EgyptAir 804 disappears from radar Paris-Cairo [Archive] - Page 2

Wageslave

20th May 2016, 11:40

Signal to noise ratio here is, as said elsewhere, dreadful. Could the amateurs and non pilots (please see the title of this forum) please keep their musings to themselves? Incoherent ramblings by spectators aren't helpful or useful.

Facts seem to be;

Whatever occurred could have occurred or started to occur anytime during the 40 something minutes after the last communication during which the a/c flew on normally and perhaps continued to occur all the way to the sea.

It is perfectly normal not to talk to an a/c for that length of time if remaining on its cleared route. Why on earth not? Pilots and ATC tend not to jabber pointlessly, unlike some here.

Comms were not established as the FIR boundary approached. Loss of comms in that area is, as previously stated not unusual due to extreme range. For those with no imagination at all had a mayday been made than all other aircraft within c. 200 miles would have heard it even if ATC didn't. Ergo none was made.

40 sec later the a/c began to descend rapidly and entered a series of turns. This is not inconsistent with the drill for rapid depressurisation/rapid descent though the 360' turn is not usually included in that. The 90' turn however most definitely is used in some companies's drills. The decisive turn off airway and immediate rapid descant is a well known and unique signature.

The fact that these events occurred almost immediately upon entering Egyptian airspace may or may not be a coincidence.

The turns are confidently reported as 90' left followed by 360' right. These numbers are precise parts of a whole turn and therefore do not look like the random gyrations of an out of control aeroplane. It seems most likely/almost certain that the aircraft was under a good measure of control at this point. Using these manoeuvres to speculate or infer damaged controls is simply not logical and beyond what the evidence supports. (not saying it's impossible, just there is no evidence to support it). It is, however, vanishingly unlikely for those turns to be random. It seems we can assume reasonable lateral control at least at this point.

"Spin". Oh dear. A spin is a manoeuvre where the a/c rotates almost about it's wingtip. It also only occurs at stall speed (except certain high g cases which an Airbus is most unlikely to ever reach). That loss of speed has not been reported. Bar an Extra at an airshow no aircraft - let alone an airliner does just one 360' spin, let alone a quarter one way and then a single turn the other. Airbi don't/can't spin in any but the most unusual circumstances, the flight control laws just won't allow it. If one did I'm pretty sure it would have to be in direct law (how did it get there?) and would almost cetainly be totally unrecoverable by any normal pilot and therefore result in multiple spins all the way down. Damage sufficient to cause a spin would have to be huge and catastrophic (loss of a large proportion of a flying surface or possibly t/r activation is about all I can think of) and most unlikely to result in a single turn - all but impossible. No radar will identify a spin at the 100+ mile ranges we're talking about - as the aircraft is effectively going vertically downwards the spin had no or virtually no "width" for radar to see. Compare with a 360' turn which requires two - four mies at any flying speed. Forget spin. A 360' turn was reported as observed and we have to go with that for now.

The separation interval between the left and right turns would be helpful. Were they contiguous or separated and distinct manoeuvres?

Timescale between leaving FL370 and loss of radar return at FL150(?) would be helpful.

We don't seem to know much more. No doubt we soon will.

StormyKnight

20th May 2016, 11:49

@Wageslave Open forum open comments sorry...

Regarding the turn of 90, wasn't there some discussing with MH370 that if it had to change altitude, the pilot may do a turn of 90 degrees in order to get away from the flight line possibly used by other aircraft?

CBSITCB

20th May 2016, 11:59

How can primary radar returns indicate an aircraft’s instantaneous heading?

It is said MS804 turned 90 degrees left and then 360 degrees right, giving the impression they were balanced turns. The primary plot may well have described such a path, but who knows where the nose was pointing?

Couldn’t it have been ‘tumbling’, inverted, slipping backwards/sideways, etc.? Very unlikely, I admit, but possible?

The greater the turn radius the greater the probability the turn was balanced/controlled, but do we know the approximate radius?

Capt Scribble

20th May 2016, 12:01

WS seems to have it buttoned up, but believing data and making assumptions from a possibly disintegrating aircraft is probably a step too far.

G0ULI

20th May 2016, 12:24

The use of Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites for official announcements is now well established. The reason for using these sites is that they are equipped to handle millions of requests per second and can adjust their capacity to respond. Government networks are usually much more limited in their capacity to handle requests and cannot scale up beyond a certain limit. This means that a constant barrage of enquiries to official websites would result in most requests being met with a "Server not found" error message.

A 90 degree turn off the flight path is a standard manoeuver when initiating an emergency descent following a depressurisation or other incident. The idea is to maintain separation from other aircraft that might be flying at different altitudes on the same airway. So an indication that something may have occured that resulted in depressurisation, but no more than that. As the aircraft descended the range of any radio transmissions would also have reduced drastically, so it is unlikely that a distress call, if made, would have been received.

quentinc

20th May 2016, 12:26

@Wageslave: I'd add that the public ADS-B records do not show the turns or descent. If this is a "conventional" failure, and you are correct in your interpretation of the pilot having control at these times, then it is odd or very unfortunate, that the ADS-B failed.

And covering an item that we do not know..... I don't think we know of any ACARS transmissions....

rideforever

20th May 2016, 12:27

"I think the assumption is that this is a shallow water area but it's not, this part of the Mediterranean is really quite deep,"
Deep perhaps, but also wide and flat and not open ocean. Should be easy to locate.

A0283

20th May 2016, 12:35

from that same BBC conversation, see BBC hyperlink above ... crash location, but if it is where this debris has been found then it sits on a boundary where the ocean floor is more like the Alps, very rugged and contoured. "That area borders a large, deep plain about 3km down." Dr Simon Boxall said an A320 could easily "slip through the cracks" of the ocean floor in the area."This is a very soft sediment area and wreckage could sink very quickly,so they need to find it fast," he said. The ocean floor ridges could also act to block signals from the black box pinger, and sonar from vessels searching for the wreckage, ...

A0283

20th May 2016, 13:12

According to ESA Sentinel1 satellite image, an oil slick in the search area was found at 33°32' N / 29°13' E – about 40 km southeast of the last known location of the aircraft. And that information relayed to the search authorities.

A0283 note - Sentinel1 is one of a series of satellites of the ESA Sentinel series. There is an 1a and a 1b. Most likely this is from 1a (the older one). Claiming that the slick is from the aircraft is very very premature.

silvertate

20th May 2016, 13:13

It depends how close the site is to Crete. The initial seabed close to Alexandria is reasonably level, and then it gets fractured and fissured closer to Crete.

http://s32.postimg.org/lce7956th/image.png

anengineer

20th May 2016, 13:50

captains_log

20th May 2016, 14:01

Does anyone know if any revisions to CV/FDR design are in the pipeline, after MH370 and AF447, such as auto-jettisoning, floating units?

I find it rather depressing that here we are, several years on, with the risk, again, of potentially being unable to locate the data recorders.
Same here and i find it an utter disgrace..

Here we are in the year 2016..if an a/c ditches in the sea:

We rely on... A 37.5 kHz (160.5 dB re 1 μPa) pinger which can be detectable 1–2 kilometres (0.62–1.24 mi) from the surface in normal conditions and 4–5 kilometres (2.5–3.1 mi) in good conditions.

Yes from the surface... 3miles.

How far down might this a/c be located? How long have we been looking for MH370 towing a sonar device from the back of a boat @ 5mph on a very narrow sweep. Because the batteries on the pathetic ULB(Underwater locator beacon) died yonks ago??

We should be ashamed, dont blame the coffers, blame the people who make the regs in the first place for the public airspace, this should be stipulated no a/c can fly without a new and considerably improved FDR/CVR detection/recovery system in place which is not from the dark ages. /RANT

(Please excuse the rant, it is somewhat related to the issue here, RIP to all those souls lost, and thoughts to families loved ones involved.)

Fzz

20th May 2016, 14:10

More information from ESA about the potential oil slick is here (http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Sentinel-1/Sentinel-1A_spots_potential_oil_slick_from_missing_EgyptAir_plane).

Semreh

20th May 2016, 14:19

The technology is available and has been in use by the military for some time, as the background material in this Reuters article on AirAsia QZ8501 makes clear:

AirAsia crash makes case for ejectable black boxes | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-indonesia-plane-blackboxes-analysis-idUSKBN0KH0BX20150108)

In theory, it was discussed at the ICAO High Level Safety Conference in February last year

HLSC (http://www.icao.int/meetings/hlsc2015/Pages/default.aspx)

but I can't quickly find anything in the publicly available documentation. Enhanced tracking was discussed, as these reports make clear - see page 60 of the pdf

http://www.icao.int/Meetings/HLSC2015/Documents/Reports/10046_en.pdf

and

Air Transport News (http://www.atn.aero/article.pl?id=53625)

and

ASN News » ICAO member states recommend new flight tracking performance standard (http://news.aviation-safety.net/2015/02/04/icao-member-states-recommend-new-flight-tracking-performance-standard/)

Lonewolf_50

20th May 2016, 14:20

How can primary radar returns indicate an aircraft’s instantaneous heading? It generally doesn't.

It is said MS804 turned 90 degrees left and then 360 degrees right, giving the impression they were balanced turns.
You have injected the word "balanced" which may or may not have been the case. (If the FBW system was operating normally, it probably was. ). Please review this image from this post (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/579183-egyptair-804-disappears-radar-paris-cairo-7.html#post9381561)based on official information provided by the Greek Defense Minister:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ci1D4KGXEAAQ1Av.jpg
This is a summary of their interpretation of such radar information as they had, so note that it is "possible movements" not "this is God's own truth!"
The primary plot may well have described such a path, but who knows where the nose was pointing? Considering the summary of information apparently gleaned from radar, and that the staff providing information to their defense minister are not idiots, the general point being made is that the track over the ground (which is what the radar gives you when you track each return) led them to this estimate.
Reviewing Wageslave's post directly above yours, the answer ought to be obvious.
Track information is a collection of data points over time that tell you the aircraft's path over the ground. When an aircraft is flying (rather than falling in a stall or spin) track and "where the nose is pointed" generally coincide. (with a few degrees of crab as needed for cross wind ...)

Couldn’t it have be n ‘tumbling’, inverted, slipping backwards/sideways, etc.? Very unlikely, I admit, but possible?
If you re-read Wageslave's post, and look at the estimate from radar information, a falling tumbling stalled/spun aircraft would have a mostly vertical path, not one that would show what they provided.
From my own experience: years ago, when I was flight instructor, I reviewed radar tapes of an aircraft that had crashed while in a spin. The track information for the maneuvers before spin entry showed the usual time/distance lapse and ground track. The lateral distance covered once spin entry (and the ensuing failure to recover) was significantly less, both on the practice spin initiated and recovered from, and on the subsequent one initiated and not recovered from.
The greater the turn radius the greater the probability the turn was balanced/controlled, but do we know the approximate radius? The figure above did not try to provide a scale, but none is needed. If it was flying (rather than stalled and falling) then radar track gives a good enough estimate for where the nose was pointed for the analysts to arrive at an estimate of heading.
Again, see the points Wageslave made in the post above yours.

dandraka

20th May 2016, 14:21

skirkp

20th May 2016, 14:46

JetHutek

20th May 2016, 15:38

I have been saying this since MH370 and AirAsia....why not fit GPS spot locators in the tail of aircraft? The type that hikers use are waterproof, report every minute (could be set to 10 seconds) and could be attached to an uninterruptable power supply in the tail. Even if ship power goes out, these units have batteries that can power them for days. Every aircraft in the world (private aircraft notwithstanding) can have position known to GPS precision at all moments up to any impact (and if on land, could keep running for days.) If submerged to a seabed you would lose the location due to depth and signal, but you would know where an aircraft hit the water....And cost? This can be done for LESS than 100 dollar per plane, per year.

ATM_ANS Custode

20th May 2016, 15:39

If you look at the seabed map a few posts ago on this page (14), and measure 300 km from Alexandria, you find an arc that is on the smooth area south of the northeast-southwest ridges and well south of the rough terrain that is closer to Crete. I hope that will speed the recovery of clues to the wreck.
... in this ICAO chart you can see the red ellipse marks the last contact area of MSR804.
It seems the seabed is smoother and less deep than further north. Unfortunately you need oceanographic maps for some precise depth measurements...

https://goo.gl/photos/3vaApm8tGUpVS2w5A

Uplinker

20th May 2016, 15:50

I have not seen the RADAR data, only the report in the Times, but looks to me (an Airbus line pilot) as some are saying: like a deliberate 90deg turn away from the airway followed by an emergency descent, so I am thinking decompression.

Then, halfway down they might have thought 'hang on we are heading towards high ground now', hence the right turn - an orbit or a PPOS hold? - to keep them over the sea while still descending to FL100.

Then something happened. Perhaps the crew oxygen ran out or failed in some way, but the aircraft then appears to have exceeded Vne and broken up?

My thoughts are with them and their families.

Carjockey

20th May 2016, 15:59

We should be ashamed, dont blame the coffers, blame the people who make the regs in the first place for the public airspace, this should be stipulated no a/c can fly without a new and considerably improved FDR/CVR detection/recovery system in place which is not from the dark ages. Well said captains log.

EEngr

20th May 2016, 16:14

why not fit GPS spot locators in the tail of aircraft?

Like this one?
http://www.airlinereporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Sky787.jpg

This just serves to demonstrate that anything with an energy source could be hazardous. An energy source that the crew cannot disconnect, even more so.

This (787 ELT) was not jettisonable. If it was, knowledgeable hijackers could simply ditch it and change course. On the other hand, the act of ditching the ELT would activate it, raising an alarm that something went wrong at this location.

The principle argument against jettisonable ELTs is their design, certification and maintenance cost. Ensuring that a part which could intentionally come loose but not damage the airframe is no small engineering task.

DCS99

20th May 2016, 16:14

(note I'm no aviation pro, just an enthusiast)

Last info I came upon around a year ago is essentially nothing. There seem to be thoughts thrown around about adding GPS coordinates to the ACARS messages plus preventing the pilot from turning off ACARS. But no concrete action yet. ...snip.

GPS location is transmitted.
Download the .csv files from here

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/contact-lost-with-egyptair-flight-804/

notapilot15

20th May 2016, 16:18

Does anyone know if any revisions to CV/FDR design are in the pipeline, after MH370 and AF447, such as auto-jettisoning, floating units?

I find it rather depressing that here we are, several years on, with the risk, again, of potentially being unable to locate the data recorders.

Electable and floatable CVFDRs are available for more than 15 years and widely used in military applications. Technology is a matured and proven.

Regular Solid state CVFDR costs $5,000, Ejectable/Flotable one costs $25,000.

So airline has to spend somewhere between $20,000 - $40,000 per plane.

$$Millions per lost life equation doesn't add up to that incremental cost, so they pretend as if technology is not available. We will be having this discussion for decades to come.

Some countries were talking about adding mandatory operative ADS-B and 15 minute location reporting thru ACARS or some other means.

I would say at some point, pilots should ignore the aviate, navigate and communicate and change to communicate, aviate and navigate.

Unless you call out for help, cavalry is not going to come on its own at 12 knots.

trickii1

20th May 2016, 17:00

There is always a great deal of speculation about the causes after every disaster but in truth we will not know until a full investigation has been undertaken.Even than we might still not have the answers as with the Air France disaster off the coast of Brazil. The biggest fear with this and other disasters that the governments and authorities just want a resolution without finding the truth.Latest speculation of a terrorist incident may have some merit.A hijack goes wrong ending up with a struggle with sky marshal's. A dispossed individual with the intent of flying the airliner into a Cairo target...we do know at this stage.

wiggy

20th May 2016, 17:12

I would say at some point, pilots should ignore the aviate, navigate and communicate and change to communicate, aviate and navigate.

Unless you call out for help, cavalry is not going to come on its own at 12 knots.

I'm really not sure I follow you logic with that statement.

Surely aviate always has to be paramount - neglecting to do that when the chips are down and instead spending time shouting "help" might mean the cavalry arriving at 12 knots or 120 knots could be irrelevant.

16024

20th May 2016, 17:34

Couldn't agree more, Wiggy.
The very first thing the media and the muggles are interested in is whether "The Pilot" made a distress call. Those on the flight deck are probably far too busy trying to keep everybody alive, or they are already gone. If we do get a mayday out, it's not for the sake of ghouls or the press. It's so that every other Fe***r can get out of the way!

jxf63

20th May 2016, 17:41

Right, in the same way that on seeing the truck come through the central reservation towards you at a closing speed of 150mph you don't dial 999 and order an ambulance :=

Now imagine something goes horribly wrong when you're driving 3 times as fast.... along the edge of a cliff.... on ice.... at night.

First order of business is to stay alive, no ? Not much point in calling for help to recover your mangled remains... :sad:

mm_flynn

20th May 2016, 17:49

GPS location is transmitted.
Download the .csv files from here

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/contact-lost-with-egyptair-flight-804/

Just for completeness, the FR24 track shows a dead stable altitude, direction and speed for the period of time between the attempted communication and 00:29:33 Z. This is within a short number of seconds of the declared 00:30Z loss of primary radar contact. It is quite likely that at 0:29:33Z something happened that caused one of
1 - The ADSB antenna/cable structure to become disconnected from the transmitter
2 - The ADSB system to loose power

Actual FR24 ADSB data has historically proven to be quite accurate in heading, speed, position, and altitude. The errors seen have occurred where people were looking at projected track data or trying to determine to exactly which second a transmission relates.

Once times (to the second) related to the primary radar data are released, I suspect we will find the total time between flying straight and level and having completed the claimed 450 degrees of turning and 27,000 feet of descent will be 30-60 seconds (on the basis that if Greece lost radar contact any later than 00:30:35 Z they would have reported it as 0:31 Z.). That rate of yaw and descent has no relationship to any maneuver an Airbus could be commanded to make.

I would suggest that, despite the very clear graphics presented by the media, the raw radar data will not actually support the image we have been provided of an aircraft maneuvering; But will be more consistent with the radar image of MH17 after it started to disintegrate. (Note - I am not advancing any particular theory as to why this has happened).

As to, 'why can't we have better tracking', even if a GPS and its associated transmitter was perfectly able to continue to transmit till it sank (or ejected), it still could be a very significant distance from 'the important bits' (which ever they might be) of the wreckage as there is considerable potential for differential motion as parts fall from the sky and/or drift down in the water.

mockingjay

20th May 2016, 17:51

So the Egyptians claim they have found the wreckage. Yet nearly 12 since their claim we have seen non evidence whatsoever that this is the case. Yes there was an oil slick but an oil slick was spotted during the MH370 search and it was unconnected.

DaveReidUK

20th May 2016, 18:10

I'm pretty sure there are 66 families out there who may disagree with your view.

You have competely missed the point, which was that aviating takes priority over communicating. Always.

The object being to avoid having any mangled remains ...

highflyer40

20th May 2016, 18:12

Mocking jay-

The have also found bodily remains, personal effects, and suitcases. And it was the Greeks who claimed that first off

Contrary to what most people think nowadays, search crews aren't there to enlighten you, they are there to do there job. Press releases will be made in due time.

Trash 'n' Navs

20th May 2016, 18:17

I find it quite an extraordinary coincidence that another aircraft has 'disappeared' in the "blind spot" of two ATC stations. Of all the places for it to happen...

As an alternative to the currently popular theory of criminal intervention, how sure can we be that this wasn't either:
a) deliberate crew action; or
b) spatial disorientation following a distracting occurrence (such as rapid depressurisation)?

Vc10Tail

20th May 2016, 18:23

The position must have been close to or after the TOD.

The turns deemed deliberate rather than haphazard...as if to avoid or reactive turns and a descent due/overdue.

Was there CAT forcasted in the area?

For body parts to be manifest it was not a controlled ditch.

Too many jigsawz to fit..too soon.

Let us hope the FDR/CVR are recovered and intelligible.

May the deceased rest in peace.My sincere condolences to all affected, sympathies to Egypt Air and Egypt as a nation.

Let us get facts before dancing the tune of terrorism please.Most passengers were Muslims.No terror organization has made a claim...so let more facts surface.

RexBanner

20th May 2016, 18:29

If the ECAM alerts on AvHerald are genuine then it looks to me like a fire in the avionics bay, followed by emergency descent QRH smoke drill followed by things getting out of hand very nastily and very quickly. RIP to all crew and pax.

Smott999

20th May 2016, 18:29

On this aircraft is avionics bay directly below forward lav?
Apologies I am not an expert.

SysDude

20th May 2016, 18:29

skridlov

20th May 2016, 18:33

Why have the ACARS messages that have been repeatedly posted here been deleted almost immediately? Obviously they may be totally invented for whatever malicious reason but equally they may be genuine. Given the amount of "noise" here why not leave them in place and let someone knowledgeable cast doubt upon their veracity?
Their immediate removal - whilst all sorts of dross remains - seems a little suspect to me.
One has just re-appeared...

andrasz

20th May 2016, 18:39

Why have the ACARS messages that have been repeatedly posted here been deleted almost immediately?
I believe mods - just like me - took it to be a hoax given lack of confirmation from any credible source. Simon posting them on AVH definitely puts more weight behind them.
If they ARE true, it is an incomprehensibly poor show from MS as they had this information since the beginning, and releasing would have avoided much of the uncertainty over the past two days. There is nothing in the data that would be any more damaging than the accident itself.

mockingjay

20th May 2016, 18:43

If MS have had the data, why did the authorities quickly point the blame at terrorists?

Smott999

20th May 2016, 18:48

It would seem AVH has published this more than a day ago, yet it has not been confirmed anywhere...?

Perhaps that is our Mods' reluctance, but if the info is true it would indeed be the most important details we have thus far.

Alain67

20th May 2016, 18:51

We would need someone familiar with ACARS to tell us whether these messages, written exactly like that, could have been sent by a real ACARS facility.

andrasz

20th May 2016, 18:52

It would seem AVH has published this more than a day ago
No, it was only published on AVH an hour ago. It was circulating on the net without source since yesterday, I would assume Simon has means to verify before posting.

fox niner

20th May 2016, 18:55

So the acars messages are sent at 0026z.
Radar contact is not lost until 20 minutes later. At 0046z.
Fire.....

Smott999

20th May 2016, 18:57

Apologies you're spot on.
Only just appeared on AVH but had been referred to prior in other forums.

DaveReidUK

20th May 2016, 18:57

We would need someone familiar with ACARS to tell us whether these messages, written exactly like that, could have been sent by a real ACARS facility.

Yes, they could certainly have been.

Whether they were in this instance is another question.

andrasz

20th May 2016, 19:05

@ Fox Niner, contact was lost at 00:30Z, a minute after the last ACARS transmission. S&R was launched 00:46.

Turbavykas

20th May 2016, 19:13

00:26Z 3044 ANTI ICE R WINDOW
00:26Z 561200 R SLIDING WINDOW SENSOR
00:26Z 2600 SMOKE LAVATORY SMOKE
00:27Z 2600 AVIONICS SMOKE
00:28Z 561100 R FIXED WINDOW SENSOR
00:29Z 2200 AUTO FLT FCU 2 FAULT
00:29Z 2700 F/CTL SEC 3 FAULT

I would say very rapid change in pressure(explosion) knocked out sensors and very fast decompression caused fog(condensation) witch was detected by fire sensors

Airbubba

20th May 2016, 19:18

So the acars messages are sent at 0026z.
Radar contact is not lost until 20 minutes later. At 0046z.
Fire.....

The PPRuNe banned ACARS messages and the ADS-B data from FlightAware and Flightradar24 all show the last transmission at about 0029Z.

3Greens

20th May 2016, 19:21

Fire sensors are actually smoke detectors. They aren't triggered by fog or condensation. They are actually a kind of particle detector. That's not to say they wouldn't have been triggered by an explosion of some kind.

rugmuncher

20th May 2016, 19:29

If Ionisation sensors are fitted they may be affected..

nicolai

20th May 2016, 19:47

Fine mist can trigger fire sensors - including such mundane things as spray-on deodorant in an airline lavatory, especially if aimed upwards at the sensor.

I'm not sure whether decompression could cause sudden mist in the cabin; you have to decrease pressure sharply in an already-saturated atmosphere to get large-scale cloud condensation, and aircraft cabins at 37000ft are very dry. So I think it is unlikely. Does anyone have any contrary data?

Local Variation

20th May 2016, 19:47

Both optical and ionisation detectors can and will trigger on fog. I doubt the types fitted have algorithms to compensate.

GCharlie

20th May 2016, 19:50

Given the ACARS report, does ACARS have sensors that would differentiate an explosion from a fire? If it does, would this rule out a bomb on the plane?

Does the presence and absence of data reports help to rule in or out anything?

ILS27LEFT

20th May 2016, 20:25

We all probably agree that this was a very sudden event however we cannot exclude that the trigger was an external object going straight into the cockpit through the windshield, terrorism obviously should not be excluded but the Acars messages, if confirmed, are also compatible with various other events beyond terrorism including , as an example, sudden loss of cabin pressure after compromised windshield. I know it is extremely unlikely but we all know that it is not totally impossible for an aircraft to hit something...a tiny object can cause a total loss of aircraft if the impact point is vulnerable e.g. badly damaged windshield at max altitude, high speed, can easily lead to a catastrophic series of events. Acars messages look genuine. Terrorists look for maximum carnage: this was a very late flight, low nr of pax, and why wait such a long time into the flight?... more likely an incident caused by an external object or internal interference, including an explosion, but probably nothing to do with terrorism, unless something went very wrong in this individual's plan hence the illogical delay. No terrorist group has claimed responsibility neither which is unusual.

Pace

20th May 2016, 20:27

The media are all claiming this was terrorism a bomb. I am not convinced for a number of reasons firstly if the aircraft left Paris is would expose a very serious security hole at Paris which would have implications for thousands of aircraft operating out of there

Secondly there do not appear to be any terrorist claims to have committed such a thing itself very strange.

That doesn't mean there was no explosion in the aircraft which may have depressurised the aircraft and caused handling problems.
The aircraft had a light passenger load and it would be interesting to know more on what they were carrying in the hold other than Passenger bags?

To the guy who posted on putting communicate before aviate? The absolute number one above everything where there is a problem with the aircraft is to aviate. No one on the ground will help you one jot in that situation

Ok if you have a problem where you need to land then Yes ATC can relieve some of the pressure so you can aviate by taking over some of the work load giving you steers etc, But frankly if you hit the sea vertically the last thing on your mind is going to be helping the authorities piece together why. You will be 100% on saving your skin and the PAX and aircraft and that means aviating till the end

IcePack

20th May 2016, 20:30

Wouldn't Acars report "low cabin differential" or similar if aircraft had a decompression.

DaveReidUK

20th May 2016, 20:44

neilki

20th May 2016, 20:52

Sadly the bad guys have proved themselves to be fairly sophisticated manipulators of the media. Why not bask in days of speculative media coverage then as things start to quiet down, attach a radical name to it. Double exposure. In addition, perhaps they're giving bad guys time to disappear.
The assumption that the Aircraft left Paris, so Paris must have been where a bomb boarded is pretty weak.

Jagwar

20th May 2016, 20:57

And given the way the current batch of terrorists operate it isn't difficult to understand how a small group of like minded airport security staff can coordinate the passage of explosives onto an aircraft at any major European airport , including CDG.
Additionally, there doesn't appear to be any kind of common sense profiling in operation due to various so called human rights acts.

Vc10Tail

20th May 2016, 21:00

Pilot flying flies and monitors communication whilst non flying pilot Assists in managing the abnormality or emergency.PF can always in 3 seconds say "Mayday mayday mayday Flt 804.Stby further..or PNF can activate the emergency transponder code..part of the procefure in an emergency descent...which if so should have been controllable unless there was fire in the rear and tailplane electrics affected to have lost control.
from 37000 ft its a long drop and if in the radio blind spot they couldnt alert anyone on radio but transonder would have alerted radar controllers.

The ANC (Av Nav Com) is just a guide fellas..not the grail@

Lets hear what the CVR and FDR have to say but too early to tule out technical failure. We are still in the recovery phase.Terrorism shouldnt even be factored until after forensics.Lets not Trump our way into "100% terrorism"...it is too brash.

Rwy in Sight

20th May 2016, 21:07

neilki,

Re bomb be placed in Paris:
why anyone would let a bomb to use it a sector or two down the line when it can be spotted or the aircraft can go tech.

MartinM

20th May 2016, 21:11

The loss of one Autoflight FCU 2, neither the loss of SEC3 would have incapacitated the aircraft from flying. Automatically the system would switch to another FCU channel.

We got no warning of alternate law, neither the loss of protection, neither the loss of any AFS module. Nor a warning of cabin VS.

The ACARS don't appear to be real, to me

oleostrut

20th May 2016, 21:11

The ACARS may or may not be accurate.
But, bear in mind, the 1st class galley is on the right, just aft of the cockpit bulkhead. High wattage circuits run to it from below, and wire bundles for it and other circuits run under the floor, up the bulkhead and up the outer fuselage wall.

Both the lavs and especially the galleys are very high maintenance areas, subject to heavy use and wear.

Seggy

20th May 2016, 21:24

Out of curiosity, does Egypt Air have an alternate procedure if they get an AVIONICS SMOKE ECAM?

DaveReidUK

20th May 2016, 21:25

The loss of one Autoflight FCU 2, neither the loss of SEC3 would have incapacitated the aircraft from flying.

Granted. With the exception of the AVIONICS SMOKE warning, all of the other ACARS messages, if not daily occurrences, are certainly observable from time to time and don't typically result in the subject aircraft falling out of the sky.

The ACARS don't appear to be real, to meThat doesn't follow. The fault codes quoted match the error messages - they could be genuine.

GSeries_jetcrew

20th May 2016, 21:27

We all probably agree that this was a very sudden event however we cannot exclude that the trigger was an external object going straight into the cockpit through the windscreen, terrorism obviously should not be excluded but the Acars messages, if confirmed, are also compatible with various other events beyond terrorism including , as an example, sudden loss of cabin pressure after compromised windscreen. I know it is extremely unlikely but we all know that it is not totally impossible for an aircraft to hit something...a tiny object can cause a total loss of aircraft if the impact point is vulnerable e.g. badly damaged windscreen at max altitude, high speed, can easily lead to a catastrophic series of events. Acars messages look genuine. Terrorists look for maximum carnage: this was a very late flight, low nr of pax, and why wait such a long time into the flight?... more likely an incident caused by an external object or internal interference but probably nothing to do with terrorism, unless something went very wrong in this individual's plan hence the illogical delay. No terrorist group has claimed responsibility neither which is unusual.

You make a very valid point. One day years ago when I was flying and we had just commenced descent, we had a meteorite flash very close to us and in fact ATC contacted us (we were approx 50m from the radar centre) to say they heard a sonic boom and asked if we were ok. Now I understand they burn up at a reasonably high altitude but still is there a possibility this could ever happen does anyone know?

Islay

20th May 2016, 21:29

CB's in the galley should trip if any high powered components fail such as ovens, boilers etc.

The only high power component in the toilet is the water heater and this also has a thermal cutout protection.

ACARS is just a communication system. Sending fault messages to the airline via the CMC, SDAC's,FWC's etc.

Avionics Smoke ECAM warning has a clear procedure to determine the problem, the SEC 2 fault shouldn't cause any problems to the aircraft by it self. The LAV Smoke caution is set off by a lav smoke detector. The ECAM caution wouldn't state which toilet this refers to. This would show on the FAP.

According to these ECAM warnings and cautions, the only one of real corncern would be the Avionics Smoke one. But this could be related to the others. Let's not forget where the cockpit oxygen cylinder is also located.

mm43

20th May 2016, 21:30

The ACARS may or may not be accurate.The ACARS doesn't appear to be reproduced in the correct format, e.g. the following is an example of the final ACARS from AF447.

http://oi54.tinypic.com/2qx4yzs.jpg

Note that the AF447 sent sequence gave F/CTL warnings priority over other events - where possible. In respect of the purported MS804 sequence, some of the type identifiers appear truncated.

Vc10Tail

20th May 2016, 21:34

ACARS is bound to offer more useful intelligence to work with then terror dramatic theories.

Toilet,Avionics smoke and with light pax load possible panic caused a weight and balance problem??

why was the 360 degree turn?To revert to Greece or Cyprus for improved comm reception and emergency alternate? Was the turn inadvertently scrolled on Sel HDG due to smoked cockpit?Was one crew member incapacitated? We just dont know...CVR will tell.

I wonder how long it can take to comb the reported 11000 ft seabed?

DaveReidUK

20th May 2016, 21:48

The ACARS doesn't appear to be reproduced in the correct format

I don't see how you can say that without knowing where the data was sourced from. AFAIK we don't know that.

If it was raw ACARS intercepted enroute from MS804 to the ground station, then I agree there would be lots of formatting stuff as per your AF447 example.

But if it's been dumped from Egyptair's (or ARINC/SITA's) ACARS processing application, I would expect it to look much as we are seeing, with all the extraneous stuff stripped out and only the error codes and messages displayed.

BlankBox

20th May 2016, 21:54

http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/578670a320.png

...lots of opportunities..maybe...at earlier stops?

skridlov

20th May 2016, 22:26

Then where is the claim for responsibility? Terrorists live for the moment they can brag about what they have done. It's all quiet on that front. I would say that angle is becoming less and less likely each hour of silence.
This is a very simplistic idea of "what terrorists live for..." Given the rapidity with which various high-level agencies have countenanced the possibility of a malevolent cause, it's not really necessary to brag. Indeed the silence may be even more effective, giving a second opportunity to revive the story when it begins to show signs of flagging.

I have no more idea of the cause of this disaster than anyone else, and less than many, but given the nationality of the carrier and that country's recent history terrorism has got to be a significant possibility.

In that respect the fact that this aircraft's last location before its leg to Paris was Tunisia has occasioned less comment than I would have expected - given that the number of Tunisian members of Daish/Isis in Syria and Iraq exceeds that from any other country by a substantial factor.

Admiral346

20th May 2016, 22:29

00:26Z 3044 ANTI ICE R WINDOW
00:26Z 561200 R SLIDING WINDOW SENSOR
00:26Z 2600 SMOKE LAVATORY SMOKE
00:27Z 2600 AVIONICS SMOKE
00:28Z 561100 R FIXED WINDOW SENSOR
00:29Z 2200 AUTO FLT FCU 2 FAULT
00:29Z 2700 F/CTL SEC 3 FAULT
no further ACARS messages were received

It's been a while since I've flown an A320...

So R SLIDING WINDOW SENSOR is the window open sensor?
And the R FIXED WINDOW SENSOR does what?

The clear thingy in front of my face used to be called windshield... Even in AB terms.

The rest is clear to me.
Maybe somone on type could enlighten me.

Thanks.

PS: To speculate, this does not sound like there was an explosion at all. If this report is true, and there had been an explosion, there'd be a list of messages as long as your leg...
It reads like a fire spreading in the avionics bay, right hand side.

neilah

20th May 2016, 22:30

Then where is the claim for responsibility? Terrorists live for the moment they can brag about what they have done. It's all quiet on that front. I would say that angle is becoming less and less likely each hour of silence.

Unless the reveal of the terrorist unit also reveals the method of infiltration -- thereby cutting off future such terror success.

I honestly wonder if a bomb could've been onboard for two trips -- planted at CAI, but somehow waiting for a second low-pressure reading. Doesn't make sense against ACARS messages, but who knows. It's a thought.

takata

20th May 2016, 22:35

Hi all,
it looks to be a genuine ACARS report :
source : http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/20/middleeast/egyptair-flight-804-main/
http://takata1940.free.fr/MS804.jpg

SquintyMagoo

20th May 2016, 22:48

Swissair 111?

ThunderclapMike

20th May 2016, 22:52

Those acars notices show flipped breakers. The final one is the breaker that controls spoilers 1 and 2 on the airbus. Those are on the wing and the fuel tanks on in the wings. Ie the tank exploded. So the question is what caused the smoke that open circuit fault. That could be anything.

jugofpropwash

20th May 2016, 22:55

There seems to be a relative consensus that the initial 90 degree turn to the left could have been to clear traffic while initiating an emergency decent. However, that would leave the aircraft heading away from the airport. Assuming a fire/smoke, and possibly a resultant loss of comms, they would have wanted to land as soon as possible. Could they have initiated a right turn in an attempt to return to their original heading, but been overcome mid-turn and thus the 360?

LBCguy

20th May 2016, 23:11

As for the lack of a terrorist group claiming credit, keep the self-radicalized concept in mind. The perpetrators of the Paris attacks weren't working under direct control or orders from DAESH, they were acting on their own operational control.

If... IF... there ends up being a terror element to this, it might be some self-radicalized person or cell behind it, inspired by DAESH, BUT working independently of DAESH or whomever. DAESH, or whomever, won't "claim credit" for this until after it's actually proven to be a bomb.

If they were to claim credit for this, and it ends up being a technical issue that caused it, it would discredit the organization who claimed credit.

ThunderclapMike

20th May 2016, 23:23

I agree it sounds like a avionics suite fire on the right side that started with an electrical short in the lav. Does anyone know if egypt air allows lithium batteries in the cargo hold because the low quality ones can overheat and cause a fire in the foward cargo hold which just so happens to be next to the avionics suite. That also would have smoke on the flight deck and in the cockpit too.

Wageslave

20th May 2016, 23:31

Pace, you send a particularly strong and unpalatable message if you whack someone in their own backyard as opposed to on the street. You would make it an even stronger message if you ostentatiously whack them the instant they step over their threshold. There's no need for collateral damage - the message has got through. Burning the house down can remain a valid fear for the future.
And if you're out to cause their nation maximum damage you don't need to indulge in flag-waving like claiming responsibility. Indeed failure to do so causes even more upset and anxiety to the victim through the uncertainty.

Wageslave

20th May 2016, 23:47

ECAM will report on systems as placarded on an intact and undamaged airframe. Who knows what warnings will pop up in the event of physical damage due to blast, impact or fire where it affects black boxes, sensors or cable runs?
If severe damage onboard is suspected we might do well treat those messages as of questionable reliability.

JosV

20th May 2016, 23:48

Both the windows messages are not about the windows being open. The code WHC stands for Window Heat Computer, and this has to do with de-icing.

As for a emergency decent, this is procedure for either cabin depressurization, or fire/smoke on board.

A quick 90 degree turn? Either to get out of the flight lane (not sure if this is company procedure), or just airman-ship to keep positive G while pitching the nose down for rapid decent.

Why no communication? Either the pilots were too busy, or simply the radios were not operating anymore. Did they change xponder code to 7700?

logansi

20th May 2016, 23:53

Yeah I was thinking along the same lines, how likely would it be for corrupt ecam dada due to damage to the airframe. If it was a bomb or other explosion it seems it did not destroy the aircraft instantly.

Also this might sound stupid but could a shock wave set off the window sensors?

clark y

20th May 2016, 23:57

Windscreen fault causing fire?

ThunderclapMike

21st May 2016, 00:29

yes it would. Fire would lead to the shutdown of the entire suite. I think the 90 degree turn had to do with loss of spoilers.

LMCF

21st May 2016, 01:03

Hi all,
it looks to be a genuine ACARS report :
source : EgyptAir flight data show smoke alerts - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/20/middleeast/egyptair-flight-804-main/)
http://takata1940.free.fr/MS804.jpg

IMHO this ACAR report could be trigered by a windshield/window arcing. Take a look on fcom
LMCF

CONSO

21st May 2016, 01:09

00:26Z 3044 ANTI ICE R WINDOW
00:26Z 561200 R SLIDING WINDOW SENSOR
00:26Z 2600 SMOKE LAVATORY SMOKE
00:27Z 2600 AVIONICS SMOKE
00:28Z 561100 R FIXED WINDOW SENSOR
00:29Z 2200 AUTO FLT FCU 2 FAULT
00:29Z 2700 F/CTL SEC 3 FAULT Wondering - anti ice probably means for whatever reason- temp sensor ? or FO ? turned on electric anti - ice
something shorted and started a fire - then sensor wiring burned thru- thus the R fixed window sensor?
about a min iater flight control unit went off line

then total failure due to fire in electronic bay ?? :confused:

bloom

21st May 2016, 01:12

JosV

21st May 2016, 01:20

Not sure if my previous message is waiting for moderation, but I'm new here, so forgive me if it duplicates.

ATA code 561200 and 561100 indicate window panes in the cockpit area. WHC 2 means Window Heat Computer (number 2), which points at the anti-icing system for the cockpit windows. This has nothing to do with opening windows, which is not even possible in a pressurized cockpit, as the sliding window opens first inwards before it slides back. You can't do this in flight.

There is also no indication in the ACARS data about cabin depressurization, but there is for smoke.
Smoke/fire would have the pilots immediately don their oxy masks and do a rapid decent.

I'm not sure about individual company procedures, or whether this is standard over the Mediterranean area, but it could also be airman-ship to make a sharp 90 degree turn while pitching the nose down to retain positive G (bit more comfortable), or it could be standard procedure to get out of the flight routes away from other aircraft.

It does seem all the errors seem to come from the F/O side of the cockpit, including the latter FCU2 and SEC3 faults.

Not making any conclusions yet though.

PersonFromPorlock

21st May 2016, 01:24

Does closing the side window on an A320 make or break the warning circuit? If it makes it, then a wire burning through or a solder joint melting and breaking the circuit might be reported as an open window.

FE Hoppy

21st May 2016, 01:25

Windscreen fault causing fire?
Looks a possibility.
Could be the controller.
Ive had a window heat controller overheat many years ago on a nimrod. Filled the cockpit quite quickly and I got to the box before the CB tripped. It was easily accessible to a flight Engineer who knew his way around the equipment racks. Very different proposition on a modern 2 seater.

Lack of a mayday or squark is puzzling though!

CONSO

21st May 2016, 01:26

Wouldn't ACARS report on the ground? When was the last time the avionics bay was opened? Wouldn't ACARS report that ? Look there first if it's terrorist activity. It would have to be the first place that i looked
for ACARS to report requires power- and a few other items to turn on- otherwise the system would be overloaded with every airplane in every airport reporting along with all those in the Air.

jabird

21st May 2016, 02:00

"If they were to claim credit for this, and it ends up being a technical issue that caused it, it would discredit the organization who claimed credit."

This didn't stop multiple claims being made after Lockerbie, all done by the next morning. IIRC, PA103 was also supposed to be over the Atlantic at the time of detonation, but local traffic and a delayed departure sent it over Lockerbie instead.

If this plane was downed deliberately then a marine ditching means it takes longer to find out the whole picture. Look how quickly they worked out what happened with Germanwings, whereas the bulk of MH370 remains unfound.

I really don't want to end up reading that this is a terror strike, but nobody admitting anything so far doesn't mean it isn't (hopefully that's better logic than Trump's, but that doesn't take much).

Taking earlier comments about the smooth nature of the initial turns, if there was a fire or explosion, the suggestion is a small one getting out of hand, rather than a more sudden one? But if this was anything like AC797, why turn 360 over sea instead of heading towards the nearest available runway?

If there was any form of sabotage in the cockpit (and I don't think anyone has ruled out this being from the crew, we know of previous disputes and can't ignore MS 990), would the descent be smooth like that?

We all want answers, because most of us here have some sort of job depending on both crew and SLF confidence. Of course the papers love the headlines "holiday jet blown out the sky", but CDG-CAI is a much more mundane (in headline terms) business and VFR* route, but still enough reasons for somebody to want to down a plane if they had the means. If the target was specifically tourism, would you not go for a flight to one of the resorts? I know there is a rather large group of ancient tetrahedral structures in the Cairo suburbs, but the tourist volumes are (were) all on the beaches.

I don't think we can draw many more conclusions until the boxes are recovered, but for all the noise that inevitably surrounds these events, a small fire getting out of hand is looking as plausible as any more sinister theory from what we have so far.

*to avoid double jargon confusion, in this sense I mean VFR as visiting friends and relatives

costalpilot

21st May 2016, 02:34

the flight ctrl computer acars reports tell me the craft was in peril within three minutes of the first acars reports despite the auto redundancy of the systems. the lack of reports thereafter tells me that the reporting system was compromised and broken after only three minutes. I would think it would take a hell of a lot of heat to do all that so quickly.

or, we dont have ALL the info yet. imagine that.

Ranger One

21st May 2016, 02:39

Those ACARS messages are intriguing. I'm not and never have been a bus driver so don't know the systems but... observations:

1. The messages span a period of several minutes. That fairly obviously - to me anyway - precludes a catastrophic event precipitating instant structural failure and breakup. So it's almost certainly not Pan Am 103 or TWA 800.

2. What messages would we expect to see in the event of a sudden depressurization caused by a breach of the pressure hull? What would we expect to see in the event of a crew-initiated depressurization via the outflow valves in an effort to - perhaps - deal with a fire/smoke condition? If there was a depressurization from any cause whilst the aircraft systems were still otherwise substantially intact and functional I would think we would absolutely expect to see a message related to that?

3. This sets me thinking; if - IF - this was an act of terrorism perhaps we should be looking at a device or devices that were incendiary rather than explosive in nature.

4. Is there any further ACARS encoding that would identify *which* lav smoke detector activated? Or will that have to await FDR recovery?

5. The 320 main avionics compartment is directly beneath the flight deck and forward lav... correct?

unworry

21st May 2016, 03:40

To the earlier post (now deleted?) suggesting a recurrence of of Egyptair 667 a few years back:

Though that incident and resulting hull loss was probably due to a cockpit fire from an electrical fault on the RHS oxy hose/system ... that aircraft was a B772. Enough said.

frankpgh

21st May 2016, 03:54

It is interesting to me that we "only" have 19 pages of comments. I think it is because it is such a puzzle. The ACARS data gives enough information to keep people focused on trying to explain those messages. Without those, the speculation is all over the place.

Would it be possible to reverse the thought process and speculate as to what messages may be transmitted via ACARS based on some of the theories presented? I don't have the knowledge to do this, but a bus pilot would.

For example, what ACARS messages would you expect to see if there was an explosive decompression? If a message indicating a drop in cabin altitude would be expected but not received, it would be less likely to be the initial cause (and within 3 minutes would you expect that such a message should have been generated?).

What messages would you expect to see if a fire started in avionics? Etc. Just looking for other opportunities to extrapolate upon what we know.

andrasz

21st May 2016, 04:47

I would hold my breath on the validity of the ACARS data. It has neither been confirmed by Egyptair or Airbus, the two parties who surely must have been aware of its existence were it genuine for two days now. There is nothing damning for either party in the contents, and releasing or at least acknowledging it would have given a credibility boost to other official statements, indicating that they really tell what they know. I see no good reason why especially Egyptair would want to reject this relatively positive PR opportunity at this very difficult time. Unless of course there is no such ACARS data, and somebody made it up... It is now all over the mainstream press, quoting AVH (though CNN seems to have obtained it independently from same unnamed source, which if genuine can only be from MS or AB).

SLFplatine

21st May 2016, 05:03

The Egyptian authorities were quite quick to point to the likelihood of a terrorist (or criminal) cause stating it was not likely to have been a technical aircraft issue with the EgyptAir plane. Too quick, to my simple but cynical mind.
Metrojet 9268 -despite the fact that by early November American and British authorities suspected a bomb and in mid November the Russian Security Services were certain it was a terrorist attack (not to mention Daesh (ISIL) in the Sinai claimed responsibility) the Egyptian investigative team, headed by one Ayman al-Muqaddam (who will lead the investigation of EgyptAir 804) issued a preliminary report in December stating: "no evidence that there is an act of terror or illegal intervention"
:ugh:

Bobman84

21st May 2016, 05:25

All those talking about fire - can you name one incident where a fire on board a passenger jet aircraft was never relayed onto ATC or even other aircraft in the area?

pattern_is_full

21st May 2016, 05:44

Simple answer, Bobman: "There is a first time for everything."

Coagie

21st May 2016, 06:30

Since there is no fire suppression in the avionics Bay of an A320, is there a procedure when the avionics bay smoke detector goes into alarm?

DaveReidUK

21st May 2016, 06:31

It is now all over the mainstream press, quoting AVH (though CNN seems to have obtained it independently from same unnamed source, which if genuine can only be from MS or AB).

No, it could just as easily have originated from whichever ACARS datalink service provider Egyptair use - if so, most likely ARINC/GLOBALink or SITA.

Propduffer

21st May 2016, 06:39

gulfairs (http://www.pprune.org/members/42120-gulfairs)

A difference that jumps out at me is the fact that you had the "aviate" part under control; this doesn't seem to be the case with MS804. It appears that the flight crew was already overtasked, and in any event, a turn in MS 804's case would have taken him away from the nearest runway. Straight ahead, he surely knew that he was almost close enough to see the lights of Alexandria. Also, the sky was all his at that time on that night, afik there was only one other aircraft even within VHF distance.

But some are more procedure bound than others; under the Dryfus model, an "expert" has the ability to: "Transcend reliance on rules, guidelines, and maxims" if the situation calls for it. This guy had 6,000 hours as a commercial pilot, he certainly wasn't a novice.

But you may be right, as the problem began he may have thought he had it under control and was just beginning to go through a checklist. So he cleared his airspace first.

andrasz

21st May 2016, 06:48

... it could just as easily have originated ...
Agreed, though perhaps a bit less easily, as these organisations have stricter protocols & controls on who/how can access such data. The origin seems to be a screencap photo, probably taken with a phone.

pilotmike

21st May 2016, 06:51

@ Pace I am not convinced for a number of reasons firstly if the aircraft left Paris is would expose a very serious security hole at Paris which would have implications for thousands of aircraft operating out of there:ugh: What a ridiculous statement.

On that basis, presumably you're similarly "not convinced" 9/11 happened because "the implications for aviation" would be too great.

This sort of nonsense - along with "why don't we find a way to discretely pass our coordinates instead of flying the plane when things get tough" - is why most have simply given up hoping to find any serious contributions here.

jack11111

21st May 2016, 07:03

BBC World Service quoting AVHerald about ACARS messaging on MS804.

mover625

21st May 2016, 07:32

On May 20th 2016 The Aviation Herald received information from three independent channels, that ACARS (Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System) messages with following content were received from the aircraft:

00:26Z 3044 ANTI ICE R WINDOW
00:26Z 561200 R SLIDING WINDOW SENSOR
00:26Z 2600 SMOKE LAVATORY SMOKE
00:27Z 2600 AVIONICS SMOKE
00:28Z 561100 R FIXED WINDOW SENSOR
00:29Z 2200 AUTO FLT FCU 2 FAULT
00:29Z 2700 F/CTL SEC 3

As far as I understand the R sliding window electrical power comes from DC Bus 2 and since there is no sliding window position sensor presumably the right sliding window messages are due to loss of electrical power to the window.

Any Airbus people out there want to comment?

paulmoscow

21st May 2016, 07:50

BEA confirmed that the messages are genuine.

Right Way Up

21st May 2016, 07:56

I believe the messages ANTI ICE R WINDOW, R SLIDING WINDOW SENSOR, R FIXED WINDOW SENSOR are all messages you would expect with failure of the WHC 2. That along with SEC 3 and FCU 2 would suggest a partial failure of the DC Bus 2. (DC Bus 2 also powers CIDS 2 - poss link with toilet smoke?)

goeasy

21st May 2016, 07:57

Yes. On the bus there is NO window open sensor/indication.

These messages are purely relating to window heat which operates at all times engines are running.

But don't let facts get in the way of a load of drivel here!

JosV

21st May 2016, 08:03

mover625. Looking at the FCOM, there are a lot of systems that will go INOP when DC Bus 2 fails, but they also note that failure could happen on a sub bus, which obviously would take out less.
As a list of equipment (not complete) dependent on Bus 2 (which includes all the ACARS warnings):
INOP SYS
SPLR 1+2+5, ELAC 2(1), SEC 2+3
VHF 2, CTR TK PUMP 2, LGCIU 2
REVERSER 2, CAB PR 2,
FAC 2, L TK PUMP 2, R TK PUMP 2
ENG 1 LOOP B, ENG 2 LOOP A, PACK 2 REGUL
FCDC 2, MAIN GALLEY, Y ELEC PUMP (if selected ON)
BRAKES SYS 2, F/O STAT, R WSLHD HEAT
R WNDW HEAT, AP 2, FCU 2
LGCIU 1 (2)

Other INOP SYS
SFCC 2, R cabin fan, F/O wiper
F/O rain rplnt, Eng 1 and 2 fire ext btl 2, Autobrake (due to loss of 2 SECs)
BMC 2 Bleed, X feed auto control, RMP 2
FQI channel 2 zone controller, sec channel SDCU 2
Brake fan, Eng 2 oil low press and qty ind, R loudspeaker
rudder trim ind, FMGC 2 CDLS

wiggy

21st May 2016, 08:07

don't let facts get in the way of a load of drivel here!

The speculation might be drivel but OTOH (and as paulmoscow has mentioned) the BEA ( French Accident Investigation Bureau) do now seem to be verifying the information that the likes of CNN have been putting out in the last day or so.

I'll see if I can track down an official BEA statement but in the meantime French media report from this morning here:

Des fumées détectées dans l'avion d'EgyptAir juste avant sa disparition (http://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/europe/disparition-du-vol-ms804-d-egyptair/des-fumees-detectees-dans-l-avion-d-egyptair-juste-avant-sa-disparition_1460927.html)

In short the report says the BEA is confirming there were ACARS transmissions indicating smoke in the cabin before communications were lost, but they are still not willing to speculate on the cause of the accident, waiting for the recorders, etc.

mono

21st May 2016, 08:11

I think the drivel refers to the rampant speculation and, frankly BS written on here by people who have no idea about the A320 or indeed aviation in general. Not the ACARS messages themselves.

Squawk_ident

21st May 2016, 08:13

Propduffer wrote:
I think we can put that idea to rest. The plane was on it's assigned airway with protected airspace to the rear.../...

Because of the very few traffics at this time, it looks like MSR804 got direct clearances until KUMBI. The Heading is 139 untill KUMBI. Just after KUMBI the aircraft turns right heading 147. This is not the correct heading towards BLT VORDME on the UL612. The normal one on this track is 134 deg.
The heading 147 looks like a short cut manually initiated and can only be on ATC request/order or the crew decision. We know that the Greek ATC lost the voice contact but not the radar one at the FIR handover. The Greek ATC could not have allowed this direct because they are not in charge after KUMBI. What about the Egyptian ATC? If the MSR804 modified his heading at the FIR boundary with an nonstandard track, it might be because the voice contact was established with Cairo? But the squawk remains 1455. Normally the squawk code changes at the FIR but not for the MSR804 although it may be a FR24 bug. Can we imagine that the MS804 contacted Cairo Center and got a direct to clearance? Another possibility is that just after KUMBI something wrong happened and the crew decided to take a short way.

The last reliable FR24 contact from the F-LGPR2 station is at N 33.2037 E 29.1597. After the FR24 shows "EST" as estimated. It means that the latest station able to receive the ADS-B signals lost contact and FR24 calculates the track with the latest available data.

KUMBI N33.7139 E28.7500
F-LGRP2 Squawk 1455 N 33.3093 E 29.0776
F-LGRP2 Squawk 1455 N 33.2037 E 29.1597
EST N33.0868 E29.2503...

French media now announce that the BEA confirms that smoke was detected in the cabin (ACARS)

http://i67.tinypic.com/6znbd2.jpg

goeasy

21st May 2016, 08:16

Wiggly I don't think the ACARS report is drivel.

Just too many of the other assumptions and hypotheses here.

ACARS are broadcast on open frequencies and receivable by anyone with correct equipment, so not intended confidential in any way.

mono

21st May 2016, 08:32

Regarding the ACARS messages, if they are genuine. The window sensor messages refer to sensors which detect the temperature of the window and are required in order for the WHC to control the amount of current required to maintain the window at optimum temperature for anti ice and/or defog. The messages do not indicate that power is lost to the windows or the WHC, although failure of the sensor will result in the WHC removing power from the affected window. For whatever reason the RH sliding and fixed windows lost the sensor signal.

The WHCs live quite far forward on the aircraft with WHC 2 on the RHS. Certainly not below the lavs or even the FWD galley to be honest.

While I don't want to speculate. I believe that the Egyptian authorities have been a little quick to state that terror is the most likely cause. It's looking more like an uncontained event. As to why there was no communication? Has anyone considered that the second flight crew member wasn't in the flight deck at the time (rest break a little before TOD?) or was somehow incapacitated?

IcePack

21st May 2016, 08:33

The more I look at the supposed facts it seems to me that this is a loss of conceinceness event. Lot of cyanide given off by burning parts of aircraft. 90ish turn decent then some bank applied then pilots pass out completely.
However speculation only.
Fire in flight pilots worst nightmare.

Vc10Tail

21st May 2016, 08:47

I had already mentioned possibilities of Crew incapacitation during emergency descent earlier.CVR will reveal.Lets just wait and see shall we.

Pace

21st May 2016, 08:58

I still think there was an explosion either man made or accidental which could have caused a rapid decompression
Smoke having experienced it myself in a private corporate jet 12 years ago tends to be more gradual in build up
Obviously there are procedures for that including dumping cabin pressure
With a rapid decompression that alone would dump cabin pressure to the extreme so would itself evacuate smoke

ajamieson

21st May 2016, 08:59

The ACARS messages are genuine, per BEA.

testpanel

21st May 2016, 09:01

Somebody mentioned all ACARS messages, those systems involved are powered by DC bus 2.
Can anybody confirm that?
If so, what else is powered by DC bus 2?
Anyone able to copy/paste the QRH items for a DC bus 2?

clark y

21st May 2016, 09:18

If the aircraft was put into emergency elec config would the CVR and FDR still work?

rideforever

21st May 2016, 09:30

It's incredible that nobody knows where the plane is 2 days later. Even a simple device could fix this.

MartinM

21st May 2016, 09:35

For those interested in the Electrical Systems of an A320. Continue to read here
Plane Airbus A320 (http://www.smartcockpit.com/plane/AIRBUS/A320.html)

Although outdated, certainly still valid for reference only.

DaveReidUK

21st May 2016, 10:00

It's incredible that nobody knows where the plane is 2 days later.

No, it isn't.

Even a simple device could fix this.No, it couldn't.

tatelyle

21st May 2016, 10:05

Re: ACARS messages.
Wondering - anti ice probably means for whatever reason- temp sensor ? Or the f/o turned on electric antice and something shorted and started a fire - then sensor wiring burned through, triggering the R fixed window sensor?

ACARS messages: You mean this may have been a fire under the f/o's side window, just like this one in an Egyptair 777 ??

And this was not an electrical fire. The reason for this fire and others like it in the region is likely to be linked to the way crews operate. But I cannot tell you the reason why this happens, because nobody will talk about it. Not even the NTSB or AAIB.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/28/article-2591402-1CA3EBC700000578-867_634x478.jpg

vmandr

21st May 2016, 10:09

@MartinM

any chance for a link to a A320 AMM ?

*** seems I found it ! all shorts of AB manuals at : http://www.amevoice.com/forum/19/airbus-manuals/

hotmetal

21st May 2016, 10:13

Where is the crew oxygen bottle on the 320?

cropduster79

21st May 2016, 10:14

#MartinM
The electrical pages on the A320 are interesting but it would nice to see a FMECA of the various systems. I did a FMECA on an A350 WIPS, so I know someone must have a copy.

Mo122

21st May 2016, 10:15

Egyptian navy findings so far, click on the image for a higher resolution

http://s32.postimg.org/ruaqnfgch/image.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/ruaqnfgch/)

http://s32.postimg.org/hvps0y6wx/image.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/hvps0y6wx/)

http://s32.postimg.org/apy0yhxtt/image.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/apy0yhxtt/)

http://s32.postimg.org/8wv4a6cn5/image.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/8wv4a6cn5/)

http://s32.postimg.org/6n2eloebl/image.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/6n2eloebl/)

andrasz

21st May 2016, 10:20

Thanks Mo!

That was clearly a high-energy impact with sea.

GunpowderPlod

21st May 2016, 10:20

Re Egypt Air 777 fire posted by Tatelyle:
Probable causes for the accident can be reached through:
1. Electrical fault or short circuit resulted in electrical heating of flexible hoses in the flight crew oxygen system. (Electrical Short Circuits; contact between aircraft wiring and oxygen system components may be possible if multiple wire clamps are missing or fractured or if wires are incorrectly installed).
2. Exposure to Electrical Current.
ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 777-266ER SU-GBP Cairo International Airport (CAI) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20110729-0)

mono

21st May 2016, 10:21

O2 bottle is FWD LHS by the NLG dog box.

JohanB

21st May 2016, 10:23

Rule
Special Conditions: Airbus A318, A319, A320, and A321 Series Airplanes; Astronautics Electronic Flight Bags With Lithium Battery Installations
A Rule by the Federal Aviation Administration on 12/05/2008

dundas42

21st May 2016, 10:24

Acars supposesd to show fire in toilet and then flight deck.. How would this make aircraft complete a 60 degree left turn followed by a 360 degree right turn then a plunge to fl15 before radar contact lost?

vincentdevroey

21st May 2016, 10:25

Only speculation but has this accident (smoke in the lavatories) anything to do with the security risk identified some years ago related to oxygen generators in lavatories? See http://www.airsafenews.com/2011/03/faa-orders-removal-of-lavatory-oxygen.html

This security directive was implemented by i.a. US and EU airlines. No idea whether it was implemented by Egyptair as well.

andrasz

21st May 2016, 10:25

@tatelyle: Are you referring to the fact that the front row in aircraft of most airlines in the region is a (non)designated smoking section ? Indeed a dropped or discarded butt landing on the O2 hose could do the trick...

A0283

21st May 2016, 10:52

many, many options still open...

When you look at recent accidents, a loss of control sequence can run Within a timeframe of 4 minutes.

More surprising, in the case of fire turning out to be a cause, is the relatively short time between first sensing and the actual crash time estimate. In general a fire or smoke caused crash event takes much longer to run. Take for example the Swiss Canadian and Joh'burg cases and a number of Middle Eastern cases.

So another option could be actions following system/fire warnings leading to actions causing loss of control.

flightfeline

21st May 2016, 11:03

CBS news reporting as followsEgyptAir Flight 804: Black boxes for crashed airplane located - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/egyptair-flight-804-black-boxes-crashed-airplane-located-mediterranean-sea/)

Search crews have located the data recorders for EgyptAir Flight 804 close to an area where human remains and debris from the crashed flight have been found, Egyptian government sources confirmed to CBS News.

andrasz

21st May 2016, 11:05

@San Diego kid: I can assure you that on all recent flights I have taken with MS to/from Europe, and most on Turkish (and there were quite a few), I could smell cigarette smoke, and there was no doubt as to where it was coming from.

wiggy

21st May 2016, 11:06

many, many options still open...

On that subject at least one (French) source has cautioned that the smoke warnings might be a result of decompression...( and TBF there is a note to that effect in at least one Boeing manual).

I guess I'll leave it to others more familiar with the A320 to discuss how credible that is on the type and how it ties in or not with other known credible data.

andrasz

21st May 2016, 11:11

While the ACARS messages have been confirmed as genuine, I would continue to exercise caution when treating the ECAM warnings on face value. These are computer generated messages, and they could occur under two conditions:
1) a fully functional system, operating as designed
2) a compromised system, with unpredictable behavior

In the second case, the messages only indicate a fault with the entire system, and have nothing to do with any nominal fault displayed.

StormyKnight

21st May 2016, 11:12

21/05/2016 21:04
CBS are reporting that the black box data recorder of downed EgyptAir flight 804 has been found in the area close to where the debris was discovered. They quote 'Egyptian government sources' but nothing has been confirmed yet.

A crew from Britain's ITV News on the ground in Cairo also claim EgyptAir are not denying the claim.

BREAKING EgyptAir Flight #MS804 from Paris to Cairo disappeared from radar during the night | AIRLIVE.net (http://www.airlive.net/breaking-egyptair-flight-ms804-from-paris-to-cairo-disappears-from-radar/)

TylerMonkey

21st May 2016, 11:18

ACARS messages: You mean this may have been a fire under the f/o's side window, just like this one in an Egyptair 777 ??

And this was not an electrical fire. The reason for this fire and others like it in the region is likely to be linked to the way crews operate. But I cannot tell you the reason why this happens, because nobody will talk about it. Not even the NTSB or AAIB.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/28/article-2591402-1CA3EBC700000578-867_634x478.jpg
Report says it was electrical fire involving oxygen hoses.
And your point is what ?

wiggy

21st May 2016, 11:18

A crew from Britain's ITV News on the ground in Cairo also claim EgyptAir are not denying the claim.

This comment will no doubt be quite correctly quickly modded out but that's priceless...

Goldenrivett

21st May 2016, 11:26

Hi tatelyle,
And this was not an electrical fire. The reason for this fire and others like it in the region is likely to be linked to the way crews operate. But I cannot tell you the reason why this happens, because nobody will talk about it. Not even the NTSB or AAIB.

Er.... The accident report is available from the Egyptian CAA website (but very slow to download). Another copy here B777_SU-GBP.pdf (http://www.blackholes.org.uk/PP/B777_SU-GBP.pdf)
See page 35.
The cause was attributed to missing electrical wire clamps and sleeving which allowed the PVC covered Stainless Steel wire around the FO's O2 hose to rub, cause an electrical short circuit and start a fire which was then fed by the crew's O2.

In what way is that linked to the way the crews operate?

birmingham

21st May 2016, 11:33

Originally Posted by andrasz View Post
@San Diego kid: I can assure you that on all recent flights I have taken with MS to/from Europe, and most on Turkish (and there were quite a few), I could smell cigarette smoke, and there was no doubt as to where it was coming from.

- Don't know about Egyptair but I fly Turkish a lot often at the front of the plane and I have never, not even once, seen anyone smoking

andrasz

21st May 2016, 11:39

@Birmingham: you never see, only smell. Most noticeable on 73's where cockpit air gets vented to the rear of the pax cabin. On the big ones it is undetectable.

SaturnV

21st May 2016, 11:39

The CBS News report

EgyptAir Flight 804: Black boxes for crashed airplane located, Egypt government sources claim - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/egyptair-flight-804-black-boxes-crashed-airplane-located-mediterranean-sea/)

seems to have lost something in translation.

The black boxes being "located" would mean they detected the pingers, though this is not explained.

CBS News also reports that the ACARS reports indicate "smoke was coming from one of the engines."
_________________________

A NY Times 'expert' focuses on loss of the autoflight control computer while flying near maximum speed and altitude, and then the loss of the spoiler elevator controller.

Obie

21st May 2016, 11:42

Since the days of the Wright brothers all commercial a/c accidents have been caused by one or more of the following:

1. Weather
2. Structural failure
3. In flight fire
4. Onboard explosion
5. Pilot error
6. Hijack
7. Pilot suicide
8. Crew incapacitation

...and don't forget Occam's Razor!

lurkio

21st May 2016, 11:44

Sailvi767

21st May 2016, 11:46

<<Perhaps one engine may have flamed out, causing the crew to exit 90 degrees from the airway whilst trying to restart the engine.>>

Is this now standard procedure?

Having had two engine flameouts at altitude I can tell you it's a very benign event. You get some yaw but nothing like a engine loss at V1. The aircraft decelerates slowly and that rate decreases after selecting Max continuous power on the other engine. You have plenty of time to call ATC and get a clearance to descend before the aircraft reaches clean speed. There is no need for a off airway turn unless directed by ATC.

Mo122

21st May 2016, 12:11

Footage of the debris
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=share&v=QRZlfCIb8qE

Ranger One

21st May 2016, 12:17

Someone asked a couple of pages back if something was DC2 powered. WHC2 is DC2 powered as is CIDS CH2, FCU2 and SEC3. Can't find what powers Avionics smoke but there are a whole lot more things that would have shown up if DC2 had completely failed.
DING. That's why I posed the question I did a couple of pages back; there's an oddball collection of items in the messages - but most significant is what there isn't in those messages. And that there wasn't complete silence; the fact that we have any messages at all is also highly significant.

Old Boeing Driver

21st May 2016, 12:33

I've been away from this thread.

Does this model Bus have an auto emergency descent capability.

I know I saw this asked in this thread, but have not seen an answer.

Also in this thread, someone asked about inadvertent thrust reverser deployment.

I know it is a different model aircraft, but the Lauda 004 incident comes to mind. There is still controversy about whether a high speed deployment would be survivable.

Finally, had anyone stepped up to claim responsibility for this accident?

Thanks for any answers.

BCAR Section L

21st May 2016, 12:57

there's an oddball collection of items in the messages

says who?

am armchair expert?
a professional pilot who has never once read a maintenance or troubleshooting manual?
a journalist fishing
or a mechanic who deals with these messages every day?

I think some clarity would be needed in order to place some weight and accuracy on the comment.

Walnut

21st May 2016, 13:26

wiggy

21st May 2016, 13:33

Walnut

Indeed, it's something one or two ex- airline media sources have mentioned as one possibility (and was mentioned in # 407 ....), but even they were raising the same concerns you have about the seeming lack of a concurrent "cabin altitude" ACARS message (or similar).

StormyKnight

21st May 2016, 13:44

@Walnut, there was a post earlier of the computer screen with the ACARS messages. http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/579183-egyptair-804-disappears-radar-paris-cairo-18.html#post9383206 One of the columns had a Priority level. Some of these messages were low & some higher. Also they were over several minutes.
One thing I did notice was another column -> Occurrence History

The "Smoke Lavatory Smoke" Message had occurred before... since the 18th May 2016 @ 21:09.... The date & time start is set at top of picture.
EDIT: Looks like it was the same flight....this ACARS report shows only from engine start.

What does each block indicate in the occurrence history, I assume some sort of time period or engine start?

SLFplatine

21st May 2016, 13:45

From a story on the DW (Deutsche Welle) website this AM:
"Smoke and fire broke out on board EgyptAir flight MS804 minutes before the plane plunged off radar screens during the early hours of Thursday morning.
"There was a fire on board," aviation expert Tim van Beveren told DW. "The system sent very clear messages. There was lavatory smoke detected. A minute later, avionics compartment smoke detected...Two minutes later, the flight control units are failing.""
Fatal EgyptAir flight suffered on-board fire minutes before crash | News | DW.COM | 20.05.2016 (http://www.dw.com/en/fatal-egyptair-flight-suffered-on-board-fire-minutes-before-crash/a-19274278)

Above The Clouds

21st May 2016, 13:55

Just bear in mind that because you receive a "Lavatory Smoke Message" and an "Avionics Smoke Message" doesn't mean a fire started in either of these places.

BCAR Section L

21st May 2016, 13:59

exactly. The lavatory message may even relate to a lav at the rear.

A0283

21st May 2016, 14:18

A report on a cargo hold fire from a number of years ago included a systematic investigation of different types of smoke and fire sensors performances. Not only on fire and smoke, but also on multiple possible causes for spurious warnings. One of the conclusions was that one type/class of sensors was inaccurate. And its replacement by another type strongly recommended.

Pity i dont remember the exact case at the moment. Perhaps someone else does.

As far as i can recall the inaccurate type was sensitive to particles other than smoke and fire related ones. may have been a visual/optical kind of sensor. Decompression was one of the causes of stirring up dust particles in the cargo hold causing these sensors to go off. And the better types being InfraRed IR (heat source).

So in cases like these you would have to know the specific type of sensors before you are able to understand what triggered the sensor, which triggers the warning message, and in what kind of priority, to what kind of warning system. This requires both correct aircraft configuration information and knowledgeable system and data interpretation.

Another issue which became clear from the report is how difficult it can be for pilots and crew to distinguish between smell, smoke, fire. Especially when the source area is not directly visible or accessible.
And combined with other cases ... Is that with a fire a straight course to any airport is the safest solution, followed by immediate evacuation.
These last two lines show how complex such a situation can be for pilots and their decision making.

The very fast reaction in this case suggests .... No more than suggests ... Directly observable smoke or fire. Cause of that smoke or fire unknown.

Ranger One

21st May 2016, 14:20

says who?

am armchair expert?
a professional pilot who has never once read a maintenance or troubleshooting manual?
a journalist fishing
or a mechanic who deals with these messages every day?

I think some clarity would be needed in order to place some weight and accuracy on the comment.
By the phrase "oddball" I simply meant that there's nothing that stands out; no obvious smoking gun as it were. With the possible exception of the avionics bay smoke perhaps... but as other have pointed out there are multiple possible causes for that message.

The significance (to me) is nothing more than 1. there are ACARS messages and 2. the messages don't contain anything catastrophic. I'm not reading anything more into it than that.

CaptainMongo

21st May 2016, 14:21

00:26Z 3044 ANTI ICE R WINDOW
00:26Z 561200 R SLIDING WINDOW SENSOR
00:26Z 2600 SMOKE LAVATORY SMOKE
00:27Z 2600 AVIONICS SMOKE
00:28Z 561100 R FIXED WINDOW SENSOR
00:29Z 2200 AUTO FLT FCU 2 FAULT
00:29Z 2700 F/CTL SEC 3

LAV SMOKE was third message sent, this leads me to believe whatever brought the AC down did not originate in the Lavatory. If a fire originated in the lav, the attendants would have been trained to aggressively fight the fire once made aware of it. I believe there would have been a greater time lag between a lav originated fire and the end result. On our aircraft there is no ECAM for lav smoke, but there is an unannuciated checklist:

Lavatory Smoke

Condition: Smoke or fire is detected in a lavatory.

WARNING: If the smoke becomes so dense or toxic that it becomes the more immediate emergency, accomplish the Dense Smoke/Fuel Vapor checklist.

The Cabin attendants would be the first to know of lav smoke via CIDS generated audio and visual warnings. On our aircraft three low chimes are generated throughout the cabin. The amber section of the attendant call panel nearest the affected lav will flash. Finally the attendant information panel will read on the top line, "SMOKE LAVATORY" and on the second line "A,D or F" to indicate which lavatory detector is signaling smoke. Granted our Air Buses are dated, so newer models may have somewhat different indications.

Finally the lavatory exhaust fans run anytime power is on the aircraft and exhaust through the outflow valve.

FE Hoppy

21st May 2016, 14:29

I take it the avionics smoke detector will detect smoke vented from the cockpit which would suggest a window heating element on the right side could be the cause.

Mr Optimistic

21st May 2016, 14:30

No A/P off msg generated ?

Above The Clouds

21st May 2016, 14:32

Captain Mongo
LAV SMOKE was third message sent, this leads me to believe whatever brought the AC down did not originate in the Lavatory. If a fire originated in the lav, the attendants would have been trained to aggressively fight the fire once made aware of it

Exactly why I posted

Above The Clouds
Just bear in mind that because you receive a "Lavatory Smoke Message" and an "Avionics Smoke Message" doesn't mean a fire started in either of these places.

Old Boeing Driver

21st May 2016, 14:38

Some aircraft initiate an emergency descent when certain events are sensed.

I don't know if this plane, or any of the newer Boeings or Buses are so equipped.

As an example, the Gulfstream 450-650 models automatically initiate an emergency descent to 15,000 and slow there to 250kts if a cabin depressurization occurs at altitude. It also changes heading by 90 degrees.

This happens provided the A/P and the auto-throttles are on.

Jonty

21st May 2016, 14:44

I think your all reading too much into these messages.
Just because the message was generated doesn't mean the situation actually occurred.
Also the unrelated nature of the messages points to a different explanation to me.

ArchieBabe

21st May 2016, 14:53

The Citation X and XLS have it also.

oldchina

21st May 2016, 15:03

Old Boeing Driver
"... the Lauda 004 incident comes to mind. There is still controversy about whether a high speed deployment would be survivable"

Apparently not, according to Boeing and the final report, at least not at cruise altitude. Certification tests showed it should be controllable but they were made at lower altitude. When Boeing flew the Lauda scenario in the simulator the loss of control was so rapid that there was no possibility of catching it in time.

mover625

21st May 2016, 15:13

When an a/c suffers a rapid depressurisation the initial effect is a white mist (water vapour) obscures the cabin, smoke sensors could be fooled into detecting this, however one would expect a cabin low pressure to be triggered at the same time
So is it possible that this sensor was somehow disabled or maybe its protocol to transmit the warning to ACARS was not in the time available?

Having had a rapid decompression at FL330 on an L1011 I can tell you from my own experience that there was no white mist just a loud 'woomph' sound and that, with a check on the cabin altitude, was enough to prompt us to don oxygen masks and start an emergency descent. The cause was the failure of the rear negative pressure relief valve which is some 80 cm in diameter which had a total failue around its perimeter.

seen_the_box

21st May 2016, 15:20

I take it the avionics smoke detector will detect smoke vented from the cockpit which would suggest a window heating element on the right side could be the cause.

Yes. The Avionics Smoke ECAM can be triggered by smoke sources external to the avionics bay.

ExSimGuy

21st May 2016, 15:22

Years (many!) since I was "in the business", but I wonder if anyone else noticed in the pictures of the debris (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/579183-egyptair-804-disappears-radar-paris-cairo-21.html#post9383765 - post 907) that nothing out of the clothing, belongings, aircraft parts, etc, seemed to be burned or scorched?

Perhaps the debris so far located (or photographed for public consumption) was from the opposite end of the aircraft from where the presumed fire started, and break-up separated those parts from the fire, - or can an inference be drawn, or at least postulated?

wiggy

21st May 2016, 15:24

I can tell you from my own experience that there was no white mist

TBH I suspect no two decompressions are the same, especially the rate of pressure change, the associated temperature drop and I guess also relative humidity will play a part in misting.

I can certainly can remember there being white mist back in the days of being subject to rapid decompressions as part of altitude chamber runs...

mrdeux

21st May 2016, 15:24

mover265...interesting that you say that you had no misting in your event, as that was also my experience in a 747 depressurisation.

Basil

21st May 2016, 15:29

I can certainly can remember there being white mist back in the days of rapid decompressions as part of altitude chamber runs...
Perhaps that's because, in the hypobaric chamber, you start off with sea level air which may be more humid than that at high altitude.
I've never had a rapid decompression in an aircraft but there was misting in the hypoxia run.

wiggy

21st May 2016, 15:32

The 360 degrees turn, as described by the Greek Defence Minister, is a good pilot manoeuvre to increase drag and thus accelerate the descent.

Well in theory it is, and certainly has it's uses on smaller types, especially high performance types, especially if you load it up...... However whether it is an appropriate, sensible or "good" manoeuvre to employ on a transport category aircraft at night is another matter...and might be "interesting", if not impossible, with functioning FBW.

Basil - good point, thanks.

Magnetic Iron

21st May 2016, 15:33

From the NY Times
¨ First, there was a problem with the autoflight control computer. The jet would have been flying near its maximum speed and elevation at that time. That is the most efficient way for jetliners to fly, and it is safe, but pilots prefer to rely on autopilot systems in those conditions because if they were to ever lose control of the plane, it could be hard to regain, Mr. Mann said. The last message had to do with the spoiler elevator controller, which essentially controls the flaps responsible for pitch and roll control. The computer controlling these failed as well.

“It looks to me like you have a progressive flight control system failure,” Mr. Mann said. It is over the course of two minutes, which might have seemed like an eternity on that plane, but is relatively fast.This is also the moment that the plane left Greek airspace, and at 2:29:40 a.m., Greek controllers lost the aircraft’s trace, just inside Egyptian airspace, about halfway between Crete and Egypt.

Around this time, the plane made a 90-degree turn to the left and then a full circle to the right, dropping precipitously to 15,000 feet from 37,000 and then plunging again to 9,000 feet before it disappeared from radar.

The crew never gave any indication of a technical problem or other difficulties on board, even during the final, fatal minutes when the plane itself was transmitting data indicating a catastrophic failure.

One former crash investigator said that radar evidence pointing to a series of sharp maneuvers in the moments before radar contact was lost suggested that the plane was almost certainly not under the control of the pilots. Whatever upset the Airbus was so sudden and violent that it could not be compensated for by the plane’s automated safety systems.

“In my mind, this basically opens two axes of possibility: either a sudden technical problem or some kind of illicit or terrorist act,” said the expert, Alain Bouillard, a former chief investigator for the French Bureau of Investigations and Analyses.¨

RatherBeFlying

21st May 2016, 15:35

Many more ACARS maintenance messages were issued by AF447.

Considerable speculation swirled around these messages until recovery of the CVR and FDR which showed a thoroughly different scenario to the many that had previously been theorized.

At present we have a few puzzle pieces and many more to recover.

nnc0

21st May 2016, 15:39

Old Boeing Driver

21st May 2016, 15:54

I meant to say "not" survivable. Good catch.

lomapaseo

21st May 2016, 16:45

oldchina

Old Boeing Driver
"... the Lauda 004 incident comes to mind. There is still controversy about whether a high speed deployment would be survivable"

Apparently not, according to Boeing and the final report, at least not at cruise altitude. Certification tests showed it should be controllable but they were made at lower altitude. When Boeing flew the Lauda scenario in the simulator the loss of control was so rapid that there was no possibility of catching it in time.

The issue of controllability has to do with the reverser efflux effect on control surfaces at specific speed configurations.

Deployment at altitude is quite different than early climb

wilyflier

21st May 2016, 16:45

Kittiara

Think Swissair 111

jurassicjockey

21st May 2016, 16:49

Kittiara
or UPS 6 out of Dubai. If you haven't read those accident reports, then you should before making comments like that

Yaw String

21st May 2016, 17:01

Given a scenario of uncontrollable fire on board,the best fire extinguisher at hand was 37,000' below them....Any recovered flight deck parts could play a major part in the puzzle...and possibly answer the question as to why no distress call was given.....The Egyptair 777 came to my mind too..
All guessing...aren't we!!!!!!

takata

21st May 2016, 17:06

The final sequence of ACMS messages transmitted via ACARS was

ANTI ICE R WINDOW
R SLIDING WINDOW SENSOR
SMOKE LAVATORY SMOKE
AVIONICS SMOKE
R FIXED WINDOW SENSOR
AUTO FLT FCU 2 FAULT
F/CTL SEC 3 FAULT

I was considering the sequence of the faults/messages and the absence of some others and ignoring the AVIONICS SMOKE ECAM, it would lead one to suspect an avionics bay event that led to some kind of fire.

Following LAND ASAP in the QRH's SMOKE/FUMES/AVNCS SMOKE procedure, the next action states 'IF PERCEPTIBLE SMOKE APPLY IMMEDIATELY: '. The use of the word perceptible there is because in the case of AVIONICS smoke crew will likely smell the smoke before any ECAM warning is displayed. . The AVIONICS SMOKE detector is very slow to actually trigger an ECAM. I'm even suspecting the Lav smoke detector picked up smoke before the avionics detectors did.

(I had some initial speculations this might be an EFB issue (window mounted (iPad plugged into an 400 HZ f/d supply or some such other jerry rigged setup), which flared up and caused the WHC faults. Back in the day, prior to AIRBUS introducing the new LITHIUM PED FIRE procedure, some recommended moving the smoking device to the FWD LAV))

So while I'm inclined to think this is the result of some issue with, or upstream of, WHC 1 (or 2) and that the subsequent faults are probably related to the spreading fire, what I don't understand with that scenario is why there were so few ECAMS included in the ACMS ACARS msg. Surely there would have at least been a record of a ANTI ICE WNDSHIELD ECAM if that were the case?
ACARS, particularly their sequence in time, may be hard to understand from their very few lines displayed on screen, without their full headers, and sequential relations between them, including how they are supposed to be triggered (e.g. with or without delay, priority order, class, etc.).

Since we had AF447 ACARS discussed to death, we should be aware of that ACARS are designed to report "system fault" (and related message). Taken independently a "system fault" can cover quite a lot of events. First, it's hard to figure out the sequence of those events simply at looking at ACARS order, and next, it's hard to figure out what caused the fault to be reported without other data from the maintenance computer.

Nonetheless, ACARS are telling us that between take off and the end of the report :
1. this flight was uneventfull (system wise) until 00.26
2. events took place at cruise (6)
3. ACARS stopped at 00.29, hence 3-4 minutes of reporting.

Next, out of the ACARS report between 00.26 & 00.29, only "SMOKE" looks serious enough for causing the end of ACARS transmission 3-4 minutes later ; excepted from it, those ACARS are telling us that none of the aircraft vital system (and airframe) was actually compromised up to the end of transmission... because nothing else was reported than three minor "faults" up to 00.29. Whatever caused the loss happened after.

Also, whatever caused the smoke to be detected at the first place won't be read from ACARS only ; nothing can tell us if a system "faulting" is the cause or the consequence of a SMOKE event without any further data. So far, all we can do is to think about what action would take the crew while displayed "SMOKE" in lavatory then avionics :
http://takata1940.free.fr/1_smoke_source.jpg

Mr Optimistic

21st May 2016, 17:19

Whilst it seems the acars msg has been confirmed, has it been confirmed that these were the total of the messages ? Given the subsequent flight path, is it plausible that the ap was still engaged, and if not, would an acars msg on disconnect be expected?SLF, so pls don't be too harsh.

takata

21st May 2016, 17:23

ACARS might end transmittng following action of the crew after an "Avionics Smoke" ECAM is tiggered.
if ELEC EMER CONFIG is applied, ACARS should not be powered anymore as far as I can tell.

http://takata1940.free.fr/2_smoke.jpg

Old Boeing Driver

21st May 2016, 17:26

I think one of the important pieces to this event is the time it took to go from FL370 to 15,000 feet.

I think I saw in some earlier post that radar showed this to be a rather short time. A shorter time that an emergency descent would take.

Maybe someone here can refresh that information.

I would think a cabin, avionics bay, or lav fire would allow time for some emergency call.

I know they may have been in a poor ATC communication area, but maybe another aircraft on the frequency would have heard them.

somethingbrite

21st May 2016, 17:43

Forgive my ignorance, but I see only "hours and minutes" recorded in the times of these events. Are seconds within minutes not displayed?

Given the above - can we know if these events occur simultaneously and simply appear in the order they do so in this list by some accident of software logic - oris their order on the list absolutely defined by the order in which they occurred?

Also....without "seconds" how can we know the events of minute 26 and minute 27 did not actually occur within seconds of one another....?

Would this information be available to aircrew handling a sequence of errors and therefore allow them to perhaps make a causal link between errors?

I am not involved in the air industry at all, but I do handle systems where error reporting allows me to trace a causal event through real time error reporting.

takata

21st May 2016, 17:45

Magnetic Iron

21st May 2016, 18:01

With Avionics Smoke, Lavatory smoke, and SEC 3.

The relation of unrelated ( or related ) failures avionics smoke, lavatory smoke and a SEC 3 fault is disturbing and perturbing.
What if the cockpit filled up with smoke ?

The avionics smoke checklist is not easy, and in my opinion should be trained more often, it the real world it does not happen as in the simulator.
I could understand the crew being too busy ( aviating ) to make a radio call.

The possibility of a Electrical fire comes to mind?

Then how does this lead to the appearance that they lost control of the airplane ?
The investigators have their work cut out for them, and the results will take a while to come out.

As we see how conclusions were jumped too immediately. Once again, the experts who know the most at this point will say the least, until the facts come out.

HolyMoley

21st May 2016, 18:13

Do Egyptair have an EFB on the 320? The FO's one right next to the two faulty windows?

Bigbus330

21st May 2016, 18:20

"It would be infantile and churlish to engage in any form of speculation about the cause(s) of this crash, until relevant evidence and information from FDR and CVR has been gathered and analysed in the coming days and weeks" said no media organisation, aviation pundit or Monday morning quarterback ever.............!!

comcomtech

21st May 2016, 18:21

What I take away is the small number of alerts over a 3-minute period means a bomb was less likely to be at the origin of this disaster than an avionics bay fire-- that could have been an in-air mirror of the 777 MS incident at Cairo Airport.

takata

21st May 2016, 18:22

more...

http://takata1940.free.fr/3_smoke.jpg

http://takata1940.free.fr/4_smoke.jpg

http://takata1940.free.fr/5_smoke.jpg

mm_flynn

21st May 2016, 18:31

I haven't seen any timed data from the radar source anywhere. Only the manoeuvers were described, but it's way too vague at this point. No com reported is somewhat a clue about the situation of the crew by itself. One can imagine a fast pace of events taking place in a very short time.
I don't believe there is anything other than
1 - the last clean data item from FR24 is at 0:29:33
2 - Greek ATC say the lost primary radar contact at 00:30 (implied descending through 9 or 10 thousand feet).

There is no data other than the Greek defence Minister's statement that the aircraft made the manoeuvres attributed. The slick graphics are AFAIK all made up by the media outlets. The time frame between everything OK and claimed loss of radar contact is too short for ATC radar to have reliably detected the claimed heading changes. This would not be the first time a defence official attributed more information to the radar returns than appropriate (this happened both with the Brazil mid air collision and MH17).

I feel that particular comment is being given massively excessive weight and will likely prove to be a red herring.

The most likely scenario is everything progessed normally up to 0:26z and then by 0:29:33 there was fully developed catastrophe that resulted in the failure of all/most systems and the subsequent loss of the aircraft. Determine the sequence of events in leading to the catastrophe will need a few more days items to clarify.

One item, that is in the hands of the investigators, is the time stamped radar data. This will indicate if there really were 'controlled' turns or just an uncontrolled aircraft or fragments of aircraft tumbling down.

The claimed timeline would indicate a slightly negative g descent coupled with a 4-6 g set of turns sustained for about 30-50 seconds (for a net positive 3.5-6 g load). I would believe no sane A320 pilot would choose to initiate that kind of maneuver. However, it would be totally consistent with free falling debris.

Of course if the Greeks really lost radar contact at 0:35, then there would be plenty of time for pilot controlled maneuvers. But we don't have the data and will need to wait for it to be published.

vmandr

21st May 2016, 18:53

I know they may have been in a poor ATC communication area

and so for ACARS VHF receivers, if at FL150 or FL90, meaning additional - most probably generated - messages, 'were gone with the wind'...so last resort the DFDR it seems.

was checking AIP Greece, lowest control limit (airway floor) for UN132 is 7000 FT.

Interrogator

21st May 2016, 19:11

Thanks for the check-lists takata. Certainly most useful for pursuing a particular path. I have one firm opinion so far: more data please.

From the fault messages observed I would suspect a explosive device in the fwd galley area carts/cannisters. The explosion has breached the RHS of the aircraft causing the windshield heat controller, flight warning computer/air data fault, avionics smoke and in turn lav smoke faults. The explosion in that area also behind the flight deck circuit breaker panels 121VU etc ... very sad 😢

Water pilot

21st May 2016, 19:12

How many watts is that window deicing system? If you were to look at cockpit items that could possibly cause a fire, a window heater would be near the top of the list. High current next to condensation and vibration is a really good way to cause a fire, as many boaters have discovered.

Contrary to popular belief, circuit breakers do not protect you from fires. They protect you from one condition that can cause a fire but they do nothing to save you from a loose connection that heats up and melts the insulation. If there was resistance in the heating circuit the window would not get to temperature and the thermostat would keep calling for more heat, and the loose connection would keep getting hotter. I'm sure it is not that simple or it would happen more often, but I suspect we are about to learn a lot more about window deicing systems.

The three messages related to the RH window are telling us something.

GarageYears

21st May 2016, 19:32

From the fault messages observed I would suspect a explosive device in the fwd galley area carts/cannisters. The explosion has breached the RHS of the aircraft causing the windshield heat controller, flight warning computer/air data fault, avionics smoke and in turn lav smoke faults. The explosion in that area also behind the flight deck circuit breaker panels 121VU etc ... very sad

But you're missing the most important and obvious message? There is no "Cabin Pressure" message, right? At FL370 any breach of the pressure hull is going to bring a cacophony of warnings and messages. But there are none. And those would be well before any smoke messages if your bomb scenario were true.

Now, if you change your device to something incendiary... maybe?

- GY

CONSO

21st May 2016, 19:37

From the fault messages observed I would suspect a explosive device in the fwd galley area carts/cannisters. The explosion has breached the RHS of the aircraft causing the windshield heat controller, flight warning computer/air data fault, avionics smoke and in turn lav smoke faults. The explosion in that area also behind the flight deck circuit breaker panels 121VU etc ... very sad ��
Uhhh IF a rapid decompression caused by whatever means- then due to later recording of ACARS- a cabin altitude or similar differential pressure sensor alarm would be expected to appear in the next few 2 or 3 minutes. Since there is no such- the decompression scenario seems to be near zero probibility !!

D Bru

21st May 2016, 19:44

Wonder on basis of chklsts you provided whether, whatever the cause (small explosion not excluded), fltcrew as per prescribed drills did shed the AC BUS1 by shutting down GEN1, while the GEN2 driven electrical system was compromised, and may have hampered transfer to AC ESS FEED. May well explain the transponder going down too around 02:30, like everything electrical on board, including ability to communicate or to get transponder setting 7700 effectively through.
In addition, this is of course still to be confirmed, if I understood it well from the Greek defence ministers' report, the manoeuvres of MS804 (90° left, followed by 360° right, rapidly descending) took place between 02:27 and 02:29. Never mind the FR24 report that A/C maintained heading and altitude until 02:30, which is likely to be based on extrapolation.
Regards

Old Boeing Driver

21st May 2016, 19:45

"I don't believe there is anything other than
1 - the last clean data item from FR24 is at 0:29:33
2 - Greek ATC say the lost primary radar contact at 00:30 (implied descending through 9 or 10 thousand feet)."

I realize these time stamps may not be coordinated, but if I am reading this correctly.....they went from FL370 to 9 or 10,000 feet in 27 seconds?

45989

21st May 2016, 19:57

What about to 370 to Zero in no time?
When will all you armchair 'experts' stop bullsh1ting and wait for a sensible answer

Old Boeing Driver

21st May 2016, 20:00

Lots of people here just want to ask questions and form opinions.

That's one of the purposes of this forum.

Agreed, we should wait for answers, however, they may never come with the Egyptians in charge of the investigation.

B&Blue

21st May 2016, 20:04

Islay

21st May 2016, 20:26

The Airbus family don't have a feature of commencing an automatic descent incase of a decompression. The 787 doesn't even have this feature. I couldn't speak for the A350 though.

Rwy in Sight

21st May 2016, 20:28

What I should like to know is when the Greek ATC lost MS804 from its secondary radar maybe a useful indication to the state of the aircraft.

Chronus

21st May 2016, 20:34

When an aircraft dies.
The confounding elements and those that distinguish this particular loss, is the aircraft`s so far known behaviour in its dying throes. So far the link between its trajectories, both in the lateral and vertical planes and its electronic emissions, do not present any previously fitting or comparable pattern.
It will be sometime before any substantive evidence emerges which may assist in formulating any reasonable speculation as to the circumstance(s) which may have led to its demise.

vmandr

21st May 2016, 21:02

@Rwy In Sight

was covered by two MSSRs, Rhodes and Karpathos. According to the AIP Greece these
radars 'see' from ~7000 ( for KUMBI area I believe at least FL100 ) up.

when - aircraft/radar target reached that floor - was according to HCAA statement at 00:29:40 Z.

Interesting till now, they did not say, if they called immediately after aircraft departed assigned altitude or if the call was just for UIR handover and then they realized it was descending.

mm_flynn

21st May 2016, 21:03

Never mind the FR24 report that A/C maintained heading and altitude until 02:30, which is likely to be based on extrapolation.
Regards

The FR24 raw data gives every appearance of being actual ADSB messages from the aircraft, the projected data (which is not included in the raw data, but is used in the online display of aircraft tracks) is flagged as such. It is also completely consistent in time with the statements from Greek ATC. It would be amazing if the final facts don't show the aircraft in straight and level flight until 0:29:33 +- 2 seconds. What then happened will probably only be deduced from analysis of the radar data and wreckage.

The ACARS message are interesting, but the only thing that seems to fit is a 'fire' that then caused a sudden and catastrophic loss of power (so no more data) and then loss of control/integrity (resulting in the rapid descent - probably closer to a fall).

The descent timing based on the available statements appears to be close to what one would expect from a free fall, although the lack of clarity on the radar time makes this only a rough calculation.

Ps
The HCAA statement on the loss of 'radar signal' is ambiguous in that it probably meant the SSR return, but might have meant the primary return due to the descent going below the radar horizon. The various claims of turns and specific levels the aircraft descended through imply A - the SSR/ADSB data was being sent, B - there was some height finding radar (normally military) data, C - it is just noise that is not actually fact,

I think C is most probable, but that there is a time when the primary target disappeared, which is later than 00;29;40, but not clear if it is 20 seconds 1 minute or 3 minutes after this.

vmandr

21st May 2016, 21:19

@mm_flynn

Flightaware's log shows
Thu 03:29:31 33.6768 28.7912 137° Southeast 534 615 37,000 FlightAware ADS-B (GZP / LTFG)

that is actual ADSB from one or more LTFG receivers

so it seems ADSB quit at that time at FL370. 9 seconds later disappeared from radar. strange huh :confused:

00:26Z 3044 ANTI ICE R WINDOW
00:26Z 561200 R SLIDING WINDOW SENSOR
00:26Z 2600 SMOKE LAVATORY SMOKE
00:27Z 2600 AVIONICS SMOKE
00:28Z 561100 R FIXED WINDOW SENSOR
00:29Z 2200 AUTO FLT FCU 2 FAULT
00:29Z 2700 F/CTL SEC 3 FAULT

so ACARS first, followed by ADSB failure followed by the radar. I wonder if there is any truth in that 'witness' report about seeing a fireball...

Interrogator

21st May 2016, 21:37

Uhhh IF a rapid decompression caused by whatever means- then due to later recording of ACARS- a cabin altitude or similar differential pressure sensor alarm would be expected to appear in the next few 2 or 3 minutes. Since there is no such- the decompression scenario seems to be near zero probibility !!

Just my opinion and certainly not zero probability. We will see

Magplug

21st May 2016, 21:44

The first engineering CFDS messages that were transmitted were:

00:26Z 3044 ANTI ICE R WINDOW
00:26Z 561200 R SLIDING WINDOW SENSOR
00:26Z 2600 SMOKE LAVATORY SMOKE

The first 2 are associated with a failure of WHC 2 in the avionics bay but only generate one ECAM warning between them which is:
ANTI ICE R WINDSHIELD. That's the first clue that all is not well as WHC2 fails in the avionics bay below the FO's feet.

The front part of the aircraft is not entirely segmented so smoke/fumes will not be confined to the avionics bay..... so the next bit of bad news is:

SMOKE LAVATORY SMOKE (presumably toilet A). Remember the toilet smoke detectors are not only sensitive (to gentleman's hair spray amongst other stuff) but they are also single channel, unlike:-

SMOKE AVIONICS SMOKE which goes straight to the top of the ECAM warning list in red, but remember.... it requires both of the 2 detectors to be triggered before the warning latches on so it is slower that a toilet warning. All the Airbus professionals here know where this warning is leading, especially if you already have evidence that something is going wrong in the avionics bay. So in no time at all the Smoke checklist takes you into Emergency Electrical Configuration (EEC) and the workload goes through the roof.

It is difficult enough hand flying a big jet at high altitude with everything working normally but the Captain is now flying at high altitude, with only his basic instrumentation with the aircraft in Alternate Law. As the crew of Air Asia 8501 found out.... flying at altitude in Alternate Law is VERY demanding on a pilot, trying to do that in an environment of increasing smoke, maybe already on oxygen may have been too much for them.

I would have also made a turn to the left, towards Paphos, in order to land ASAP. I believe control was lost shortly thereafter.

takata

21st May 2016, 21:45

so ACARS first, followed by ADSB failure followed by the radar. I wonder if there is any truth in that 'witness' report about seeing a fireball...

Or those systems simply shutting down as a result of ELEC EMER config.

lomapaseo

21st May 2016, 21:50

somethingbrite

Forgive my ignorance, but I see only "hours and minutes" recorded in the times of these events. Are seconds within minutes not displayed?

Given the above - can we know if these events occur simultaneously and simply appear in the order they do so in this list by some accident of software logic - oris their order on the list absolutely defined by the order in which they occurred?

Also....without "seconds" how can we know the events of minute 26 and minute 27 did not actually occur within seconds of one another....?

Would this information be available to aircrew handling a sequence of errors and therefore allow them to perhaps make a causal link between errors?

I am not involved in the air industry at all, but I do handle systems where error reporting allows me to trace a causal event through real time error reporting.

Excellent checkpoint on facts vs supposition :ok:

The cause speculators often stretch their suppositions into factual support.

This is the main reason why we should wait for time stamped and correlated black box data and not rely on maintenance oriented signals as factual time stamps.

For many accidents even black box data is not sufficient to conclude the causes without corresponding examination of hardware.

We have a long way to go on this one

Photonic

21st May 2016, 22:09

so ACARS first, followed by ADSB failure followed by the radar. I wonder if there is any truth in that 'witness' report about seeing a fireball...

Initial reports of satellites seeing a heat flash have been walked back, so it's looking less likely that it was a sudden event (doesn't rule out incendiary device).

LA Times: EgyptAir Flight 804: No explosion detected by satellites - LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/world/la-egyptair-crash-updates-2016-egyptair-flight-804-no-explos-1463700999-htmlstory.html)

"U.S. reconnaissance satellites did not detect evidence of a large flash or explosion aboard the EgyptAir A320 jetliner, U.S. officials said."

macdo

21st May 2016, 22:26

Having just done the scenario set out by Maplug above, this is a realistic outcome from a smoke incident which is not quickly curtailed. Frankly, it is unpleasant to do in the safety of the sim.
Having flown Airbus for years, I have always been a little puzzled by the lack of fire suppression in the avionics bay.

Pace

21st May 2016, 22:39

so it's looking less likely that it was a sudden event

A normal radio call and then two minutes later nothing ? This has to be a sudden event

jabird

21st May 2016, 22:45

Sailvi767

21st May 2016, 22:55

Perhaps that's because, in the hypobaric chamber, you start off with sea level air which may be more humid than that at high altitude.
I've never had a rapid decompression in an aircraft but there was misting in the hypoxia run.

In a actual aircraft explosive decompression if the aircraft is more then a few years old you will often get a lot of dust flying which will set off a particulate style detector.

Photonic

21st May 2016, 23:04

A normal radio call and then two minutes later nothing ? This has to be a sudden event

Sorry, poor choice of words. In reply to the earlier post, I meant sudden event as in "explosion resulting in fireball seen from the ground, or detected by satellite."

bilby_qld

21st May 2016, 23:06

Could anyone comment on the ability of a single member of SLF to take out an aircraft using nothing other than items allowed onboard.

I sincerely hope that if anyone could comment with authority born of expertise on this subject, that they would have the wit not to do so on a publicly available forum.

Ranger One

22nd May 2016, 00:03

Could anyone comment on the ability of a single member of SLF to take out an aircraft using nothing other than items allowed onboard.

I know AC 797 was a discarded butt (ie not intentional), but if your intention was malice and you had a litre of duty free vodka + reams of available paper in the toilet + a single ignition source?

Night flight, would anyone be looking at who took what into the toilet?
It's off topic but you've hit a nail I've been banging for years.

We forbid all kinds of items through security.

Then once they're airside we let the pax buy bottles of high-proof rum in duty-free. Stick a napkin in the neck and you have a moderately effective improvised Molotov cocktail. Break the bottle over the seat in front of you and you have an improvised weapon no less deadly than a boxcutter. A coordinated attack along those lines by multiple individuals is possible and it might even be effective - but damn few people seem to be willing to even consider the possible vulnerabilities there.

Lost in Saigon

22nd May 2016, 00:23

oleostrut

22nd May 2016, 00:36

The official report of AC 797 says the ignition source was undetermined.

PROBABLE CAUSE: "A fire of undetermined origin
Electrical fire, just not sure exactly which circuit was the first to start arcing. Not caused by passenger.

Rear bulkhead failure repair 4 years previous is likely linked.

Lost in Saigon

22nd May 2016, 01:03

Again, the NTSB report does not say electrical fire. It says "undetermined origin".

http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/ntsb/aircraft-accident-reports/AAR86-02.pdf

oleostrut

22nd May 2016, 01:29

Though the fuselage was nearly destroyed by the intensity of the fire, the cockpit voice recorder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockpit_voice_recorder) (CVR) and flight data recorder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_data_recorder) (FDR) for flight 797 were still in good condition and produced vital data for the NTSB investigation.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797#cite_note-Fire_Flight-3) On the CVR, NTSB investigators heard eight sounds of electrical arcing—likely inaudible to the crew—beginning at 18:48 CDT. Three minutes later, at 18:51, the popping sounds that Cameron and Ouimet would later identify as the left toilet circuit breaker tripping are audible on the CVR; Cameron attempts to reset the circuits twice over the next 60 seconds, but the CVR records the breakers immediately popping again after each reset attempt.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797#cite_note-CVR-4) Cameron would attempt once more to reset the breakers at 18:59, but the CVR records arcing sounds followed by the popping sound of the breakers continuing to trip again after each reset over the next 60 seconds.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797#cite_note-CVR-4) At 19:02, the CVR records flight attendant Judi Davidson entering the cockpit to deliver the first report of a possible fire in the lavatory.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797#cite_note-CVR-4) Though a number of wires in the lavatory section were later found with insulation stripped away, NTSB investigators were unable to determine whether this insulation damage was the cause of the fire or was caused by the fire.

This from the NTSB report. Cause "undetermined" ? More like can't tell which wire bundle went first. And continual resetting of the tripped circuit breaker was not unrelated, either.

andrasz

22nd May 2016, 04:40

Reading through the posts of last night, I see everyone is still chewing on the same old gum. There is one item in particular which seems to be completely misunderstood, and that is one of the few FACTUAL information we know:

At 03:29:40 am local time the flight signal was lost from radar, almost 7 NM south/southeast from KUMBI point (boundary point, between ATHINAI and CAIRO FIRs), within Cairo FIR. Immediate assistance of the Hellenic Air Force radars was requested for possible target tracking, with no avail. (full press statement here: Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority - News (http://www.ypa.gr/en/news/egyptair-flight-msr-804)))

The lost radar contact referred to is SECONDARY RADAR, ATC does not use primary radar any more. The timing almost perfectly matches the loss of data from FR24, etc. indicating that the loss of contact happened while the aircraft was still cruising at FL370. From the statement it is clear that Greek AF primary AD radar did not track the flight, so any subsequent statements made by the minister of defence were likely the result of analysis of stored recordings.

We have zero information on the time it took to FL100, and the taken course itself has not been verified, it is just based on a politician's press statement, and we all know what that's worth. As the last ACARS messages were received very close to this time, it is fair to assume that all communications systems lost power at this point.

As for the ACARS messages, keep in mind that they could:
A) indicate valid faults, the system functioning as designed
B) be generated in error, due to some components of the ECAM system being compromised

In absence of FDR/CVR data, it will take a very lengthy and complicated fault path analysis to establish whether the messages reflect scenario A) or B), until this is known it is meaningless to draw any conclusions based on assumption A).

From known/published FACTS, this is what we know till now:
- Flight progressed on course at FL370 till moment of loss of contact. Last voice communication happened 42 minutes earlier when all appeared normal.
- Flight at LKP was in cruise phase, TOD would have been another 10-15 minutes, approaching the Egyptian coastline.
- ACARS data indicate a series of faults commencing at 3-4 minutes prior to loss of contact. Some of the transmitted ECAM messages suggest smoke in FWD lavatory/avionics bay, however it is yet to be established whether these are valid warnings or have been generated in error.
- Simultaneous loss of ADS-B and ACARS data suggests loss of power to both systems.
- Three minutes prior to loss of contact, crew did not respond to Greek ATC calls, however the area is known to be a blind spot confirmed by several knowledgeable posters, so this by itself would not indicate any problems.
- SUPPOSEDLY some time after loss of contact aircraft entered into a steep descent with some lateral maneuvres (based on analysis of Greek primary AD radar returns), however this is based on Greek MoD press statement made very soon after the accident, may not be verified and needs to be treated with caution.
- Aircraft crashed into the Mediterranean with high energy very close to LKP. This suggests aircraft was still structurally intact at time of impact with the sea (compare wreckage of Metrojet to the very mangled and fragmented pieces recovered so far - the seat-back piece is particularly telling - with Metroject whore rows survived the free-fall practically intact)

dbbass

22nd May 2016, 05:47

ANDRAZ, you have made the best statement so far..

There are a lot of speculations about what happened, based on very very few information, some of them not even reliable...
To make an investigation, for crime or accident, the process has to be followed carefully, following a protocol, step by step, and by PROFESSIONALS..
First is to gather information, then built different scenario and confront them to probability of happening... I know it is a forum, and everyone can express
but I do think that there a lot to much speculations here..

I do work for many years in aviation, as engineer, and I do fly, and one thing I learned is not to go to fast in diagnostic...

So I do not have an idea of what happened, and if someone ask me he or she will be very disappointed to hear me saying "better to wait for the Cvr and DFDR to get an idea"

einhverfr

22nd May 2016, 06:13

I have a couple questions regarding the possibility of fire given the ACARS messages.

1. Are there measures in place to mitigate a fire taking out redundant electronic components?

2. Are there any cases of a fly-by-wire airliner (or even a military jet) having a fire in the cargo hold or electronics bay at cruise which maintained control long enough to land? I ask about fly-by-wire particularly because I suspect that the implications of an electrical fire on an electronics-controlled aircraft are somewhat different than on an aircraft with conventional hydrolics (not saying better or worse but wondering about close analogues).

3. What sorts of higher amperage circuits are connected to either the electronics bay or lavatory besides heating elements? Not interested in voltage, but amperage.

I am aware that smoke detectors, particularly ionization ones, can be set off by many things other than smoke (humidity, condensation, even overpressurization), but naturally the first question when one gets messages like this seem to my mind to be "was there a fire?"

I don't see how this can be looked at without finding close analogues. I looked and I could not find any quickly.