EgyptAir 804 disappears from radar Paris-Cairo

[Local Variation]

It will do alot of damage, hence the use of double knock detection where supression is fitted.

Lessor of the two evils ?

Alot of the kit is low voltage and whilst electronics component may burn, they will burn out and not spread to neigbouring products, alas the static invertor EJ instance out of Liverpool. Still nasty though if you read the report.

[Edinburgher]

Signs of Charing on Material Recovered From "Crash Site"?

Have been following this post since news about the unfortunate loss of the Egypt Air flight first broke. Obviously it's far too early to determine what exactly was the cause of the loss of the aircraft. However - and apologies if someone has posted this already - with regard to the theory that an on-board fire may have been a contributory factor, given the smoke-detector messages received via the ACARS transmission...

I just happen to watch the following video on the BBC website of debris recovered from the sea that are purported to originate from flight MS804. If you look at the sky blue material (with what looks like the Egypt Air logo on the reverse side) that is shown from about 4 seconds in, the edge towards the right of the picture seems to show discolouration akin to synthetic cloth being exposed to a head source. At about 7 seconds into the video the shot moves to close up on the material, and centre right of the picture a blackened edge to the material can be clearly seen, which appears to be charring. EgyptAir: Submarine searches for missing flight data recorders - BBC News

Looking at the following interior shot from a Egypt Air 737 - have been unable to find a comparative shot from and A320/1 but someone may be able to help there - one of the seats to the left of shot appears to have a pillow upon it which is covered in a very similar material in terms of colour and logo to that seen in the video. http://www.seatmaestro.com/wp-conten...50_1024_WM.jpg

May be nothing, but given the - limited - information we have to hand at present thought I would just mention it.

[nnc0]

Originally Posted by A0283

Question:
From a strict "Configuration Management" point of view.
Assuming that the airline provides Ipads/laptops to the pilots.

Are these Ipads/laptops considered to be part of:
a. the Configuration of the airplane,
b. the 'configuration' of the pilot (dont know a better 'word' to described this),
c. part of the 'configuration' of the pilot when entering the cockpit, but becoming part of the Configuration of the airplane by either c1.connecting the ipad/laptop to airplane power and/or airplane network, or c2. inserting part and/or serial number in an airplane database or airplane carried document/log.

Class 3 EFBs that interact with the aircraft are hard wired into the aircraft and are considered installed equipment.
.
Class 1 (iPads) and 2 (laptops) are a either assigned to the pilot or the aircraft depending on the operators policy but none that I'm aware of are considered installed equipment.

Class 2 EFBs can receive data from the aircraft but don't push anything to the aircraft. Class 1 EFBs are simply document viewers.

Class 1, 2, and 3 be powered by the aircraft's electrical supply one way or another.

[ExSimGuy]

Signs of Charing on Material Recovered From "Crash Site"?

@ Edinburgher - I commented a couple of pages back (before BBC got hold of the video - from the link here?) that there did not appear to be any sign of burning or charring on the debris - but admitted that it was possible that the aircraft broke up before any fire could spread to the part that the debris was from.

Looking again at the video, I can't tell if the dark edges are charring or (I suspect) shadow. Remember that the sun is usually very bright at that sort of latitude and will give very noticeable shadows. I tried to run that section, from 4 to 7 seconds in, several times but could not decide. Coincidence that this effect was visible only on the side farthest from the camera?

[ArchieBabe]

There is no "fire suppression equipment" in the avionics bay.


The "smoke detector" is situated in the air extraction duct of the avionics ventilation system. It's purpose is to detected smoke and provide (an) alert(s).
A single chime. A master caution light. An ECAM caution. A "smoke" light on the Emergency Electrical Power panel. And on the Ventilation panel, the "Blower" and "Extract Fault" light up.


Note. The sensor alerts you to the fact there is "smoke in the ventilation extraction duct", not that there is "a fire in the avionics compartment".

[andrasz]

@ Edinburgher


To me that just looks like a play of shadow and light, I see no trace of charring.

[Pace]

Andrasz

This aircraft impacted the Sea at high speed and may have broken up in the way down with wreckage scattered over a large area
How do you know that the bits your looking at are from anywhere near the burnt section ?

[ArchieBabe]

It is now being reported that the pilot (a pilot) of MS804 was in contact with Cairo (several minutes long) before the crash.


It is reported that he informed Cairo about the "smoke which had engulfed parts of the aircraft" and had "decided to make an emergency descent to try and clear the fumes".


This report is not confirmed by any investigating authority, but is receiving wide spread media coverage.


EgyptAir pilot spoke with air traffic control 'for several minutes before flight MS804 crash' | Africa | News | The Independent

[Above The Clouds]

tramaupat
I'm sure this must have been thought of before.... but if everyone has donned O2 masks in the case of smoke or fire, and given that many areas are hard to access, why not purge the aircraft of O2? or at least in areas of high risk like electronics?

You might be surprised to learn that in the event of a cabin fire the pax are not given O2 it is isolated to prevent the O2 feeding the fire.

[henra]

Originally Posted by JohanB

These problems experienced by users of lithium batteries raise concern about the use of these batteries in commercial aviation.

Yes, but what does that have to do with this accident?


You do not want to tell me that a fire of LiIon Battery in an IPad would have brought this Airliner down from 37kft in less than 6 minutes?!
Seriously.
A fire in an inaccessible Electronics compartment and close to the FCC's is a whole different beast, though.

[chefrp]

Andrasz,

you stated earlier:

Also not mentioned here previously, the role of those three security personnel on board is not limited to in-flight, they also maintain ramp security during turn-arounds, and they are the ones who actually open/close the cargo doors. Anyone trying to gain access to the avionics bay would have to dodge them. Not saying it cannot be done, but rather unlikely during a short turnaround.

It was reported in the NY Times today that the on board security personal on Egypt Air does all of these checks you mentioned, except in European airports.

NY Times:

Security officials said those procedures would have applied to the EgyptAir plane during short layovers it made at two African airports — in Tunis and the Eritrean capital, Asmara — in the days before the crash. But the procedure is different in Paris because European airports do not permit EgyptAir security officials to search local cleaning workers, a source of disgruntlement among Egyptian officials who feel they are being discriminated against.

This adds a bit of intrigue to the security situation in Paris....

[CONSO]

Originally Posted by gcal

@Local Variation
I am not sure (like so many on here) but fire suppression in an avionics bay is surely liable to do an awful lot of damage, if triggered, as these things often are, falsely.
I stand to be corrected by someone more current.

Common Halon simply starves the fire of O2- little damage- BUT does little to cool hot objects which can reignite. Water cools and is used fo major computer installations on the ground- really with little damage to commercial grade electronics. Damage to avionics fires in an airplane is far down on list of priority issues.

[Local Variation]

There is technology out there that introduces nitrogen via a generator to the local atmosphere at expense of oxygen. This provides around a 7% shift in the ratio of the two, with N2 increasing to around 86%. That shift is enough to prevent a fire starting. Obviously not for the cabin though.

These figures are based on ground level.

[andrasz]

Originally Posted by Pace

How do you know that the bits your looking at are from anywhere near the burnt section ?

I don't, and never claimed that. All I said is that I do not see any burn marks on the parts displayed on the BBC video.


However I did say, and maintain until proven otherwise, that the wreckage shown suggests that the aircraft came down in one piece at high speed. The reasoning on p26.

[CONSO]

Originally Posted by Local Variation

There is technology out there that introduces nitrogen via a generator to the local atmosphere at expense of oxygen. This provides around a 7% shift in the ratio of the two, with N2 increasing to around 86%. That shift is enough to prevent a fire starting. Obviously not for the cabin though.

These figures are based on ground level.

yep- basically a molecular sieve ( strips out oxygen from air ) - and used in fuel tanks to prevent explosion and fire from overheated fuel.

[Local Variation]

Conso. Halon is banned and has been for along time.

[HeavyMetallist]

Originally Posted by Local Variation

Conso. Halon is banned and has been for along time.

Production of halons is banned, which is why the contents of existing extinguishers are recovered for reuse in new ones when they become time-expired. They're still the most effective extinguishers for knocking down in-aircraft fires.

The rest of this "purge the fuselage with gas" stuff is nonsense, though - and I look forward to hearing it repeated by TV experts later this evening.

[LookingForAJob]

Halon is banned and has been for along time.

Although not really pertinent to the discussion at the present time, This is an incorrect and misleading comment. The manufacture of some, maybe all, CFC compounds has be prohibited for some years, existing stocks are recycled as far as possible - and, I believe, still used in aircraft in certain fire extinguishing systems.

[Wageslave]

The sort of "fire" resulting from major electrical shorts and perhaps with added bottled oxygen isn't going to look like or behave like a pool of burning oil (or brandy in a hot frying pan). Take away the O2 with an extinguisher and the arc-welding effect continues unabated, sparks, vast amounts of heat, masses of noxious smoke and molten metal flying around and eventually after several seconds the extinguisher runs out of puff and you're back to square 1. No change. Taking away the electricity may work - eventually, but short of flooding the avionics bay with water extinguishers won't do much in the long term while the power flows. Burning molten metal can obtain oxygen from all sorts of sources, it doesn't need air. Think arc welding. Think chucking water on a magnesium fire.

The sort of "fire" obtained by an electrical arc is outside the scope of any extinguisher we carry on board, partly because it isn't actually a fire in the conventionally meant sense.

Could an ipad bring down an aircraft in 6 minutes? Why not?
As a purely speculative suggestion to illustrate the possibility one might imagine a scenario where the ipad or notebook in the side stowage brewed up, FO fled his seat, Capt dons mask so comms v. difficult. FO can't get at device due smoke, heat and molten metal spraying from the burning batteries. It's but a short step then to the crew oxygen mask lines and wiring behind the side panelling in which reside high current window heat cables and more...
How quickly might that then develop?

Although I am in no way suggesting it as a scenario in this incident my guess is that such a progression is perfectly possible.

[tmac21]

Quote:
How about? How about? How about? How about waiting until the recorders have been found and analysed by trained experts in the field of accident investigation?
Exactly ...

I was thinking of posting regarding an anti-terrorism theory but why bother ... I can outsmart people but I'm damned if I'll outstupid them!

So, curious then as to why you are posting?
Why not await the comments of said trained experts ?