Abel Danger Aviation Investigative Report – Kogalymavia Airlines [Branded as “MetroJet”] – Date of Incident: 10-31-2015 Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt – Pulkovo Airport, St Petersburg, Russia – “Technical Malfunction” – Disabled Remotely: Communication Radios, Transponder, ACARS, FAC1 and FAC2 – FADEC – Honeywell AUAP Systems – Pushing the “Bomb On Board Scenario”

Kogalymavia Airlines [Branded as “MetroJet”]
KGL9268 [7K9268]: Airbus A321-231: EI-ETJ 
Date of Incident: 10-31-2015
Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt – Pulkovo Airport, St Petersburg, Russia. P.O.B 217: Crew 07: Total 224 
Date of Original Report: 11-24-2015. Prepared by Declan Curran [Agent Kiwi] 
For the Abel Danger Aviation
Private Intelligence Worldwide Network 

This report may be subject to inclusion, removal, or amendment of any content[s,] as and when further information, data, or evidence is presented, located, or made available.

Such evidence may have been inadvertently overlooked; was not accessible at the time this report was prepared, or has subsequently been amended from the original information which was known about this incident.
Want to follow progress on this Investigation? 
Contact: Capt. Field McConnell [Retired] 
Airbus A319/320321/330 Captain
3750 hours as Airbus Captain 
23,000 hours prior to refusing to fly B747-400 with BUAP
+001 715 307 8222 @fieldmcc 
[Picture only… NOT the A321 aircraft which this report is based upon.]


Downing of Aircraft Facts & Investigation Notes ~
Date of Preparation ~ November 23 2015

• Kogalymavia Flight KGL9268 departed from Sharm El-Sheikh International Airport, Egypt on October 31 2015 at 0558hrs. It climbed to FL320 on a heading for Pulkovo Airport, St Petersburg, Russia. It is believed that the aircraft was operated as a chartered passenger flight under the branding of “Metrojet” and was carrying predominantly Russian tourists; at least 3 of who were Ukranian.

• Statements have been made that the Airbus A321-231 which serviced this flight sector had technical issues which were reported by previous crew and that it was not airworthy. Investigations reveal that the aircraft was in excellent technical condition prior to this flight. There were no issues reported, other than that the engines were difficult to start. Given the professionalism of Pilots it is unlikely they would willingly and knowingly fly a defective aircraft. This aircraft had been in service for 18 years and the only reported incident was a tail strike upon landing at Cairo in November 2001. This was successfully repaired and the aircraft returned to service in 2002. At this time it was operating for Middle East Airlines.

• Approx 23 minutes into the flight, the Flight Crew requested a diversion to Cairo for an emergency landing due to a “Technical Malfunction.” No further details were given and communication ceased with the aircraft disappearing off radar shortly thereafter.

• The most dangerous parts of any flight are the take-off and landing; the latter being the most dangerous because the aircraft is returning to a solid surface, rather than moving away from it. A catastrophic event at cruise altitude is unlikely; other than an explosion causing compromise to the fuselage, hydraulics, rudder or other essential controls required to maintain control of the aircraft.

• [A classic recent example of this was an incident with QF32 on November 04 2010. This Airbus 380 had 440 pax and 29 crew. It experienced an uncontained engine failure, due to defective engine manufacturing. A piece of the left wing was severed; the end result being fuel loss and failure of wing-based mechanical systems etc. The computer advised the Flight Crew that the configuration for landing was not possible with the input data they were dealing with. In addition to the First Officer and Captain, were 2 Check Captain’s along with one Check Captain in training. Had there not been 5 experienced crew on the flight deck at this time it is highly likely that the world would have witnessed the first total loss of an Airbus A380.]

• But returning to the Russian Flight…… At cruise altitudes the flight is at its most stable. The Auto Pilot would be engaged, making minor adjustments as required to maintain flight direction, altitude, stability amongst others. The Flight Crew would be monitoring systems. If anything was detected which was unusual or presented concern, the crew would have the altitude, and accordingly the time, to ascertain and respond to events. As has been indicated with the Qantas Airbus A380 incident, the aircraft is still manageable to some degree and usually sufficiently enough to be able to facilitate a landing with as minimal damage as possible to the aircraft, and accordingly with no injuries or fatalities.

• FlightRadar24 data shows the aircraft speed of approx 404kts reducing within one minute to 62kts coinciding with an initial sudden climb of nearly 3,000ft in 3 seconds before falling another 3,000ft a few seconds later . The data which is presented shows erratic “lurching” motions in its final moments. It is alleged that the fuselage broke into 2 pieces and dropped into the Desert. Photographs I have viewed show metal tears in the tail which are of an outward trajectory. This would be indicative of an explosion from inside the aircraft. The graph below provides altitude and speed changes of KGL9268.

• The unverified data I have uncovered or been advised of, [and may be subject to amendment] is –

• The A321 was remotely hijacked.

• Transponder ceased transmitting at FL270.

• All communications ceased at FL280 – [Remotely switched off.]

• Altitude was FL310 @ 404kts. Vertical Feet p/min drop was 8,000 per min.

• The speed was 62kts at the point where the aircraft dropped out of the sky. This speed is insufficient for an aircraft of this size and weight to remain airborne.

[Source for above graphs: www.aviation.stackexchange.com]

[Source for above graphs: www.wikipedia.org]

• Field McConnell refers to “Direct Law with regards to an aircraft’s behaviour at the point where the Auto Pilot system is deactivated. An example of this was in 1991 when one of the Flight Crew of a NWA Airliner accidentally disconnected the Auto Pilot. They managed to re-engage the system and gain control of the aircraft. However, whilst the AP was deactivated the aircraft performed a pitch and yaw motion. It is this same scenario as we see exhibited in the graph above. Direct Law is explained further below.

• It is my understanding that the weakest part of an aircraft is at the rear bulkhead where it joins the main fuselage. A pitch and yaw motion would place laws of physics on the aircraft for which it would not be able to sustain. This would cause the aircraft to break up at the bulkhead. Refer to the photo of the 9268 bulkhead further on in this report.

• Field McConnell states that the BUAP and FADEC systems could easily be hacked into from an external source. Field continues by saying: “In the most recent attack it is my belief that following UAP activation these 5 items were disabled remotely: communication radios, transponder, ACARS, FAC1 and FAC2. This would result in an in-flight break-up of the aircraft with no facility for the cockpit crew to report issues to ATC. Any explosives would be ‘window dressing’ as no explosive action was necessary to destroy the jet whose G-limits were +2.5 and -1.0.”

• Shown on next page is information obtained from a discussion on this website:

How are fly-by-wire airliners controlled in case of complete electrical failure? – Aviation Stack Exchange


How are fly-by-wire airliners controlled in case of complete electrical failure?

In this comment, it is postulated that even fly-by-wire aircraft (Airbus) are demonstrated to fly without any electrical systems.
All Airbus aircraft are demonstrated controllable with complete electrical failure. They would be pretty difficult to land if the electronics didn’t at least partially recover (because the backup only allows controlling pitch and yaw and roll only via yaw-roll stability), but it would still be possible. […] Jan Hudec Dec 21 ’14 at 21:38

My question, assuming complete electrical failure, how exactly is this done? What controls have mechanical linkage (pitch trim? engines? flaps/slats?) Would it be possible, in theory, to land the plane in such a way that some passengers could walk away? (Perfect weather, miles of flat tarmac runways everywhere, cinematic pilot capabilities)

For the complete electrical failure in the aircraft, the following systems have to fail:

• The on board power generation system, usually a synchronous generator has to fail in all the engines.

• The APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) has to fail.

• The RAT (Ram Air Turbine) should fail to deploy.

• The batteries and static inverters should fail (this won’t help in controlling the aircraft, just added for sake of completeness).

The probability of this happening is very very low, and can be discounted. It is more probable that some other system (for e.g., hydraulics) fail before this happening. So far, to the best of my knowledge, no complete power loss has been reported in any fly by wire aircraft. [I would be surprised if they HAD been reported, considering the nature of what we’re up against.]
The reason the Airbus aircrafts are controllable in case of electrical failure is due to the fact that the fly-by-wire system has multiple redundancies that offer layered protection:

• Normal Law offers all the protections (like stall, load factor etc). This is the system in operation during normal flights.

• Alternate Law offers limited protection including stability, load factor and stall protections

• Abnormal Alternate Law limits the load factors and offers yaw damping only

• Direct Law is the lowest level of fly-by-wire system and directly transmits the pilot inputs to control surfaces, while still giving stall and load factor warnings

In case all these fail, the system reverts to mechanical backup, where pitch control is achieved through the horizontal stabilizer and lateral control is accomplished using the rudder pedals.

• In case of mechanical backup, the system will operate as long as hydraulic power is available. In case of electrical failure, as long as hydraulics is OK, the pilot should be able to control the aircraft.

However, usually, if there is no power, there is no hydraulic pressure (except reservoir, maybe) and the control is lost. In case of the Baghdad DHL aircraft, only hydraulics was lost and power was available.

There are some more points to consider in case of total electrical failure.

• In case the control surfaces are moved by electric power (like 787), power loss means loss of control.

• Power loss implies that the engine thrust cannot be controlled (of course, the engines won’t be operational in that case anyway). 

• Some fly-by-wire aircraft are unstable by design. In these cases, any power loss will lead to loss of control and crash.

• I’m not sure there is any direct mechanical linkage in civil airliners. The amount of force required to operate such a system would be enormous.

Bottom-line is, in case of complete power failure, the aircraft is as good as dead. One example is a Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner (which was not fly-by-wire), that lost complete electrical power due to a lightning strike. The aircraft entered into an uncontrolled flight, which loaded the aircraft beyond limit, resulting in its disintegration. [Source: www.aviation.stackexchange.com]

FADEC: [Full authority digital engine (or electronics) control is a system consisting of a digital computer, called an electronic engine controller (EEC) or engine control unit (ECU), and its related accessories that control all aspects of aircraft engine performance. 

True full authority digital engine controls have no form of manual override available, placing full authority over the operating parameters of the engine in the hands of the computer. If a total FADEC failure occurs, the engine fails. If the engine is controlled digitally and electronically but allows for manual override, it is considered solely an EEC or ECU. An EEC, though a component of a FADEC, is not by itself FADEC. When standing alone, the EEC makes all of the decisions until the pilot wishes to intervene.

FADEC works by receiving multiple input variables of the current flight condition, including air density, throttle lever position, engine temperatures, engine pressures, and many other parameters. The inputs are received by the EEC and analyzed up to 70 times per second. Engine operating parameters such as fuel flow, stator vane position, bleed valve position, and others are computed from this data and applied as appropriate. FADEC also controls engine starting and restarting. The FADEC’s basic purpose is to provide optimum engine efficiency for a given flight condition.

FADEC not only provides for efficient engine operation, it also allows the manufacturer to program engine limitations and receive engine health and maintenance reports. For example, to avoid exceeding a certain engine temperature, the FADEC can be programmed to automatically take the necessary measures without pilot intervention.

With the operation of the engines so heavily relying on automation, safety is a great concern. Redundancy is provided in the form of two or more, separate identical digital channels. Each channel may provide all engine functions without restriction. FADEC also monitors a variety of data coming from the engine subsystems and related aircraft systems, providing for fault tolerant engine control. 

A typical civilian transport aircraft flight may illustrate the function of a FADEC. The flight crew first enters flight data such as wind conditions, runway length, or cruise altitude, into the flight management system (FMS). The FMS uses this data to calculate power settings for different phases of the flight. At takeoff, the flight crew advances the throttle to a predetermined setting, or opts for an auto-throttle takeoff if available. The FADECs now apply the calculated takeoff thrust setting by sending an electronic signal to the engines; there is no direct linkage to open fuel flow. This procedure can be repeated for any other phase of flight.

In flight, small changes in operation are constantly made to maintain efficiency. Maximum thrust is available for emergency situations if the throttle is advanced to full, but limitations can’t be exceeded; the flight crew has no means of manually overriding the FADEC.

Disadvantages of FADEC systems:

• Full authority digital engine controls have no form of manual override available, placing full authority over the operating parameters of the engine in the hands of the computer.

• If a total FADEC failure occurs, the engine fails.

• Upon total FADEC failure, pilots have no manual controls for engine restart, throttle, or other functions.

• Single point of failure risk can be mitigated with redundant FADECs (assuming that the failure is a random hardware failure and not the result of a design or manufacturing error, which may cause identical failures in all identical redundant components).

• High system complexity compared to hydro-mechanical, analogue or manual control systems

• High system development and validation effort due to the complexity [Source: www.wikipedia.org]

• Mainstream Media has claimed that the remains of an IED were recovered from the wreckage of 7K-9268. This evidence was presented on TV3 mainstream news on Thursday November 19 2015 in New Zealand. It contained comments from Mike Yardley – a “Terrorism Expert.”

[Source: TV3 News, New Zealand]

• After having viewed the TV footage of the charred remains of the Airbus A321-231, it is my opinion that it is extremely questionable that this can [shown above] remains intact, despite it allegedly being the device that instrumented the downing of KGL 9268. I am not convinced of this “evidence.” There is no charring to the can and no evidence of the product tearing, crushing or disintegrating. My investigation into this event asks the question – “How does one find this can and alleged associated components amongst the remains of the aircraft?

Maybe being yellow helped!

• The aircraft crashed into the Northern Sinai Peninsula Desert at 0613 EST.

• Joint Israeli and USA Air Combat Drills were being conducted in the near vicinity of where KGL 9268 came down. It appears strongly likely that they were instrumental and involved in this crash.

• Wreckage was located within hours of the crash and was spread over 8 sq mile. The tail was found 3 miles from the main wreckage field. The CVR was retrieved and presents a sound consistent with an explosive event. This appears to have been from the fuselage. When we consider that the aircraft had a breach of fuselage over the Desert, it seems extremely convenient that Kogalymavia Flight 9268 came down in a remote part of the Desert where there were no witnesses and simply wide open space. Either this event would need to have been meticulously planned with precise timing in order to ensure detonation at the precise location, or the perpetrators were on the ground with a remote device such as a cell phone in order to manually cause the event in a controlled manner. Initial reports indicated there were human noises coming from inside the main piece of fuselage by first responders at the crash location. Subsequent reports stated there were no survivors. Were there occupants of the flight who had survived the initial event, despite being badly injured? Is it possible there were survivors who were “terminated” at the crash scene to ensure there would be no survivors who could provide any testimony as to events which unfolded at cruise altitude?

• Russian Investigators arrived at the crash scene on November 07 2015. The Russian Government had stopped all Russian flights to and from Egypt until the reasons behind the crash had been positively established. Aviation Security procedures at Sharm El-Sheikh are being examined as this is where the alleged IED would have been permitted to be loaded onto the flight. There are claims of serious security concerns at this airport.

Retired U.S Marine and Commercial Captain, Field McConnell of Abel Danger Private Intelligence Worldwide Network, has provided information which would explain the nature of the Airbus crash whilst it was still in flight….
Field explains about a French product called “Smacsonic”; a product which looks like aircraft insulation and is used in the inside walls of the aluminum fuselage. There is a black center portion which is sandwiched between 2 white outer layers. This is comprised of a type of rocket fuel. When an electrical pulse is introduced it creates an electrical arc which takes the ambient temperature of 72-74 degrees to 5800 degrees within a millisecond. The aircraft obviously cannot sustain these extremes and the aircraft would most likely separate at the Rear Pressure Bulkhead; the weakest part.

Rear Bulkhead of KGL9268 A321-231

•  The turbine blades are intact in a photo which shows one of the engines at the crash location. This indicates that there was no catastrophic explosive event to the engines. Field McConnell mentions “Direct Law.” He refers to this as the uncontrollable see-sawing in and upward and downward momentum causing the aircraft to be subjected to extremes exceeding those which the Airbus, or in fact any aircraft was designed to sustain. See above for explanation of “Direct Law.”

• The link below to avherald.com will provide background data pertaining to this air disaster. You will also be able to view an extensive collection of photos of the wreckage.

Footnote – November 24 2015.

At this point in the investigation I can fairly conclusively make the following statement, thanks mainly due to the TV3 News footage which I refer to above. It is the crucial piece of evidence I have been waiting for – or indeed something that would piece together and make some form of logical and feasible explanation as to what actually DID happen on October 31 2015 in the skies above the Northern Sinai Peninsula, where this aircraft met its fate….

…. It is my belief that no IED was on board this aircraft – in any capacity. I believe this was shown in the MSM for “disinformation” purposes and an intentional act to push the “Bomb On Board” scenario. As previously mentioned, the drink can which is alleged to have been housing the IED, shows no burn or scorch marks. There is no breach of integrity to this can in any form; no collapsing of structure, no tearing of the can, which was most likely manufactured from thin aluminum. Yet we are expected to believe that whilst this drink can had the luck of the Irish by surviving intact, and was presented to the media as being responsible for the crash, the aircraft had a breach of structural integrity and broke apart in flight. As this flight was only 23 minutes into its journey, the fuel aboard would have likely been sufficient, [along with the break-up and crash to the ground from approx FL320,] to result in the burned and crumbled wreckage at the location where the bulk of the fuselage is evident. I feel the photographic evidence taken from the air and presented on MSM, is validation of this.

It is extremely feasible there was a strategic positioning of teams on the ground, awaiting the A321 to appear overhead. This would enable those responsible to ensure the Russian Airliner was able to be brought down in the open desert away from any location where any people would be witnesses. It would also be somewhere not easily accessible and which would not be a quick exercise in reaching the crash site[s.]

I am of the belief that this aircraft was hacked into in a similar manner to previous crashes of which I have been involved in Investigating. Having said that, I believe those on the ground were the “eyes and ears of the operation” essentially to ensure events eventuated as planned. Shoulder-launched missiles would not have sufficient range to be able to reach the target. BUK missiles/Launchers would not be easily moved into a remote area of the desert let alone being removed at the conclusion of the mission. There would be too much likelihood of detection. This aircraft was brought down with the intention of sending a clear and direct message to Russia to get out of Syria. I believe ISIS was involved.

This aircraft had its Honeywell AUAP systems externally hacked into for purposes of taking direct control and in disengaging the auto pilot.

As Field McConnell has informed me, the aircraft would then have gone into an uncontrollable and unrecoverable pitch and yaw see-sawing motion. This would cause extremes of forces on the fuselage which would be outside the perimeters of safe and normal operation. This, along with a dramatic reduction in engine thrust, would have caused the aircraft to break up. The weakest part of the fuselage is the rear bulkhead. This would have been a clear break as is evidenced in the photo of this part in the wreckage.
At this stage in the investigation, I feel the chess pieces have been effectively positioned to understand how this act of terrorism was executed and why. All that remains is for Russia to make their move and force a checkmate outcome.

The fore-mentioned findings and data are as accurate as possible based on the indisputable evidence, which has been cross-referenced and substantiated through various media and other sources. However some content is the opinion of the Author of this document, based upon evidence uncovered during investigations. No responsibility will be assumed for any action any person takes in response to their interpretation of any portion of this report. There is no copyright assigned, other than where information/reports are obtained from sources other than the writer of this document. Those sources should be named and accordingly awarded credit for their contribution. I encourage people to distribute this report to any individual or organisation, whether or not same are able to forward the contents to those enabled to legally act upon progressing these cases, with the intention of the truth being exposed.

“Whilst one can and should have their own opinions, one should not challenge the presented indisputable facts without having been through the investigation of the case, and accordingly uncovered events and data which makes sense, can be supported with evidence, and for which would stand the test of a Jury in an International Independent Court of Law.

To base a case on mere conjecture and personal opinion, is to fail in the duty of mortal justice to those directly affected by the outcome of that investigation, whether those said individuals be indeed surviving or deceased.”

[Agent Kiwi] 
Abel Danger Private Intelligence Worldwide Network. 
Aviation Investigation Division 
November 24 2015


A321: Airbus A321
ACARS: Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System
APP: Approximately
ATC: Air Traffic Control
AUAP: Airbus Un-Interruptible Auto Pilot
BUAP: Boeing Un-Interruptible Auto Pilot
COMMS: Communications
CVR: Cockpit Voice Recorder [Records on-board flight deck audio]
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration
FAC1: Flight Augmentation Computer
FAC2: Flight Augmentation Computer
FADEC: Full Authority Digital Engine Control
FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation, USA
FDR: Flight Data Recorder [Records pertinent parameters & technical information of the flight]
FL: Flight Level [Followed by numbers] FL320 = 32,000ft
MSM: Mainstream Media
NSA: National Security Agency, USA
NTSB: National Transportation Safety Board


82 Total Views 1 Views Today

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *