BREAKING NEWS: airliner missing within Egyptian FIR
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE SUSIER
#1846 (permalink)
RE MY A) scenario being unlikely. First I'll admit its like trying to pick flyspecks out of the pepper- but I'll try a simple explanation
While in your car at 30 to 50 mph stick your hand out the window- hold your palm down and level with the road ( horizontal )- you will note not much effort.
ADDED ; Note that structural tests of wings and HS essentially bend wings and HS 'up" until top surface fails- buckles under compression loads near or between ribs . For a fore and aft failure- possible perhaps with major overspeed as in a full bore dive - but available data does not seem to support that.
see for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0
I was at that test- and heard the detailed explanation of failure point- which was within a few inches of predicted and in buckling of the upper skin ...
END ADDED
Now tilt your hand palm up slightly- more effort to hold palm steady- as you rotate your hand towards palm forward 90 degrees to pavement , the effort to hold in place becomes significantly larger. [at 400 mph or so- you would probably break your wrist
}
As of now- it is not obvious from avail photos as to how the front spar of the wing (HS) broke. If we assume it under the A) scenario, the fracture would likely be a tension failure as the front spar was bent back. almost ditto form the rear spar/or hinge.
If under B) fold up or down or somewhere in between, the tear would generally be from bottom up or top down.
That is why a close exam of the failure points to a degree we do not have available from photos is needed.
But a clue may well be in how the moveable shield seems to have broken which ** seems ** to be in an upward position as shown by the carbon fiber sgtrings being bent up ( or maybe by the way it impacted )
Thats about as close as I can come absent more detailed photos ( unlikely) or good shots of jackscrew position and breaking of pivot points.
it almost appears that it could have 'peeled' off, front to back
While in your car at 30 to 50 mph stick your hand out the window- hold your palm down and level with the road ( horizontal )- you will note not much effort.
ADDED ; Note that structural tests of wings and HS essentially bend wings and HS 'up" until top surface fails- buckles under compression loads near or between ribs . For a fore and aft failure- possible perhaps with major overspeed as in a full bore dive - but available data does not seem to support that.
see for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0
I was at that test- and heard the detailed explanation of failure point- which was within a few inches of predicted and in buckling of the upper skin ...
END ADDED
Now tilt your hand palm up slightly- more effort to hold palm steady- as you rotate your hand towards palm forward 90 degrees to pavement , the effort to hold in place becomes significantly larger. [at 400 mph or so- you would probably break your wrist
}As of now- it is not obvious from avail photos as to how the front spar of the wing (HS) broke. If we assume it under the A) scenario, the fracture would likely be a tension failure as the front spar was bent back. almost ditto form the rear spar/or hinge.
If under B) fold up or down or somewhere in between, the tear would generally be from bottom up or top down.
That is why a close exam of the failure points to a degree we do not have available from photos is needed.
But a clue may well be in how the moveable shield seems to have broken which ** seems ** to be in an upward position as shown by the carbon fiber sgtrings being bent up ( or maybe by the way it impacted )
Thats about as close as I can come absent more detailed photos ( unlikely) or good shots of jackscrew position and breaking of pivot points.
Last edited by CONSO; 8th Nov 2015 at 22:17.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 127.0.0.1
Age: 54
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CP location?
Re: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9174456
wilyflier,
I would like to add that loss of the trailing edge/elevators would move the CP for the remaining horizontal stabilizer forward, possibly in front of the pivot point. If this happened, then the HS would rotate (upwards or downwards) to the maximum angle mechanically possible ...
wilyflier,
(b)even so, loss of control stiffness would likely lead to flutter to destruction
very rapidly indeed, coupled with shredding and shedding of trailing edge components., rapid up downbending loads
Sorry to repeat. I've been there seen that.
very rapidly indeed, coupled with shredding and shedding of trailing edge components., rapid up downbending loads
Sorry to repeat. I've been there seen that.
they still was offered to be put through VIP route without security check for $20
) and also manages to find a date somewhere that matches the currect date, he will let you in. There is an x-ray machine at the entrance of the check-in area where all luggage gets an initial screening. This is NOT a security screening but a customs screening, they are primarily looking not for weapons/explosives but for contraband (antiquities, in Sharm corals and other marine life, etc.). There is also a metal detector gate, but in practice if it beeps they look at you, if a foreigner they just wave you through.The $20 VIP channel will only allow you to bypass the entrance passport check and customs screening before check in. After your luggage gets checked in, it undergoes the regular X-ray security screening just like everywhere else in the world (for all its worth), and passengers get screened twice, once after passport control, then again at the boarding gate. Screening is no worse than anywhere else in the world (but staff are much friendlier than the average screener in Europe or the US), but of course it offers zero protection against anyone with an airside pass, just like everywhere else in the world.
Last edited by andrasz; 9th Nov 2015 at 00:26.
Originally Posted by Control Eng
Some of you appear to be confusing the horizontal stabilizer blade seal panel with damage to the HS.
At least this confirms what several learned posters suggested that it would be impossible for the HS to fail the way I suggested.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worth reposting this video from Antelope - as a new contributor his post landed way back. I'm not sure this has been seen. Of interest 8:58 to 9:03.
http://youtu.be/Oa9Q8nCqB0w
http://youtu.be/Oa9Q8nCqB0w
@ Blake777
Many thanks, that is indeed the first picture we have of the Right HS. On superficial look it seems to have failed the same way as the left one, and there is no sign of the central section.
Many thanks, that is indeed the first picture we have of the Right HS. On superficial look it seems to have failed the same way as the left one, and there is no sign of the central section.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Video times of interest
#1854 (permalink)
re http://youtu.be/Oa9Q8nCqB0w
at following times
8;53— a part but has near top of photo has been blurred- is it part of HS ??
11:55 book found
12;45 --- black square bag or part ??
15:00 o2 mask passenger ?
16:00 cell phones
17:20 aft section with PB
19:00 and on passports- credit cards, and logging of data
re http://youtu.be/Oa9Q8nCqB0w
at following times
8;53— a part but has near top of photo has been blurred- is it part of HS ??
11:55 book found
12;45 --- black square bag or part ??
15:00 o2 mask passenger ?
16:00 cell phones
17:20 aft section with PB
19:00 and on passports- credit cards, and logging of data
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Right Here
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Normal soot ?
Anyone say if this is normal soot/staining expected in this piece?
https://youtu.be/I9KphRd-OCY?t=158
https://youtu.be/I9KphRd-OCY?t=158
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
al jazeera video
re
The uploader has not made this video available in your country.
Sorry about that.
(US)
++ Video is nothing new-
and anyone can view it using TOR browser
Look it up
The uploader has not made this video available in your country.
Sorry about that.
(US)
++ Video is nothing new-
and anyone can view it using TOR browser
Look it up
Antelope's video shows a fairly wide spread between ground searchers. Depending on color, shape and distance from searcher the smallest objects they can expect to find will be 4-6 inches.
Small fragments produced by a bomb going off nearby will tend to be much smaller and would likely blend in nicely with the pebbles and local soil.
To find those, you pretty much need a shoulder to shoulder search on hands and knees. Given the area, not really feasible. Perhaps such fragments may be found lodged in the airframe, baggage or bodies.
The local news made a big deal that an anonymous Egyptian expressed an opinion that likelihood of a bomb is considered 90%
The possibility of flutter is raising its head. Control surfaces parted company with the airframe. Whether that was the initial failure or came some milliseconds after something else remains open.
Small fragments produced by a bomb going off nearby will tend to be much smaller and would likely blend in nicely with the pebbles and local soil.
To find those, you pretty much need a shoulder to shoulder search on hands and knees. Given the area, not really feasible. Perhaps such fragments may be found lodged in the airframe, baggage or bodies.
The local news made a big deal that an anonymous Egyptian expressed an opinion that likelihood of a bomb is considered 90%
The possibility of flutter is raising its head. Control surfaces parted company with the airframe. Whether that was the initial failure or came some milliseconds after something else remains open.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Clinton WA
Age: 75
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vid @ 8:58
Different damage type than the L HS. Appears some of center section remains...hard to tell, but the bend up at the root is probably deformed aluminum holding the bend so suggests that's the failure direction, ie down by the tip, not what posters have expected except those suggesting front pivot failure and full nose down HS, the center section prying apart the fuse structure, dropping all out the bottom. Would like to see the bottom of the aft fuse/VS remains when they finally move it. Outboard elev section must have been moved to pic location. Too unbelievable to have it so close. Yet other debris videoed except baggage has tended not to have been grouped by investigators. It does suggest the elev was not very far away from this piece. You Tube publish date of Nov 5. To speakers of Russian, does the video's audio tell a filming date and if so how does that compare with other films seen so far?
Blake777, thanks for the Antelope link, surely the most heartbreaking of all those posted so far and certainly most revealing of the search effort. Something I find mildly surprising is the extent to which the Egyptian government agreed, and so speedily, to large-scale Russian military participation in the sweep-up operation.
The men in the video were obviously combing for documentation and, possibly, remains, leaving behind anything not related to those two.
Given what looks like massive Russian deployment I'm wondering whether the presence of a large number of Russian military aircraft taking up space on the tarmac might have something to do with the turning away of "rescue" civil aircraft.
The men in the video were obviously combing for documentation and, possibly, remains, leaving behind anything not related to those two.
Given what looks like massive Russian deployment I'm wondering whether the presence of a large number of Russian military aircraft taking up space on the tarmac might have something to do with the turning away of "rescue" civil aircraft.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Technical Analysis Part Deux
This post is my second technical review/ analysis, and it too is long- my apologies again. It builds on the first posted two evenings ago. I don’t know how to go back and find that one, but it would probably help you to read that one before this one if you haven’t already done so.
In that post I analyzed the failure of the fuselage in front of the frame just in front of the rear cabin doors, as well as the failures in the rear fuselage. Based on a more intensive review of the available data (Including the two horizontal stabilizers- which were not available to me earlier) I have the following additional observations to make:
1. The fuselage appears to have failed in front of the frame in two discrete sequences. A careful review of the rivetline along the entire plane of failure shows scalloping and clear failure under tension from the top of the cabin approximately halfway down the side of the fuselage- approximately to where the floor would be. (In other words: It was forcibly pulled apart.)
2. From there down the failures are a zipper type tear. The paint is no longer missing from the elongated sections, and between each rivet the failure is a straight line, from the rear (aft) of one rivet to the front (forward facing) edge of the next rivet.
From these observations I think it is safe to say that the fuselage initially failed due to unknown forces being applied in a downward direction aft of the failure point. After that (we’re talking just a few seconds or even less for this entire evolution) the fuselage basically just fell off the rear of the airplane, which was probably accentuated as the aircraft was tumbling nose down due to the loss of the tail surfaces.
So what force(s) caused the fuselage to fail?? I have no idea, nor does anyone else on this board, but there are a few suggestive things to look at.
1. The only thing aft of the failure point even potentially capable of exerting such force was the horizontal stabilizer.
2. The horizontal stabilizer appears to have failed in a similar catastrophic symmetrical fashion, and at least on the port side the rear hinge-pin remained intact on the HS and simply tore the mounting pin right through the attach point located on the airframe. This is very suggestive of an enormous application of bending force.
3. The port side HS shows more intact carbon fiber around the hinge and still present pin, which would be both expected given the reinforcement, but which is also suggestive of a tearing motion in a rearward direction, pulling the fibers apart longitudinally. Additionally the leading edge of the torque box for the HS shows more damage (significantly more) than the rear, indicating (possibly) that the failure was in a generally front to back direction.
3. The rear of the rudder was destroyed as well. This suggests that it may have been impacted by the departing HS.
4. The other indicative evidence currently available is already in my previous post.
So what caused the Horizontal Stabilizer to fail??
1. Flutter is unlikely as while flutter could have caused the structure to instantly fail it would not have applied the necessary forces to cause the fuselage failure as described above. Additionally the FDR would show the extreme deviations of the control surfaces, even if for only a few milliseconds.
2. In my previous post I suggested a failure of the HS causing it to slam to a 90 degree angle but have since revised that possibility to one more in line with a failure of the jackscrew mounting plate, or something more benign. Many photos have already shown this plate (or what appears to be this plate) bent upwards into the vertical stabilizer assembly. (Also possibly explaining the missing rudder…) But at that altitude and airspeed it would likely only take 15 or 20 degrees of instant pitch change to destroy the tail- and to separate the fuselage before separating from the airframe. (20 degrees of negative pitch would equate to an increase in negative lift more than four times greater than what was being provided before that instant in time.) I’m totally making these calcs up, but if the static amount of downward force before the failure was 1000Kg then the resultant of the failure would increase that nearly instantly to 4300Kg roughly at the chord of the HS. With a moment arm of 10m (total estimate) between the HS and the failure point that would result in a torque (twisting) force going from 10,000kg/m to 43,000Kg/m. That would, in any reasonable world, break pretty much anything. (Because I’m in the prehistoric US- here’s that same rough calc in English units: 2000Lb increasing to 8600Lb at the chord of the HS. 30 feet of lever gives the initial static force as 60,000 ft. pounds and the resultant force at the moment of failure as 258,000 ft. pounds.) The point of those really creative numbers is to show that no matter what the negative lift was being provided on the tail it wouldn’t take much to push it to astronomic levels at the point of the fuselage where it failed.
3. A failure as described above would make one hell of a big bang.
So to sum all this up:
1. The airplane lost control and crashed because the tail separated from the fuselage, leaving it completely uncontrollable and (likely) tumbling as it came apart.
2. The available evidence suggests strongly (very strongly) that the failure in the tail occurred prior to the failure of the fuselage and pressure hull.
3. The tail of the fuselage separated from the fuselage (nearly certainly) because something (unknown) happened aft of the point of failure that inflicted a significant amount of bending force (torque) on the airframe itself, causing the failure under tension of the upper fuselage, and the subsequent and consequent zipper failure on the lower half once the initial force had been dissipated- and the HS had departed the aircraft.
4. The aircraft tumbled, destroying the rear fuselage up to the rear of the wing torque box.
5. The tail section, minus the entire HS assembly and a good portion of the vertical stabilizer and rudder descended hull down (due to the remaining sliver of vertical stabilizer) until it impacted the ground.
Everything I have described here is possible, is indicated by the available evidence, and would adequately explain the immediate failure of the FDR and CVR as they were literally right next to the main point of initial failure.
As to what initiated the chain of events I literally have no idea. I’m still working through the available video- like many others, but for the moment I’m still waiting to be shown by the US and UK as to how a bomb in the lower compartment led to the chain of failures that the visible record indicates occurred.
My .02 as always,
dce
In that post I analyzed the failure of the fuselage in front of the frame just in front of the rear cabin doors, as well as the failures in the rear fuselage. Based on a more intensive review of the available data (Including the two horizontal stabilizers- which were not available to me earlier) I have the following additional observations to make:
1. The fuselage appears to have failed in front of the frame in two discrete sequences. A careful review of the rivetline along the entire plane of failure shows scalloping and clear failure under tension from the top of the cabin approximately halfway down the side of the fuselage- approximately to where the floor would be. (In other words: It was forcibly pulled apart.)
2. From there down the failures are a zipper type tear. The paint is no longer missing from the elongated sections, and between each rivet the failure is a straight line, from the rear (aft) of one rivet to the front (forward facing) edge of the next rivet.
From these observations I think it is safe to say that the fuselage initially failed due to unknown forces being applied in a downward direction aft of the failure point. After that (we’re talking just a few seconds or even less for this entire evolution) the fuselage basically just fell off the rear of the airplane, which was probably accentuated as the aircraft was tumbling nose down due to the loss of the tail surfaces.
So what force(s) caused the fuselage to fail?? I have no idea, nor does anyone else on this board, but there are a few suggestive things to look at.
1. The only thing aft of the failure point even potentially capable of exerting such force was the horizontal stabilizer.
2. The horizontal stabilizer appears to have failed in a similar catastrophic symmetrical fashion, and at least on the port side the rear hinge-pin remained intact on the HS and simply tore the mounting pin right through the attach point located on the airframe. This is very suggestive of an enormous application of bending force.
3. The port side HS shows more intact carbon fiber around the hinge and still present pin, which would be both expected given the reinforcement, but which is also suggestive of a tearing motion in a rearward direction, pulling the fibers apart longitudinally. Additionally the leading edge of the torque box for the HS shows more damage (significantly more) than the rear, indicating (possibly) that the failure was in a generally front to back direction.
3. The rear of the rudder was destroyed as well. This suggests that it may have been impacted by the departing HS.
4. The other indicative evidence currently available is already in my previous post.
So what caused the Horizontal Stabilizer to fail??
1. Flutter is unlikely as while flutter could have caused the structure to instantly fail it would not have applied the necessary forces to cause the fuselage failure as described above. Additionally the FDR would show the extreme deviations of the control surfaces, even if for only a few milliseconds.
2. In my previous post I suggested a failure of the HS causing it to slam to a 90 degree angle but have since revised that possibility to one more in line with a failure of the jackscrew mounting plate, or something more benign. Many photos have already shown this plate (or what appears to be this plate) bent upwards into the vertical stabilizer assembly. (Also possibly explaining the missing rudder…) But at that altitude and airspeed it would likely only take 15 or 20 degrees of instant pitch change to destroy the tail- and to separate the fuselage before separating from the airframe. (20 degrees of negative pitch would equate to an increase in negative lift more than four times greater than what was being provided before that instant in time.) I’m totally making these calcs up, but if the static amount of downward force before the failure was 1000Kg then the resultant of the failure would increase that nearly instantly to 4300Kg roughly at the chord of the HS. With a moment arm of 10m (total estimate) between the HS and the failure point that would result in a torque (twisting) force going from 10,000kg/m to 43,000Kg/m. That would, in any reasonable world, break pretty much anything. (Because I’m in the prehistoric US- here’s that same rough calc in English units: 2000Lb increasing to 8600Lb at the chord of the HS. 30 feet of lever gives the initial static force as 60,000 ft. pounds and the resultant force at the moment of failure as 258,000 ft. pounds.) The point of those really creative numbers is to show that no matter what the negative lift was being provided on the tail it wouldn’t take much to push it to astronomic levels at the point of the fuselage where it failed.
3. A failure as described above would make one hell of a big bang.
So to sum all this up:
1. The airplane lost control and crashed because the tail separated from the fuselage, leaving it completely uncontrollable and (likely) tumbling as it came apart.
2. The available evidence suggests strongly (very strongly) that the failure in the tail occurred prior to the failure of the fuselage and pressure hull.
3. The tail of the fuselage separated from the fuselage (nearly certainly) because something (unknown) happened aft of the point of failure that inflicted a significant amount of bending force (torque) on the airframe itself, causing the failure under tension of the upper fuselage, and the subsequent and consequent zipper failure on the lower half once the initial force had been dissipated- and the HS had departed the aircraft.
4. The aircraft tumbled, destroying the rear fuselage up to the rear of the wing torque box.
5. The tail section, minus the entire HS assembly and a good portion of the vertical stabilizer and rudder descended hull down (due to the remaining sliver of vertical stabilizer) until it impacted the ground.
Everything I have described here is possible, is indicated by the available evidence, and would adequately explain the immediate failure of the FDR and CVR as they were literally right next to the main point of initial failure.
As to what initiated the chain of events I literally have no idea. I’m still working through the available video- like many others, but for the moment I’m still waiting to be shown by the US and UK as to how a bomb in the lower compartment led to the chain of failures that the visible record indicates occurred.
My .02 as always,
dce
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recent photos of EI-ETJ
Wantion: I made a gallery on Flickr of recent photos I found of EI-ETJ. There is a lot of black something covering the top of the tail cone under the rudder. It appears on both port and starboard sides.
I also noted a "worn" looking area on the starboard side at the bottom of the rudder.
Hope that helps.
I also noted a "worn" looking area on the starboard side at the bottom of the rudder.
Hope that helps.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Moscow
Age: 54
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pics
More pictures of A321 one week before
? ???? ? ? ????? ?? ???? ????????... - ???????? ???????
Tail section is of interest I believe.
? ???? ? ? ????? ?? ???? ????????... - ???????? ???????
Tail section is of interest I believe.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts