ARRSE is supported by the advertisements on it, so if you use an adblocker please consider helping us by starting an Ad-Free subscription.

Egypt Air Flight missing

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by ThunderBox, May 19, 2016.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:


  1. It's the avionics compartment not bay if we are going to start getting the manuals out and quoting them.

    A fire in there can take out the radios sure. And everything else. I can prove that there have been no incidents of electrical fire disabling all three radios in a A320 quite simply - it's never happened and you can't link to any accident report ever published showing that it did. Prove me wrong.

    In my many years in the sim of giving pilots smoke in flight I have never seen a crew not respond by initiating at least some of the immediate actions. If this fire was so sudden and so harsh that they lost the situation in three minutes then that's unlike any electrical fire scenario the airlines or Airbus currently train or write the procedures for. In fact it's the sort of thing that can only happen with the aid of foul play and an incendiary device.

    You can turn 90% of all the electrics off with three button pushes and still keep flying quite happily. It's a really great design.

    MH370 was a crew hijack suicide. It won't ever be proven because it's in nobodies interests to do so. A mystery is about the optimum outcome for unions, politicians, regulators, airlines, investors and the family. But that's what it was for sure.

    I take it from your indignation hellsbrink that you have never flown or maintained an Airbus A320 so you're laymans views can be safely filed as for interest only.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. I've seen "catastrophic" electrical fires happen within days of the power being turned on for the first time, and big ones within hours.

    All you need is one bad connection or one badly installed cable and that is it.

    You know jack.

    Nice to see you are going for "incendiary" again and not "bomb", so first you have to make your mind up about what sort of device it was and then you can explain how the sequence of ACARS was "Right window", "Right sliding window" THEN "Toilet" and how an incendiary planted in the thnderbox, as per your previous wibbling, would affect the avionics bay on the opposite side of the aircraft.

    You've been asked this before, we're still waiting on an answer
     
  3. Just because it's never happened does not mean it cannot happen. You're talking crap

    And if if it's not in the interests of ANYONE to prove MH370 was what you claim, why has there been so much money piddled away looking for the wreckage and why didn't they try to cover up Lubitz's escapade with Germanwings 9525. Stop making things up.

    The rest of your post is not worth replying to.
     
  4. Well if you'd ever done an Airbus type rating you'd know that one if the big gotchas with smoke/fumes warnings is that the first sensor to trigger a warning may not be where the source of the smoke actually is. Air moves around in a surprisingly complex fashion inside an Airbus. You're trying to do a lot of clever stuff with it. You're trying to cool electronics whilst also keep the cargo bay free of frost whilst also creating slight OVER pressure in the flightdeck to prevent a gas attack on the pilots working whilst also not creating a draught out if the smelly toilets into the cabin whilst also managing the bulk of the air to the exhaust valve at the rear of the cabin without their being a noticeable breeze in passengers faces. There's fans and ducts all over the bloody place doing this both passively and actively and differently in various failure/emergency cases.

    Which means one bit of smoke in the air conditioning system can rapidly pop up anywhere in front of any of the toilet or avionics or cargo bay smoke sensors.

    When pilots talk about a bomb it's shorthand for any kind of device designed to harm the safety of the flight. Technically I'd much much much refer a 2lb Semtex bomb than an equivalent white phosphor device or nerve agent device. On a modern narrow body you're unlikely to blow the nose or tail bulkhead off so unless you blow wing spar to bits (unlikely) I can cope with a big hole in the side and a rapid decompression.

    An accelerated fire in a hard to reach place is a nightmare by comparison. The FSB would know that.

    Window heating elements fail relatively frequently, I've had several including one crackling with a short circuit. It's not a high powered circuit and like the heated rear windscreen in your car it's designed with failsafe in mind.

    Nobody in the industry is buying a sudden catastrophic fire in flight caused by a dicky window heat element.
     
    • Show again braincell Show again braincell x 1
  5. The small amount of money being dribbled away searching for MH370 is merely an exercise is delaying having to produce an official report. The more years that pass the hazier the public memory becomes and the less news worthy the story. It was the global lead story for weeks when it happened on every channel. Now? MH3 what love? Was that the one that got shot down? People forget, lose interest, nothing to see here move on. Just like with the Egyptair 767 deliberate nosedive into the ocean out of New York by the FO who had been caught flashing the previous day by NYPD and who couldn't face the looming disgrace - some contradictory and vague reports will eventually years later be released much to the disinterest of the public.

    They don't want the travelling public to be very clearly made aware that the pilots can deliberate kill everyone and sometimes do and there's nothing to stop them.

    They being the industry, manufacturers, governments, investors and unions.

    Germanwings was the exception. No way to possibly cover that up or bury it as a news story. So they presented it as a freak event, a failure of German medical privacy laws and introduced a bullshit new countermeasure of two persons on the flightdeck rule which merely introduces a worse additional threat vector.

    I can understand why a layman wouldn't understand all this sort of thing.
     
    • Show again braincell Show again braincell x 1
  6. Again, Germanwings 9525.

    Why was that not "covered up"?

    And I'm still waiting for answers to previous questions, why do you refuse to answer them if you are so knowledgeable?


    PS. I can think of 5 other confirmed "suicide by pilot" involving commercial airliners since the mid 70's. Since these ones are known, and I don't include actions by terrorists or hijackers, then do explain what could possibly be "kept out of the awareness of the travelling public".

    Once again, you're talking crap and have no clue
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2016
  7. It couldn't be covered up because there was no ambiguity and they immediately had the CVR FDR. It was the first major pilot suicide that was a mass media event and uncontested. Hence the public were surprised by this new phenomena and stunned whenever they were told it has happened several times before.

    The two person always on the flightdeck rule was brought in as a 'solution' to the problem, move along, can't happen again etc, Even though they know and the pilot unions specifically told them that thus rule just allows a new and bigger threat vector into the flightdeck.

    Which specific question are you waiting an answer for?

    Regarding your PS - sure it's not a secret to the public and everyone in the industry was and is aware of the issue. It's a frequent enough topic during annual CRM and Human Factors training. Nevertheless until Germanwings there hadn't been an unequivocal finding of it happening in large commercial aircraft before. Reports were always delayed, dulled down, often contested by different regulators and generally made as media uninteresting as possible. Egyptair 990 in particular.

    EgyptAir Flight 990 - Wikipedia


    It surprises me how quickly the public do forget. In the days and weeks following Germanwings all eyes were trained on you if you left the flightdeck in flight. Within six months nobody bothers at all. A few years on and the average pax is surprisingly hazy about the Germanwings suicide/murder. If it happens again mind then the shit will hit the fan. And it will.
     
  8. So you were talking rot about "keeping such things out of the public perception". Hardly unexpected.

    And you best start reading the thread again to see what you have been REPEATEDLY asked but have refused to answer.
     
  9. 804 was almost certainly foul play. I think it slightly suspicious that it happened moments after entering Egyptian airspace.
     
  10. Whose airspace it was would make no difference to a terrorist, unless you think PanAm 103 was a terrorist attack on the UK.
     
  11. It's not rot at all, it's an observation about media management and spin. The MH370 search for example serves no other useful purpose other than to delay the final report.

    Would you mind pointing out the repeated question you seek an answer to because I can't see it? Tal.
     

  12. It would if it was Russian revenge for Metrojet 9268. An incendiary bomb triggered by passing into their own airspace is the sort of coded signal that I imagine appeals to Putin.

    Metrojet Flight 9268 - Wikipedia
     
  13. And since the Russians are busy at the source of that attack, who are partially set in Syria, you're talking crap about them possibly going for an Egyptian aircraft.

    As you have already been told.

    You're struggling, you're regurgitating and spewing up the same discredited BS you vomited earlier.

    And you still refuse to ask the questions that an "expert" such as yourself should have been able to answer the FIRST time they were asked.

    That tells us you don't know jack.
     
  14. There are 42 pages to trawl through and my perception of an answered question may differ to yours. What would be helpful is if you just pointed out the question you want me to answer again?

    I'm flying shortly, would you like a picture of this thread taken at 37,000ft to prove credentials?

    I couldn't understand your first sentence, please try again, possibly in a different order.
     
  15. You only have to look back over the last couple of pages, the same questions have been raised there multiple times as well.

    And since you did reply to posts with these questions it's safe to say that your refusal to answer is because you cannot do so without discrediting your own conspiraloon theories.