Experts have called a terrorist attack a possible cause of the crash of the Indonesian Boeing. Was Boeing in Ukraine? Inconsistencies with facts Was the plane Boeing?

Could the crew land the plane on water?

The crash site of the Boeing 737 Max 8, which operated flight JT-610 from Jakarta to the Indonesian city of Pankal Pinang, and crashed 13 minutes after takeoff in the Java Sea, continues search operation. It is already clear that all 189 people on board were killed. We talked about what could have happened on board, and whether it was possible to land the plane on water, with the pilot Vladimir Salnikov, who, as a commander, flew the Il-96-300 for more than 20 thousand hours without incident.

The plane disappeared from radar 13 minutes after takeoff. During this time, he had to gain a height of about 5 - 6 thousand meters. But, according to official reports, he rose only 1,600 meters. This is extremely small, which means the engines did not produce the necessary thrust.

- For what reason?

The first possible reason is the failure of one of the engines. Second, this is substandard fuel. The engine worked, but did not produce the required thrust. Surge has occurred (a disturbance in the correct flow of air flow through the turbine of a turbojet engine. Manifested by strong vibration, popping noises, the appearance of smoke and a drop in thrust. - Author)

Surge can still occur if they “caught” a bird in both engines during takeoff. These could be either large seagulls or pelicans. It could be that both one engine and the other were damaged.

It seems strange to me, if this happened to them, then why did they not transmit any information to the dispatcher during these 13 minutes. All you had to do was not continue the flight, but immediately turn around and make an approach.

According to the head of Lion Air, which owns the aircraft, the day before, when the plane flew from Denpasar to Tsenkareng, it was found to have technical problems. Before departure on the next flight, they were eliminated. The Boeing 737 Max 8 was found to be operational.

This may just be related to the operation of the engine. According to the idea, the plane should fly on one engine and even gain altitude. The rate of climb will be lower, but it still must gain altitude. And, in any case, not 1600 meters, but somewhere around 2500 meters.

- Could the crew land the plane on water?

We practice these actions on simulators. But this is a simulator, but in reality everything is more complicated, water is incompressible. Over the past 70 years, there have been only two successful cases when the plane splashed down and everyone remained safe. The first was when on August 21, 1963 the pilots were able to land the Tu-124 on the Neva. After takeoff, the crew discovered that the front landing gear was jammed in the half-retracted position. They produced fuel. Over the very center of Leningrad, first one and then the second turbine of the plane stalled. The pilots had no choice but to try to land the plane on the water. We splashed down successfully. None of the 45 passengers and 7 crew members were injured. The second incident occurred on January 15, 2009. The Airbus A320-214 aircraft collided with a flock of Canada geese after takeoff and both engines failed. The crew was able to land the plane on the Hudson River in New York. All 155 people on board survived.

All other attempts to land the plane on water ended in disaster.

A spokesman for Indonesia's disaster management agency said the plane's fuel tank was found broken and ruptured, leaking.

Engineers and designers have done everything to prevent the detonation of kerosene vapors that are in the fuel tank in order to avoid a fire. There is a gas-air mixture that prevents the tank from exploding. When the fuel has already flown out of the tanks and comes into contact with air and oxygen, then it can ignite. And if the fuel remains in the tank and the container is not damaged, then there should not be an explosion.

According to some reports, on a previous flight the system gave the pilots the signal “air speed unreliable” - “incorrect speed readings.”

Both the commander and the co-pilot have instruments - speed indicators. There are also backup speed indicators. They should all show the same speed. If there is a discrepancy, it is necessary to check all total pressure receivers and static pressure receivers. Moreover, now all this happens through computers. And we need to find out which of these devices is giving out incorrect information. Pilots are trained for this. They know what to do if such information comes up during a flight.

- Could the crew have made a mistake?

They could exclude a working device from flight control, and pay attention and focus on the faulty device. In this case, they could lose speed and fall into a tailspin. But on modern aircraft there are additional means that tell the pilot that he can reach critical angles of attack and fall into a tailspin. I don't think the situation developed that way.

- The version of the terrorist attack should not be discounted?

There could have been a terrorist attack. But in this case, the crew does not have time to somehow signal or report an emergency situation on board. And then the crew managed to request a return to the departure airport. There are special conditioned signals for priority landing approaches. But they generally managed to fly quite far from the airport. In my opinion, the decision to return should have been made earlier. Why fly somewhere on a faulty plane? When it is possible to turn around and land at the departure airfield.

Honored Pilot of Russia Yuri Sytnik agrees with his colleague:

The plane is completely new, it has only been flying since August. Most likely, the cause of the disaster was an engine malfunction. Or something could have happened with the controls. They had already begun to turn around and could have collided with someone. One thing is clear, the flight was controllable, the pilots were in good condition.

They say that the first impression is the most correct. Usually they say this about people, but it can also be applied to various kinds of events. The formula is far from universal, but it works from time to time.

So, as for the Boeing - the same MH-17, innocently shot down in the skies of Donbass...

I don’t know about you, but after watching the reports from the scene of the Boeing crash, the first question that arose was:

Isn't this a staged act?


Some strange corpses, a stack of invalid passports, a strange coincidence between a Boeing and another airliner of the same company that disappeared in March over Pacific Ocean. And a whole series of other oddities.

But then everyone, including Russian officials, somehow very amicably began to argue about who shot down the plane and with what. There were witnesses who saw it fall, someone saw another plane next to the Boeing, someone suggested that it was a Ukrainian fighter, someone said that there were even two fighters, the Ministry of Defense also reported that it was recorded on radar another plane, for some reason they announced that it was a Su-25...

And off we go. Everyone began to heatedly argue whether the Su-25 could rise to a height of 10 kilometers, and if it could not, then whose BUK fired - Russian or Ukrainian.

And now, a year has passed. The commission did not present final conclusions, only transparently hinted that it was most likely shot down by a BUK air defense missile. This is not certain, but most likely. More than less likely.

Interested parties even attempted to create a tribunal. The case itself is unique; tribunals have never been created in cases of plane crashes. And in general, you might think that the tribunal will be able to find out what the commission was unable to find out in a year. However, Russia predictably abandoned the idea of ​​a tribunal by placing one big veto on it.

However, the question remained open - who shot down the plane?

And here again the question that arose in me on the day of the disaster:

Was there a Boeing?

In this place, especially impressionable people should raise a terrible howl on the topic, how can one doubt - there children died, women, civilians were brutally destroyed by the Kremlin's mercenaries, they could still live and live if the Russian terrorist had not fired his anti-aircraft missile ...

But let's approach the question this way:

If the passengers of flight MH-17 really died, they will not be brought back, but what if not?

Have you seen the funeral of passengers? All three hundred?
I did not see. And most likely you too.

Therefore, let's consider the version that they survived.

But in this case, what kind of plane fell into the fields of Donbass?

The plane in the fields of Donbass is a Boeing. Malaysian Boeing. The same one that disappeared in March last year. That is, it was stolen.

However, you can even do without hijacking a Malaysian Boeing. It can be assumed that it crashed and sank somewhere in the ocean, and a copy fell in the Donbass. Whose Boeing Corporation is it? American. Who stopped the Americans from making a copy of the missing Boeing? Nobody.

But in the “fake Boeing” version, it is not so important whether it was the missing original or a copy of it. It is important that this was not a real MH-17 flight, but a fake one.

How was the production organized?

I've come across two versions:

1. Autopilot. The plane was flying on autopilot, there were corpses inside, and in the right place the liner exploded. The version, of course, looks a little wild - a plane with corpses. However, this is not the weakest thing about her. The weakest thing is witnesses who can record both the departure of a strange flight and the explosion of the plane in the air. Sending a flight with corpses from a European airport so that it is not recorded anywhere is not the easiest or most reliable thing. And to exclude witnesses who will see how in the sky, without any BUKs or fighters, it explodes and falls passenger airliner- cannot be excluded at all. And it is unknown how the debris with the corpses will fall. It is unknown who will find them. Then collect evidence throughout Donbass.

2. Transport. A certain transport plane that dropped debris and corpses in the right place. It also sounds wild, although it is technically easier to do. True, no transport aircraft can deliver the entire mass of the Boeing 777, the mass is too large, but there is no need to deliver it entirely. About 30 tons of debris were collected from the Boeing crash site. It could have been delivered. And sending a transport plane was much easier. But! Witnesses! It is impossible to exclude witnesses who will see a plane fly by and drop debris from another plane. Again, debris with corpses may fall unsuccessfully. Someone else will find something suspicious.

In general, both versions are quite dubious.

So what happens, there was a Boeing after all? Was it and was it shot down?

Was. But he was not shot down. It was simply brought in in the form of debris and laid out at the place where the crash was later announced.

Impossible? And why?

Version with brought by land transport debris explains the main oddity - the absence of deep craters and holes from a heavy airliner that fell from a great height.

All the debris, including the massive engines (7 tons each, the most massive in the world) lies on the surface. Look at photographs of other plane crashes - everywhere, except for the crash directly on takeoff/landing, there are holes left, engines and landing gear go deep into the ground, sometimes they collapse entirely, pierce asphalt and concrete, and if the plane crashes into a building, entire floors are collapsed.

Remember the World Trade Center - they claim that the hijacked planes pierced the steel beams (there were steel support beams not only inside, but also outside the WTC towers).

Look at the photographs where cranes fall on houses - entire apartments are destroyed, reinforced concrete slabs fall through, although the crane falls from a height of 20-40 meters (the highest point), and the Boeing 777 fell from a height of about 10 kilometers.

For those who remember a little physics, calculate the impact energy of an engine weighing 7 tons falling from a height of 10 kilometers. It's like a 7-ton cannonball.

But all this lies on the surface of the earth in Donbass.
Not even on concrete, but just on the ground. Summer in the field.

The landing was somehow too soft.

And don't tell me that Boeing planned because of its outstanding flight characteristics. If he planned it so carefully that even the landing gear did not go deep into the ground, then why did it fall apart in the first place? It would stand like new, and the passengers would get off with a slight fright.

The version with “imported” debris also explains another oddity - the corpses of passengers, personal belongings and passports that do not look burnt at all, even those that lie among the main debris. And green grass.

Once again we recall the World Trade Center - it was stated that the fire from the planes that hit the buildings was so strong that it melted the load-bearing structures of the buildings, several thousand tons of steel along the entire height. And here are light-colored corpses, white things, whole passports. And green grass.

And the engines, as some have noted, are smaller than what a Boeing 777 should have. Now, if the wreckage was brought in by truck, then this is quite understandable, because the real Boeing 777 engine is too large and heavy for an ordinary truck. That's why they brought less.

And the Boeing crash sites look more like garbage dumps than crash sites.

Another indirect evidence in favor of the “imported” version is that most of the wreckage lies not far from the road. This in itself is not proof, but it is an interesting fact. The likelihood that the Boeing would fall near the road, and even along it, is in itself very small.

You may ask: how was it possible to bring so much debris and scatter it without anyone noticing?

I’ll ask a counter question: how was the BUK supposed to shoot so that no one could hear or see it?

The BUK shot should have been heard and seen by everyone within a radius of several kilometers. And the trucks that dump something near the poultry farm - who will pay attention to them? For example, do you run to every truck that, somewhere a kilometer away from you, brings something and dumps it in the field? Do you check all the trucks passing by to see what they are carrying?

Some trucks arrived, perhaps at night, perhaps early in the morning, not far from the poultry farm, and dumped something. Well, someone saw it, yes. But are there many such witnesses?

As for the plane or even two that were seen in the sky, the question is also how many witnesses there were and what they saw.

Maybe they saw the “drying ground” that the militia actually shot down that day. Maybe they saw a real MH-17, which flew safely on its route, and then they noticed the fire, ran to the scene and decided that the same plane that they saw in the sky had crashed.

They also say that it was cloudy then, in which case no one should have seen any planes at an altitude of 10 kilometers at all.

The case in the practice of investigating plane crashes is simply out of the ordinary. Usually the investigation uses everything that was collected at the crash site, but here it was a failure. Suddenly!

Remember at the same time how slowly, as if reluctantly, the commission began to work. As if they obviously didn’t need to collect anything. And this fits perfectly with the “foundling” version. If the commission knew that the disaster was “false,” and it had to be aware of this in order to conduct an investigation in accordance with the requirements of the directors of the play, then why do they need the wreckage at all? The less the better, it will be easier to fabricate the desired conclusion.

The less debris there is, the more room for creativity to tailor the result. Therefore, even those few fragments that were scattered at the site of the “disaster” were divided in half and only part was removed.

For the same reason, negotiations between the crew and the dispatcher are either posted or not. What to post if the real MH-17 successfully continued its flight?

But what then to do with the results of the commission, which made a preliminary conclusion that the Boeing was shot down by a BUK air defense missile system?

No way. The commission was tasked with drawing up the necessary conclusion - and it did. We worked on the “linden tree” for a long time, and finally built it.

The duration of the investigation also fits perfectly with the “foundling” version. They delayed it for two reasons. Firstly, it took time to adjust the results and process the debris so that at least something could be presented as evidence of the developed version. Secondly, lying after a long time is very convenient. The more time has passed, the more the details have been forgotten, the less the risk that the lie will catch the eye.

And the BUK that shot at the Boeing could not be found for the same reason - it simply did not exist. Neither Ukrainian nor Russian. All that was found was a couple of photographs of a fuzzy trace over Torez, which could be either a fake or the trace of a salvo at a completely different target, perhaps not even a BUK, but something completely different.

It turns out that whole year we were looking for BEACH and “drying”, which were not there at all. It wasn't there from the very beginning. Because there was no Boeing itself, which the BUK or “drying” allegedly shot down.

And a commission in the Netherlands spent a whole year collecting a fragment of the fuselage from the wreckage and making holes in it in the required way, so that it could later be presented as evidence of a hit by a BUK air defense missile. To get something similar to the skin of a bus that was shelled near Volnovakha, which Poroshenko then showed to everyone. Only the holey fragment of the Boeing will be ten times larger and the holes will be more convincing. It’s not for nothing that they work all year long.

Let's now summarize everything that the Foundling Boeing version explains:

1. The absence of craters and holes at the site where massive debris fell from a great height.
2. The engines are too small for the Boeing 777.
3. Total There are several times less debris than there should be.
4. There are too few passenger seats at the crash site.
5. Among the main debris are corpses, things and grass untouched by the fire.
6. Many invalid passports.
7. The location of the debris is not far from the road and along the road, which is unlikely in a real disaster.
8. The commission rejected part of the wreckage, which is contrary to the principles of air crash investigation.
9. There are no witnesses to the BUK air defense missile system, although there must be hundreds, and maybe even thousands.
10. There is a contradictory story with the dispatchers’ negotiations - either they are posted, or they are not posted, or they are posted, but they are not.
11. There is a contradictory story about the relatives of the victims - either they exist or not, some journalists found them from lists of relatives, but when visiting it turned out that no one died, or died many years ago.
12. Protracted investigation and lack of concrete conclusions.

But with all this, there are several questions to which the “foundling” version does not give a clear answer:

1. Why didn’t DPR representatives expose the “foundling”?
2. Why didn’t the Russian Ministry of Defense expose the “foundling”, but instead began to build versions about the “drying”, about the Ukrainian BUK, and posted flight radar data showing the deviation of MH-17 from the course?
3. Why did Almaz-Antey simulate the defeat of Boeing by BUK?
4. Why did the Russian President convey condolences to the dead if no one died?

It would seem that this cannot be explained, since it would be beneficial for Russia to uncover the staging and thereby protect itself from attacks in aiding the “Donetsk bandits” who shoot down Boeings at high altitudes. And no accusations regarding the supply of BUK air defense systems would arise in this case.

But... not everything is as simple as they say.

I'll try to explain:

The President and his condolences to the relatives of the victims.

Imagine the situation. All over the world media there is news about a monstrous plane crash, and even near the borders of Russia, with suspicion of its involvement. Three hundred dead! Kids! Women! They would still live and live, if not for the militant separatists somewhere near the borders of Russia, supported by Moscow and shooting at planes from Russian anti-aircraft guns...

Have you imagined what picture the whole world sees?

Now imagine what would have happened if Putin had struck a pose and declared, “This is a stage show! No one died!”

There would be a real hysteria in the media - “How did no one die? Look! Kids! Little kids! Poor unfortunate kids! They were so young and innocent! Women! Old people! They still have time to live and live! A-a-a-a! O-o-o-o! The President of Russia is a bloody tyrant, scary man, nothing sacred, he doesn’t feel sorry for these poor unfortunate kids! Oooh! Three hundred innocent victims of Russian separatists! Ah-ah-ah! Kids! Oooh! They should still live and live! Soulless Kremlin bastard! Murderer! A-a-a-a!”

Well, in the current situation, when the whole world, under the influence of the image transmitted by all the media, fell into the deepest grief for the children, the president could not calmly spit on worldwide mourning.

Putin would simply be anathematized by the whole world.

And Russia would immediately be listed as an accomplice of terrorism and the number one threat. And then there would be no talk of establishing relations with the West, literally at all. And establishing relations is the Kremlin’s main goal.

Western media would create a completely clear picture: he annexed Crimea, started a war in Donbass, and even covers up inhumane terrorist attacks. That's it, a villain of the first category, a new Bin Laden, no less.

It must be assumed that the directors of the “foundling” were counting on this: that a wave would instantly rise in all media, the world would fall into grief for the unfortunate children who were so young and could still live and live... and the President of Russia would be forced to join to world sorrow, so as not to become a mega-villain and accomplice of terrorists.

As far as one can judge, the calculation worked.

The President joined in condolences to the relatives of the victims and... thereby supported the version of the downed plane.

And all the further behavior of the Ministry of Defense, Almaz-Antey and the DPR, as well as the Russian media and experts, was a consequence of the fact that the president joined the condolences, as a result of which the version that the Boeing was indeed shot down became official and axiomatic.

In a good way, the Kremlin had to immediately get its act together, calculate the consequences of supporting the version of the downed Boeing and figure out how to expose the “foundling” in such a way that the president would not look like a fool and put an end to the accusations against Russia.

But the Kremlin did not do this. The Kremlin has had big problems with forecasting for thirty years now. If this were not so, then neither the collapse of the USSR, nor the Maidan, nor the war in Donbass, nor sanctions would have happened.

As a result, Russia began to act based on the axiom that the Boeing was shot down.

The Boeing was shot down - this thesis was recorded and they began to think about how to deflect blame from themselves. And creativity began. Let's show that there was a Ukrainian fighter nearby. Let's. Let's show that Boeing has veered off course. Let's. Let's show that there were Ukrainian BUKs nearby. Let's. Let's find the person who saw the pilot who shot down the Boeing. Let's...

And Almaz-Antey did not stand aside either. I decided to carry out a reconstruction using photographs of the wreckage and calculate the angle at which the BUK air defense missile was flying. We figured it out. Over the wreckage. For those debris that no BUK has ever hit. And what? If there is a desire, there are a thousand possibilities and there are no barriers to fools. At the same time, we could also determine the name of the soldier who carried out the launch. According to the angle of inclination of the blades of grass in the place where the truck dumped the wreckage of some left plane. And what? Could...

What had a greater influence on the work of various Russian departments - whether the Kremlin gave such a powerful directive to “justify Russia by all means”, or whether the lackeys themselves hastened to curry favor and succeeded in their zeal - it is difficult to determine now.

All that remains is to state that Russia was outplayed. Again.

They simply threw a stale corpse at Russia’s door and forced her to make crooked excuses that she didn’t kill anyone. And then they invited me to court.

And now try to prove that you did not kill, when you yourself have already recognized a corpse that does not exist!

And everyone began to excitedly build versions - on the Ukrainian side about the Russian BUK, and on the Russian side about the Ukrainian BUK or “drying”, whoever liked what they liked best.

And so everyone became interested in finding out whether the “drying” could rise to a height of 10 kilometers, whether the militia could have a BUK, whether the “trace over Torez” was a fake...

We got so carried away by these questions that we didn’t even think about the main thing -

Was there a Boeing?

Maybe there was no Boeing...

In Indonesia, after taking off from Jakarta airport, a Boeing 737 MAX 8 airliner crashed. It was heading to the city of Pankal Pinang (the administrative center of Bangka Belitung province), located on Banka Island, east of the island of Sumatra.

According to Lion Air, which owned the plane, there were 181 passengers on board, including two children, as well as two pilots and six other crew members. The Indonesian Ministry of Finance reported that 20 representatives of the department were on that flight.

Search operation at the Boeing 737 crash site in Indonesia

At the Main Directorate civil aviation stated that the pilots of the airliner immediately after takeoff requested an emergency landing, but then communication was lost. Lion Air reports that contact with the plane was lost 13 minutes into the flight, after which it disappeared from radar. According to Flightradar data, which tracks the movement of aircraft, the Boeing 737 rose to a height of 1,524 meters, and then suddenly began to lose altitude and fell into the sea.

The wreckage of the plane, as well as life jackets and personal belongings of passengers were found in the sea in the area west coast islands of Java. The first report of the discovery of large debris came from emergency services from the crews civil courts who were in the area of ​​the disaster.

Were there any Russians on board?

According to preliminary information from the Russian Embassy in Jakarta, there were no Russian citizens on the plane. However, diplomats are still waiting for a response to the official request. “There was no information about the presence of Russians on board. We are working with the department of the situational crisis center of the Russian Foreign Ministry,” the department said.

RIA Novosti with reference to a representative of the Indonesian Ministry of Tourism in Russia Anna Kiseleva report that the direction the crashed airliner was flying is unpopular with Russian tourists. People most often fly to the island of Sumatra for business purposes.

What is known about the liner?

The Boeing 737 MAX 8 is the latest modification of the airliner. The crashed plane had registration number PK-LQP, was manufactured in 2018. Operated by Lion Air, Indonesia's largest low-cost carrier, since August 2018.

The carrier company reported that both pilots had extensive experience: the crew commander had more than 6 thousand hours of flight time, and the co-pilot had more than 5 thousand hours. The plane was flown by an Indian citizen, captain Bhaway Saneja, reports the news portal Detik with reference to a representative of the air carrier. According to the publication, he successfully passed the pre-flight medical examination, and no traces of prohibited substances were found in his blood.

What caused the disaster?

The cause of the disaster is still unknown. "We can't say anything until we find the black boxes and analyze the records," said the chairman of Indonesia's National Transport Safety Committee. Soryanto Tjayono.

The 737 MAX 8 that crashed at sea asked for help shortly after takeoff in Indonesia. This was reported by the leaders of local rescue teams. Preliminary data from the Flightradar24 service indicate that during its short flight the airliner managed to rise to a height of 1524 meters, then descend and rise again. After that he fell into the sea. The last time its height was 1113 m, the speed was 345 knots, at that moment the liner was 15 km from the Indonesian coast.

“The latest data received from the aircraft indicates a high rate of descent,” service employees said.

It is already known that all 189 people on board became victims of the plane crash. The wreckage of the liner was found at a depth of 30-35 meters. While search teams are busy searching for the bodies of the dead and the plane's recorders, which may shed light on the possible causes of the disaster.

Meanwhile, in the near future, increased attention to this disaster will be associated not so much with the large number of victims, but also with the plane itself that crashed. Despite the fact that Boeing 737 family aircraft have been serving in civil aviation for more than half a century, the crashed airliner belonged to the fourth to the newest generation representatives of this Boeing 737 MAX family, which many airlines around the world are looking forward to.

And this disaster was the first since the fourth generation of aircraft was put into operation, which took place only last year, 2017.

It is already known that the crashed plane was completely new - its flight time was 800 hours since August of this year - the month from which it began to be operated by Lion Air.

Experts note the exceptional interest of carriers in this aircraft - more than 4 thousand orders have already been received for it. And, although the reasons for what happened remain to be ascertained, Boeing has already stated that they are ready to provide any information for the investigation.

According to the Aviation Safety Network portal, over the entire history of operation, starting in 1970, 208 aircraft of the Boeing 737 family were lost. Moreover, the disaster occurred against the backdrop of a general decrease in the number of accidents with civil aircraft, which has been observed in recent years.

In terms of death toll, it became the first after the crash of the A321 plane over Egypt, in which 224 people died. In addition, it became the first disaster of a Western-made airliner that occurred without external influence, after Boeing crash 737 at Rostov-on-Don airport on March 19, 2016.

Although it is too early to talk about possible versions, based on the nature of the crash, it has already been suggested that it could not have been caused by aircraft malfunctions. So says Neil Hansford, an Australian aviation expert who called the Boeing 737 the most reliable in the world.

“The Boeing 737 is the most widely used aircraft in the history of aviation, they fly more than any other aircraft in the world, and they are incredibly good,” he says. - I do not believe that a fatal technical failure would have caused the crash in Indonesia, and I do not believe that this would be a cause for concern about general security this type of aircraft."

According to the expert, there are signs that the cause of the crash was an external influence. “It appears that something happened in the skies over the Indonesian coast that caused concern among the pilots. It appears they tried to return minutes after takeoff, but only an investigation will reveal what caused the plane to crash into the ocean,” he said.

For the first time, a modification of the Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft was presented in December 2015; a month later, the first flight of this aircraft took place. Its range is 6,570 kilometers and its capacity is 210 people.

At the time of the crash in Indonesia, 219 Boeing 737 MAX 8 and 12 MAX 9 aircraft were flying for various airlines around the world.

It is known that Lion Air has an order for another 238 aircraft of the family. The MAX generation has become the most popular among customers, experts admit, and the eighth modification is no exception. These aircraft are already flying in many airlines around the world, from the Canadian Sunwing Airlines to the Turkish Corendon Airlines.

The main difference from the previous generation aircraft is the LEAP engines, which, according to the manufacturer, will “redefine the future of efficient and environmentally friendly air travel.” Boeing claims that these engines are 10-12% more efficient than their predecessors.

In 2017, Boeing was forced to abort test flights of its MAX generation aircraft after French engine maker Safran discovered “quality issues” with some turbines. Over the past year, there has only been one incident involving the MAX 8 modification, when a Jet Airways plane collided with a bird in the Indian sky.

Half a century in the sky

The presentation of the first Boeing 737 took place on January 17, 1967, and it made its first flight on April 9, 1967. Among those greeting the plane was Boeing Corporation President William Allen, who told reporters: “We're going to sell a lot of these airplanes!” And he added a phrase that turned out to be prophetic: “I think when I get into a nursing home, we will still be selling these planes.”

British virtual tracker Ian Wilson is a video engineer by profession. He discovered an object similar to an airplane using the resource Google Maps. I saw him lying in the inaccessible jungles of Cambodia.

A photo in which the virtual tracker spotted the plane.

Yang has no doubt: this object is the plane - most likely the same one - the Malaysian Boeing 777-200, which on March 8, 2014, flying from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, disappeared in the most mysterious way along with 239 passengers.

Based on the outlines of the discovered airliner, it is the right one. Only almost 6 meters longer - not 63.7 meters, but 70.

The tail fell off, the tracker explains, and lies a little further from the fuselage. Hence the "extension".

The main objection of skeptics: the photo from space used by Google Maps could have been accidentally captured by a plane flying over the jungle. In addition, four years have passed since the loss, quite enough for lush tropical vegetation to completely hide the liner. And it’s strange that the car in the photo is almost intact. Even if the plane had not crashed from a great height, but had tried to land in the jungle, it would most likely have broken into several large fragments.

No,” Wilson dismisses doubts. Like, I checked it using one of the resource options - “escape ground view”. The plane is down.


Could the virtual tracker have “stumbled upon” not MH370, but some other Boeing 777-200? Excluded - no other similar ones fell in this area of ​​Cambodia. At least aviation experts know nothing about such disasters.

Wilson said he would like to get to the crash site he discovered himself. After all, Malaysian and Australian specialists, who, albeit to no avail, are officially busy searching for the remains of the liner, as a rule, do not respond to the “signals” of virtual trackers. Or they brush them off.

BY THE WAY

And here's another Boeing

Competing with Wilson is Australian Peter McMahon, who has long been passionate about investigating aircraft accidents. Using Google Maps, he also saw the silhouette of a crashed Malaysian Boeing. But in another place - under water. If he gets to it, he will have to dive.


In March 2018, McMahon pointed out: The Boeing lies in shallow water about 16 kilometers south of Round Island, one of the Seychelles. The satellite photo shows both the wings and the fuselage.

The Australian Transport and Safety Bureau told McMahon that the plane he discovered could well be the one he was looking for. But no action was taken. The Malaysian authorities also responded. But more harshly: they asked not to mislead people.


McMahon somehow saw that the fuselage of the airliner was full of holes. It’s as if it’s been pierced by machine-gun fire.

And one more

In 2016, the Malaysian Boeing was found by Scott Waring, a famous ufologist and virtual archaeologist among those who look for anomalies in images transmitted from other planets, for example, from Mars.

Scott assures that he did not specifically search for the missing airliner. I was looking for traces UFO, which were spotted in the Cape area Good Hope(Cape of Good Hope) in 2013. And for this purpose, I looked at the photographs of the area posted in Google Earth. I saw the outline of the plane. He lies under water. Almost whole.



We recommend reading