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 23rd May 2016, 08:13
  #621 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3
Originally Posted by West Coast View Post
There seems to be a couple of viewpoints on the effectiveness of water. Last recurrent there was a FAA video that compared a laptop fire suppressed with ice and another water. Ice seemed to be better at suppressing another flare up.
Not sure of its origin, but this video suggests ice is quite ineffective, and liquid water (lots of it) is the best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS6KA_Si-m8. Ice test starts at about 7:40.

If I'm understanding correctly, the issue is that ice doesn't melt quickly enough to cool the battery cells and thus it winds up acting more as an insulator instead, letting them get even hotter. Similarly, Halon alone doesn't work well because it only takes away the flames - it doesn't help cool off the battery at all. Since this is a "thermal runaway" the battery will continue heating itself up further (without oxygen or anything else external) until it is brought below a certain temperature threshold to stop the chain reaction.

According to the video water is best because it absorbs lots of heat and it's easy to douse the battery thoroughly. (And with modern Li-ion batteries, evidently there's not enough pure lithium to cause a problematic reaction with the water itself).
ytpete is offline  
Old 23rd May 2016, 09:52
  #622 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Gone sailing
Age: 54
Posts: 115
re: reports on French media and the NYP about "contact" to Egyptian ground stations

On May 23rd 2016 the French BEA as well as Egypt's Civil Aviation Authority, in response to media reports of an emergency call on Egypt's frequency, stated, that no such communication has been received on any frequency. Egypt's CAA said: "What was published on media today concerning a recording of a conversation between the pilot of EgyptAir MS804 and Cairo Air traffic control is totally false; the aircraft did not make any contact with Egypt’s Air traffic control. [...]
The Aviation Herald
20milesout is offline  
Old 23rd May 2016, 09:57
  #623 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Itinerant
Posts: 711
This morning both the French BEA and the Egyptian CAA state clearly that no voice communication took place as asserted by the French channel M6.

Hopefully at least this particular speculation will cease on this thread...
grizzled is offline  
Old 23rd May 2016, 12:43
  #624 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: attitude is nominal
Posts: 1,068
Did they formally exclude both ATC communications and possible company communications with egypt air HQ?
Less Hair is offline  
Old 23rd May 2016, 13:23
  #625 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,299
No. The Egyptian statement only referred to ATC comms.

Presumably they saw no need to deny something that hasn't actually been alleged anywhere.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 23rd May 2016, 13:24
  #626 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 70
Posts: 275
Egyptian authorities have a history of fitting the the facts to whatever theory is politically correct.

Egypt Air Flight 990 ...

"The two investigations came to very different conclusions: the NTSB found the crash was caused by deliberate action of the relief first officer Gameel Al-Batouti;[1] the ECAA found the crash was caused by mechanical failure of the aircraft's elevator control system"

edmundronald is offline  
Old 23rd May 2016, 13:26
  #627 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 44
Posts: 443
*cough cough* metrojet *cough*
MrSnuggles is offline  
Old 23rd May 2016, 13:53
  #628 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,349
Originally Posted by Stratopause View Post
Real time telemetry does not replace the FDR/CVR but it has advantages:
- much better final position and trajectory than you get from the fringes of radar and ADS-B ground rx
- if there is an issue either with security at an airport or with an aircraft type, earlier data = faster response
- in some cases the flight recorders aren't recovered at all, sp it's nice to have a backup
- an entire FDR image is 138MB. The average web page is 2MB. 70 pax on the IFEC @ 1 single web page = an entire FDR. We need to get our priorities straight on that one and rapidly falling costs mean that it isn't cost prohibitive.

The conventional flight recorders have been very good but they are built on 1950's technology later converted to solid state storage. An increasingly incredulous public cannot understand why we 'lose' aircraft and frankly I can't blame them. Time to get into the 21st Century on this one.
The new INMARSAT Global Express service can, allocate emergency bandwidth up to 50Mbs. They quote being able to run real time video for 'tele-medicine' applications. That is less than 30 seconds to upload the entire FDR and it would easily keep pace with the DFDR recordings and possibly the CVR as well. These bursts of emergency DFDR/CVR could be automatically generated given certain values in the recordings themselves.

However, obviously in the case of a fuselage break up for whatever reason or even violent maneuvers the capability to transmit to the INMARSAT or Iridium networks may not be feasible, so there will always be a need for survivable on aircraft DFDR/CVR. However, there must be better in-water or in remote area location systems. MH370 may never be found, even MS804 may not be found, this is not really acceptable just because bean counters didn't want to pay for a larger battery and engineers were not allowed to come up with a pinger that was more powerful, cleverer but perhaps a little heavier. The pinger could also have its last recorded GPS position encoded into the pinger signal.

Because of the MH370 case ICAO has now agreed to track ADS-B - despite ADS-B, ACARS and SSR being (switched?) off in MH370 case. Brilliant.

It is not only the public that is getting increasingly incredulous.
Ian W is offline  
Old 23rd May 2016, 14:00
  #629 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: France
Posts: 6

Chances are that the system you describe won't last much longer than the ADS-B system itself or the ACARS transmissions and will fail at the same moment.

There may be more data received at the end, but that doesn't mean that it will be easier to locate the wreckage. AF447 sent its last known GPS position not that long before it crashed, but it still took 2 years to find it (agreed that it may have been different if it sent its position one second prior to impact, but obviously that would not have been possible for MS804).
Capry is offline  
Old 23rd May 2016, 14:06
  #630 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 185
Weight of the actual battery is not the issue, % of lithium makes the difference
In thermal runaway event the ratio surface/volume is important. Little batteries (laptops, phones etc.) have big ratio surface/volume so they are better cooled and the thermal runaway is not so probable.

MH370 may never be found, even MS804 may not be found
A few hundred miles away, near Beirut, the wreckage of MH240 is lying on a seabed. Not deep and completely with FDR and CVR on board. Nobody wants to lift it...

Last edited by Karel_x; 23rd May 2016 at 14:17.
Karel_x is offline  
Old 23rd May 2016, 14:07
  #631 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oxford, England
Posts: 297
Modern electronic components use materials that don't support fire, nor do the printed circuit boards. If a component fails and burns out, then there may be localised charing of the printed circuit and surrounding components, but any localised fire would self extinguish. Also, the avionics boxes are metal, often diecastings, so any internal fire would be contained. If there was a fire around the avionics systems, then it must have had an external cause...
syseng68k is offline  
Old 23rd May 2016, 14:08
  #632 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 415

There is no guarantee satellite link will be active for 30 seconds even with multiple antennae.

Cost of Ka band equipment installation ranges from $100,000 - $200,000 per plane plus Inmarsat subscription fees are huge. Not many airlines can afford.

Read about DRS Technologies Automatic Deployable Flight Records ADFRs. Cheap ($20,000) and fail safe.

notapilot15 is offline  
Old 23rd May 2016, 14:15
  #633 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: london
Posts: 33
@IanW Re FDR and CVR

Agree whole heartedly

Something a few of us have posted on this thread and of course it's common knowledge it desperately needs addressing. However it should be the FAA who are culpable here and should be making am mends. Bean counters never will....
captains_log is offline  
Old 23rd May 2016, 14:20
  #634 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oxford, England
Posts: 297
FAA and the industry ?. A cynic might see that as a a similar situation to vehicle engine testing, where the industry has been gaming the system for years in collusion with the regulators. Not a conspiracy, but realistic regulation based on risk analysis, cost and the state of the art in terms of available technology. You can't gold plate everything based on a very low risk...
syseng68k is offline  
Old 23rd May 2016, 15:21
  #635 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: VA, USA
Age: 55
Posts: 561
How often do iPads catch fire?

Lot's of ideas related to the FO's iPad catching fire and taking out the aircraft, so I thought it worth trying to find out how often iPads catch fire generally...

So, this isn't truly a scientific search, but try typing in "iPad battery fire" or "iPad fire" into Google and see what you get? Not very much at all, and certainly I couldn't find one video of an iPad catching fire without an external source or of the remains after a fire caused by the battery igniting.

I'm not saying it isn't possible but it just seems very, very, very unlikely, given it clearly is incredibly rare generally. As far as I can see an iPad fire seems about just as likely as the aircraft being hit by a falling satellite part, when it comes to probabilities.

I understand it is human nature to want to fit a solution to the puzzle pieces we have to date, but I am firmly of the believe that it's just too soon and we just don't have enough info for anything to be meaningful.
GarageYears is offline  
Old 23rd May 2016, 15:42
  #636 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Schiphol
Posts: 345
@GarageYears - dont know if EgyptAir carries ipads or laptops - but may be a good idea to separate these from their batteries and their chargers. Each have different issues.

A number of years ago a specific make of laptop, of what normally is a quality supplier, experienced a very large number of fires. I am not sure if it was the charger or the battery pack that caught fire. I do remember that many thousands had to be returned/replaced by the manufacturer.

Which also points out that for a proper technical discussion you may have to distinguish between manufacturing batch issues and more fundamental issues related to the specific technology.

Another issue, that certainly has to be included, is aging of batteries and packs. Older lions keep showing 100% but their actual capacity over time gets less. Also, older lions and rechargeables may be hotter than when they were new while charging.

A number of years ago i was involved in a system that heavily depended on lion batteries. We experienced a number of operational issues with them. At the time it surprised me how little information there was on them for operational users. So at the time, for that (radio and comms related) system, i started collecting my own.

An example of the lack of information is how to charge an iPad. Do you charge it to 100% and unplug it. Or is it better if you leave it plugged. And if you leave it plugged, is that when you dont use it, or (as some say Apple recommends) is it better to unplug it if you start using it. Simple questions but very hard to get a clear answer.

Some of the above is the reason why i asked if earlier, if for example an iPad is part of the aircraft configuration or part of the 'pilot configuration'. @nnco provided information about Class 1,2,3 EFB's. To answer the issues mentioned above you would require a more detailed classification system.

In a way you might compare these issues with earlier issues concerning the introduction of In Flight Entertainment Systems. It took a fatal accident with heavy (including NTSB) criticism of the FAA before old lessons were relearned. If you are unsure about facts, then you still have some more work to do.

Last edited by A0283; 23rd May 2016 at 16:02.
A0283 is offline  
Old 23rd May 2016, 16:22
  #637 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 75
Posts: 1,078
It seems that the airmchair quarterbacks around here have never heard of the KISS principle, AKA Occams Razor.

There is, for example, a very simple possible solution. If a wiring bundle is incorrectly secured it can chafe against the structure until some insulation is damaged. This has happened many times in the past. This can cause an electrical arc without tripping the associated breaker. The arc causes a chain of insulation damage to adjacent wires in the bundle which will either short or go open circuit depending on wire thickness.
We now have multiple and confusing errors with apparantly random breakers tripping and a probable drop to alternate or direct law, all accompanied by choking insulation smoke.
At this point loss of control is very likely due to confusion and pilot overload.

There are, of course, other events which could explain the known facts and it is premature to draw conclusions until all of the evidence is in. History tells us that the "swiss cheese" model almost always applies with a simple failure completing a chain of hazards.
The Ancient Geek is offline  
Old 23rd May 2016, 17:19
  #638 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Simply Towers.
Posts: 3
They are using a submarine craft normally used for oil work and capable of depths of 3000mtrs apparently.

Last edited by Simplythebeast; 23rd May 2016 at 19:08.
Simplythebeast is offline  
Old 23rd May 2016, 17:23
  #639 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 73
Posts: 3,342
According to today's Times, it's actually a SUBmersible. A French-built remotely-operated piece of kit, used for oil-rig work etc. Capable of 10,000' so it says.

Simplthebeast. You posted while I was typing!
Herod is offline  
Old 23rd May 2016, 17:37
  #640 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,617
Originally Posted by Herod View Post
According to today's Times, it's actually a SUBmersible. A French-built remotely-operated piece of kit, used for oil-rig work etc. Capable of 10,000' so it says.
That makes sense. It's the kind of kit that may be able to get a sniff of that little pinger ... or maybe side scan and get a glimpse of the hull/engines?
The submersible that Mr. Sisi said was headed for the search zone on Sunday is operated by the country’s Petroleum Ministry and can descend to a depth of 9,800 feet. The vessel was not manned and is normally used for oil and gas exploration, said Hamdy Abdel Aziz, a spokesman for the Petroleum Ministry.
Mr. Sisi said he hoped the submersible would find the flight voice and data recorders, although experts said it was not clear whether it had the necessary equipment to find them.
Here's hoping ...
Lonewolf_50 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

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