BREAKING NEWS: airliner missing within Egyptian FIR
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAIRO, Nov. 3. / TASS /. Problem within the A321 crashed in Egypt over the Sinai Peninsula, resulting in damage to the starboard side of the aircraft before it hit the ground, reported Internet portal "Al-Masri al-Yaum" sources in the international commission studying the flight recorders of the plane.
Last edited by Kulverstukas; 3rd Nov 2015 at 15:29.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: us
Age: 63
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to an "informed source" speaking to Interfax, 4 minutes before disappearance the pilots were having routine conversations and didn't mention problems. Shortly before disappearance there were "untypical sounds." Apparently the onset of the emergency was sudden and took them by surprise said the source.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Schiphol
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Kulverstukas - APU
Have seen that photo before but this quality appears to be much much better. Thanks.
What you see - as far as i know - is the muffler. Not the actual APU. What is also striking is that the APU access doors are open. Of course we do not know if that happened in flight or on landing or afterward.
The question that i had, driven by the possible scenario that i sketched before, was ... is it possible that the APU broke from its mountings early on in the descent sequence?
So great photo, and even better would be to get one showing the insides of the cone and the actual APU. Or a photo of the APU somewhere in the desert.
What you see - as far as i know - is the muffler. Not the actual APU. What is also striking is that the APU access doors are open. Of course we do not know if that happened in flight or on landing or afterward.
The question that i had, driven by the possible scenario that i sketched before, was ... is it possible that the APU broke from its mountings early on in the descent sequence?
So great photo, and even better would be to get one showing the insides of the cone and the actual APU. Or a photo of the APU somewhere in the desert.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Brussels
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Rahmi said there was no proof yet that the plane had broken up in flight."
If you have spent time in the region, you will know that the role of Comical Ali is held by many spokesmen across the Mid and Near East. It is an esteemed position requiring full control of fascial muscles and prior experience of living on another planet.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muha...aeed_al-Sahhaf
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alternate places
Age: 76
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is reasonable to conclude that the APU is still inside the tail cone. Visible, obvious damage due to it's "egress" would otherwise be evident. Except for impact crushing, the structure appears intact.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also look at this hatch cover:
It's definitely shows signs of fire inside and inflight
Also it's hatch under second starboard door, right (IDK numeration).
It's definitely shows signs of fire inside and inflight
Also it's hatch under second starboard door, right (IDK numeration).
Last edited by Kulverstukas; 3rd Nov 2015 at 16:15.
Urm the APU doors are open because of the deformity due to the sudden impact,note the surrounding structure,or whats left of it. The skin on that section is not the most robust and I'll bet a pound (Egyptian) the APU is still in there.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Canadian Shield
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tail section repair... happened in Toulouse, on the manufacturer premises. If so, there is no reason to suspect Airbus for not doing the job properly.
8 Sep 1985
The Boeing Company acknowledged Friday that it had made faulty rear-cabin repairs in 1978 on a Japan Air Lines Boeing 747 that crashed in Japan last month, killing 520 of the 524 people on board.
But the company added that further analysis was needed ''to determine whether this repair contributed to the accident.'' It was the worst single-plane crash in history.
The company said that the problem involved a relatively small section of the splice its team fashioned in reassembling upper and lower halves of the pressure bulkhead in the rear of the passenger cabin. It said, too, that all evidence indicated the bulkhead ruptured in flight and caused pressurized air in the passenger cabin to rush out to the rear.
Disclosure of a faulty repair was made initially by The New York Times on Friday. The Boeing statement took issue with a part of the report, attributed to authorities involved in the inquiry, that the improper assembly had to do with some missing rivets.
Defect in Riveting
''A splice plate added during the repair was incorrectly installed in this small section of the splice such that one of three rows of rivets did not pass through the splice plate,'' the company said. The small section amounted to about 17 percent of the splice, according to the statement.
The 1978 damage to the plane occurred when it made a landing at Osaka so severe that 30 people were injured. The Boeing team, sent to the scene from company headquarters in Seattle, repaired 54 feet of skin under the lower fuselage and replaced the lower half of the bulkhead, which then had to be attached to the original upper half.
The bulkhead, shaped somewhat like an umbrella canopy, is at the very back of the passenger cabin. It separates the cabin, which is highly pressurized in flight, from the unpressurized tail cone of the plane, which is behind it.
At least two key issues remain to be resolved. One is whether the improper repair led to the bulkhead rupture. The second is where the rearward rush of air was what caused the catastrophic damage to the tail's vertical fin.
Plane Struck Mountain
The still-unproven theory is that the air rushing rearward could have turned upward into the hollow tail fin, punched out the leading edge of the vertical tail structure, and thereby caused the plane to fly wildly out of control. It rammed into a mountain 30 minutes later.
Boeing officials would be relieved if it can be verified that the improper repair in fact caused the disaster. That would remove any concern that more than 600 747's in service in the world have an inherent defect and that a repeat of the Japanese crash is a continuing danger.
In Japan, aviation officials expressed surprise at the Boeing acknowledgement of the faulty repair.
Hiroaki Kono, head of Japan Airline's maintenance division, said: ''If the repairs are incorrect, it is a serious matter.''
Shiro Oshima, an official of the Ministry of Aviation, said: ''I'm surprised to hear of the Boeing announcement, which is quite new to me.''
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canada
Age: 57
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@A0283 said:
"What you see - as far as i know - is the muffler. Not the actual APU"
FWIW, I believe that we are looking at the APU and the muffler section
(#5758 in the picture) is what's missing.
Very sad - RIP to all these poor souls
"What you see - as far as i know - is the muffler. Not the actual APU"
FWIW, I believe that we are looking at the APU and the muffler section
(#5758 in the picture) is what's missing.
Very sad - RIP to all these poor souls
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like Metrojet has reason to believe this was not a technical failure.
They have rerouted their flights out of Shram to the west according to this chart published today on their website:
They have rerouted their flights out of Shram to the west according to this chart published today on their website:
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am having trouble locating this piece, but knowing it to be upside-down, it looks curious with the door buckling outwards and soot coming out of it.
...
Also look at this hatch cover
...
Also look at this hatch cover
To my knowledge, no pyrotechnical devices on this equipment which may cause a fire, but I am here to learn.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Estonia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bulkhead or not bulkhead
To AVR4000
Rupture of rear pressure bulkhead is not explaining why aft part of fuselage before RPB separated midair. Also, it does not explain why fuselage after wings is scattered around in small pieces.
Peeling of fuselage skin by wind aerodynamic forces works from front to back. Not from RPB toward cockpit.
Also, with ruptured rear pressure bulkhead, damage pattern aft of RPB should be different, as you could imagine how all that aft galley stuff was pressed through rapidly emerging hole.
A failure of the pressure bulkhead is a logical explanation for the separation of the rudder and horizontal stabilizers and a picture of its condition would give a clear answer.
Peeling of fuselage skin by wind aerodynamic forces works from front to back. Not from RPB toward cockpit.
Also, with ruptured rear pressure bulkhead, damage pattern aft of RPB should be different, as you could imagine how all that aft galley stuff was pressed through rapidly emerging hole.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To AVR4000
Rupture of rear pressure bulkhead is not explaining why aft part of fuselage before RPB separated midair. Also, it does not explain why fuselage after wings is scattered around in small pieces.
Peeling of fuselage skin by wind aerodynamic forces works from front to back. Not from RPB toward cockpit.
Also, with ruptured rear pressure bulkhead, damage pattern aft of RPB should be different, as you could imagine how all that aft galley stuff was pressed through rapidly emerging hole.
Rupture of rear pressure bulkhead is not explaining why aft part of fuselage before RPB separated midair. Also, it does not explain why fuselage after wings is scattered around in small pieces.
Peeling of fuselage skin by wind aerodynamic forces works from front to back. Not from RPB toward cockpit.
Also, with ruptured rear pressure bulkhead, damage pattern aft of RPB should be different, as you could imagine how all that aft galley stuff was pressed through rapidly emerging hole.
If memory serves correctly, the Indonesian A320 crash resulted in similar fragments of the aircraft with a similar dispersion.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Estonia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Kulvertukas
pieces from under second doors on both sides show similar inflight firedamage. But that could have happened already after initial breakup created large fire. Sooting on fuelage underside is visible even on cockpit part.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Schiphol
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@AirScotia
Have there been pictures of both engines? I've only seen one, that's missing the fan, and a burned-looking fan that's elsewhere.
I have not had time yet to link them to the left and right one, or to the geographical location.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Rupture of rear pressure bulkhead is not explaining why aft part of fuselage before RPB separated midair. Also, it does not explain why fuselage after wings is scattered around in small pieces.
Peeling of fuselage skin by wind aerodynamic forces works from front to back. Not from RPB toward cockpit.
Also, with ruptured rear pressure bulkhead, damage pattern aft of RPB should be different, as you could imagine how all that aft galley stuff was pressed through rapidly emerging hole."
Shockwave shattered the RPB and also overloaded the skin joint at the frame where it was torn apart.
Refer to the videos I posted several pages back and you can see similar damage occurring some distance from the blast site, but rupturing the skin at reinforced points (frames).
Once the tail was gone, the nose tucked and likely exposed the open fuselage to the slipstream, further damaging it. Then it entered a flat spin.
Also, those with experience in this model have stated no aft galley on this bird.
Peeling of fuselage skin by wind aerodynamic forces works from front to back. Not from RPB toward cockpit.
Also, with ruptured rear pressure bulkhead, damage pattern aft of RPB should be different, as you could imagine how all that aft galley stuff was pressed through rapidly emerging hole."
Shockwave shattered the RPB and also overloaded the skin joint at the frame where it was torn apart.
Refer to the videos I posted several pages back and you can see similar damage occurring some distance from the blast site, but rupturing the skin at reinforced points (frames).
Once the tail was gone, the nose tucked and likely exposed the open fuselage to the slipstream, further damaging it. Then it entered a flat spin.
Also, those with experience in this model have stated no aft galley on this bird.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Third time lucky.
AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE
AD No.: 2014-0177
Date: 25 July 2014
Fuselage – Rear Fuselage Clips, Shear Webs and Angles –
Replacement
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.
AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE
AD No.: 2014-0177
Date: 25 July 2014
Fuselage – Rear Fuselage Clips, Shear Webs and Angles –
Replacement
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.