Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
[flagged] Iran Air Flight 655 (Wikipedia) (wikipedia.org)
57 points by morpheuskafka on Jan 8, 2020 | hide | past | favorite | 24 comments



This is in reference to the Boeing 737 that just went down over Tehran:

https://twitter.com/TheBelaaz/status/1214757041123803136

https://twitter.com/Asylumseeker111/status/12147702487436738...

Iranian sources state it was a "technical malfunction", but given current geopolitical events, it may be a anti-air malfunction in their defense system downing a civilian airliner, which looks bad, obviously.


What kind of a technical malfunction causes a new airliner to descend to the ground engulfed in flames mere minutes after takeoff? This has MH17 all over it. Sad.


What kind of a technical malfunction causes a new airliner to descend to the ground engulfed in flames mere minutes after takeoff?

There have been two 737 crashes minutes after take off in the past two years. Boeing have acknowledged the issue is real and have tried to fix. That goes a long way to suggest this plane might not have been shot down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident...


This problem does not cause the airplane to catch fire...


But recent CFM56 engines om 737-800 disintegrating at high power does. There were two cases (with one passenger death and 8 injured) in the USA with 737-800 suffering damage after engine disintegrated in flight.



This isn't a max 8


Yes, there is a CFM engine issue that affects 737NGs and that can result in engine failure soon after takeoff for some rare cases.


While from a statistical standpoint it's obviously not a coincidence given the ongoing warfare events, how could one even go a step further and call it a technical malfunction minutes after crash? You'd think Russia et al would improve their cover-up skills since the MH17 tragedy.

Sad to see 180 senseless deaths like this.


More and more new airliners come with real-time monitoring, especially for engines (often a separate monitoring system with sat uplink, part of a maintenance contract for the engine)


This is a sad story but how is this “hacker news?” It happened over 30 years ago. It has no relevance to what is going on today.


HN is not a chronological "news" site, if people haven't heard of it that's new enough.

Recently we had a discussion on an article from 1738: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21832371


So, has HN turned into a political conspiracy theory and propaganda factory to beat the drums towards war? I just don’t see how this is relevant except to egg-on the paranoid InfoWars hobgoblins.


1. People are just learning about this incident 2. It's extremely relevant have you not seen the news?

It has nothing to do with being pro-war or anti-war, it's relevant because it's worth understanding what's going on in our world and the layers of deception from all sides.


Big political news always make it to HN, at least at first. Then they disappear relatively quick. I wouldn't worry about it.

For the record, I've flagged it. And I bet dang/sctb will remove it once they wake up (assuming it makes it that long).


This is a 30 year old story. It’s not big political news.


Are news not supposed to make it on HN? So many Boeing MAX stories have made it to the front page, you wouldn’t think that’s the case at all.


Check the FAQ at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, in particular:

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

Planes are interesting for HN in general, most of us (I think) enjoy learning about how things fail and why, and learning from big business failures is a must if you want to get a startup running. That's why most Boeing MAX stories are usually fine.

"Regular" news stories, on the other hand, tend to be off-topic.


I served on the sister ship of the Vincennes in the early 90 and knew some guys who were in her combat info center when that went down. The Airbus had turned off civilian squawk and was in a dive directly at the Vincennes — hardly what civilian airliners are supposed to do. Then again, even in a dive an Airbus can’t go as fast as an F-14 in a vertical climb so while the maneuver was provocative it didn’t fit the military jet attack profile, something the Iranians knew as well. Both sides screw with each other during a Cold War and usually lives aren’t lost. This was a huge, unfortunate exception.


> The Airbus had turned off civilian squawk and was in a dive directly at the Vincennes — hardly what civilian airliners are supposed to do.

Vs the Navy's report:

FORMAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE DOWNING OF IRAN AIR FLIGHT 655 ON 3 JULY 1988 https://www.jag.navy.mil/library/investigations/VINCENNES%20...

> Iran Air Flight 655 took off on runway 21 (heading 210 degrees true), was directed by the Bandar Abbas Tower to squawk IFF mode III code 6760, and began a normal climb out to assigned altitude of 14,000 feet for the flight, which lasted a total of 7 minutes before the plane was hit by the missiles from USS VINCENNES. The pilot remained within the Amber 59 air corridor (20 miles wide, 10 miles each side of centerline), made a routine position report to Bandar Abbas departure control at approximately 0654Z, and was ascending through 12,000 feet at a speed of approximately 380 kts at the time of making his report.

> 5. ($) At approximately 0654Z, the missiles fired from USS VINCENNES impacted the aircraft at an altitude of 13,500 feet,

Basically, both the data recovered from Vincennes and the actual timeline of events precludes '655 having descended. This accident is a (the?) textbook case of "scenario fulfillment" where people under pressure have a warped vision of reality matching a scenario they've seen in training.


Huh. Why wouldn't the US show proof of this? Seems pretty easy to do.

From the page: > According to the Iranian government, the cruiser negligently shot down the aircraft, which was transmitting IFF squawks in Mode III, a signal that identified it as a civilian aircraft, and not Mode II as used by Iranian military aircraft.

Given the US response (diplomatic note from Reagan), it seems that the error was on the USS Vincennes, not the Iranians.


Basically every US Navy ship with radar constantly records radar data. It would be easy to demonstrate the aircraft’s flight profile to exonerate the ship. Hiding it means they’re hiding the truth.


Most military aircraft have Mode 1,2,3,4, and now 5, all of various capabilities, of which Mode 3/A (with altitude reporting) is also in common use by non-military aircraft. "Squawking" a particular mode, and code in the mode, only means it has been set in the cockpit. An Iranian F-14 would most certainly had both a Mode 2 and Mode 3 capability, so no, an Mode 3 code does not identify it as civilian.


I wonder if they were merely lying to you, or of they were lying to themselves too. Sometimes people deceive themselves because they can't cope with the truth.

To be clear, the people who told you those things were not telling the truth.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: