BREAKING NEWS: airliner missing within Egyptian FIR
Quote:
I am beginning to think that some people know a lot more than we are being told now.
Almost certainly. We also saw that with MH370 and GermanWings.
I am beginning to think that some people know a lot more than we are being told now.
Almost certainly. We also saw that with MH370 and GermanWings.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ventura, California
Age: 65
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Etud, I was commenting on Machinbird's question, which I interpreted (and I welcome his correction) as:
"If an event produces sonic waves at the rear of an airplane, the sonic waves will be transmitted to microphones on the flight deck. If they propagate through air, we roughly know the speed of the wave. If they propogate through an aluminum or composite skin, they will move faster. Assuming they make it into a flight deck microphone, that information now has to get through all the wiring to the recorders in the back, does it not?"
Of course we could debate the propagation rate of waves though a standard atmosphere or other materials caused by various stimuli, but AuraFlyer has convinced me not to discuss such things in this forum. I agree with his/her advice.
So all I was saying is that time interval is longer than the time it would take to sever the return wiring; but severing the wiring might in and of itself produce an electric impulse which would register and be saved in the last milliseconds of the solid state memory.
To postulate beyond that is above my pay grade.
"If an event produces sonic waves at the rear of an airplane, the sonic waves will be transmitted to microphones on the flight deck. If they propagate through air, we roughly know the speed of the wave. If they propogate through an aluminum or composite skin, they will move faster. Assuming they make it into a flight deck microphone, that information now has to get through all the wiring to the recorders in the back, does it not?"
Of course we could debate the propagation rate of waves though a standard atmosphere or other materials caused by various stimuli, but AuraFlyer has convinced me not to discuss such things in this forum. I agree with his/her advice.
So all I was saying is that time interval is longer than the time it would take to sever the return wiring; but severing the wiring might in and of itself produce an electric impulse which would register and be saved in the last milliseconds of the solid state memory.
To postulate beyond that is above my pay grade.
Last edited by thcrozier; 7th Nov 2015 at 05:38.
@wonkazoo
Your post (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9172441) is one of the more enlightened and informative ones on this wild thread, welcome to the forum.
A couple of observations to supplement yours, which changes the conclusion somewhat.
Yes, the top of the fuselage certainly failed in tension, implying a downward motion of the tail. However no HS failure is needed to explain this. The HS exerts a continuous downward pressure (it is in effect an upside down wing) on the rear fuselage to pivot the nose (and the wing) up around the centre of lift (the centre of gravity MUST be ahead of the centre of lift on all conventional fixed-wing aircraft in flight). The fuselage is a cylindrical metal tube which is very resistant to torsional forces, but as soon as any part loses its integrity it will crumple and yield to bending force very rapidly. So if the lower part of the rear fuselage loses structural integrity the tail will bend downwards before tension in the surviving upper section causes it to part. This downward pivot of the tail also places the HS vertically into the slipstream, causing its failure due to aerodynamic loads (as can be clearly demonstrated on the recovered left HS). We do not know how the right HS failed, but the damage suggests that it was ripped away downward together with the support structure sometime after the left HS was lost
The visible VS damage is consistent with ground impact at a near vertical attitude, should that kind of damage occurred while in the air in the initial breakup sequence, the VS would have been completely shorn off. The rudder and much of the trailing edge were lost in the air during the breakup or subsequent fall.
The tail and APU cone were found within 350 metres of each other (both marked and identifiable on the satellite photo when comparing larger ground features from the aerial video shown). We do not know the location of the HS, but based on the fact that photos only appeared a day later when the search area was expanded, it may be assumed to lie some distance from the tail. This implies that the tail and APU remained joined for some time after the HS has departed, which is entirely conceivable as the upper part of the joining frame is relatively undamaged on both sides.
All in all this would suggest that the initial failure occurred in the lower rear fuselage, and not in the tail section (as I have myself suggested until the HS video screencap was released).
Your post (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9172441) is one of the more enlightened and informative ones on this wild thread, welcome to the forum.
A couple of observations to supplement yours, which changes the conclusion somewhat.
Yes, the top of the fuselage certainly failed in tension, implying a downward motion of the tail. However no HS failure is needed to explain this. The HS exerts a continuous downward pressure (it is in effect an upside down wing) on the rear fuselage to pivot the nose (and the wing) up around the centre of lift (the centre of gravity MUST be ahead of the centre of lift on all conventional fixed-wing aircraft in flight). The fuselage is a cylindrical metal tube which is very resistant to torsional forces, but as soon as any part loses its integrity it will crumple and yield to bending force very rapidly. So if the lower part of the rear fuselage loses structural integrity the tail will bend downwards before tension in the surviving upper section causes it to part. This downward pivot of the tail also places the HS vertically into the slipstream, causing its failure due to aerodynamic loads (as can be clearly demonstrated on the recovered left HS). We do not know how the right HS failed, but the damage suggests that it was ripped away downward together with the support structure sometime after the left HS was lost
The visible VS damage is consistent with ground impact at a near vertical attitude, should that kind of damage occurred while in the air in the initial breakup sequence, the VS would have been completely shorn off. The rudder and much of the trailing edge were lost in the air during the breakup or subsequent fall.
The tail and APU cone were found within 350 metres of each other (both marked and identifiable on the satellite photo when comparing larger ground features from the aerial video shown). We do not know the location of the HS, but based on the fact that photos only appeared a day later when the search area was expanded, it may be assumed to lie some distance from the tail. This implies that the tail and APU remained joined for some time after the HS has departed, which is entirely conceivable as the upper part of the joining frame is relatively undamaged on both sides.
All in all this would suggest that the initial failure occurred in the lower rear fuselage, and not in the tail section (as I have myself suggested until the HS video screencap was released).
Last edited by andrasz; 7th Nov 2015 at 06:12.
@ To everyone drawing conclusions from the CVR
Yesterday it was stated that the CVR (which appears relatively unscratched on the photos) is 'damaged' and 'will need additional work' to read out the data.
Today all of a sudden we are hearing that the last second of the CVR contains a loud sound consistent with an explosion on board (wow, that was difficult to figure out)
Yeah, right...
So far every 'official' statement made by the Egyptian investigators was followed by a totally contradicting one within 24 hours. Having lived and worked in that fine land, I know enough not believe even what they ask...
Yesterday it was stated that the CVR (which appears relatively unscratched on the photos) is 'damaged' and 'will need additional work' to read out the data.
Today all of a sudden we are hearing that the last second of the CVR contains a loud sound consistent with an explosion on board (wow, that was difficult to figure out)
Yeah, right...
So far every 'official' statement made by the Egyptian investigators was followed by a totally contradicting one within 24 hours. Having lived and worked in that fine land, I know enough not believe even what they ask...
Last edited by andrasz; 7th Nov 2015 at 05:30.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: North by Northwest
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ISIS who released the video also announced that they would let the world know shortly how they did this. Post the video they have remianed silent. This seems contrary to what the purpose of such a bombing would serve in their convoluted minds. Having not heard a peep out of them seems to indicate they were but hot air with their claims. if this was their eureka moment to claim fame with their leadership i am sure we would have heard more about it. Not discounting a human aspect to this but it also could be the act of one de ranged individual who boarded the aircraft with nothing more than a personal agenda.
Edit: Maybe I'm thinking of the shoe bomber.
Last edited by b1lanc; 7th Nov 2015 at 13:46. Reason: correction
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the kind words.
I originally envisioned a scenario like you describe with the tail collapsing downward, and that may still be the operative way that it failed. (Remember- we're all speculating with limited information!!) My reasoning for discounting that evolution are based on the following:
1. When the airplane isn't flying- I.E. when it is sitting on the ground, there is little or no stress from gravity. This effect functionally must be the same in flight, which is why it seems likely that aerodynamic forces were the cause of the failure at the aft bulkhead, as opposed to a resultant of the failure. Yes the HS is at a negative angle of attack- which is why a catastrophic failure of the forward attach point or jackscrew would result in a downward movement of the leading edge of the stab.
2. The CVR recording apparently ended with a bang right at the point of the failure (or tenths of a second later) which would be explained by the failure of the HS, the fracture of the fuselage, and the resultant departure of the tail- all of which would have happened in a few moments at the longest. A failure further forward moving rearward into the tail section seems more likely to take a more significant amount of time (as in seconds) then the previous scenario.
3. The posit that the explosion took out a wiring loom is impractical for a huge variety or reasons. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, just that it is extremely, extremely unlikely. It seems evident (to me at least) that the boxes were separated from the aircraft nearly instantly from the moment of failure.
The one thing I will say- and it is only an opinion, is that the hyperbolic response to the "bombing" of the plane seems really premature, and based on everything I'm seeing so far there is far more evidence to support a structurally catastrophic failure as opposed to a bomb. So despite the fact that I am arguing against the combined governments of the US, UK, and Russia, I'm a long way from having been shown anything remotely suggestive of a bomb. (Other than anonymously sourced suggestions with no evidence that an ISIL group called the mother ship to proudly declare that they bombed the plane- which is as self-serving and hence unlikely a valid source of real intelligence as I can imagine.)
Anyway it will be interesting to see where this goes.
Regards,
dce
I originally envisioned a scenario like you describe with the tail collapsing downward, and that may still be the operative way that it failed. (Remember- we're all speculating with limited information!!) My reasoning for discounting that evolution are based on the following:
1. When the airplane isn't flying- I.E. when it is sitting on the ground, there is little or no stress from gravity. This effect functionally must be the same in flight, which is why it seems likely that aerodynamic forces were the cause of the failure at the aft bulkhead, as opposed to a resultant of the failure. Yes the HS is at a negative angle of attack- which is why a catastrophic failure of the forward attach point or jackscrew would result in a downward movement of the leading edge of the stab.
2. The CVR recording apparently ended with a bang right at the point of the failure (or tenths of a second later) which would be explained by the failure of the HS, the fracture of the fuselage, and the resultant departure of the tail- all of which would have happened in a few moments at the longest. A failure further forward moving rearward into the tail section seems more likely to take a more significant amount of time (as in seconds) then the previous scenario.
3. The posit that the explosion took out a wiring loom is impractical for a huge variety or reasons. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, just that it is extremely, extremely unlikely. It seems evident (to me at least) that the boxes were separated from the aircraft nearly instantly from the moment of failure.
The one thing I will say- and it is only an opinion, is that the hyperbolic response to the "bombing" of the plane seems really premature, and based on everything I'm seeing so far there is far more evidence to support a structurally catastrophic failure as opposed to a bomb. So despite the fact that I am arguing against the combined governments of the US, UK, and Russia, I'm a long way from having been shown anything remotely suggestive of a bomb. (Other than anonymously sourced suggestions with no evidence that an ISIL group called the mother ship to proudly declare that they bombed the plane- which is as self-serving and hence unlikely a valid source of real intelligence as I can imagine.)
Anyway it will be interesting to see where this goes.
Regards,
dce
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLOSE THE THREAD?
Now that it has been admitted that the aircraft was downed by a bomb, and another "dodged" a rocket a month ago, should this rumour machine now be decommissioned, with thanks to all those potential AAIB Inspectors who contributed?
Last edited by 207592; 7th Nov 2015 at 06:21. Reason: Syntax
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ andrasz
One other note- that supports your theory on how it failed: If you look very carefully at the video when it is zoomed in on the topmost section of the failed bulkhead there are two fairly small outwardly bent or flared sections. They appear to be just a couple of inches (5cm) in size and do not appear to have been caused as a part of the failure as they appear to be under the lapped joint that failed. I have thought about them a great deal but have yet to come up with a plausible explanation for what caused them. (They are too small and abrupt to have been caused by the airflow itself, and they would have been protected from a direct hit until the entire tail came off.)
I'm totally making stuff up now, but if that were the point of failure it would explain the zippered tension failure down both sides- the rotation downward of the tail, and the subsequent breakup. If the rotation occurred quickly enough it could also (just maybe) explain the immediate cutout of the CVR- which we are only taking at face value right now as none of us has heard the recording...
But I have a problem with the pressure hull failing like that in that place- it seems incredibly unlikely- as does a catastrophic failure of the jackscrew assembly or the hinge point on the HS.
Bottom line is we don't have enough data to say with any certainty what the sequence of failure was- which sucks because I hate puzzles I cannot solve!! (But what we do see and know still argues pretty forcefully for a structural failure over a bomb...)
Regards,
dce
One other note- that supports your theory on how it failed: If you look very carefully at the video when it is zoomed in on the topmost section of the failed bulkhead there are two fairly small outwardly bent or flared sections. They appear to be just a couple of inches (5cm) in size and do not appear to have been caused as a part of the failure as they appear to be under the lapped joint that failed. I have thought about them a great deal but have yet to come up with a plausible explanation for what caused them. (They are too small and abrupt to have been caused by the airflow itself, and they would have been protected from a direct hit until the entire tail came off.)
I'm totally making stuff up now, but if that were the point of failure it would explain the zippered tension failure down both sides- the rotation downward of the tail, and the subsequent breakup. If the rotation occurred quickly enough it could also (just maybe) explain the immediate cutout of the CVR- which we are only taking at face value right now as none of us has heard the recording...
But I have a problem with the pressure hull failing like that in that place- it seems incredibly unlikely- as does a catastrophic failure of the jackscrew assembly or the hinge point on the HS.
Bottom line is we don't have enough data to say with any certainty what the sequence of failure was- which sucks because I hate puzzles I cannot solve!! (But what we do see and know still argues pretty forcefully for a structural failure over a bomb...)
Regards,
dce
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ventura, California
Age: 65
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Close the thread?
I'm afraid I don't agree.
Now the interesting part starts. i.e. How was it allowed to happen? The politics of conflict and the strategies and tactics that develop from them are far more interesting than engineering - the problems of which have mostly been solved.
The future of aviation safety primarily hinges upon identifying security breaches before they happen. Just knowing how to pilot the things is no longer enough.
Now the interesting part starts. i.e. How was it allowed to happen? The politics of conflict and the strategies and tactics that develop from them are far more interesting than engineering - the problems of which have mostly been solved.
The future of aviation safety primarily hinges upon identifying security breaches before they happen. Just knowing how to pilot the things is no longer enough.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 207592
Now that it has been admitted that the aircraft was downed by a bomb, and another "dodged" a rocket a month ago, should this rumour machine now be decommissioned, with thanks to all those potential AAIB Inspectors who contributed?
FWIW, I do not agree with your statements. Nothing is proven yet other than we have a pile of aircraft wreckage and 214 lost lives
.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not conclusive at all. Just chatter, round and round.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Close the thread?
May I add my support for not closing this thread.
As is the case with all public forums, if you don't like it don't read it. The vast amount of detail and submissions posted here have contributed much to a better understanding of this scourge of our time - the wilful and sometimes pre-meditated destruction of airliners.
The quest for knowledge continues ....
As is the case with all public forums, if you don't like it don't read it. The vast amount of detail and submissions posted here have contributed much to a better understanding of this scourge of our time - the wilful and sometimes pre-meditated destruction of airliners.
The quest for knowledge continues ....
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Qwerty
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time and the crash investigation team will reveal why this aircraft came down, not speculation.
If this was an Isis planted device that brought the aircraft down then why are they keeping so quite about it?
Perhaps it could have been a group or individual who are sympathetic to ISIS operating without the backing of the leaders of ISIS who are now perhaps a little bit concerned that the wrath of Putin and the Russians will come down on them.
ISIS describe themselves as fighting a war, they may have just got their wish.
If this was an Isis planted device that brought the aircraft down then why are they keeping so quite about it?
Perhaps it could have been a group or individual who are sympathetic to ISIS operating without the backing of the leaders of ISIS who are now perhaps a little bit concerned that the wrath of Putin and the Russians will come down on them.
ISIS describe themselves as fighting a war, they may have just got their wish.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been intentionally staying out of this one, but something to consider:
I have little knowledge of the A320 series (given I work for brand B), but it is normal to provide significant separation between wire bundles to minimize the risk of a single failure taking out multiple systems. So it is reasonable to assume the wire routing to the CVR and DFDR were separated by several feet.
Pure speculation here, but it's quite possible that (assuming a bomb blast), the initial blast severed the wiring to the DFDR - hence no useable data. But some of the wiring to the CVR survived the initial blast. The bomb blast compromised the the fuselage and small debris exited the airframe (such as the unfortunate infant) while the pilots attempted to maintain control of a critically damaged aircraft while donning their oxygen masks (far too busy to contact ATC). Despite their best efforts, within a minute or so the aircraft completely broke up.
Again, purely speculation on my part, but it does fit the known data rather well.
I have little knowledge of the A320 series (given I work for brand B), but it is normal to provide significant separation between wire bundles to minimize the risk of a single failure taking out multiple systems. So it is reasonable to assume the wire routing to the CVR and DFDR were separated by several feet.
Pure speculation here, but it's quite possible that (assuming a bomb blast), the initial blast severed the wiring to the DFDR - hence no useable data. But some of the wiring to the CVR survived the initial blast. The bomb blast compromised the the fuselage and small debris exited the airframe (such as the unfortunate infant) while the pilots attempted to maintain control of a critically damaged aircraft while donning their oxygen masks (far too busy to contact ATC). Despite their best efforts, within a minute or so the aircraft completely broke up.
Again, purely speculation on my part, but it does fit the known data rather well.
more erudite contributions again like the old days - before forum was denuded.
Also staggered we still don't have CCTV in baggage holds and all around the a/c for crew to chew over.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Video is fake
Oleostrut:
Are you sure, I can't find any evidence to support that, do you have a link?
The first video released was a fake. It showed a DC9 that crashed in the Congo 8 years ago (or so).
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a blue balloon
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dechelski wrote:
"My money is still on the tail strike incident. I imagine a charter plane would be treated in a similar manner as a courtesy car would be. Maintained to the bare minimum/legal requirement and slightly lax care/consideration for it"
You could not be more wrong. At the time of the tailstrike the plane was owned by ILFC. Lessors are known to be very strict when it comes to return conditions. They want it back in at least as good condition as when it went out.
You could not be more wrong. At the time of the tailstrike the plane was owned by ILFC. Lessors are known to be very strict when it comes to return conditions. They want it back in at least as good condition as when it went out.
after the tail departed rather than in the moment of any supposed explosion
It is unlikely that the difference between the two would be measurable in anything but milliseconds. Also the cables to the recorders run to my best knowledge along the underside of the cabin floor, and would be among the first to be severed if the lower rear fuselage disintegrates, as is the most likely scenario.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you video an airliner at altitude?...
With this: 
It would appear you most certainly can, and with a simple bridge camera, with the aircraft allegedly at 38,000:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu18uDHzMzA
How does this support or dispel the YouTube video of the incident?
It would appear you most certainly can, and with a simple bridge camera, with the aircraft allegedly at 38,000:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu18uDHzMzA
How does this support or dispel the YouTube video of the incident?
Last edited by kokpit; 7th Nov 2015 at 08:25.