Egypt Air Flight 804 missing

[barbos]

They say terrorism is most likely.

This is an unusual scenario for terrorism. One would expect a bomb to go off closer to takeoff, or not long after the plane reached cruising altitude. It seems to have been rather high for any missile likely to be in Isis's arsenal to hit it. I wonder if the cabin door was one of the strengthened variety.

Terrorist may have been trying to enjoy life a little bit longer. The reason they say it was most likely terrorism is apparent lack of communication of any problems.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Airbuses are no more susceptible to pilot error than Boeings. A couple months ago the pilots of FlyDubai 981 flew a 737 straight into the ground in Rostov-on-Don, for example. Fatigue and/or inadequate training are usually given as the cause, but I suspect that a simple lack of ability is involved as well in many cases.

Airbus is easier to fly which allows less capable pilots to fly it. That works fine, until something which autopilot can't handle happens.

Typically if auto-pilot can't handle it, you are screwed unless a coked up Denzel Washington is flying the plane.

They say terrorism is most likely.

Just as a reminder, let's not start jumping to conclusions here. Just because it may be terrorism, doesn't mean its Islamic terrorism. Remember Timothy McVeigh and the abortion clinic bombers. Also, the Christians back in the Crusades.

 

[barbos]

Airbus is easier to fly which allows less capable pilots to fly it. That works fine, until something which autopilot can't handle happens.

Typically if auto-pilot can't handle it, you are screwed unless a coked up Denzel Washington is flying the plane.

Not really, airbus autopilot turns off at the first sign of troubles, then unexperienced pilot(s) start panicking and then crash.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Typically if auto-pilot can't handle it, you are screwed unless a coked up Denzel Washington is flying the plane.

Not really, airbus autopilot turns off at the first sign of troubles, then unexperienced pilot(s) start panicking and then crash.

And turning 90 degrees, then 360 degrees isn't a sign of panicking?

 

[barbos]

Not really, airbus autopilot turns off at the first sign of troubles, then unexperienced pilot(s) start panicking and then crash.

And turning 90 degrees, then 360 degrees isn't a sign of panicking?

I am not talking about this particular case.

 

[Artemus]

Airbuses are no more susceptible to pilot error than Boeings. A couple months ago the pilots of FlyDubai 981 flew a 737 straight into the ground in Rostov-on-Don, for example. Fatigue and/or inadequate training are usually given as the cause, but I suspect that a simple lack of ability is involved as well in many cases.

Airbus is easier to fly which allows less capable pilots to fly it. That works fine, until something which autopilot can't handle happens.

Which makes it less susceptible to pilot error in the vast majority of the cases. Advances in automation have dramatically reduced the number of crashes due to pilot error compared to 30 years ago. Statistically, the aircraft made by both manufacturers are remarkably safe and neither is inherently safer than the other.

 

[Playball40]

Not really, airbus autopilot turns off at the first sign of troubles, then unexperienced pilot(s) start panicking and then crash.

And turning 90 degrees, then 360 degrees isn't a sign of panicking?

The backup system may have been trying to correct itself (if the first was compromised for some reason).

 

[Artemus]

Not really, airbus autopilot turns off at the first sign of troubles, then unexperienced pilot(s) start panicking and then crash.

And turning 90 degrees, then 360 degrees isn't a sign of panicking?

If the aircraft had structural failure in the air those turns were likely not due to pilot inputs but rather to other aerodynamic effects.

 

[barbos]

Airbus is easier to fly which allows less capable pilots to fly it. That works fine, until something which autopilot can't handle happens.

Which makes it less susceptible to pilot error in the vast majority of the cases. Advances in automation have dramatically reduced the number of crashes due to pilot error compared to 30 years ago. Statistically, the aircraft made by both manufacturers are remarkably safe and neither is inherently safer than the other.

As I said, planes maybe equally safe but pilots are not equally competent. There have been number of crashes of airbuses where pilots made terrible mistakes. There were some with boeings but less than with airbuses

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And turning 90 degrees, then 360 degrees isn't a sign of panicking?

If the aircraft had structural failure in the air those turns were likely not due to pilot inputs but rather to other aerodynamic effects.

I'm curious what structural fault would lead to a 360 that wouldn't also include dropping out of the sky at the same time. The plane does the turn, the circle, then plummets, unless this has been misreported.

ETA:

From new info, looks like the plummet did coincide with the off maneuvers.

According to the BBC:

"A Greek defence ministry source earlier told Reuters news agency that Greek officials were investigating an account from the captain of a merchant ship who said he had seen a "flame in the sky" some 240km (130 nautical miles) from Karpathos."

 

[Artemus]

Which makes it less susceptible to pilot error in the vast majority of the cases. Advances in automation have dramatically reduced the number of crashes due to pilot error compared to 30 years ago. Statistically, the aircraft made by both manufacturers are remarkably safe and neither is inherently safer than the other.

As I said, planes maybe equally safe but pilots are not equally competent. There have been number of crashes of airbuses where pilots made terrible mistakes. There were some with boeings but less than with airbuses

Do you have any data to back that up?


ETA:

I'll give you some help. Here are lists of significant incidents involving the Boeing 737 and Airbus 320. It gives the Wiki links to the incidents in most cases.

Boeing.
Airbus.

The Boeing 737 has had four events directly attributable to pilot error in the last five years (FlyDubai, Tartarstan Aircompany, Bhoja Airlines, and FirstAir) , the Airbus A320 has had two (Air Canada (most likely) and Air Asia).

I'll add that if we go back 6 years it would be Boeing 4, Airbus 3. There is no difference between the two.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If the aircraft had structural failure in the air those turns were likely not due to pilot inputs but rather to other aerodynamic effects.

I'm curious what structural fault would lead to a 360 that wouldn't also include dropping out of the sky at the same time. The plane does the turn, the circle, then plummets, unless this has been misreported.

ETA:

From new info, looks like the plummet did coincide with the off maneuvers.

According to the BBC:

"A Greek defence ministry source earlier told Reuters news agency that Greek officials were investigating an account from the captain of a merchant ship who said he had seen a "flame in the sky" some 240km (130 nautical miles) from Karpathos."

How about damage to the hydraulics? At first it causes control problems, once the system bleeds out the pilot's controls are completely useless.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

They are saying it is likely terrorism. Which then leads to the following observation, did terrorists down the plane from inside or sneak a bomb on... in Paris?

As I said, planes maybe equally safe but pilots are not equally competent. There have been number of crashes of airbuses where pilots made terrible mistakes. There were some with boeings but less than with airbuses

Do you have any data to back that up?


ETA:

I'll give you some help. Here are lists of significant incidents involving the Boeing 737 and Airbus 320. It gives the Wiki links to the incidents in most cases.

Boeing.
Airbus.

The Boeing 737 has had four events directly attributable to pilot error in the last five years (FlyDubai, Tartarstan Aircompany, Bhoja Airlines, and FirstAir) , the Airbus A320 has had two (Air Canada (most likely) and Air Asia).

I'll add that if we go back 6 years it would be Boeing 4, Airbus 3. There is no difference between the two.

That's statistically significant. Boeing is 4/3 more dangerous than Airbus!

 

[TSwizzle]

Seems odd that if it is terrorism from within the plane that it happened so far into the flight.

 

[bilby]

They are saying it's most likely terrorism, because modern aircraft are so safe that it is difficult to think of any other plausible reason for one to suddenly drop out of the sky.

The most dangerous components of a modern jetliner are the luggage, followed closely by the passengers and crew.

Incorrectly or undeclared dangerous cargo, terrorism, or pilot suicide are all highly unlikely to bring down an aircraft - but they are nevertheless less unlikely than mechanical failure.

If a modern plane crashes in good weather flying to or from a first-world country, terrorism is the tallest dwarf. But it is insanely premature to blame terrorism here - none of the possible causes are even vaguely likely given the tiny amount of evidence available at this early stage. Indeed, much of the 'evidence' may be unreliable - when a plane goes missing at night, you can almost always find a 'witness' who saw flames in the sky, even when the plane is subsequently found to have landed intact.

Almost anything is possible, and speculation is unhelpful and pointless until some hard evidence is available.

 

[Artemus]

Almost anything is possible, and speculation is unhelpful and pointless until some hard evidence is available.

Strongly agreed, which is why I was careful to say "structural failure" could induce the wild turns without speculating on a cause for the failure. A fatigue crack, manufacturing default, catastrophic engine failure, or intentional explosion could all be responsible. Or, a crazy pilot may have just flown it into the ground/sea again. We just need to wait.

 

[TSwizzle]

Another Airbus A320...

Yes, I don't trust Airbus either.

I don't trust Airbus either but I think that is irrational. I watched a documentary on the building of the Airbus A380 and it just blows my mind what went into this thing. At one point in the assembly, they hit a show stopper because the electrical cable was wrong, something to do with a misunderstanding between Spain and England or something. That sort of thing freaks me out. But I have flown on the A380 about six times, what a beauty it is. But the smaller Airbus, A320 always makes noises that have me grabbing the armrest. And that's before we've even left the gate !!

 

[dismal]

They are saying it's most likely terrorism, because modern aircraft are so safe that it is difficult to think of any other plausible reason for one to suddenly drop out of the sky.

The most dangerous components of a modern jetliner are the luggage, followed closely by the passengers and crew.

Incorrectly or undeclared dangerous cargo, terrorism, or pilot suicide are all highly unlikely to bring down an aircraft - but they are nevertheless less unlikely than mechanical failure.

If a modern plane crashes in good weather flying to or from a first-world country, terrorism is the tallest dwarf. But it is insanely premature to blame terrorism here - none of the possible causes are even vaguely likely given the tiny amount of evidence available at this early stage. Indeed, much of the 'evidence' may be unreliable - when a plane goes missing at night, you can almost always find a 'witness' who saw flames in the sky, even when the plane is subsequently found to have landed intact.

Almost anything is possible, and speculation is unhelpful and pointless until some hard evidence is available.

Sorry, Hillary says it was terrorism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-egyptair-terrorism_us_573dfd45e4b0646cbeec6d9e

 

[Artemus]

They are saying it is likely terrorism. Which then leads to the following observation, did terrorists down the plane from inside or sneak a bomb on... in Paris?

Do you have any data to back that up?


ETA:

I'll give you some help. Here are lists of significant incidents involving the Boeing 737 and Airbus 320. It gives the Wiki links to the incidents in most cases.

Boeing.
Airbus.

The Boeing 737 has had four events directly attributable to pilot error in the last five years (FlyDubai, Tartarstan Aircompany, Bhoja Airlines, and FirstAir) , the Airbus A320 has had two (Air Canada (most likely) and  Air Asia).

I'll add that if we go back 6 years it would be Boeing 4, Airbus 3. There is no difference between the two.

That's statistically significant. Boeing is 4/3 more dangerous than Airbus!

Actually when I rechecked Boeing for six years back I realized that the 22 May 2010 Air India Express 812 crash was within the window by 3 days, so the score should have been 5 to 3. I thought it a bit too anal to edit again, though.

Reading the wiki reports can be disturbing. On the  Air India Express Flight 812 page it says "The co-pilot Ahluwalia had warned his commander three times to go around instead of landing; the first of these warnings had come 2.5 miles before the runway threshold" and that "For 110 minutes the CVR had picked up no conversation from the pilots, with the report adding that the sound of nasal snoring and deep breathing could be heard during this recording."

Stupid is going to find a way to crash a plane no matter how safe it is.

 

[Artemus]

At one point in the assembly, they hit a show stopper because the electrical cable was wrong, something to do with a misunderstanding between Spain and England or something. That sort of thing freaks me out.

Different partners used different release versions of the CAD (computer-aided design) software. The German and Spanish groups used CATIA version 4, the French and British group used version 5. Apparently the way the bends in the wires were calculated changed between the versions and the lengths were incompatible. The output of CATIA should not have changed like that between versions, but Airbus should never have used different versions at different sites. Lots of blame to go around.