EgyptAir 804 disappears from radar Paris-Cairo

[hawk swallow]

Dye makes sense - not in the engines, but what about a small amount of intense dye inside the hull (e.g. floor construction) that would be released if the fuselage breaks apart?

[Leightman 957]

I'm amazed at the fuel dye proponents, for the reasons given so far. There's no reason to dye all fuel when it is needed only for the downed A/C. Dye also isn't a lot better than an oil slick and no good at night, or for an intentional non-disintegrative ditching, so Porlock's florescence or luminescence is a better choice. Dispersal and disappearance over time and via weather also suggests that one 'dose' isn't enough, and that multiple containers that would degrade in water over a sequence of time would be better yet. But by the time you have such a system with its weight installed, a floating locator with a sea anchor begins to make more sense. Back to step one.

[PJ2]

mm_flynn, (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/579183-egyptair-804-disappears-radar-paris-cairo-51.html#post9397831);

In terms of tracking & locating technology, it has existed for some time - we have been using it to follow our aircraft locally and around the world; it works extremely well. It is real-time interrogation using web-based interfaces with user-selected 30" to 10' polling periods. I have no idea why tracking is such an issue; we've been doing it for at least six years now; we know where our aircraft are all the time.

And, for a price, it can do parameter/event monitoring say, for high-acceleration events for example, so that maintenance can meet the aircraft based upon data not crew reports, etc. It isn't an entire DFDR process but it could be sufficient for initial explanations and certainly LKPs.

In terms of retro-fitting for deployable recorders and/or streaming data, I would argue against an industry-wide, regulatory requirement. All recorders in recent over-water accidents have been recovered and read with one exception, the Asiana B744 freighter loss over the Korean Straits.

Acknowledging that, like all human activities, aviation works on risk probabilities (and the management of same!), the design and engineering manufacturer's groups of the industry work on the basis of what an acceptable failure rate of mission-critical elements/components is; the certification standard is, as some here will know already, 10^-9. We can reasonably consider that the loss of MH370 is such an event to which the same standard may be applied, and that the "normal" pattern is the historical one in which in all cases, above exception noted, the recorders have been recovered and accidents understood.

The argument for deployable recorders & datastreaming is essentially an economic one only, and that is a different arena than the case for flight safety. Such standards (for flight safety), are borne by the industry and ICAO member countries when/where accidents occur, and yes, it is expensive, but as you point out, also extremely rare.

I think the case for deployable recorders/data-streaming has not been demonsrated against this accepted standard.

You broach an interesting scenario in your post which needs examination and that is power sources for recorders.

If we are to invest significant funds and the ensuing subsequent certification/regulatory work at all in changing the way aircraft recordings are done, it would be reasonable to focus on power sources for both the data and voice recorders.

Public cries for instant sources of data do not demonstrate the flight safety case for such capability, they demonstrate a willingness to engage in media and political arugments. Ensuring that recorders have uninterruptible sources of power is a flight safety case, and as such is demonstrable, (SR111); they should include as a factor not only electrical system auto-responses to load-shedding and/or damage to wiring through fire or mechanical processes etc., but also losss of electrical power through the intentional use of emergency electrical configuration drills which are intended to remove all power from normal AC & DC busses during smoke of unknown origin emergency drills. (As you observe, we may see loss-of-data here for this very reason, but we don't know yet).

[GarageYears]

What is with all this sensible chit-chat about plausible identification mechanisms?

Surely these belong somewhere else, where other sensible ideas are discussed - you know like the Tech Log?

Where are all the rumour-mongers? Come on... I haven't read a good crackpot idea in perhaps 5 days of the thread now! :D

[PrivtPilotRadarTech]

These aircraft already have an ELT, and computerized fault detection. The ELT can already be manually switched on, or triggered by impact (searching the net I found two numbers, 5G and 2.3G) What could be done simply and cheaply is list conditions which are always an emergency and trigger the ELT automatically when those occur. For example, the aircraft:
* is inverted
* is descending at 10,000fpm
* has lost pressurization at high altitude
* has lost power

You get the idea. In one of those emergencies the pilots may never get to the last priority in Aviate - Navigate - Investigate - Communicate, but the ELT is just sitting around. Let it handle the communications.

[portmanteau]

Garage Years, surely throwing bags of dye on board every flight qualifies?

[EEngr]

These aircraft already have an ELT
But it is permanently attached to the aircraft. So for a water landing, there may not be much time between the impact and fuselage (and ELT) submerging. Once under even a small depth of water, radio transmissions are useless.

Deployable ELTs are feasible, technically (already used in some military aircraft). But the commercial transport certification issues differ and make this a rather expensive technology. Particularly considering the number of crashes where a deployable ELT would make a difference in recovery efforts*. The news isn't all in on this incident, but it appears that the aircraft and recorders may be located in a relatively timely manner. A deployable ELT might have only saved a few days of search effort.

*AF447 is one example of where a deployable ELT may have been of great value. MH370 is another.

[RAT 5]

I think the priorities are being mixed up. The ELT will find the a/c, or rather the ELT. The FDR & CVR data will help the crash detectives discover the reason. The old thinking was that the ELT will find the FDR & CVR. Plus, both boxes would be readable. Neither are correct. We've seen, via documentary reconstruction, that the boxes can be very difficult to find and recover, even after the wreckage has been traced. 2ndly it has been the case where one or both boxes had be corrupted and important data was missing.
What we are discussing is 1. finding the wreckage, 2. deciphering the data. The two need not be necessarily be related. The FDR & CVR data can be transmitted live and downloaded at operations and saved for 2 hour periods. It should not be necessary to find 'the boxes' to decipher the data.
That is the debate. Finding the wreckage should be for other reasons, but not the data.
Watching the media telling stories about searching for the Black boxes, then eventually, after humungous efforts finding them, (aka AF447), is like watching an Indian Jones film about 'search for the Holy Grail.' It is so old tech compared with today's aviation space technology. It is as archaic as HF ATC communications. That is a debate been on-going for decades and achieved squat. Let's not fall into the "that's the way it we've been doing for a long time with no problems" cosiness. What will it take to shake the apple cart and catch up with reality? Years ago GPS/TomTom was the work of the devil. Now it is used by mariners, aviators, bikers, hikers. surveyors. runners, GA pilots, etc. etc. The new technology has been embraced. The top of the food chain still has some prehistoric components. Some XXA's are amongst them.

[PJ2]

Rat_5;

I don't think any aviation folks would disagree with your vision. The above was about, "What do we do on Monday?"

I would love nothing more than to write the rules, for example, that require all aircraft over say, 12,500lbs, to have a minimum of 200 parameters. I've worked with some types that have two parameters (again for example), for the engines...prop speed & torque and which do not have fuel, weight or lat/long parameters. It's legal but essentially useless for serious work.

Here, as has been suggested as a possibility, if the crew used the emergency electrical configuration drill & checklist the recorders stop working and the last few minutes become guess work which can make kicking tin necessary.

In any case, the industry will go where it will go and progress at its own speed which as we know is a conservative but glacial pace.

[SysDude]

"Aircraft to aircraft exchange of data packages has always seemed logical to me."

Loose Rivets: You are describing an implementation of "mesh networks". The technology I am familiar with has been maturing at a workable level for about 10-15 years or so, and is usually proposed for swarms of robots/UAVs. It is probably the best proposal I have seen on this forum for reliably propagating small amounts of critical data in sparse regions.

[sowa49]

3 June 2016: https://presse.cnes.fr/fr/disparition-du-vol-paris-le-caire-ms-804-degyptair-la-cooperation-du-cnes-et-du-commandement

* data of 20 May 2016 received by Cospas-Sarsat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Cospas-Sarsat_Programme
* analysis by the French Space Agency (CNES) + Joint Space Command (CIE)
* drift models by Meteo-France
* guidance to the Navy, allowing to pick up signals emitted by the black boxes

[Ian W]

PJ2
In terms of retro-fitting for deployable recorders and/or streaming data, I would argue against an industry-wide, regulatory requirement. All recorders in recent over-water accidents have been recovered and read with one exception, the Asiana B744 freighter loss over the Korean Straits.

And of course MH370 which you mention later

I think the case for deployable recorders/data-streaming has not been demonsrated against this accepted standard.

You fail to mention cost.

The huge and extreme cost of just recent searches for DFDR/CVR say back 5 years, is immense. But it is not set even against the aviation industry as a whole - it is borne by the taxpayers of sometimes quite poor countries. Certainly, for a short search some claim could be made that it is good training for the personnel and assets that may be in existence already, but after a few days of continuous search burning through the active life of parts and maintenance schedules, and the contracting of specialized equipment this is no longer true. I am happy to accept your argument if your airline (or more correctly your airline's insurers) as part of their operating license accept that they will fund the entire expense incurred by the responsible country(ies), of any search for DFDR/CVR that may be necessary after a crash of one of their aircraft.

At the moment the aircraft operators are freeloading on the international community to pick up the pieces and even to organize the inquiry and tell those operators where they fell short of operating correctly. I do not think that this is acceptable given that relatively cheap simple technological fixes could reduce these costs to the international community substantially.

[The Ancient Geek]

The numbers may look big but in reality the Search and Rescue costs are around the same as the replacement value of a single widebody aircraft.
In the vast majority of cases the recorders are recovered so there is little perceived benefit in imposing a much more expensive equipment upgrade on the global fleet.

[DaveReidUK]

At the moment the aircraft operators are freeloading on the international community to pick up the pieces and even to organize the inquiry and tell those operators where they fell short of operating correctly. I do not think that this is acceptable given that relatively cheap simple technological fixes could reduce these costs to the international community substantially.

But you could equally argue that the international community and the industry as a whole, not just the operator of the aircraft in question, stands to benefit from the recovery, investigation and any resulting findings and safety recommendations.

[ArchieBabe]

Current Patents.


Underwater Echoes
Filed August 21, 2012, by The Boeing Company.
Canadian patent not yet granted.


Aircraft "Buddy" System
Filed March 21, 2011, by Thales.
U.S. patent granted March 4, 2014.


The Floating Black Box
Filed August 26, 2010, by Lockheed Martin.
U.S. patent granted March 11, 2014.

As for "dye bags" or rather "Sea Marker Packet Inflatable Survival Equipment" are in/have been in wide-spread use for many years, but have not been adapted for Commercial Aviation. The question would be, "where would you put said item so that it could be maintained and deployed if ever required.

Further reading available at....

Patent 2843612 Summary - Canadian Patents Database (http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/cpd/eng/patent/2843612/summary.html)

Patent US8666650 - Method and device for assisting in the locating of aircraft - Google Patents (http://google.com/patents/US8666650)

Patent US8670879 - Automatically ejecting flight data recorder - Google Patents (http://google.com/patents/US8670879)

[PJ2]

Ian W;

I accept the cost argument as both reasonable and necessary - I mentioned it but didn't/don't emphasize it.. I also accept that, for some, it could be too much to argue that such enormous expense is the cost of engaging in the "long line" side of commercial aviation. After all, the billions spent otherwise, (generally by rich country's governments, I acknowledge), on R&D, regulatory processes and achieving that 10^-9 engineering standard isn't viewed in the same way as the "necessary" response (and enormous immediate/unplanned costs), of finding lost information and knowing what happened. Yet this is the model of progress in aviation safety, and clearly it has worked given the enviable and outstanding record for safety the industry achieves.

This will sound like hedging to those focussed on the realities of fiscal responsibility alone, but it is not intended as such. I truly don't intend that things should continue as they are - things will unfold as they will. But I don't see industry specialists clamouring for such a solution (deployable/streaming), as a priority, and I think that tells us something.

My "What do we do Monday?" remark conveys the need for action now that can have material benefits, but the case for the deployables or streaming and other, more elegant solutions may still be made on a flight safety basis. These two notions require careful examination on their merits alone and should not be accepted out-of-hand as a "logical" solution to an "obvious" problem.

[Lonewolf_50]

My "What do we do Monday?" remark conveys the need for action now that can have material benefits, but the case for the deployables or streaming and other, more elegant solutions may still be made on a flight safety basis. These two notions require careful examination on their merits alone and should not be accepted out-of-hand as a "logical" solution to an "obvious" problem. The risk management matrix for making this decision assesses severity and likelihood. Those sitting in on this kind of decision are from where? What is being hedged against? The risk of a crash, or the cost of what happens after one? Where would you argue that a dollar be spent if you are:
Operator?
Manufacturer?
Regulator?
Passenger?
Other customer?

[RAT 5]

so there is little perceived benefit in imposing a much more expensive equipment upgrade on the global fleet.

Has it ever been costed?
Has the idea ever been discussed?

If AF447 could be sending back live data about its pitot tubes and air con packs, and the QA 380 could be doing similar things with its engine parameters, surely it is not beyond the wit of man to start fitting FDR/CVR transmitters to all a/c being manufactured from 2018.
Remember the debate about cargo fire detectors and extinguishers after the Valuejet cargo fire? The FAA did a risk/cost analysis about retro-fit of all similar type a/c. It was considered too expensive. The category of cargo hold was designed to survive a fire as it burnt itself out. There had not been a precedent to Valuejet, and it was deemed that had root cause in human error. Notice, now, that all B737 NG and AB's, with the same category of cargo holds, now have fire detection AND extinguishers. They were designed in and cost absorbed. When was the last time they were used? How many times in past 20 years? Yet they are there. How many times would FDR/CVR dreaming have been invaluable in the same time frame? And in the future which is more likely to be needed the most; cargo fire or FDR/CVR data?

[nnc0]

I find it difficult to believe that the reduction in Maintenance costs alone couldn't offset the cost of real time fault data transmission. I suppose the question is that how can the maintenance data be optimized. In automotive terms we're still at the 'OnStar level' but we really need the F1 level of telemetry to reap the best cost benefit.

[BlankBox]

Why not send the data to satellite only when the aircraft is flying over water? This would remove a large percentage of aircraft from reporting anything.

[Lonewolf_50]

Taking this idea seriously for a moment, since the topic is "what to do with these losses that occur over deep water when nobody is in contact ..."

You'll want a buffer zone for coastal cities/airports that have approach paths over water. (12 miles, 10 miles, 20 miles?)

Or, consider a dual parameter trigger such as

Over water**
AND
Above FL 180

** How do you define "water" that fits this model?

An ocean?
A Sea?
A great lake?
Water deeper than 100 fathoms?

What nav system calculates this figure?

How does this system figure into the MEL for a launch?
How much of your fleet has to have it?
What is the operational impact if this system is down? Abort depending upon route?

[RAT 5]

Why not send the data to satellite only when the aircraft is flying over water?

Remember how many occasions the FDR has been damaged, severely, and taken huge skill and advanced technology to decipher; once it had been found in deep mountain jungle. The data was not 100% available. The same with CVR; often very little recoverable. I would suggest that more a/c crash & burn not over water. True, trawling the depths are expensive and difficult, but high in the mountains is not easy either.
The cost saving to limiting to certain routes would be peanuts.

[Psyborg]

There's one elegant solution addressing Lonewolf's and RAT's concerns: data offload could be triggered by TAWS.

[Water pilot]

Again taking this seriously as if it would enhance safety...

You could have certain types of faults and abnormal conditions trigger 'immediate mode' which would immediately upload the last minute or two of FDR data. It is what happened just before the abnormal condition that is important.

The problem with any approach is that by definition such a reporting system would be nonessential. How much power do you want to use from a dying battery to send a message back to base, when modern aircraft do not stay in the air without some sort of electrical power? It is very hard to engineer something that can't in some rare case either cause a problem or make an existing problem worse. The safety of living passengers far outweighs the curiosity of the rest of us.

[Lonewolf_50]

Interesting idea you have there on the FDR buffer.
The safety of living passengers far outweighs the curiosity of the rest of us. Looks like a t-shirt idea in the making.

[GXER]

I haven't yet seen it stated, so I will now, that the the technological capacity to stream live DFDR/CVR data simply did not exist at the time that recording devices were introduced so on-board storage was the only answer.

Technology has moved on in several leaps and bounds since that time. It is now completely feasible to stream live data at relatively low cost.

Surely the answer is that new build transport aircraft should have live streaming designed in (in addition to existing on-board storage) and a later decision can be made, as the existing fleet is retired, whether a live streaming solution ultimately replaces on-board storage.

Is this not making best use of current technology without casting all eggs in one barrel at probably uneconomic cost.

[RAT 5]

GXER: thank you. You seemed to have answered the question I was posing; i.e. it is perfectly feasible and should not be expensive.
Next question: why is it not happening? The latest most modern a/c are B787 & A350. Was this idea ever considered by the design team? Or were they waiting for FAA/EASA to mandate it? In the technologies of fuel saving and reliability, maintenance and ease to fly with back-up systems & automatics, the manufacturers give it their all. That's what makes them competitive in a jungle marketplace. The idea of FDR/CVR streaming is not going to turn the heads of the buyers, because they ain't going to crash - are they? It would have to be a mandated thing.
Does anyone know, for fact, what caused the B737 category of a/c to have cargo fire detection & suppression systems fitted? As explained it happened after Valuejet. Was it FAA or the initiative of the manufacturers?
Might one steal a lead on the other with this new toy, or wait for the headmaster to decide?

[mm_flynn]

Surely the answer is that new build transport aircraft should have live streaming designed in (in addition to existing on-board storage) and a later decision can be made, as the existing fleet is retired, whether a live streaming solution ultimately replaces on-board storage.

Is this not making best use of current technology without casting all eggs in one barrel at probably uneconomic cost.
Actually, the answer needs be to the correct question.

Most of the solutions assume A - that robust SatCom links are cheap, B - that CVR/FDR information is the overwhelmingly best source of useful accident investigation, C - that search costs are high relative to recovery costs, D - that with the CVR/FDR data in hand, it would be rare that the cost of rescue/recovery would need to be spent.

I am pretty sure all 4 assumptions are not actually true.

In this accident, I am pretty sure the FDR will tell us nothing new, other than the reason data and responses stopped being sent back was because the crew turned the power off; and the CVR will confirm to us the crew new there was smoke in the cockpit and indications of fire.

However, when they find the ULB they will have a good fix on a junk of the wreck and can start searching for where they avionics bay came to rest so that investigators can work out what went wrong and what changes are needed to prevent it happening again.

[GXER]

let me have a goat answering your objections, that are all well made.

(A) acknowledged but there may be solutions or partial solutions that do not rely on satellite. How is ACARS transmitted?

(B) probably not but it is almost always a necessary element.

(C) I agree bit it should be easy to establish whether or not streaming costs spread across the global fleet would be less than occasional recovery costs. Has the calculation been made? I don't know but it surely ought to be made.

(D) possibly true but if the DFDR/CVR is available, there is possibility of a partial answer rather than no answer.

[jugofpropwash]

Most of the solutions assume A - that robust SatCom links are cheap, B - that CVR/FDR information is the overwhelmingly best source of useful accident investigation, C - that search costs are high relative to recovery costs, D - that with the CVR/FDR data in hand, it would be rare that the cost of rescue/recovery would need to be spent.

Keep in mind that live streaming is also going to help in determining the aircraft's eventual location, assuming that the transmission includes GPS coordinates. That should make a search easier and faster.

Another note regarding dye bags. As long as the dye used is non-corrosive and non-poisonous, then maintenance will be minimal. Worst case a bag leaks and someone has to clean it up. Positioning probably isn't all that important - an in-flight breakup or a crash sufficient to tear the plane apart is going to spill the dye, while if the pilot pulls off a successful ditching, then the ELT beacons on the rafts will locate the aircraft.

[goeasy]

Live streaming of FDR data may have its merits. But the CVR is a different issue, with airlines and industry being held accountable for privacy issues of broadcasting private conversations of professionals not involved in any incident.

I can well see a huge exodus of experienced pilots from an already overstretched industry group, if live streaming of CVR data was mandated.

The strikes this may create would probably kill the whole industry!

[mm_flynn]

GXER: thank you. You seemed to have answered the question I was posing; i.e. it is perfectly feasible and should not be expensive.

It is worth context 'not very expensive'

I would gues we want something like a 150 kbit stream (4-6 good quality audio tracks, 200 parameters recorded every second)
I think that adds up to 1 MB per minute at say $1.50/MB that is $100/hr on a commercial fleet that does 50 million hours a year. So $5bn per year in data costs, plus all of the hardware, storage, management, repair:maintenance and testing.

I suspect I have underestimated both the cost of mobile data from aircraft and the bandwidth requirement

[mm_flynn]

Keep in mind that live streaming is also going to help in determining the aircraft's eventual location, assuming that the transmission includes GPS coordinates. That should make a search easier and faster.

And this aircraft Actual HAD live streaming of GPS data and that stream was received. Also, through luck the elt appears to have gone off on crashing so we already have those two facts.

I am not saying, 'everything is perfect today', but if there is a proposal to change, make sure it is actually solving a real problem.

There clearly is a challenge to track where the fragments of an aircraft go after it looses control, breaks up in the air, or breaks up on contact with the surface. Also, a general challenge in tracking an aircraft that is not SatCom capable at low altitude,in remote locations, or trying to hide.

[Mesoman]

I keep seeing reference to dye bags. I don't think those will be of much use. Back in my P-3 days, we had Fluorescein dye in the sonobuoys. They were visible, but not that great, and they dispersed. I suspect the oil slick is more visible - especially to radar because it changes the surface reflectivity by dampening shorter wavelength surface waves and ripples. Also, you have to reliably disperse the dye, and yet keep it from leaking out with the aircraft traveling 100's of knots through heavy precipitation.

If it's really necessary to disperse something, how about a lot of little, very light floating radar reflectors - essentially aluminum foil that springs into a 3D shape in water? They could be tuned to common search radar wavelengths - all this requires is that the little antennae be the right length. Military search radar, like on the P-3 or P-8 should have no trouble finding this, day or night. Done right, they could also show up on orbiting SAR (radar) satellite imagery.

[underfire]

The track and speed of the Burullus doesnt give too much hope at this point.

[Intruder]

How about a number of cheap, floating, water-activated radio beacons stowed relatively INsecurely in various places in the airplane, so that at least a few of them would survive and be released on impact & breakup?

[takata]

@underfire
The track and speed of the Burullus doesnt give too much hope at this point."doesn't give too much hope" for what?

a) The crash site was already located within a small circle of less than 2 km following onboard ELT signal picked up by multiple MEOSAR satellites (GPS + Galileo) at crash time.

b) H/V Laplace, once arrived on the spot, quickly picked up an ULB signal ; she is still working the area since a week.

c) deep sea recovery equipment is on its way onboard R/V John Lethbridge ; She is actually off the Southern coast of Sicilia, heading to Alexandria where she supposedly will arrive on Thursday (June 9th, but it's not clear yet if she is really sailing to Alexandria instead of the crash site).

Hopefully, by the end of this week, we'll get news of retrival operation starting, but it does look to me quite good so far.

Yet no other signal has been detected from the seabed, possibly because only one ULB was still working after the crash. Nonetheless, it should not be extremely difficult to find out and recover rapidly some wreckage, considering what those ships, crew and equipment can do in addition to a limited area to explore.

[Mesoman]

Per NASA, ELT's are picked up by GEOSAR and LEOSAR. I have not heard of GNSS satellites able to do this. Only LEOSAR can give a location unless the ELT transmitted location data.

[takata]

@Mesoman
On June 3rd, CNES (Centre National d'Études Spatiales) - which is the French Space Agency in Toulouse - and CIS (Space Military Joint Command) issued a communiqué about how their teams located the crash site of MS 804 (with some help from Météofrance), using Galileo and GPS data analysis from MEOSAR constellation, which is not fully operational yet.

They had 5 satellites picking up ELT signal and it was relayed to ground stations in Toulouse (CNES) and 3 others in Europe. Using CNES algorithms, they were able to define a crash zone within 1.5 km or so.

As far as I understand, they can derive positioning from doppler effect when three or more satellites are picking up the same signal even if there is no location data transmited (and it's unlikely in this case).

Here is a paper about MEOSAR, published in Sept/Dec 2014 issue of insidegnss
http://takata1940.free.fr/novdec14-WP_0.pdf
and the link:
MEOSAR: New GNSS Role in Search & Rescue | Inside GNSS (http://www.insidegnss.com/node/4274)

For some reason, the link to CNES site is not working anymore (or the whole site) but I still have an header for it:

Communiqué : Airbus Paris Le Caire, le CNES mobilisé
L'actualité du CNES - 3 Juin, 2016 - 18:43
Dans le cadre des opérations de recherche de l’Airbus Paris Le Caire disparu en mer le 19 mai 2016, le CNES et le Commandement Interarmées de l’Espace de l’Etat-major des armées ont coopéré sur des travaux qui ont conduit à préciser la zone de recherche de l’appareil dans laquelle ont été captés des signaux des boites noires.

Vidéo : Cospas-Sarsat, des satellites pour sauver des vies
L'actualité du CNES - 3 Juin, 2016 - 17:53
Le programme international Cospas-Sarsat permet de sauver chaque année 1500 vies à travers le monde grâce à ses balises de détresse. Cette année, c'est la France qui préside l'organisation.

[vapilot2004]

Recently schooled by a Hughes SATCOM guru, I learned 'streaming' DFDR and CVR data over satellite link may sound easy, but in fact is not. There are several reasons for this, but two principal issues are bandwidth and available connections.

Cost - directly connected to bandwidth usage and number of stations. Most providers bill by the amount of data and the number of stations or links, ie aircraft. Current SATCOM internet and communication links are subsidized by passenger payments.

In contrast, access to VHF & HF networks, outside of minimal user fees and taxes, is virtually free. Data forwarding is where most of the operating cost for ACARS connectivity comes in using ground-based communication networks and this cost is a single-digit percentage of a comparable SATCOM data rate.

Availability - Spanning several factors, one of which by design allows only a limited number of transponders per satellite. A common satellite band used in North America currently runs at around 75% capacity. Those limited channels and bandwidth would quickly overload should the world's major airlines suddenly start uplinking data from a pool of the 100,000 odd EDIT: commercial flights that typically ply the skies each day.

Build more birds? The cost of a typical Comms Satellite is around $500 million US and obtaining a Geosynchronous parking slot for just one bird typically takes several years of waiting in a queue.

Someone would need to pay for not only the bandwidth once available but also the expansion of existing systems to accommodate. Without subsidization support of passengers or governments, it is doubtful many airlines would be willing to cut into their already tight budgets for this.

You might ask the question, "Wouldn't passengers be willing to pay for the unseen and unfelt benefit of a DFDR/CVR 'streaming' mandate?" Unfortunately, it has been several decades since safety was a marketable commodity in commercial aviation, so I would say, no.

[Capn Bloggs]

100,000 odd aircraft that are in the skies each day.
Flight Radar shows around 13,000 tops at any one time, and that would reduce if only airline flights were included.

Odd that the airlines can offer internet to all on board (free in some cases) but there isn't enough economical bandwidth for streaming FDR...

[vapilot2004]

Cap Bloggs, my figure of 100,000 refers the number of flights each day and was a bit misleading in context. Cost of Internet over SATCOM was covered, however.

[Ian W]

The important figure is of course the number of qualifying airframes and the length of time each of those qualifying airframes are airborne outside of line-of-sight of VHF/VDL receivers. So if only airframes capable of carrying more than say 30 pax that were outside line-of-sight of VDL receivers were included the required bandwidth would be a lot less. This is still possibly too expensive with the current bandwidths and comms, but I suspect that within a few years that will no longer be the case as bandwidths and capacity are increasing all the time.
A more difficult engineering issue is how to maintain a satcom link from an aircraft that has electrics problems or is in unusual positions due to loss of control. Those requirements would seem to rule out use of geostationary satellites and indicate what would be needed would be a connection oriented 'always on' link with low power requirements with one or more omnidirectional antennae on the aircraft.

[Ancient-Mariner]

EgyptAir wreckage found in Mediterranean - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-36543969)

[A0283]

The official Egyptian announcement - from around 2055 hrs Pprune time:

John Lethbridge; the vessel contracted by the Egyptian government to join the search efforts for the data recorders and the wreckage of the doomed A320; had identified several main locations of the wreckage, accordingly the first images of the wreckage were provided to the investigation committee. Based on the wreckage locations; The search team and investigators onboard of the vessel will draw a map for the wreckage distribution spots. Immediately a meeting was held between the investigation committee members to study thoroughly the progressive actions taken during the past period and in order to plan how to best handle the wreckage in the coming period. It is worth mentioning that the debris retrieved earlier are still in possession of the forensic evidences under supervision of the criminal prosecution; to carry out standard procedures then it will be handed to the technical investigation committee after concluding such procedures.

[oldoberon]

Crete is 160ml long by 38ml wide so that debris patch centre looks to ey approximatley 55ml from LKP and in a direction that gives credence to the Greek radar report diag in post 133

[D Bru]

Egyptian Civil Aviation authorities' statement:

"The Egyptian Armed Forces Investigation Committee received Radar images of the A320 route before its crash; which identified that the aircraft swerved to the left then turned right for a full circle. This comes in accordance with the British and Greek radar images"

http://www.civilaviation.gov.eg/News/news%20pages%20ar/messs_14_6_16.html

[A0283]

Just to put a dot on an 'i' and for future discussions and calculations :-)

The find of the wreck was published yesterday. Which was June 15th and Day 28. Close to the 30 days.
Suitably equipped detection ships sail at approximately 10-12 knots and may require a port visit before proceeding to the area.
The BBC quotes 'experts' who say that the box pingers were expected to stop at the 24th of June. Which would have been Day 37.

[Lonewolf_50]

I am a little uncertain about the details. Did the location come from the reception of the FDR signal, or from other search/detection means?

The link from Dr Bru is dated 13 Jun, but maybe that is Google translate having trouble with Arabic, since search is rendered suche and it was really 15 June.

It is worth mentioning that Suche{sic} vessel "La Place" and the Suche{sic} and retrieval vessel "JOHN LETHBRIDGE"; are carrying out their mission at the wreckage designated area.
Well done to those folks for their efforts! :ok:

[Wander00]

I second Lonewolf's comment.


Am I correct in thinking no terrorist organisation has so far claimed responsibility for the crash

[Dave's brother]

Cockpit voice recorder found, reports the BBC.

No details, but this link should update as more information emerges.

EgyptAir plane's voice recorder found - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-36551464)

[GarageYears]

From CNN:

The cockpit voice recorder from EgyptAir Flight 804 has been found damaged, the Egyptian investigative committee said Thursday in a statement. The memory unit "which is the most important part of the recorder" was retrieved, the statement said.

Seems like some quick work.

[A0283]

InvestigationProgress Report (9) by the Egyptian Aircraft Accident Investigation Committee

Cairo,16th of June 2016

John Lethbridge, the vessel contracted by the Egyptian Govt; to join the search for the wreckage of the A320 that was downed in the Mediterranean last month; had found the CVR. The CVR was retrieved in several stages as it was damaged but the vessel equipment managed to pick up the memory unit; which is considered as the most important part of the above-mentioned recorder. The General Prosecution was then notified and accordingly issued its decision to hand it over to the technical investigation committee to carry out analysis and unload the voice conversations. Transfer process of the CVR from the vessel to Alexandria is under process then it will be received by members from the general prosecution and the investigation committee.

(Note: A0283 - text unchanged apart from shortening to CVR - what they probably mean is that the CVR was in 3-4 pieces ('tray', 'power', memory module component, 'pinger') and that they have recovered the component containing the memory module. If the damage is not too much then they will read it in Cairo, if too much then the module will be sent to the manufacturer of the CVR.)

[Chronus]

CVR Damaged?

Will not be known until unit examined, unless there is obvious visual damage such as protective case disintegration or crushing beyond tolerances.

Here are the crashworthiness standards required, may be old but any revisions would be of higher tolerances.

» an impact producing a 3,400-g deceleration for 6.5 milliseconds (equivalent to an impact velocity of 270 knots and a deceleration or crushing distance of 45 cm)
» a penetration force produced by a 227 kilograms (500 pounds) weight which is dropped from a height of 3 metres (10 feet)
» a static crush force of 22.25 kN (5,000 pounds) applied continuously for five minutes
» a fire of 1,100 degrees Celsius for 60 minutes.

The Germanwings A320 hit mountainous terrain at 370 kts and the CVR, despite sustaining damage was still readable.

[D Bru]

BEA is announcing that one of their inspectors is moving to Cairo on 17 June to bring in BEA's expertise in the reading out of the CVR.

"Accident de l'Airbus A320, immatriculé SU-GCC et exploité par Egyptair, survenu le 19/05/2016 au large des côtes égyptiennes [Enquête menée par AIB / Egypte] - information du 16/06/2016 16H30

Les autorités égyptiennes ont publié le 16/06/16 un point de situation indiquant la découverte et la remontée de l'enregistreur de vol phonique (CVR - Cockpit Voice Recorder). Un enquêteur du BEA se rendra au Caire le 17/06/16 afin d'apporter notre expertise technique à la lecture de l'enregistreur.

Point de situation n° 9 publié par les autorités égyptiennes :

"Cairo, 16th of June 2016

John Lethbridge, the vessel contracted by the Egyptian Government; to join the search for the wreckage of the A320 that was downed in the Mediterranean last month; had found the Cockpit voice recorder.

The Cockpit voice recorder was retrieved in several stages as it was damaged but the vessel equipment managed to pick up the memory unit; which is considered as the most important part of the above-mentioned recorder.

The General prosecution was then notified and accordingly issued its decision to hand it over to the technical investigation committee to carry out analysis and unload the voice conversations.

Transfer process of the Cockpit voice recorder from the vessel to Alexandria is under process then it will be received by members from the general prosecution and the investigation committee.""

https://www.bea.aero/index.php?id=115&L=0&communique=278

[Almostfamous]

Does anyone know if this particular aircraft was modified for the L2 Astronautics EFB?

[atakacs]

What relevance would it have here?

[A4]

EFB fire in the flightdeck?

[hoss183]

FDR now found also, according to BBC

[Dave's brother]

link: EgyptAir crash: Second black box 'recovered' - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-36557134)

[A0283]

Official Egyptian update (10)
Cairo,17th of June 2016

After the sucess in retrieving the CVR of the doomed A320; John Lethbridge, the vessel contracted by the Egyptian Government; has managed to retrieve the second black box which is the FDR. The FDR was also retrieved in several stages but the vessel equipment managed to pick up the memory unit; which is considered as the most important part of the above-mentioned recorder. Immediately the General Prosecution was notified that the second data recorder was also found and accordingly issued its decision to hand over the 2 data recorders to the technical investigation committee to carry out analysis and unload the voice conversations. Transfer process of the 2 data recorders from the vessel to Alexandria is under process; which will be received by members from the General Prosecution and the Investigation Committee.17/06/2016

[Almostfamous]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Almostfamous
Does anyone know if this particular aircraft was modified for the L2 Astronautics EFB?

What relevance would it have here?

A WAG of sorts:

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2008/12/05/E8-28876/special-conditions-airbus-a318-a319-a320-and-a321-series-airplanes-astronautics-electronic-flight

"These special conditions are issued for the Airbus A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. These airplanes, as modified by L2 Consulting Services, will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with Astronautics electronic flight bags which use lithium battery technology. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards."

[Lonewolf_50]

What is the significance of the CVR and FDR being recovered in parts, rather than whole?
Is this an artifact of extracting it from a deformed structure?
Is it a byproduct of the difficulty of retrieving things in 10K feet of water?
Does it suggest a design limit being overcome?
Does it point to a very high speed impact?
These are fairly rugged pieces of equipment meant to withstand a crash intact. As a point of comparison, the AF 447 CVR was more or less intact, albeit somewhat bent, when recovered (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/449639-af-447-search-resume-part2-33.html#post6429193).

[A0283]

@ Lonewolf_50 Does it point to a very high speed impact?

In recent times i have not seen an accident where there was so little information in the public domain.

Keeping that in mind - we have read that a US vessel has recovered '100' small pieces. What the Egyptian authorities have shown was all 'light stuff' which was seriously bent and torn. The same impression exists about parts we usually not post about.

There is not a single report or remark about larger components having been recovered, like the 'usual' vertical tail and some larger flight control surface parts.

Surface vessels have been involved only a very short time. There is no evidence in the public domain showing many vessels searching on the surface. The surface ships that stayed longer hardly moved about. Which suggests a rather complete plane going down.

Authorities have reported multiple debris area's subsea. Which means the plane has at least broken up after impacting the surface.We have no numbers of the dimensions of the area, but know depth is around 2,500 m so about 7,500ft. That can explain part of the spread.

Based on this scant information you would expect a high speed and rather vertical final impact. The speed complying with the fpm estimates based on Greek information. But does not immediately explain a vertical impact.

[Yousaidwhat]

CVFDR recovery

I don't have all the details about the location of the CVFDR, and water depth. Seems to be quite a challenge to recover this equipment in a wide area! I heard the recovery was due to a smart technology using 4 buoys deployed in the search area.
Video on the recovery process:
Video - Egyptair black box: signal detected by French Navy - Aviation events - Aeronewstv (http://www.aeronewstv.com/en/events/crash/3373-how-the-french-navy-detected-egyptairs-black-box.html)
Video - Egyptair black box: signal detected by French Navy - Aviation events - Aeronewstv (http://www.aeronewstv.com/en/events/crash/3373-how-the-french-navy-detected-egyptairs-black-box.html)
And the company who designed this unique technology
Underwater Detection Systems DETECTOR | ALSEAMAR (http://www.alseamar-alcen.com/acoustics-positioning/underwater-detection-systems-detector)

Congratulations to the teams who did a great job!

[D Bru]

The French BEA update, quoting the Egypt Civil Aviation authority, following the recovery of both CVR and FDR:

"Accident de l'Airbus A320, immatriculé SU-GCC et exploité par Egyptair, survenu le 19/05/2016 au large des côtes égyptiennes [Enquête menée par AIB / Egypte] - information du 17/06/16 16H30
Les autorités égyptiennes ont publié le 17/06/16 à 16H30 un nouveau point de situation précisant les prochaines étapes de l'enquête de sécurité suite à la récupération des deux enregistreurs de vols (FDR & CVR).

Point de situation n° 11 publié par les autorités égyptiennes :


"Cairo, 17th of June 2016

The Technical Investigation committee for the A320 downed in the Mediterranean mid of last month; has received the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) from the general prosecution; after being retrieved from the aircraft wreckage location.
The two data recorders will be handed over to the Central Department for Aircraft Accident at the Ministry of Civil Aviation to start analysing them in order to unload their data.
The analysis of data may take several weeks; if the memory units at both recorders are in good condition; then the unloading process will start right away at the labs of the Central Department for Aircraft Investigation. Whereas if there is a minor damage at both or either of them; the damage will be repaired locally; but if the damage is major ; then the repair process will be conducted abroad under the supervision of the Investigation Committee.
It is worth mentioning that the technical investigation for the accident does not end by extracting data from the retrieved recorders; which is considered of a major importance but still act as part of the exclusive investigation process.""

[DaveReidUK]

The analysis of data may take several weeks; if the memory units at both recorders are in good condition; then the unloading process will start right away at the labs of the Central Department for Aircraft Investigation. Whereas if there is a minor damage at both or either of them; the damage will be repaired locally; but if the damage is major ; then the repair process will be conducted abroad under the supervision of the Investigation Committee.

I'd be very surprised if the recorders don't end up being taken to Paris (or even Farnborough) for analysis.

[A0283]

http://www.civilaviation.gov.eg/News/news%20pages%20ar/pic%2012.jpg
http://www.civilaviation.gov.eg/News/news%20pages%20ar/pic%2011.jpg

Photos are low quality... But seems there is no visible deformation. Which, together with the little information we have, suggests the containers were ripped partially or whole from their mountings.

[CONSO]

But were they ripped from structure to recover them instead of during the crash ??

[A0283]

Very very little to go on. But what is reported is that they had to do a recovery in steps. And as the result of the steps could only recover the memory module containers. And we see that the containers are not really deformed. And have examples of failure mechanisms of earlier deep water crashes.

My impression, no more than that, is that at the time of the crash the containers came loose partial or whole from their mounting on the ' tray' of the recorders. And that they were partially connected and covered to and by other debris. Other debris being the mounting frame of the recorders and surrounding structure. Which required cutting that loose and away. Which may have caused part of the seemingly superficial scraping on the containers. This might suggest a fast entry.

If the containers had remained attached, you would expect more denting.

[Three Lima Charlie]

Honeywell CVR in front of the FDR.


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02864/Black_box_flight_r_2864202k.jpg

[aterpster]

Does anyone know whether the Egyptians have the equipment to read out the recorders or do they have to send them to France?

[thf]

From the last Egyptian press release (see above)

The analysis of data may take several weeks; if the memory units at both recorders are in good condition; then the unloading process will start right away at the labs of the Central Department for Aircraft Investigation [in Egypt]. Whereas if there is a minor damage at both or either of them; the damage will be repaired locally; but if the damage is major ; then the repair process will be conducted abroad under the supervision of the Investigation Committee.

[Heathrow Harry]

"In recent times i have not seen an accident where there was so little information in the public domain"

yeah - it's marvellous - it's cut the insane rumours by a factor of 100 - including on here

[A0283]

An accident is a chain of events. The recorders may or may not be readable, or readable but not useful. Use Occam to reduce the number of assumptions based on information provided by the various authorities and confirmed by the Egyptian lead.

A. Plane in normal cruise on normal full auto.
B. There may or may not have been events causing smell, smoke, or even fire.
C. But alarms are activated, messages generated, and messages buffered and then transmitted over Acars.
D. The pilots follow procedure and turn off the airway and start a descent. They dial this in on the autopilot. And select a heading easterly because traffic is allways no or low on that side of the airway.
E. To prevent going away too far from the airway, and following procedure, they decide to go on manual. They then start turning. Why they turned in the selected direction is not known.
F. It is not clear of the local significant headwind/tailwind plays a role, but,
G. They quickly lose control and enter a downward spiral.
H. Passing around the expected 10,000 ft the plane disappears from radar.
I. And probably impacts at a relatively steep angle.

@aterp... The Egyptians have a lab that can read the memories. But significantly damaged recorders will go the manufacturers as usual. And third parties, like BEA, will be present as usual during the reading.

@heathrow... In a number of accident cases the reports provided very little. The first to suffer is factual data (like CVR data in the AirAsia case recently and proper FDR data in another case). The second is the extent and quality of the analysis.
It is all about publicly sharing data and lessons learned that improves safety. That some parts of the public may have 'sensational' interests is the price you have to pay.

[Lonewolf_50]

An accident is a chain of events. The recorders may or may not be readable, or readable but not useful. Use Occam to reduce the number of assumptions based on information provided by the various authorities and confirmed by the Egyptian lead.

A. Plane in normal cruise on normal full auto.
B. There may or may not have been events causing smell, smoke, or even fire.
C. But alarms are activated, messages generated, and messages buffered and then transmitted over Acars.
D. The pilots follow procedure and turn off the airway and start a descent. They dial this in on the autopilot. And select a heading easterly because traffic is allways no or low on that side of the airway.
E. To prevent going away too far from the airway, and following procedure, they decide to go on manual. They then start turning. Why they turned in the selected direction is not known.
F. It is not clear of the local significant headwind/tailwind plays a role, but,
G. They quickly lose control and enter a downward spiral.
H. Passing around the expected 10,000 ft the plane disappears from radar.
I. And probably impacts at a relatively steep angle.
Suggest you add a caveat to clearly identify what is speculation, since some of your steps are based on inference / deduction from the sparse facts available. At least the parts I marked in red, perhaps more.

[lomapaseo]

Lonewolf 50

Suggest you add a caveat to clearly identify what is speculation, since some of your steps are based on inference / deduction from the sparse facts available. At least the parts I marked in red, perhaps more.

Agree with your sentiment.

I don't see the value in guessing at possible links in a causal chain unless one is prepared to suggest a viable action to prevent future accidents. In the proposed chain by A0283 there is nothing offered to be actioned against and we are still awaiting such facts.

[DaveReidUK]

Does anyone know whether the Egyptians have the equipment to read out the recorders or do they have to send them to France?

The media are reporting an unnamed Egyptian source as saying that the FDR and CVR have suffered unspecified but "extensive" damage which will hamper the analysis process. It's not clear whether that's just a reference to their physical state, as per the previously published photos, or to the results of initial efforts to retrieve the data.

Crashed Egyptair plane's black boxes 'extensively damaged' - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/story/2016-06-17/crashed-egyptair-planes-black-boxes-extensively-damaged/)

[AlphaZuluRomeo]

Such news is probably PR, as in Egypt paving the way to a "politically acceptable reason" to send the recorders abroad for reading.

[A0283]

@Lonewolf50 - Suggest you add a caveat to clearly identify what is speculation, since some of your steps are based on inference / deduction from the sparse facts available. At least the parts I marked in red, perhaps more.
To try to answer your question.

I agree with 'sparse'. The title of my post is ‘a possible scenario’, which means there are more. We do not know which one fits best. And in some cases we will never know. Never know because the investigation does not provide a conclusive answer. Or never know because the answers (facts, analysis, CVR transcript, etc) are not made available to the public and professional domains.
It surprises me that a number of people keep repeating that 'the investigation will provide 'all' the answers', experience shows that this is not true, not all investigations deliver a "US NTSB Docket", and a report is only the start of a change process.

People have different opinions on the value of discussing scenario’s. Might require another thread to discuss that properly.

On the ‘{lines marked red}’ by Lonewolf 50:

{They dial this in on the autopilot} ... Greek authorities published a summary of the flightpath. Later confirmed by the Egyptians. From cruise, started with turn left.Suggesting a 90 degrees and then straight eastward. My impression, indicating a change over from “A/P Managed” to “A/P Selected HDG ”. Not clear to me from the Greek text if this was accompanied by an immediate descent. If so, there may have been added an “A/P Selected ALT ”.

{They decide to go on manual} ... Same source, which describes the turns and fast descent.And the absence of a ‘managed spiral function’ . Which means a pilot (or aircraft) induced start of manual operation.

{They quickly lose control and enter a downward spiral} ... Same source. And a rate of descent that we find in other LOC accidents.

{And probably impacts at a relatively steep angle} ... Circumstantial. No information on the last 10,000ft. The lightweight items that were recovered were all torn and ripped. Which was different from other accidents where there were similar rates of descent but with a rather ‘flat’ impact. No mention of larger parts that could have indicated a late recovery.

Sorry for the long post.

[PJ2]

Re, ITV's (and others'), reportage that the recorders have "extensive damage", I don't think so.

The actual recorders in the two tubs appear in good shape as far as I can see. They look just like AF447's when those two recorders were retrieved. These reports may be referring to the two recorders' entire structure which, given the condition of retrieved wreckage etc., would not likely be intact; but the actual memory containers appear unharmed.

[Lonewolf_50]

@Lonewolf50 - (discourse and reasoning snipped)

Sorry for the long post.
A0283: I am not faulting your reasoning. (I followed your logic fine the first time). My concern is the varied audience who take declarative statements, without caveats, as though they are more than a hypothesis/theory of the cause of loss. In due course, providing the FDR and CVR data are not lost, we will be able to compare your estimate of the chain of events to one based on harder evidence.

[Machinbird]

Re, ITV's (and others'), reportage that the recorders have "extensive damage", I don't think so.Perhaps an incorrect opening technique?? Just speculation of course.

[CONSO]

While the recorders may very well be damaged- the memory units shown appear to be in relatively good shape. Unless they screw up while opening them, the in ternal solid state memory ' stick ' should be useable. And that is what matters.

[PJ2]

Hi Machinbird;

Re opening technique, perhaps - but the way AF447's were, by the photographic evidence supplied by the BEA anyway, so carefully and expertly opened, recognizing the extreme importance of what lay inside, would have one believe that the very same approach would be taken by those who actually did the work here. One hopes so, anyway. From the BEA photographs in AF447 Reports, the actual memory-module case appears to be very thick steel; they withstood the pressures that exist in over 3000/4000m of water. The primary difference here would be the very high 'g' loads that the recorders would have experienced at impact.

This said, the memory cases do appear to be unscathed and the actual modules inside likely survived unharmed. The absence of even the minutest updates concerning this phase of the investigation is disappointing, this being uncharacteristic of most investigative bodies, recent exceptions known and acknowledged, and does not serve the transparency necessary to alleviate the felt need for speculation in the absence of data. Like some here who have flown these aircraft, I think there is a felt-need to know as much as possible, as this does not "read" like a terrorist event.

[hoss183]

Egyptian air accident investigation sources told Reuters news agency it would take "lots of time and effort" to fix the two damaged recorders.

Very hard to believe considering the photos of the state CSMU's
Either a quote from somebody who is not directly involved who wants to appear knowledgeable, or a pessimistic statement to buy time. Either of which are not uncommon from these parts of the world.

[Rwy in Sight]

The absence of even the minutest updates

PJ2 isn't a regulatory requirement to publish an initial report within a month of the accident? If so few more days to go.

[mickjoebill]

It is feasible to have the data daisy chained and recorded by more than one recorder.

In a chaotic disintegration it improves the chance of survival.

One of the recorders could be designed to float, another built into the tail fin or other structures that tend to survive and easier to find like landing gear.
Latest generation of Solid state memory is incredibly light.

[2dPilot]

Perhaps an incorrect opening technique?? Just speculation of course.
Hardly likely. The recorder's haven't been washed-up on some pre-historic shore and being attached with rocks to see if a good cooking-pot will result.
The Egyptian technicians will have full access to the documented procedures and any specialist tools and no doubt the physical presence of persons with first hand experience building, opening and repairing the recorders.

[PJ2]

Rwy_in_Sight;
In a word, yes. Egypt is member state of ICAO and ICAO Annex 13, (Chapter 7, para 7.4 in my copy, available at http://www.emsa.europa.eu/retro/Docs/marine_casualties/annex_13.pdf), requires member states to issue an interim report within 30 days of an accident.

[A0283]

Cairo, 19th of June 2016 (12)

On Saturday the 18th of June; the investigation committee started the process of inspecting parts of both CVR and FDR, the approved representative of France and his consulting experts witnessed this process. Whereas approved Representative and consultants from the US as the engine manufacturer also joined the investigation committee. Memory units of both recorders were removed at the labs of the Central Department for Aircraft Investigation at the Ministry of Civil Aviation as a preparation to start the drying stage which was conducted at the Technical Research Center of the Armed Forces using modern high-Tech drying ovens. The drying stage took 8 consecutive hours and it was made in attendance of members of the investigation committee, and the adviser to the approved representative of France, who has a wide expertise in dealing with the plane recorders. Electrical tests of memory units of the recorders are in progress which will be followed by the data unloading phase. It is worth mentioning that John Lethbrige, the vessel contracted by the Egyptian Government to join the search for the plane wreckage, is proceeding its tasks of drawing a map of the wreckage distribution at the bottom of the Mediterranean.

[underfire]

Looking at several of the recent accidents, on land and in water, the FDRs always seem to be badly damaged, so to me, it does not appear that the current criteria and/or design works.

Doesnt this make an argument for a different design, or some sort of modification to these systems?

[NSEU]

Speculation: The Egyptians probably have the ability to plug their analysers into the base units of the DFDR and CVR, but not into the data capsules.
I really don't think there is anything wrong with the crash resistance. The base unit is not expected to be salvageable. It's not fire or crush resistant. It's just a handy interface for testing and downloading data after incidents (not fuselage destroying accidents).

[CONSO]

Looking at several of the recent accidents, on land and in water, the FDRs always seem to be badly damaged, so to me, it does not appear that the current criteria and/or design works.

Doesnt this make an argument for a different design, or some sort of modification to these systems?
The recorder system and the data/memory system are two separate units. salvaging the recorder portion is NOT necessary to read out the data/memory unit.

[vapilot2004]

Very hard to believe considering the photos of the state CSMU's
Either a quote from somebody who is not directly involved who wants to appear knowledgeable, or a pessimistic statement to buy time. Either of which are not uncommon from these parts of the world.

That would be my bet, or possibly a mis-quote by the media.

[D Bru]

http://www.civilaviation.gov.eg/News/news%20pages%20ar/messs_22_6_16.html

Found the original thread closed, even though there's significant news from Egypt about the latest assessment of the memory units of the CVR/FDR.

Apparently, the Egyptian Civil Aviation authority has an issue with either CVR or FDR readout. Nothing that can't be fixed, just taking up a bit more time. Encouraging that BEA and NTSB are confirmed to overlook this process.

My main concern is about until when there'll be data/voice stored. If it will be until the moment the transponder data quit, there won't be data/voice following the departure from the recorded flightpath @ FL370 as recorded by Greek and British military, conveyed to Egypt and only recently acknowledged by Egyptian authorities.

But fingers crossed, the FDR/CVR data read out will give some crucial hints before the apparent energy black out took place.

Connected to this, it would be vital to know until when exactly really transponder data were sent/received, as this seems so far varying between the timing of receipt of the ACARS messages (last one 00:29Z) and between the cessation of transponder data, claimed in several instances from 0, to 5 up to 15 minutes afterwards.

One would expect the Egyptian authorities to address such issues in a first (formal) report expected within one month according to international rules. Perhaps I've missed something.

[A0283]

@D Bru

We are now in Day35, so past the ICAO 30 days limit, where you expect the Egyptians as lead investigator to indeed publish a first interim report.

Apart from that the Egyptians keep publishing these updates.

So in that respect not convenient to freeze the thread at this stage.

Last radar contact was officially stated to be 20 minutes past 02:26, so 02:46 local time.

[D Bru]

Thanks, much appreciated.

Yes, I was hinting at that also, one would expect an interim report within one month.

One of the main issues one expects from such official interim report is of course the source and timing of this last radar contact, secondary or primary, following the cessation of the A/C transponder.

Remember that the Greek defence ministers' claim is that the manoeuvres of MS804 (90° left, followed by 360° right, rapidly descending) took place between 02:27 and 02:29 local, while the so-called transponder data recorded by several flight tracking sites show a continued constant heading and altitude until about 02:30.

This is crucially linked to the length/duration of FDR and CVR afterwards and what those data could bring into the investigation in addition to what we know.

Of course we can't discount FDR/CVR readout related clues before the general electric failure, these may be very important of course, but it seems to me that the events afterwards are equally important, if not more.

Anyhow, this first interim report is going to be already very important. Pretty unique it's not yet there (public).

[sk999]

Any news on recovery of wreckage? In more than one case (e.g., TWA 800), the wreckage provided much more information than the FDR/CVR.

[D Bru]

The interim report should also shed light on the so far claimed but contested contact of MS804 F/C with Egyptian ATC. I would suspect indeed to receive confirmation that this contact from MS804 didn't concern Egyptian ATC, but it would be interesting to learn whether in stead there was F/C initiated radio contact with Egypt Air Maintenance Control following the incident, and if so what was the gist/subject.

[A0283]

@sk999 ... On recovery...

Egyptian authorities stated that the vessel John Lethbridge is making a map of the different subsea area's. A map or maps that can be used for the recovery later. If they decide on doing that later.

Decision on if, and what, and how, will be recovered will probably have to wait for the first analysis of the recorders. And be supported by the photo mosaic and various maps.

Gear and data processing capabilities on board of that ship, including 3D sonar imaging, can easily cover the depths of around 3,000m. This based on the published specs of DOS.

[underfire]

Wondering again, looking at several recent accidents, in virtually all of them, the FDR system has been severely damaged.

It does not appear that the current design is working.

[CONSO]

Wondering again, looking at several recent accidents, in virtually all of them, the FDR system has been severely damaged.

It does not appear that the current design is working.
Uhh- the FDR is NOT designed to withstand a major crash- but the MEMORY unit is.

They are two or more pieces for a reason.

Ditto for the CVR ..

[PJ2]

underfire;

Your point has been addressed twice now. What further facts are you using to support "wondering again"?

If I may, it is apparent that you lack the knowledge necessary to make an informed comment. May I suggest that the BEA document on data recorders is worth reading. It can be found at https://www.bea.aero/uploads/tx_scalaetudessecurite/use.of.fdr_01.pdf (https://www.bea.aero/uploads/tx_scalaetudessecurite/use.of.fdr_01.pdf)

To put it in basic terms, the record of data retrieval is the statistic to examine, not the condition of the entire recorder installation.

To my memory there are only 2 examples* in which the aircraft crashed into the ocean from which the recorders themselves were not recovered. There are no examples of actual memory-module damage.

The delay in the 30-day required reporting period is not without precedent. However, as D Bru states, there are some things that can and certainly should be addressed while the data is recovered. Indeed, this is what occurred with the BEA's 1rst and 2nd Interim Report on the loss of AF447.

PJ2

* MH370, Asiana 991

[HeavyMetallist]

Thanks, much appreciated.

Yes, I was hinting at that also, one would expect an interim report within one month.

One of the main issues one expects from such official interim report is of course the source and timing of this last radar contact, secondary or primary, following the cessation of the A/C transponder.

Remember that the Greek defence ministers' claim is that the manoeuvres of MS804 (90° left, followed by 360° right, rapidly descending) took place between 02:27 and 02:29 local, while the so-called transponder data recorded by several flight tracking sites show a continued constant heading and altitude until about 02:30.

This is crucially linked to the length/duration of FDR and CVR afterwards and what those data could bring into the investigation in addition to what we know.

Of course we can't discount FDR/CVR readout related clues before the general electric failure, these may be very important of course, but it seems to me that the events afterwards are equally important, if not more.

Anyhow, this first interim report is going to be already very important. Pretty unique it's not yet there (public).
I'm struggling to understand why you think that FDR/CVR data recorded before a complete loss of electrical power is likely to somehow be less important than knowledge of what happened afterwards? Once you get to the point where the flight recorders have packed up then it's very likely game over, so the key to identifying the accident cause would indeed be what happened before that point.

[crHedBngr]

FWIW: EgyptAir crash: Paris prosecutor opens manslaughter inquiry - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36644422)

Not much other info. at this time.

[DaveReidUK]

No surprises, SOP in France.

[Chronus]

Not without good cause or reason. Possibly to protect/secure evidence.

[ExXB]

No, as Dave said it's SOP in France whenever French nationals are killed. Blame Napoleon if you want a scapegoat.

[SquintyMagoo]

No one cares to comment on the fact that we're now learning the actual FDR/CVR memory chips are damaged, not just the "casing" or support equipment?

[vapilot2004]

It is difficult to comment on anything since the original thread has been locked - and gets unlocked on random occasions here. Anyone know why this is happening?

Legal maneuverings with threats of monetary damage from PPRune by EgyptAir for a free and open discussion of known facts and speculation?

[nuisance79]

I find it very strange that these devices are in the condition reported when found. Perhaps they were in a readable condition, but after being put in ovens and belted with hammers, by the time they get to France, they may actually resemble the reported condition.

[Hotel Tango]

vapilot2004, More to do with the fact that there's not much new to say at present and there are too many posters who can't be bothered to read back through the many pages and post ideas/theories/garbage/whatever which has already been posted with repeating monotony by previous posters who also couldn't be bothered to read the entire thread!

[vapilot2004]

You think so HT? That's something new here - the closing of threads in the early stages, not the posting of mass gibberish or tales from those with axes to grind.

Thank you for that.

[andycba]

Crashed EgyptAir flight data recorder successfully repaired: investigation committee



Crashed EgyptAir flight data recorder successfully repaired: investigation committee | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-egyptair-airplane-datarecorder-idUSKCN0ZD2WP)

[Ian W]

It is surprisingly difficult to make solid state memory fail. I hope that part of the investigation highlights what the 'damage' to the memory was so that the DFDR and CVR manufacturers can modify the chips to make them more resilient presumably to seawater at high pressure.

[FlightlessParrot]

No surprises, SOP in France.
From what I can tell, and I'm no expert, this enquiry is more like what in the UK would be a coroner's inquest, rather than a criminal investigation.

[lomapaseo]

It is surprisingly difficult to make solid state memory fail. I hope that part of the investigation highlights what the 'damage' to the memory was so that the DFDR and CVR manufacturers can modify the chips to make them more resilient presumably to seawater at high pressure.

It might not have been the chip but the solder joints to the chip and no easy place to latch onto it in-situ. Still if they are finally able to read it, then it doesn't need redesigning and re-cerifying it all over again.

[vapilot2004]

I understand there was salt water ingress into the module.

[2dPilot]

The CVR has now been 'repaired' and analysis will begin 'within hours'.
BBC: EgyptAir crash: Flight data recorder repaired - investigators - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36647587)

Interesting that it will be returned to Egypt for analysis. I'll bet the French have copied the data first though.
Who will leak the contents first I wonder.

[HamishMcBush]

I'll bet the French have copied the data first though.
Who will leak the contents first I wonder.
Isn't that a "given" on the basis that you must have read the data successfully to enable you to state that you have made a successful repair to it.

Ref the point regarding Coroner's enquiry versus criminal court, surely you have to establish the facts first (or at the very least, the chronological chain of events) before you can begin to consider who may be guilty of committing an offence

[Volume]

I understand there was salt water ingress into the module.
Hard to believe, as it normally is fully potted with a silicon rubber compound.
On the other hand, at 400 bar, even solid materials start to show deformation, and the relatively soft rubber may be compressed more than the relatively stiff metal housing, leaving space for water to get in between.

[2dPilot]

Potting is really best for stabilising components. if there are any materials (wires etc) passing through from the internal to the external there will always be a seam between the potting material and the other. However well made and tested seams are the weak point in any construction.

[ExXB]

From Wiki:

France[edit]
In France, the Office of the Prosecutor includes a Chief Prosecutor, or Procureur de la République (or procureur général in an appellate court or in the Supreme Court) assisted by deputy prosecutors (avocats généraux) and assistant prosecutors (substituts). The Chief Prosecutor generally initiates preliminary investigations and, if necessary, asks an examining judge, or juge d'instruction, be assigned to lead a formal judicial investigation. When an investigation is led by a judge, the prosecutor plays a supervisory role, defining the scope of the crimes being examined by the judge and law enforcement forces. Like defense counsel, the chief prosecutor may petition or motion for further investigation. During criminal proceedings, prosecutors are responsible for presenting the case at trial to either the Bench or jury. They generally suggest advisory sentencing guidelines, but it remains at the Court's discretion to decide its own sentence, increased or reduced as it sees fit. In addition, prosecutors have several administrative duties.

Prosecutors are considered by French law as magistrates (as in most civil law countries). While the defense and plaintiff are both represented by common lawyers, sitting on the ground in the courtroom, the prosecutor sits on a platform as the court does, although he doesn't participate in deliberation. Judges and prosecutors are trained in the same school, and regard each other as colleagues.

[Mike-Bracknell]

Since the previous thread is apparently closed...

"Black box recordings on crashed EgyptAir flight MS804 confirm smoke on board, Egyptian investigators say"

...was just tweeted by the Beeb

[b1lanc]

And severe heat damage. Avherald reporting "evidence of fire in the forward section of the aircraft".

[crHedBngr]

Mike:

Thanks for the latest update. Glad more evidence is coming to light.

Here's the verbiage from Aviation Herald:

On Jun 29th 2016 Egypt's CAA reported that the flight data recorder has been successfully downloaded, more than 1200 parameters are being decoded and validated. Data are present from departure at Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris until the aircraft was at FL370 just after the ACARS messages (see below in data section) were transmitted, the data are consistent with the ACARS messages of lavatory and avionics bay smoke. Recovered wreckage parts from the forward section of the aircraft show severe heat damage and evidence of thick black smoke (soot). The investigation is going to undertake comprehensive analysis to try to determine the source and cause of the fire.


The thread I started several days ago was simply added to http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/579183-egyptair-804-disappears-radar-paris-cairo.html, which was then closed again.

I suspect the Mods may do the same with this thread.

[tubby linton]

Does anybody remember whether the FDR of SR111 kept working to impact? It seems strange that the FDR stopped on this case.

[atakacs]

Does anybody remember whether the FDR of SR111 kept working to impact? It seems strange that the FDR stopped on this case.

No they did not. Actually they stopped quite a but before the actual cash, almost 30m if memory serves. Which created quite a ruckus back then.

What do find strange in the FDR stopping? No power no recording...

[DaveReidUK]

the data are consistent with the ACARS messages of lavatory and avionics bay smokeIs that just a roundabout way of saying the FDR recorded the fact that those messages had been transmitted?

If so, we're not actually any wiser than we were before.

[A0283]

From the same official statement:

Regarding the CVR, repairs are still under progress at the French aircraft accident investigation bureau.

[.Scott]

This is only reporting the time period that the FDR recording covers. The recording continues "just after the ACARS messages were transmitted", presumably just after the last of the ACARS messages were transmitted.

They are not reporting any FDR content beyond the coverage period.

So for the FDR, we are only the tiniest bit more informed than we were before.

[MountainBear]

No they did not. Actually they stopped quite a but before the actual cash, almost 30m if memory serves. Which created quite a ruckus back then.The first sentence is true. The rest is untrue. The recorders stopped working about five minutes before crash and at approximate 9K MSL.

And it is worth noting that this was due to a fire in the cockpit itself.

[PastTense]

So what causes are compatible with what we now know? Could this for example be caused by a short in the electrical system--but that a bomb would be too fast acting to have this result?

[vapilot2004]

Recovered wreckage parts from the forward section of the aircraft show severe heat damage and evidence of thick black smoke (soot).

The presence of thick smoke and soot could suggest no bomb and some kind of serious electrical failure.

[D Bru]

As already predicted, FDR stopped when MS804 was still @ FL370, probably @ same time the transponder quit. Not much hope that CVR will have data after that moment either. The more intriguing though is the official message that front of A/C wreckage reportedly already salvaged is said to show signs of high temperature damage and soot.

http://www.civilaviation.gov.eg/News/news%20pages%20ar/messs_30_6_16.html

"Cairo, 29 June 2016

Following the successful download of the data of the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) of the doomed A320, decoding and validation of more than 1200 parameter is in progress in order to commence the next phase of reading and analyzing the data.
Preliminary information shows that the entire flight is recorded on the FDR since its take off from charles de gaulle airport until the recording had stopped at an altitude of 37 thousand feet where the accident occured.
Recorded data is showing a consistency with ACARS messages of lavatory smoke and avionics smoke.

Some recovered wreckage parts of the front section of the aircraft showed signs of high temperature damage and soot .

Analysis will be carried out to try to identify the source and reason for those signs.

Regarding the CVR, repairs are still under progress at the French aircraft accident investigation bureau.

Noteworthy; Collection of identified human remains is still ongoing and will continue till full recovery of all the remains at the crash location."

[airman1900]

EgyptAir Flight 804 Cockpit Voice Recorder Memory Chips Intact, Wall Street Journal July 2, 2016

EgyptAir Flight 804 Cockpit Recorder Memory Chips Intact - WSJ (http://on.wsj.com/29BhWLJ)

[airman1900]

Associated Press article, Investigators say voice recording from EgyptAir crash intact::

News from The Associated Press (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_EGYPT_PLANE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-07-02-08-36-06)

[A0283]

Official Egyptian Investigation (newspapers dont add much)

Cairo,2 july 2016

Extensive examinations that were carried out at the French aircraft accident Investigation Bureau; on the electronic board components of the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) of the A320’; showed that none of the memory ships of the electronic board was damaged .

However some other supportive components associated with communication to and from the memory chips had to be removed and replaced with new ones; whereas advanced high technology will be used to extract the recordings of these units .

After the replacement of the CVR board components; tests results were satisfactory as it enabled the reading of the recorders of the CVR memory unit .

The investigation committee members are planning to return back soon to Cairo with the fixed boards to continue reading and analyzing the FDR and CVR at the central department for aircraft accident at the Ministry of Civil Aviation .

It is worth mentioning that collecting human remains continues according to planned standard procedures.

[.Scott]

A recent news item provides a bit of information from the Egyptair CVR.
It's in French, and partly behind a paywall:
Crash d'Egyptair: un pilote a tenté d'éteindre l'incendie (http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2016/07/04/01016-20160704ARTFIG00232-crash-d-egyptair-un-pilote-a-tente-d-eteindre-l-incendie.php)

An English article based on this is here:
EgyptAir pilot tried to put out fire on board plane, black box shows | Africa | News | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/egyptair-crash-plane-black-box-fire-on-board-wreckage-paris-flight-a7120386.html)

The report only indicates that one of the pilots was fighting a cockpit fire.

[A0283]

The last offical Egyptian update was number (21)

Cairo, 3 July 2016
John Lethbrdge; the vessel contracted by the Egyptian government; had retrieved all the human remains that were mapped at the crash location of the A320. The retrieval process was supervised by Egyptian and French forensic doctors onboard of the vessel. The vessel departed from the crash location to the port of Alexandria to deliver the human remains to the general prosecutors and forensic doctors; in the presence of the technical investigation committee members; then for an immediate transport of the human remains to the forensic department in Cairo to start DNA analysis and to carry out standard procedures taken. As the Egyptian government is persistent to stand in solidarity with the victims’ families; the mission of John Lethbridge was extended as it will return back to the crash location to conduct a new thorough scan of the seabed and to search for any human remains till being fully assured of the absence of any more human remains at the crash location.

Note by A0283: The BEA site has been publishing copies of the Egyptian updates. So no confirmation of the Figaro article from any official side yet.

[vapilot2004]

The report only indicates that one of the pilots was fighting a cockpit fire.


Well that makes some of the larger pieces fit the puzzle considering we had window heat and lav alarms sent by the Airbus' ACARS. It also explains the rapid descent as indicated by ATC radar tapes.

[.Scott]

Here's another article, in French but not behind a paywall. It is also based on the Figaro (paywall) article:
Crash d'Egyptair: un pilote aurait tenté d'éteindre un incendie à bord (http://www.bfmtv.com/international/crash-d-egyptair-un-pilote-a-tente-d-eteindre-l-incendie-a-bord-1001187.html)
There's a piece of this article that I cannot quite catch using Google translate. It seems to be saying something about when the FDR stopped recording. Perhaps someone fluent in French can provide a translation. Is it suggesting that the CVR recorded longer that the FDR? Or is it suggesting that both recorders stopped well before the impact? Or something else?

Pour l'instant, la nature et les causes du départ de feu n'ont pas pu être déterminées. Selon Le Figaro, ces nouveaux éléments attestent en revanche que le feu n'est pas responsable de l'interruption brutale de l'enregistrement de la première boîte noire. L'appareil aurait continué a voler pendant trois à quatre minutes après la coupure du FDR, avant de s'écraser.

[A0283]

@.Scott
If I read it correctly it says that the FDR stopped recording 3-4 minutes before the crash.
The article refers to an official communique - but I cannot find that yet on the Egyptian (last post July 3rd) or BEA (last post July 2nd) sites ....
It also says that Le Figaro has had access to the CVR information.
The rest of the information in it (apart from a single pilot fighting a fire) was already published.
The article suggests a lot but delivers no substance.

[Machrihanish]

This?

Selon Le Figaro, ces nouveaux éléments attestent en revanche que le feu n'est pas responsable de l'interruption brutale de l'enregistrement de la première boîte noire. L'appareil aurait continué a voler pendant trois à quatre minutes après la coupure du FDR, avant de s'écraser.

"Figaro points out that these new elements proved that the fire was not the cause of the abrupt interruption of the first black box's recording. The aircraft would have continued to fly for three to four minutes beyond the cut in the FDR('s recording), before impact."

So yes, I read it as CVR rec. longer than FDR.

Pour l'instant, la nature et les causes du départ de feu n'ont pas pu être déterminées.
'Right now, nature and causes of the fire's origin have not been identified.'

[Fursty Ferret]

So yes, I read it as CVR rec. longer than FDR.

Needs a closer look at the FCOM but FDR gains data from the FDIU, which is supplied by AC2 and is lost in emergency electrical configuration. The CVR, however, remains supplied via the ESS bus.

If they did indeed select emergency elec config (or lost AC2), this would explain the time difference.

[A0283]

@.Scott
If I read it correctly it suggests the fire was not the cause of cutting the FDR recording. Which sounds a bit far fetched at this stage. Would surprise me if you could read that from a CVR.

Going over to emergency power and thereby losing recorders might be a factor. But if there was a fire who could determine that it had stopped. In the SR111 case it took the pilots more than 10 minutes to find out that there was a fire.

Would be interesting to have the CVR information they suggest they have.

[The Sultan]

Latest requirements for a CVR requires it have a a redundant power supply (RIPS) that will last 15 minutes or so after loss of the normal power supply. Came in after too many sudden loss of all data due to explosive devices.

The Sultan

[Lonewolf_50]

Latest requirements for a CVR requires it have a a redundant power supply (RIPS) that will last 15 minutes or so after loss of the normal power supply. Came in after too many sudden loss of all data due to explosive devices.

The Sultan This raises the question: why does the FDR not have a similar supplemental power provision? (There's probably a rational answer, but I am not arriving at it).

[atakacs]

I muss say I have difficulties in imagining an accidental fire situation where the pilots wouldn't have a chance to transmit a mayday and, at the very least, initiate a diversion.
Unless, of course, it was some incendiary device.

[Lonewolf_50]

I muss say I have difficulties in imagining an accidental fire situation where the pilots wouldn't have a chance to transmit a mayday and, at the very least, initiate a diversion.
Unless, of course, it was some incendiary device. If you go back to the first thread on this aircraft loss, a couple of pilots who fly that route shared their experience that there are comms holes (dead spots?) along that route as one switches over from the Greek to the Egyptian controller frequencies.


As MS804 descended -- even if they sent out a Mayday it might be that nobody received it. (If other aircraft were within range one would think another aircraft might have heard and reported such, so it's also possible that task loading on the flight deck was high and radio calls weren't as pressing as all other tasks).

Quiet area (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/579183-egyptair-804-disappears-radar-paris-cairo-3.html#post9381053)
Normal for that route at that point - well known "dead spot" lasting for about 10 minutes.
Quiet area 2 (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/579183-egyptair-804-disappears-radar-paris-cairo-7.html#post9381400)

About the handover from Greek to Egyptian controllers (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/579183-egyptair-804-disappears-radar-paris-cairo-2.html#post9380894)
It's about 175 nautical miles from the boundary between the Cairo and Athinai FIRs at waypoint KUMBI to landfall on the Egyptian coast via UL612; So if reports that LKP was 10nm inside the Cairo FIR are correct, that's 165nm or 305km, give or take.
That position is only about 150nm from the Greek islands to the north and northwest, so a touch closer to Greece than to Egypt, but pretty much in the middle.

[The Sultan]

Lone

The FDR does not have it because it's data is sourced from widely distributed avionics or sensors. So if they are gone there is nothing to record. On the CVR the RIPS also powers the area mic so at least something may be recorded if that path stays intact. There was an effort to have two dual recorders, one in front and one in back on large airplanes to get something if the fuselage is compromised (TWA 800).

The Sultan

[.Scott]

As MS804 descended -- even if they sent out a Mayday it might be that nobody received it. (If other aircraft were within range one would think another aircraft might have heard and reported such, so it's also possible that task loading on the flight deck was high and radio calls weren't as pressing as all other tasks).I would not expect to hear from a pilot fighting a cockpit fire - especially one that he ultimately losses. He can only breath through his mask and he may not be able to see beyond that mask. Given the environment, there is no assurance that the pilot was even conscious immediately before the impact.

And if he was, there is nothing the outside world could have done to help him.

[Lonewolf_50]

I would not expect to hear from a pilot fighting a cockpit fire - especially one that he ultimately losses. He can only breath through his mask and he may not be able to see beyond that mask. Given the environment, there is no assurance that the pilot was even conscious immediately before the impact. And if he was, there is nothing the outside world could have done to help him. Agree completely. My general
"it's also possible that task loading on the flight deck was high and radio calls weren't as pressing as all other tasks"
was less complete than how you said it. :ok:

[Julio747]

So the ACARS messages pretty much ruled out a bomb. But it could have been an incendiary act.

Now it seems there was a fire in the cockpit. Unlikely to be the place for a pax to start a fire...

Looking very much more like a window heater fault that got out of control down below... Leading eventually to loss of avionics. As has been suggested here already.

[D Bru]

I'm happy that the original thread is closed again and the relevant news has been moved and incorporated.

Quite like the latest information bulletin of the Egyptian Civil Aviation authority (5 July, see quote underneath), actually is asking for a bit more patience and for less speculation.

Of course, there is a fine balance between on the one hand the speed of information, given the seriousness of events in the first place for those directly involved and possibly also for the safety of operations of the type in general, and on the other hand the thoroughness of investigation processes, to reach valid and meaningful conclusions.

The Egyptians are obviously ticking as they are in their own way, so, apart from not having explicitly abided by the ICAO rules to have a first interim report after 1 month, they are at least pretty forthcoming on a regular basis when confirmed news can be released. Let's hope it will continue this way.

BR, Dutch BRU

"Cairo, 5 July 2016

The technical investigation committee would like to assert that it is the only official source of all the releases about the A320 accident and is not responsible for any information released by other sources.

The committee has gathered information that need time to be analyzed and matched to reach some very basic conclusions.

During the coming period, the experts will verifying the information downloaded from the Flight Data Recorder and establish time correlation with the records downloaded from the Cabin Voice Recorder.

The committee urges media to be cautious while issuing press releases about the accident and to only rely on official reports issued by the committee itself."

[A0283]

The latest official update by the investigation
CAIRO - 08 July 2016 (23)
Investigation Progress Report (23) by the EgyptianAircraft Accident Investigation Committee
Investigation committee is coordinating to transfer those wreckage pieces that were found by the Israeli coast in order to ensure that those pieces belongs to the accident aircraft.

The mission of the ship John Lethbridge is continuing to survey seabed at accident site to ensure no human remains are left behind.

[A0283]

CAIRO - 09 July 2016
Investigation Progress Report (24) by the Egyptian Aircraft Accident Investigation Committee

In the context of the Egyptian Government's keeness to recover all the human remains at the crash location of the A320; it was decided to extend the work period of John Lethbridge for a second additional period to last on the 18th of July.
John Lethbridge; the vessel contracted by the Egyptian Government; continues to scan the seabed of the Mediterranean to ensure the absence of any other human remains left at the crash location; whereas forensic doctors onboard of the vessel supervise the transfer of the human remains to the department of forensic medicine in Cairo in order to carry out standard procedures taken in this regard.

Note A0283: The John Lethbridge is on location around this time. So will probably return to Alexandria yet again. Turn around the same day and go out for a last week.

[AmericanFlyer]

Doomed EgyptAir flight broke up midair after fire: report | i24news - See beyond (http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/120781-160723-doomed-egyptair-flight-broke-up-midair-after-fire-report)

[atakacs]

So the preferred scenario here would be some sort of fire event leading to a loss a control ending up in in flight breakup? If so it might be a hard one to crack...

[rogerlondon]

A known potential fire source are the windshield heater connectors. Will they receive through consideration? See ATSB (Australian Transport Safety Board) report AO-2009-027 Guam accident, applicable to A330 and A320 a/c (of a certain date). The Lethbridge has apparently completed her work, are we to learn if she retrieved the windshield heater connectors?

[PastTense]

An Egyptian aviation official said the voice recorder from the cockpit indicated that the mood there was relaxed in the minutes before the plane veered off course.
Crew members were playing music and chatting amiably when the pilot, Capt. Muhammad Shoukair, 36, suddenly said there was a fire on board and asked the co-pilot, Muhammad Mamdouh Assem, 24, to get an extinguisher. That was the last human sound the recorder captured.
Information from the flight data recorder — as well as a series of automated alerts that were sent by the plane to a maintenance base on the ground — suggests that, in the minutes before radar contact was lost, heavy smoke was detected in a lavatory as well as near the cockpit. Investigators have also retrieved blackened pieces of metal from the front of the plane that indicate a high-temperature fire.
Still, the source of such a fire remains unclear.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/world/middleeast/egyptair-804-crash-fire.html

[A0283]

Doomed EgyptAir flight broke up midair after fire: report | i24news - See beyond (http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/120781-160723-doomed-egyptair-flight-broke-up-midair-after-fire-report)

The little information available appears to point to a very limited search area from the start. Also to extensive fragmentation but floating debris apparently being rather limited. With 3-4 relatively close debris fields on the sea floor. There was no surface search of long duration with multiple vessels over a wide area.

This still appears to point to a rather steep and fast entry. So if there was an inflight breakup it would have been very late, so not midair. Even then you would expect vertical tail, rudder or ths sections being recovered and reported on.

Fire cases show that it can take a while to discover that you actually have a fire - example Swissair SR111 fire in the cockpit ceiling on the boundary of the cockpit and toilet areas. Accidents stats show a 15-30 minute 'ordinairy' fire can bring a plane down. So if it was much less than 10 minutes you would expect something that boosted the fire in a very short time in that area - for example oxygen system involvement. The Egyptair Neferteti case gives an impression of what kind of effect that might have.

The lack of information in this case, even including skipping the standard 30 day interim ICAO report (we are now past day 60), makes that less lessons can be learned from this case. For some people and purposes a good accident report will be enough. For others a detailed docket with proper data is a minimum requirement.

[Passenger 389]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the conclusions (or inferences) reported in the NY Times article seem rather contradictory, given what I recall regarding previous crashes of large commercial planes under a wide variety of circumstances.

In true mid-air breakups, my recollection is the bodies tend to be comparatively intact. For example, the Iranian A300 mistakenly downed by a US missile in 1988, which also occurred over a body of water.

Perhaps that is partly due to the speed (energy) at impact of a powered, aerodynamic plane versus a less aerodynamic, and unpowered free-falling human body (whether by itself or strapped to a seat or seat row). Providing that does not conflict with general principles of gravity for falling objects.

Plus, when a body falls separate from the plane, there isn't all the metal (and other objects) that on impact contribute to (uh, I think we all know what, no need to be more graphic).

Relatively large pieces of debris also tend to be found, especially those that break away and 'float' down (so to speak). Physics of terminal velocity.

Whereas the 'shredding' (of remains and plane parts) - which the NY Times article suggests happened here - tends to be consistent with a high speed impact of a relatively intact aircraft, whether in water or swamp (eg, ValueJet in the Everglades) or otherwise.

The one way I can attempt to reconcile the seeming contradiction is if the Egyptian source is trying to say something broke off the plane (such as a vital control surface), which then caused the plane -- still relatively intact and with the occupants still inside -- to impact the water at high speed/steep angle of entry.

That might possibly explain the 'shredding' and (partly) the lack of large floating objects such as the vertical stabilizer, or other large relatively flat-buoyant objects one might expect to find in a true mid-air 'breakup' (especially when search aircraft were up and boats searching not too long after the crash, and presumably would have spotted those objects if floating).

Note: as I finished typing this, AO283 also seems to have noted some seeming inconsistencies with a true 'mid-air breakup.'

[vapilot2004]

There are a lot of suppositions in this latest news. Considering the sources are "unnamed officials" and "speaking on condition of anonymity", I would be skeptical of reports suggesting anything outside of what the DFDR and CVR and evidence from the debris provides.

The Times stated the Lav detector reported "heavy smoke". Sorry, but as far as I know, detectors in commercial aircraft are binary - smoke = 1, no smoke =0, with no discriminatory precision to assess the degree or 'thickness' of smoke.

[jugofpropwash]

I'm trying to think of an in-flight breakup (or even a large section of the plane falling off) that resulted from a fire in or near the cockpit. I can't remember any. Am I alone in thinking that this seems unlikely?

[The Ancient Geek]

"unnamed official" = journalist making up an inventive story on a slow news day.

[jcjeant]

Hi,
So all is going well in the cockpit (CVR)
Suddenly the cdt asks the second pilot a fire extinguisher as there is fire
So probably no smoke alarm or other alarm but a flame perceived by the cdt
In these conditions .. electronic bay fire seems discarded ....

[henra]

That is what struck me as well. Pretty unusual that there is no smell or smoke long before open fire is identified. Together with the short time span between detection and LoC of the aircraft this rather points to intensive open fire. Remains the question what fuelled it?
- Oxygen generators?
- LiIon/LiPo batteries?
- Flammable liquid?
- Anything else?
Being at 37kft with the thin air Oxygen generators would still be my prime suspect. The other sources would have difficulties destroying an aircraft in that short time span and at high altitude when cabin is depressurised (was it btw?)

[MrSnuggles]

For what it's worth....

To my recollection, two persons have survived mid air break ups of aircraft.

Juliane Koepcke, 1971, an Electra break up, around 3000 metres.
Vesna Vulovic, 1972, a DC-9 that probably exploded about 10000 metres up.

[jxf63]

Traces of explosives found on bodies of EgyptAir crash victims (http://news.sky.com/story/traces-of-explosives-found-on-bodies-of-egyptair-crash-victims-10697075)

[Stu B]

Also now being reporterd on the BBC - see EgyptAir crash: Explosives found on victims, say investigators - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-38330316)
"A criminal investigation would now begin into the crash of the Airbus A320, Egypt's civil aviation ministry said in a statement."

[captplaystation]

All the more worrying given that the point of departure was from where we may consider a "safe" European airport.


Many years ago, an ex partner working in CDG (as was I ) described to me the celebrations taking place on the apron by "certain" baggage handlers whilst 9/11 was in progress, and how (in that era ) catering trucks just breezed through security checkpoint onto the apron/aircraft. . . . wonder how much has changed in any of the above respects.

[ATC Watcher]

Interestingly a French newspaper( Le Figaro) says today the contrary : the French Administrative experts involved in the investigation ( so not the BEA) says there were absolutely no traces of explosives on the body parts recovered , and are still going for a "technical cause".
Vol Egyptair: traces d'explosifs sur les victimes? (http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2016/12/15/97001-20161215FILWWW00201-vol-egyptair-traces-d-explosifs-sur-les-victimes.php)

[GarageYears]

I must admit, given the great number of similar aircraft in service, why we haven't heard anything remotely useful for so many months related to this crash?

I realize there is a sensitivity for the Egyptians and the idea that this was terrorism related, but if it wasn't, and it was a technical malfunction of some kind, wouldn't knowing what that issue was be rather helpful for all other A320 operators?

Given the wall of silence, I was trending towards an assumption that is was terrorism, and the Egyptians were hoping we might all forget about it, but now I see some reporting suggesting explosive residue and other rejecting this.

So, back to a state of confusion. :confused:

[Lonewolf_50]

Interestingly a French newspaper( Le Figaro) says today the contrary : the French Administrative experts involved in the investigation ( so not the BEA) says there were absolutely no traces of explosives on the body parts recovered , and are still going for a "technical cause". Vol Egyptair: traces d'explosifs sur les victimes? (http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2016/12/15/97001-20161215FILWWW00201-vol-egyptair-traces-d-explosifs-sur-les-victimes.php) They would say that, wouldn't they? What possible (political) motive would anyone in French government have for taking the position that there were explosives on the plane when it left Paris? :cool:

[captplaystation]

Or admitting a technical fault on an AirBOOOS :uhoh:


Rock & a Hard Place for the French then. . . . . . .:hmm:

[ATC Watcher]

Lonewolf : What possible (political) motive would anyone in French government have for taking the position that there were explosives on the plane when it left Paris?
Do we have evidence of that, if explosives there was, they were loaded on board in CDG and not in a previous leg for instance ?. But I honestly think that in 2016 the " political motives" are more in the Egyptian camp than in France.
Because if it is after all a " technical issue" Airbus could be in the hot sit too.
So either way is bad.

Le Monde newspaper this evening ( serious news normally) says that experts from the BEA also are stating that there were no explosive traces on victims.

[Lonewolf_50]

I asked that since one of the security vulnerabilities for any aircraft is during ground handling between sectors. (See the Metrojet, which took off from Sharm? Pan Am and Locherbie?)


Would the French officials want to dampen or amplify perceived lapses in Paris? That said, and considering the Flt 990 investigation and Egypts version versus NTSB version, maybe I should give the French authorities the benefit of the doubt.

[comcomtech]

This morning I messaged Peter Beaumont, who wrote this story for the Guardian, summarizing pprune's detective work on MS804. I also contacted the Guardian. I'll let you know if either replies.

[ShotOne]

Detective work? Prune??

[susier]

Pilot?s phone batteries may have caused crash that killed 66 | World | The Times & The Sunday Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/pilots-phone-batteries-may-have-caused-crash-that-killed-66-trr663ghv?CMP=Spklr-_-Editorial-_-TWITTER-_-thetimes-_-20170113-_-776619412&linkId=33350274)

I'm sorry it's a paid for newspaper; if I find another article about it I will update with a new link.

Also, Moderators, please add this to the existing thread if you feel it appropriate - apologies that I couldn't locate it.

[EEngr]

Now some are saying that it might have been a phone battery on the flight deck: EgyptAir MS804 crash 'may have been caused by overheating phone battery' (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/faulty-phone-battery-may-have-caused-fire-that-brought-down-egyptair-flight-ms804-investigators-say-1600963)

[ATC Watcher]

If that is confirmed I want to buy shares in the company that built the containment boxes for the 787 .. they are going to expand their business ...

But as it read it. it is pure speculation based on a video camera at the gate. Nothing guarantee that the F/O did not store these items , that it seems included a bottle of perfume , in his bag before take off. Most of us would normally do that.

[Kerosine]

There are hundreds of lithium battery devices aboard an aircraft, I would assume almost every aircraft in the skies has at least one pilot owned device stowed on each side of the cockpit.

It's saying that he placed them on the glaresheild, but would any pilot consider taxiing and taking off with an ipad, iPhone and bottles STILL ON the glaresheild? Doubt it very much, as such they would likely have been stowed next to the FO seat.

Of course it's possible it was a pilot owned battery that caused the problem, but a video showing them in the cockpit is evidence of nothing.

Edit: As ATC Watcher said actually!