Egypt Air Flight 804 missing

[TSwizzle]

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.

Thanks for clearing that up I couldn't remember the details. And it wasn't that long ago I watched it.

 

[Artemus]

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.

Thanks for clearing that up I couldn't remember the details. And it wasn't that long ago I watched it.

Well, if you aren't an engineer who started his/her career at Boeing you probably don't have the same incentive to remember these details. I must admit that I was at some level enjoying watching Airbus struggle with their problems in 2006, but then came the 787, which has cost far more money to rectify and still costs more to make than they can sell it for.

Seriously, though, the development and production glitches have in no way compromised the final products and I am extremely comfortable flying on any of their aircraft.

 

[Artemus]

Sorry, Hillary says it was terrorism.

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

H. Clinton's comments: "It does appear that it was an act of terrorism — exactly how, of course, the investigation will have to determine."

Trump's comments: "Looks like yet another terrorist attack. Airplane departed from Paris. When will we get tough, smart and vigilant? Great hate and sickness!"

So Clinton wants to wait for the investigation and Trump wants to get tough with...uh...somebody. Who sounds more reasonable here?

 

[fast]

Sorry, Hillary says it was terrorism.

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

H. Clinton's comments: "It does appear that it was an act of terrorism — exactly how, of course, the investigation will have to determine."

Trump's comments: "Looks like yet another terrorist attack. Airplane departed from Paris. When will we get tough, smart and vigilant? Great hate and sickness!"

So Clinton wants to wait for the investigation and Trump wants to get tough with...uh...somebody. Who sounds more reasonable here?

Clearly, one is content with following the reasonable path, where reason and patience leads us down the path to where families cry at funerals. The other, less reasonable path, lies in solving the problem which also leads us down a path--but a path of different sorts.

 

[bilby]

H. Clinton's comments: "It does appear that it was an act of terrorism — exactly how, of course, the investigation will have to determine."

Trump's comments: "Looks like yet another terrorist attack. Airplane departed from Paris. When will we get tough, smart and vigilant? Great hate and sickness!"

So Clinton wants to wait for the investigation and Trump wants to get tough with...uh...somebody. Who sounds more reasonable here?

Clearly, one is content with following the reasonable path, where reason and patience leads us down the path to where families cry at funerals. The other, less reasonable path, lies in solving the problem which also leads us down a path--but a path of different sorts.

Neither is being reasonable; there is far too little known about the cause of this incident to conclude that it has any relationship to terrorism, much less to any particular group or issue; And the 'families cry at funerals' line was crossed as soon as the plane went down, so no action by anyone can prevent that from happening.

Here is an (incomplete) list of possible non-terrorist causes for the crash that have yet to be ruled out:

Pilot suicide
Undeclared, incorrectly declared or incorrectly packaged dangerous cargo leading to on-board fire
Meteorite strike
Catastrophic air-frame failure due to maintenance error
Catastrophic air-frame failure due to design flaw
Avionics failure
Uncontained engine failure
Contained engine failure leading to cascade of other systems failing
Pilot error
Mid-air collision with stealth military aircraft
Uncommanded excursion from normal flight due to sensor malfunction
Fuel starvation due to incorrect fuel load/faulty instrumentation/fuel leak

Some of these are more unlikely than others; None are impossible, given the information so far available.

For fatal crashes worldwide in aircraft with 19 or more passengers, in the period 2000 - 2010, where the cause is known, the broad causes and their frequency were:

Pilot Error - 57%
Mechanical Failure - 22%
Sabotage/Terrorism - 9%
Human error, non-pilot - 6%
Weather - 6%
(source)

Pilot error in cruise is not a likely cause (most pilot error crashes occur on the ground or at low altitude), but is certainly can happen; Mechanical failure for this aircraft type is less common than for "all commercial types worldwide with 19+ passengers", on which the stats above are based, but cannot be ruled out; And weather and non-pilot error are both unlikely given the conditions at the time of the incident, but again cannot be completely disregarded as possibilities.

Mechanical failure is twice as likely as terrorism, based on the raw statistics - and so far we have very little more reliable than the raw statistics to go on, so even if we asses mechanical failure as half as likely in this case as it is globally, terrorism still is not the statistically most likely cause.

Of course there are few votes in being tough on mechanical failures.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/18/middleeast/egyptair-flight-disappears/index.html

EgyptAir Flight 804: Airline official says debris not from plane

I'm not saying it is the Bermuda Triangle, but it is the Bermuda Triangle.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

For fatal crashes worldwide in aircraft with 19 or more passengers, in the period 2000 - 2010, where the cause is known, the broad causes and their frequency were:

Here are the true stats:

Drug Lords -- a.k.a. Pilot Error - 57%
Gremlins/Flying Apes -- a.k.a. Mechanical Failure - 22%
Government Chemtrail program a.k.a. -- Sabotage/Terrorism - 9%
Super Hero battles -- a.k.a. Human error (non-pilot) - 6%
Prehistoric monsters awakened after atom bomb blasts -- a.k.a. Weather - 6%

 

[bilby]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/18/middleeast/egyptair-flight-disappears/index.html

EgyptAir Flight 804: Airline official says debris not from plane

I'm not saying it is the Bermuda Triangle, but it is the Bermuda Triangle.

It is more than 4,500 nautical miles (8,400km; 5,000 statute miles) from the crash location to the Bermuda Triangle.

 

[Deepak]

Mechanical failure is twice as likely as terrorism, based on the raw statistics - and so far we have very little more reliable than the raw statistics to go on, so even if we asses mechanical failure as half as likely in this case as it is globally, terrorism still is not the statistically most likely cause.

I can't be arsed to go hunt down these bleedin' statistics

 

[barbos]

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.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm
A310 was/is a deathtrap. Its crash rate is 13 times higher than modern version of A320.
Overall Boeing looks better to me.
In any case, I was talking about weird crashes like when problem with electronics and then pilots not being able to actually fly by themselves.
A310 had quite a fe of these.

 

[Artemus]

H. Clinton's comments: "It does appear that it was an act of terrorism — exactly how, of course, the investigation will have to determine."

Trump's comments: "Looks like yet another terrorist attack. Airplane departed from Paris. When will we get tough, smart and vigilant? Great hate and sickness!"

So Clinton wants to wait for the investigation and Trump wants to get tough with...uh...somebody. Who sounds more reasonable here?

Clearly, one is content with following the reasonable path, where reason and patience leads us down the path to where families cry at funerals. The other, less reasonable path, lies in solving the problem which also leads us down a path--but a path of different sorts.

Just like Dubya wanted to solve the problem of WMDs in Iraq. Jumping to conclusions is very, very dangerous when you command the US military. More commentary here.

 

[Artemus]

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.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm
A310 was/is a deathtrap. Its crash rate is 13 times higher than modern version of A320.
Overall Boeing looks better to me.
In any case, I was talking about weird crashes like when problem with electronics and then pilots not being able to actually fly by themselves.
A310 had quite a fe of these.

But its rate is only 30% higher than Boeing's wide-body of the same era, the 747-100/200/300, not something to brag about but hardly a "death trap". And it wasn't even fly-by-wire so exactly what "weird crashes" from "problems with electronics" are you even talking about?

This started out from you saying that you don't trust Airbus. The statistics show that is irrational.

 

[barbos]

http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm
A310 was/is a deathtrap. Its crash rate is 13 times higher than modern version of A320.
Overall Boeing looks better to me.
In any case, I was talking about weird crashes like when problem with electronics and then pilots not being able to actually fly by themselves.
A310 had quite a fe of these.

But its rate is only 30% higher than Boeing's wide-body of the same era, the 747-100/200/300, not something to brag about but hardly a "death trap". And it wasn't even fly-by-wire so exactly what "weird crashes" from "problems with electronics" are you even talking about?

This started out from you saying that you don't trust Airbus. The statistics show that is irrational.

747-100/200/300 are quite a bit older.
A320 seems OK but B737 is still better. Boeing has consistently better statistics.

 

[Artemus]

But its rate is only 30% higher than Boeing's wide-body of the same era, the 747-100/200/300, not something to brag about but hardly a "death trap". And it wasn't even fly-by-wire so exactly what "weird crashes" from "problems with electronics" are you even talking about?

This started out from you saying that you don't trust Airbus. The statistics show that is irrational.

747-100/200/300 are quite a bit older.
A320 seems OK but B737 is still better. Boeing has consistently better statistics.

The A310, introduced in the early 80s, was a shrink of the circa 1970 A300 and had the same generation technology.
The 747-300, introduced in the early 80s, was a lengthening of the circa 1970 747-200 and had the same generation technology.

This is the fair comparison, and the safety rate of the two are similar. The later generations of aircraft by both companies were significantly better (but the earlier were generation were already very good).

I ask again, please list the examples of weird crashes due to electronic problems that are causing Airbuses to fall out of the sky because the pilots did not know how to fly them. (I know of a grand total of two, but the statistics show that far, far more crashes have been prevented by the properly functioning electronics not allowing the pilots to do stupid things in the first place.)

ETA And by the way, per the chart you linked the Airbus 320 CEO has a rate of 0.10 and the Boeing 737 NextGen (-600 to -900, its direct competitor) has a rate of 0.08. The saftey differences between the same generations of Airbus and Boeing aircraft are negligible.

 

[barbos]

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

 

[Nice Squirrel]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/18/middleeast/egyptair-flight-disappears/index.html



I'm not saying it is the Bermuda Triangle, but it is the Bermuda Triangle.

It is more than 4,500 nautical miles (8,400km; 5,000 statute miles) from the crash location to the Bermuda Triangle.

That's what makes it so powerful and mysterious!

 

[Artemus]

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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.)

 

[bilby]

Some media are reporting ACARS messages from the last minutes of the flight that indicate smoke in the right hand avionics bay, and a lavatory (the avionics bay is below the rear of the cockpit, and has the forward galley and lavatories above it).

That, if true, would suggest an accidental, rather than a deliberate, cause.

Debris, including seats, luggage and body parts are reportedly being recovered by the Egyptian Navy.

 

[Artemus]

H. Clinton's comments: "It does appear that it was an act of terrorism — exactly how, of course, the investigation will have to determine."

Trump's comments: "Looks like yet another terrorist attack. Airplane departed from Paris. When will we get tough, smart and vigilant? Great hate and sickness!"

So Clinton wants to wait for the investigation and Trump wants to get tough with...uh...somebody. Who sounds more reasonable here?

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.