BREAKING NEWS: airliner missing within Egyptian FIR
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: wales
Age: 81
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you often see investigations into disasters etc where a small group of the investigator strongly disagree with the findings and issue a minority report, has that ever happened with aircraft crashes.?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The new VS picture :
these lines could be from internal structures, but evidently highlighted by external factors (pressure, collision?)
But, there are more new defects on the surface, like abrasion/collision marks. (Etud lAvia was faster than I). The external skin of the VS looks very flexible, probably a glass fiber or aramid fiber composite (not carbon fiber), and specially the leading edge of the VS must be very sturdy. I can imagine an aluminum skin got there and caused overload and snapping of the VS.
Look here for an A320 cut away A320 Cutaway View
(there maybe differences to the A321 or other internal structures not showing in this cut away)
For me, the yellowish structure here:
(see also :http://i67.tinypic.com/acuafn.jpg and https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/1557...8f86ef_XXL.jpg )
is not the jack screw support base (supposedly pushed upwards), but one of the internal structures of VS, which now is downwards inclined. That would have pushed teh screw jack plate forwards, pulling the jack screw also forwards.
Also look here:
did you see the metall piece? What is it supposed to be?
these lines could be from internal structures, but evidently highlighted by external factors (pressure, collision?)
But, there are more new defects on the surface, like abrasion/collision marks. (Etud lAvia was faster than I). The external skin of the VS looks very flexible, probably a glass fiber or aramid fiber composite (not carbon fiber), and specially the leading edge of the VS must be very sturdy. I can imagine an aluminum skin got there and caused overload and snapping of the VS.
Look here for an A320 cut away A320 Cutaway View
(there maybe differences to the A321 or other internal structures not showing in this cut away)
For me, the yellowish structure here:
(see also :http://i67.tinypic.com/acuafn.jpg and https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/1557...8f86ef_XXL.jpg )
is not the jack screw support base (supposedly pushed upwards), but one of the internal structures of VS, which now is downwards inclined. That would have pushed teh screw jack plate forwards, pulling the jack screw also forwards.
Also look here:
did you see the metall piece? What is it supposed to be?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing playing on my mind, Has Tech Log 26918 appeared yet or is it still missing? Had any Snags been reported or work carried out whilst the Aircraft was on the ground for 5 or so hours at KUF?
Going by the theories on her regarding the HS, VS & Trim Jack I can see a couple of EASA AD's published which are in the vicinity of the suspect area
1. EASA AD - 2015-0080 - Flight Controls – Trimmable Horizontal Stabilizer Actuator – Identification / Replacement
2. EASA AD - 2014-0217R1 - Auto Flight / Instruments – Stop Rudder Input Warning – Installation / Activation
Both the above possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane.
No biggie I know but looking at Metrojet's 145 approval they only hold Line approval and not Base
Just one last thing, what about Rear cargo door I have not seen any pictures of this. Could this have somehow become detached?
Going by the theories on her regarding the HS, VS & Trim Jack I can see a couple of EASA AD's published which are in the vicinity of the suspect area
1. EASA AD - 2015-0080 - Flight Controls – Trimmable Horizontal Stabilizer Actuator – Identification / Replacement
2. EASA AD - 2014-0217R1 - Auto Flight / Instruments – Stop Rudder Input Warning – Installation / Activation
Both the above possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane.
No biggie I know but looking at Metrojet's 145 approval they only hold Line approval and not Base
Just one last thing, what about Rear cargo door I have not seen any pictures of this. Could this have somehow become detached?
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Press Briefing by the Accident Investigation Committee Of Metrojet KGL-9268
"The investigation team is composed of 47 investigators, as follows:
From Egypt 29
From Russia 7
From France 6
From Germany 2
From Ireland 3
And technical advisors include:
From Airbus 10
IASA 1
This will come to a total of 58 participants. "
"The investigation team is composed of 47 investigators, as follows:
From Egypt 29
From Russia 7
From France 6
From Germany 2
From Ireland 3
And technical advisors include:
From Airbus 10
IASA 1
This will come to a total of 58 participants. "
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
where a small group of the investigator strongly disagree with the findings and issue a minority report, has that ever happened with aircraft crashes.?
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: New Jersey USA
Age: 66
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@oldoberon:
It is not unusual for the US NTSB to have dissenting statements (usually by a single board member) in accident investigation reports.
I seem to recall that one of the high-profile airliner crashes around the 1980s had a dissent that got significant news coverage, because of the public visibility and controversy concerning the accident -- but don't remember which incident.
It is not unusual for the US NTSB to have dissenting statements (usually by a single board member) in accident investigation reports.
I seem to recall that one of the high-profile airliner crashes around the 1980s had a dissent that got significant news coverage, because of the public visibility and controversy concerning the accident -- but don't remember which incident.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: wales
Age: 81
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The new VS picture :
these lines could be from internal structures, but evidently highlighted by external factors (pressure, collision?)
But, there are more new defects on the surface, like abrasion/collision marks. (Etud lAvia was faster than I). The external skin of the VS looks very flexible, probably a glass fiber or aramid fiber composite (not carbon fiber), and specially the leading edge of the VS must be very sturdy. I can imagine an aluminum skin got there and caused overload and snapping of the VS.
Look here for an A320 cut away A320 Cutaway View
(there maybe differences to the A321 or other internal structures not showing in this cut away)
For me, the yellowish structure here:
(see also :http://i67.tinypic.com/acuafn.jpg and https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/1557...8f86ef_XXL.jpg )
is not the jack screw support base (supposedly pushed upwards), but one of the internal structures of VS, which now is downwards inclined. That would have pushed teh screw jack plate forwards, pulling the jack screw also forwards.
Also look here:
did you see the metall piece? What is it supposed to be?
these lines could be from internal structures, but evidently highlighted by external factors (pressure, collision?)
But, there are more new defects on the surface, like abrasion/collision marks. (Etud lAvia was faster than I). The external skin of the VS looks very flexible, probably a glass fiber or aramid fiber composite (not carbon fiber), and specially the leading edge of the VS must be very sturdy. I can imagine an aluminum skin got there and caused overload and snapping of the VS.
Look here for an A320 cut away A320 Cutaway View
(there maybe differences to the A321 or other internal structures not showing in this cut away)
For me, the yellowish structure here:
(see also :http://i67.tinypic.com/acuafn.jpg and https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/1557...8f86ef_XXL.jpg )
is not the jack screw support base (supposedly pushed upwards), but one of the internal structures of VS, which now is downwards inclined. That would have pushed teh screw jack plate forwards, pulling the jack screw also forwards.
Also look here:
did you see the metall piece? What is it supposed to be?
Now for another view of the rear assemblies
if you look at this the green circle shows what I think is the top screwjack panel (the hole is there) and there is no sign of a screwjack
http://i63.tinypic.com/1zxa529.jpg
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: England
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone earlier posted a photo of the aircraft a week ago. I can't find it now on the threads. But it did show a fair sized repair to the fuselage aft if door 4L covering the production joint. Does anyone else have the photo available.
For example the Arrow Air DC-8 that crashed at Gander in December 1985 - the probable cause in the Canadian investigation report (ice contamination, leading to a stall) was only endorsed by 5 of the 9 Board members and the other 4 issued a dissenting report attributing the crash to an on-board fire, possibly the result of an explosion.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the aircraft in service with the double lines on the vertical tail visible. The full size photo is at: http://static1.businessinsider.com/i...4/metrojet.jpg
Reference "if you look at this the green circle shows what I think is the top screwjack panel (the hole is there) and there is no sign of a screwjack". It doesn't appear to be that in the hi-res version.
Another shot of the aft end of Flight 1549 on display at the Carolinas Aviation Museum Carolinas Aviation Museum - Miracle on the Hudson. Note the similarity between the part at the base of the VS on it and the one in the views of the aft end of the Metrojet.
Reference "if you look at this the green circle shows what I think is the top screwjack panel (the hole is there) and there is no sign of a screwjack". It doesn't appear to be that in the hi-res version.
Another shot of the aft end of Flight 1549 on display at the Carolinas Aviation Museum Carolinas Aviation Museum - Miracle on the Hudson. Note the similarity between the part at the base of the VS on it and the one in the views of the aft end of the Metrojet.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Schiphol
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@sardak double lines
As far as i can see your tail close up photo has 3 vertical lines. If you look closely they appear to be double ones. Not as clear as on the 'groove' picture, but still.
What strikes me is that these lines cross from leading edge over to the centerbox. These are respectively GFRP and CFRP built up components.
So it is rather unlikely that the origin of these stripes had anything to do with the lay up of the various composite layers.
This could suggest that it originates in the painting scheme ... which usually includes both spray paint and very large plastic decals (read: stickers). Would be interesting to find out how they did the change of livery. Did they just stick large decals with Metrojet over the old ones or paint ... and perhaps sprayed a coating over that.
I do not know, but this may be part of an explanation.
+++
Take a look at the white leading edge ... borderline does not look very sharp ...
What strikes me is that these lines cross from leading edge over to the centerbox. These are respectively GFRP and CFRP built up components.
So it is rather unlikely that the origin of these stripes had anything to do with the lay up of the various composite layers.
This could suggest that it originates in the painting scheme ... which usually includes both spray paint and very large plastic decals (read: stickers). Would be interesting to find out how they did the change of livery. Did they just stick large decals with Metrojet over the old ones or paint ... and perhaps sprayed a coating over that.
I do not know, but this may be part of an explanation.
+++
Take a look at the white leading edge ... borderline does not look very sharp ...
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: NO
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
where a small group of the investigator strongly disagree with the findings and issue a minority report, has that ever happened with aircraft crashes.?
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Schiphol
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
where a small group of the investigator strongly disagree with the findings and issue a minority report, has that ever happened with aircraft crashes.?
Happens on a regular basis. The minority report as you call it is included in the final report. You can read about it in ICAO Annex13. In many cases various parties include some comments. In NTSB cases you can find minority opinions of individual NTSB members. US military cases have a similar approach.
Some high profile dissent cases:
EgyptAir990 is a case. It crashed in international waters, which put Egypt in the lead. But Egypt delegated to the US NTSB. But in the end disagreed with the NTSB report and the Eqyptian report was included in the NTSB report.
In a similar Indonesian case, Silk Air 185, the Indonesians took the lead, the NTSB was a party. And here the NTSB disagreed with the Indonesians. The NTSB also published a 'findings' report.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Estonia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
few speculations
Here is one example of a small piece of fuselage that was peeled off during a break up process. Peeling continued rearwards until structure was weak enough to break apart close to wings, not close to tail.
I wonder if aerodynamic drag could have been large enough to yaw the plane significantly right after initial event when there was an initial hole on the left side, close to wings? I don't know how autopilot behaves if it is not able to compensate that kind of yawing? Switches off? Alternate law activates? Could pilot then break VS off by too large rudder movement?
Then I haven't seen any picture of floor. It seems that seats were shedded off the floor one by one. Could that mean that floor is also in small pieces?
It also looks like not all seats have scorching marks from fire. I remember that doctors said, scorched were passengers from very rear part.
It seems to me that after initial event on left side, that side started to shed pieces of fuselage and floor increasing aerodynamic drag and making the plane to yaw and change direction. It looks like initial event created hole between cargo hold and passenger cabin. Shedding continued until planes structure became too weak and it broke off close to wings while aerodynamic drag bent tail sharply to right, breaking it off from the remaining fuselage.
I wonder if aerodynamic drag could have been large enough to yaw the plane significantly right after initial event when there was an initial hole on the left side, close to wings? I don't know how autopilot behaves if it is not able to compensate that kind of yawing? Switches off? Alternate law activates? Could pilot then break VS off by too large rudder movement?
Then I haven't seen any picture of floor. It seems that seats were shedded off the floor one by one. Could that mean that floor is also in small pieces?
It also looks like not all seats have scorching marks from fire. I remember that doctors said, scorched were passengers from very rear part.
It seems to me that after initial event on left side, that side started to shed pieces of fuselage and floor increasing aerodynamic drag and making the plane to yaw and change direction. It looks like initial event created hole between cargo hold and passenger cabin. Shedding continued until planes structure became too weak and it broke off close to wings while aerodynamic drag bent tail sharply to right, breaking it off from the remaining fuselage.
Last edited by Prada; 10th Nov 2015 at 08:37.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alternate places
Age: 76
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sarkak, I thought I would put your image of the Hudson A320 alongside the Metrojet image of inside the tail:
Last edited by FDMII; 10th Nov 2015 at 01:05. Reason: oldoberon, sorry - it fit on my screen nicely.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Schiphol
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@prada
Then I haven't seen any picture of floor. It seems that seats were shedded off the floor one by one.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Investigators from various parties ....
and plenty of wreckage but still no definitive evidence of the catalyst
8 days later .......
and plenty of wreckage but still no definitive evidence of the catalyst
8 days later .......
There are numerous reasons why this initial evidence is kept secure until all the evidence is assembled .. not the least of which is political .. followed by security reasons, followed by a number of other reasons.
The media have advised that there is overwhelming suspicion .. obviously backed by initial evidence .. that the aircraft was brought down by a small bomb planted in one passengers luggage.
Due to this overwhelming suspicion, numerous airlines have now been proactive in taking sensible steps to protect their aircraft, their pax and their reputations.
KLM has now advised it will carry out its own luggage security screening at SSH, to ensure proper standards of luggage security.
Egypt is now paying the price for failing to ensure that airport and luggage security levels were high .. and even higher than normally required .. in an area where terrorists have been active for an extended period of time.
It has been reported that the help of the FBI is being sought by the assembled crash investigators, with regard to explosives forensics skills, to assist the investigation.
It is not unreasonable to assume that the explosive used was in liquid form, hidden in unremarkable-looking bottles in luggage, and this process would simply confirm the standard recent MO of the terrorists, and to ensure a lack of security forces scrutiny, by the unremarkable appearance of the bottles not posing as a potential threat.
This process would also ensure that any explosive traces left were difficult to find, difficult to easily see, and would need high-level forensic examination to confirm what explosive was used, and where, and how it was detonated.