Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

BREAKING NEWS: airliner missing within Egyptian FIR

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

BREAKING NEWS: airliner missing within Egyptian FIR

Old 5th Nov 2015, 15:30
  #1141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 75
Upper HS support is present at crash scene.

The HS is attached to the airframe at only 3 points, the 2 aft pivot pins and the jackscrew at the noes.

The pivot pins are held by 2 support assemblies at either side of the fishmouth at the aft most station of the fuselage. These supports are removd to install the HS, then replaced to attach the pivot pins.

The upper aft most station frame assembly is clearly visible in the photo, the jackscrew is there as well, but not recognizable in such a low res pic. A high res pic was posted last night, but is gone now. I went to the source and got a 404 error, so gone for good, I guess.

In second pic, the red lines are the removable support rods that engage the HS pivots, the yellow lines point to their upper mount areas, visible in the other photo.





Last edited by oleostrut; 5th Nov 2015 at 15:43.
oleostrut is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2015, 15:39
  #1142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Where it is comfortable...
Age: 55
Posts: 685
@ oleostrut

You mean the jackscrew is the elongated part that (visually) seems to connect the slanted piece protruding from he shredded VS trailing edge and the upper centre of the last frame ?
andrasz is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2015, 15:47
  #1143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 75
"You mean the jackscrew is the elongated part that (visually) seems to connect the slanted piece protruding from he shredded VS trailing edge and the upper centre of the last frame ?


Yes, it was much clearer in the better (now gone) photo.

Very early in this thread there was an excellent photo of the jackscrew assembly and actuator. Compare this photo with that jackscrew actuator, and you can se that is what we are looking at.
oleostrut is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2015, 15:50
  #1144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Estonia
Posts: 71
fuel ignition at 0,2 at pressure and -42C

With a fuselage rupture of any sort is it at all creditable that there is any chance of fuel catching fire or exploding at that speed and that altitude. I would suggest not.
It is true that fuel is so difficult to ignite at altitude. Even in engines. But it is not impossible. You need enough initial energy(heat) and reduced airflow to sustain flame. Though I have read that chances to ignite jetfuel reduce exponentially as temperatres and pressures drop. Thats a whole science.

Anyway, rear passengers and seats got scorched somehow. And there was a heavy fire on the plane before it impacted terrain.
I suspect that fuel fire was secondary event, caused by series of events before primary destructive event.

I wonder if this particular A321 had additional central fuel tank or no? If yes, it is located aft of wings inside fuselage.
Standard range with winglets for this plane type is 5900km. Sankt-Petersburg - Sharm el Shaikh distance around 4000km. Anybody knows?
Prada is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2015, 15:54
  #1145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 19
The tail looks to have had a 'bomb' actually in it! does anyone know of a similar crash where the tail was so de-constructed and parts spread out? Even with Alaska Airlines 261 with a jack screw failure the tail seemed to stay intact but with no pitch control.

In my mind if the tail severed in one go, it would stay intact until impact with ground, but that doesn't seem to what have happened here.

has anyone got a handle on where the APU, HS parts (at least two), tail, and VS lie in the debris field relative to each other? they don't seem to be close to each other.
WNTT is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2015, 15:55
  #1146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Midwest US
Posts: 3
oleostrut - That does look like it could be the THS actuator still attached to the box section that it mounts to. However, if that is the case, it is displaced about 5 frames aft from where it should be located. Its normal location is also proximate to the aft two pairs of the VS mounting lugs. Displacing the top mount of the THS actuator would possibly also displace these mounting points and account for the splitting of the VS.

Of course, the next question is what generated sufficient force to do this.
MikeJ65 is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2015, 16:02
  #1147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 31
oleostrut andrasz
See these posts for photos of the HS install and the jack screw

http://www.pprune.org/9169437-post982.html

http://www.pprune.org/9169622-post1004.html
sardak is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2015, 16:07
  #1148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 1
Could this be another Partnair Flight 394?

Long time lurker. Have been following this thread and thanks all for your thoughts.

A crazy idea: Could a APU mount failure failure due to improper maintenance, loose structure (eg APU) and resonance vibrations jam and break the rudder, leading to the tail coming off?

This happened to Partnair Flight 394 in 1989, leading to the tail coming off and midair disintegration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnair_Flight_394
TheGeneralElectric is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2015, 16:11
  #1149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 74
Posts: 1
Question fuel ignition at altitude

It is true that fuel is so difficult to ignite at altitude.
Aaaamen. Re the two flashes reported by US, supposedly one at altitude and one at/near ground- apparently by using Infra-red technology. It **MAY** be that as plane tumbled as a result of loss of tail- HS , what was seen was looking essentially into the aft end of the two jet engines still running or still hot, making a great IR target.

Then of course when hitting the ground would be relatively easy to ignite spilled fuel giving the second IR flash.

Could there be " readable " flashes between air and ground ? Maybe- depending on resolution and tumbling of wings and partial body - but that degree of sensitivity would likely NOT be public information.
CONSO is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2015, 16:17
  #1150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,361
Regarding the speculation on a possible over-rotation as some sort of initiating event: the discussion on that has been interspersed between much else, but I'll ask the following:

Doesn't an over-rotation like that leave a visual signature that someone in the control tower would see as the plane rotates before lift off? (Sparks?) If so, would not the investigating team already have that input from the witnesses at the airport?

A few pages back it was pointed out that on the A321 contact would be made further forward than the aft pressure bulkhead in the case of an over rotation ... is it reasonably valid to rule out that contributing factor to a structural failure further aft?

Follow up to that:
1. Have any of you had an over rotation/tail drag and not gotten a report from the tower?
2. Did you know a colleague who had that happen, but the tower didn't give them an alert?

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

About the American "leak" regarding "maybe it was a bomb"
The official stressed that there has not been a formal conclusion reached by the U.S. intelligence community.
Then why doesn't this "intelligence" official keep his trap shut! This kind of crap upsets me (I am American and I hate how our Intel community has become a home to so many loudmouths). Sometimes, it is best to keep it all close to the vest.
This kind of "loose lips" does not help aviation safety -- it just feeds the rumor and speculation mill.

I wish to thank the mods for their hard work on trying to keep this thread clean.

Let us consider that our Russian PPRuNe contributors feel this loss keenly, so can we please see an end to the acid comments in the political realm? (Kulverstukas, we like bears, vodka, and balalaikas, regardless of how people fee about politicians. ).

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 5th Nov 2015 at 16:31.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2015, 16:20
  #1151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 2
Better debris map needed

What is the first item that departed the aircraft and where was it located? We need a better debris map. A good debris map will answer many questions regarding the sequence of the breakup and will usually point directly at some cause. It may be useful and entertaining to discuss the possible breakup scenarios that resulted from the initial event, but finding the first piece that came off the airframe will tell much of the initial story. If anyone has a more complete debris map than has been posted please share it. In particular - what part(s) were found along the flight path the most DISTANT from the main wreckage? What came off first?
N8477G is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2015, 16:22
  #1152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,305
Originally Posted by oldoberon View Post
Damn I must have imagined the USA has released statements saying TWO heat flashes detected by satellite, one in the air other on ground impact, must stop eating cheese for supper.
Flash from engine(s) break upward into wing(s) on minus 10g or more bunt causing fuel tank explosion and igniting remains of wing and fuselage; second flash on explosion of remaining fuel on ground impact.

Look up "confirmation bias".

Stick with the cheese
Ian W is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2015, 16:31
  #1153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Brussels
Posts: 131
Smott999

Would a tail strike on TO be potentially heard and remarked upon on CVR?
Oh, yes. No mistaking it. BTDT....

.

P.S. Note to Brandon, test engineer.
On a commercial flight, the rear hosties are sitting on top of the tail skid. No way in the world they would not notice, even if you were listening to Radio 2 at the time.

Silver
silvertate is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2015, 16:36
  #1154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,361
Originally Posted by silvertate View Post
Oh, yes. No mistaking it. BTDT....
Just curious, did the tower see it and give your FD crew an alert over the radio?
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2015, 16:37
  #1155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,305
Originally Posted by funfly View Post
With a fuselage rupture of any sort is it at all creditable that there is any chance of fuel catching fire or exploding at that speed and that altitude. I would suggest not.

FF
If it was just a fuselage rupture possibly so.

But when the engines are ripped upwards off their mounts while in climb power you might expect some kind of fire
Ian W is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2015, 16:38
  #1156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 935
It is true that fuel is so difficult to ignite at altitude.

Correct, Pan Am 103 didn't explode until fuel laden parts hit the ground.


Are those 20,000 going to be happy to be stranded one day and rescued the next? If Mr Cameron doesn't trust security then he should take the passengers and leave the baggage behind - its only dirty washing anyway.
Sober Lark is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2015, 16:44
  #1157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3
@sober lark
That is exactly what Easy Jet are doing
no checked in baggage permitted.
dsc810 is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2015, 16:51
  #1158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Newcastle
Age: 49
Posts: 562
Then why doesn't this "intelligence" official keep his trap shut! This kind of crap upsets me (I am American and I hate how our Intel community has become a home to so many loudmouths). Sometimes, it is best to keep it all close to the vest.
Catch 22. If the governments knew about a bomb and didn't act and people lost their lives, it would be the other side of the argument. They knew, but didn't tell us scenario.
MATELO is online now  
Old 5th Nov 2015, 16:53
  #1159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 147
no hold luggage out of SSH - jeesh

goodness this is extreme

no hold bags no pushchairs no wheelchairs

all will be sent on within 7 days by a courier

Information for customers travelling from Sharm el Sheikh | easyJet
rog747 is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2015, 16:56
  #1160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Customer return flights planned; close consultation with authorities
The airlines of the Lufthansa Group have suspended their commercial flight operations to and from the Sinai Peninsula until further notice. The precautionary action has been taken in view of the current Sinai situation. The Lufthansa Group will coordinate all its further actions in this regard in close consultation with the authorities. The action affects two planned weekly flights to and from Sharm el-Sheikh, operated by Edelweiss and Eurowings.

The Lufthansa Group airlines will also be working closely with their governments’ foreign affairs departments and the tour operators involved to look after customers currently vacationing in the Sharm el-Sheikh region and arrange their return flights home.
UKPAX is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.