BREAKING NEWS: airliner missing within Egyptian FIR
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Paradise
Age: 61
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Russia
Age: 41
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TASS: World - Experts find components that are not of the crashed A321 airliner ? source
TASS has no official confirmation of this information at the moment.
The Times of India has a picture of the tail section from a different angle:
Mystery deepens over Russian airliner crash in Egypt - Times of India
Mystery deepens over Russian airliner crash in Egypt - Times of India
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clean Break?
Intruder asked "How do you get such a clean break all the way around that tail cone? Is that seam an engineered weak point?" (#594).
...to which oleostrut (#595) postulated that the original strength is largely in the skin, supported by ribs, frames, etc.
Actually, according to Airbus confidential drawings (thank you Mr google) the whole tailcone subassembly is bolted to the rest of the empennage via attachment lugs at 4 points. None of those large lugs is visible in the crash photos. In TylerMonkey's photo (#581) showing "better detail" of the tailcone front firewall, the location of 1 of the missing lugs would be expected in the top left of the photo - in the position of the triangular hole in the outermost frame.
Intruder asked "How do you get such a clean break all the way around that tail cone? Is that seam an engineered weak point?" (#594).
...to which oleostrut (#595) postulated that the original strength is largely in the skin, supported by ribs, frames, etc.
Actually, according to Airbus confidential drawings (thank you Mr google) the whole tailcone subassembly is bolted to the rest of the empennage via attachment lugs at 4 points. None of those large lugs is visible in the crash photos. In TylerMonkey's photo (#581) showing "better detail" of the tailcone front firewall, the location of 1 of the missing lugs would be expected in the top left of the photo - in the position of the triangular hole in the outermost frame.
2014-0177 : Fuselage – Rear Fuselage Clips, Shear Webs and Angles – Replacement
EASA Airworthiness Directives Publishing Tool
During the A320 fatigue test campaign for Extended Service Goal (ESG), it was determined that fatigue damage could appear on the clips, shear webs and angles at rear fuselage section 19, on Frame (FR) 72 and FR74.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus developed a modification,
which has been published through Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A320-53-1266 for in-service application to allow aeroplanes to operate up to the new ESG limit.
For the reasons described above, this AD requires replacement of the affected clips, shear webs and angles at rear fuselage section 19, FR72 and FR74.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus developed a modification,
which has been published through Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A320-53-1266 for in-service application to allow aeroplanes to operate up to the new ESG limit.
For the reasons described above, this AD requires replacement of the affected clips, shear webs and angles at rear fuselage section 19, FR72 and FR74.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: California
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That 'radiator' type structure is one of the 2 Horizontal Stab Bay access doors.
The interesting thing is that its designed to be a blowout panel in the event of Rear Pressure Bulkhead blowout. This door is still firmly in the closed position. This indicates that there has not been a significant dump of cabin pressure into the H/S Bay.
The interesting thing is that its designed to be a blowout panel in the event of Rear Pressure Bulkhead blowout. This door is still firmly in the closed position. This indicates that there has not been a significant dump of cabin pressure into the H/S Bay.
To have an explosion in the CFT you need several individually very unlikely events to coincide:
- an empty CFT (not likely in this case, as a SSH-LED flight is fairly long, not sure if wing tanks alone sufficient)
- extended exposure to high temperatures (unlikely, as departure was at 6am, just after sunrise, turnaround was in the cool of the night)
- an ignition source to explode the vapors
Also a CFT explosion would cause a very different disintegration pattern than what we see on the wreckage. The wing box with both wings attached reached the ground in one piece, with forward fuselage also attached. Whatever happened here happened in the back, close to the tail section.
Good question, probably the key question. From some photos of the tail section it is clear that the entire rear tail section comprising the HS structure and the APU/tail cone broke away cleanly just aft of the pressure bulkhead, leaving just some of the top fuselage skin held by the rudder structure that remained attached to the tail section before the pressure bulkhead. I see three possible explanations:
A) Aerodynamic forces tore the HS from the remaining tail section with a downward force as it tumbled following initial disintegration, leaving the surviving tail section and the tail cone with APU initially attached. With the weight of the APU the weak remaining link eventually broke, and the two pieces landed separately (but only 350 metres apart, suggesting this scenario). This scenario assumes that the failure occurred somewhere in the rear fuselage (bomb ?). Any rear fuselage pieces further back along the flight path from the tail would confirm this scenario.
B) A catastrophic failure of the entre HS structure (fatigue or bomb carefully placed in the bay to achieve this). As the role of the HS is to pull the tail down (and the nose up), a failure would result in the HS parting with the rest of the structure downwards. The subsequent sequence is similar to A. If this is the case, the HS should be the first piece of wreckage to be found along the flight path (where is it ?)
C) Rupture of RPB creating a pressure wave strong enough to rip off the HS together with the tail cone and APU. This could only happen in the pressure relief doors do not function properly. If this were the case, examining the fairly intact tail section would confirm it instantly.
- an empty CFT (not likely in this case, as a SSH-LED flight is fairly long, not sure if wing tanks alone sufficient)
- extended exposure to high temperatures (unlikely, as departure was at 6am, just after sunrise, turnaround was in the cool of the night)
- an ignition source to explode the vapors
Also a CFT explosion would cause a very different disintegration pattern than what we see on the wreckage. The wing box with both wings attached reached the ground in one piece, with forward fuselage also attached. Whatever happened here happened in the back, close to the tail section.
what, if anything, could cause the tail cone to be detached from the rest of the tail in midair?
Good question, probably the key question. From some photos of the tail section it is clear that the entire rear tail section comprising the HS structure and the APU/tail cone broke away cleanly just aft of the pressure bulkhead, leaving just some of the top fuselage skin held by the rudder structure that remained attached to the tail section before the pressure bulkhead. I see three possible explanations:
A) Aerodynamic forces tore the HS from the remaining tail section with a downward force as it tumbled following initial disintegration, leaving the surviving tail section and the tail cone with APU initially attached. With the weight of the APU the weak remaining link eventually broke, and the two pieces landed separately (but only 350 metres apart, suggesting this scenario). This scenario assumes that the failure occurred somewhere in the rear fuselage (bomb ?). Any rear fuselage pieces further back along the flight path from the tail would confirm this scenario.
B) A catastrophic failure of the entre HS structure (fatigue or bomb carefully placed in the bay to achieve this). As the role of the HS is to pull the tail down (and the nose up), a failure would result in the HS parting with the rest of the structure downwards. The subsequent sequence is similar to A. If this is the case, the HS should be the first piece of wreckage to be found along the flight path (where is it ?)
C) Rupture of RPB creating a pressure wave strong enough to rip off the HS together with the tail cone and APU. This could only happen in the pressure relief doors do not function properly. If this were the case, examining the fairly intact tail section would confirm it instantly.
Last edited by andrasz; 3rd Nov 2015 at 09:39.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Dont't think expert can't separate allowed lugage from suspicious parts."
Of course they can. But those experts, with proper access to the site, aren't going to be talking to the press before an appropriate confirmation.
The news information that's being leaked is biased and not subject to the appropriate rigour required for such an investigation.
Of course they can. But those experts, with proper access to the site, aren't going to be talking to the press before an appropriate confirmation.
The news information that's being leaked is biased and not subject to the appropriate rigour required for such an investigation.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: devon
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unconnected components
I notice in many of the photos of this tragic crash, pipes which appear to be made of copper with compression flanges and joints on the ends. I assume these must be high pressure fuel transfer pipes or engine components, but there are quite a few smaller diameter pipes too. It surprised me to see these at the scene as I would have thought there are other materials that could have been used in the manufacture, unless copper was used because of fatigue reasons. I wonder if any engineers would be kind enough to enlighten me?
Fuel on board = 20,959 kg
That hole in the APU firewall Tyler showed looks very suspect.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Collision with parts exiting the fuselage between the wingbox and door 4, blowing back onto the empennage (HS&VS)?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Egyptian standard
It is clear that one should never believe anything coming from Egyptian sources. pilots requested landing permission, no change of terrorism, aircraft system failure, etc. they are only interested in protecting their tourist industry.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 74
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Several large sections of the plane have separated cleanly, which to a layman makes sense only if separation occurred before ground impact, ie the plane falling apart at the seams in the air. This could be confirmed easily by the distance between the fuselage parts.
No evidence of any criminal malfeasance or fire event has yet been publicized - and in fact access to the wreck seems to have been quite free. Shouldn't we use Ockham's razor and assume a local structural failure, cascading into a mid-air breakup, until evidence to the contrary emerges?
Edmund
No evidence of any criminal malfeasance or fire event has yet been publicized - and in fact access to the wreck seems to have been quite free. Shouldn't we use Ockham's razor and assume a local structural failure, cascading into a mid-air breakup, until evidence to the contrary emerges?
Edmund
Last edited by edmundronald; 3rd Nov 2015 at 11:45.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: California
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's before, it's not trivial for any object exiting the hole to hit the tail cone, since there's no straight line from one to the other.
If it's after, it's also not trivial because two parts are rapidly going to fly away from each other.
In either case, I would expect the attachment joint to be sufficiently sturdy that it's not going to be knocked loose by a flying suitcase.
Could be some kind of indirect effect, I suppose (things flying out of the hole and hitting the VS, the VS folding and hitting the tail cone.)
Originally Posted by PortVale
The BEA and Airbus go teams can go home
I think the very size of the combined BEA/Airbus/BFU team suggests that their line of reasoning is not entirely dissimilar to that of some of the postings here. As sad as it sounds, there will be a great audible sigh of relief if this turns out to be a planted bomb. On the other hand, the Egyptians are praying to the Almighty that it should turn out anything but that. A good part of the role of the combined team is to make sure the evidence is not being messed with.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Estonia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
puncture in rear firewall
That hole in the APU firewall Tyler showed looks very suspect. It shows penetration from the rear.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from the media photos anyway, the top section of the aft fuselage looks like a rather clean crack, instead of something that was blown off...like the Aloha 737 "cabriolet"