Almost simultaneously. One is confirmed to have crashed, the other is missing.
Both were Tupolevs. The total passenger count is 78. 
I just saw a ‘breaking news’ e-mail from CNN about this… " " indeed.
Speculation at this time seems to be either terrorism, or fuel contamination. Both airplanes took off from Moscow within minutes of each other, and both crashed 4 minutes apart.
The flights are:
Volga-Avia Tu-134, flight 1303 Moscow-Volgograd
Sibir Tu-154, flight 1047 Moscow-Sochi
When things like this happen I tend to reserve judgement automatically until the obviousness of terrorism is apparent. Others should do the same.
Speculation says terrorism…rational thought says monumental fuck-up. Like the mid-air collision on the Swiss-German border a couple of years ago.
The planes were several hundred kilometers apart. Midair collision is ruled out as such.
So if on a head-on course, they could have collided within ten minutes, and a ATC cockup isn’t a possibility?
Tupolevs are notorious for falling out of the sky. Poor maintenance and pilot errors have been common. They’re just not very well-built aircraft. We used to refer to the Soviet official airline as “Aero-flop”. That aside, it’s tragic that more people have died.
Gorillaman, both planes left Moscow, but in different directions. There is no possibility of a midair.
Chefguy, Tupolev’s aren’t as dangerous as they’re reputed to be. Although I’ll concede that poor maintenance and lax rules are a problem in Russia, post-communism. But I’m reserving judgment until I know more.
That said. I think we can rule out those factors considering the synchronicity of these events.
Of course, fuel contamination might be a deliberate act.
Certainly, I would ground a heck of a lot of Russian airliners Right Now if I were in charge of things.
Regardless of cause, it’s a tragedy.
However, two crashes in such a short span, and both originating from the same airport, is cause for suspicion in today’s world. Simultaneous accidents would be tragic enough, delibrate harm is even more so. I hope it is not terrorism, but it would not surprise me if it was.
My condlences to the families and friends of the deceased.
oh dear.
Would it be silly to imagine that terrorists might have been more likely to target planes a bit larger than one carrying 34 passengers and 8 crew and one with 44 passengers and 8 crew? Hmm, I have no idea, myself.
How very horrible.
How terrible…
I’m curious about the fuel contamination possibility. How can contaminated fuel cause a plane to crash after 100 miles of flight?
Jets have fuel filters installed to remove contaminants from the fuel before they reach the engine. However, if the fuel is REALLY contaminated the filters can become clogged. When they clog they automatically bypass the filter - so you get fuel to the engine, but contaminated fuel. When this happens you need to land NOW, because sooner or later you are going to flame out your engines.
Fuel contamination is a VERY serious issue. From my Air Force days I recall not being able to refuel at certain airports in Africa because the fuel supply was not up to international standards. And whenever Air Force One refuels (other than at Andrews AFB), the fuel trucks used to refuel it are impounded until it completes the journey safely or the fuel supplied by the trucks has been burned with no ill effects.
Advise an very ignorant Celyn, pls. So would flaming out the engines be the same as plane explode in mid-air? There seem to be claims that witnesses saw Plane number one explode prior to crashing.
(The “agency” being TASS)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3596354.stm
also
Hmm.
No a “flameout” is the flame in the engine going out. As in no more engines for you, and the plane is going to start descending. It’s survivable if you can find a place to land.
Does a flame out look like an explosion from the ground?
If terrorism, it would be Chechnyans. I wouldn’t like for European Muslims to begin operating, particularly in the US; we couldn’t use profiling.