Egypt Air Flight 804 missing

[barbos]

Well, Russian A310 crash in 1996 and AirFrance A330 over Atlantic are the most ridiculous cases.

You are blaming  Aeroflot Flight 593, where the f*cking pilot let his f*cking kids sit at the controls and one managed to disengage the autopilot, on the design of the aircraft??? You think it would have been different in any other plane? (A reminder, the A310 was not fly-by-wire so was no different than Boeing aircraft of that era.)

 Air Flight 447 was one I was thinking of,  Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 is the other.

As I said, incompetent pilots is partially AirBus fault and in that particular case design flaw of "silent" autopilot in my opinion.
AirFrance crash is of course is most ridiculous, it shows that it is quite likely that you can actually be flown by complete imbeciles even when it is first world country airline.

 

[Artemus]

You are blaming  Aeroflot Flight 593, where the f*cking pilot let his f*cking kids sit at the controls and one managed to disengage the autopilot, on the design of the aircraft??? You think it would have been different in any other plane? (A reminder, the A310 was not fly-by-wire so was no different than Boeing aircraft of that era.)

 Air Flight 447 was one I was thinking of,  Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 is the other.

As I said, incompetent pilots is partially AirBus fault and in that particular case design flaw of "silent" autopilot in my opinion.
AirFrance crash is of course is most ridiculous, it shows that it is quite likely that you can actually be flown by complete imbeciles even when it is first world country airline.

OK, when an incompetent pilot flies an Airbus into the ground it is the fault of the Airbus and when an incompetent pilot flies a Boeing into the ground at the same frequency it is not the fault of the Boeing. Got it.

 

[barbos]

As I said, incompetent pilots is partially AirBus fault and in that particular case design flaw of "silent" autopilot in my opinion.
AirFrance crash is of course is most ridiculous, it shows that it is quite likely that you can actually be flown by complete imbeciles even when it is first world country airline.

OK, when an incompetent pilot flies an Airbus into the ground it is the fault of the Airbus and when an incompetent pilot flies a Boeing into the ground at the same frequency it is not the fault of the Boeing. Got it.

Yes that's partially manufacturer fault. Especially if it is a first world country like France.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually, Trump was even further over the top than I thought:

"A plane got blown out of the sky," the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said at a fundraiser in Lawrenceville, N.J., tonight. "And if anything, if anybody thinks it wasn’t blown out of the sky, you are 100 percent wrong, folks. OK? You're 100 percent wrong."

What an idiot.

Planes blown out of the sky typically don't descend and make turns. But what do I know?

 

[barbos]

Actually, Trump was even further over the top than I thought:



What an idiot.

Planes blown out of the sky typically don't descend and make turns. But what do I know?

Why not? it's conceivable that pilots were trying to save the plane after bomb went off. Mechanical failures usually develop slowly enough that pilots have time to report it over the radio.

 

[bilby]

Planes blown out of the sky typically don't descend and make turns. But what do I know?

Why not? it's conceivable that pilots were trying to save the plane after bomb went off. Mechanical failures usually develop slowly enough that pilots have time to report it over the radio.

Sending a Mayday or setting the transponder code to indicate an emergency is a LONG way down the list of priorities for aircrew who are busy trying to save their lives, and the lives of their passengers. Some air traffic controller a hundred miles away can't do anything to help, unless and until the pilots have the aircraft under control; the lack of a distress call is not really surprising.

 

[barbos]

Why not? it's conceivable that pilots were trying to save the plane after bomb went off. Mechanical failures usually develop slowly enough that pilots have time to report it over the radio.

Sending a Mayday or setting the transponder code to indicate an emergency is a LONG way down the list of priorities for aircrew who are busy trying to save their lives, and the lives of their passengers. Some air traffic controller a hundred miles away can't do anything to help, unless and until the pilots have the aircraft under control; the lack of a distress call is not really surprising.

Yes, but as I said, technical problems develop relatively slowly. Whatever happened it happened rather quickly and that's why they made no report. That's why experts say terrorism is more likely. Could be a bomb or crazy pilot. Second pilot is kinda young (only 24) to be a pilot of a big jet in my opinion. Both pilots are arabs, so yeah, crazy-islamist pilot is not far fetched theory.

 

[bilby]

Sending a Mayday or setting the transponder code to indicate an emergency is a LONG way down the list of priorities for aircrew who are busy trying to save their lives, and the lives of their passengers. Some air traffic controller a hundred miles away can't do anything to help, unless and until the pilots have the aircraft under control; the lack of a distress call is not really surprising.

Yes, but as I said, technical problems develop relatively slowly. Whatever happened it happened rather quickly and that's why they made no report. That's why experts say terrorism is more likely. Could be a bomb or crazy pilot. Second pilot is kinda young (only 24) to be a pilot of a big jet in my opinion. Both pilots are arabs, so yeah, crazy-islamist pilot is not far fetched theory.

A fire, particularly one in an area not easily accessible during flight, can develop plenty quickly; and the time from the first indication of fire to loss of transmission capability might be very short indeed, if the seat of the fire is the avionics bay. If the ACARS data being reported is correct, there was about four minutes from the first smoke alarm warning to loss of signal - four minutes is not a lot of time when you are trying to fly a crippled aircraft with a smoke-filled cockpit.

I'm inclined to think that the whole terrorism angle is merely a symptom of the irrational connection many in the west now make that Islam implies terrorism. The world is full of Muslim aircrews. The assumption that terrorism must be involved if one of them is involved in a crash is deeply flawed.

But, as I said before, there are no votes in declaring war on faulty wiring.

I expect that Donald Trump will order a full scale, boots-on-the-ground invasion of the Avionics homeland, if they are found to be responsible. Remind me, are the Avionics from Avionia, or Avionistan?

 

[barbos]

I recall only one more less modern history fire caused crash where there was very little time to react. And there is a whole bunch of terrorism related crashes.
A320 seems to be pretty safe plane (despite my impression from flying on it it being pretty shoddy compared to B737).
Previous EgyptAir crash was terrorism and another from 1999 was a crazy-islamist pilot. So, yes, terrorism is likely.

 

[bilby]

I recall only one more less modern history fire caused crash where there was very little time to react. And there is a whole bunch of terrorism related crashes.
A320 seems to be pretty safe plane (despite my impression from flying on it it being pretty shoddy compared to B737).
Previous EgyptAir crash was terrorism and another from 1999 was a crazy-islamist pilot. So, yes, terrorism is likely.

Jetliner crashes are incredibly rare. Whatever caused this crash is going to be a rare event, whether it's dodgy wiring or a bomb in someone's underpants.

The very scant evidence currently available suggests the former, rather than the latter. But if we want to be sure, then we will need to wait about four years for the results of the official investigation - assuming that they can recover the CVFDRs and/or a significant amount of the aircraft.

Still, four minutes of ACARS data suggests a rapid, but not explosive, event.

 

[barbos]

I recall only one more less modern history fire caused crash where there was very little time to react. And there is a whole bunch of terrorism related crashes.
A320 seems to be pretty safe plane (despite my impression from flying on it it being pretty shoddy compared to B737).
Previous EgyptAir crash was terrorism and another from 1999 was a crazy-islamist pilot. So, yes, terrorism is likely.

Jetliner crashes are incredibly rare. Whatever caused this crash is going to be a rare event, whether it's dodgy wiring or a bomb in someone's underpants.

I has already happened, it does not matter how rare crashes are. What matters are relative probabilities of different causes of crash.

The very scant evidence currently available suggests the former, rather than the latter. But if we want to be sure, then we will need to wait about four years for the results of the official investigation - assuming that they can recover the CVFDRs and/or a significant amount of the aircraft.

Still, four minutes of ACARS data suggests a rapid, but not explosive, event.

Could be a terrorist with a smoke grenade, or terrorist with a cigarette

 

[Derec]

I'm inclined to think that the whole terrorism angle is merely a symptom of the irrational connection many in the west now make that Islam implies terrorism.

Yes, it is "irrational connection" because Muslim terrorists have never been known to cause air disasters.

Yes, "irrational" ...

The world is full of Muslim aircrews. The assumption that terrorism must be involved if one of them is involved in a crash is deeply flawed.

It's all about conditional probability. P(it was terrorism | it was a Muslim airline) >> P(it was terrorism)

But, as I said before, there are no votes in declaring war on faulty wiring.

Even faulty wiring can be sabotage.

 

[TSwizzle]

Probably some irresponsible dope trying to have a cigarette in the toilet before landing. At least the black boxes have been found.

 

[fast]

Probably some irresponsible dope trying to have a cigarette in the toilet before landing. At least the black boxes have been found.

"Probably" in this context implies plausible. Possibly, yes, but plausible no, so probable, no. Possible, always, probable, not always, even if probabilities can be assigned.

 

[jonatha]

Probably some irresponsible dope trying to have a cigarette in the toilet before landing. At least the black boxes have been found.

"Probably" in this context implies plausible. Possibly, yes, but plausible no, so probable, no. Possible, always, probable, not always, even if probabilities can be assigned.

Might it also mean potentially?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes, it is "irrational connection" because Muslim terrorists have never been known to cause air disasters.

Yes, "irrational" ...

The world is full of Muslim aircrews. The assumption that terrorism must be involved if one of them is involved in a crash is deeply flawed.

It's all about conditional probability. P(it was terrorism | it was a Muslim airline) >> P(it was terrorism)

But, as I said before, there are no votes in declaring war on faulty wiring.

Even faulty wiring can be sabotage.

It was a plane that took off from Paris, where security shouldn't allow a bomb.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Planes blown out of the sky typically don't descend and make turns. But what do I know?

Why not? it's conceivable that pilots were trying to save the plane after bomb went off. Mechanical failures usually develop slowly enough that pilots have time to report it over the radio.

Piloting 101:

Aviate
Navigate
Communicate

In that order.

Keep the plane in the sky.
Keep the plane going where you want it to go. (Note that this might not be the original destination.)
Tell others about the problem.

Consider the Miracle on the Hudson crash:

Take stock of the situation: Engines destroyed but the plane is otherwise intact. Immediate action: Configure for maximum glide range.

Next action: Figure out where that maximum glide range can take him. Three airports, none in range. (Note: There are reports there were airports in range--a good pilot knowing the whole situation could just barely save the airframe. Doing so required an immediate turn to the best airport before there was any time to evaluate the situation. Lacking perfect knowledge the attempt would have resulted in the plane going in short, no survivors plus casualties on the ground.) Ok, what's the least bad place to plop it down? The river. Head for it.

Next action: Tell the tower that they'll be in the Hudson.

Next action: Tell the passengers to brace for impact.


The radio can do nothing to help them save the plane, they're not going to use it. If they recover, good, then then can tell someone what happened. If not the recorders will tell them anyway.

 

[bilby]

Yes, it is "irrational connection" because Muslim terrorists have never been known to cause air disasters.

Yes, "irrational" ...

The world is full of Muslim aircrews. The assumption that terrorism must be involved if one of them is involved in a crash is deeply flawed.

It's all about conditional probability. P(it was terrorism | it was a Muslim airline) >> P(it was terrorism)

But, as I said before, there are no votes in declaring war on faulty wiring.

Even faulty wiring can be sabotage.

Your impassioned and emotional defence of your very low probability hypothesis indicates clearly that my assessment of that position as 'irrational' was spot-on.

I understand your position; it is very human. It's not very intelligent, rational or reasonable, but it is very human.

It's also very unhelpful.

The actual cause will be determined in due course.

 

[TSwizzle]

Probably some irresponsible dope trying to have a cigarette in the toilet before landing. At least the black boxes have been found.

"Probably" in this context implies plausible. Possibly, yes, but plausible no, so probable, no. Possible, always, probable, not always, even if probabilities can be assigned.

I'm predicting it will be a careless smoker.

 

[bilby]

Here's another picture to help drive the fact reduced speculation:



This isn't an Airbus (it's a Boeing 777), but it is an Egypt Air plane - Flight MS667 Cairo to Jeddah on 29 July, 2011.

An incorrectly secured wiring loom in the avionics bay led to a short-circuit through an oxygen hose, causing an intense fire that burned right through the skin of the aircraft. Fortunately in that case, it occurred before take off, and the passengers and crew were evacuated safely. A similar incident at 37,000 feet could easily fit the profile of the tiny number of facts currently in evidence for MS804. No terrorism was required to cripple MS667 - despite the fact that the aircraft was bound for Saudi Arabia from Egypt, with an overwhelmingly Muslim passenger load.