I have been saying this since MH370 and AirAsia....why not fit GPS spot locators in the tail of aircraft? The type that hikers use are waterproof, report every minute (could be set to 10 seconds) and could be attached to an uninterruptable power supply in the tail. Even if ship power goes out, these units have batteries that can power them for days. Every aircraft in the world (private aircraft notwithstanding) can have position known to GPS precision at all moments up to any impact (and if on land, could keep running for days.) If submerged to a seabed you would lose the location due to depth and signal, but you would know where an aircraft hit the water....And cost? This can be done for LESS than 100 dollar per plane, per year.

... in this ICAO chart you can see the red ellipse marks the last contact area of MSR804.
It seems the seabed is smoother and less deep than further north. Unfortunately you need oceanographic maps for some precise depth measurements...

https://goo.gl/photos/3vaApm8tGUpVS2w5A

I have not seen the RADAR data, only the report in the Times, but looks to me (an Airbus line pilot) as some are saying: like a deliberate 90deg turn away from the airway followed by an emergency descent, so I am thinking decompression.

Then, halfway down they might have thought 'hang on we are heading towards high ground now', hence the right turn - an orbit or a PPOS hold? - to keep them over the sea while still descending to FL100.

Then something happened. Perhaps the crew oxygen ran out or failed in some way, but the aircraft then appears to have exceeded Vne and broken up?

My thoughts are with them and their families.

Well said captains log.

Like this one?
http://www.airlinereporter.com/wp-co.../07/Sky787.jpg

This just serves to demonstrate that anything with an energy source could be hazardous. An energy source that the crew cannot disconnect, even more so.

This (787 ELT) was not jettisonable. If it was, knowledgeable hijackers could simply ditch it and change course. On the other hand, the act of ditching the ELT would activate it, raising an alarm that something went wrong at this location.

The principle argument against jettisonable ELTs is their design, certification and maintenance cost. Ensuring that a part which could intentionally come loose but not damage the airframe is no small engineering task.

GPS location is transmitted.
Download the .csv files from here

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/contact-lost-with-egyptair-flight-804/

Electable and floatable CVFDRs are available for more than 15 years and widely used in military applications. Technology is a matured and proven.

Regular Solid state CVFDR costs $5,000, Ejectable/Flotable one costs $25,000.

So airline has to spend somewhere between $20,000 - $40,000 per plane.

$$Millions per lost life equation doesn't add up to that incremental cost, so they pretend as if technology is not available. We will be having this discussion for decades to come.

Some countries were talking about adding mandatory operative ADS-B and 15 minute location reporting thru ACARS or some other means.

I would say at some point, pilots should ignore the aviate, navigate and communicate and change to communicate, aviate and navigate.

Unless you call out for help, cavalry is not going to come on its own at 12 knots.

Causes and Speculation
 

There is always a great deal of speculation about the causes after every disaster but in truth we will not know until a full investigation has been undertaken.Even than we might still not have the answers as with the Air France disaster off the coast of Brazil. The biggest fear with this and other disasters that the governments and authorities just want a resolution without finding the truth.Latest speculation of a terrorist incident may have some merit.A hijack goes wrong ending up with a struggle with sky marshal's. A dispossed individual with the intent of flying the airliner into a Cairo target...we do know at this stage.

I'm really not sure I follow you logic with that statement.

Surely aviate always has to be paramount - neglecting to do that when the chips are down and instead spending time shouting "help" might mean the cavalry arriving at 12 knots or 120 knots could be irrelevant.

Couldn't agree more, Wiggy.
The very first thing the media and the muggles are interested in is whether "The Pilot" made a distress call. Those on the flight deck are probably far too busy trying to keep everybody alive, or they are already gone. If we do get a mayday out, it's not for the sake of ghouls or the press. It's so that every other Fe***r can get out of the way!

Right, in the same way that on seeing the truck come through the central reservation towards you at a closing speed of 150mph you don't dial 999 and order an ambulance :=

Now imagine something goes horribly wrong when you're driving 3 times as fast.... along the edge of a cliff.... on ice.... at night.

First order of business is to stay alive, no ? Not much point in calling for help to recover your mangled remains... :sad:

Just for completeness, the FR24 track shows a dead stable altitude, direction and speed for the period of time between the attempted communication and 00:29:33 Z. This is within a short number of seconds of the declared 00:30Z loss of primary radar contact. It is quite likely that at 0:29:33Z something happened that caused one of
1 - The ADSB antenna/cable structure to become disconnected from the transmitter
2 - The ADSB system to loose power

Actual FR24 ADSB data has historically proven to be quite accurate in heading, speed, position, and altitude. The errors seen have occurred where people were looking at projected track data or trying to determine to exactly which second a transmission relates.

Once times (to the second) related to the primary radar data are released, I suspect we will find the total time between flying straight and level and having completed the claimed 450 degrees of turning and 27,000 feet of descent will be 30-60 seconds (on the basis that if Greece lost radar contact any later than 00:30:35 Z they would have reported it as 0:31 Z.). That rate of yaw and descent has no relationship to any maneuver an Airbus could be commanded to make.

I would suggest that, despite the very clear graphics presented by the media, the raw radar data will not actually support the image we have been provided of an aircraft maneuvering; But will be more consistent with the radar image of MH17 after it started to disintegrate. (Note - I am not advancing any particular theory as to why this has happened).

As to, 'why can't we have better tracking', even if a GPS and its associated transmitter was perfectly able to continue to transmit till it sank (or ejected), it still could be a very significant distance from 'the important bits' (which ever they might be) of the wreckage as there is considerable potential for differential motion as parts fall from the sky and/or drift down in the water.

So the Egyptians claim they have found the wreckage. Yet nearly 12 since their claim we have seen non evidence whatsoever that this is the case. Yes there was an oil slick but an oil slick was spotted during the MH370 search and it was unconnected.

You have competely missed the point, which was that aviating takes priority over communicating. Always.

The object being to avoid having any mangled remains ...

Mocking jay-

The have also found bodily remains, personal effects, and suitcases. And it was the Greeks who claimed that first off

Contrary to what most people think nowadays, search crews aren't there to enlighten you, they are there to do there job. Press releases will be made in due time.

I find it quite an extraordinary coincidence that another aircraft has 'disappeared' in the "blind spot" of two ATC stations. Of all the places for it to happen...

As an alternative to the currently popular theory of criminal intervention, how sure can we be that this wasn't either:
a) deliberate crew action; or
b) spatial disorientation following a distracting occurrence (such as rapid depressurisation)?

The position must have been close to or after the TOD.

The turns deemed deliberate rather than haphazard...as if to avoid or reactive turns and a descent due/overdue.

Was there CAT forcasted in the area?

For body parts to be manifest it was not a controlled ditch.

Too many jigsawz to fit..too soon.

Let us hope the FDR/CVR are recovered and intelligible.

May the deceased rest in peace.My sincere condolences to all affected, sympathies to Egypt Air and Egypt as a nation.

Let us get facts before dancing the tune of terrorism please.Most passengers were Muslims.No terror organization has made a claim...so let more facts surface.

If the ECAM alerts on AvHerald are genuine then it looks to me like a fire in the avionics bay, followed by emergency descent QRH smoke drill followed by things getting out of hand very nastily and very quickly. RIP to all crew and pax.

On this aircraft is avionics bay directly below forward lav?
Apologies I am not an expert.

On May 20th 2016 The Aviation Herald received information from three independent channels, that ACARS (Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System) messages with following content were received from the aircraft:

00:26Z 3044 ANTI ICE R WINDOW
00:26Z 561200 R SLIDING WINDOW SENSOR
00:26Z 2600 SMOKE LAVATORY SMOKE
00:27Z 2600 AVIONICS SMOKE
00:28Z 561100 R FIXED WINDOW SENSOR
00:29Z 2200 AUTO FLT FCU 2 FAULT
00:29Z 2700 F/CTL SEC 3 FAULT
no further ACARS messages were received

Why have the ACARS messages that have been repeatedly posted here been deleted almost immediately? Obviously they may be totally invented for whatever malicious reason but equally they may be genuine. Given the amount of "noise" here why not leave them in place and let someone knowledgeable cast doubt upon their veracity?
Their immediate removal - whilst all sorts of dross remains - seems a little suspect to me.
One has just re-appeared...

I believe mods - just like me - took it to be a hoax given lack of confirmation from any credible source. Simon posting them on AVH definitely puts more weight behind them.
If they ARE true, it is an incomprehensibly poor show from MS as they had this information since the beginning, and releasing would have avoided much of the uncertainty over the past two days. There is nothing in the data that would be any more damaging than the accident itself.

If MS have had the data, why did the authorities quickly point the blame at terrorists?

It would seem AVH has published this more than a day ago, yet it has not been confirmed anywhere...?

Perhaps that is our Mods' reluctance, but if the info is true it would indeed be the most important details we have thus far.

We would need someone familiar with ACARS to tell us whether these messages, written exactly like that, could have been sent by a real ACARS facility.

No, it was only published on AVH an hour ago. It was circulating on the net without source since yesterday, I would assume Simon has means to verify before posting.

So the acars messages are sent at 0026z.
Radar contact is not lost until 20 minutes later. At 0046z.
Fire.....

Apologies you're spot on.
Only just appeared on AVH but had been referred to prior in other forums.

Yes, they could certainly have been.

Whether they were in this instance is another question.

@ Fox Niner, contact was lost at 00:30Z, a minute after the last ACARS transmission. S&R was launched 00:46.

I would say very rapid change in pressure(explosion) knocked out sensors and very fast decompression caused fog(condensation) witch was detected by fire sensors

The PPRuNe banned ACARS messages and the ADS-B data from FlightAware and Flightradar24 all show the last transmission at about 0029Z.

Fire sensors are actually smoke detectors. They aren't triggered by fog or condensation. They are actually a kind of particle detector. That's not to say they wouldn't have been triggered by an explosion of some kind.

If Ionisation sensors are fitted they may be affected..

Fine mist can trigger fire sensors - including such mundane things as spray-on deodorant in an airline lavatory, especially if aimed upwards at the sensor.

I'm not sure whether decompression could cause sudden mist in the cabin; you have to decrease pressure sharply in an already-saturated atmosphere to get large-scale cloud condensation, and aircraft cabins at 37000ft are very dry. So I think it is unlikely. Does anyone have any contrary data?

Both optical and ionisation detectors can and will trigger on fog. I doubt the types fitted have algorithms to compensate.

Given the ACARS report, does ACARS have sensors that would differentiate an explosion from a fire? If it does, would this rule out a bomb on the plane?

Does the presence and absence of data reports help to rule in or out anything?

Sudden event
 

We all probably agree that this was a very sudden event however we cannot exclude that the trigger was an external object going straight into the cockpit through the windshield, terrorism obviously should not be excluded but the Acars messages, if confirmed, are also compatible with various other events beyond terrorism including , as an example, sudden loss of cabin pressure after compromised windshield. I know it is extremely unlikely but we all know that it is not totally impossible for an aircraft to hit something...a tiny object can cause a total loss of aircraft if the impact point is vulnerable e.g. badly damaged windshield at max altitude, high speed, can easily lead to a catastrophic series of events. Acars messages look genuine. Terrorists look for maximum carnage: this was a very late flight, low nr of pax, and why wait such a long time into the flight?... more likely an incident caused by an external object or internal interference, including an explosion, but probably nothing to do with terrorism, unless something went very wrong in this individual's plan hence the illogical delay. No terrorist group has claimed responsibility neither which is unusual.

The media are all claiming this was terrorism a bomb. I am not convinced for a number of reasons firstly if the aircraft left Paris is would expose a very serious security hole at Paris which would have implications for thousands of aircraft operating out of there

Secondly there do not appear to be any terrorist claims to have committed such a thing itself very strange.

That doesn't mean there was no explosion in the aircraft which may have depressurised the aircraft and caused handling problems.
The aircraft had a light passenger load and it would be interesting to know more on what they were carrying in the hold other than Passenger bags?

To the guy who posted on putting communicate before aviate? The absolute number one above everything where there is a problem with the aircraft is to aviate. No one on the ground will help you one jot in that situation

Ok if you have a problem where you need to land then Yes ATC can relieve some of the pressure so you can aviate by taking over some of the work load giving you steers etc, But frankly if you hit the sea vertically the last thing on your mind is going to be helping the authorities piece together why. You will be 100% on saving your skin and the PAX and aircraft and that means aviating till the end

Wouldn't Acars report "low cabin differential" or similar if aircraft had a decompression.