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 3rd Jun 2016, 17:04
  #1001 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Germany
Age: 60
Posts: 1
Dye makes sense - not in the engines, but what about a small amount of intense dye inside the hull (e.g. floor construction) that would be released if the fuselage breaks apart?
hawk swallow is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2016, 17:08
  #1002 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Clinton WA
Age: 71
Posts: 74
I'm amazed at the fuel dye proponents, for the reasons given so far. There's no reason to dye all fuel when it is needed only for the downed A/C. Dye also isn't a lot better than an oil slick and no good at night, or for an intentional non-disintegrative ditching, so Porlock's florescence or luminescence is a better choice. Dispersal and disappearance over time and via weather also suggests that one 'dose' isn't enough, and that multiple containers that would degrade in water over a sequence of time would be better yet. But by the time you have such a system with its weight installed, a floating locator with a sea anchor begins to make more sense. Back to step one.

Last edited by Leightman 957; 3rd Jun 2016 at 17:08. Reason: Spelling
Leightman 957 is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2016, 17:33
  #1003 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 72
Posts: 2,417
mm_flynn, (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...#post9397831);

In terms of tracking & locating technology, it has existed for some time - we have been using it to follow our aircraft locally and around the world; it works extremely well. It is real-time interrogation using web-based interfaces with user-selected 30" to 10' polling periods. I have no idea why tracking is such an issue; we've been doing it for at least six years now; we know where our aircraft are all the time.

And, for a price, it can do parameter/event monitoring say, for high-acceleration events for example, so that maintenance can meet the aircraft based upon data not crew reports, etc. It isn't an entire DFDR process but it could be sufficient for initial explanations and certainly LKPs.

In terms of retro-fitting for deployable recorders and/or streaming data, I would argue against an industry-wide, regulatory requirement. All recorders in recent over-water accidents have been recovered and read with one exception, the Asiana B744 freighter loss over the Korean Straits.

Acknowledging that, like all human activities, aviation works on risk probabilities (and the management of same!), the design and engineering manufacturer's groups of the industry work on the basis of what an acceptable failure rate of mission-critical elements/components is; the certification standard is, as some here will know already, 10^-9. We can reasonably consider that the loss of MH370 is such an event to which the same standard may be applied, and that the "normal" pattern is the historical one in which in all cases, above exception noted, the recorders have been recovered and accidents understood.

The argument for deployable recorders & datastreaming is essentially an economic one only, and that is a different arena than the case for flight safety. Such standards (for flight safety), are borne by the industry and ICAO member countries when/where accidents occur, and yes, it is expensive, but as you point out, also extremely rare.

I think the case for deployable recorders/data-streaming has not been demonsrated against this accepted standard.

You broach an interesting scenario in your post which needs examination and that is power sources for recorders.

If we are to invest significant funds and the ensuing subsequent certification/regulatory work at all in changing the way aircraft recordings are done, it would be reasonable to focus on power sources for both the data and voice recorders.

Public cries for instant sources of data do not demonstrate the flight safety case for such capability, they demonstrate a willingness to engage in media and political arugments. Ensuring that recorders have uninterruptible sources of power is a flight safety case, and as such is demonstrable, (SR111); they should include as a factor not only electrical system auto-responses to load-shedding and/or damage to wiring through fire or mechanical processes etc., but also losss of electrical power through the intentional use of emergency electrical configuration drills which are intended to remove all power from normal AC & DC busses during smoke of unknown origin emergency drills. (As you observe, we may see loss-of-data here for this very reason, but we don't know yet).

Last edited by PJ2; 3rd Jun 2016 at 17:58.
PJ2 is online now  
Old 3rd Jun 2016, 17:36
  #1004 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: VA, USA
Age: 54
Posts: 559
Far to sensible...

What is with all this sensible chit-chat about plausible identification mechanisms?

Surely these belong somewhere else, where other sensible ideas are discussed - you know like the Tech Log?

Where are all the rumour-mongers? Come on... I haven't read a good crackpot idea in perhaps 5 days of the thread now!
GarageYears is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2016, 17:51
  #1005 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 169
Just Use the ELT

These aircraft already have an ELT, and computerized fault detection. The ELT can already be manually switched on, or triggered by impact (searching the net I found two numbers, 5G and 2.3G) What could be done simply and cheaply is list conditions which are always an emergency and trigger the ELT automatically when those occur. For example, the aircraft:
* is inverted
* is descending at 10,000fpm
* has lost pressurization at high altitude
* has lost power

You get the idea. In one of those emergencies the pilots may never get to the last priority in Aviate - Navigate - Investigate - Communicate, but the ELT is just sitting around. Let it handle the communications.
PrivtPilotRadarTech is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2016, 20:31
  #1006 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 179
crackpot ideas

Garage Years, surely throwing bags of dye on board every flight qualifies?
portmanteau is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2016, 20:32
  #1007 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Seattle
Posts: 644
These aircraft already have an ELT
But it is permanently attached to the aircraft. So for a water landing, there may not be much time between the impact and fuselage (and ELT) submerging. Once under even a small depth of water, radio transmissions are useless.

Deployable ELTs are feasible, technically (already used in some military aircraft). But the commercial transport certification issues differ and make this a rather expensive technology. Particularly considering the number of crashes where a deployable ELT would make a difference in recovery efforts*. The news isn't all in on this incident, but it appears that the aircraft and recorders may be located in a relatively timely manner. A deployable ELT might have only saved a few days of search effort.

*AF447 is one example of where a deployable ELT may have been of great value. MH370 is another.
EEngr is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2016, 21:10
  #1008 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,509
I think the priorities are being mixed up. The ELT will find the a/c, or rather the ELT. The FDR & CVR data will help the crash detectives discover the reason. The old thinking was that the ELT will find the FDR & CVR. Plus, both boxes would be readable. Neither are correct. We've seen, via documentary reconstruction, that the boxes can be very difficult to find and recover, even after the wreckage has been traced. 2ndly it has been the case where one or both boxes had be corrupted and important data was missing.
What we are discussing is 1. finding the wreckage, 2. deciphering the data. The two need not be necessarily be related. The FDR & CVR data can be transmitted live and downloaded at operations and saved for 2 hour periods. It should not be necessary to find 'the boxes' to decipher the data.
That is the debate. Finding the wreckage should be for other reasons, but not the data.
Watching the media telling stories about searching for the Black boxes, then eventually, after humungous efforts finding them, (aka AF447), is like watching an Indian Jones film about 'search for the Holy Grail.' It is so old tech compared with today's aviation space technology. It is as archaic as HF ATC communications. That is a debate been on-going for decades and achieved squat. Let's not fall into the "that's the way it we've been doing for a long time with no problems" cosiness. What will it take to shake the apple cart and catch up with reality? Years ago GPS/TomTom was the work of the devil. Now it is used by mariners, aviators, bikers, hikers. surveyors. runners, GA pilots, etc. etc. The new technology has been embraced. The top of the food chain still has some prehistoric components. Some XXA's are amongst them.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2016, 23:05
  #1009 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 72
Posts: 2,417
Rat_5;

I don't think any aviation folks would disagree with your vision. The above was about, "What do we do on Monday?"

I would love nothing more than to write the rules, for example, that require all aircraft over say, 12,500lbs, to have a minimum of 200 parameters. I've worked with some types that have two parameters (again for example), for the engines...prop speed & torque and which do not have fuel, weight or lat/long parameters. It's legal but essentially useless for serious work.

Here, as has been suggested as a possibility, if the crew used the emergency electrical configuration drill & checklist the recorders stop working and the last few minutes become guess work which can make kicking tin necessary.

In any case, the industry will go where it will go and progress at its own speed which as we know is a conservative but glacial pace.
PJ2 is online now  
Old 4th Jun 2016, 02:19
  #1010 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 25
"Aircraft to aircraft exchange of data packages has always seemed logical to me."

Loose Rivets: You are describing an implementation of "mesh networks". The technology I am familiar with has been maturing at a workable level for about 10-15 years or so, and is usually proposed for swarms of robots/UAVs. It is probably the best proposal I have seen on this forum for reliably propagating small amounts of critical data in sparse regions.
SysDude is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2016, 09:20
  #1011 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: My garden
Posts: 1
MS804 - press release from CNES (French Space Agency)

3 June 2016: https://presse.cnes.fr/fr/disparitio...u-commandement

* data of 20 May 2016 received by Cospas-Sarsat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...rsat_Programme
* analysis by the French Space Agency (CNES) + Joint Space Command (CIE)
* drift models by Meteo-France
* guidance to the Navy, allowing to pick up signals emitted by the black boxes
sowa49 is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2016, 09:55
  #1012 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,327
PJ2
In terms of retro-fitting for deployable recorders and/or streaming data, I would argue against an industry-wide, regulatory requirement. All recorders in recent over-water accidents have been recovered and read with one exception, the Asiana B744 freighter loss over the Korean Straits.
And of course MH370 which you mention later

I think the case for deployable recorders/data-streaming has not been demonsrated against this accepted standard.
You fail to mention cost.

The huge and extreme cost of just recent searches for DFDR/CVR say back 5 years, is immense. But it is not set even against the aviation industry as a whole - it is borne by the taxpayers of sometimes quite poor countries. Certainly, for a short search some claim could be made that it is good training for the personnel and assets that may be in existence already, but after a few days of continuous search burning through the active life of parts and maintenance schedules, and the contracting of specialized equipment this is no longer true. I am happy to accept your argument if your airline (or more correctly your airline's insurers) as part of their operating license accept that they will fund the entire expense incurred by the responsible country(ies), of any search for DFDR/CVR that may be necessary after a crash of one of their aircraft.

At the moment the aircraft operators are freeloading on the international community to pick up the pieces and even to organize the inquiry and tell those operators where they fell short of operating correctly. I do not think that this is acceptable given that relatively cheap simple technological fixes could reduce these costs to the international community substantially.
Ian W is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2016, 11:20
  #1013 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 75
Posts: 1,062
The numbers may look big but in reality the Search and Rescue costs are around the same as the replacement value of a single widebody aircraft.
In the vast majority of cases the recorders are recovered so there is little perceived benefit in imposing a much more expensive equipment upgrade on the global fleet.
The Ancient Geek is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2016, 12:47
  #1014 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,013
Originally Posted by Ian W View Post
At the moment the aircraft operators are freeloading on the international community to pick up the pieces and even to organize the inquiry and tell those operators where they fell short of operating correctly. I do not think that this is acceptable given that relatively cheap simple technological fixes could reduce these costs to the international community substantially.
But you could equally argue that the international community and the industry as a whole, not just the operator of the aircraft in question, stands to benefit from the recovery, investigation and any resulting findings and safety recommendations.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 4th Jun 2016, 13:30
  #1015 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Another FBO !
Posts: 22
Current Patents.


Underwater Echoes
Filed August 21, 2012, by The Boeing Company.
Canadian patent not yet granted.


Aircraft "Buddy" System
Filed March 21, 2011, by Thales.
U.S. patent granted March 4, 2014.


The Floating Black Box
Filed August 26, 2010, by Lockheed Martin.
U.S. patent granted March 11, 2014.

As for "dye bags" or rather "Sea Marker Packet Inflatable Survival Equipment" are in/have been in wide-spread use for many years, but have not been adapted for Commercial Aviation. The question would be, "where would you put said item so that it could be maintained and deployed if ever required.

Further reading available at....

Patent 2843612 Summary - Canadian Patents Database

Patent US8666650 - Method and device for assisting in the locating of aircraft - Google Patents

Patent US8670879 - Automatically ejecting flight data recorder - Google Patents
ArchieBabe is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2016, 15:11
  #1016 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 72
Posts: 2,417
Ian W;

I accept the cost argument as both reasonable and necessary - I mentioned it but didn't/don't emphasize it.. I also accept that, for some, it could be too much to argue that such enormous expense is the cost of engaging in the "long line" side of commercial aviation. After all, the billions spent otherwise, (generally by rich country's governments, I acknowledge), on R&D, regulatory processes and achieving that 10^-9 engineering standard isn't viewed in the same way as the "necessary" response (and enormous immediate/unplanned costs), of finding lost information and knowing what happened. Yet this is the model of progress in aviation safety, and clearly it has worked given the enviable and outstanding record for safety the industry achieves.

This will sound like hedging to those focussed on the realities of fiscal responsibility alone, but it is not intended as such. I truly don't intend that things should continue as they are - things will unfold as they will. But I don't see industry specialists clamouring for such a solution (deployable/streaming), as a priority, and I think that tells us something.

My "What do we do Monday?" remark conveys the need for action now that can have material benefits, but the case for the deployables or streaming and other, more elegant solutions may still be made on a flight safety basis. These two notions require careful examination on their merits alone and should not be accepted out-of-hand as a "logical" solution to an "obvious" problem.

Last edited by PJ2; 4th Jun 2016 at 15:27.
PJ2 is online now  
Old 4th Jun 2016, 15:43
  #1017 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,395
Originally Posted by PJ2 View Post
My "What do we do Monday?" remark conveys the need for action now that can have material benefits, but the case for the deployables or streaming and other, more elegant solutions may still be made on a flight safety basis. These two notions require careful examination on their merits alone and should not be accepted out-of-hand as a "logical" solution to an "obvious" problem.
The risk management matrix for making this decision assesses severity and likelihood. Those sitting in on this kind of decision are from where? What is being hedged against? The risk of a crash, or the cost of what happens after one? Where would you argue that a dollar be spent if you are:
Operator?
Manufacturer?
Regulator?
Passenger?
Other customer?
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2016, 16:41
  #1018 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,509
so there is little perceived benefit in imposing a much more expensive equipment upgrade on the global fleet.

Has it ever been costed?
Has the idea ever been discussed?

If AF447 could be sending back live data about its pitot tubes and air con packs, and the QA 380 could be doing similar things with its engine parameters, surely it is not beyond the wit of man to start fitting FDR/CVR transmitters to all a/c being manufactured from 2018.
Remember the debate about cargo fire detectors and extinguishers after the Valuejet cargo fire? The FAA did a risk/cost analysis about retro-fit of all similar type a/c. It was considered too expensive. The category of cargo hold was designed to survive a fire as it burnt itself out. There had not been a precedent to Valuejet, and it was deemed that had root cause in human error. Notice, now, that all B737 NG and AB's, with the same category of cargo holds, now have fire detection AND extinguishers. They were designed in and cost absorbed. When was the last time they were used? How many times in past 20 years? Yet they are there. How many times would FDR/CVR dreaming have been invaluable in the same time frame? And in the future which is more likely to be needed the most; cargo fire or FDR/CVR data?
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2016, 17:43
  #1019 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: On a good day - at sea
Posts: 236
I find it difficult to believe that the reduction in Maintenance costs alone couldn't offset the cost of real time fault data transmission. I suppose the question is that how can the maintenance data be optimized. In automotive terms we're still at the 'OnStar level' but we really need the F1 level of telemetry to reap the best cost benefit.
nnc0 is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2016, 18:19
  #1020 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada/Malaysia
Age: 79
Posts: 118
Why not send the data to satellite only when the aircraft is flying over water? This would remove a large percentage of aircraft from reporting anything.
BlankBox 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.