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 6th Nov 2015, 00:36
  #1281 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: NO
Posts: 38
Originally Posted by short bus
I imagine whatever caused a hole large enough to eject a passenger, was violent enough to sever the cables to this FDR/CVR at the same time.
Yes, but would the aircraft keep going like nothing had happened, for another 2+ minutes after such an event?
RYFQB is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 00:39
  #1282 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ventura, California
Age: 62
Posts: 257
MrOptimistic:

Read the CAB Report of the Continental 707 crash in 1962. It's only 8 pages and the physics are very similar.

http://murderpedia.org/male.D/images/doty_thomas/ws.pdf
thcrozier is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 00:39
  #1283 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Data recorders

Originally Posted by thcrozier View Post
NSEU:

All of the data from all of the sources you mention must be consolidated around hubs or maybe a central processor. I'm suggesting the recorders might be better located as physically close to those locations as possible.

I assume, but don't know, that the recorders are located at the ends of long cables back in the tail because back in the days when they were mechanical, it was assumed that location would suffer the least damage in a crash.

Now that they are solid state, the probability of damage to the memory is rapidly diminishing. The preservation problem is almost solved, so it might be time to focus on data input integrity.
There is a very simple solution, prevalent in all other aspects of aircraft design, called "redundancy". In other words have duplicate boxes at different locations on the aircraft; this would also significantly reduce the risk of bad data (several instances of n/s DFDRs for numerous flights before incident investigated), risk of damage (eg non-impact fire), and potential for recovery (2 pingers?)

BUT - media presents "Black boxes" as the solution to all incidents. In reality, a DFDR shows what happened if the instruments providing that data were accurate, and the CVR might show why it happened if there are relevant noises/alarms and communications between the crew other than WTF

It's the tin kickers who improve safety by finding out the normal multiple chain of unfortunate circumstances that lead to an accident. The DFDR and CVR are cryptic crossword clues that can point them in the right direction.

In the event of a catastrophic airframe breakup, the evidence is down to the metallurgists/pathologists etc. No amount of live or recorded data will ever really change that.
peabrain is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 00:42
  #1284 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 743
Originally Posted by jack11111 View Post
As most aviation folk know flight recorders are located in the tail because of the better ride MOST of the time in MOST accidents.


In THIS case there may have been 26 seconds more data if located in the nose.


Can't win them all.
But what would it have told you then anyway... history of a falling leaf but not the reason maybe ?
HarryMann is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 00:43
  #1285 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ventura, California
Age: 62
Posts: 257
26 seconds is a long time.
thcrozier is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 00:46
  #1286 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Torquay UK
Age: 92
Posts: 163
flutter

Originally Posted by RYFQB View Post
Yes, but would the aircraft keep going like nothing had happened, for another 2+ minutes after such an event?
Took that long for a loose back end beginning to flutter and eventually tear screw jack loose, then flip flap

I thought I saw something in a news picture looked like the starboard H.S
sticking up out of a mess of wreckage ie not alone but i cant find it again
wilyflier is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 00:55
  #1287 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: manchester
Age: 55
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by wilyflier View Post
This is about distance travelled after event .Variously reported as 15km/25miles.
Tracking data unreliable but included 80 knots G.Spd
at that speed vertically perhaps several minutes to reach ground.
horizontal speed decaying from 400knots .
Lockerbie 747 covered 40 plus miles
We really want to see the distance last smooth tracking ground position from final ground position, and search that far back
So one object (sorry for the insensitive term) defies the laws of momentum and falls vertically, yet the remaining thousands of pieces of various sizes and density describe a predictable parabola ?
cookie65 is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 00:55
  #1288 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: cheese
Posts: 49
Originally Posted by RYFQB View Post
Yes, but would the aircraft keep going like nothing had happened, for another 2+ minutes after such an event?
I wouldn't think it was business as usual...
Could communications have been damaged as well? Hypoxia/smoke inhalation rendering try the crew incapacitated?
It could fly relativley level while shedding pieces until a large enough piece sheared off and flew back taking out the HS.
short bus is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 01:22
  #1289 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 743
Originally Posted by RYFQB View Post
Yes, but would the aircraft keep going like nothing had happened, for another 2+ minutes after such an event?
Yes, indeed so... as others are saying with a severely weakened area possibly leading to flutter of the whole empennage. Dare I suggest the circumferential tear forward of the RPB was the end result...
..all the while with nothing going to the FDR /CVR combo.

Those asking for accurate cross-referenced timelines are on it I'd say...

A tragic and horrific event I am sure.. very similar in outcomes to MH17 over Ukraine and Pan Am Lockerbie.
HarryMann is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 01:25
  #1290 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: cheese
Posts: 49
Originally Posted by slats11 View Post
Presumably authorities have looked at any EXIF data that may be present on that video. This can be edited of course, and so could be faked. But I am sure it has been looked at.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8-5lo191p8

The footage seems to show 2 different videos. Obviously hand held and long range. But the 2 segments show different patterns of hand shudder.

Why would two people have been independently recording the same event? And how would two independent recordings quickly be combined and released to the world?

Too much of a coincidence I suspect.
Why two independent cameras? Maybe because it was planned and they perps placed a number of people around the expected flight path with cameras to improve their odds of filming it.
short bus is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 01:30
  #1291 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: In the electronics bay!
Posts: 22
Waste Tank

I am still interested in what has happened to the Waste Tank?



This tank is approx 45cm x 110cm but does not appear to be in the tail section shown in the photos.

The tank is of a wound filament composite construction, so quite robust.

Do any of the tail photos show the waste service panel?

Last edited by Control Eng; 6th Nov 2015 at 01:37. Reason: Add panel question
Control Eng is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 01:31
  #1292 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,801
Lomapaseo:
Explosive impacts (missiles, bombs and/or uncontained engine parts) impact at much higher velocities (over a range). Thus these holes often have the presence of cratering (adiabatic shear etc.) and/or multiple dissimilar impacts over an area near the hole.
High explosive detonates at around 7000 m/s. An aircraft travelling at 800kmh is doing 222m/s.

Explosive devices are divided into "blast" devices and "shrapnel" devices. The latter is designed to kill extensively in a range of of up to 100 metres or more, from the explosives detonation point.
Bodies end up containing significant amounts of, and discoverable pieces of, metal shrapnel, which can be identified as to their source.
High explosive has to be surrounded by heavy sections of metal to produce shrapnel, that then produces substantial amounts of extremely-high-velocity shrapnel holes in any surface within intended range of the blast.

Metal pieces of aircraft components flying around during the aircrafts destruction at cruise speed are not going to produce the same damage signature as an explosive device containing shrapnel.

A block of simple HE with no heavy metal section containing the explosive, produces only a major overpressure event for often less than 20 metres around the detonation point.
That overpressure event is severe within a few metres of the explosive detonation point. An explosive blast overpressure event, is aided by detonation within a larger "container", such as an aircraft fuselage.
Despite aircraft hulls being designed to shed fuselage skin and to have the frame remain intact, a terrorist just has to get lucky, and have the explosive charge go off within a short distance of a major airframe component to cause immediate and substantial destruction of the hull.
That "luck" can be assisted by careful positioning of an explosive charge, rather than allowing random placement. A charge placed in proximity to an auxiliary fuel tank would produce the terrorists desired result, and terrorists have long ago seen the advantage in utilising rapidly-oxidising aircraft on-board components such as jet fuel, as excellent assisitive devices in reaching their desired aim of major destruction.
A quantity of jet fuel could even have been loaded in the hold as part of the explosive device.
I have carefully examined in slow motion, the clearer video reportedly released by IS (or DAESH), and that video does appear to show a fuel-fed-type explosion, with lots of black smoke, on the lower left about the middle of the fuselage.
I'm now inclined to believe the IS video does show this aircrafts actual destruction. The tail section would likely have been blown upwards and away from the blast, thus no sooting of the tail section components.

Chronos has the most likely destruction scenario outlined in post #1222.

(I am speaking as an ex-military engineer)

Last edited by onetrack; 6th Nov 2015 at 02:00.
onetrack is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 01:43
  #1293 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 1,264
If there were explosives involved then it is easily detected by chemical traces. If there was energetic fragment events, that will also be known. Since the Russian authorities appear to resent the Intel the UK has, courtesy of the USA no doubt, it would seem the evidence is equivocal. That hole with the hinged leaf shown earlier is a low velocity event, not fragment penetration.
Mr Optimistic is online now  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 02:01
  #1294 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alternate places
Age: 73
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by PersonFromPorlock View Post
Isn't the obvious solution to the problem of recorder survival installing redundant recorders in different locations? The things can't be that expensive. What am I missing here?
You're missing the design, certification, rule-making and compliance-by factors, not to mention the retrofit costs. You're also missing the industry lobbying time against such rule-making due expenses inherent in the above. Any such case would require a very clear case for change and there isn't one here.

Even the case for deployable recorders hasn't been made sufficiently to alter regulatory requirements, nor has the case for full-time satellite transmission of all flight data.
FDMII is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 02:05
  #1295 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: wales
Age: 77
Posts: 316
different view of tail bits

we have all seen this one many times



however just took this from one of the videos I hadn't watched in full, I think it was taken before the one above , it is certainly well before it the posts, what are the green ringed bits, is the one on the left part of screwjack assembly

oldoberon is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 02:21
  #1296 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 75
"what are the green ringed bits, is the one on the left part of screwjack assembly"

Looks like bits of the APU intake door. View of the planes in the manufacturing bay show the door closed. It mates up with the step/box thing in the tailcone, IMO
oleostrut is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 03:02
  #1297 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,801
Can anyone familiar with the A321-231 advise whether this particular aircraft was fitted with auxiliary (or additional) centre fuel tanks?
I understand the A321 always has a range problem with long-distance routes, and it appears up to 2 ACT's of 3000L each can be fitted in the forward hold area?
If this is the case with this particular aircraft, then a fuel-fed explosion from the ACT or ACT's, initiated by a small explosive charge located near to them, is increasingly looking like the potential scenario.

Last edited by onetrack; 6th Nov 2015 at 03:31.
onetrack is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 03:10
  #1298 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: wales
Age: 77
Posts: 316
Originally Posted by Prada View Post
A0283,


I was going through FR24 data once again. Look here:
Crash of Metrojet Flight 7K9268 | Flightradar24 Blog

It looks like after initial event plane lost yaw control. - tail fin was lost or gaping hole created in fuselage creating non symmetric drag, or both
with plane loosing yaw control, static ports might become not as static as required for correct flight level indication. Due to abnormal attitude against airflow.

I wonder which ADIRU data was fed to ADS-B? Captain side? Then we can tell yaw attitude via abrupt flightlevel changes. Compared to GPS data.

i have extracted these figs from your link in your post

04:13:03 KGL9268 30.157 34.174 30650 296 332 -5696 32000
04:13:08 KGL9268 30.161 34.173 30825 246 351 4544 32000
04:13:11 KGL9268 30.177 34.162 29925 306 325 -6080 32000
04:13:11 KGL9268 30.177 34.162 29925 306 325 -6080 32000
04:13:12 KGL9268 30.179 34.161 29925 184 350 -4352

at 04.13.08 it suddenly changes heading by 19 deg clockwise, 3 sec later it has swung 26 deg back anti clock. and 1 sec later it has swung 25 deg clockwise

If those yaw figures and rates are correct would the VS withstand that?
oldoberon is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 03:51
  #1299 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,801
Below is an interesting AD from CASA, dated 2001/2002, with regard to faulty A321 ACT electrical bonding with possible resulting electrical discharge.
Kogalymavia Flight 9268 A321-231 is S/N 663. It does appear then, that this aircraft was fitted with at least one ACT.

https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2...5-10b927afc679
onetrack is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2015, 04:55
  #1300 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Chicago, IL, US
Age: 70
Posts: 47
From the engineering standpoint, setting up the device to detonate remotely on an aircraft at cruise altitude is quite a bit harder than simply setting it on a timer. The easiest way to make a remote detonator is to hook up a mobile phone, and those generally don't work at 30000' and 400 knots. It's possible to cook up a design that involves walkie-talkies or even a dedicated circuit, but that requires a whole different level of engineering expertise.
Historically, terrorist groups have been short of engineering talent but that seems to have changed beginning with bin Laden. Today, with the "Maker culture," a device capable of measuring barometric pressure several times a second, to an accuracy of 0.02 hPa, computing the trend line, smoothing the data and applying whatever logic and/or time delay before activating an output can be built with off the shelve parts for under $20. Powered by 2 pen cell batteries, it can run for months and is the size of a deck of cards without the explosive.

With such a device it becomes possible to count aircraft pressurization cycles so one could set the device to wait for the descent prior to landing, wait 30 minutes after reaching maximum cabin altitude, or even delay 5 or 10 flight legs before triggering. The only practical limit is how long the device remains undetected in the aircraft.

Anybody counting on technical complexity to prevent a device being made by terrorists is making a bad bet.
jmmilner is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

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