BREAKING NEWS: airliner missing within Egyptian FIR

[oleostrut]

"Rahmi said there was no proof yet that the plane had broken up in flight."

Other than the tail being found several miles from the nose.........

[Toruk Macto]

Rahmi said there was no proof yet that the plane had broken up in flight. "This could be a long process and we can’t talk about the results as we go along,” he said.

What this guys job ? Hope it's not one of responsibility ?

[andrasz]

Originally Posted by Kulverstukas

in my previous experience...

I would fully concur if it were a Russian-led investigation, but here the Egyptians are in charge (more precisely the Egyptian military). Having lived and worked in that fine land, I can say with some authority that if there is something they don't like, they will try to deny it whatever it takes.

there will be no data recorded on the FDR and CVR after the separation of the tail

Correct. The best we can expect is that the microphones picked up sounds that may be analyzed and possibly identified in the last milliseconds.

[ExDubai]

I would fully concur if it were a Russian-led investigation, but here the Egyptians are in charge (more precisely the Egyptian military). Having lived and worked in that fine land, I can say with some authority that if there is something they don't like, they will try to deny it whatever it takes.

Do not forget that also experts from France and Germany participate on the investigations. It would"t be that easy for the Egyptian military to deny the results.

[Kulverstukas]

Quote:

there will be no data recorded on the FDR and CVR after the separation of the tail

Correct.

Any chances there is unprotected FDR in nose equipment bay? Nose part seems not so heavily damaged.

[Kulverstukas]

Am I mislead but I think investigation is led by Egypt’s civil aviation ministry?

[DARK MATTER]

Rahmi is the official Civil Aviation Ministry spokesperson .................

[A_Van]

Some comments on the post by dechelski (a dozen posts above):

1. Tail section repair. I cannot find an absolutely credible information where the repair took place in 2001-2002, but heard from Russian radio (while driving a car this morning) that it happened in Toulouse, on the manufacturer premises. If so, there is no reason to suspect Airbus for not doing the job properly. Again, would be very interested to know where the repair was really done.

2. IMHO, talking about the bomb onboard, you are right asking "why not to do it over Russia?" Indeed, might be a double win for the bastards that implanted it. But all those (Russian) charters are often late (or even delayed for many hours) and timer alone would not be reliable to detonate the explosive over a pre-defined place. And a combination of a timer with a mobile link that sets it up when the plane is already on the run-way seems to be a) too sophisticated for those guys and b) leaving more traces (in a mobile/radio network) than a primitive luggage-looking explosive put onboard by a single jihaddist. With regard to the latter, I would like to see the Egyptian police and secret services thoroughly looking through personal files of all the airport employees servicing this plane that night/morning and maybe already treating some of them "in a proper way" to dig out the truth.

[andrasz]

In present day Egypt "Civil" is code for military in disguise.
I'm not saying this to pass any judgment (in fact the military is one of the few marginally competent organizations there), just as a matter of fact.

[A0283]

@Kulverstukas

Any chances there is unprotected FDR in nose equipment bay? Nose part seems not so heavily damaged.

In general you will find the (D)FDR and (D)CVR near or in the tail section. I have never heard or seen a recorder as such in the nose. There are a number of (structural and survivability) reasons for that.
If you look at the accidents of the last 15 years or so, you could also suggest another location, but still the tail section it is.

Depends on your definition. But there is not really a nose equipment bay. There is a Main Equipment Center, which is not in the cockpit section, but behind and below the floor after the forward pax doors.
Two large recognizable units are the nose landing gear bay (ribbed) and the MEC with its trays and wiring (in which many avionics boxes are visible). The bay looks quite good. The MEC looks rather burned, but you need better pictures to be sure.

In general planes these days carry equipment like ('non-hardened') QARs quick access recorders and maintenance recorders. In cases where flight recorders fail or only give partial information, these boxes can, will be, and have been used (assuming they survived). These recorders store even more information than flight recorders. In other cases it is possible to retrieve data from local memory components of systems.

So you have to know what kind of boxes a specific aircraft carries. That is the art an science of "configuration" management. A subject rarely introduced into public accident discussions, but essential in getting to (any and) the right conclusions.

[Prada]

forces in question

Thank you GSLOC for posting some actual images of structures in question!

While people enjoy speculating about bulkhead rupture, bomb, etc. It really puzzles me what were the forces that ripped off horizontal and vertical stabilizers along with APU section and rear part of fuelage.
But then again we havent seen pictures of any stabilizer nor pieces of missing aft fuelage between wings and aft piece.

[Kulverstukas]

QARs quick access recorders and maintenance recorders

Thanks for elaboration, A0283, I mean them.

[slats11]

Pathologists in St Petersburg separated victim's bodys/parts into two groups -- those seated in front and those towards the tail. Those who seated in front sustained mainly chest, stomach, legs, arms injures, internal organs tear. Deaths mainly resulted from loss of blood, shock and brain injures.

Those who seated in the rear were found to sustain explosion injures and heavy burns (more than 90%). Experts attributed this to fuel tank explosion or explosion device detonation. Also a lot of metal pieces and aircraft skin parts were found in body's of those seated in the rear.

This does seem consistent with the fact a lot of fuselage between the wing and tail seems to be missing from the photos seen to date (unless I have missed something).

Media also reporting mid-air heat flash before crash.

So problem with centre fuel tank? Or bomb?

[Airbubba]

Looks like Metrojet has reason to believe this was not a technical failure.

They have rerouted their flights out of Shram to the west according to this chart published today on their website:

http://urgent.metrojet.ru/files/rout...1103155044.pdf

[A0283]

@Kulverstukas recorders

You can be pretty sure there are a 'QAR' and one or more 'maintenance recorders' on board.

So what you need to know next is what tray they were in on the specific day. And find out if this tray is exposed to fire and/or damaged or not. For this you already need configuration data and close up photos ... and if damage is visible... you need hi res photos.

That is as far as you can go without having access to the recorders - as only the investigators and supporting parties will have.

If the case turns out to be complex, then i guess you would surely want access to maintenance recorder data.

[peekay4]

In general you will find the (D)FDR and (D)CVR near or in the tail section. I have never heard or seen a recorder as such in the nose. There are a number of (structural and survivability) reasons for that.

Black boxes were required by regulation to be located as aft as practicable.

However, the current best practice is to have two combination CVR/FDRs: one located aft, and the second located near the cockpit. There was a rule change relatively recently which made this possible. See FAR 25.1457(e)(2).

[AVR4000]

To Prada, #682:

A failure of the pressure bulkhead is a logical explanation for the separation of the rudder and horizontal stabilizers and a picture of its condition would give a clear answer.

Bulkhead failure as a reason for a loss of rudder and stabilizers can be found with the BEA Vanguard accident and also the Japan Airlines B747SR ditto. In the latter case, the rudder and a big part of the vertical stabilizer separated from the aircraft and those damages is actually quite similar to those pictured on the MetroJet A321 wreck. It is evident that the vertical stabilizer is not only missing the rudder but also an "L shaped" piece including the top while only the forward piece of structure (which folded backwards on impact) remains.

Another possibility is a separate failure of the horizontal stabilizers.

Based on the wreckage, it is evident that the rudder and horizontal stabilizers separated from the aircraft and landed in a different location, which is the reason why the rear pressure bulkhead will be suspected until more data is available. If it turns out that it is completely intact, then there is another cause for the separation of the rudder and stabilizers. Delamination and failure of the vertical stabilizer could be another possibility and it could very well have hit the horizontal stabilizer (this happened with the Boeing 707 over Mount Fuji even if it was caused by severe turbulence).

My take on existing evidence is a failure of the tail surfaces of the aircraft caused by either a failure of the pressure bulkhead, failure of the vertical stabilizer due to delamination or something happening to the horizontal stabilizers.

It is necessary to document the condition of the RPB, rudder and remaining structure from the vertical stabilizer and also the horizontal stabilizers including the jack screw. The flight recorders paired with QAR (if the latter survived) will give more answers, especially if there is recorded data for the same amount of time as the FR24 provided (approximately 25 seconds after the initial event).

[Leightman 957]

VS HS attach

Ignoring for the moment the reported wide differences of pax injuries fore to aft, the fuselage attach points of the VS spar and HS are proximal and designed to distribute the highest loads in the aft fuselage. Yet despite the obvious structural trauma, the fwd VS attach remained in place and the more closely integrated aft VS and main HS spars separated from the structure. The probability of a non-localized force capable of this result is lower than one which would have also affected the fwd VS spar ("spar" used with caveats). So the question is what kind of force could have caused that structural split at that location. There is no clear evidence yet of a APB failure. Nor is there clear evidence yet that fire (exact scorching and cause of death) did not result from a primary event. So it seems mechanical failure of the HS VS attach or explosive event near there remain prime possibilities. Note that 'explosive event' does not suggest an intentional event. The division of the relative strength of the VS HS connection does suggest that the tail cone/apu were just along for the ride and were not causal. Why no HS pics so far??

[Kulverstukas]

CNN: U.S. satellite detected heat flash while Flight 9268 was midair, U.S. official says

[PersonFromPorlock]

While people enjoy speculating about bulkhead rupture, bomb, etc. It really puzzles me what were the forces that ripped off horizontal and vertical stabilizers along with APU section and rear part of fuelage.

If the tail cone and empennage departed the fuselage intact, it's likely the effective 'flat plate' of the bulkhead facing the airstream would have caused immediate, violent tumbling, with consequent violent reversals of wind loads on the empennage as various flat surfaces rotated into and out of the relative wind.

Think of it in terms of twisting the leg off a roast chicken.