UPDATED 5/21/16: Egyptian authorities have released photos of MS804 debris recovered from the ocean. Here’s a cropped version of one of them:
The size, the shape of the edges, the amount of exposed honeycomb and even the presence of fasteners is quite reminiscent of MH370 debris found in the western Indian Ocean, especially “No Step.” Of course, marine fouling is absent.
UPDATE 5/20/16: CNN has posted a screengrab showing ACARS error messages just before MS804 crashed:
As you can see in the diagram below, there is a lavatory directly behind the captain’s seat. If there is thick smoke in there, it could penetrate down into the avionics bay below:
Gerry Soejatman points out: “It appears that aircraft may have had an in-flight fire and if so, the aircraft maneuvers could be due to Smoke Removal Emergency Procedures, which involves descending the aircraft to 10,000 feet and also opening the cockpit window.”
A reader interprets the ACARS messages:
00:26 ANT-ICE R WINDOW; a fault is in either the right sliding window or fixed window (not the windshield).
00:26 R SLIDING WINDOW SENSOR; the right window heat control unit detects a problem with the sliding window sensor circuit.
00:26 SMOKE LAVATORY SMOKE; smoke detected in the lavatory.
00:27 AVIONICS SMOKE; smoke is detected in the Avionics bay.
00:28 R FIXED WINDOW SENSOR; the right window heat control unit detects a problem with the fixed window sensor circuit.
00:29 AUTO FLT FCU 2 FAULT; autopilot flight control unit (Mode control panel) channel 2 is faulted. Channel 1 still OK so no big deal.
00:29 F/CTL SEC 3 FAULT; the number 3 spoiler elevator computer is faulted. Number 1 and 2 still OK.If a bomb has gone off near the forward toilet the blast may have damaged the right window heating somehow. There would be a short delay until the toilet smoke detector goes off.
ORIGINAL POST, 5/19/2016:
At timing of writing, 6.15am Eastern Daylight Time, Egyptian and Greek military boats and planes are still hunting for a missing airliner, Egyptair Flight 804, which disappeared over the Mediterranean Sea at approximately 2.30am local time. The plane was three and a half hours into a scheduled flight from Paris, France to Cairo, Egypt.
Airbus has put out a statement which reads, in part:
The aircraft involved, registered under SU-GCC was MSN (Manufacturer Serial Number) 2088 delivered to Egyptair from the production line in November 2003. The aircraft had accumulated approximately 48,000 flight hours. It was powered by IAE engines. At this time no further factual information is available.
Here’s a screenshot of the ADS-B data reported by FlightAware. Note that this data is considered highly unreliable–but at the moment it’s all I’ve got:
Open in a separate tab to see full resolution. Note that the disappearance is sudden — the ADS-B doesn’t show any descent profile. This would be consistent with a catastrophic loss of electrical power (as perhaps due do a bomb or missile strike) or to someone deliberately turning off the electronic forms of communication, as was done in MH370. Below is a plot of the plane’s last known location.
Worth pointing out that the weather at the time was fair, suggesting that the incident was not weather-related, like AirAsia 8501 or Air France 447. I find it interesting that the disappearance took place right after the plane crossed from one Flight Information Region (FIR) to another–that is to say, when transferring from one air traffic control zone to another. MH370 disappeared under similar circumstances (also in fair weather in the middle of the night.) I would be very interested to see the ATC transcripts–in particular, to know if the plane signed off with the Greek controllers and failed to contact Egyptian ones.
The Mediterranean is a heavily-traveled body of water, both by sea and by air. It is heavily monitored. One can only presume that at the time it vanished from secondary radar screens it was being tracked by primary (military) radar as well. What’s more, based on historical precedent, when planes get into trouble at altitude like this, they tend to come down very close to their last known position. At the exact moment I write this, no debris has been found, but given the good weather conditions and the very small area to search, we should expect wreckage to start turning up very soon.
The Independent notes, “In March, an EgyptAir plane flying from Alexandria to Cairo was hijacked and forced to land in Cyprus by a man wearing what authorities said was a fake suicide belt. He was arrested after giving himself up.” In air crash circles, the name Egyptair is synonymous with EgyptAir 900, which crashed off Nantucket when one of the junior pilots deliberately steered into the ocean. At this point, both terror and suicide remain possible causes in the current incident.
UPDATE 7am EDT: The Guardian has just published this timeline, put out by Greece’s civil aviation department:
02:24: EgyptAir flight 804 from Paris to Cairo enters Greek airspace, air traffic controller permissions it for the remainder of its course.
02:48: The flight is transferred to the next air traffic control sector and is cleared for exit from Greek airspace. “The pilot was in good spirits and thanked the controller in Greek.”
03:27: Athens air traffic control tries to contact the aircraft to convey information on the switch of communications and control from Athens to Cairo air traffic. In spite of repeated calls, the aircraft does not respond, whereupon the air traffic controller calls the distress frequency, without a response from the aircraft.
03:29: It is above the exit point (from Greek airspace).
03:29:40: The aircraft signal is lost, approximately 7 nautical miles south/southeast of the KUMBI point, within Cairo FIR.
Immediately the assistance of radars of the Hellenic Air Force is requested to detect the target, without result.03:45: The processes of search and rescue are initiated, simultaneously informing the Flight Information Region of Cairo.
It seems, then, that unlike MH370, the flight crew here did not sign off with ATC before leaving their airspace.
Erik – sorry i got your second name wrong. I’ve been hanging out with too many scandihooligans 😉
What is telling to me is -like in MH370- the conflicting or wrong information that arises in the media just after an accident like this.
CBS news now states f.i. fire was first detected in an engine. Where does that come from?
And also; ‘the black boxes are located’. BBC and CNN still state boxes are not located yet. Nowhere els econfirmation.
What is this? Irresponsibly trying to get headlines and viewers?
Or just ordinairy humans at work…
@Jeff Wise.
Yes that piece surely reminds me too of the ‘no step’ piece with that one remaining fastener although I think this looks more twisted and damaged. But the resemblance is surely striking.
On the other hand those interior (seat) parts are not at all like the interior Rodrigues part or the other MH370 parts (flaperon and flap-fairing) except also the cowling-part maybe.
By the way; the allready (and later) found floating debris after this (imo) high speed impact can give a good indication of the amount of debris which can be expected in case of a high speed impact of MH370.
And also about the kind of debris expected and state they are in when found.
Imo also Inmarsat data on this accident could be of help and offcourse let’s hope soon; the black boxes.
@all in relation to MH370, its obvious that ACARS can report fine grained issuses as smoke in parts of plane in advance and as some sources told, Pentagon hac satellites able to detect infrared emmitting incidents (so explosions) to some extent; nothing of above mentioned in relation to MH370, though
OT break: the damn propaganda bullhorn plays Pink Floyd song through nice Azerbaijan band:
https://www.facebook.com/cz.sputnik/videos/1078197475552396/
Thanks Paul Smithson for your open mind & observant eyes 🙂
For sake of future flyers, perhaps a sophisticated FBW system requires some sort of “Help File” system, like MS Excel, Office Suite, Wolfram Mathematica ? The cndnsd smmrs dsplyd on the various panels strewn around the FD are often very confusing & uninformative. If pilots could, say, double-tap on a touch-screen-display version of the same, to access a Help File system, then they could quickly remind themselves of all the minor details they over-viewed in pilot training.
Not communicating with the outside world is easily attributable to a variety of other factors, including distraction, frustration, prioritization, even psychological issues e.g. embarrassment, fear of recriminations & reprisals. Probably they’re too busy yelling at each other to talk to ground.
Re: MH370, I’d like to reiterate, IF the “cabin was disintegrating”, then pieces & parts of the plane could have detached at any point along the ghost-flight path, e.g. Reunion flaperon detaches near 10S 90E around 21:00 = 5am Malaysian.
Please note, all retrieved wreckage derives from the right-side of the a/c, perhaps indicating some sort of mechanical failure of the fuselage along that side ?? Maybe they all detached en route & NOTHING has been found from the actual main body which somehow crashed well outside of the current ATSB priority search zone ???
As a quick trivia challenge question… if a B-777 is descending on initial approach, at 20-30K’, 400-450kts… and the pilot suddenly manually over-rides the AP / AT settings, by twisting the control wheel to one side (e.g. right), pulling the control column backwards (to pitch up away from the ground), and possibly pushing the thrust levers forward (to thrust away from the onrushing ground)…
what AT / Pitch / Attitude settings does the a/c wind up in ? According to SmartCockpit,
“APs disengage by…over-riding with the control-column, control-wheel, or rudder pedals (pedals will only disengage the APs w/ LAND 2 or LAND 3 annunciated)
AT disconnects automatically…if thrust levers are over-ridden during a manual landing, after the AT has begun to retard the thrust levers to idle…”
So, presuming AT had not yet begun to spool down the engines yet, then manual intervention to deflect the a/c from descent flight-path, would NOT disengage the AT… but WOULD disengage the AP, i.e. disengage any and all PTH & ATT modes ??
I understand that DESCENT is often accomplished by using DESCENT or a FLCH = Flight Level Change command. Found the following online excerpt of the B-777 AMM:
============================================
“TMCS -A/T OPERATION -VNAV DESCENT
When the airplane nears the top of descent, the FMCF causes the A/T to go to the next flight phase, descent.
The TMCF commands the throttles to idle thrust at flight phase transition. The A/T mode is IDLE or THR in descent. The A/T mode changes to HOLD when a pilot moves the throttles opposite to the throttle command or when the throttles reach the aft mechanical stop.
The thrust limit mode stays in cruise (CRZ).”
“TMCS -A/T OPERATION -FLIGHT LEVEL CHANGE
When you push the FLCH mode switch on the MCP, the airspeed window unblanks to show current airspeed. The TMCF [Thrust Mngmt Computing Function] uses the difference between the present altitude and the MCP altitude to calculate a vertical speed to capture the MCP altitude. Airspeed does not change. The A/T control laws command thrust which produces a vertical speed to complete the altitude change in 125 seconds. The A/T command can not exceed the thrust limit mode.
If an override occurs while in the FLCH mode, the A/T mode goes to HOLD. HOLD shows on the PFD. The thrust limit mode changes to CLB on the engine primary format. An override occurs when throttle position and throttle command differ by more than eight degrees. This may occur when a pilot overrides the throttles”
============================================
So, if Pilot Shah really actually did attempt to land, and utilized a DESCENT or FLCH command to do so… and if he then really actually did abort the landing attempt, b/c his a/c was flying apart on him and he wanted to avoid ground casualties… then his manual over-ride control inputs would kick the AT onto HOLD which disables the thrust-lever back-drive servos and locks thrust to whatever the pilot chooses ? And, MAX THRUST increases to CRZ or even all the way to CLB which would probably be nearly identical with maximum rated thrust, something like 95,000lbs or so ??
The same online excerpts of the AMM say somewhere that BAP = Bank Angle Protection is available w/ or w/o AP engaged:
“BAP operates with the autopilot engaged or disengaged”
i.e. Bank Angles automatic immediate crash => not possible ?? Or AT + EP sufficient to fly the a/c for another 5-6 hours ? Knowledgeable experts know how AP can automatically re-engage under certain circumstances… relevant to end-of-flight situation ??
============================================
Tangentially, without changing much of anything else, I offer that slight improvement in fits to BFOs could be achieved, by modifying Inmarsat JON article’s ping-ring headings, to:
19:41 190
20:41 190
21:41 180
22:41 180
23:14 170 (* strong westerlies, magnetic declination error *)
00:11 180 (* R ENG flameout, pulls to starboard *)
00:19 ???
Interesting note about the structure within the cockpit. The interior decorative panels in the cockpit that cover the structure along with the vertical frames of the structure create a chimney like shape for heat to rise from below. Holes in the floor for wires would allow heat to flow from the lower level. The H/C of the interior panel would shield the cockpit from the heat for a short time. Thus the window sensors would be at the top of the chimney and thus would see heat from a fire below the cockpit in the E/E bay or nearby in the forward cargo bay; very early in the process.
@Falken
Mho that sounds great! Was in for a break like that. Very welcome, music is the best revalitator in a sence. Thank you.
@Ge Rijn thank YOU too 🙂
An Air Berlin Airbus A320-200, registration D-ABDI performing flight AB-8640 from Nuremberg (Germany) to London Stansted,EN (UK) with 52 passengers and 7 crew, was climbing through FL120 when the crew heard a bang from the right hand side just underneath the cockpit windows. Immediately thereafter the crew noticed that faults were indicated for all three Air Data Units, at the same time both autopilots, both flight directors and autothrust system failed. The crew observed the control mode change into Direct Law, all protection indications had been removed from the Primary Flight Display (PFD). At that time a first officer in supervision on his third flight was occupying the right hand seat, the captain requested the supervising first officer to take the right hand seat while assuming manual control of the airplane. The crew identified all three speed indications were different between 230 and 260 KIAS. In order to work the trouble at hand the crew entered a holding pattern near Erlangen, where the checklists were processed. The two Flight Augmentation Computers (FAC) were successfully reset, the flight controls changed into alternate law, the protections for alternate law were indicated again on the PFD. Autothrust became available again, autopilot 1 (left hand) was indicated operative however did not work……
More here: http://avherald.com/h?article=42c43ae2
This is also interesting: http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1902907,00.html
Sorry Jeff I had to say thank’s to Falken I loved the video keep healing the world Falken x
@Falken
In a way I have to come back on this video of yours.
In all this misery it shows so perfectly, in dispite off all our cultural differences we share the same feelings of music and freedom.
Lets keep that in mind.
Thank you again.
MS804
With the small size of the debris being found; the force of the impact with the water was very high. The fuselage will be in many pieces. The Flight Data Recorder and the Cockpit Voice Recorder will have been ripped from their mounting brackets and free in the water. Their relative high density will cause them to sink to the bottom near the center of the debris field. Should be easy to find pings and retrieve with some effort from ~3000 meters depth.
If MH370 has taught me nothing else, it is this: question everything.
Every official statement. Every anonymous leak. Every media report. Every screen-grab. Every blog post.
Ask yourself what it means if true, of course; but be just as sure to ask yourself what it means if FALSE. Or technically true, but designed to mislead.
One of the theories I’ve been considering for MH370 has been a cyber-jacking; it is possible a battle is going on behind the scenes for remote control of commercial aircraft. Under this scenario, it would be plausible that world leaders would wish to act quickly and diligently to paint a “run-of-the-mill” veneer over each new act of cyber-terrorism.
(I am not trying to argue that this is what we are witnessing. Please just think of this as one of scores of possible underlying truths, which taken together represent a set of scenarios whose combined probability is sufficient to require public vigilance.)
The frequency and severity of commercial aircraft catastrophes has spiked. This alone makes any attempt to connect the dots a worthwhile exercise.
And if this latest catastrophe is connected in any way to MH370, then we need to do here what we need to do there.
Question EVERYTHING.
@Ken Goodwin
But the windows were the first to indicate a heating problem and after that the lavatory and then avionics bay detected a smoke alert.
So your chimney hypothese won’t work according to the sequence of the ACARS messages.
There is no smoke before fire.
Question (Please pardon my ignorance):
Could rapid decompression cause vapors that are “mistaken” for smoke? (As per the ACARS messages?)
The window sensors are first, then smoke.
(Thinking along the lines of MH17 with an explosion outside the aircraft shattering the Windows. Trying to figure out that left turn…)
Not that I (want to) suspect terrorism, I am just curious.
(I still naively hope it’s a flight control surface or systems failure… I don’t want to contemplate that some monster deliberately killed these 66 people.)
Thank you.
Ge Rijn Posted May 21, 2016 at 2:46 PM wrote “ @Ken Goodwin But the windows were the first to indicate a heating problem and after that the lavatory and then avionics bay detected a smoke alert. So your chimney hypothese won’t work according to the sequence of the ACARS messages. There is no smoke before fire.”
My comment was to rationalize the windows alarms being first to activate. Fact: Hot air/fumes/smoke rises.
If there is a fire (heat source) below the main deck (E/E bay or Cargo bay) the heat from that event will rise to the floor, flow along the underside of the main floor and rise through gaps in the floor. Gaps in the floor are around the edges where systems (wires) penetrate the floor also at points for galleys and lavatories. The sensors in the window are above one of those heat paths as stated in my comment. The gaps in the floor is very large along the sides. The lavatories are modular supplier units that are installed complete. No easy /open heat path into the lavatories. Just wiring and plumbing with no wide open heat path. If heat comes from outside the lavatory; lavatories sensors would be delayed in sensing the heat. Reason: The lavatory sensors are design to sense heat/smoke from within the lavatories. Heat would have to come through the gaps in the interior panels ( e.g. garbage disposal door). Same maybe true for the E/E bay sensors; if the E/E bay sensors are not located at the top of the E/E bay. They would be slower to sense the heat. Heat would build from the top of the E/E bay and move down as it accumulates. This all makes sense to me based on past combustion testing results at Boeing. Note: All interior parts are tested for fire protection. Open flame testing.
So, I contend that the “hypothesis” is very plausible. But; it was just a comment; nothing more.
@Cay
A rapid decompression by itself would generate an ACARS message, prior to the smoke detector messages, so it is not a likely scenario. Smoke detectors are designed to identify microscopic smoke particles, and would not be affected by water droplets, imo.
There are smoke and also heat detectors in the cargo hold, which seems to eliminate a cargo fire.
So sad that we talking about yet another aircraft loss, my thoughts go out to all concerned in their grief at this time.
I am just guessing a soda can device in the rack behind the right side of cockpit could be the source of the problem , as per the Metro Jet terrorist attack. Only problem is no one has claimed responsibility at time of writing for the act.
The direction of airflow is generally from the cockpit and passenger cabin, down to the underfloor area, ie cargo hold and avionics bay, thence out through the outflow valves. So its more likely that the fire originated in the cockpit, rather than in the avionics bay, as smoke was detected in the lavatory before it was detected in the avionics bay.
I think it was Warren who suggested that someone could possibly have assembled an improvised Molotov cocktail. If such a device were thrown through the cockpit door just as one of the cabin crew were being let in, a fire could have engulfed the crew oxygen equipment, with disastrous results.
@Ann
thanks Ann, but its also up to YOU too; yes, we can…
@Ken Goodwin
To me it was also just a comment and a ‘hypothesis’ so never mind who will be right now. I guess we cann’t help the urge to understand what could have happened.
At least the sad faith of those passengers and crew is clear enough and families and friends can start greefing their terrible loss.
Unlike MH370 we’ll probably get the answers in a forseeable future and I hope they can contribute to find MH370 and the faith of those passengers and crew too once and for all.
FYI, I recall reading one analyst’s commentary that the sequence of the reported ACARS events cannot necessarily be considered as valid in the event of a sudden, catastrophic failure.
@Ge Rijn
“Unlike MH370 we’ll probably get the answers in a forseeable future and I hope they can contribute to find MH370 and the faith of those passengers and crew too once and for all.”
The two events are uncorrelated. There is little to be gained, if anything, from the MS804 findings. A diversion and nothing more.
@Rand, It’s worth looking at the ACARS messages received in the AF447 case, as detailed on p. 49 of the interim report:
https://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601e1.en/pdf/f-cp090601e1.en.pdf
Although in retrospect the messages fit with what we know happened, they weren’t enough in themselves to explain the bizarre turn of events that led to the crash.
Worth noting too that while the time span of the ACARS transmission is similar in both cases (4 min vs 2.5), there were 24 messages from AF447 vs 7 from MS804.
In the case of AF447, loss of airspeed led to autopilot functions being turned off, control law being changed, etc, and each of these things triggered a message. This kind of cascade didn’t happen in MH804. I would suggest that based on the correspondence between the ACARS messages and the actual faults in the case of AF447, there probably was something going on with smoke in the lavatory and the avionics bay, and something going on with the windows. I don’t understand the last two messages, however. And I don’t see what kind of a story will fit with the first five–for instance, if the flight crew opened a window to clear smoke, there should have been a depressurization message.
These are other examples of recent incidents ( 2016) involving smoke/fire/fumes occurring on the same type of plane used by other airlines :
http://avherald.com/h?article=497439f8&opt=0
http://avherald.com/h?article=49737e7c&opt=0
A Delta Airlines Airbus A320-200, registration N377NW performing flight DL-2841 from Grand Rapids,MI to Minneapolis,MN (USA) with 131 passengers and 5 crew, was climbing through FL270 out of Grand Rapids about 70nm southeast of Green Bay,WI (USA) when the crew reported smell of smoke in the cockpit, stopped the climb and diverted the aircraft to Green Bay for a safe landing on runway 36 about 17 minutes later. Emergency services inspected the aircraft before it taxied to the apron.
http://avherald.com/h?article=49829c97&opt=0
http://avherald.com/h?article=4971f6f4&opt=0
http://avherald.com/h?article=49588d6f&opt=0
MH370 & MS804 :
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160522/z5vqfz5z.jpg
Just a coincidence ?
I’m interested to understand what would happen if both buses failed…presumably loss of txsponder plus almost all electrical power?
Assuming this, is it at all plausible that they saw/smelled smoke, reset the generators to try to isolate the source, and then could not get power back?
Or would a gen reset have knocked out the ECAM as well? If so then that theory isn’t going to work.
FCU = Flight Control Unit, located on GLARE-SHIELD along the bottom edge of the WINDOWS:
============================================
http://airbusone.blogspot.com/2013/05/auto-flight-general.html
If the flight crew wants to modify any flight parameter (SPD, V/S, HDG, etc.) temporarily, they may do so by using the various Flight Control Unit (FCU) selectors…
FLIGHT CONTROL UNIT (FCU)
The FCU located on the GLARE-SHIELD, is the short-term interface between the flight crew and the FMGC.
It is used to select any flight parameters or modify those selected in the MCDU.
The autopilots and autothrust functions may be engaged or disengaged. Different guidance modes can be selected to change various targets (speed, heading, track, altitude, flight path angle, vertical speed).
FCU
The Flight Control Unit (FCU) is located on the glareshield and is constituted of three control panels:
One for the automatic flight controls and two for the Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS).
The FCU has TWO channels, each of which can independently command the central control panel. If one channel fails, the other channel can control all the functions…
============================================
SPOILER ELEVATOR COMPUTERS control the wing surfaces, and “SEC 3 is located in rack 93 VU = Visual Unit” either on the FD or in the EEbay. If a fire triggered a sudden severe failure in the SEC 3 Avionics Computer, then perhaps the plane was thrown into an un-pilot-commanded maneuver ??
@LouVilla
no no no, too much… unrelated, or, perhaps related only through the world changes that are happening and more chances to upset somebody with bad intents = the terorists (big question for me is if all they do was born in their heads or if they serve as executime tools of somebody even smarter and more dangerous above them, I dont know…); sad but true
and generally accidents trends down, but last 2 years spiked the fatalities; but almost all accidents are quickly resolved in the modern era full of satellites and hi-tech; with just the one exception… WHY? and WHO? for me its not so much important “where” in fact
forgot the link, excuse me…
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm
@Jeff Thanks for directing me to the A447 interim report. It was a rather chilling read; the panic was palpable.
From what you said, it appears that it is rather difficult to build out what transpired aboard MS804 from the ACARS data, and then with far fewer data points (7).
Given that the elapsed time was only 2.5 minutes, could perhaps all of the faults be attributed to the process of the aircraft disintegrating at altitude? Perhaps the right window fault can be attributed to it being blown out from the airframe? I have read of some analysts speculating as to the same. Perhaps we have a situation where there wasn’t any “cascade” of events, but rather an internal explosion followed by the gradual disintegration of the aircraft as it plummeted to the sea, with the ARCARS reporting continuing until the system was eventually destroyed…this is not something that I am very happy envisioning.
@Erik Nelson
Useful info on the FCU, thank you. The FCU is directly beneath the glareshield, so roughly equivalent to the autopilot MCP on Boeing planes (If I’m wrong on that, hopefully someone will correct)
It looks as if by 00:26UTC a serious fire was in progress on the RH side of the cockpit. Four minutes later, the plane was descending, apparently out of control.
Doesn’t have the hallmarks of a bomb. Must have been either an incendiary device or an equipment fire.
@Rob, thank you for clarifying. (Some “smoke” detectors use optical sensors and real smoke or vapor may trigger it. Rather than say some that detect soot or heat.
In this case, it really would be a bit a of reach… Given what little is known to date. An explosion or fire could have a really malicious cause. 🙁
@Jeff Do you have the ACARS reporting from Metrojet 9268? I recall reading somewhere that the aircraft/airline was not using the full ACARS suite, but it would perhaps be ‘interesting’ to make a comparison.
@Rob The only rather large elephant in the room re a bombing is that we have yet to see any party claim responsibility, and then after 3.5 days. Otherwise…
The flightradar24 .csv files, both basic and extended formats, are here:
https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/contact-lost-with-egyptair-flight-804/
I have compared the track with that of the same flight on the previous night. Basically, the route is a great circle (no particular airway) up to KUMBI, then a left turn of about 3 degrees to pick up UL612 down to LABNA. From what I can tell, the two flights are identical up to and including the last ADS-B point – we can see MS804 make the left turn on May 18. Whatever happened did not affect the autopilot.
@Rand
There were no claims relative to San Bernardino either. Like that event, MS804 could be the work of a person or persons loyal to a terrorist group acting without the direction of the terror group leadership.
That type of act is particularly hard to intercept since there is virtually no communication.
You are right, however, that no claims of responsibility would seem to rule out the main stream players.
Irrelevant question to people who can actually fly planes – in terms of speed and altitude graphs, what would cause a reading of 160kts at takeoff, followed by 0kts, followed by 172kts all within the space of a minute?
Is it just a glitch in the reading? (this is from two flights prior)
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/su-gcc#9bf5ed3
Sorry the link doesn’t display the speed/alt – you have to click on the graph symbol.
@Rand
I wouldn’t say it was a rather large elephant, more a little baby one.
It is worrying that no one has claimed responsibility yet. The perpetrators (assuming there are any, and not certain at this stage if there are) may have decided to remain silent. An unknown enemy can be more unnerving than a known one, not to quote Donald R.
Thank you to Jeff Wise for providing such an interesting forum!
I am just a member of the flying public. I just have a comment.
We now have 2 planes disappeared after the handoff to another air control. No idea what was happening on the plane at that crucial moment.
Yet, the airlines and their government regulators refuse to update ways to find out what is happening on the plane or even how to find the antique black boxes.
We have the technology! It is starting to sound like the experts think that the plane can catch on fire from all the wires in the plane, or someone is able to disappear planes without a trace after a handoff at 37,000 feet.
I would suggest that the leadership of the industry and government get together to try to apply new technology to the current antique system.
It is sad to see such pennypinching: we are all following these episodes because we fly. But also because of the compassion that we have for the devastated families who are left with no answers.
Have some compassion: get webcams and retrievable data onto our planes. We’re always being told how great the new fleet of planes is, how wonderful the technology is. It isn’t!
Airline travel is the safest? No. In fact, the bean counters are ignoring public safety in every way to save a few pennies on the bottom line.
We didn’t have any way of knowing what was happening on the plane that was flown into the mountain in france on purpose. That plane easily could have been flown, not into a remote mountain, but right into a major city or anywhere you can imagine.
The industry has to address missing planes and antique technology now. Or just close up shop because of mismanagement. Flyers should really stay off flights until these basic technologies are implemented. Take a train or use teleconferencing. You might not disappear like these poor people on the planes.
It may be your loved one who disappears off the radar and you never know what even happened to them, forever.
Time for action from the airline industry leadership and those involved with public safety.
Thank you!
@Susie
A frivolous answer: could be a gnat in the pitot head?
@Rob
or a little baby elephant : )
I still laugh about the Flybee from last summer.
@Susie, Anomalous data points are symptomatic of the high error rate of flight-tracking websites. They’re very useful for figuring out when your spouse’s plane gets in, not so much for reconstructing the final moments of a plane crash.
What is suprising to me is how little debris seems to be found till now and how small it is.
I would expect a debris field with a lot of debris and some bigger parts as well with this imo obvious high speed impact.
It’s what they expected also with MH370.
It might tell something about the amount of debris and its shape and sizes to expect from MH370 when it also suffered a high speed impact.
@Ge Rijn
Each crash is different, it seems, depending on the angle and speed of the impact. We dont know yet if the plane broke up prior to impact. The debris recovered so far, indicates a very high energy impact
There is a report on twitter right now that the pilots were in contact with ATC right to the end. CNN reported a part of the audio and said it was not the final audio….so that led me to believe there is more they are not releasing. An article from a french reporter told of this. Someone also posted on twitter the exact details of the Pan Pan and Mayday call that were reported to ATC. Why are they not releasing that? Is it to protect the airline and airbus? Does anyone know. I will post the link here.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/egyptair-flight-ms804-pilot-spoke-with-air-traffic-control-for-several-minutes-before-crash-a7041936.html
Thanks, Jeff – that’s understood. I was just curious.
As you say, it’s very likely to be a glitch in data somewhere along the line.
But I haven’t observed this exact phenomenon in other similar flight data I have looked at, so wanted to ask.
Here’s the best map I could find of the area where MS804 went down. Last coords were approximately 33.7N and 28.7E.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nicolas_Chamot-Rooke/publication/225153595/figure/fig7/AS:302691759738886@1449178747682/Figure-9-Shaded-bathymetry-of-the-Eastern-Mediterranean-Ridge-Huguen-2001-Data-from.png
The LKP is outside of the high resolution portion of the image, but seems to be on the outer edge of the Outer Mediterranean Ridge, adjacent to the Herotdotus abyssal plain.
@ROB
Yes it’s all unsure still I know. But we have here another plane that vanished in the sea from altitude in cruise flight.
Thats why I’m sure there could be things to learn in relation to MH370.
And if the plane exploded or otherwise broke up before impact you would expect a large debris field. It’s still too early but a large debris field hasn’t been seen or found yet.