You don't think it was a bomb because it if was, the repercussions would be enormous?

Isn't that slightly back-to-front logic?

Multi Media
 

Sadly the bad guys have proved themselves to be fairly sophisticated manipulators of the media. Why not bask in days of speculative media coverage then as things start to quiet down, attach a radical name to it. Double exposure. In addition, perhaps they're giving bad guys time to disappear.
The assumption that the Aircraft left Paris, so Paris must have been where a bomb boarded is pretty weak.

And given the way the current batch of terrorists operate it isn't difficult to understand how a small group of like minded airport security staff can coordinate the passage of explosives onto an aircraft at any major European airport , including CDG.
Additionally, there doesn't appear to be any kind of common sense profiling in operation due to various so called human rights acts.

Pilot flying flies and monitors communication whilst non flying pilot Assists in managing the abnormality or emergency.PF can always in 3 seconds say "Mayday mayday mayday Flt 804.Stby further..or PNF can activate the emergency transponder code..part of the procefure in an emergency descent...which if so should have been controllable unless there was fire in the rear and tailplane electrics affected to have lost control.
from 37000 ft its a long drop and if in the radio blind spot they couldnt alert anyone on radio but transonder would have alerted radar controllers.

The ANC (Av Nav Com) is just a guide fellas..not the grail@

Lets hear what the CVR and FDR have to say but too early to tule out technical failure. We are still in the recovery phase.Terrorism shouldnt even be factored until after forensics.Lets not Trump our way into "100% terrorism"...it is too brash.

neilki,

Re bomb be placed in Paris:
why anyone would let a bomb to use it a sector or two down the line when it can be spotted or the aircraft can go tech.

The loss of one Autoflight FCU 2, neither the loss of SEC3 would have incapacitated the aircraft from flying. Automatically the system would switch to another FCU channel.

We got no warning of alternate law, neither the loss of protection, neither the loss of any AFS module. Nor a warning of cabin VS.

The ACARS don't appear to be real, to me

The ACARS may or may not be accurate.
But, bear in mind, the 1st class galley is on the right, just aft of the cockpit bulkhead. High wattage circuits run to it from below, and wire bundles for it and other circuits run under the floor, up the bulkhead and up the outer fuselage wall.

Both the lavs and especially the galleys are very high maintenance areas, subject to heavy use and wear.

Out of curiosity, does Egypt Air have an alternate procedure if they get an AVIONICS SMOKE ECAM?

Granted. With the exception of the AVIONICS SMOKE warning, all of the other ACARS messages, if not daily occurrences, are certainly observable from time to time and don't typically result in the subject aircraft falling out of the sky.

That doesn't follow. The fault codes quoted match the error messages - they could be genuine.

You make a very valid point. One day years ago when I was flying and we had just commenced descent, we had a meteorite flash very close to us and in fact ATC contacted us (we were approx 50m from the radar centre) to say they heard a sonic boom and asked if we were ok. Now I understand they burn up at a reasonably high altitude but still is there a possibility this could ever happen does anyone know?

CB's in the galley should trip if any high powered components fail such as ovens, boilers etc.

The only high power component in the toilet is the water heater and this also has a thermal cutout protection.

ACARS is just a communication system. Sending fault messages to the airline via the CMC, SDAC's,FWC's etc.

Avionics Smoke ECAM warning has a clear procedure to determine the problem, the SEC 2 fault shouldn't cause any problems to the aircraft by it self. The LAV Smoke caution is set off by a lav smoke detector. The ECAM caution wouldn't state which toilet this refers to. This would show on the FAP.

According to these ECAM warnings and cautions, the only one of real corncern would be the Avionics Smoke one. But this could be related to the others. Let's not forget where the cockpit oxygen cylinder is also located.

The ACARS doesn't appear to be reproduced in the correct format, e.g. the following is an example of the final ACARS from AF447.

http://oi54.tinypic.com/2qx4yzs.jpg

Note that the AF447 sent sequence gave F/CTL warnings priority over other events - where possible. In respect of the purported MS804 sequence, some of the type identifiers appear truncated.

ACARS is bound to offer more useful intelligence to work with then terror dramatic theories.

Toilet,Avionics smoke and with light pax load possible panic caused a weight and balance problem??

why was the 360 degree turn?To revert to Greece or Cyprus for improved comm reception and emergency alternate? Was the turn inadvertently scrolled on Sel HDG due to smoked cockpit?Was one crew member incapacitated? We just dont know...CVR will tell.

I wonder how long it can take to comb the reported 11000 ft seabed?

I don't see how you can say that without knowing where the data was sourced from. AFAIK we don't know that.

If it was raw ACARS intercepted enroute from MS804 to the ground station, then I agree there would be lots of formatting stuff as per your AF447 example.

But if it's been dumped from Egyptair's (or ARINC/SITA's) ACARS processing application, I would expect it to look much as we are seeing, with all the extraneous stuff stripped out and only the error codes and messages displayed.

http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/578670a320.png

...lots of opportunities..maybe...at earlier stops?

This is a very simplistic idea of "what terrorists live for..." Given the rapidity with which various high-level agencies have countenanced the possibility of a malevolent cause, it's not really necessary to brag. Indeed the silence may be even more effective, giving a second opportunity to revive the story when it begins to show signs of flagging.

I have no more idea of the cause of this disaster than anyone else, and less than many, but given the nationality of the carrier and that country's recent history terrorism has got to be a significant possibility.

In that respect the fact that this aircraft's last location before its leg to Paris was Tunisia has occasioned less comment than I would have expected - given that the number of Tunisian members of Daish/Isis in Syria and Iraq exceeds that from any other country by a substantial factor.

It's been a while since I've flown an A320...

So R SLIDING WINDOW SENSOR is the window open sensor?
And the R FIXED WINDOW SENSOR does what?

The clear thingy in front of my face used to be called windshield... Even in AB terms.

The rest is clear to me.
Maybe somone on type could enlighten me.

Thanks.


PS: To speculate, this does not sound like there was an explosion at all. If this report is true, and there had been an explosion, there'd be a list of messages as long as your leg...
It reads like a fire spreading in the avionics bay, right hand side.

Unless the reveal of the terrorist unit also reveals the method of infiltration -- thereby cutting off future such terror success.

I honestly wonder if a bomb could've been onboard for two trips -- planted at CAI, but somehow waiting for a second low-pressure reading. Doesn't make sense against ACARS messages, but who knows. It's a thought.

Hi all,
it looks to be a genuine ACARS report :
source : http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/20/mi...ight-804-main/
http://takata1940.free.fr/MS804.jpg

Swissair 111?

Those acars notices show flipped breakers. The final one is the breaker that controls spoilers 1 and 2 on the airbus. Those are on the wing and the fuel tanks on in the wings. Ie the tank exploded. So the question is what caused the smoke that open circuit fault. That could be anything.

There seems to be a relative consensus that the initial 90 degree turn to the left could have been to clear traffic while initiating an emergency decent. However, that would leave the aircraft heading away from the airport. Assuming a fire/smoke, and possibly a resultant loss of comms, they would have wanted to land as soon as possible. Could they have initiated a right turn in an attempt to return to their original heading, but been overcome mid-turn and thus the 360?

As for the lack of a terrorist group claiming credit, keep the self-radicalized concept in mind. The perpetrators of the Paris attacks weren't working under direct control or orders from DAESH, they were acting on their own operational control.

If... IF... there ends up being a terror element to this, it might be some self-radicalized person or cell behind it, inspired by DAESH, BUT working independently of DAESH or whomever. DAESH, or whomever, won't "claim credit" for this until after it's actually proven to be a bomb.

If they were to claim credit for this, and it ends up being a technical issue that caused it, it would discredit the organization who claimed credit.

I agree it sounds like a avionics suite fire on the right side that started with an electrical short in the lav. Does anyone know if egypt air allows lithium batteries in the cargo hold because the low quality ones can overheat and cause a fire in the foward cargo hold which just so happens to be next to the avionics suite. That also would have smoke on the flight deck and in the cockpit too.

Pace, you send a particularly strong and unpalatable message if you whack someone in their own backyard as opposed to on the street. You would make it an even stronger message if you ostentatiously whack them the instant they step over their threshold. There's no need for collateral damage - the message has got through. Burning the house down can remain a valid fear for the future.
And if you're out to cause their nation maximum damage you don't need to indulge in flag-waving like claiming responsibility. Indeed failure to do so causes even more upset and anxiety to the victim through the uncertainty.

ECAM will report on systems as placarded on an intact and undamaged airframe. Who knows what warnings will pop up in the event of physical damage due to blast, impact or fire where it affects black boxes, sensors or cable runs?
If severe damage onboard is suspected we might do well treat those messages as of questionable reliability.

ACARS
 

Both the windows messages are not about the windows being open. The code WHC stands for Window Heat Computer, and this has to do with de-icing.

As for a emergency decent, this is procedure for either cabin depressurization, or fire/smoke on board.

A quick 90 degree turn? Either to get out of the flight lane (not sure if this is company procedure), or just airman-ship to keep positive G while pitching the nose down for rapid decent.

Why no communication? Either the pilots were too busy, or simply the radios were not operating anymore. Did they change xponder code to 7700?

Yeah I was thinking along the same lines, how likely would it be for corrupt ecam dada due to damage to the airframe. If it was a bomb or other explosion it seems it did not destroy the aircraft instantly.

Also this might sound stupid but could a shock wave set off the window sensors?

Windscreen fault causing fire?

yes it would. Fire would lead to the shutdown of the entire suite. I think the 90 degree turn had to do with loss of spoilers.

IMHO this ACAR report could be trigered by a windshield/window arcing. Take a look on fcom
LMCF

RE ACARS
 

Wondering - anti ice probably means for whatever reason- temp sensor ? or FO ? turned on electric anti - ice
something shorted and started a fire - then sensor wiring burned thru- thus the R fixed window sensor?
about a min iater flight control unit went off line

then total failure due to fire in electronic bay ?? :confused:

Wouldn't ACARS report on the ground? When was the last time the avionics bay was opened? Wouldn't ACARS report that ? Look there first if it's terrorist activity. It would have to be the first place that i looked

Not sure if my previous message is waiting for moderation, but I'm new here, so forgive me if it duplicates.

ATA code 561200 and 561100 indicate window panes in the cockpit area. WHC 2 means Window Heat Computer (number 2), which points at the anti-icing system for the cockpit windows. This has nothing to do with opening windows, which is not even possible in a pressurized cockpit, as the sliding window opens first inwards before it slides back. You can't do this in flight.

There is also no indication in the ACARS data about cabin depressurization, but there is for smoke.
Smoke/fire would have the pilots immediately don their oxy masks and do a rapid decent.

I'm not sure about individual company procedures, or whether this is standard over the Mediterranean area, but it could also be airman-ship to make a sharp 90 degree turn while pitching the nose down to retain positive G (bit more comfortable), or it could be standard procedure to get out of the flight routes away from other aircraft.

It does seem all the errors seem to come from the F/O side of the cockpit, including the latter FCU2 and SEC3 faults.

Not making any conclusions yet though.

Does closing the side window on an A320 make or break the warning circuit? If it makes it, then a wire burning through or a solder joint melting and breaking the circuit might be reported as an open window.

Looks a possibility.
Could be the controller.
Ive had a window heat controller overheat many years ago on a nimrod. Filled the cockpit quite quickly and I got to the box before the CB tripped. It was easily accessible to a flight Engineer who knew his way around the equipment racks. Very different proposition on a modern 2 seater.

Lack of a mayday or squark is puzzling though!

for ACARS to report requires power- and a few other items to turn on- otherwise the system would be overloaded with every airplane in every airport reporting along with all those in the Air.

Sabotage motives v small fires spread fast?
 

This didn't stop multiple claims being made after Lockerbie, all done by the next morning. IIRC, PA103 was also supposed to be over the Atlantic at the time of detonation, but local traffic and a delayed departure sent it over Lockerbie instead.

If this plane was downed deliberately then a marine ditching means it takes longer to find out the whole picture. Look how quickly they worked out what happened with Germanwings, whereas the bulk of MH370 remains unfound.

I really don't want to end up reading that this is a terror strike, but nobody admitting anything so far doesn't mean it isn't (hopefully that's better logic than Trump's, but that doesn't take much).

Taking earlier comments about the smooth nature of the initial turns, if there was a fire or explosion, the suggestion is a small one getting out of hand, rather than a more sudden one? But if this was anything like AC797, why turn 360 over sea instead of heading towards the nearest available runway?

If there was any form of sabotage in the cockpit (and I don't think anyone has ruled out this being from the crew, we know of previous disputes and can't ignore MS 990), would the descent be smooth like that?

We all want answers, because most of us here have some sort of job depending on both crew and SLF confidence. Of course the papers love the headlines "holiday jet blown out the sky", but CDG-CAI is a much more mundane (in headline terms) business and VFR* route, but still enough reasons for somebody to want to down a plane if they had the means. If the target was specifically tourism, would you not go for a flight to one of the resorts? I know there is a rather large group of ancient tetrahedral structures in the Cairo suburbs, but the tourist volumes are (were) all on the beaches.

I don't think we can draw many more conclusions until the boxes are recovered, but for all the noise that inevitably surrounds these events, a small fire getting out of hand is looking as plausible as any more sinister theory from what we have so far.

*to avoid double jargon confusion, in this sense I mean VFR as visiting friends and relatives

the flight ctrl computer acars reports tell me the craft was in peril within three minutes of the first acars reports despite the auto redundancy of the systems. the lack of reports thereafter tells me that the reporting system was compromised and broken after only three minutes. I would think it would take a hell of a lot of heat to do all that so quickly.

or, we dont have ALL the info yet. imagine that.

Those ACARS messages are intriguing. I'm not and never have been a bus driver so don't know the systems but... observations:

1. The messages span a period of several minutes. That fairly obviously - to me anyway - precludes a catastrophic event precipitating instant structural failure and breakup. So it's almost certainly not Pan Am 103 or TWA 800.

2. What messages would we expect to see in the event of a sudden depressurization caused by a breach of the pressure hull? What would we expect to see in the event of a crew-initiated depressurization via the outflow valves in an effort to - perhaps - deal with a fire/smoke condition? If there was a depressurization from any cause whilst the aircraft systems were still otherwise substantially intact and functional I would think we would absolutely expect to see a message related to that?

3. This sets me thinking; if - IF - this was an act of terrorism perhaps we should be looking at a device or devices that were incendiary rather than explosive in nature.

4. Is there any further ACARS encoding that would identify *which* lav smoke detector activated? Or will that have to await FDR recovery?

5. The 320 main avionics compartment is directly beneath the flight deck and forward lav... correct?