PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - BREAKING NEWS: airliner missing within Egyptian FIR
Old 8th Nov 2015, 02:10
  #1729 (permalink)  
andrasz
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Where it is comfortable...
Age: 60
Posts: 911
Received 13 Likes on 2 Posts
My last post until meaningful new information comes up:

There are a number of theories circulating from knowledgeable posters which miss some demonstrated facts. I know the thread is becoming very long, but to make any meaningful analysis PLEASE read what has been written before, and consider ALL factual evidence, not just those that fit a particular theory. Most of the clues lie in pieces of the tail, the wreckage distribution clearly shows that the front part continued on for some distance after the initial failure and the loss of the tail and most of the rear fuselage.

The tail section failed in a way consistent with a structural failure in the lower rear fuselage, that caused the entire tail to pivot downwards in a matter of milliseconds due to the HS exerting the force it was designed to do. This is consistent with the FDR/CVR data stopping abruptly at the time of initial failure. To promote any HS failure as the initial cause you must demonstrate conclusively that the failure marks and patterns on the tail section wreckage may be interpreted otherwise.

The left HS failed by being bent UPWARDS at a 90 degree angle against the still intact rear fuselage skin, clearly evidenced by the fracture marks on the composite upper skin. If this is presumed to be a part of the initial failure, you must explain how this happened other than by extreme aerodynamic loads when the severed tail tumbled placing the HS flat into the slipstream. In particular, if it is suggested that the HS failed after a runaway trim placed the aircraft in an unusual attitude, what forces could have caused the tail to break off after the left HS parted while the wings remained intact, leaving no trace of the upset on the FDR. (Note: there is NO WAY any unintended deflection of any control surface to the full stop position can break the tail cleanly off the fuselage, the control surfaces themselves would fail first as demonstrated by the tail of AA587)

The tail and the tailcone with the APU landed relatively close to each other, the HS was much farther away (presumably back along the track, but we do not know this). This implies that the tail/APU structure remained joined for a time after the left HS departed (something corrobated by the relatively intact upper part of the frame joining the two pieces). We have not seen any photos of the right and central HS and it is quite possible it has not yet been found, but the fact that it is nowhere nearby also confirms that the HS separated earlier than the tailcone. This disproves any blasting off by a RPB rupture theory.

There definitely was an in-flight fire in the central section as the scorching and soot on the engines (especially the fan, which landed away from all other wreckage and has no ignitable components) and some fuselage components with soot on the outside but no traces of fire on the inside cannot be explained otherwise. With the engines still running until g-forces caused them to break off in an upward twist as the wings & front fuselage decelerated, they are the likeliest ignition source if the integrity of any of the tanks was lost. The fact that the plane had an ACT in addition to the integral central tank should be considered, but also the severed APU fuel line could have provided the spilled fuel if pressurized. In hot & heavy takeoff situations it is normal practice to run the APU for bleed air to avoid the thrust penalty on the engines. However all this has zero bearing on the accident sequence, the clues are in the tail which parted before any in-flight fire erupted.

EVERYTHING else coming from the media quoting unidentified sources needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, especially those that contradict observable evidence (eg. 'burnt' bodies in the back, heat flashes, etc.)

MODS, could we banish all this nonsense talk about the video to a separate thread on jet-blast ? A) the aircraft was NOT downed by a missile B) those with knowledge of video making / editing have conclusively demonstrated it is fabricated. It has ZERO credibility, it was released hours after the news were already splashed over every conceivable news site, the persistent discussion adds a totally unnecessary clutter on this thread swamping meaningful posts.

Last edited by andrasz; 8th Nov 2015 at 04:06.
andrasz is offline