EgyptAir MS804 Incident

  • Thread starter ukfan758
  • 74 comments
  • 4,637 views
axletramp
How about an integrated system that sends a distress signal if the plane makes any unusual manoeuvres or deviates from its agreed flightpath by a certain amount? This would be fully automated and out of the flight crew's control, then the plane could be contacted externally to confirm with the crew if anything wrong or there was a legitimate reason for the movements/changes. This could also be linked to a video system which could kick in as soon as unusual movements or changes of direction were detected.
Click to expand...

Some times you have to divert for medial reasons, weather, a minor issue with the plane which makes distress signal when off a flight path problematic.

Plus sometimes pilots screw up and fly in the wrong direction which can cause it to be shot down as was the case with KA007 which was on Air Crash Investigations the other day.
 
The search continues in a more specific area. Authorities confirm that body parts and some wreckage have been recovered along with some "personal effects", the BBC understands this to mean suitcases.

The search area is, we're told, extremely mountainous.

_89756825_seafloormap.png
 
AviationHerald are claiming to have ACARS from SU-GCC that show smoke in the cockpit before the loss.

If so, I've never seen a leak like this before. It certainly seems credible, only time will tell if it's true or not.

If they are credible then one possibility is a severe fire in the avionics bay beside the cockpit, either accidental or somehow deliberately caused.

In the case of a smoke-filled cockpit the pilots would lose altitude as quickly as possible while turning quickly off the airway to avoid collisions. They'd also attempt to clear the cockpit the old-fashioned way... by opening the sliding window slightly.

Most worryingly the penultimate warning is in the FCU :(

_89758863_capture.png
 
Last edited:
Investigators confirm that the ACARS reports are genuine. I suspect that through today we'll see calls for A320s to be grounded for further investigation. That said, incidents on Airbuses are so rare that there'll be resistance to such calls from many quarters. Airbuses remain very very safe, statistically at least.

The problem with the Airbus control protocols is that even in "Alternate Law", the mode where the pilots remove the majority of computer oversight, the plane is still heavily dependent on its electronics. There have been a number of crashes (mostly non-fatal) caused by incompatibilities between a pilot's natural thinking and the aircraft's own rules. Air France 447, an Airbus 330, is perhaps the best example of this - in that incident "Alternate Law" coupled with the pilots' confusion about the messages they were receiving led to completely inappropriate reactions at the controls.

If an Airbus reaches a point where something serious is happening outside the normal operation/training envelope and the electronics themselves are taking serious damage from fire then that would be a real nightmare.
 
Hmm, when information is not known speculation and rational discussion can only fall on previous cases with similar circumstances. An in-flight fire that severe draws possible parallels with SwissAir 111. On that flight, the electrics routed to the entertainment systems short circuited and significant arcing along the fore section of the fuselage behind the cockpit caused a fire which was so extreme that the ceiling began to melt. Loss of control was a foregone conclusion.

That's an interesting development, that it was potentially a fire rather than an explosion. It might lessen the chances of it being a terrorist incident.
 
Can you imagine what will happen to air travel if they advise all A320's to be grounded, there are 7020 of them! This is hardly an A380 grounding or something!
 
Robin.
Can you imagine what will happen to air travel if they advise all A320's to be grounded, there are 7020 of them! This is hardly an A380 grounding or something!
Click to expand...

A few suggestions in the press today that it might happen, no official word that it's being considered though. Which, as you point out, is good for passengers. Presuming that the A320 remains safe of course.
 
Oh god here in Egypt a lot of talk on TV of conspiracy theories and idiotic stuff like that, hope this case gets closed soon as a lot of people are talking a lot of 🤬
 
The Egyptians are denying the early Greek reports of the plane's final erratic movements despite the Greeks insisting that they observed the plane's final minutes on military radar. Egypt asserts that the plane was straight-and-level in its final moments.

Cynics might say that Egypt has far less to lose if they can show a terrorist intervention than if the plane was mechanically/electrically unsound.

BBC.
 
TenEightyOne
The Egyptians are denying the early Greek reports of the plane's final erratic movements despite the Greeks insisting that they observed the plane's final minutes on military radar. Egypt asserts that the plane was straight-and-level in its final moments.

Cynics might say that Egypt has far less to lose if they can show a terrorist intervention than if the plane was mechanically/electrically unsound.

BBC.
Click to expand...
But a plane did fall to a terrorist bomb within the last year on their watch. It doesn't seem that far out of the ordinary if Egyptian authorities might want to push the mechanical failure card for what it is worth, and rightfully so.
 
Sanji Himura
But a plane did fall to a terrorist bomb within the last year on their watch. It doesn't seem that far out of the ordinary if Egyptian authorities might want to push the mechanical failure card for what it is worth, and rightfully so.
Click to expand...

I see it more the other way around; terrorist incident = failure on France's watch, plane failure = failure on an Egyptian airline's watch (at face value).
 
TenEightyOne
I see it more the other way around; terrorist incident = failure on France's watch, plane failure = failure on an Egyptian airline's watch (at face value).
Click to expand...
Any mechanical failure would still fall on the French because it was to be their maintenance crews (at the airport) that would ultimately be responsible for making sure that the plane remained airworthy. Overall, the setament is sound.
 
Sanji Himura
Any mechanical failure would still fall on the French because it was to be their maintenance crews (at the airport) that would ultimately be responsible for making sure that the plane remained airworthy. Overall, the setament is sound.
Click to expand...
Line maintenance does not hold the same responsibility as that as Hub tech ops employees.... There's a big difference between who does line checks and those who do D inspections.
 
Sanji Himura
Any mechanical failure would still fall on the French because it was to be their maintenance crews (at the airport) that would ultimately be responsible for making sure that the plane remained airworthy. Overall, the setament is sound.
Click to expand...

With the exception of pitot checks for long-term parking that's simply not true, the burden of responsibility for maintenance of this aircraft lay with Egypt Air, not with CDG's turnaround crews. Had the plane required any technical work at CDG that would have been done by EgyptAir's ground team, not by CDG's. They are not the responsibility of "France" (in this case CDG) but of "Egypt" aka EgyptAir.
 
One Egyptian official says the injuries caused to the recovered body parts are clear evidence of an explosion on the plane. No they aren't, say other senior investigators.

Whatever the outcome of the eventual recovery and inquiry we're seeing a similar pattern from the Egyptians as we saw last time. BBC.
 
TenEightyOne
I see it more the other way around; terrorist incident = failure on France's watch, plane failure = failure on an Egyptian airline's watch (at face value).
Click to expand...
Are all of the nooks and crannies of the plane searched at CDG on a routine turnaround? The plane had already been to Egypt and Tunisia that day. More likely that something was planted in a corner of the plane in one of those places than at CDG (assuming it was a bomb, which is obviously not confirmed).
 
Barra333
Are all of the nooks and crannies of the plane searched at CDG on a routine turnaround?
Click to expand...
This is a map of what the pilot who does the walkaround every flight looks for:

walkaround.gif


The only part of the plane that could store a bomb is the landing gear, or baggage compartments (which we've seen already happen). The only part the pilot looks at on the plane regarding the gear are the tires to see if there are any scratches, bubbles, or anomalies deemed unsafe. They generally don't look up into the bay, there's not much they can deduce from that.

If an engineer is called out, or line mechanic, they're only going to look at what was called out for. Planes are assumed safe each flight due to the nature of the day. They're not going anywhere purposefully dangerous, or doing dangerous things. The people that interact with them though is the uncontrolled variable. If the pilot gave the walk around already, there's nothing to stop a grounds crew to attaching a bomb to the gear, or putting one in a suitcase that "fell off the truck".
 
Barra333
Are all of the nooks and crannies of the plane searched at CDG on a routine turnaround?
Click to expand...

Part of the security is in sterility - nobody boards the plane without being cleared to do so, that should be the same at any airport, definitely at CDG. That should remove the need for a full search. It's usual for sniffer dogs to be run through some planes, it's not known if that happened on this flight.

Swagger897
The only part of the plane that could store a bomb is the landing gear, or baggage compartments (which we've seen already happen).
Click to expand...

Not so, one could place a bomb anywhere... you're only describing the places that an "opportunist" terrorist might use. What if there was a sleeper (or a cell) in an EgyptAir maintenance crew?
 
TenEightyOne
An agent of a terrorist organisation who's gained employment and trust. They wait to be notified of the plan of action and are provided with the resources required.
Click to expand...
Ahh okay, yes, yes.. However, that wasn't quite the only thing I was directing it to, rather the exact example you listed in response. Both are highly plausible, more so your example (I just never said it (dammit)).
 
There are reports that a French ship has heard signals consistent with those that should be being broadcast by MS804. BBC.

It remains to be seen if this is the case. If so then they should lead to at least a significant portion of the wreckage.
 
I don't understand why they now have to go and get the ship which has the subs that might take a week to get there. Surely it doesn't take a genius to bring both the locating ship and the recovery ship at the same time because, you know, you might need it! :ouch:
 
Robin.
I don't understand why they now have to go and get the ship which has the subs that might take a week to get there. Surely it doesn't take a genius to bring both the locating ship and the recovery ship at the same time because, you know, you might need it! :ouch:
Click to expand...

The plane is, they think, in a very mountainous region. For that reason I expect they're using many locating ships rather than just one; there won't be enough sub-bearing ships to accompany them all. Financially it makes more sense to leave the one they have berthed and ready to sail... sadly this isn't a life-saving operation now.
 
From what I heard on the news they now have the general idea of the location because of the pings and have requested the sub carrying ship be sent from France to home in on the location underwater. Getting there will take it about a week whereas I think anchoring it in the Med all this time would have been a better move.
 

Similar threads

Famine
  • Locked
2014 FIFA World Cup Qualification
17 18 19
Replies
568
Views
29K
AlvaroF
AlvaroF
Famine
World Cup 2010 Qualification Thread
2 3 4
Replies
117
Views
8K
DK
DK
DQuaN
The History of the Internet - A Timeline
Replies
18
Views
1K
Pupik
Pupik

Latest Posts

Back