Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BREAKING: EgyptAir flight from Paris to Cairo has disappeared from radar

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by vaztr View Post
    Oz media now citing an ATSB report from 2009 that showed concerns of the window sensor detector unit overheating in 12 Airbuses.

    If the DC2 BUS did die because of this would all radios be disabled? I'm just thinking that if I were PNF I'd be getting a message out about smoke in the plane?
    Or you might be shutting down non-essential busses and killing VHF 3 (ACARS) SATCOM and most of the VHF/HF gear in EMER ELEC CONFIG. They probably still had basic VHF 1 comms but no time to use them. Telling ATC that you are on fire and the cabin is filling with smoke doesn't get you very far.

    To answer your question, the comms are distributed across multiple busses. VHF 3 (ACARS) is on DC 1. VHF 2 is on DC 2. VHF 1 is on the DC ESSENTIAL bus. ACARS itself is on AC 1.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by KGEG View Post
      Reports are saying the smoke alarms went off for about 3 minutes before the point of impact (or point of possible break up of the structure, just throwing that in there to cover every possibility). In the forward cabin toilet as has been mentioned I think.

      There is a new timeline released by the AVherald:

      Originally posted by AVherald
      a number of ACARS messages indicating cockpit window temperature sensors faults and optical smoke detector activations were received between 00:26Z and 00:29Z, the crew did not respond to a hand off from Greek to Egypt ATC, the transponder signals of the aircraft ceased at 02:33L (00:33Z) and according to primary radar data provided by Greece's Ministry of Defense the aircraft tracked on its course at FL370 until 00:37Z, then flew a left hand turn of 90 degrees, started a descent doing a right hand orbit until reaching 15,000 feet and disappeared out of radar reach at 10,000 feet

      That would seem like a lot of precious minutes wasted before the crew started their emergency descent if it was a fire.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by vaztr View Post
        The problem with these detectors is that even when they do 'go off', investigators don't know about it
        They do. They emit an aural alarm "Smoke, smoke!" that get recorded in the CVR.

        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

        Comment


        • #64
          They do. They emit an aural alarm "Smoke, smoke!" that get recorded in the CVR.
          True, we just have to locate the CVR

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
            They do. They emit an aural alarm "Smoke, smoke!" that get recorded in the CVR.
            I like that in theory, but in reality all you get is crickets.

            Comment


            • #66
              Seen on PPRUNE

              AirDisaster.com Forum Member 2004-2008

              Originally posted by orangehuggy
              the most dangerous part of a flight is not the take off or landing anymore, its when a flight crew member goes to the toilet

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Black Ram View Post
                That would seem like a lot of precious minutes wasted before the crew started their emergency descent if it was a fire.
                I am not sure how an emergency descent would help in a fire situation. But I can think two ways it can make it worse: Oxygen availability and speed.

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                  I am not sure how an emergency descent would help in a fire situation. But I can think two ways it can make it worse: Oxygen availability and speed.
                  The procedure is for smoke removal and the idea is to get down to an altitude where RAM AIR can be selected to help clear it out. Most of the electrical insulation and thermal insulation is designed to smolder but not ignite so smoke is more the expected danger than fire. The little we know of this incident suggests smoke and possibly breakers tripping or circuits failing in some way. I have yet to see anything that strongly indicates a fire.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    BBC report says there is a very deep trench in the Mediterranean where the plane went down. Makes me wonder: How long will the locator beacons sound off this time? They stopped way too early with AF447. Still 30 days?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
                      BBC report says there is a very deep trench in the Mediterranean where the plane went down. Makes me wonder: How long will the locator beacons sound off this time? They stopped way too early with AF447. Still 30 days?
                      1- The requirement is 30 days minimum.
                      2- How on Earth do you know how early did the pingers of AF447 stopped? The range of the pingers is not very long, and you have distortion and reflection in different layers of water of different temperature/density. So you need to be deep and close to detect them.
                      3- In this case, they have already located at least one of them. Sonically speaking. So as long as it doesn't move, they will find it exactly in the fix they have now.

                      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
                        BBC report says there is a very deep trench in the Mediterranean where the plane went down. Makes me wonder: How long will the locator beacons sound off this time? They stopped way too early with AF447. Still 30 days?
                        Depends on the batteries. Could be as little as 20 days if they haven't been replaced recently.

                        I'm hoping Airbus/Boeing will go with this option. Looks good on paper.

                        AirDisaster.com Forum Member 2004-2008

                        Originally posted by orangehuggy
                        the most dangerous part of a flight is not the take off or landing anymore, its when a flight crew member goes to the toilet

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          The procedure is for smoke removal and the idea is to get down to an altitude where RAM AIR can be selected to help clear it out. Most of the electrical insulation and thermal insulation is designed to smolder but not ignite so smoke is more the expected danger than fire. The little we know of this incident suggests smoke and possibly breakers tripping or circuits failing in some way. I have yet to see anything that strongly indicates a fire.
                          I'm going to be very simplistic here.
                          "There's no smoke without fire". An old but very true saying. There does not necessarily need to be flames present for there to be a fire. Wires and instruments can be damaged by heat to an extent where they no longer operate as required.
                          I don't know if the avionics bay of an Airbus is pressurised or not but if it is not then there are there are three things needed for fire to exist. HEAT, FUEL (the wires etc) and OXYGEN. At 37,000 feet there is not a lot of oxygen around. Descend to 12,000 feet and you introduce the final requirement for fire, and by that I mean big, in your face flames to be present. Now, what was previously a smouldering component at 37,000 feet becomes a rapidly spreading fire accelerant.

                          The result is sadly currently sitting at the bottom of the Mediterranean.
                          If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                            I'm going to be very simplistic here.
                            "There's no smoke without fire". An old but very true saying. There does not necessarily need to be flames present for there to be a fire. Wires and instruments can be damaged by heat to an extent where they no longer operate as required.
                            I don't know if the avionics bay of an Airbus is pressurised or not but if it is not then there are there are three things needed for fire to exist. HEAT, FUEL (the wires etc) and OXYGEN. At 37,000 feet there is not a lot of oxygen around. Descend to 12,000 feet and you introduce the final requirement for fire, and by that I mean big, in your face flames to be present. Now, what was previously a smouldering component at 37,000 feet becomes a rapidly spreading fire accelerant.

                            The result is sadly currently sitting at the bottom of the Mediterranean.
                            Allow me to clarify that: when you get an avionics smoke warning and there is detectable smoke in the cockpit or cabin, the DANGER is from smoke more than fire because widespread fire is unlikely due to the nature of the materials used. The greater risk is incapacitation and loss of visibility from smoke. Procedure if significant smoke is detected is to get below pressurization altitude and vent with the RAM AIR. If you are below 200kts you can also open the sliding cockpit windows at that point.

                            If you're really on fire, and that fire is in an inaccessible part of the aircraft without fire suppression, your prospects aren't very good in any case. That is why this can never happen.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Oh yes, you are quite right about smoke being the danger. In 34 years of paramedic service I very rarely came across anyone who burned to death as the press so happily describe it. The cause of death was smoke inhalation and/or poisonous fumes with cremation being a secondary, post death occurrence. The only time where flame fire was the cause of death was in a couple of incidents where a car exploded into flames on impact. The only other incident was a self immolation where the victim poured petrol over themselves and struck a match. I still have the occasional bad dream about that one.

                              The Egyptair pilots were in a "Catch 22" situation really. They had to descend to below pressurisation altitude but to do so introduced oxygen to any conflagration and possibly sealed the fate of the aircraft.
                              Note the use of the term "possibly". I am offering a possible cause here.
                              If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                The safety issue remains one of materials flammability, especially concerning wiring and thermal acoustic insulation materials. After Swissair 111, the TSB and FAA took measures to remove metallized polyethylene terephthalate (MPET) insulation. If this turns out to be an in-flight fire involving MPET, we are going to have a larger discussion on our hands.

                                In the wake of Swissair 111, the TSB made 23 safety recommendations and some of these remain unfulfilled. There is a lot to this and I'm not going to post it all here. But the build date of this A320 may be significant. According to the FAA, a more stringent flammability test has been mandated for newly built aircraft, and the requirement took effect in September 2005. Both the new Boeing and Airbus planes have advanced electrical-system protection and feature low flammability materials, but the was a 2003 build.

                                Originally posted by PBS
                                Commenting on the assertion that MPET (metalized Mylar), the material that added to the fire on Swissair Flight 111, remains in many airplanes, the FAA notes that making the required changes takes time. However, since the June 2005 deadline is just months away, most airplanes will have been modified by now. As for the removal of other insulation coverings in thousands of planes (the majority of the U.S commercial fleet: Mylar in Boeing and Airbus jets, some foam insulation in Airbus, etc.), the FAA says it is considering a proper course of action but feels regulations do not warrant removal of old materials simply because they fail to meet new standards. According to an FAA spokesman, "While not state of the art, these materials"—foam insulation, for instance—"are not unsafe."
                                An interesting article here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/aviation-indu...s-say-1.718143

                                EDIT: This a/c was delivered new to EgyptAir in 2003 and has always been in their possession. Therefore mandates for removal of MPET insulation by foreign CAA's, notably out-of-range agencies the FAA and the TSB, would not apply and it is entirely possible that the original insulation materials were still in use.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X