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
LifeNews today makes interview with tourist returned from SSH. They told that with all security enforcement and luggage restriction, they still was offered to be put through VIP route without security check for $20 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CVR expectations
There seems to be a degree of expectation the CVR will yield some clues.
Here is an extract from the AAIB report on Pan Am Flight 103.
"It is not clear if the recorded sound is the result of the explosion or is from the break-up of the aircraft structure. The short period between the beginning of the event and the loss of electrical power suggests
that the latter is more likely to be the case.
Additionally some of the frequencies present on the recording were not present in the original sound, but are the result of the rise in total harmonic distortion caused by the increased amplitude of the incoming
signal. Outputs from a frequency analysis of the recorded signal for the same frequency of input to the CVR, but at two input amplitudes, are shown in Figures C-11 and C-12. These illustrate the effects on
harmonic distortion as the signal level is increased. Finally the recorded signal does not lend itself to analysis by a digital spectrum analyser as it is, in a large measure, aperiodic and most digital signal
analysis algorithms are unable to deal with a short duration signal of this type, however, it is hoped that techniques being developed in Canada will enable more information to be deduced from the end of the
recording.
In the aftermath of the Air India Boeing 747 accident (AI 182) in the North Atlantic on 23 June 1985 the Royal Armaments Research and Development Establishment (RARDE) were asked informally by
AAIB to examine means of differentiating, by recording violent cabin pressure pulses, between the detonation of an explosive device within the cabin (positive pulse) and a catastrophic structural failure
(negative pulse). Following the Lockerbie disaster it was considered that this work should be raised to a formal research project. Therefore, in February 1989, it was recommended that the Department of
Transport fund a study to devise methods of recording violent positive and negative pressure pulses, preferably utilising the aircraft's flight recorder systems.
Preliminary results from these trials indicates that if a suitable sensor can be developed its output will need to be recorded in real time and therefore it may require wiring into the CVR installation. This will
further strengthen the requirement for battery back up of the CVR electrical power supply."
Was "hope " ever realised since then.
Here is an extract from the AAIB report on Pan Am Flight 103.
"It is not clear if the recorded sound is the result of the explosion or is from the break-up of the aircraft structure. The short period between the beginning of the event and the loss of electrical power suggests
that the latter is more likely to be the case.
Additionally some of the frequencies present on the recording were not present in the original sound, but are the result of the rise in total harmonic distortion caused by the increased amplitude of the incoming
signal. Outputs from a frequency analysis of the recorded signal for the same frequency of input to the CVR, but at two input amplitudes, are shown in Figures C-11 and C-12. These illustrate the effects on
harmonic distortion as the signal level is increased. Finally the recorded signal does not lend itself to analysis by a digital spectrum analyser as it is, in a large measure, aperiodic and most digital signal
analysis algorithms are unable to deal with a short duration signal of this type, however, it is hoped that techniques being developed in Canada will enable more information to be deduced from the end of the
recording.
In the aftermath of the Air India Boeing 747 accident (AI 182) in the North Atlantic on 23 June 1985 the Royal Armaments Research and Development Establishment (RARDE) were asked informally by
AAIB to examine means of differentiating, by recording violent cabin pressure pulses, between the detonation of an explosive device within the cabin (positive pulse) and a catastrophic structural failure
(negative pulse). Following the Lockerbie disaster it was considered that this work should be raised to a formal research project. Therefore, in February 1989, it was recommended that the Department of
Transport fund a study to devise methods of recording violent positive and negative pressure pulses, preferably utilising the aircraft's flight recorder systems.
Preliminary results from these trials indicates that if a suitable sensor can be developed its output will need to be recorded in real time and therefore it may require wiring into the CVR installation. This will
further strengthen the requirement for battery back up of the CVR electrical power supply."
Was "hope " ever realised since then.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lyubko, http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9174396
last paragraph.
Also isn't it funny that they still makes their little tips on security shortcuts when literally whole world is upside down?
last paragraph.
Also isn't it funny that they still makes their little tips on security shortcuts when literally whole world is upside down?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andrasz - I submit that you are speaking with excessive certainty here.
I'm generally skeptical, too, and dismissed the video when it first came out, but as details of the crash have become clearer, I'm not as certain anymore.
To refute your absolute claims, I'd like to refer you to the following video which shows practice shoot-downs of drones by US Air National Guard planes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xISpZYajveA
In particular, look at the "kill" at 3:22 - the missile hit apparently releases and ignites a plume of fuel from the target drone, which initially burns brightly, and then turns into a puff of black smoke.
If you continue watching, for a while, there's only a small flame visible on the wreckage until a few seconds later when the flame gets larger and a visible trail of black smoke develops again.
This is by no means conclusive proof that the footage is real, but it refutes your very absolute claims that the black smoke is impossible under the conditions of the flight.
I'm still very skeptical of the reality of the footage, but I think your absolute rejection is based on shaky arguments.
I'm generally skeptical, too, and dismissed the video when it first came out, but as details of the crash have become clearer, I'm not as certain anymore.
To refute your absolute claims, I'd like to refer you to the following video which shows practice shoot-downs of drones by US Air National Guard planes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xISpZYajveA
In particular, look at the "kill" at 3:22 - the missile hit apparently releases and ignites a plume of fuel from the target drone, which initially burns brightly, and then turns into a puff of black smoke.
If you continue watching, for a while, there's only a small flame visible on the wreckage until a few seconds later when the flame gets larger and a visible trail of black smoke develops again.
This is by no means conclusive proof that the footage is real, but it refutes your very absolute claims that the black smoke is impossible under the conditions of the flight.
I'm still very skeptical of the reality of the footage, but I think your absolute rejection is based on shaky arguments.
This http://video.dailymail.co.uk/video/m...3310182183.mp4 is a video supposedly of ISIS using a MANPAD to bring down an Egyptian army helo. Note that although the helicopter will only be doing about 1/3rd the speed of the A321 there is no 'billowing' of smoke close to the helicopter it is streaming back smoothly for a significant distance. The video claiming to be the 321 is fake. As you can see from the helo video the terrorists want the 'money shot' of the aircraft breaking/burning up and crashing, that is not present in the supposed A321 video despite the break up being only 45 seconds or so after the initial 'event'.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: In the electronics bay!
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horizontal stabilizer blade seal panel
Some of you appear to be confusing the horizontal stabilizer blade seal panel with damage to the HS.
A close up view of the panel - it is attached after the HS is fitted.
It may not be obvious, but the whole panel up to the riveted strip moves together with the HS to cover the aperture in the fuselage.
A close up view of the panel - it is attached after the HS is fitted.
It may not be obvious, but the whole panel up to the riveted strip moves together with the HS to cover the aperture in the fuselage.
Last edited by Control Eng; 8th Nov 2015 at 20:11. Reason: Add explanation.
To refute your absolute claims, I'd like to refer you to the following video which shows practice shoot-downs of drones by US Air National Guard planes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xISpZYajveA
In particular, look at the "kill" at 3:22 - the missile hit apparently releases and ignites a plume of fuel from the target drone, which initially burns brightly, and then turns into a puff of black smoke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xISpZYajveA
In particular, look at the "kill" at 3:22 - the missile hit apparently releases and ignites a plume of fuel from the target drone, which initially burns brightly, and then turns into a puff of black smoke.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: EU airspace
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If somebody is intended to commence terror attack , he will find shortcuts in security system of any airport ( even LLBG ) !
Sadly in HESH it's seems cheaper than other one.
It's a sadly fact not a joke. In last case - tragedy.
Sadly in HESH it's seems cheaper than other one.
It's a sadly fact not a joke. In last case - tragedy.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lyubko, right and we had two planes bombed purely for bribed security reasons.
Nevertheless, keep openly advertise $20 security shortcut in the airport just after major disaster, full of international security watchdogs... I envy this people's easy view of life.
Nevertheless, keep openly advertise $20 security shortcut in the airport just after major disaster, full of international security watchdogs... I envy this people's easy view of life.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alternate places
Age: 76
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FDMII
An interesting picture of the L/H HS from Kulverstukas - it seems it is, as it logically should be, an inverted airfoil - doesn't it?
If so, it looks like the found part would be from the Right side? Don't you think?
And if so, it also looks as if the Leading Edge is missing?
Of course my eyes are not what they once were...
An interesting picture of the L/H HS from Kulverstukas - it seems it is, as it logically should be, an inverted airfoil - doesn't it?
If so, it looks like the found part would be from the Right side? Don't you think?
And if so, it also looks as if the Leading Edge is missing?
Of course my eyes are not what they once were...
Further, I believe the rear spar to be intact and that the damage is to the surface structure (ref below, light-blue lines), behind the HS box formed by the fore & aft spars (dark-blue lines). Also, the leading edge is quite visible, in both photographs of the left HS posted earlier.
Last edited by FDMII; 8th Nov 2015 at 20:32.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Near St Lawrence River
Age: 53
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Unrolled" fuselage is not relevant, since the aircraft at cruise altitude(inflated state) behaves as a punctured balloon.
Nope - There are way too many crackstoppers-stringers, frames ( circumferentials ) involved to act like a puncture ballon.
Nope - There are way too many crackstoppers-stringers, frames ( circumferentials ) involved to act like a puncture ballon.
Compare the two pictures below:
http://static.apple.nextmedia.com/im...int/26c1p6.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nstruction.jpg
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Castlegar
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deflagration, Detonation, Overpressure-Event ...
Various prior mentions: re' TWA800, ect --
See the Glossary, usage, simplified usage in the TWA800 AAR ...
Deflagration, Detonation, Overpressure-Event, "Explosion"
[Get the Manual]
TWA800 - usage
CVR-ending: and the Source-event Path, vs Precursor-Path, CVR signatures
For reader in Russia, Egypt, maybe France (BEA) --
aero' INVESTIGATIONs : a historic role of RUMOR-Gossip-bias,
infusing-moral-values into science . . . then a quick widely embraced (erroneous) consensus.
See the Glossary, usage, simplified usage in the TWA800 AAR ...
Deflagration, Detonation, Overpressure-Event, "Explosion"
[Get the Manual]
TWA800 - usage
CVR-ending: and the Source-event Path, vs Precursor-Path, CVR signatures
For reader in Russia, Egypt, maybe France (BEA) --
aero' INVESTIGATIONs : a historic role of RUMOR-Gossip-bias,
infusing-moral-values into science . . . then a quick widely embraced (erroneous) consensus.
See Day-5 of the Public Hearing for inflight breakup of B307 Strat' 18Mar39;
See the detailed rumor-driven distraction during NTSB's B727 / 4Apr79
See the detailed rumor-driven distraction during NTSB's B727 / 4Apr79
Last edited by IGh; 9th Nov 2015 at 03:42.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 85
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have asked a couple of times but are there any photographs that show the repair area from the previous tail strike. We should be able to see if there was any failure of the repair.
Yes, I know it was a bomb but I would still like to see how the repaired area stood up. I seem to recall that this repair was deemed 'satisfactory' but not fully compliance.
FF
Yes, I know it was a bomb but I would still like to see how the repaired area stood up. I seem to recall that this repair was deemed 'satisfactory' but not fully compliance.
FF
Last edited by funfly; 8th Nov 2015 at 20:42. Reason: compliant or compliance?
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: In the electronics bay!
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HS Seal Panel
Here is a view of the remains of the Blade seal panel from the top.
Look at the first three images in this post to see how the elements fit together.
Look at the first three images in this post to see how the elements fit together.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re b bonkers and HS
#1839 (permalink)
Considering the HS ' wing" as to failure
There are basically three directions ( vectors) of failure possible
A) fore to aft re airstream - that is leading edge detaches and wing simply folds back like a swing wing. Improbable due to airloads acting over a small area
B) Up relative to normal flight attitude as in a major dive and pullup bending wing (HS) up to breaking point
C) Down relative to normal flight as in a major pitchover
AND B) or C) if wing tries to turn 90 degrees to airstream becoming a relatively flat plate
I think A) can be dismissed
Which leaves from available evidence published B) or C)
With B) or C) we look at aft section ahead of PB- and it appears most likely it was a down load sufficient to tear top of body away.
Which does not exclude a major attitude change ( pitch ) or a disconnect of jackscrew while changing from climb to level flight for example
OR a bomb forward of PB in lower hold.
Thats about as close as we can get with available ..
Considering the HS ' wing" as to failure
There are basically three directions ( vectors) of failure possible
A) fore to aft re airstream - that is leading edge detaches and wing simply folds back like a swing wing. Improbable due to airloads acting over a small area
B) Up relative to normal flight attitude as in a major dive and pullup bending wing (HS) up to breaking point
C) Down relative to normal flight as in a major pitchover
AND B) or C) if wing tries to turn 90 degrees to airstream becoming a relatively flat plate
I think A) can be dismissed
Which leaves from available evidence published B) or C)
With B) or C) we look at aft section ahead of PB- and it appears most likely it was a down load sufficient to tear top of body away.
Which does not exclude a major attitude change ( pitch ) or a disconnect of jackscrew while changing from climb to level flight for example
OR a bomb forward of PB in lower hold.
Thats about as close as we can get with available ..
CONSO;
Regarding your 'A' scenario; Given that there is more 'remnant' of the inner part of the HS towards the aft, it almost appears that it could have 'peeled' off, front to back, or at least retained the join to the airframe for longer at the aft/trailing edge.
Could you perhaps set me straight on this if you have a moment? I would be interested to know why you have discounted it, if you see what I mean.
Especially given this photo where the panel corresponding to the leading edge appears to have been torn away:
Regarding your 'A' scenario; Given that there is more 'remnant' of the inner part of the HS towards the aft, it almost appears that it could have 'peeled' off, front to back, or at least retained the join to the airframe for longer at the aft/trailing edge.
Could you perhaps set me straight on this if you have a moment? I would be interested to know why you have discounted it, if you see what I mean.
Especially given this photo where the panel corresponding to the leading edge appears to have been torn away:
Last edited by susier; 8th Nov 2015 at 21:51.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, with you on that. From the apparent lack of any lower HS supporting structure visible in the VS section of debris I've been minded from the off that the HS went LE down. While I originally considered that it went around close to 90° and was forced 'out the back' by aerodrag, taking the tail cone & APU with it, the lack of any evident damage to the front edge of the APU section which I expected to see as a result of impact by the HS pivots now makes me tend towards the idea that the rotation was limited somewhere within the 45-80° range, causing the HS section to go 'down and out', tearing out the support & skin below the pivots and pulling away the tail cone at the lower edge, while exerting downforce sufficient to open the cabin at the top forward of the PB.