Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

EgyptAir 804 disappears from radar Paris-Cairo

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

EgyptAir 804 disappears from radar Paris-Cairo

Old 21st May 2016, 15:20
  #441 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: France
Posts: 169
I take it the avionics smoke detector will detect smoke vented from the cockpit which would suggest a window heating element on the right side could be the cause.
Yes. The Avionics Smoke ECAM can be triggered by smoke sources external to the avionics bay.
seen_the_box is offline  
Old 21st May 2016, 15:22
  #442 (permalink)  


Sims Fly Virtually
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Used to be 3rd Sand Dune from the Left - But now I'm somewhere else somewhere else.
Posts: 687
Years (many!) since I was "in the business", but I wonder if anyone else noticed in the pictures of the debris (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9383765 - post 907) that nothing out of the clothing, belongings, aircraft parts, etc, seemed to be burned or scorched?

Perhaps the debris so far located (or photographed for public consumption) was from the opposite end of the aircraft from where the presumed fire started, and break-up separated those parts from the fire, - or can an inference be drawn, or at least postulated?
ExSimGuy is offline  
Old 21st May 2016, 15:24
  #443 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,364
I can tell you from my own experience that there was no white mist
TBH I suspect no two decompressions are the same, especially the rate of pressure change, the associated temperature drop and I guess also relative humidity will play a part in misting.

I can certainly can remember there being white mist back in the days of being subject to rapid decompressions as part of altitude chamber runs...
wiggy is online now  
Old 21st May 2016, 15:24
  #444 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 64
Posts: 335
mover265...interesting that you say that you had no misting in your event, as that was also my experience in a 747 depressurisation.
mrdeux is offline  
Old 21st May 2016, 15:32
  #445 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,364
The 360 degrees turn, as described by the Greek Defence Minister, is a good pilot manoeuvre to increase drag and thus accelerate the descent.
Well in theory it is, and certainly has it's uses on smaller types, especially high performance types, especially if you load it up...... However whether it is an appropriate, sensible or "good" manoeuvre to employ on a transport category aircraft at night is another matter...and might be "interesting", if not impossible, with functioning FBW.

Basil - good point, thanks.

Last edited by wiggy; 21st May 2016 at 16:02. Reason: Spolling......
wiggy is online now  
Old 21st May 2016, 15:33
  #446 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Universe
Posts: 40
Progressive flight control system failure and Avionics Smoke ?

From the NY Times
¨ First, there was a problem with the autoflight control computer. The jet would have been flying near its maximum speed and elevation at that time. That is the most efficient way for jetliners to fly, and it is safe, but pilots prefer to rely on autopilot systems in those conditions because if they were to ever lose control of the plane, it could be hard to regain, Mr. Mann said. The last message had to do with the spoiler elevator controller, which essentially controls the flaps responsible for pitch and roll control. The computer controlling these failed as well.

“It looks to me like you have a progressive flight control system failure,” Mr. Mann said. It is over the course of two minutes, which might have seemed like an eternity on that plane, but is relatively fast.This is also the moment that the plane left Greek airspace, and at 2:29:40 a.m., Greek controllers lost the aircraft’s trace, just inside Egyptian airspace, about halfway between Crete and Egypt.

Around this time, the plane made a 90-degree turn to the left and then a full circle to the right, dropping precipitously to 15,000 feet from 37,000 and then plunging again to 9,000 feet before it disappeared from radar.


The crew never gave any indication of a technical problem or other difficulties on board, even during the final, fatal minutes when the plane itself was transmitting data indicating a catastrophic failure.

One former crash investigator said that radar evidence pointing to a series of sharp maneuvers in the moments before radar contact was lost suggested that the plane was almost certainly not under the control of the pilots. Whatever upset the Airbus was so sudden and violent that it could not be compensated for by the plane’s automated safety systems.

“In my mind, this basically opens two axes of possibility: either a sudden technical problem or some kind of illicit or terrorist act,” said the expert, Alain Bouillard, a former chief investigator for the French Bureau of Investigations and Analyses.¨
Magnetic Iron is offline  
Old 21st May 2016, 15:35
  #447 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,208
AF447 ACARS

Many more ACARS maintenance messages were issued by AF447.

Considerable speculation swirled around these messages until recovery of the CVR and FDR which showed a thoroughly different scenario to the many that had previously been theorized.

At present we have a few puzzle pieces and many more to recover.
RatherBeFlying is offline  
Old 21st May 2016, 15:39
  #448 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: On a good day - at sea
Posts: 234
The final sequence of ACMS messages transmitted via ACARS was

ANTI ICE R WINDOW
R SLIDING WINDOW SENSOR
SMOKE LAVATORY SMOKE
AVIONICS SMOKE
R FIXED WINDOW SENSOR
AUTO FLT FCU 2 FAULT
F/CTL SEC 3 FAULT

I was considering the sequence of the faults/messages and the absence of some others and ignoring the AVIONICS SMOKE ECAM, it would lead one to suspect an avionics bay event that led to some kind of fire.

Following LAND ASAP in the QRH's SMOKE/FUMES/AVNCS SMOKE procedure, the next action states 'IF PERCEPTIBLE SMOKE APPLY IMMEDIATELY: '. The use of the word perceptible there is because in the case of AVIONICS smoke crew will likely smell the smoke before any ECAM warning is displayed. . The AVIONICS SMOKE detector is very slow to actually trigger an ECAM. I'm even suspecting the Lav smoke detector picked up smoke before the avionics detectors did.

(I had some initial speculations this might be an EFB issue (window mounted (iPad plugged into an 400 HZ f/d supply or some such other jerry rigged setup), which flared up and caused the WHC faults. Back in the day, prior to AIRBUS introducing the new LITHIUM PED FIRE procedure, some recommended moving the smoking device to the FWD LAV))

So while I'm inclined to think this is the result of some issue with, or upstream of, WHC 1 (or 2) and that the subsequent faults are probably related to the spreading fire, what I don't understand with that scenario is why there were so few ECAMS included in the ACMS ACARS msg. Surely there would have at least been a record of a ANTI ICE WNDSHIELD ECAM if that were the case?

Last edited by nnc0; 21st May 2016 at 16:37.
nnc0 is offline  
Old 21st May 2016, 15:54
  #449 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: South Alabama
Age: 69
Posts: 321
@Oldchina

I meant to say "not" survivable. Good catch.
Old Boeing Driver is offline  
Old 21st May 2016, 16:45
  #450 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,121
oldchina

Old Boeing Driver
"... the Lauda 004 incident comes to mind. There is still controversy about whether a high speed deployment would be survivable"


Apparently not, according to Boeing and the final report, at least not at cruise altitude. Certification tests showed it should be controllable but they were made at lower altitude. When Boeing flew the Lauda scenario in the simulator the loss of control was so rapid that there was no possibility of catching it in time.


The issue of controllability has to do with the reverser efflux effect on control surfaces at specific speed configurations.

Deployment at altitude is quite different than early climb
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 21st May 2016, 16:45
  #451 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Torquay UK
Age: 91
Posts: 163
fire onboard

Kittiara

Think Swissair 111
wilyflier is offline  
Old 21st May 2016, 16:49
  #452 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 62
Kittiara
or UPS 6 out of Dubai. If you haven't read those accident reports, then you should before making comments like that
jurassicjockey is offline  
Old 21st May 2016, 17:01
  #453 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nirvana..HAHA..just kidding but,if you can tell me where it is!
Posts: 333
Given a scenario of uncontrollable fire on board,the best fire extinguisher at hand was 37,000' below them....Any recovered flight deck parts could play a major part in the puzzle...and possibly answer the question as to why no distress call was given.....The Egyptair 777 came to my mind too..
All guessing...aren't we!!!!!!
Yaw String is offline  
Old 21st May 2016, 17:06
  #454 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 691
Originally Posted by nnc0 View Post
The final sequence of ACMS messages transmitted via ACARS was

ANTI ICE R WINDOW
R SLIDING WINDOW SENSOR
SMOKE LAVATORY SMOKE
AVIONICS SMOKE
R FIXED WINDOW SENSOR
AUTO FLT FCU 2 FAULT
F/CTL SEC 3 FAULT

I was considering the sequence of the faults/messages and the absence of some others and ignoring the AVIONICS SMOKE ECAM, it would lead one to suspect an avionics bay event that led to some kind of fire.

Following LAND ASAP in the QRH's SMOKE/FUMES/AVNCS SMOKE procedure, the next action states 'IF PERCEPTIBLE SMOKE APPLY IMMEDIATELY: '. The use of the word perceptible there is because in the case of AVIONICS smoke crew will likely smell the smoke before any ECAM warning is displayed. . The AVIONICS SMOKE detector is very slow to actually trigger an ECAM. I'm even suspecting the Lav smoke detector picked up smoke before the avionics detectors did.

(I had some initial speculations this might be an EFB issue (window mounted (iPad plugged into an 400 HZ f/d supply or some such other jerry rigged setup), which flared up and caused the WHC faults. Back in the day, prior to AIRBUS introducing the new LITHIUM PED FIRE procedure, some recommended moving the smoking device to the FWD LAV))

So while I'm inclined to think this is the result of some issue with, or upstream of, WHC 1 (or 2) and that the subsequent faults are probably related to the spreading fire, what I don't understand with that scenario is why there were so few ECAMS included in the ACMS ACARS msg. Surely there would have at least been a record of a ANTI ICE WNDSHIELD ECAM if that were the case?
ACARS, particularly their sequence in time, may be hard to understand from their very few lines displayed on screen, without their full headers, and sequential relations between them, including how they are supposed to be triggered (e.g. with or without delay, priority order, class, etc.).

Since we had AF447 ACARS discussed to death, we should be aware of that ACARS are designed to report "system fault" (and related message). Taken independently a "system fault" can cover quite a lot of events. First, it's hard to figure out the sequence of those events simply at looking at ACARS order, and next, it's hard to figure out what caused the fault to be reported without other data from the maintenance computer.

Nonetheless, ACARS are telling us that between take off and the end of the report :
1. this flight was uneventfull (system wise) until 00.26
2. events took place at cruise (6)
3. ACARS stopped at 00.29, hence 3-4 minutes of reporting.

Next, out of the ACARS report between 00.26 & 00.29, only "SMOKE" looks serious enough for causing the end of ACARS transmission 3-4 minutes later ; excepted from it, those ACARS are telling us that none of the aircraft vital system (and airframe) was actually compromised up to the end of transmission... because nothing else was reported than three minor "faults" up to 00.29. Whatever caused the loss happened after.

Also, whatever caused the smoke to be detected at the first place won't be read from ACARS only ; nothing can tell us if a system "faulting" is the cause or the consequence of a SMOKE event without any further data. So far, all we can do is to think about what action would take the crew while displayed "SMOKE" in lavatory then avionics :
takata is offline  
Old 21st May 2016, 17:19
  #455 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 66
Posts: 1,200
Whilst it seems the acars msg has been confirmed, has it been confirmed that these were the total of the messages ? Given the subsequent flight path, is it plausible that the ap was still engaged, and if not, would an acars msg on disconnect be expected?SLF, so pls don't be too harsh.
Mr Optimistic is offline  
Old 21st May 2016, 17:23
  #456 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 691
ACARS might end transmittng following action of the crew after an "Avionics Smoke" ECAM is tiggered.
if ELEC EMER CONFIG is applied, ACARS should not be powered anymore as far as I can tell.

takata is offline  
Old 21st May 2016, 17:26
  #457 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: South Alabama
Age: 69
Posts: 321
Speculations

I think one of the important pieces to this event is the time it took to go from FL370 to 15,000 feet.

I think I saw in some earlier post that radar showed this to be a rather short time. A shorter time that an emergency descent would take.

Maybe someone here can refresh that information.

I would think a cabin, avionics bay, or lav fire would allow time for some emergency call.

I know they may have been in a poor ATC communication area, but maybe another aircraft on the frequency would have heard them.
Old Boeing Driver is offline  
Old 21st May 2016, 17:43
  #458 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Malmö
Posts: 1
Forgive my ignorance, but I see only "hours and minutes" recorded in the times of these events. Are seconds within minutes not displayed?

Given the above - can we know if these events occur simultaneously and simply appear in the order they do so in this list by some accident of software logic - oris their order on the list absolutely defined by the order in which they occurred?

Also....without "seconds" how can we know the events of minute 26 and minute 27 did not actually occur within seconds of one another....?

Would this information be available to aircrew handling a sequence of errors and therefore allow them to perhaps make a causal link between errors?

I am not involved in the air industry at all, but I do handle systems where error reporting allows me to trace a causal event through real time error reporting.
somethingbrite is offline  
Old 21st May 2016, 17:45
  #459 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 691
I haven't seen any timed data from the radar source anywhere. Only the manoeuvers were described, but it's way too vague at this point. No com reported is somewhat a clue about the situation of the crew by itself. One can imagine a fast pace of events taking place in a very short time.
takata is offline  
Old 21st May 2016, 18:01
  #460 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Universe
Posts: 40
conjecture

With Avionics Smoke, Lavatory smoke, and SEC 3.

The relation of unrelated ( or related ) failures avionics smoke, lavatory smoke and a SEC 3 fault is disturbing and perturbing.
What if the cockpit filled up with smoke ?

The avionics smoke checklist is not easy, and in my opinion should be trained more often, it the real world it does not happen as in the simulator.
I could understand the crew being too busy ( aviating ) to make a radio call.

The possibility of a Electrical fire comes to mind?

Then how does this lead to the appearance that they lost control of the airplane ?
The investigators have their work cut out for them, and the results will take a while to come out.

As we see how conclusions were jumped too immediately. Once again, the experts who know the most at this point will say the least, until the facts come out.
Magnetic Iron is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.