BREAKING NEWS: airliner missing within Egyptian FIR

[jmmilner]

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.

[_Phoenix]

what are the green ringed bits, is the one on the left part of screwjack assembly

Jackscrew looks like this:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/8353822@N02/2147258443

[CONSO]

FWIW re HS breaking off

A little F= ma issue.

1) IF we assume the tail breaking off at frame forward of PB as an initial failure, then that would leave both HS and VS and Rudder plus APU as a unit.

2) IMO- Even IF at 400 plus mph the HS turned flat side to direction of travel, to develop enough force to rip both off at skin line would require a much higher unit mass traveling in the vector direction of travel to provide enough opposing force to break off HS

3) But IF 1) is not true ( meaning breaking off ***after/during *** breaking of HS ), then the mass- momentum of the whole plane forward of the break at the frame ahead of the PB, the resultant mass-momentum would be more than adequate to provide enough reaction/opposing force available to allow the HS to break cleanly at the skin line and the tail parts following a bit later

Keep in mind the time differences involved are very small re cause and effect and what happened first.

That being said- it is MY opinion that the initiating event was the flipping up of the HS- as the result of a) structural failure of jackscrew in some manner and b) reason for failure unknown at this time- but well place explosive is NOT excluded.

[sardak]

A photo showing the jackscrew installed is here http://www.pprune.org/9169622-post1004.html

Regarding oldoberon's green circles, the foreground one, and the one I've added, are the mating fittings from the next section aft, containing the APU. They were torn out of that section.


The two circled fittings above belong here v



I haven't looked enough to figure out what the other green circled object, but it's not the jackscrew or its support.

Nor is this circled one the jackscrew plate on the upper skin, the last picture in post #1180. A higher resolution photo shows it to be part of the VS.

[hamster3null]

Originally Posted by jmmilner

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.

My point is not that technical complexity of such a job is beyond the reach of a modern day terrorist, it's mainly that, in this situation, cooking up functional remote detonation is what Russians call "having sex while standing in a hammock": enduring difficulties for the sake of enduring difficulties. Unless the terrorist group has access to off-the-shelf remote detonators that can work at a range of 10+ km, can punch through the Faraday cage of the fuselage, and can function despite the Doppler shift due to 400 kt speed difference between the transmitter and the receiver, it's hard to see them going to the effort of making one from scratch, when the job can easily be done with a timer.

One other possibility is to make a device that can be accessed remotely via the onboard Wi-Fi, but even that is a challenge.

[SRMman]

My speculation FWIW, if the toddler was indeed found 21 miles from the main crash site, I suppose it's possible that the bomb, or indeed some major structural failure, caused massive but not initially fatal damage, opening the fuselage and disrupting power and/or data connections to the data recorders. The aircraft continued to fly for around 3 minutes, then succumbed to the initial event and broke up.

[Data Guy]

AD-2005-06-06. Additional Information.

This U.S. AD references a French AD (F-2004-019). There are differences;

1. The French AD was issued 14 months earlier and requires compliance 13 months earlier that the U.S. AD.

2. The French AD is more detailed than the U.S AD which said; “was prompted by a report of an explosion in the APU compartment which blew open the compartment doors …. (and that) “an electric arc at the electrical receptacle, could result in a fire or explosion in the APU compartment during flight”.

3. The French AD added; “The aircraft tail cone structure and the left elevator surface had been damaged” …. (and that) “During flight, such event could lead to the loss of the APU doors in flight and could cause damage to the aircraft, and/or hazard to persons or property on the ground.”


REFERENCES

AD- 2005-06-06. Effective Date; This AD becomes effective April 22, 2005. Compliance By; Within 20 months after the effective date of this AD (Dec 22, 2006).
Unsafe Condition; (d) This AD was prompted by a report of an explosion in the APU compartment which blew open the compartment doors. We are issuing this AD to prevent oil vapor leakage from the APU AC generator, which, when combined with an electric arc at the electrical receptacle, could result in a fire or explosion in the APU compartment during flight.

Modification; (f) Within 20 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the APU AC generator by doing all the actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320- 24-1106, Revision 01, dated May 13, 2004.
Related Information; (i) French airworthiness directive F-2004-019, dated February 4, 2004, also addresses the subject of this AD.

AD link > http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/ebbdfcf90f1708d186256fc800519f60/$FILE/2005-06-06.pdf
-------------------------------
FRENCH AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE F-2004-019.Effective Date; Feb 4, 2004. Compliance by; Before October 30, 2005.

(Ed Notes; Effective date; 14 months earlier. Compliance By date; 13 months earlier than AD-2005—06-06).

“REASONS: One operator reported a blast in the APU compartment during passengers disembarking, that blew open the APU compartment doors.


The aircraft tail cone structure and the left elevator surface had been damaged.


Analyses revealed, that due to vibrations in APU AC generators, the electrical receptacle retaining bolts loosened, leading to oil vapor leakage. This leakage associated with an electrical arc at the level of the electrical receptacle is at the origin of the blast.


During flight, such event could lead to the loss of the APU doors in flight and could cause damage to the aircraft, and/or hazard to persons or property on the ground.

French AD Link > http://www.caa.si/fileadmin/user_upl...004-019_B_.pdf.

[HamishMcBush]

It could be that the toddler was the trained terrorist and planted and set off the bomb, and then became the first victim departing through the freshly-made hole.....


However, BBC is reporting this morning that the bomb was apparently planted in the hold by someone with access to baggage loading. So why now are passengers being banned from taking hold baggage on the plane if the bomb was planted by someone airside who has access to planes? Irrespective of whether or not there is any cargo/luggage to load, if the "airport staff" have unattended access to planes, they could do what they like without question, and the whole passenger/flights inconvenience becomes irrelevant; the plane - any plane - could be targetted by ground crew. It's that side of security that needs to be tightened up further, not what is taken on board legitimately

[RHINO]

I think you will find the following.

The UK Government have gone off on one because they realised the security at SSH was not anywhere near acceptable.

A process is being sorted out that is acceptable to the UK Government. This will take time. Hence hand luggage only to start with. Hold baggage once all issues surrounding it's screening and loading are sorted.

As to the David Cameron 'it was a bomb'

I believe their are two different issues being played out.

The cause of the crash and security at SSH. The first Cameron has no more idea than you and I the second he is to be applauded for.

[sopwithnz]

additional footage ..

have no idea what Russian commentary is, but worth a look at 2.51 for high def close- up of inside tail section that has been much discussed ..

also the aerial footage may be clarifying ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTgEgb0DWpQ

[Discorde]

If it was an explosive device, evidence (chemical or debris characteristics) would have been found very soon after the wreckage was found. So either:

Evidence for an explosive device has already been found but for some reason is being withheld, or

There was no explosive device.

Apologies if this point has already been made.

[oldchina]

Sober Lark

It is my understanding the only ones at the coal face are Egypt and accredited representatives from Russia, Ireland, France and Germany with no mention of the UK.

According to the BEA there are 6 Airbus technical advisors on site. They will have seen the evidence close up, not the photos that PPruners are trying to interpret. These Airbus experts are just as likely to be British, Spanish (or German) as French. In the course of their work they are representing the manufacturer, not any particular nation State.

[mitrosft]

additional footage

additional footage ..
have no idea what Russian commentary is, but worth a look at 2.51 for high def close- up of inside tail section that has been much discussed ..

also the aerial footage may be clarifying ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTgEgb0DWpQ

Girl claims to be in Russian manned search and rescue party exploring the area. No bodies found in her group, more than one group are around. She also claims that marauders are in area as some of the belongings appears to be searched/emptied already. No more details.

[triumph61]

At First, sorry for my bad English.
This Pics show a Debris Piece that is normaly fittet at Emergency Door 2R.
The burned and heating Marks at the lower Site of the Piece are in opposit to the Fuselage. On the Ground is no burning to see. Clear to see on the first Pic are the dark Marks on the right site. They must be of heating from Inside



http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uplo...dabe25xs7t.jpg



This Piece is placed direct under Door 2L. Also lying opposite to Fuselage and Burnmarks below.

http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uplo...7rsujmkol2.jpg



http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uplo...78mrvieo2c.jpg

Clear to see, no burning around this two Pieces on the Ground.

The left Engine and Fan

http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uplo...6032btqu9e.jpg



Also no burning around both on the Ground. The Fan is lying 20m nearby.
The Engine/Fan must get the Burn Marks in the Air from Outside and is not burning itself.

There must be a great Heat in the Area 2L/2R inside the Cargo. There is no other way to get the Burning heating Marks of the Pieces of 2R-2L.

[AR1]

20 Stirling note and said "if you give me one of these, I will take you past all the queues."
He accepted the offer, they were walked through and their large checked baggage placed on the baggage mover without any form of security check.

Its routine in Egypt (Cairo certainly, I have worked there in the past year) that the local agents, approach westerners (and probably others) and fast-track past the chaos on production of a form 10 (£10). They've NEVER fast tracked me beyond baggage screening. it looks chaotic or dodgy, but in essence it's no different to pre paying for the same facility at Manchester.

[Marodeur]

British presence in Sinai

To think that there is no British presence in the Sinai is both unrealistic and wishful thinking.
The Egyptian President has just visited 10 Downing Street, there are wide ranging newly agreed security measures in place overseen by British personnel, in conjunction with their re-invigorated Egyptian counterparts.
Furthermore - it can safely be assumed that whatever Irish presence there may be in Sinai, those Irish personnel in all probability received their training and knowledge from British (UK based) institutions. Akin to a British presence by extension ....

[CosmoBeauregard]

I have never subscribed to the Bomb theory.

I see enough similarity between this accident flight (KGL9268) and AirAsia Flight QZ8501 of last year that it’s difficult not to naturally link the two. My initial thoughts of KGL9268 were the virtually the same that I had with QZ8501. Essentially my theory is the Aft Fuselage section of the aircraft along with the Aft Pressure Bulkhead and entire empennage separated from the aircraft. Had this occurred, the differences between a bomb detonation compared to the explosion of an Aft Pressure Bulkhead failing would be very similar as far as damage is concerned. In fact so much so that the only telling tale would be the lack of explosive residue.
I am a recent reluctant convert to the Tail Strike damage or possible Re-damage theory. Why? If you take a straight edge along the bottom of the main tires, allow for strut decompression and finally lay the other edge along the aft lower fuselage you will contact fuselage at the new aft fuselage separation point. QZ8501 had a huge number of great photos of the aft Bulkhead area. Im still convinced the Aft Bulkhead let go on that one as well.

[HarryMann]

Originally Posted by Sober Lark

There has been a lot of mention in the media about 'UK investigators'. It is my understanding the only ones at the coal face are Egypt and accredited representatives from Russia, Ireland, France and Germany with no mention of the UK.


To me it is not credible that the UK government obtained the information they have and are acting on from internet exchanges or intercepted conversations.


More likely one or many of the investigators from Egypt, Russia, Ireland, France, Germany have made it 'known' that a bomb is the suspected cause rather than remain tight-lipped for official confirmation.

Not what the Daily Telegraph says today... GCHQ intercepted 'chatter' just before as well as after the crash.
To me it is not credible that the UK government obtained the information they have and are acting on from internet exchanges or intercepted conversations.

[silvertate]

A 'small hole' for example the size of a window or two is not likely to suck out a child unless he/she was next to it...

Unless the bomb and the toddler happened to both be in the rear toilet at the time. Which is a likely scenario.


And regard David Cameron going out on a limb with the bomb theory. One suspects that GCHQ has gone back through its records for the region and found some terrorist 'chatter'. (Not all information can be analysed in real time, because they do not have the staff for that, which is why data 'mining' will not effect Joe-public. They don't have the time or resources to read everything.)

But if some relevant 'chatter' had been uncovered, it would negligent to not act upon it, even if it was not actually the cause of this particular accident. So Cameron is between a rock and a hard place - he has to act even when the results of the investigation are not known.

Silver

[WNTT]

The location of the toddlers body confounds any explanation i can think of, being so far away from the wreckage.

FR24 lat long position (which is accurate enough) only shows a deviation from the 340 heading just before the stop of FR24 data / crash.

If the plane suffered any issues resulting a passenger(s) being ejected from the aircraft a few minutes before the 'event' (@04:13) point, there was no change in aircraft behaviour (routing or altitude change) was noted in the FR24 data.

The pilot adage of aviate, navigate, communicate does not seem to have applied before the 'event' (@04:13) if something had occurred (no change in flight parameters, no change in direction to get to a near air strip, no communication).

This i find unlikely, so i feel that everything was normal prior to the 'event' (@04:13).

BUT..... how does a body (maybe others) come to be found 20 miles down the flight path from the crash site whatever the cause of the event?