BREAKING NEWS: airliner missing within Egyptian FIR
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: U.S.
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As to the decision to limit flights and baggage......
This is, or should be, a very clean investigation with a quick determination. As noted above they have most of the aircraft and it was recovered quickly and in a dry environment. This should be easy.
In the event that the investigators with hands on the evidence don't yet know, can't find evidence of a bomb, or mechanical failure, then that must be a scary situation for all. Worst of all would be that the investigators are having the same discussions as go on here.
With no clear determination, then how do you stop this from repeating?
If that is the case then the abundance of caution makes perfect sense.
At this point I think most everyone would benefit from a clear determination, thus I'm guessing that they, the investigators, may be as stumped as we. Or worse, they could have contradictory and unreconcilable info.
This is, or should be, a very clean investigation with a quick determination. As noted above they have most of the aircraft and it was recovered quickly and in a dry environment. This should be easy.
In the event that the investigators with hands on the evidence don't yet know, can't find evidence of a bomb, or mechanical failure, then that must be a scary situation for all. Worst of all would be that the investigators are having the same discussions as go on here.
With no clear determination, then how do you stop this from repeating?
If that is the case then the abundance of caution makes perfect sense.
At this point I think most everyone would benefit from a clear determination, thus I'm guessing that they, the investigators, may be as stumped as we. Or worse, they could have contradictory and unreconcilable info.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 127.0.0.1
Age: 54
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mitrosft & Bertie Bonkers,
for small AOA, CP is typically @ 1/4 to 1/3 of MAC, not 1/2.
I would expect Airbus engineers to have set the pivot point just forward of CP. Keeping this distance small would minimize the loads on the jackscrew, allowing it to be a bit larger would be more fail-safe, see next:
I would expect that shedding of the elevators/trailing edge of HS would have moved the CP further forward. Whether that was enough to bring the CP ahead of pivot point is impossible to say without as a minimum the HS plans and knowing what was missing.
It should only do that if frontal area is bigger than that behind axis. AOA also has to be considered of course.
I would expect Airbus engineers to have set the pivot point just forward of CP. Keeping this distance small would minimize the loads on the jackscrew, allowing it to be a bit larger would be more fail-safe, see next:
I would expect that shedding of the elevators/trailing edge of HS would have moved the CP further forward. Whether that was enough to bring the CP ahead of pivot point is impossible to say without as a minimum the HS plans and knowing what was missing.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brighton
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The tail is dirty because its the APU compartment. It gets warm when the APU is used and any dirty water is going to evaporate and leave any residue behind far easier than the main fuselage. There's a sudden transition in dirt because of the firewall doesn't transmit the heat much further forward.
Airplanes don't get cleaned much these days, for various reasons, cost, environmental considerations, fleet size, etc. hence there are a few dirty looking aircraft around. Google images of a B747 and you will soon see evidence of a hydraulic leak from a rudder.
All I see here is just dirt. Skydrol or grease are most likely in the mix too, there are lots of grease points up there and it will get washed down. The transfer/paint scheme is deteriorating but that is not unusual especially at leading/trailing edges and areas where airflow vortex and turbulence occurs. This is not an indication of poor maintenance, a defect or the back of the plane falling off, but purely an aircraft that has obviously been used a lot.
Airplanes don't get cleaned much these days, for various reasons, cost, environmental considerations, fleet size, etc. hence there are a few dirty looking aircraft around. Google images of a B747 and you will soon see evidence of a hydraulic leak from a rudder.
All I see here is just dirt. Skydrol or grease are most likely in the mix too, there are lots of grease points up there and it will get washed down. The transfer/paint scheme is deteriorating but that is not unusual especially at leading/trailing edges and areas where airflow vortex and turbulence occurs. This is not an indication of poor maintenance, a defect or the back of the plane falling off, but purely an aircraft that has obviously been used a lot.
Last edited by Filler Dent; 9th Nov 2015 at 13:20. Reason: bad grammar
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: NO
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just that tear in the tail from a slightly different angle (to me anyway) - click for full size.
Edit: also noting that top of fr77 looks bent forwards in sardak's post yesterday.
Edit: also noting that top of fr77 looks bent forwards in sardak's post yesterday.
Last edited by RYFQB; 9th Nov 2015 at 13:01.
Is it not the case that the fin and the tail plane were smashed up because they were hit by the hold door, by baggage and large pieces of fuselage after the bomb exploded and as part of the disintegration?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Bertie
The logic is not entirely flawed, but there are two things firmly against it:
The slots in the fuselage side conform to allowed HS up (max 5 deg) and down (12 deg) movements, and as we have seen on several photos it is framed by strong support beams. That would limit the possible downward movement of the HS in your scenario.
As the HS moves down, the aircraft nose pitches up, and this would be recorded on the FDR prior to loss of sgnal. As the FDR loss of signal was abrupt without anything but normal parameters, the tail separation had to be one of the first events.
The logic is not entirely flawed, but there are two things firmly against it:
The slots in the fuselage side conform to allowed HS up (max 5 deg) and down (12 deg) movements, and as we have seen on several photos it is framed by strong support beams. That would limit the possible downward movement of the HS in your scenario.
As the HS moves down, the aircraft nose pitches up, and this would be recorded on the FDR prior to loss of sgnal. As the FDR loss of signal was abrupt without anything but normal parameters, the tail separation had to be one of the first events.
The strong support beams would have prevented the internal structure of the HS moving but not prevented the external structure breaking off due to the aerodynamic load/flutter. The effect could be a zoom climb then with loss of left and right HS a severe negative G bunt - both well outside the normal performance envelope. Strangely, this is what is seen on the FR24 recordings.
Just a thought
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As was pointed out before the leading edges of the HS and VS do not show any damage - so they were not 'hit' by anything. Yet both left and right HS broke away from the empenage. Only aerodynamic loads well outside the design limits could do that.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: london england
Age: 66
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For baffling reasons, my earlier post today, where I agreed with other posters that experienced investigators have probably reached a conclusion over whether the crash was caused by a bomb on board, pointing out they could get quickly to a dry arid crash site, has been deleted.
I also asked the make up of the investigation team. So I'll I try asking again, can anyone tell me the make up of the investigation team?
I also asked the make up of the investigation team. So I'll I try asking again, can anyone tell me the make up of the investigation team?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Leighton Buzzard
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parts Missing
I am completely new to Pprune. I am a light aircraft pilot and engineer. I have read this thread as it has developed over the last week, and followed with interest as the various parts have been found and photographed.
A028 has provided a recent update on which parts of the aircraft are missing, and I agree with his list. However, there is one other part of the aircraft that I have not been able to account for since the beginning of this thread.
Early pictures showed the two engines that had separated from the wings and fallen to earth some distance from the wings etc. Both engines APPEAR to be generally intact, except the left engine fan which rests in a sooty condition on it's own having separated from the engine.
However the picture of the left engine is misleading since everything forward of the Turbine section seems to be missing. This means that the compressor and combustion sections ie, a very large part of the engine, have not so far been shown to us.
Has anyone seen where these parts have gone ?
A028 has provided a recent update on which parts of the aircraft are missing, and I agree with his list. However, there is one other part of the aircraft that I have not been able to account for since the beginning of this thread.
Early pictures showed the two engines that had separated from the wings and fallen to earth some distance from the wings etc. Both engines APPEAR to be generally intact, except the left engine fan which rests in a sooty condition on it's own having separated from the engine.
However the picture of the left engine is misleading since everything forward of the Turbine section seems to be missing. This means that the compressor and combustion sections ie, a very large part of the engine, have not so far been shown to us.
Has anyone seen where these parts have gone ?
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Schiphol
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Nightingale14 investigation team
You can read my rough transcript of the press conference that i posted before. The chairman stated parties and number of investigators. So 47 in team plus 11 advisors makes a total of 58.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However the picture of the left engine is misleading since everything forward of the Turbine section seems to be missing. This means that the compressor and combustion sections ie, a very large part of the engine, have not so far been shown to us.
Has anyone seen where these parts have gone ?
Has anyone seen where these parts have gone ?
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: NO
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the photograph posted by RYFQB, (thank you for this) there is an abundance of marking to the lower (or higher, as it would have been originally) part of the VS which is directly in line with the missing HS.
What is the likelihood of the VS having failed first, and then being hit by a detaching HS?
Can we think of any other possible cause for the scraping and so on to this area?
Link: http://d3lp4xedbqa8a5.cloudfront.net...nai-flight.jpg
Also why the 'double line' scrapes to this segment? I have not seen those before. (The two sets of parallel lines on the VS going horizontally)
What is the likelihood of the VS having failed first, and then being hit by a detaching HS?
Can we think of any other possible cause for the scraping and so on to this area?
Link: http://d3lp4xedbqa8a5.cloudfront.net...nai-flight.jpg
Also why the 'double line' scrapes to this segment? I have not seen those before. (The two sets of parallel lines on the VS going horizontally)
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Schiphol
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Barry Plumb on engines
Both engines found with both fans. Each of which has separated.
Remarkable issues:
a. Engines impact - not really possible to have a good look of what is behind the respective LP compressors. As i wrote earlier, you would expect a part to be buried, but the ground appears to be very rocky/hard. So we have to wait for photos... we will probably get answers when they are lifting them lateron.
b. Fan spinner with soot. At first sight no soot or burn marks on the cowlings and the rest. Again remarkably clean. Only thing that i could come up with is that residual (burning) fuel and oil, after impact, could only escape out to the front, but the distance to the engine discounts that, or there must have been a minor explosion blasting the fan away from the engine (which appears unlikely - the other fan has separated too without soot). The rest of the engines appear to show little or no damage by inflight fire or low or high speed fragment damage.
c. One thing that is visible on a number of photos, from seats to very heavy components, is that they appear to have landed, throwing back and forward rocks and sand, and then the components 'bouncing' one to one and a half meters. Something that i have not really seen before. At Lockerbie one of the engines smashed straight through an asphalt surface. And again suggesting a very rocking/hard surface and subsurface. As well as some sort of forward residual speed of these components.
d. Broken fan blades on one of the fans. You would need to have a matching set of photos of the cowling to see if there have been any blade excursions. Planes and engines are of course designed and tested to contain such failures.
As usual in this stage. Part of an answer but also new questions.
Remarkable issues:
a. Engines impact - not really possible to have a good look of what is behind the respective LP compressors. As i wrote earlier, you would expect a part to be buried, but the ground appears to be very rocky/hard. So we have to wait for photos... we will probably get answers when they are lifting them lateron.
b. Fan spinner with soot. At first sight no soot or burn marks on the cowlings and the rest. Again remarkably clean. Only thing that i could come up with is that residual (burning) fuel and oil, after impact, could only escape out to the front, but the distance to the engine discounts that, or there must have been a minor explosion blasting the fan away from the engine (which appears unlikely - the other fan has separated too without soot). The rest of the engines appear to show little or no damage by inflight fire or low or high speed fragment damage.
c. One thing that is visible on a number of photos, from seats to very heavy components, is that they appear to have landed, throwing back and forward rocks and sand, and then the components 'bouncing' one to one and a half meters. Something that i have not really seen before. At Lockerbie one of the engines smashed straight through an asphalt surface. And again suggesting a very rocking/hard surface and subsurface. As well as some sort of forward residual speed of these components.
d. Broken fan blades on one of the fans. You would need to have a matching set of photos of the cowling to see if there have been any blade excursions. Planes and engines are of course designed and tested to contain such failures.
As usual in this stage. Part of an answer but also new questions.
Last edited by A0283; 9th Nov 2015 at 16:37.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those wondering about the role of Israel - Israel provided intel on suspected bomb on Russian jet -- report | The Times of Israel
Please note however that Times of Israel is not always a totally reliable rag. Will be interesting to see if a more reliable source backs this up.
Please note however that Times of Israel is not always a totally reliable rag. Will be interesting to see if a more reliable source backs this up.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: NO
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wondered about those, too, but maybe they are some kind of imprint/reflection of some internal structure? Isn't there a (fainter) third line above, close to the breaking point?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Estonia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lef hand engine
Exactly. And this made me wonder if there was an uncontained engine failure that started things off. Could bits of hot flying turbine parts could have ignited the center fuel tank and also created the outward hull punctures as they emerged from the other side? I would think that a catastrophic failure would also sound like a big bang on the CVR.
It is most probable that the engine got damaged in the falling phase, still attached and working by ingesting flames from fire.
Left side of the forward fuselage have marks of inflight fire and sooting up to the nose cone.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think a zoom climb was recorded by FR24.