you prefer to use the ibtimes.co.uk source? Looking forward to your suggestion for improvement. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no preference for the source. It would be good to have both sentences in the quote. IBTimes says "The flaps, damn it --- Commander, we're going down" which seems reasonably correct based on Igurasov's writings above.

Otherwise, rewriting it to something like The pilot was reported to curse at the flaps and continued with, "Commander, we are going down." would be OK if the tone is not off too much. --88.114.12.148 (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

First suggestion looks ok to me, and less contrived. The problem with the source, and how the recording was made, remains. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Martin, thank you for considering all suggestions and doing the difficult job of finding the right and accurate wording in a not yet clear situation!

> What does "Flaps, b*tch!" mean?

Unfortunately I can't give you unambiguous interpretation. This short sentence could refer to flaps malfunction (the most straightforward perception). It could refer to inappropriate actions taken by some other crew member. It could refer to his own forgetfulness. "B*tch" could be an expletive expressing unpleasant surprise, disgruntlement or anger. "B*tch" could also be a rude manner of addressing someone. But all these are no more than speculations... I think that the only thing that can be said for sure is that the pilot was unhappy about something related to the flaps. "The flaps, damn it!" does convey the right overall meaning. So, for the lack of detailed context, such translation seems justified.

One more point: IBTimes implicitly attributes both sentences to the same pilot. However, having read the original Life's report, I see nothing which could back up this IBTimes's point. Life.ru only says that the first sentence ("Flaps, bitch") was said by a pilot, followed by "and then a shout is heard: 'Captain, falling!'" without stating who shouted that. I wonder if the article must stick to the English source claiming it was the same person? Igusarov (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the transcript given by life-ru here, it seems there was also a second expletive after the "Bitch flaps" exclamation. But Google translate is not up to the job, it seems. Do you know what was said? Also, what's that "Altimeter!" - presumably it's the Russian cockpit voice warning for "low height"? The article goes on to a suggest that there was confusion, on the part of the co-pilot, between the flaps control and the landing-gear control, both of which are "located above the windscreen". I wonder if you have any comment on that? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC) p.s. an accurate translation of the short exchange might be very useful here. I don't think it would result in a copyright redaction as recently happened here. But, as the source is not seen as reliable, it might be criticised as being WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH.

Also, looking at the IBT source, it seems that the CVR, which for some reason they call "the main black box", may have been the first recorder recovered, not the FDR. But still awaiting any info on what the third recorder is. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what kind of comment regarding that article I can render... Life.ru has described a hypothesis: a co-pilot could have retracted the flaps when ordered to retract the landing gear. Invited experts say that such mistake is technically possible (because both levers are located on the same control console) but highly unlikely (because those levers have different type of protection against occasional activation). Igusarov (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree exactly. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Translation of a longer transcript found in here this article by Life.ru. My comments are in square brackets.

'... Speed 300 (Unintelligible.)' [Indicated airspeed, km/h]
'(Unintelligible.)'
'Taken in the landing gear, captain.' [The wording is substandard. 'Undercarriage retracted' is what he should've said.]
'(Unintelligible.)'
'Oh, my!' [Expression of surprise. Original expression contains a short euphemism for the f-word. Perhaps you may say: 'Oh, eff me!']
'(A harsh sound of alarm.)'
'Flaps, damn it, what the f*ck!'
'Altimeter!'
'We're... (Unintelligible.)' [Too short to make any sensible translation. All kind of phrases could start like that. For example: "we need to ..." or "we're in trouble".]
'(Dangerous ground proximity alarm sounds.)'
'(Unintelligible.)'
'Captain, we're going down!'

To eliminate copyright issues, I hereby release the above translation to public domain. Whether the original transcript in Russian is copyrighted is another question. Regarding the 'Altimeter!' exclamation, there's nothing in the original article that would suggest that it was electronic voice warning. It looks like an exclamation to draw attention to this particular instrument. Igusarov (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for that, which is a real help. So we have only two cockpit warnings: the "harsh sound of alarm" (any idea what that is?) and the "Dangerous ground proximity alarm sounds" (in this a tone or a voice? in Russian?) I wonder does the actual recording appear somewhere on the net? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I looked into this a few days ago, and think that mistaken retraction of the flaps may well have happened -- bear in mind that any cause of fatal accident on an airliner is "highly unlikely". That's why air accidents are so rare, compared with road accidents. The AAIB (UK) recently highlighted two cases, in Airbuses, on the same day, where flaps were retracted instead of undercarriage [1], noting "flight crew, in general, are vulnerable to this type of slip". Similarly, there have been cases of crashing due to shutting down the wrong engine after an engine failure, eg Kegworth air disaster, and of dropping in a stall all the way from 38,000 ft into the ocean Air France Flight 447 with the pilot fighting what he thought was an overspeed dive and never accepting that he was in a stall, in spite of continual sounding of the stall alarm (on one occasion unbroken for nearly a minute). There is no suggestion that the pilots were particularly blameworthy, but sometimes everyone makes mistakes, both in carrying out frequently used sequences and alternatively, when startled.

I am not suggesting altering the article -- what follows is WP:OR and a bit speculative -- but knowing it may make the next interim report/leak more interesting to read! I could not find an official manual for the Tu-154B-2 online, but there is a document intended for use with flight simulation programs, which claims to be a "simplified" version of the official manual translated into English [2]. Assuming it is accurate, then we can see why the PNF would have said '... Speed 300 (Unintelligible.)' and then, after something unintelligible from the PF, 'Taken in the landing gear, Captain'.

From a combination of the manual (p 3) and our article Tupolev_Tu-154#Specifications, we see that with a full load of fuel, the plane can only carry about 88 people + luggage (assuming 100 kg per person). The range for full fuel is 3,900 km. [next sentence corrected + updated 15:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)] This is not quite sufficient to cover the 3,500 km return distance from Sochi to Latakia in western Syria (if avoiding Turkish airspace) while allowing a prudent reserve to cover delays, diversions and bad weather (about 1000 km would be typical for this plane in normal peacetime conditions). It seems likely (this is the only major assumption I am making) that given the problems of war damage to the refineries, the Russian military would want to supply as little fuel as possible in Syria, so would take on a full load of fuel at Sochi. That in turn explains why there were only 92 people (incl crew) on what may well be a 180 pax aircraft: it was at max takeoff weight (exactly 100 tonne) because of the heavy fuel load. I don't know the temperature in Sochi at 05.25 Xmas Day, but based on temperatures in W Europe, it was probably between 0 & 10 degC.

[this para modified and much expanded 15:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)] User:Igusarov's summary of the pre-takeoff radio traffic between the cockpit and ATC (below) notes there was a 5 m/s tailwind and BINOL-2A departure routing was used (see [3] p 12). This uses runway 24, which is the longest at 2890 m and 0.3 deg downhill. Unfortunately, there are steep hills close inland from the airport, necessitating landings only from, and takeoffs only to, seaward (although missed approaches are possible, with a "climbing turn, as soon as possible, minimum gradient 2.5 deg", so it is not as bad as Lukla!). This explains why the aircraft took off with a 5 m/s tailwind rather than taking off into the wind for a shorter takeoff roll. Assuming no correction factors were needed for rain or snow, then with a 5 m/s tailwind but 0.3 deg downhill, calculating from the manual pp 28-31, the takeoff distance would be around 2,500 m with 28 deg flaps or 2,300 m with 15 deg flaps. If an engine fails during takeoff, a plane will accelerate more slowly and need a longer roll to get airborne. Civilian airliners are generally operated so that, in case of a single engine failure it should always be possible either to complete the takeoff before the end of the runway (if going faster than V1 at time of failure) or else to reject the takeoff and brake to a halt before the end of the runway. This may not be a legal requirement for a military plane carrying civilian passengers, as in this case, but it would certainly be bad practice to configure the plane to add to the risk unnecessarily. I do not have the accurate data for this plane. A rule of thumb is that the runway must be at least 1.15 x the takeoff distance, but there are other requirements too. A safer rule of thumb is 1.5 x takeoff distance. 1.15 x 2,500 = 2,850. 1.5 x 2,300 = 3,450. So even at 15 deg flaps, it is possible that the flight would not comply with civi requirements. At 28 deg flaps, it is unlikely it complies, though it might just do so. It is almost certain that the pilots would have set 15 deg flaps, as a much safer alternative, to minimise the takeoff roll.

We then find (p 15) that for 100 t weight and 15 deg flaps, Vr is 282 and V2 is exactly 300 km/hr. Also, that (p 10) the pilot should aim to reach V2 at a remarkably precise 10.7 m above ground, and the landing gear should be retracted at 5 - 10 m and (p 12) the pilot should keep accelerating to V2 + 40 = 340 km/hr, climb to 120 m, then accelerate further to 360 - 380 km/hr and only then start retracting the flaps, expecting that another 20 km/hr will be gained before they have fully retracted.

We also note (p 15) that the min safe speed at full load without flaps is 368 km/hr. At full load, it will not-quite stall in still air (p 5) at 300 km/hr (no flaps) or 265 km/hr (15 deg flaps) [but at those speeds it would be losing height rapidly even at full power, rather than flying level] and the Angle of Attack indicator (indicating how slowly it is reasonable to go for a short period in good air) is set for 1.17 x 300 = 351 km/hr (no flaps -- it says "slats extended" but these will retract with the flaps; I don't know what the figure would be without slats either) and 265 x 1.16 = 307 km/hr (15 deg flaps, slats extended). There is an Angle of Attack Indicator alarm, aka "stall alarm" (see p 23). It doesn't say what this is set to, but according to our article Stall_(fluid_mechanics)#Symptoms_of_onset the normal setting is 5 - 10 knots [approx 10 - 20 km/hr] above the stall speed. Assuming that for a fast aircraft, it would be at the top end of this range, the stall alarm is probably set to about 320 km/hr (no flaps -- possibly higher with no slats either) or 285 km/hr (15 deg flaps). [added 15:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)]: Clearly, the alarm is inhibited when the wheels are on the ground; I do not know whether it is disinhibited by lack of weight on the undercarriage or by some other means.

Some other minor points:

• notwithstanding the manufacturer's recommendation, it is normally stated that undercarriage should be raised when the aircraft has attained a "safe" speed, and speed is increasing; that condition is arguably indicated by accelerating through V2, even if that is marginally later than the manufacturer suggests.
• The pilots could not see the flaps from the cockpit; the fact one of them mentions them suggests that they noticed that either the lever position, or an indicator, or both, were not what they expected to see.
• Sochi is on the coast and the plane was [amended 15:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)] heading out over the unlit Black Sea on a night close to new moon -- a situation where, with no visual input and their balance confused by the plane's acceleration, pilots are subject to spacial disorientation -- it is a known risk factor for night takeoffs over the coast -- pilots need to climb by instruments alone, since without visual clues, their bodies cannot tell whether they are climbing or descending, or even whether the aircraft's nose is pointed up or down.
• Finally, it is worth noting (p 23) that "Altitude loss [in recovering from a stall] should not be more than 650 m", so a fully-developed stall at, say, 300 m will always end in a crash; it is essential to act urgently and correctly when the stall alarm sounds, before the stall develops, and even then it might be too late -- in one commercial airline case mentioned by the AAIB, the PNF quickly realised his error, corrected it without waiting for instruction and immediately told the PF, who reduced the rate of climb until the flaps were fully extended again, all without drama; in the other case, the PNF's error was not noticed until later, but the PF was alerted by his instrumentation that he must increase speed, so put the nose down and put the engines to TOGA thrust; the aircraft lost height but did not crash. Both cases were in daylight, and were noticed and corrected without the speed dropping low enough for the stall warning to activate. If the pilots had not acted until the alarm had sounded, they might still have survived, or they might not.

So I would annotate the "transcript" as follows -- always remembering that it is an informal leak, for unknown motive, so might not be accurate:

'... Speed 300 (unintelligible = V2)' [standard PNF's 1st call after takeoff, indicating safe speed if one engine fails]

'(unintelligible = Retract undercarriage.)' [PF gives instruction expected at this point, because speed is now safe and increasing]

[assumed that PNF mistakenly retracts flaps -- his brain has started thinking of that, the next thing he will be asked to do, and mistakenly actions it instead of the previous task he should have been doing]

[amended 15:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)] 'Taken in the landing gear, captain.' [he hasn't yet realised his mistake; possibly, the sub-standard wording may suggest overfamiliarity with the process]

[apart from the info from the FDR, the investigators will be listening to this tape to check for sounds of the undercarriage retracting, which would refute this suggestion]

'(unintelligible.)' [too early for another instruction so ([added 15:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)] assuming they were keeping a sterile cockpit) this will refer to something being abnormal; perhaps lack of undercarriage noise; perhaps "It's not climbing"

'Roger!' [Sorry -- couldn't resist it -- it is "a short[ish] euphemism for the f-word" and the original was probably intended to acknowledge what the other was saying]

'(A harsh sound of alarm = the stall alarm)' [as the flaps retract, the speed to activate the alarm increases above their air speed, and it activates]

'Flaps, damn it, what the f*ck!' [someone notices that the flaps control or indicator or both shows they are retracted, but there is no hint that the error was then corrected]

[added 15:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)] [the investigators will be listening to this tape to check for sounds of the flap control lever being moved, any other control being used, any relay clicking, etc]

'Altimeter!' [someone, probably PNF, notices that they are descending]

'We're... (unintelligible.)' [perhaps "descending; since the aircraft could just fly at that speed (probably by now about 320 km/hr) albeit losing height, it might have recovered even without flaps.]

[the fact it didn't may suggest that, as with AF447, the PF was disoriented and, in spite of the stall alarm, pulled up to increase height, thus slowing the plane and causing a stall.]

'(Dangerous ground proximity alarm sounds.)'

'(unintelligible.)' [perhaps a command, far too late, to re-extend the flaps; unfortunately, the reality was by then "We're doomed".]

'Captain, we're going down!' [perhaps the PF (correctly but too late) had realised they were stalling and pushed the stick forward, alarming the PNF who was disoriented and thought they were diving, not stalling].
Enginear (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Syria, not Libya? But yes, you've won first prize for the largest lump of WP:OR so far! Stall alarm seems most likely, whatever form that takes (it would be nice to know). And confirmation of the ground proximity warning would also be nice (although we won't know what clearance altitude it was set at). As you say this is all speculative WP:OR based on an unofficial recording, but your interpretation seems largely plausible. I think we'll just have to wait for actual official reports with the analysis? Shouldn't be too far off. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Oops, brainfade! While correcting it above, I've added the actual town. Also taken on board User:Igusarov's info below, and taken note that the translation of the CVR (claimed) transcript is his and therefore assumed trustworthy. Also found that takeoffs from Sochi's runways are always towards the sea + other minor corrections and clarifications. Enginear (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

> in this a tone or a voice? in Russian?

Both are tone.

> I wonder does the actual recording appear somewhere on the net?

Cockpit audio recording hasn't showed up anywhere yet. Radio communication between the crew and the ATC is available on LiveATC.net, IIRC as soon as a few hours after the crash. Igusarov (talk) 13:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. Do you have a working link at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. Direct link to MP3: here. The link is taken from ATC archived recordings page, just look for "Black Sea". The communication is in Russian. Unfortunately I can't find any respected news agency that has published a text transcript. Igusarov (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I downloaded the MP3. The good news is that my computer hasn't been remotely taken over by the KGB (yet). The bad news is that all 6 mins 10 secs sounds like ground chatting with female ATC? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Weather, runway condition, taxi instructions, departure procedure, permission to take off. And then fruitless attempts to contact the crew. Information of interest: departure BINOL 2A (just google "binol 2a jeppesen" and you'll see some images), tailwind approx 5 m/s, the pilot made one mistake when copying frequency for Sochi-approach, the pilot requested full runway length for takeoff saying "I'm heavy". The pilot was instructed to contact "Sochi-approach" ATC at 300 m altitude, but apparently never did. Igusarov (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so this is on ground at Sochi, prior to take-off? Yes, heavy with fuel to get to Syria, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks. Unfortunately, I don't understand Russian. Was there any mention of the air temperature or the runway condition (dry/wet etc)? I could then refine the takeoff distance (though it wouldn't vary much). Enginear (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Translating the primary source, comments in square brackets: '85572, copy the weather for 2:00 [UTC]. Runway 24, wind 30 degrees 5 meters per second, visibility over 10 [km], QFE 762 [mm Hg] 1016 [hPa], traction 0.7'

IMO, 0.7 is a good dry runway. No mention of air temperature or clouds in this recording.

Unfortunately, due to the lack of reliable secondary sources, this recording doesn't seem to get us anywhere close to contributing to the article... Igusarov (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

True, but it was good to know anyway. I'd noticed that some Youtube comments refer to ATC recordings being publicly available on the internet, but I didn't know where, and had assumed it was only for USA. And thanks for translation. Yes, I'd meant to ask about cloud too. An overcast sky would make spatial disorientation over a dark sea more likely. The official final report will probably include the last weather update, but that may not be in any interim report, so it may be a long wait. We will have to be patient (and I'm not good at that!). (And thanks Martin for correcting my typo. I've now done likewise with one that was bugging me!) Enginear (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

So is there a recording available publicly of the last minutes of the flight, for which we have the transcript and translations? Without all this, mere speculation evaporates into second-hand-guesswork-speculation over something that could have been entirely fabricated. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)