Flash Airlines B737 Crash in Egypt [Archive]

Airbubba

3rd Jan 2004, 23:16

Time is GMT + 8 hours
Posted: 03 January 2004 2050 hrs

Egypt rules out explosion as cause of plane crash, blames technical failure

CAIRO : The Egyptian civil aviation ministry said a "technical failure" appears to have caused a plane with 148 people aboard to crash into the Red Sea on Saturday, ruling out an explosion.

"There was no explosion aboard the plane before it crashed into the sea," ministry engineer Faisal al-Shennawi told AFP.

"The first results of the investigation indicate the crash was caused by a technical failure," he said, adding that the ministry would soon publish a statement about the incident.

The plane was carrying 135 French tourists and 13 Egyptian crew members when it crashed shortly after take-off from the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, according to the airline.

Civil Aviation Minister Ahmed Shafik was headed to the crash site with senior aides and technical experts to continue the investigation, another ministry official said.

"The control towers of Cairo and Sharm el-Sheikh airports received no distress call from the pilot before the crash," a Cairo airport official said.

Debris was found around seven kilometres south of the airport at Sharm el-Sheikh, he added.

Flash Airlines, the company that operated the plane, said it will arrange for a special flight to Sharm el-Sheikh carrying relatives of the Egyptians who died as well as aviation and technical officials.

The Boeing 737-300 jet was one of two operated by Egyptian charter carrier Flash Airlines, both manufactured in 1993, according to the company's website.

The airline was [founded] six years ago by Egyptian and Italian businessmen, a company official said. - AFP

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/64638/1/.html

BigHitDH

4th Jan 2004, 00:44

My condolences to people affected by this. 2004 is getting off to a bad start.

Taking account of what information has been released already, what sort of mechanical faliure could happen to cause an aircraft to turn around and head back to the departure airport for an emergency landing, and then crashing short?

The only thing that springs to mind is an engine explosion, leading to severed lines/control surface/wing damage, or fire, leading to the same thing. It would have to be one hell of a fire to only last two minutes airborne. I don't think this is a repeat of the rudder incident, as not only was that fixed, but from my understanding it leads to a pretty much instantaneous loss of control, which I don't think is what happened here.

This of course, is just my opinion.

Are there any eyewitness reports? From my understanding the area around the crash site is a busy tourist resort.

Whatever the cause, lets hope that the French officials are invited to participate in the investigation, I think it would only be fair considering the loss of French families.

STANDTO

4th Jan 2004, 01:34

"There was no explosion aboard the plane before it crashed into the sea," ministry engineer Faisal al-Shennawi told AFP.

There weren't any on 9/11 either.

BoeingMEL

4th Jan 2004, 02:51

It's no wonder the BBC come in for so much flak: To quote the pretty young thing reading this morning's BBC TV news: "An Egyptian airliner carrying 135 French holidaymakers and 13 crew is reported to have crashed in the sea.... if any of you are concerned about Prime MInister Tony Blair who is on holiday in the area....... a statement from Number 10 etc etc "

Let's see now, would he have been the pilot-handling, the purser or the gent in 22A wearing a necklace of onions? Oh, for God's sake! bm

DamienB

4th Jan 2004, 02:57

Well, he might have been out swimming and had it land on top of him...?

Wino

4th Jan 2004, 02:59

Was it daylight or darkness? Over the sea in the dark best bet would be spacial disorientation leading to hitting the water (lots of airliners lost that way).

Engine explosion etc would probably generate a mayday call, but not for certain. More likely with headsets than handmikes (depending on airline procedure and regulation) to get a distress call off.

Rudder hard over is unlikely to bring the aircraft down on takeoff because the aircraft will be flying faster than crossover speed, so the ailerons can overpower it.

Pitot static problems might do it as well...

Cheers
Wino

airship

4th Jan 2004, 03:28

On FR2 French tv evening news:

A local hotellier Richard Bonneville, whose hotel is situated about 10-12km from the crash area, related that between 4.45 and 5am," they heard a very loud explosion which shook all the windows". It was only later at about 7am that they heard that there had been an air crash.

ATC Watcher

4th Jan 2004, 03:49

Sincere condoleances to the famillies to all those on board.

In terms of French nationals killed this is the worst air disater for France since the 1960s.
As to the " speculators " here , please wait a bit, you look like journalists expecting sensational news. For what we know so far , if indeed it is correct, it could be many things , even something very simple, like multiple bird stike on both engines for instance....
The CVR/FDR are reported to be laying 3000 ft below SL and a french company specialized in deep sea ops will be sent to the site to recover them. So could we wait a bit before jumping to bombs or rudders conclusions ?

Turbo Rick

4th Jan 2004, 04:32

ATC Watcher

As to the " speculators " here , please wait a bit, you look like journalists expecting sensational news.

then:

For what we know so far , if indeed it is correct, it could be many things , even something very simple, like multiple bird stike on both engines for instance....

Pity you do not heed your own advice... :rolleyes:

Condolences to all involved in this tragic event, positioning crew too... so sad.

I would be more interested in what Boeing make of this, anyone know the official line...?

Self Loading Freight

4th Jan 2004, 06:20

Condolences to all involved in what looks like a very miserable event indeed. Normally, I'd add "and there's no point in speculating before some more information is in." (well, normally I wouldn't say anything).

However, I think there is a valid and immediate concern over the way the Egyptian authorities reacted. Either they have some solid information about a catastrophic failure in this most popular aircraft which they are not making known as widely as they could, or they are so desperate to make people think it can't be terrorism that they are prepared to massively distort their proper role in sorting out what happened.

Perhaps there's a third option I've missed?

R

IBMN

4th Jan 2004, 06:36

My condolencies to all the relatives of those who died.

EBU: (translation from French)

The Egyptian air company Air flash was not allowed to land or to fly over Swiss territory ever since October 2002. This step was taken after some spot tests by the Swiss Federal Aviation office at Ziurich-Kloten airport. Air flash failed security standards due to important technical faults. The Swiss Federal Aviation office put this report in the Europaen Civil Aviation database

Captain Sand Dune

4th Jan 2004, 06:55

The response from the Egyptian authorities is typical Arab, and is exactly what was said when the Egypt Air B767 went in. Easier to blame the aircraft manufactured by a non-Arab country then the Arab crew. It's all about face saving. Don't read too much into it.
However, as for the Egypt Air B767 accident, the general public may never know the full story.

airship

4th Jan 2004, 07:10

Some news reports have the aircraft "returning" to Sharm El Sheikh airport as a consequence of encountering a problem after take-off:

1) Take-off was apparently made in a southerly direction, destination being Paris CDG with a stop at Cairo for re-fuelling and disembarking crew, the "return" in direction would have been normal.

2) No Mayday or other communication indicating a problem was apparently made to ATC before the aircraft crashed.

3) Would any abnormal engine event or the breakup of the aircraft on hitting the sea be sufficient to account for:

A local hotellier Richard Bonneville, whose hotel is situated about 10-12km from the crash area, related that between 4.45 and 5am," they heard a very loud explosion which shook all the windows". It was only later at about 7am that they heard that there had been an air crash. (reported on FR2, Sat 03/01/2004, French national TV)

pilot-nz

4th Jan 2004, 07:19

What makes me really sick is the fact that a cause has already been established ( it certainly sounds that way ) , yet this tragedy has only just occured.

With no flight recorder , no real witness reports , no mayday call/ radar contact .

3 scenarios always come to mind when something like this happens .

A) pilot error
B) technical error
C) third party involvement

as stated taking of over water at night is a harsh place to be if ur engine fails , rudder locks up , you not the most confident pilot or if someone has a large sam pointed in ur direction.

from a local news article here in New Zealand

The last major crash by an Egyptian plane took place in May 2002, when a Boeing 767 of the state airline EgyptAir crashed near Tunis airport, killing 15 people.

In October 1999, an EgyptAir Boeing 767 dived into the sea off Nantucket, Massachusetts, killing all 217 people on board.

my condolences to everyone involved directly or indirectly by this terrible tragedy, God Bless

Propellerhead

4th Jan 2004, 08:33

I wouldn't trust anything the Egyptian authorities say as they still claim the Egyptair crash was due to technical failure even though the F/O shutdown both engines and dived the aircraft into the sea. How can they claim its technical failure if they don't have the black box etc. How can they rule out a whole number of other possibilities. At least the French are involved so hopefully we'll get two sides to it.

otrex

4th Jan 2004, 08:46

Fact: One Flash 737 was very recently in Athens, in Olympic Airways hangar on (what seamed) powerplant maintenance (I saw a picture of it, cowls fully open)

Allegedly: It was the same aircraft with the ill fated one

Allegedly: Diverted there with engine problem

Allegedly: Had an engine changed, the “new” engine was sent over from Egypt.

I type the words carefully so I will not get misunderstood (very common in pprune).

I saw all these on a European TV network late tonight (Saturday). I rarely believe what I hear on TV, but the picture was there, and all the rest that I mention above is what they reported, but since I do not believe everything, I use the word “allegedly”. They did not. They reported it as a fact.
The reason for this post is to hear from anybody who knows anything more about it. I wish not to point any fingers, and not to accuse Olympic of course. We could though get an idea of Flash’s maintenance issues in the recent past. Especially if the aircraft was the same one

seacue

4th Jan 2004, 09:14

IBMN
=============
EBU: (translation from French)

........ This step was taken after some spot tests by the Swiss Federal Aviation office at Ziurich-Kloten airport. Air flash failed security standards due to important technical faults. ........
=============
I suspect that this is the common mistranslation of the French word "surete" [safety] as "security". My guess is that the Swiss found safety problems, not security problems.

There is a common tendency to just transliterate "important", which looks like an English word - but can have other meanings in French. It might better be translated as "significant".

So: "Air Flash failed safety standards due to significant technical faults".

SC
"No nit left unpicked"

Burger Thing

4th Jan 2004, 09:35

maybe it was Capt. Battoutti (co-joe on the ill fated egyptair 767) ?? they blamed him once, hell these days they'll blame it on him as well.

ODGUY, I don't think this is the time and place to be sarcastic. :* :yuk: Many peole lost their lives and for the sake of this shaken industry and our lives and jobs we should no contribute with stupid remarks to further deterioration.

7x7

4th Jan 2004, 12:13

From this morning’s paper: “It emerged yesterday that one woman passenger – Fatima --- (it gives the name), 47 – made two phone calls to her nephew. The first said there was a problem during taxiing before takeoff. The second, as it was crashing, described another problem during the brief flight. Mohamed ----, of Moroccan origin, said: “She said: ‘Something’s happening to the flight.’ Then there were screams from the air hostess standing next to her and the line cut.” I have two separate reactions to reading something like this on page one of a usually reputable newspaper. Firstly, the story is so obviously inaccurate – almost certainly a story made up on the fly because the ‘ear witness’ had a microphone thrust in front of his nose, (let’s be charitable - possibly while he was in a state of high emotion). But secondly, has it occurred to anyone that if Mohamed ----’s story is true, the reason for the crash might be the fact that his dead aunt was using her mobile phone during takeoff?

I flew on a domestic flight in Egypt some years ago (not with the company concerned in this tragic accident). Late in the approach into Cairo, passing 1500’ at my guess, I was gob-smacked at the number of people sitting around me who pulled out their trusty mobile phones to tell their wives/drivers their ETA. As for the seemingly ridiculous statement from Mohamed --- that there ‘were screams from the air hostess standing next to’ his aunt immediately after takeoff, maybe that’s not quite as silly as it first sounds, for on the same flight I took, we commenced the takeoff with a flight attendant standing in the aisle at Row 11 taking photographs of a honeymooning couple. When she realised the aircraft was taking off, she made a run for her seat at the forward door. She was on all fours ‘climbing’ uphill, with the aircraft airborne and the floor at around 15 degrees nose up, by the time she was dragged into her seat by her colleague.

Iloveholland

4th Jan 2004, 16:14

A lot of good points have being written so far.

What must be going on now is a frantic search of the CVR and DFDR by the Egyptian authorities to get there first. Why? Simply so they can tell the world whatever official version they already have.

A good model of how the Egyptians will deal with this tragedy is the way they dealt with their 767 accident. Even though the NTSB proved black on white that El Batouti(the F/O) was directly responsible for the crash, the Egyptians refused to see the truth and continued their propaganda.

Moral of the story: You cannot, ever, trust whatever Arab officials say. Period!The fact that the French DGAC is getting involved is not going to change anything. Actually they might turn it into an anti American thing by "proving" that the 737 has a history of problems and that airlines should buy Airbus.

ILS27LEFT

4th Jan 2004, 17:26

Then it seems clear that even if the French will get involved into this investigation, they would not be able to effectively dispute the Egyptian intepretation of facts, especially as the investigators operate on Egyptian territory, even if the "French" investigation would prove that this incident was caused by a pilot error or terrorism.
This "cultural" difference in handling these delicate events it is something we should all consider in order to achieve an impartial judgement and fair investigation.
I doubt we will never know the truth, unless the French and Boeing will get full access to all the evidence.

Pax Vobiscum

4th Jan 2004, 17:26

Banning an airline from flying into your country, as it appears the Swiss had done in this case, sounds to me like a serious step to take. I would have expected that most other countries would want to follow suit pretty darn quickly - or could it just be the result of a 'minor' technical breach of Swiss regulations?

AN2 Driver

4th Jan 2004, 17:38

Folks,

here in Switzerland, we have gotten some rather disturbing reports about Flash Air.

One of their planes was checked in a routine inspection by the Swiss Federal Office of Civil Aviation. The result was banning Flash Air not only from landing in Switzerland but also from overflights. In my experience, this is a very drastic step and would not be done without reason.

Press reports, to be taken with caution, but I personally believe them accurate in this case, list a few of the deficiencies:

-"several instruments in the flight deck being unserviceable"
- Flight Crew (Cockpit) Oxygen Masks missing
- Emergency Oxygen Bottles missing
- Emergency Exit lights unservicable
- Quite a few life jackets missing
- Passenger Seatbelts partly unserviceable or broken.

These were the ones seen from the cabin side.

Again, I have never heard of any airline being banned from Switzerland, I may be wrong here, but this is a quite good indication that this companies safety standards left a lot to be desired.

In that context, and it may be safely assumed that the Egyptian Authorities were informed about this ban, it is not so much off for them to suspect an accident first and foremost. The Question of course remains why a company like that is allowed to operate?

Best regards
AN2 Driver

Skytrucker87

4th Jan 2004, 18:29

Hmmmmm... As I understand the trend of discussion so far, it looks like
a/ There must have been a profound mechanical failure because Flash have had really serious problems affecting controllability such as pax seat belts and crew smoke hoods. I have known several transport aircraft to plunge uncontrolled into the scenery simply because of a missing pax seat belt.

b/ Flash is run by members of the Arab race and therefore nothing they say may be taken seriously. It might be worth remembering that Emirates is possibly run by Arabs too. Oh, and Valujet was not.

c/The French will not have access to any proper information but they will try to blame Boeing. Quite right too. Airbus never attempt silly non-aviation things like tree cutting do they.

I really must stop acting like Victor Meldrew.

Cheers

Trux.

NURSE

4th Jan 2004, 18:38

condolences to the families of all who have perished.

Can a statement that it was an accident be made with any degree of accuracy so early after the crash?

norodnik

4th Jan 2004, 18:54

In listening to the reports it seems to me very odd that there should be lots of people who saw this when it was 4.45am in the morning.

Sunrise in Cairo is around 0650 Local so they would have done well to see it crash let alone assess what state the aircraft was in.

There also seem to be very few factual details. ie: What time was takeoff, what time did it crash, what was the heading/altitude etc.

Not suprised at the Egyptian's discounting terrorism. Having worked in Cairo for a year it is fairly typical for them to answer "factually" with what they want the answer to be rather than what it is or could be.

latetonite

4th Jan 2004, 19:08

The take-off was from RWY 04R. The "return to the airport" as mentioned is part of a normal departure back over the VOR, to gain altitude and clear mountains NW of the airfield. Last mode C reading seemes to have been 4800`. No distress call has been made apparently. Everything from there is but speculation.

B737NG

4th Jan 2004, 19:22

Take off normaly 4R and then join the hold over the VOR, if you
cannot gain altitude enough, then leave above 10.300 MSA
enroute to the north-west. That was the procedure when I
was there. but how can You be then 6 Miles south of the Airport?
where they found some debris? And from 4.800 feet you have
enough to clear all obstacles south of HESH and usually You
stay visual as visibility is mostly severe CAVOK there......
After the CVR and FDR are recovered we will know more what
was the cause. According to information from a friend in HECA
a major part of the fuselage was located 3000 ft under the
sea level in the bottom of the red Sea.
Stand by for latest developments.

Xshongololo

4th Jan 2004, 19:36

Can a lawyer type let me know the legislation/international
law regarding who has accss to the CVR/FDR in this case.
After the Egyptians have pawed the thing do Boeing have a legal
right to have access to the data?.....one would hope so
to keep a level of transparency in the inquiry and more importantly so evrybody can learn from this tragic event.
Xshong

Frangible

4th Jan 2004, 20:20

Parties to the crash investigation will include the French (their pax), representatives of airline, manufacturers of the airframe, engines, etc. and the lead agency will be the Egyptians, as it was on their territory. The CVR and DFDR are legally under the jurisidiction of the lead agency for the life of the investigation after which they revert to the owners of the plane. So, Boeing will be there and will have direct access to the boxes. The actual real investigative donkey work will be done by Bureau Enquetes Accidents, who will also be responsible for the read-outs of the boxes. All the parties to the investigation will get the raw information from the recorders, but what reaches the public domain will be up to the Egyptians.

The alleged engine-change and the Swiss ban on Flash seem the most interesting straws in the wind regarding the causes of this tragedy so far.

Cuillin

4th Jan 2004, 20:23

Operated through Sharm on Thursday afternoon (1st January).

Air Safety Network (who are normally accurate with their facts) report the aircraft as taking off from either 22L or 22R. I would suggest 22R as we have never operated off the south runway in all the time I have been going there.

Radar has only recently been installed at Sharm. In a non-radar environment the normal departure off either runway (for aircraft heading to the north) is to go straight ahead for about three miles and then do a climbing turn over the sea back to the Sharm (SHM) VOR.

Air Safety Network reports the aircraft as reaching a height of about 5000' before control was lost which suggests that it was well into the turn and probably heading back to the VOR (but still over the sea).

An Italian news agency is reporting the aircraft as operating 4 sectors on Friday 2 January from Sharm to Turin and Sharm to Venice. On arrival back at Sharm it only spent a short time on the ground before departing for Cairo and CDG.

A Flash B733 was parked at Sharm Thursday evening as we taxied out for a 04L departure.

weasil

4th Jan 2004, 20:30

BBC Says 737 has a Checkered History (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3366199.stm)

The BBC are running a story now with this headline? They are saying that there is a history of rudder problems and engine failures on the 737.

vdive

4th Jan 2004, 20:37

Sad story - my thoughts :(

Question: Dosn't the NTSB automatically become involved when a US made aircraft has an accident/incident, or am i wrong ? Or need they be "requested for help" by the particular country ?

moosp

4th Jan 2004, 20:37

Yet again it seems that Ruskin's dictum prevails in aviation, as in his caveat emptor for the retail world.

"There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price only, are that man's lawful prey".

Beware cheap tickets. They may have a hidden price.

jpsingh

4th Jan 2004, 20:46

Deep condolences to the families of those who died. It is too premature to say if it was an accident or a terrorist attack......the degree of tragidy remains the same. Airlines and Charter companies are quick to "DEFEND" their business interests although either which way I do't understand how terming it an accident would save the company's reputation.:( :(

weasil

4th Jan 2004, 20:48

Username: Hydargos

Hi i'm form venice (italy); the last (safe) trip of the 737 crashed was from venice to sharm
In our morning newspapers such as in our local tv, passengers boarded in venice are saying that the plane waws litteraly falling in pieces: during the flight some panels of the ceiling fell down, in some rows the seats were fixed with iron wire; the cabin and the toiltes were absolutely filthy; some seats had no arm rests
the same plane in october 2002 got a problem during a flight form sharm to blq: over agean sea the left engin collapsed and she was forced to make an emergency landing in athens

_______________________________________________

This was posted on airliners.net

ATC Watcher

4th Jan 2004, 21:30

Turbo Rick : 10 points ! :hmm: although meant as an example ( an unlikely event especially seen the dep time . ) but valid remark !

Something else : seen on TV a visu of the radar track ( the Sharm radar was apparently diverted to Cairo and recorded ) climb to 4800 ft without problem then abrupt near 180 degr turn and a dive descent , end of recording and presumably crash 17 seconds later. But impossible to verify if this is the correct version or a journalist made up scenario. so caution.

sottens

4th Jan 2004, 21:58

Swiss Television reports that Flash Air had been banned from Swiss Airspace by the FOCA, following surprise visit on airplane in Kloten in Oct 02.
No reason given.
Any information?

Avman

4th Jan 2004, 22:44

weasil, Usual know-it-all nonsence by ignorant passengers. The "missing" arm rests are probably those on the window side of the emergency exits!

jpsingh , I think the "accident" statement was made by government officials worried that any terrorist connection would harm their already weakened tourist traffic. Egypt's economy depends a great deal on tourism.

Capt.KAOS

5th Jan 2004, 01:15

No reason given. "During a routine inspection by BAZL (Bundesamtes für Zivilluftfahrt) we discovered that the airline was a danger to aviation security," said Celestine Perissinotto, a spokeswoman for the Swiss Federal Office for Civil Aviation.

The arguments most commonly set out now show that it was simply a loss of power. One of the 2 Flash Air 737's recently made an emergency landing at ATH with an exploded engine. Dunno whether it was the same.

RiverCity

5th Jan 2004, 01:32

Avman ... weasil's re-post may not, of itself, indicate anything really crashworthy. No airplane goes down because the seats are wired to the floor, or ceiling panels start dropping on pax' heads, etc. But taken with the "you're not flying over our [Swiss] airspace" post, you wonder if it's starting to be indicative of something really big.

sycamore

5th Jan 2004, 01:53

How many sectors had the crew flown that day??

lomapaseo

5th Jan 2004, 01:55

Question: Dosn't the NTSB automatically become involved when a US made aircraft has an accident/incident, or am i wrong ? Or need they be "requested for help" by the particular country ?

Under ICAO Annex 13 (which all concerned are signatories) The NTSB will be invited and no doubt accept as the country of manufacture and design of the aircraft as well as the powerplants (how else to address real airworthiness concerns).

The french BEA will also be invited and no doubt accept as their citizens were involved.

Boeing and GE may be invited by any of the parties as technical rxpert assistance. However they as technical experts may not have access to all factual information as the formal parties (BEA and NTSB).

There is little likihood of any witholding of any factual information between parties simply because of Annex 13 principals

The greater concern would be bickeing among the parties about the significance and interpretation of the available facts or the need for extraordinary wreckage recovery efforts.

However, issues associated with crew discipline and operation of the airline under regulatory oversight may be kept to the Egyptians and not be open to the other parties.

Rest assured, defects in the equipment, if any, will be addressed. Defects in operation or crew training are unlikely to get top billing in the press due to their subjective nature among the parties.

maxalt

5th Jan 2004, 02:33

I have seen news reports now stating that there was a second 'positioning' crew on board the a/c. So the reports about 13 crew members being involved may be correct.

HOODED

5th Jan 2004, 03:43

lomapaseo, perhaps I misunderstand you here but the aircraft was US built but aren't all 737-300s powered by French built CFM56s? :O

Longtimer

5th Jan 2004, 04:15

The Power of Teamwork
The CFM family of engines proves there is power in teamwork. The 50/50 collaboration with French engine-maker Snecma Moteurs is nearly 30 years strong. The engines produced are technologically sophisticated market leaders in every category in which they compete. More than 13,500 are in service with more than 350 customers around the world.
http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/cfm56/

RASTAMIKE

5th Jan 2004, 04:19

Some hard facts.

Braathens did some MX on the aircraft some 13 months ago and considered it as in a good shape. Braathens can't state on the engines, didn't touch them.
One Norvegian passengers did file an complaint with the Norvegian CAA that this company had seats without seat bealts. This lead Norvegian Tour Operators not to contract Flash anymore.

One of Flash 737 had an emergency landing at Geneva Airport beginning of 2003 (despite it was banned from Swiss airspace), following the one in Athens (end of 2002).

Swiss airworthiness inspectors work in conjunction with SAFA and both France and Italy were notified about the reserve on Flash. France deny, the socialist party (opposition) acknowledges and the Italians are querrying.........

lomapaseo

5th Jan 2004, 04:19

Hooded

Good point. GE is only one of the designer manufacturers of the CFM56 engine. No doubt SNECMA will support this investigation.

These partner projects are harder to predict but hopefully one of their experts will always be there to assist as needed.

Grandpa

5th Jan 2004, 04:32

...of Flashair was notified to Europe's administration according to press release yesterday.

Today French official declared the subsequent checks of Flashair 737 were satisfactory.....

admiral ackbar

5th Jan 2004, 04:35

According to France 2, French Transport Minister Gilles De Robien confirmed that France had gotten an advisory from Swiss authorities regarding Flash Airlines. He also stated that the airline had undergone three inspections. The last two were passed "sans aucune réserve" which I can best translate as without issues. The last one was in the fall of 2003.

orrm

5th Jan 2004, 05:03

Norwegian newspapers has some additional information on the 737-300:
Both 'dagbladet' and 'dagsavisen' claims that the 737 where earlier operated by norwegian carrier Color Air(for a brief period competing with SAS and Braathen, operating 3 737-300's domestically, amongst them both the now flash aircrafts) during 98 and 99.
One of Color Airs former pilots(25,000 hours, now retired) Says the aircraft was in perfect condition at that time.

Flash operated a few charter route to Egypt for norwegian Pyramidene reiser during the summer 2002, and a passenger refers to the trip as memorable.
-the aircraft started taxiing imideately after the last pax was aboard, without all pax being seated.
-seatbelts where missing, and one pax(female seat 19B!) where placed on the floor and held by an flight attendant, until seatbelt sign was switched off.
-The passenger later wrote a letter to norwegian CAA about the incident.

The aircraft whent trough a D-check at braathens/SAS service facility at Sola, Stavanger December 2002, the manager claims the aircraft to have been in perfect condition "as new", upon completion. But wouldn't comment on the state of the aircraft before the service.
The engines where at same time serviced in france.

norodnik

5th Jan 2004, 05:17

Anyone have any insight into security procedures at departure point.

In Cairo, the security is very hit and miss even though there are 2 X-ray checks before boarding and a manual bag search.

I would be interested also to hear if the supposed 180 degree turn to head back to the airport was carried out in a manner expected ie: was excessive height lost in the turn, was it a normal arc etc

The point being that if the aircraft was under control mechanically it does heighten other possibilities. A catastrophic failure would have led to the aircraft continuing on its current heading (approx)

I am not one to pre-judge but if the FDR and CVR are too deep to recover then the speculators will have a field day (God forbid)

LatviaCalling

5th Jan 2004, 05:33

Color Air, a Norwegian operator, went bankrupt in 1999. This where Flash Air picked up at least one of their 737-300, if not both. I'm just supposing that a bankrupt airline did not keep its planes up to SAS standards. Braathens was not on very solid ground either at those times before they were bought out by SAS. So, here is a short quip from Color Air:
---
September 27, 1999
Thousands hit by Color Air bankruptcy

Some 20,000 passengers, more than 200 employees and hundreds of creditors have been hit by Monday's sudden grounding of cut-rate but loss-ridden airline Color Air. Some workers say they feel cheated.

Color Air's low passenger counts and heavy financial losses were well-known in the market, but staff members nonetheless say management sent out optimistic signals as recently as last month. One leading flight attendant said staff was told that more capital would be pumped into the airling carrier.

But directors at a board meeting Sunday night decided to cut their losses and cease operations immediately. Color Air, which only survived 13 months, lost NOK 245 million in the first half of this year alone.

Rival Braathens says it will honor Color Air tickets, but 220 employees will lose their jobs as of October 1.

timmcat

5th Jan 2004, 06:13

Looks like the Beeb (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3367661.stm) have latched on to something....

LatviaCalling

5th Jan 2004, 06:36

The Egyptians are getting paranoid:
---
Swiss official: Egyptian airline banned; Cairo denies claim
Sunday, January 4, 2004 Posted: 3:58 PM EST (2058 GMT)

Egyptian charter plane crashes in the Red Sea.

SHARM EL-SHEIKH, Egypt (CNN) -- Flash Airlines, which operated a chartered Boeing 737 that crashed in the Red Sea off Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, was banned by Switzerland in 2002 over technical worries, the country's office of aviation said Sunday.

No survivors have been found in Saturday's crash, which killed at least 148 people -- most of them French vacationers returning home from the Egyptian resort town. Officials have described the crash as an accident and said terrorism has been ruled out as a possible cause.

Speaking on Swiss television, Celestine Perrisinotto, spokeswoman for the Federal Office for Civil Aviation, said "a series of shortcomings showed up" in a Flash Airlines plane during a security check in October 2002.

Egyptian officials were given a list of the shortcomings, and the airline did not seek to re-enter Switzerland, she said. The Swiss news agency Swissinfo quoted Perrisonotto as saying that Flash never responded to the Swiss concerns, and she could not offer details of the problems Swiss authorities found.

Egyptian Civil Aviation minister Ahmed Shafiq said the Swiss statement was inaccurate and baseless.

Speaking to CNN in Sharm el-Sheikh, Shafiq said he wanted to see documents proving what the Swiss official said was true. And he said Egypt has documents stating that Flash Airline's planes were safe.

Shafiq said a technical problem caused the crash, although searchers have not yet found any flight data recorders from the aircraft that might help explain what went wrong.

"Just two minutes or let us say three minutes after takeoff, we imagine that the pilot has discovered something which is abnormal in the control and the serviceability of the aircraft in general, he changed his plan maybe again trying to land again in the same airport," he said.

In Washington, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board said that, at the request of the Egyptian government, it was sending a representative to assist in the investigation.

The Egyptian charter airline company is based in Cairo and operated two Boeing 737-300s, both made in 1993. It is part of Flash Group, which offers vacation packages across Egypt...

wes_wall

5th Jan 2004, 07:56

Quote - "Just two minutes or let us say three minutes after takeoff, we imagine that the pilot has discovered something which is abnormal in the control and the serviceability of the aircraft in general, he changed his plan maybe again trying to land again in the same airport," he said. Unquote

This sounds like Baghdag Bob.

Iloveholland

5th Jan 2004, 14:30

Don't you Gents think it's a bit too coincidental that Prime Minister Tony Blair was In Sharm El Sheikh vacationing at the time of the accident?

go_dj

5th Jan 2004, 15:21

Iloveholland

What are you suggesting - that one of the pilots was an
Al Queda sympathiser and tried to take control of the aircraft
and fly it into wherever Tony Blair and his family were staying?

Highly unlikely, but may as well add it to the rest of the speculation on this thread, lets hope they retrieve the CVR
and blackbox to get the facts.

320DRIVER

5th Jan 2004, 15:51

go_dj , the paranoid yanks are even saying that a Nigel could be an Al Qaeda operative so I don't know why they haven't suggested the same for Flash Air...

FBI HUNTS FOR AL-QAIDA PILOT "MOLE"

A British newspaper says FBI fears that an al-Qaida operative may be working as a pilot for a British airline are behind flight cancellations last week. The Daily Mirror says American investigators will screen all British pilots flying to the U.S. to try and root out the suspected mole. The paper quotes unnamed sources as saying the infiltrator intends to crash a planeload of people into the White House, Pentagon or Capitol building. Brian Doyle, a senior official with the Department of Homeland Security, confirmed the suspicions. "The intelligence is telling us there are some forms of infiltration from al-Qaida. We are looking hard into it."

ATC Watcher

5th Jan 2004, 15:58

latest from French TV :
Transport minister De Robien confirms France got warning of Swiss ban and ordered 3 subsequent checks on the airline . first one show "minor deficiencies" (but he would not elaborate what they were) , the 2 others showed no "abnormalities ". he asumed the deficiencies found by the Swiss had been rectified in the meantime he said.
He said he fully trust the Egyptian authorities, labelled by him one of the best States for aviation safety regulation .
France 2 TV showed a video of a pax taken during a emergency landing in ATH showing poor state of interior ( broken seats covers and armrests ) and 2 running mechanics on the tarmac later opening the cowlings of a smoking CFM56.
This media circus is generating an anti-charter feeling among the viewers, were many anchors raising questions about safety of "cheap-tickets-airlines "(sic)
The Air Senegal and Gambia / Club Med crashes in similar circumstances a few years ago are still on the mind of people of course.

norodnik

5th Jan 2004, 16:43

I don't think the media are generating an "anti-charter" feeling.

Its a well know fact that if you fly in less developed countries (from a regulatory perspective) you have a higher chance of having an incident. Look at the facts from the previous years and the trend is quite distinct. Travelling on a charter flight in these parts of the world probably raises those chances even higher.

Some, such as Jet Air in India, seem to be able to raise their game but a lot of the others cut as many corners as they can get away with.

Sadly, the travelling public as a whole, have complete faith in almost any form of oublic transport whether it be buses, trains or planes. Until that changes then accidents such as these will continue to take their toll and the swelling masses will still create a market for an ever increasing array of low cost operators.

Flash airlines may collapse after this incident but the need will not go away and they would be replaced but something very similar with a different name and probably 80% of the previous companies staff.

WHBM

5th Jan 2004, 17:28

Flash airlines may collapse after this incident but the need will not go away and they would be replaced but something very similar with a different name and probably 80% of the previous companies staff.
I believe that Flash is already a reincarnation of the former Helipolis Airlines.

Charter passengers are often not told the operator in their pre-sales material (and may only be told obscurely at time of booking). The extent of this anonymity always seems to rise when a third-world operator is used, instead of an established Western European charter operator, which seems more than a coincidence. The loss of the Turkish-operated Birgenair 757 on a Dominican Republic to Germany flight springs to mind in this respect, as do holiday flights from the UK to Turkey etc. Often the only giveaway is the timings suggesting an aircraft operating from the destination instead of based in the UK.

sottens

5th Jan 2004, 17:31

Correct Norodnik.
And I am still amazed to see the lack of scruple of the Tour Operators, who despite the reserves from an Official Administration (Swiss FOCA) still put the safety of their clients in danger.
Yet, the complicated task in this business is to find the guilty - is it the French Tour Op, or the corresponding Op in Egypt?
I have the impression that too often Tour Ops don't care how you reach your destination. Proof is, in the lower-end "last minute" packages you often don't even know the name of the carrier when you buy it.
Last time I went to Sharm-el-Sheikh, we were expecting an Egyptair aircraft, and finally got to fly with an old "Air Luxor" 737 - without any painting - (apparently at that time an Egyptian Carrier, not the Portuguese one)

320DRIVER

5th Jan 2004, 17:45

If this incident brings rogue operators under closer scrutiny, where I am sure the travelling public will get a few surprises, then those 148 people would not have died in vain.

Unfortunately, I don't think it will happen as these air cowboys always find a way round regulations and sadly, passengers are often blinded by the low fare hype...

"You get what you pay for..." is as valid here as in anything else in this world...

As an example, Flash Airlines are still claiming a safe operation with pictures of smiling crew who may now not be longer with us on their website, while the Austrian Airlines website already has an auto pop-up window with a short description of the incident they had this morning at Munich with a contact number for relatives.

My company also spent a lot of resources on an Emergency Response Centre which hopefully we will never use. I would like to know if the Authorities enforce this requirement (and financial burden) on these rogue airlines as well...

Man Flex

5th Jan 2004, 18:26

The posts on this thread seem to be concentrating on the service track record of this airline and the likelyhood that this was a technical malfunction. However the evidence clearly shows that what happened to this aircarft was clearly catastrophic.

What happened to this aircraft happened suddenly with little or no warning to the crew.

The wreckage is spread over a small area which does not suggest a break up of the aircraft in flight. The fuselage seems to have entered the water generally as a whole but the small pieces of wreckage found so far suggest that there was no attempt at a controlled landing and the aeroplane was falling vertically at speed.

I gather that mostly body parts have been discovered which again suggests that the aircraft entered the water at speed and broke apart on impact with the surface.

I find it difficult to imagine that a catastophic technical failure such as a double engine flame out could have led to the aircarft entering the water in this way. Explosive decompression can be immediately ruled out due to the altitude at which the incident occurred. Aircraft icing leading to subsequent loss of control seems highly improbable.

The American Airlines A300 in New York 2001 has all the same hallmarks as this incident. I honestly believe that only a failure such as what happened then could have caused this tragedy.

But then they thought that was terrorism too at first.

Iloveholland

5th Jan 2004, 18:47

go_dj

Yes that's exactly what I'm suggesting. It's too big a coincidence that at a time of heightened airline security worldwide an aircraft should crash mysteriously meters from the British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

You should read the full report on "debka.com" about it. Anyway, I won't trust anything that the Egyptian officials will say on the matter as it will be pure totalitarian regime propaganda. They lied about Egypt Air 990, they'll lie about this one too.

An important question must be asked though: Is it time for European vacationers to only fly European airlines when flying to third world countries?

beaucaire

5th Jan 2004, 18:58

French tour operators will have a hard time finding local charter capacities ,since last year alone nearly ten airlines were brought to bankrupcy in France including such important ones like Aéris,Euralair or Air Liberté.I don't want to blame Air France for this situation but it was a recognized fact that the manager of Air Liberté Jean Corbet acted as an Air France mole to bring down the airline. So who is to blame????

Load Toad

5th Jan 2004, 19:24

My greatest surprise with this tragedy is that the reports from Egyptian & French 'authorities' that I have heard, seen or read in the news state that it is a terrible 'accident'.

Now so far the black boxes haven't been found, there has been no evidence offered as to what happened, the event took place at night and clearly the impact resulted in a lot of smal bits with the main wreckage 100's of feet under water. There were no mayday's or anything from the crew....

....yet this is a 'terrible accident'?

So on what evidence, pardon my ignorance I'm only a passenger, can anyone decide and then publicaly state that there was no other cause? Would it be better at this point to state 'cause unknown'?

Antman

5th Jan 2004, 20:11

Here's a thought.

It's an old B737 (used to fly them), flying with possibly a shoe string operational setup.
What is the probability that this aircraft did not have the Rudder Ad complied with, and that the is a rudder hardover at night (no horizon) at low altitude and possibly below the cross-over speed?

Just a thought,hope the find the data recorder soon!!

ANT

visibility3miles

5th Jan 2004, 21:05

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=2&u=/ap/egypt_plane_crash

There are some photos along with the story:

Robot Sub Joins Egyptian Crash Search

2 hours, 56 minutes ago

By SALAH NASRAWI, Associated Press Writer

SHARM EL-SHEIK, Egypt - The French Navy deployed a robot submarine as France and Egypt launched a major push Monday to find the fuselage and flight data recorders of the aircraft that crashed into the Red Sea, killing 148 people.

The parts of bodies recovered from the sea so far bore no burns, suggesting there was no explosion on the Egyptian chartered Boeing 737 that plunged into the sea minutes after takeoff on Saturday, French Deputy Foreign Minister Renaud Muselier said Monday.

The crash came amid world wide fears that terrorists would use an aircraft to stage an atrocity. But Muselier told France-Info radio, "there is no reason to believe there was an attack." He added he thought the crash, which killed 133 French citizens, was an accident.

Egyptian officials say the crash appears to have been caused by a mechanical problem.

Swiss aviation authorities had banned the airline, Flash Airlines, after it failed an inspection at Zurich airport in October 2002. The same month, one of Flash's two Boeings was forced to make an emergency landing in Athens after an engine caught fire.

The chairman of Flash Airlines, Mohamed Nour, told The Associated Press that the company made the necessary improvements and passed a second Swiss inspection — but the Swiss denied this. Nour said the aircraft that suffered the fire was overhauled and subsequently maintained to international standards.

The depth of the Red Sea at the crash site has hampered efforts to retrieve the remains of the aircraft and find the flight data recorders. The sea is believed to be 880 yards deep at that point.

The French began using a frigate, a helicopter, 16 divers and an aircraft equipped with advanced radar and an ultra violet camera to search for the wreckage Monday, said French Embassy spokesman Ahmed Fadil.

The robot submarine, called Achille after the ancient Greek hero, has a video camera and can dive to a maximum of 440 yards, Fadil said.

The Egyptian Navy had six boats in the crash area Monday.

The wife of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak (news - web sites), Suzanne Mubarak, dropped a wreath on to the water at the site Monday.

"It is a big tragedy and I am here to express condolences to all the families of the victims," she told reporters. French relatives of the dead are expected to arrive mid week in this resort near the southern end of the Sinai peninsula.

French, Egyptian and Japanese officials laid wreaths at the site on Sunday.

So far about 60 body parts have been recovered and no entire corpse — an indication of the impact of the plane which suddenly descended from more than 5,000 feet.

Egypt has said the Flash Airlines jet, an 11-year-old Boeing 737, had checked out fine before the flight.

Pirate

5th Jan 2004, 21:14

With regard to the search for FDR and CVR, I'm surprised that they are saying the water is the best part of 1000m deep at the crash scene. I'm no hydrographer but the geography of the area makes it seem unlikely. Are there any of you sub-aqua people out there with hard information?

boiler

5th Jan 2004, 21:55

The depths over there can indeed exceed 1000 meters. If I am not mistaken, there is a well known rift that starts way south and continues all the way North to the Gulf of Aqaba. I went diving down there once and the view (of that rift underwater) is absolutely breath-taking.

AdamCG

6th Jan 2004, 04:00

05 Jan 2004 18:50:28 GMT
Swiss say two Flash Airlines planes were unsafe

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Adds company officials unavailable)

ZURICH, Jan 5 (Reuters) - Swiss authorities said they had found two aircraft unsafe in 2002 that were operated by the Egyptian Flash Airlines, raising the possibility that one was the plane that crashed into the Red Sea on Saturday.

In Cairo, Flash officials were not immediately available to comment on the Swiss report.

But they have said the doomed charter plane was one of only two that Flash has operated in recent years, including all of 2002, although Swiss officials were unable to confirm positively that it was one of those they had inspected.

The aircraft, bound for Cairo and Paris, crashed after taking off from Egypt's Sharm el-Sheikh resort, killing all 148 people on board.

The Swiss Federal Office for Civil Aviation said it had inspected one of the company's aircraft in April 2002 and found that navigation documents were missing, fuel reserves were not calculated to international standards and the signposting of emergency exits was partly "in unusable condition".

"In addition, obvious maintenance deficiencies were found in the areas of the landing gear, the engines and the aircraft steering," it said in a statement.

It said the inspection of a second Flash Airlines aircraft in October 2002 had revealed "essentially the same defects".

After the airline failed to provide sufficient proof that it had remedied the defects, it was barred from landing in Switzerland a few days later, the office said.

It stressed that it was drawing no conclusion about the cause of Saturday's crash.

Egyptian authorities have been eager to defend their aviation safety record, and the head of Flash Airlines told Reuters on Sunday the Swiss landing ban had been based on financial disputes between the airline and its Swiss handling company, rather than safety concerns.

Grandpa

6th Jan 2004, 04:47

...as more and more informations are released about Flashair folkloric operations.

This accident reminds us that air safety is depending on checks performed by responsible authorities which dare to use the power of the law to stop the operations of faulty airlines.

The history of dramas caused by lack of regulation is allready too long (American Airline DC 10 in Chicago, Valuejet in Florida,....).

Political pressure is revealed by this declaration of French Minister about "Egypt classed in first category for Air transport" or "Flashair satisfying airline...".

An association of the victims relatives is needed, which could speak loudly and say what has to be said ,disregarding political issues, so we can reach the truth in the interest of passengers and crews.

Groaner

6th Jan 2004, 07:32

As an amateur diver, once resident on the Red Sea, I can add my confirmation that many parts are very deep (as was pointed out, due to the Red Sea being a rift area at the boundary of two continental plates).

Those depths are well beyond any possible human diving level (in other words, it won't be human hands picking up the pieces), and seriously technical even for robots/undersea vehicles. These types of equipment usually require a surface support vessel. It may take some time before a suitable one gets to the area. Don't expect recovery to be easy, fast or cheap.

latetonite

6th Jan 2004, 08:13

Have to correct my previous statement: take off was apparently in southerly direction from rwy 22, not 04.

Clear_Prop

6th Jan 2004, 09:10

I just want to chip in with what I hope is clear cut thinking. There seems to be a lot of fingerwaving and gaggling going on about this crash, which is I suppose understandable given the current political circumstances, but I think the collective tendency to turn it into a conspiracy theory is a bit over the top.

In particular, I'm not sure I agree with the suggestion that the Egyptian authorities are hell bent on covering anything up here. After all, which is worse for their tourism industry - falling victim to a terrorism incident; or being slung with the stigma of packing visiting tourists like sardines into dangerous aircraft?

My apologies if that question sounds at all fecetious, but either way they will have blood on their hands in that respect. In fact one could go as far as to suggest that an incident of terrorism would be perceived as an unfortunate part of the bigger picture, wheras a dodgy plane is a country that doesn't take its visitors' safety seriuosly enough. My point being that the latter is hardly a cover up for the former.

I'm not trying to defend the Egyptian officials here, I just think that this part of the discussion is getting unduly distorted. They are after all politicians and we can't really expect anything less from politicians than for them to try to 'play it down' until the facts are in.

Sifting through the eight pages of speculation on this thread there are only really a few things that emerge as facts:

a) the plane crashed
b) the aircraft and its operators where officially known to be problematic (and unofficially there is much to corroberate this).
c) the authorities were aware of the situation, but too slow in resolving it.

So, it's not exactly ludicrous to suspect at this stage that the event was an accident. Unless any other information emerges that proves otherwise, I think I would be able to accept that as the most plausible explaination. Tragic nonetheless. My condolences are with the families of those lost.

Wino

6th Jan 2004, 12:09

Actually the A300 I think more or less pancaked in in a flat spin after the tail seperated and the engines detached, though there is no flight data after the engines seperated (which was after the tail came off)

This smells like a loss of controll for me as well. I already said Spatial disorientation, and that's what I am going with till more data arives, but a climbing turn over a black hole can be trouble...

Even a 320 was lost about 4 years ago that way when the Gulf Air 320 smacked the water doing a lowlevel 360 to try and get back into a position to land, and that is an aicraft you CANT turn over on its back...

Cheers
Wino

Clear_Prop

6th Jan 2004, 16:30

Even a 320 was lost about 4 years ago that way when the Gulf Air 320 smacked the water doing a lowlevel 360 to try and get back into a position to land, and that is an aicraft you CANT turn over on its back...

What, you mean somebody tried to hand fly an A320? ;) strewth! :p

BigHitDH

6th Jan 2004, 16:47

What, you mean somebody tried to hand fly an A320? strewth!

The A320 only let's you think you're hand flying it. It's a illusion...

Rwy in Sight

6th Jan 2004, 19:13

Just a question regarding CVR and FDR. Aren't they supposed to have a location system installed? The 757 involved in the Carraibes had a similar system.

Why it takes so long to locate the recorders?

Rwy in Sight

PPRuNe Radar

6th Jan 2004, 20:16

Why it takes so long to locate the recorders?

As others have explained, it is likely that the wreckage is in depths of water of about 1000M. You can't just send the local diver down in that kind of situation and it is unlikely that the technical equipment required to first of all locate the 'black boxes', and secondly to recover them, is close at hand. It will take time to get the equipment there by sea from the company or State 'contracted' to carry out the recovery.

Wino

6th Jan 2004, 21:37

You also don't want to destroy any physical evidence while looking for your electronic evidence, so they aren't simply going to bring in a trawler till they have sent ROV's down to photograph the wreck because even the way it is positioned under 1000 feet of water might tell you something.

Furthermore, if the wreck is more or less intact (I doubt it) lifting 100,000 lbs of Aluminum is not an easy task, even if it is broken into large sections, getting the equiptment on site that can lift that much weight will take some time...

Patience. There is actually no rush to do this. The recorders are water tight. If they leaked (extremely unlikely) they are already ruined, if they haven't leaked they won't.

Often the desire to recover bodies quickly for the families interferes with the evidence for the crash investigation because the wreckage gets disturbed.

Cheers
Wino

wes_wall

7th Jan 2004, 00:41

From Airwise:

Quote - France said on Monday it attached little credence to a previously unknown Islamic group's claim to have brought down the plane. Egypt has ruled out an attack. unquote

More info re recovery of the recorders.

http://news.airwise.com/stories/2004/01/1073382244.html

weasil

7th Jan 2004, 02:56

Is it true that a black box transmits a locator signal?

Has there ever been any talk of designing a Flight Data Recorder that transmits the stored data so that in accidents like this they wouldn't have to physically recover the FDR itself, just tune in a signal and get the data?

Weasil?

747FOCAL

7th Jan 2004, 02:57

Airlines would never go for that as then anybody could get the signal and you never know they may want to hide something......:E

Preppy

7th Jan 2004, 03:08

The Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice recorder have an acoustic "pinger" or "underwater locator beacon" operating at 37.5 KHz with (if you are lucky) up to 30 day operation.
Presumably the French BEA (www.bea-fr.org) have already brought in equipment to locate the FDR and CVR.

Wino

7th Jan 2004, 03:51

Yes its a pinger signal.

TO download the entire data of the black box would be a different problem because you would be talking about an enourmous amount of data that would take a long time to transmit, assuming that anyone was ready to hear it. But presumably if you can hear the pinger you can recover the black box, so relax and have a little patience. These things take time. Reconstructing maintence record of this aircraft to determine whether or not it was in compliance with all service bulletins will take quite some time... (Its much harder when you can't just look at theplane, and instead have to verify part numbers etc from a stack of papers as tall as the tail fin)

Cheers
Wino

visibility3miles

7th Jan 2004, 07:58

Black box located, but too deep to recover until they get another sub.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=19&u=/ap/egypt_plane_crash

Some excerpts:

Crews Find Egypt Plane Crash 'Black Box'

Tue Jan 6, 2:51 PM ET

By JOCELYN GECKER, Associated Press Writer

SHARM EL-SHEIK, Egypt - Searchers located one of the black box flight data recorders Tuesday from a charter jet that crashed into the Red Sea last weekend, but it was too far under the water to be immediately retrieved, a French official said.

Rear Adm. Jacques Mazars told reporters at the popular Sinai resort of Sharm el-Sheik that more advanced equipment was needed to retrieve the box, which was believed to be 2,000 to 2,500 feet below the sea's surface.

"Given the approximate depth of the black box, it is not possible to find it immediately with the means that we have," he said.

A robot submarine sent by the French can operate no deeper than 1,300 feet. Mazars, who heads the French forces sent to Egypt to help with the search, said the French Defense Ministry might send a remote-control submarine that can go deeper, but that it would take a week to arrive.

<cut>

Officials have not yet found the fuselage of the 11-year-old Boeing 737, but Mazars said that searchers on Tuesday used a sonar attached to a robotic arm extending from a boat to determine that a signal that had been picked up was from the recorders. The signal is about 500 to 600 yards from where the plane is believed to have crashed.

Mazars said the search for the fuselage was focused on a surface area of less than 2.5 acres, four to five miles from shore.

"Underwater acoustics are not an exact science," he said. "We have a zone of probability that is rather strong."

Egyptian officials say they do not know what sort of mechanical problem may have occurred and said the jet checked out fine before the flight.

<cut>

France's top aviation official said Monday the crash appeared to be accidental, but he still could not rule out terrorism.

"We have no information concerning the cause of this accident, and until we have the flight recorder, we won't know," said Michel Wachenheim, head of France's Civil Aviation Authority. "We cannot exclude either an accident or a criminal cause."

But body parts recovered thus far have shown no burns, suggesting there was no explosion, French Deputy Foreign Minister Renaud Muselier said Monday.

Since the jet was American-made, the United States was sending a team of investigators, including experts from Boeing.

France has sent in 500 personnel and dispatched equipment, including a military surveillance plane looking for floating debris. French forensics experts were hoping to identify body parts through DNA testing.

Families of victims were to begin arriving Wednesday in Sharm el-Sheik, about 480 miles southeast of Cairo, for memorial services on land and sea. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin is also flying in for the ceremonies.

<cut>

Dream_Pilot

7th Jan 2004, 20:14

I am hearing that Flash May have No insurance, or may not be covered.

I really hope this is not the case.

BTW This is my first post, I am not a pilot, as the name suggests, I’m just an aviation fan, and an avid Flight Simmer.
I would however Like to extend My thanks to all the Crews that have always no matter what Airline I have flown on, been very good, and Im sure done their best to keep me and fellow pax safe. I salute you.

Dewdrop

7th Jan 2004, 20:25

Are you able to be more specific, which type of Insurance do you think they were lacking, Hull, Public liability, Employee liability etc. etc..

Flight Level Zero

7th Jan 2004, 21:02

Quote from Post Magazine

"GAB Robins Aviation has been instructed to handle the claim for the Flash Airlines jet that crashed into the Red Sea over the weekend with the loss of 148 lives.

Andrew Cripps, claims manager, said "One of our leading surveyors, Chris Harden, is currently on site and will be carrying out investigations in Sharm el Sheikh and Cairo."

GAB Robins Aviation has also been instructed to investigate the claim for Boeing 727 which took off from Benin but crashed into the Atlantic at the end of the runway. "

Dream_Pilot

7th Jan 2004, 21:11

Sorry Its just, I Guess at this stage a rumor I have heard from somone I know who works Within the Holiday Industury and within that Area, of the world.

I would not read into it too much at present, But im sure it wont be long now :E

mac_scott

7th Jan 2004, 21:17

Dream_Pilot - it looks like they have cover, insurance times reports:

"GAB Robins has been appointed loss adjusters following the Egyptian air crash on 3 January.

GAB Robins claims manager Andrew Cripps said surveyor Chris Harden was on site and would be leading the investigation.

It is understood that some cover for the Flash Airlines plane was placed with XL Capital's Lloyd's syndicate.

All 148 people on board the Flash Airlines Boeing 737, including 133 French nationals, were killed when the plane plunged into the Red Sea near the Egyptian resort town Sharm el-Sheikh.

A spokeswoman for Lloyd's said the market was not expecting a large loss following the crash, although the situation was being closely monitored."

JamesT73J

8th Jan 2004, 01:23

Now the BBC have picked up on the European 'banned and damned' list, and have opened the debate it up to the general public.

Airline safety is such an emotive subject, I can understand why some countries are careful about disclosure, particularly if those carriers responsible have since taken responsibility for their safety issues.

On the other hand, every person involved in flying at any level (students like me included) are drilled so meticulously that safety is everything that one shouldn't really allow excuses.

The tricky question is, what to do?

ATC Watcher

8th Jan 2004, 04:28

Some info gathered today :
Flash airlines had also its oprating licence revoqued in Poland in 2002, but, following some maintenance, it was reinstalled in 2003.
The ill-fated aircraft has had 7 different registrations since delivered by Boeing in 1993.

On the recovery of the CVR/FDR : the FDR was positively identified today at a depth of 800m ( plus or minus 50 meters ) and the CVR , laying 1500 meters away at a depth estimated around 600m . France has commissionned the private Marseilles based firm COMEX to retreive them using one of their deep sea robots. It should arrive on site in 6 to 7 days.

France has also diverted their deep sea oceonographic ship " Beautemps-Beaupre" currently in the Atlantic , it is due to arrive on site on 14 or 15 january.
The recorders are not expected to be raised before 10 days or so from now.

tarik123

8th Jan 2004, 13:38

I would like to know if the operating crew were flying all night and how long was their duty before the accident ????

Argentomagus

8th Jan 2004, 14:12

Dream_

he "rumor" you heard perhaps refers to the fact that since Egypt did not sign the Montreal convention, the liability paiments for the victims family will be governed by the Warsaw convention. The amounts could therefore be much less than what would be paid otherwise. About 1/10 .

Regards

wes_wall

8th Jan 2004, 23:09

Evidently, according to an Italian newspaper report, the crew had flown (Egypt)HESH/TURIN/HESH/VCE/HESH before the leg to CAI.

Can anyone confirm is this is a standard duty day.

latetonite

9th Jan 2004, 00:30

Do not believe all what newspapers say.

Dutytimes in Egypt are strict regulated and a max dutytime for a `heavy `crew, for a day departure would be around 16 hours; single crew 13hrs. Add multiple landings and night operations and you are further restricted. I do not know if Flash was operating single, heavy or double crew on this flight.
Although every operator may impose his own, more restrictive rules, I recall JAR ops being more flexible in this.

I read the posts where people insinuate `rogue` operators, cowboys, doubt about legal insurance covers...etc.

And nobody knows the reason of the crash yet..

This only proves matters about knowledge of writers of those posts. Nothing about Flash Airlines...

And for the records, I have no connection with Flash Airlines, but I am tempted to react because I think they do not deserve this way of contemplating.

Grandpa

9th Jan 2004, 04:29

Latetonite, are you so sure this airline had rules and they were never broken?

We read pages and pages on Pprune about some Western Europe low cost airline endangering its operations with crazy rostering imposed on their pilots.

Can't you imagine such a situation is impossible to occur in a charter Egyptian airline, in which regularity of maintenance is allready questionned?

sycamore

9th Jan 2004, 04:42

Just idly taking times vs. distances ( great circle @ a G/S OF 550KTS) ,and assuming one crew only , then they would have done a 15 hr.+ duty , arriving at Cairo, having started about lunchtime the previous day.
If there had been a second crew , I can`t see any benefit, on any earlier legs, unless they were deadheading only to Cairo.:confused:

latetonite

9th Jan 2004, 04:55

Of course I am not sure they never broke the rules. And I would be surprised if they never did. How about yourself? But Us Being Not Sure if they ever broke rules, does not make Them crooks or cowboys.
We have no facts. We should not judge. Did you notice all the bravo`s for the crew of the Fokker 70 in Europe? And without having the facts? Maybe they were just lucky, we do not know.
The `bad `guys in SSH must have been unlucky I guess..

Lemurian

9th Jan 2004, 05:16

Simple maths,if you don't mind:
We are told that the aircraft fell from 4.800 ft to the sea in just 17 seconds;Thats a mean vertical speed of 17,000 ft/min.Assuming,it was accelerating from zero as it was in a more or less level flight path,the terminal velocity could be well in the vicinity of 34,000 ft/min.That translates into 336 kts or 386 mph or again 620 km/h.Assuming also,being below 10,000 ft their IAS was around 250 kts at the time that descent started,we -or rather I- could say,that aircraft went almost straight down....
That's a major "loss of control" if I ever heard of one...but it looks like the suspected rudder-hard-over accidents which happened on the 737 and which should have been corrected since.Has Flash Airlines done the modification?
Anyone knows?

Wino

9th Jan 2004, 05:23

Lemurian,

Even if the aircraft was unmodified or had a hard over, the aircraft should have been flying faster than crossover speed in the takeoff regime so the ailerons would have been easily able to overpower a fully hardover rudder.

Cheers
Wino

Flight Safety

9th Jan 2004, 05:24

Lemurian, I was waiting for someone to do the simple math that indicates the violence of this accident. I think a deliberate dive towards the ocean would also look something like this as well.

wes_wall

9th Jan 2004, 05:47

A controlled dive into the sea - in Egypt, not at all likely. Recall, even 990 was caused by "mechanical" (actuator) problems which caused a downward movement in the elevators, or, weather must have been involved, or the ATC Controller leaving her post for a few seconds when the event began must have contributed to the incident - failed to record the almost mid air - should I go on? One thing is most likely, when and if the CVR is recovered, it will be rushed to CAI, and the contents never published, or at least, the truth. Probably the same with the FDR unless some blame is directed toward Boeing. And there in lies the real tradegy, for all of us.

Dagger Dirk

9th Jan 2004, 05:51

Everyone seems rather pre-occupied with 737 rudders going hard over - but that's a non-player really (as pointed out by Wino).

However it's starting to add up more firmly to a loss of flight instruments followed by a major loss of control (just a roll through the wings vertical at their weight would suffice). I saw an unconfirmed report that a lady passenger had made a cell-phone call after take-off and indicated that the captain had mentioned a problem.
That would allow perhaps for a captain's announcement (before they took switching action and lost it - perhaps to the effect that they'd be "turning off the cabin bus shortly due to an electrical/fumes problem"). Boeing has had two unresolved cases now of PFD's dying across the cockpit (both 747's admittedly). I think I saw that this 733 had a retro-fitted glass cockpit.

There wasn't enough time to totally lose it through dense smoke. But if they lost it (their flt insts) due to the crew over-enthusiastically securing (monitoring off) electrical busses, then the CVR and DFDR will probably be minus a lot of vital info.....per SR-111.

atakacs

10th Jan 2004, 18:30

Just wondering...

How long are the pingers supposed to last ?

What type of "black box" ? Tape based or solid state ? Wonder how long they will last at -800m

BigHitDH

10th Jan 2004, 19:32

How long are the pingers supposed to last ?

Up to 30 days, but obviously that depends on how serviceable they are, and the condition/age of the batteries.

320DRIVER

10th Jan 2004, 20:11

Discounting any hypothesis, including rudder hardover (and I'm sure Boeing et co. would like to sweep that issue under the carpet) is premature at this point.

While some are disputing that the event happened at a speed where aileron authority should have been sufficient to keep the aircraft flying, keep in mind that when crew are trained in the simulator for this scenario, they are briefed and prepared for the event.

Can the FAA guy who lets the B737 fly in this condition put a hand to his heart and say that he is confident that with the speed adjustments and training... that he is confident that each and every crew will react appropriately in all conditions e.g. at the end of a 16hr day, in darkness.. etc. when faced with the violent hardover...

And a question to the instructors, to which I am not expecting an answer online, did every pilot you train for this event get it right, first time... how accurate is the simulator model for this event?

And no one is mentioning a possibility of a centre tank deflagration which is not unknown on the B737 (Philipines, Malaysia... etc.) Since the aircraft was stopping at CAI on its way to CDG it is possible that the CTR tank was empty.

The Concorde was grounded for much less.

BigHitDH

10th Jan 2004, 20:58

The Concorde was grounded for much less.

The powers that be would never ground the 737 fleet. They would give weeks or even months for the airlines to fix the problem, just like the UAL747 cargo door problem.

Cornish Jack

10th Jan 2004, 21:20

I haven't the slightest idea what caused this particular tragedy but the dismissal of a rudder hardover because 'the aircraft was above cross-over speed' is an irrelevance.
320driver's point is well made. EVEN in a well briefed sim session with the expectation of the problem, the originator of the training programme admitted that it was a VERY difficult situation to deal with. When you view the Boeing test pilot's instrument read outs together with the visualisation, it is pretty obvious that this is a bad area to be in. It is in no way a 'natural' situation to react to and IF the initial reaction is wrong (very likely - IMHO), the height loss is spectacular and the results likely to be severe. Throw in a dark night and the associated potential for disorientation and......
PLEASE re-read my opening remarks!!

Lemurian

11th Jan 2004, 06:30

Hi all
I did not want to start a BvsA war,I just wanted to add a few thoughts to the thread.
Like most of you airline pilots,I've seen the Boeing film and was very impressed by the finality of the results of a slow/incorrect reaction to the hardover.Thanks for 320driver and CornishJack for their comments.
To dismiss this scenario offhand (Wino style) is in my opinion lacking in knowledge or experience of human factors :After all,if we,as a population always react in a correct and timely manner to a mechanical failure,the accident statistics would look a lot better...but we are just a group of humans,trying to do the best we could in what is still a foreign environment.
To understand my point,just take a look at "Air disasters"'site and type "737 rudder",you will find three instances that look eerily like the SSH accident.
By the way,has anybody an idea of the training level in those charter airlines,their recruitment policies...etc?

B737NG

11th Jan 2004, 08:46

It is obious that trainig cost money. Those small operators see
training as a threat and not a opportunity. Money in such small
outfits is allways short. I was in Egypt myself with a startup
operation there. I remember the mentality very well and I was
long in touch with the founder of the operation there until he
died. He is missing in the mediteranean See with his King Air.
He used to fly from Europe to Egypt. He often tried it to make
it direct to HECA to save the fees for an fuel stop. On the other
hand he spend a lot of money for leisure and having fun. I was
often invited and present in HESH when we celebrated one of
the successful ventures.
I got several times jobs offerd like those. Just because I knew
somebody there I had the job. Nobody made a screening and
booked a sim to see a ride. I submitted my last P/C and got
asked when can you start. We are bussy and need You. On the
other side I had to put pressure on the accountant to get my
wages released. Your salary is on the way, we transfer it next
day, the money came back. I waited up to 2 months to get my
compensation for the work we did there. Then I demanded
cash or I dont fly the next trip and leave. I got paid all in once
and 2 months later the same excuses, the same methods and
so on. When I meet old buddies who are still on south-east
European or north African "contracts" then I hear still the same
as I expirienced 8 years ago........
I cannot say anything about the practices in FLASH specific but I
because I do not know any of the CEO there but I am suspicious.
The setup spounds familiar where I was years ago.

NG

12th Jan 2004, 01:29

What is the "cross-over" speed? 150, 200, 250knots? Can someone in the know please advise.

Rgds

A4

PPRuNe Radar

12th Jan 2004, 03:53

Unlikely to be connected to this incident but recommended reading for 737 drivers everywhere

737 Flap Spindle Failure & Recovery (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=114844)

Cornish Jack

12th Jan 2004, 04:39

A4
It's variable, but in the 200 kts region for the 737 which Boeing test pilots demonstrated; the problem is that the speed is only one part of the equation. The major concern was the pilot's reaction to the condition once it was diagnosed. This is not something which one can absorb from an on-line discussion. It needs proper exposure to the correct training environment and even then is not a simple procedure.
It is also worth bearing in mind that this is not solely a 737 problem. There has been at least one similar pcu 'anomaly' on the 47-400 - (different axis) and a fairly recent rudder difficulty with a 47 in cruise which required differential engine power to regain control.
The original training videos also included information about an inboard flap split on the 757 which was considered to be rather eye-watering.

B737NG

12th Jan 2004, 07:09

You can call it also the Flaps maneuvering speed. I remember that
we was orderd to increase the "old" used speed schedule by
10kts to ensure adequate margin.

Flaps Up 210kts + 10kts = 220 minimum clean speed
Flaps 1 190kts + 10kts = 200 F1 maneuvering spd
Flaps 5 170kts + 10kts = 180 F5 maneuvering spd
and so on.

That was on the B737-200. In the -400 we had a newer model
what was equipet with the digital PCU. The NG is not affeted.

NG

Wino

12th Jan 2004, 16:32

Crossover speed is more correctly an angle of attack and not really a speed. If you pile on the G the angle of attack increases and so does the effectiveness of the rudder with a corresponding decrease in Aileron power.

The Boeing film you are referring to that includes unloading the aicraft to recover it while you speed up to get above crossover speed would be in the case that you got caught on the wrong side of crossover speed. That would have allowed them to fly out of Pittburg or Colorado springs. I agree that would be a tough maneuver to pull off. HOWEVER, in the aftermath of those two events all ref and min maneuver speeds were increased so as not to get caught at such a high angle of attack now. Hasn't everyone noticed that 737s seam to land much flatter than they used to?

HOWEVER, in the departure regime with an accelerating aicraft it is extremely unlikely you would get caught on the wrong side of crossover speed, therefor a hardover should be no more exciting than an engine failure. Are you telling me that there are a lot of pilots that are unqualified to do that maneuver at the end of a 16 hour day? Then they shouldn't be flying

Cheers
Wino

12th Jan 2004, 16:37

Thanks for the reply CornishJack. So if cross over speed is in the region of 200 knots it is not beyond the bounds of reason that the aircraft may have been flying at that speed. If the departure requires the aircraft to fly south and then turn back overhead the airfield (VOR) to avoid terrain, it's possible that the speed was held back to (a) Prevent it from going too far south - wrong direction and (b) Increase rate of climb / minimise radius of turn.

So speed low(ish), in a turn, at night, over water/no horizon and a very rapid descent to impact............ hard over? loss of control?
This is just theorising on my part and recovery of the FDR will hopefully reveal all the relevant parameters.

My condolences to all involved and I hope for a timely investigation so we may all learn and be that more aware in the future.

A4

Wino, you posted as I was typing. So how does my speed back / steep climb / AOA fit with crossover problems. I'm a Bus driver so I defer to your evidently greater knowledge of the x-over problem.

Rgds

A4 :)

Wino

12th Jan 2004, 16:57

Actually, these days I'm a busboy as well <G>...

Depends on a lot of things, Aircraft config and weight mostly, but you throw in a 30 degree bank and you can raise the crossover speed quite a bit. Ref speeds are usually built around a speed of 1.3 times Vs or something like that which corresponds to protection for a 30 degree bank turn. Honk it up to 60 degrees and a level turn is 2Gs and you aint gonna like the results...

AGAIN, though, Boeing traded short field performance (not really an issue these days, when was the last time anyone operated out of a 4500 foot strip with a jet?) by bumping up all the ref speeds.

That doesn't mean the crew couldn't have been caught slow and got a hardover. But.... then the question would be what the hell were you doing below min maneuver for your cofiguration? That would be like getting caught below Vmc. (121 ish in the A320 as I recall, at light weights you would calculate V speeds lower than that, and you went with Min V1 of 121 to protect you from a Vmc Roll should you chuck an engine at rotation. The airplane will certainly fly slower than that, However if you do it, chuck an engine and kill 150 people and I'll pee on your grave...)

Cheers
Wino

John Farley

13th Jan 2004, 02:43

This is not in any way a comment on the accident that started this thread but is a few pennyworth about the topic of loosing control when something unexpected happens to your aeroplane.

Because the events are so rare the vast majority of pilots will never experience any loss of control situation where the aeroplane suddenly does something violent and unexpected however long they fly. So it is pretty unrealistic to do more than hope that people faced with the shock of a sudden undemanded manoeuvre will suddenly break the habits of a lifetime and start using full controls at all - let alone quickly and in a very specific way.

If it also happens at night or in cloud …..well I ask you

For most large aircraft aviators who day in day out fly gently and smoothly what real chance is there of the necessary solution being applied coarsely and abruptly before it becomes too late anyway, outside of set piece engine failure stuff, or when low on a gusty approach or perhaps what Cornish Jack was talking about? But when climbing up well clear of the surface on yet another normal trip? Perhaps not even hand flying??

Every pilot knows the crucial importance of training and currency. By definition the unexpected finds you very short of both.

Antman

13th Jan 2004, 15:51

Here's some speculation.Lets say the aircraft was up too date with all AD's etc.They take off into the dead of night with no visable horizon.The rudder shunts over(can happen even with the mod) but not hard over as the AD prevents this.

Regardless of speed or config the aircraft is going to roll quite violently but very controlable if you have good horizon and are on top of your game.You can hardly be on top of your game at 3ish am,in fact this is the time of lowest performance.

Not too difficult to get yourself out of sort out,add too that you don't have altitude on your side,even the best would be pushed to recover and get climbing away.

We have to remember this happen in pitch darkness at low altitude and at the low point of human function,it could even have been as simple as vertigo or disoreintation(spelling!!)

FEBA

13th Jan 2004, 15:55

Does anybody know the nationality of the flight deck crew?
FEBA

Grandpa

14th Jan 2004, 00:34

I heard they were Egyptians, with the captain ex-colonel from EAF, young F/O, and very young commercial crew too.
May they rest in peace!

320DRIVER

15th Jan 2004, 00:12

Any news re: the recovery of the FDR or CVR?

RASTAMIKE

15th Jan 2004, 00:35

not yet, the robot "scorpio" is still searching, but after 10 attempts, no luck

LatviaCalling

17th Jan 2004, 04:01

From BBC:

Red Sea crash recorder found

France lent special submarine equipment for the search

One of the black box flight recorders from the plane which crashed into the Red Sea has been recovered.
The French navy was using a robot to bring the data recorder to the surface.

Previous attempts to find the recorders had proved fruitless, with experts saying they could be lying 800 metres (2,600 feet) under the surface.

The recorder will be examined for clues to the crash of the Flash Airlines flight from Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt which killed all 148 people on board.

The plane came down shortly after take-off from the Red Sea resort on 3 January.

Egyptian officials almost immediately ruled out terrorism as a possible cause of the crash.

They said they believed a technical problem or other accident was responsible.

It later emerged that the Flash Airlines plane had failed Swiss safety tests in 2002 but passed French checks the following year.

Among those killed were 134 French tourists, one Moroccan and 13 Egyptian crew members.

The French Government and French firms have been helping to retrieve debris from the crash.

ATC Watcher

17th Jan 2004, 04:11

Not quite yet .
my info is that they have located one of the recorders by 1030m, almost at the limit of the operating Vne of the min-sub but they have difficulties extracting it. They hope to get it by tomorrow.(Saturday)

Longtimer

17th Jan 2004, 10:39

Robot finds airliner's black box

Reuters in Sharm el-Sheikh
Saturday January 17, 2004
The Guardian

The French navy yesterday used a submarine robot to recover a flight recorder from the Egyptian Boeing 737 that crashed in the Red Sea on January 3 killing 148 people.
A navy team had been searching 24 hours a day since Tuesday. The box was found at a depth of more than 1,000 metres (3,000 ft).

Two flight recorders on the Flash Airlines plane could help determine why it plunged into deep sea near the diving resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, killing all on board, who were mostly French tourists and Egyptian crew. Egypt has said the crash was a technical fault and not an explosion.

The first box was emitting a strong signal, but the signal from the second box is weak and it has yet to be located.

France says there is no reason to suspect an attack and it gives little credence to a previously unknown Islamic group's claim to have brought down the plane.

Egypt has defended the safety record of Flash Airlines, but Switzerland said it had banned the Egyptian company from its airspace on safety grounds, although the airline denies the ban was safety related.

WEBLUEIT

17th Jan 2004, 16:48

Ever puched the wrong rudder-pedal when encoutering an engine failure on the sim? Do it one time and you will see that the plane behaves exactly as the Flash apparantly did.
Just my opinion though...

RASTAMIKE

17th Jan 2004, 17:51

First Orange box found and handed-over to Egyptian CAA, the second should be pulled out of water very soon, also to be given to the Egyptian CAA and we will never know what really happen, hopefully the French will make pressure that the evidence will be made public...

Lemurian

17th Jan 2004, 18:03

Hello all
The first recovered box was the FDR,from a depth of 1030 m.
The CVR seems to be at a depth of around 400 m and the salvage team seem to be quite confident in bringing it to the surface very soon.
With the usual caution....The recorders are supposed to be decoded in France.Apparently,the Egyptians have agrred with the French.

norodnik

17th Jan 2004, 18:20

Given the Egyptian's and the French's less than stellar reputation for finding the truth, is there any other note worthy body that will have full access to all the information.

If they do, will they be allowed to publish said information.

In some respects, I do not really care if it proves to be an mechanical failure or a terrorist act as you wouldn't get me on a charter Egyptian airline for all the tea in China (or the state airline either)

Lemurian

17th Jan 2004, 22:29

Latest news :The FDR has been handed over to the "laboratories of the Egyptian Ministry of Aviation".
Phew!We narrowly escaped a major anti-French discussion on this thread.

Latest, really latest:
The FDR has been handed over to:
1/Egyptian experts,assisted by:
2/BEA investigators AND
3/NTSB specialists.
WOW!

lomapaseo

17th Jan 2004, 22:59

is there any other note worthy body that will have full access to all the information.

If they do, will they be allowed to publish said information.

Yes

Yes they may publish their comments after the parties have fully discussed and reviewed the results.

Controversy, if there, may take months to surface.

Meanwhile expect all sorts of Ministerial leaks. which really should be ignored as political fodder.

wes_wall

18th Jan 2004, 04:59

I wonder if we will ever know the true contents of either one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3406197.stm

doubleu-anker

18th Jan 2004, 05:09

If the Egyptians get their mitts on the the recorders we will never know the true contents. Ba assured.

CaptainSandL

18th Jan 2004, 17:36

CVR now also recovered this morning. Both boxes handed over to the Egyptians.

Nearly Man

18th Jan 2004, 23:56

Hmm, so, never trust Egyptian investigators, as opposed to Boeing and NTSB who always tell it like it is!!!!!

RASTAMIKE

19th Jan 2004, 01:32

yeap, fly Airbus and trust EADS....the busses are now bestsellers and Boeing is struggling with corruption scandals..

ATC Watcher

19th Jan 2004, 02:27

And with a Euro at nearly 1,30 USD and firm prices quoted in USD a few years ago when the rate was 35 % better, nobody is smiling in EADS today either I guess....

And any crash is bad for business, whether it is an Airbus or a Boeing makes no difference to the travelling public...and less travellers, less orders....

RASTAMIKE

20th Jan 2004, 22:09

the Franco-Egyptian investigation team released a first indication to the press on the cause of the crash: it was not an unlawfull interference/act of sabotage but a mechanical failure and/or pilot error

latetonite

20th Jan 2004, 22:40

Yes, we heard that one one hour after the crash..

Cahlibahn

20th Jan 2004, 23:08

CAIRO (Reuters) - Flight recorders recovered from an Egyptian airliner which crashed into the Red Sea this month showed that the plane was not attacked, the head of the investigation says.

But the cockpit voice recorder, which contains 30 minutes of conversation, was noisy and it was not clear from the initial analysis what went wrong with the Boeing 737, which was carrying 148 people including 133 French tourists. All were killed.

"The first thing we looked at was there any possibility of any explosion and we have a total negative possibility and that's why we can say, we can definitely confirm, there is no terrorist act," investigator Shaker Qilada told Reuters on Tuesday.

"What I can tell you is that we don't have an indication from the voice recorder of any defect yet," he added.

Qilada told a news conference that the crash was definitely the result of "a technical fault", a term which he said could include mechanical problems and pilot error.

"So this is what I call a classic accident. It is not an accident out of the normal. We will investigate the machine and the human being," he added.

320DRIVER

22nd Jan 2004, 05:50

Any news about the FDR readout?

John Farley

22nd Jan 2004, 19:11

Pilot error is being blamed for the crash of a Flash Airlines 737 in Egypt Jan. 3. Officials originally blamed a technical problem with the plane but changed their opinion after reviewing the flight data recorder. All 148 people aboard died when the plane crashed into the Red Sea shortly after takeoff from a resort...

AvFlash 10.04b issed 22 Jan 04

SeniorDispatcher

22nd Jan 2004, 19:52

Methinks the above conclusion was media-induced, as evidenced at the link below...

http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_1472574,00.html

It's easy to see how folks could get the idea that they've already ruled it "pilot error" when one compares the article's headline:

"Pilot to blame for crash "

...versus the text in the article's 5th paragraph:

"But Qilada said on Tuesday that investigators had narrowed down the cause to **either technical failure or human error**, saying there was no indication of terrorism. " [**My emphasis**]

What -really- happened will be known soon enough from ofrficial sources, and not the twits in the media...

Bubbette

23rd Jan 2004, 00:37

Official source? Official sources say that Egyptair flight was not a suicide. .

SeniorDispatcher

23rd Jan 2004, 01:44

>>>Official source? Official sources say that Egyptair flight was not a suicide.

Not to quibble, but this thread is discussing the Flash Airlines 737 crash a couple of weeks ago, and has zero to do with the Egyptair 767.

Grandpa

23rd Jan 2004, 03:18

...for the conclusion of the investigation commission: now they have the datas, it's just a matter of time to analyse it, and then all people concerned will check their report.
The only relevant infos at the moment could be about Egyptian Administration efficiency, their records in passed investigations, their independance from the airline lobbies and from state.....

Bubbette

23rd Jan 2004, 03:40

>>>Official source? Official sources say that Egyptair flight was not a suicide. Not to quibble, but this thread is discussing the Flash Airlines 737 crash a couple of weeks ago, and has zero to do with the Egyptair 767.

UH, my point is official sources may not always be accurate. . . .

SeniorDispatcher

23rd Jan 2004, 04:31

>>>UH, my point is official sources may not always be accurate. . . .

Sorry, missed it completely...

Pardon...

atakacs

26th Jan 2004, 17:52

any news about the FDR readout ?

latetonite

28th Jan 2004, 01:04

Very quit on the news. There is now probably an ongoing meeting between the french, egyptians and Boeing to find a plausible explanation wich suits them all...

Flight Safety

28th Jan 2004, 07:23

The FDR has been recovered for 11 days now, and the CVR for 9 days. Why has there been no release or press discussion of the contents? In the US, this would be unheard of for a major accident. :sad:

atakacs

28th Jan 2004, 07:26

Agreed...

Actualy I don't think that there was any official confirmation that the FDR was actually "readable".

I'm really surprised that the french media don't make any noire about this...

UNCTUOUS

28th Jan 2004, 12:34

The DFDR will be readable) but may only be in a stream of zero's and ones).

That was the problem attributed to Abidjan's A310 accident DFDR. It was pointed out that the flight-crew checklist covered the green/orange fault lights on the DFDR but the DFDAU (which feeds the data to the DFDR) doesn't get a mention. So if its ready/not ready light eventually burns out, then no matter, because it's not a downing discrepancy and it wouldn't matter if the DFDAU orange light was on - because the pilots had no checklist/MEL responsibilities in respect of that. Quite incongruously the DFDR's go/nogo BITE status is independent of the serviceability of the data-feeding DFDAU.

That 30 Jan 00 Abidjan accident DFDR's integrity was last checked in early 1997 (according to the KA report) and so they (the BEA) couldn't rule out that the DFDAU had been unserviceable since then. I seem to recall that the Habsheim A320's DFDR was subject to a similar post-accident controversy.

A DFDR readout is a "nice to have" piece of kit - and from the manufacturer and operator's point of view, even nicer when it fails to record.

Captain104

28th Jan 2004, 19:44

Some media are reporting since 2 hours that just prior to the crash of FLASH some passengers send SMS messages to their families in France indicating"something is going wrong"???
Did I miss anything or could some french user enlighten me?

Regards

Found this in LA PROVENCE in french. Click onto the picture(must have acrobat reader)
http://www.laprovence-presse.fr/

mini

28th Jan 2004, 19:59

Wandering ever so slightly off thread... this is from the Irish Times.

New directive to ensure safety of non-EU aircraft
By Piaras Murphy Last updated: 28-01-04, 11:49

A new directive aimed at ensuring high standards of safety on non-EU aircraft using Community airports was signed last night by the European Parliament and European Council.

The directive provides for a harmonised approach for checking that non-EU aircraft using Community airports comply fully with internationally agreed safety standards. Any aircraft can be checked on a random basis.

One of the key provisions requires that information obtained from checks be shared with the European Commission, Member States and the European Aviation Safety Agency. Any measures taken by one member state, such as flying restrictions or the imposition of conditions of operation, may be extended across the European Union.

The Minister for Transport, Mr Brennan, who holds the presidency of the Office of the Council of EU Transport Ministers, announcing the agreement late last night said: "I would like to underline that the effectiveness of any Directive depends to a very large extent on its full legal implementation by the Member States.

"This Directive must be implemented within two years after formal approval by the Council and by the European Parliament. I cannot overstate the importance of this Directive and I would urge the Member States to take all necessary measures to ensure its full implementation within this deadline or even sooner.

An annual report analysing the information received and indicating where there is an increased safety risk to air travellers will be published by the European Commission and will be available to the public.

The negotiations between Council and European Parliament were conducted against the backdrop of the aviation accident early this month at Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt involving Flash Air.

lomapaseo

28th Jan 2004, 20:26

Unctuous

Unctuous

A DFDR readout is a "nice to have" piece of kit - and from the manufacturer and operator's point of view, even nicer when it fails to record.

So is it possible that in this case it recorded only the crew errors?

It's always nice to wait for facts before denigrating.

atakacs

29th Jan 2004, 02:55

According to French TF1 TV initial DFDR readout shows "significant discrepancies" with actual (I guess radar based) flight path.

FWIW

John Farley

29th Jan 2004, 03:35

lomapaseo

Sorry I don’t get your point. What did Unctious say that made you feel he was having a go at the crew?

Surely his point was that if there is no DFDR available it is easier for a manufacturer or operator to get off the hook. And I for one would not disagree with that.

ATC Watcher

1st Feb 2004, 01:39

This morning in two Fench newspapers ( Le Monde and Le Parisien ) have (long) articles on the latest on the investigation . They mention as probable cause the known" rudder " problem as the FDR show abrupt opposite turns apparently. Le Parisien also speculates that the 737 did not have the mod yet.( but produces no evidence of what they say, just speculating with dates.)

But this evening the BEA head denied that they reached a conclusion yet and declared that rudder problems were excluded for the moment.

go_edw

1st Feb 2004, 03:46

An extract from a letter in last weeks flight international;

" on board the aircraft that crashed into the Red Sea were the crew who had just flown the previous leg from Venice to Sharm el Sheikh. After Arriving in Paris, they were supposed to then fly the aircraft back to Egypt. So this airline requires its flightcrews to spend their off-duty rest periods as passengers.

How many rotations do its crews fly like this, alternately on duty as "flying crew" and then "off duty" in the back as "non-flying crew"? At least four, evidently.

The director of Angers airport, Gilles Darriau, is quoted as saying that he flew on flash airlines in July 2003 between Egypt and France. Sitting next to him was the captain for the return flight between Paris and Hurghada. He would be commanding the return flight, well rested after spending the night as a passenger with all the other passengers in economy class.

How many flights do Flash Airlines' crews make before they eventually get a decent night's sleep on terra firma? And how deeply fatigued will they be that time?"

GEENY

1st Feb 2004, 16:49

go-edw,
The answer:The same is legal in Italy and is the usual practice.Surprised?

UNCTUOUS

2nd Feb 2004, 23:38

<<<But this evening the BEA head denied that they reached a conclusion yet and declared that rudder problems were excluded for the moment.>>>

Sounds more like the classic dark night over the ocean, smoke and monitoring off busses, losing interior visibility or flight instruments across the board (Dagger Dirk's suggestion on page 10 of this thread).

Bury the nose into an unusual attitude whilst clean at night and over the sea - and "that's all she wrote" (whether you've lost your ADI or you just cannot interpret the rapidly changing "unusual" attitude). Recoveries from extreme attitudes tend to be conclusive (as you shed wings, tails, underslung pods or control surfaces anyway). It's certainly not conducive to radio calls, once into the evolution itself. It might tend to explain the "Le Figaro" claim that many pax had SMS'd news of a problem on board (F/A's rushing around checking for smoke, lights going off as the cabin bus is secured etc).....during that climb to 5000ft.

If it is partial or complete loss of electrics, that tends to complicate the investigator's conclusions somewhat - as data tends to be cut off anyway.

Flight Safety

4th Feb 2004, 03:21

Some interesting news links regarding this accident.

Jan 31st (http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=58&story_id=4235)

Text from the Jan 31st article...

Plane rudder 'not cause' of Egypt crash

PARIS, Jan 31 (AFP) - The rudder on an Egyptian charter plane was not the cause of its fatal crash earlier this month, a top French aviation official said Saturday.

The comment by Paul-Louis Arslanian, head of the French office of civil aviation investigations and analysis (BEA), followed news that the Flash Airlines flight which careened on January 3 into the Red Sea, killing all 148 aboard, had at one point made an unexpected turn off its original flight path.

Jan 21st (http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/content.asp?y=2004&dt=0122&pub=Utusan_Express&sec=World&pg=wo_10.htm)

Jan 20th (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L2076529.htm)

Pax Vobiscum

4th Feb 2004, 19:34

Very good (to my interested layman's ear) programme on Radio 4 yesterday evening. It discussed the Flash airlines crash, where the airline had previously been banned in Switzerland, the Yak-42 crash that killed 62 Spanish soldiers on a plane that had been banned from similar charters by several Scandinavian countries, and the KAL 747 crash at Stansted - all done in a serious, non-hysterical way. There was also an interview with the Aviation Minister (Tony McNulty).

The web site is here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/fileon4/index.shtml) and you can hear the programme again at 5pm on Sunday (8th Feb) or on the web here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/ram/fileon4.ram) (at least for the next week).

Rockhound

5th Feb 2004, 04:11

Pax V,
Thanks for posting the link to that Radio 4 programme on air safety, which I (another interested layman) also found very interesting and informative. Parenthetically, I must say that Mr McNulty is a bit of a slippery character; little wonder he ended up a politician.
However, IMHO the Korean Air freighter accident at Stansted in 1999 was not presented entirely fairly. Certainly the branding of KAL pilots as incompetent by a layman totally unqualified to comment should not have been broadcast. The crew of that KAL 747F was woefully short on CRM but the accident occurred (as most do) because of a series of circumstances coming together, involving not just pilot error, lack of CRM, and bad weather but also a glitch in instrument maintenance and repair on the ground at Stansted. All of this is documented in the AAIB Accident Report 3/2003, which, it looks to me, was not consulted by the producers of the radio programme. On the freighter's previous leg, a different KAL crew had encountered the same faulty instrument but resolved the problem routinely (but in daylight, in good weather).
As well, by the time of the Stansted accident, Korean Air was already two years into a massive overhaul of operational safety procedures (initiated after the Guam accident in 1997). As a matter of fact, KAL had begun CRM training based on an American model back in 1986. Obviously, the benefits of such training, as the AAIB report pointed out, sometimes take too long to take effect.
Rockhound

atakacs

12th Feb 2004, 06:07

Anything happening ?

Just wondering: was there any further debris recovery (engines... ?)

Man Flex

12th Feb 2004, 20:26

Interesting article in 'Flight' this week regarding this incident.

It suggests from the onboard recording devices and the ground radar trace that the aircraft started to depart from its planned track at about 2000'. The aircraft then reached an extreme angle of bank at about 5000' before diving into the sea. There was no panic on the flight deck but the crew were clearly puzzled.

There has already been suggestions on this thread that some sort of electrical problem occurred leading to a loss of orientation and control. I would suggest from this latest report that this seems to be the most likely cause of this disaster.

RASTAMIKE

3rd Mar 2004, 16:25

Just heard quickly on the french radio (RFI): it seems that the crew had the impression that the AP was engaged but it was not (technical disfunction?). Spatial disorientation followed and could not recover from a dive...

this info leaked from the French investigation office, not confirmed by the Egyptian authorities!

Ref (in french):

http://www.rfi.fr/actuchaude/DET_titres.asp?m1=1&m2=2&m3=3

mullers

3rd Mar 2004, 18:33

Technical and human factors in Flash Airlines crash: reports
Kieran Daly, London (03Mar04, 09:41 GMT, 130 words)

French media reports say investigators have determined that the fatal loss of the Flash Airlines Boeing 737-300 at Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt in January occurred when the crew failed to recognise that the autopilot had not engaged as commanded after take-off.

The detailed reports describe the aircraft gently banking left as it departed at night-time over the Red Sea while the crew calmly tried to understand what was happening – apparently realising only in the last few seconds the true situation.

The aircraft finally rolled perpendicular to the horizon before crashing into the sea. All 148 occupants, 135 of whom were French, died.

Both the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder were recovered and France’s investigation body, the BEA, is expected to release an interim report shortly – possibly as soon as today.

Source: Air Transport Intelligence news

Man Flex

4th Mar 2004, 19:27

This is almost unbelieveable - nobody noticed that the aircraft was increasing bank and nobody did anything to react to it!

But then again a L10-11 crashed into the Florida everglades some years back and three of them failed to notice that the aircraft was descending.

Too many heads down and not enough heads up me wonders.

Beanbag

4th Mar 2004, 20:59

Dark, over water ... not so unbelievable. If anything, too much heads up?

Moonraker One

4th Mar 2004, 21:34

Fatigue could have also played a part in this accident.

TheShadow

4th Mar 2004, 21:54

Perhaps someone smarter than I (and there must be literally scores of you out there) explain how the DFDR and CVR interpreters might have lamped upon it being an auto-pilot failure to engage rather than an across-the-board CRT failure or a singular ADI failure.

What would or could have been the confirmatory clue (or did they not consider a flawed attitude instrument as a possibility?). If the autopilot didn't engage, is a classic 737 going to go clack-clack?

In any configuration (in a non-upgraded classic 737) is the autopilot's vertical gyro going to be the same source of attitude info as used by one of the pilot's ADI's?

Don't know, just asking.

Capt.KAOS

4th Mar 2004, 23:23

According Le Figaro (http://www.lefigaro.fr/france/20040303.FIG0283.html) apparently the AP wasn't functioning and the a/c practically was going it's own way (En réalité, à cet instant-là, le pilote automatique ne s'est pas mis en service. Plus grave, l'équipage ne s'en est pas aperçu. Les gouvernes sont libres.) Captain and F/O knew there was something wrong but didn't know what, assuming it was on AP.

Seems the Capt had (only?) 500 and F/O 250 flight hours on a B737.

despegue

4th Mar 2004, 23:34

On B737,and on most other EFIS equipped airliners, a green CMD annunciation will shown if the A/P is engaged. But it is clear that basic airmanship requires a constant evaluation/follow-up of the automatic systems, especially on B737 which is known for it's weak A/P and F/D systems.

Flight Safety

4th Mar 2004, 23:52

These are google English translations of Frence reports on Yahoo.

Wednesday March 3, 2004, 9h18

Charm el-Sheik: the crew thought of having engaged the autopilot

PARIS (AFP) - the crew of the Boeing of the Airlines Flash, which was damaged at sea Rouge on January 3, making to 148 victims whose 134 French, believed, wrongly, to have engaged automatic piloting, affirms Wednesday the Barber.

"the crew believed to have brought into service the autopilot. In fact, this last never engaged. And the pilots probably never succeeded in identifying this failure ", writes the daily newspaper, while being based on the analysis of the block boxes.

Questioned by the AFP, the Office of investigations and analyses (BEA) for the safety of the civil aviation did not wish to make comment but indicated that it would publish an official statement in middle of morning.

An informed source underlined however that the survey, carried out by the Egyptian authorities, was not finished and that, at this stage, information was to be taken with precaution.

The crash of the Boeing, with broad of Charm el-Sheik (Egypt), is with "an error of human, consecutive with a technical anomaly", affirms the Barber.

"Delivered to itself, the Boeing 737 left gradually in turn, then has piqué towards the sea", notes the newspaper.

"Until the end, the two pilots thought of being able to control the situation. No exclamation of discouragement or even of astonishment resounded in the cockpit ", according to the daily newspaper, which specifies that "right before falling into the Red Sea (...) they try an ultimate operation of recovery but the plane is too low".

"Our role is of knowing why the crew arrived at such a situation", explains Paul-Louis Arslanian, director of the BEA for the safety of the civil aviation, quoted by the Barber. "the investigation continues and all the means are good", adds it.

link (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://fr.fc.yahoo.com/e/egypte.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3DFlash%2BAirlines%2B604%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3 DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG)

Then later, the BEA denies this, and says that BEA has yet to determine a cause.

Wednesday March 3, 2004, 9h52

Catastrophe of Charm el-Sheik: "no precise element" new, according to the BEA

PARIS (AFP) - the Office investigations and analyses for the safety of the civil aviation (BEA) estimated Wednesday that no element, at this stage, made it possible to draw the conclusions on the origin of the accident on January 3 of the Boeing of the Airlines Flash in Charm el-Sheik.

"No precise element to date makes it possible to explain what really occurred to Charm el-Sheik", according to information collected Wednesday at the BEA in Paris, following an article published the same day by the Barber on the origin of the catastrophe.

According to the daily newspaper, the crew of the Boeing of the Airlines Flash which was damaged at sea Rouge on January 3, making to 148 victims whose 134 French, wrongly believed to have engaged automatic piloting.

Questioned, the BEA, which should publish an official statement Wednesday in the course of the day, did not wish to make of another comment. It simply indicated that "as soon as there is information, they will be made public by the Egyptian authorities" which direct the investigation on the spot. According to BEA'S, "work continues" on the spot, and "of the meetings currently take place in Cairo between the teams Egyptian woman, Frenchwoman (BEA) and American (NTSB) which take part in the investigation".

An informed source had stated previously that the information of press was to be taken with precaution.

According to the Barber, the crash is due to "a human, consecutive error with a technical anomaly". "Delivered to itself, the Boeing 737 left gradually in turn, then has piqué towards the sea", specifies the newspaper adding that "until the end, the two pilots thought of being able to control the situation".

link (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://fr.fc.yahoo.com/e/egypte.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3DFlash%2BAirlines%2B604%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3 DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG)

Then later...

Wednesday March 3, 2004, 19h29

Catastrophe of Charm el-Sheik: denial of the BEA on the error of the crew

PARIS (AFP) - the Office of investigations and analyses for the safety of the civil aviation (BEA) contradicted Wednesday the assertion according to which the crew of the Boeing of the Egyptian company Flash Airlines would have believed itself in automatic piloting at the time of the accident from January 3 in Charm el-Sheik.

"the assertion which the crew would have believed in automatic piloting is stripped of any base", indicated the BEA in an official statement.

The elements of the investigation in progress "do not make it possible yet to include/understand and explain the sequence of the accident, the investigators get busy there but, in the current state, any extrapolation of the described facts would be only speculation", according to BEA'S.

According to the French daily newspaper the Barber of Wednesday, the crew of the Boeing of the Airlines Flash which was damaged at sea Rouge on January 3, making to 148 victims whose 134 French, wrongly believed to have engaged automatic piloting.

The BEA, which takes part in the investigation with the Egyptians, pointed out the first conclusions of work thus undertaken. It stressed that it was possible "d?éliminer any rupture in flight d?une part of structure of l?avion, any dysfunction of the engines or the rudder, any act of ill will or attack".

But, "nothing in l?examen files l?équipage, of preparation of the flight or d?entretien of l?avion n?a highlighted which explains l?accident", it added.

Work d?enquête continuous and of new meetings of work are in hand in Cairo, indicated the BEA, specifying that it "was not excluded that these meetings are prolonged by joint work with the flight simulator".

The two block boxes of the Egyptian chartered plane were recovered by the French robot Scorpio and were entrusted to the Egyptian board of inquiry, which works with experts of the BEA and an observer of Boeing.

link (http://http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://fr.fc.yahoo.com/e/egypte.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3DFlash%2BAirlines%2B604%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3 DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG)

Stay tuned folks. The BEA should have released an investigation update yesterday.

chrisN

5th Mar 2004, 00:48

Not to anticipate the investigation results, but hypothetically for any aircraft; could the (prohibited but it happens) use of mobile phones or other electronic devices by passengers cause an A/P to fail to engage when commanded, or cause the A/P to disengage?

Chris N.

Wizofoz

5th Mar 2004, 15:09

chrisN,

I don't know but it is probably more simple than that. The 737 autopilot will not engage if there is any pressure being applied to the control column at the time. If you try to engage it in a turn it takes a bit of practice to centralise the column, then engage the A/P.

Older 737-300s had very positive "Paddle" switches which had a magnetic lock when engaged. If they DIDN"T engage they very positivley sprang back to the off position, so you knew imediatley it hadn't gone in. Later ones have a button of the same type as the other MCP switches. To verify the A/P has engaged you MUST check the Mode Annuncitor Panel.

It wouldn't be hard for a (tired?) crew to push the button while some control input was in, believe the A/P was engaged, and miss the lack of the little green "CMD" on the ADI.

That being said, then allowing the aircraft to depart controlled flight and not be able to recover shows an over relience on automation and lack of basic skills, something whch I believe is becoming prevelant throughout the industry.

Cejkovice

5th Mar 2004, 17:20

The Egyptian Authorities are now saying the pilot knew there was something wrong from the time he engaged A/P, FO dissengaged it after 4 secs claiming a/c not handling correctly. From earlier reports though it seemed the pilots were unaware right until near the end??? Hopefully we're not in a situation like the Egypt Air crash where two sides disargee as that will not improve safety for future flights.

Source: Agence France Presse
The pilot of the Egyptian airliner which crashed in January engaged the autopilot while making a turn, shortly before its nosedive into the Red Sea, the chief investigator said yesterday. He told a press conference that, according to the flight data and voice cockpit recorders of the Flash Airlines Boeing 737, the auto-pilot worked for four seconds and then the pilot asked the co-pilot to switch it off.

"While the autopilot was on, we hear the pilot saying he spotted something wrong," said the investigator, without specifying whether the hitch was related to the autopilot. "Seconds later, the co-pilot says the plane is not responding as it should. We hear that the plane is going to the right, and it kept going to the right," he said.

He added that the investigators are now trying to determine what happened between the moment when the autopilot was engaged and the crash and he underlined that the on and off switching of the autopilot "is not abnormal and does not lead to a dangerous position."

Wizofoz

5th Mar 2004, 18:04

Interesting...

But if the A/P WAS engaged and the F/O DID disengage it, it would have been on the FDR trace, and the disconnect warning (about the loudest warning in the cockpit) would have been on the CVR tape.

Just speculation, but if the Captain THOUGHT he'd engaged the A/P, but it hadn't gone in, he might have interpretted the flight path as a mal-funtioning A/P.

Hope the investigation makes it all clear.

Kaptin M

5th Mar 2004, 18:31

Any crew who disengaged an autopilot because they suspected it was malfunctioning, is going to be all the more alert when they next engage it.

This is one of the (very) few times that Wizofoz and I appear to be in agreement...shows an over relience on automation and lack of basic skills, something whch I believe is becoming prevelant throughout the industry.Personally, I find it very hard to believe that any crew would sit and watch their aircraft enter into an uncommanded turn, let alone start descending during the post take-off phase of flight, regardless of experience on type.
The scenario offered by the authorities so far might seem feasible to those with little or no flying experience, or to pilots with limited night visual flight. It certainly does NOT ring true with pilots who fly jets as their profession!

BigHitDH

5th Mar 2004, 20:39

Does anyone know if this aircraft was equipped with a GPWS system?

What about about a gyro faliure, I seem to recall that happening on another 737 with the same result while both horizons were on the same gyro.

UNCTUOUS

5th Mar 2004, 22:02

an oldie but a goodie?
i.e. Where the pilot and copilot switch ADI sources and both end up on the (faulty) vertical gyro source that's also the one being used by the autopilot.
Not sure if it's possible on the classic 737 - but if it (the VG) had lost its volts and the gyro was slowing down (and therefore losing its rigidity) it sure would explain a lot.

Flight Safety

5th Mar 2004, 22:28

1. If you lost a gyro, wouldn't you immediately get a flag on the HSI?

2. If the autopilot will not allow you to engage it with pressure on the yoke, how could you engage it in a turn?

Belgique

5th Mar 2004, 22:37

I've flown airplanes where there's a Flt Manual warning that you can have a freeze failure of the ADI without an OFF flag. i.e. you can lose all but the phase (of the three phase 115VAC) that holds the OFF Flag in the AWAY not showing position (it being spring-loaded to the OFF display position).

I've also flown airplanes where the pilot and F/O can both have the same ADI source selected.

One Of Us

6th Mar 2004, 05:10

2. If the autopilot will not allow you to engage it with pressure on the yoke, how could you engage it in a turn?

Hi Flight Safety,
If you are in a coordinated turn and trim out the pressure on the yoke, yes then you don't have a pressure on the yoke. No problem then to egage the A/P. Is it smart though, maybe not..

GearDown&Locked

6th Mar 2004, 07:23

I'm curious about a couple of things...

If the F/O switched off the A/P 4 secs after being connected, and that must be well recorded on CVR, its probably because a serious malfunction got worse due to A/P interaction, i.e. the A/P probably amplified the problem that was already there; The causes for that? And another thing: did the problem started right after T/O , or as soon as the A/P was engaged?

Wizofoz

6th Mar 2004, 07:37

What about about a gyro faliure

EFIS B737s ADIs don't run off a gyro, they get there attitude from the IRS system.

meatball

8th Mar 2004, 03:45

Un-eventful take-off...climb-out...command bars go awry...both pilots join heads to resolve...no one flys...aircraft has two perfectly fucntioning powerplants...aircraft is being hand flown but not surveyed...pitch is downwards...altitude is everything but increasing...bang...aircraft meets water, terrain, what be it and Ummmph its over.
Back to CRM BASICS...you fly, I solve problems...not followed...complacency...two heads are better than one ? Nonsense.
The last two weeks we´ve had three heavy inspections in Germany and Austria by local authorities ( guess which ones )
Passed with " NIL " because we have our s... together. Bottom line ? Emphasize SOP´s...Complacency doesnt belong in airline ops. Period.:ouch:

CISTRS

10th Mar 2004, 20:07

Khaleej Times (Dubai) 10 March 2004 report:

They quote an Egyptian newspaper saying...

QUOTE
"According to aviation sources, Israel had invented a special control system in the plane by inserting it into the auto pilot functioning programme, which could be remote controlled. The planting of the system could have happened in Norway during the inspection and repair of the Egyptian plane before its trip to death, the report says. The report argues that the flying of the plane near the Israeli base, which is located near the place where the accident took place, could have helped Israelis direct and control the plane."
UNQUOTE

Seems far fetched to me.

ATC Watcher

10th Mar 2004, 21:32

The black helicopters again..
quote :
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report argues that the flying of the plane near the Israeli base, which is located near the place where the accident took place,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Isreali base in Egypt or Saudi Arabia ? This are news !
They probably mix it up with the NATO observation post in the island opposite...:hmm:

Herod

10th Mar 2004, 23:26

Probably confusing Sharm with Taba, which is at the other end of the Gulf of Aqaba, and four miles from the Israeli border.

Few Cloudy

11th Mar 2004, 05:11

The bounds of speculation know no limits - but also no logic...

If the Israelis wanted an airliner down they have a few simpler methods at their disposal - as do the islamist extremists...

Stratocaster

30th Sep 2004, 12:00

I hear a newspaper revealed some new information coming from the black boxes: no checklist whatsoever during the whole flight, nobody picked up the 3 units on the aileron trim, the autopilot refuses to be engaged - apparently due to the trim issue, aircraft flies left and right, copilot warns captain of excessive bank, no appropriate reaction until it's already too late. Boom, 140 people dead.
:ooh:

What the... ??? :confused:

Farty Flaps

1st Oct 2004, 14:43

CISTRS

Nothing is far fetched in these cultures where saving face is all. Anything will be believed passionately by the mases as long as it blames the infidel, colonialists,white man, american devil, oppressor, raper of our women,israelis et al...Choose your poison for your particular country.

One thing is a given it wont be the fault of the esteemed indigenous crew, who were for example.." just as well trained as you, we too have degrees, you are not the only ones who can fly...he was a very good pilot ,even trained by boeing....etc etc" ......ad nauseum .

ATC Watcher

1st Oct 2004, 20:36

quote :
" newspaper revealed some new information coming from the black boxes "

when I read the words "Newspaper" , combined with " revealing new information " then mentioning "black boxes" I would be very cautious.
According the BEA investigators ( Press conference ) The CVR/FDR contents were known not to give a clear clue about the accident .
I doubt they would have missed some of the points above....

cringe

13th Oct 2004, 23:58

At today's news conference the Egyptian head investigator Shaker Kelada reportedly said:

According to the facts we have now, the crew did everything they should have done. They did not do something they should not have done.But without the analysis, human error hasn't been excluded as a cause yet. Factual report will be out on Nov. 11, preliminary report will be ready by mid-March next year.

Source: Reuters

Stratocaster

11th Nov 2004, 23:52

Preliminary report is out: http://www.civilaviation.gov.eg/flash.pdf

Farrell

12th Nov 2004, 16:47

Translated from French......maybe a moderator can move this to the correct thread. Thanks - Wayne

- The translation software has made a few crazy deductions here! -

The "factual report/ratio", returned public Thursday November 11, shows that the autopilot did not answer the orders.
The Egyptian authorities published, Thursday November 11, a "factual report/ratio", nearly 11 months after the fall of the Boeing of the company charter Egyptian woman flash Airlines, with broad of Charm el-Cheikh, which had made 148 died, including 135 French. The report/ratio reports second a second the events which have occurred on the aircraft since its takeoff of the airport of Charm el-Cheikh on January 3 at 02. 42 GMT until its fall at sea Rouge at 02. 45, starting from the data extracted the two flight recorders fished out with nearly 1 000 meters of depth. One of the two block boxes records the parameters of the flight and the other the conversations between the pilot and his crew.

In the chronology presented, it appears that the autopilot did not answer the orders, causing the astonishment of the pilot, whereas the plane continued to be inclined dangerously towards the line. At 02. 44 min 18 S, is less than two minutes after takeoff, the commander launches thus to its copilot "Looks at what the plane made", whereas the apparatus transfers on the right, with 12° slope. It claims the installation of the autopilot, but this one does not engage. The copilot announces "overbank" (excessive slope). Twenty seconds later, the plane is damaged in the Red Sea.

The full report, which makes more than 430 pages, includes/understands also the results of the simulations carried out lately on the site of Boeing in Seattle (north-western of the United States) within the framework of the investigation. The president of the board of inquiry, Chaker Kelada, specified that it acted of a strictly factual report/ratio, which will be followed of a report/ratio of analysis and a final report/ratio about June 2005. The investigators do not have for the moment drawn any conclusion from this mass of data, indicated Mr. Kelada. "We established it" how ", we should now establish it" why ", which will require an exhaustive analysis of all the data collected", it declared.

This analysis will start at the beginning of the next week and will take approximately two months. It will take some eight additional weeks to write the report, which will be submitted by the Egyptians to the other parts of the investigation, the Office of investigations and analyses French (BEA) and Boeing. These parts will have 60 days to study the document and to make their observations, before the publication of a final report/ratio. "In the next stage, we will recut the data and we will see then if there is or not a defect of the autopilot or if there were an error of the pilot", Mr. Kelada declared.

Questioned on the times put to publish this "factual report", Mr. Kelada recognized that "time was long for the families", but that this time was "necessary to the board of inquiry in order to seek and to validate in all the fields the whole of the data on this accident". Two hundred close relations of the 135 French who perished in the crash landing on January 3 had expressed on November 1 close of the embassy from Egypt in Paris to protest against the "silence" of the Egyptian authorities on this business. The director of the BEA, Paul-Louis Arsalian, indicated that "the publication of this report/ratio of stage gives the opportunity to him to bring together the families", November 20 in Paris, in the presence of Mr. Kelada.

stickyb

12th Nov 2004, 18:03

Has anybody managed to download the document? It goes very slowly and then times out for me.

747FOCAL

12th Nov 2004, 18:06

yes it took about 3 seconds. :E

stickyb

12th Nov 2004, 18:36

3 secs for 10mb? i am impressed

slipper 1

12th Nov 2004, 19:07

Well said farty flaps! Will probably blame their instructors for teaching them the wrong things. I was chastised once out there for marking a students paper and only giving him 45% (which is what he acheived). I was brought before the C/O to explain why I had only taught the student 45% of the course material !! A law unto themselves.

BOAC

12th Nov 2004, 20:16

It appears the pdf report is 431 pages long which accounts for the delay in download and the speed of 747focal:D :D

cringe

12th Nov 2004, 21:45

CVR transcript (in English), as published in Le Figaro today:

http://www.lefigaro.fr/france/20041111.FIG0368.html

French BEA made an animation of the flight trajectory:

http://www.bea-fr.org/francais/actualite/charm/video2.htm

RatherBeFlying

12th Nov 2004, 22:55

The CVR and BEA animation remind me of a simulator crash I was in. The LHS allowed the a/c to roll past 90 degrees at 16000 and ignored the increasingly frantic exhortations from the RHS (me) to level the wings.

The white on black horizon did not help, but my remaining impression is that the LHS brain crashed well before the a/c.

blackmail

14th Nov 2004, 14:47

dear fellow pilots,

having finally some info about what happened in that cockpit through voice recorder transcripts & flt data recorder analysis, i wonder why the egyptian & french authorities needed so long to come up with a preliminary accident report, containing hundreds of pages.

for me, as an experienced 737/3&400 pilot, this accident is a modelcase of back to &/or lack of basic flying skills & lack of understanding of interface/monitoring between crew & automatics (flightdirector & autopilot). absence of crm & oriental culture behavior (f/o in all his announcements called the captain who was the pilot flying :"sir"), prevented the first officer to take over control of the airplane before it was too late.

here a small resume of possible events:

it was 04:30local time, so fatigue is a factor.
an observer was on the jumpseat, is always a distracting factor.
ground ops were rushed: if any one can do the cockpit setup/briefing even if it is standard & god willing & ask for the before start checklist in less than 2 minutes : let us know.
now the take off: normal sequence except on the flight data recorder: toga on for 2sec's then off?? problem with auto throttle?
most of the time we forget to arm a/t before pushing toga switches on the thrustlevers( is not on the boeing before t/o cklist), sometimes it just kicks off at toga push with red flashing of a/t annunciator, after all could be an electronic glitch, reengaging a/t & try again mostly solves the problem & if that doesn't work we can always manually push the thrustlevers to the proper n1 target(basic stuff we all tend to forget, ok maybe not all, but still. ... )
normal fma mode annunciator on top of eadi's then would show from left to right: n1/then thr hold at +/- 80kts, toga, blank,fd,provided the fd switches were on as the case seem to be.
take off sequence seemed then normal & at 440ft the captain asked normally for hdg select, fd command bar would then follow setting of hdg bug on ehsi. now the sequence of events is about to start : capt ask "level change" which is executed by the f/o, fma then should show always from left to right : n1,mcp spd,hdg sel,fd. the a/t should then reduce to climbthrust to hold the salmonspeedbug which would have then synchronised with present speed circa v2+20. here F/o announces : n1arm,mcp spd,hdg sel,fd which is correct except for the n1/arm.it's either n1 or arm but not both. another scenario could have been t/off with a/t off, see above toga on for 2" then off.i think this meant a/t on for 2 " then off, the first lh fma annunciator case remaining blank troughout the take off.
then comes the call by the f/o : "1000ft"
normally the pilot flying(here the capt) should now ask for "speedbug 210/220 ", accelerate clean up & folow std climb procedures. but he ask for a/p on, which is still ok, but normally on 737 the pf engages his a/p himself, controlwheelforces etc.
and here it starts : probably because the a/p engaged in cws roll only, removing the vertical hdg command bar from the eadi, upset the pf which was expecting the a/p to come on & follow fd commands, a not uncommon annoying feature of this a/p, still about glitches, fd bars not synchronised at a/p engagement etc.
at that moment simple corrective action is to push again hdg sel push button & check correct fma annunciator, if ok, pf now set mcp speed 210/220, clean up & back to normal business.
what actually happened was that the autopilot was disconnected after 4 sec's,you hear the cavalry charge on the voice recorder, confirmed by the flightdata recordings : this is still ok but for then someone has to manually fly the aircraft & if the captain who is still pf thinks the autopilot is still on & behaving strangely, switch it off again! & take over manually & the f/o as pnf who monitors & correctly announces several times the degrading flightpath into a spiral dive : "overbank" ... ... "overbank" should have taken over from the captain after the second warning & seeing no corrective action from the lhs where obviously the brain had already crashed before the airplane did as stated in a post before. but lack of crm & cultural behavior prevented him to do so. i even don't want to mention upset recovery techniques which could still have saved the day.
and so an airplane came down with nobody flying the airplane & the captain still trying to reengage the autopilot with 110°bank angle & about 30°pitch down. that the observer stated"reduce power, reduce power" which was executed by the captain was by then irrelevant.
it is just plain enraging that 140 persons + crewmembers had to pay the price with their lives for such blatant amateurism.
but our industry is in such a devastated state for a zillion of reasons, that it will happen again & again.
i apologise for the last paragraph as i have no intention to offense anyone.

blackmail

14th Nov 2004, 17:06

dear fellow pilots,

referring to my previous post, when i say "experienced 737 pilot", i mean no arrogancy here as i learn every day from mistakes made by me & others, stay humble as the more you learn the more you realize the fact that you still know nothing.
i will never say : "this will not happen to me"
"never say never etc."

corrective action for mishaps as in sharm is :training, training. ... ... ... & training. but it all boils down to money, money. ... ... ... & money.

blame game is nothing. understanding why & how it happened so that we can device & implement corrective actions should be the name of the game.

safety used to be paramount some time(years) ago. today, safety is a liability. what's written on paper & what happens in reality are lightyears apart & it's in the wrong direction.

i hope, one day we will know exactly what happened, even that i understand that the truth will be very difficult to admit for the egyptian authorities, but so be it.

flash8

14th Nov 2004, 17:53

Do I detect a tad of bias? Citing "absence of crm & oriental culture behavior" etc? Implying these go together?

I'm fed up of the suggestions that are made when a crew of non-euro/non-white descent is involved in a fatal accident ... that somehow they are to blame/CRM is non-existent.

Viva la France!

blackmail

14th Nov 2004, 18:55

flash 8 & other fellow pilots,

latest news from paris: a slat nr1 staying in "ext" during flap retraction( indication confirmed by the flightdata recorder) may have compounded the problems of engaging the autopilot & may explain the right bank tendency of the airplane. it does not explain why the crew does not take over manual control when the autopilot is disconnected, but instead tries over & over again to find a solution by attempting to reengage the autopilot to no avail. sorry for flash8, but this is certainly not crm behavior as we understand it. crm= crew ressource management or cockpit ressource management as you like it or 1+1=3, here 1+1=0. nobody is flying the aircraft. & no bias whatsoever, but tell me what prevented the f/o to take control after 2 warnings of "overbank" were unheeded by the captain except a possible cultural barrier &/or a lack of experience on the plane ( both capt & f/o had 715 hrs together on the 737)?

for info this slat problem was known before departure as evidenced by discussions in the cockpit cfr voice transcripts by the captain & a technician.

the french & egyptian authorities are trying to hide the truth by publishing a "preliminary" report of over 435 pages plus or minus a few, 95% irrelevant,uncomprehensible to the general public, whereas the causes & the clues of what really happened could be summarized in about 20 pages. if my memory is correct the essentials are to be found in page 192,193.

and flash8, don't say viva la france: i am not french, but i agree that french authorities have a great part of responsibility in this tragedy by allowing this flight to have taken place in the first place & if you are fed up i feel sorry for you.