Egypt Air Flight 804 missing

[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.

Piloting 101:

Crash investigations 101:
mechanical problems usually develop slowly.

 

[Arctish]

Loren is correct. When emergencies occur mid-air, the immediate concern of pilots is to control the aircraft, which mean following the emergency checklist for that specific aircraft in that particular situation. Contacting ATC is not an immediate priority. In fact, an aircraft experiencing a mid-flight emergency doesn't have to contact ATC at all, although it's a good idea and pilots will do it if they get the chance.

 

[Derec]

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

No, it is your dismissal of terrorism as "very low probability hypothesis" which is irrational.

Could it have been a mechanical failure? Sure. Does that mean terrorism is a "very low probability hypothesis"? Hardly!

It's not very intelligent, rational or reasonable, but it is very human.

Ditto for dismissing terrorism like you are doing.

The actual cause will be determined in due course.

One thing I can agree with you on.

 

[barbos]

Loren is correct. When emergencies occur mid-air, the immediate concern of pilots is to control the aircraft, which mean following the emergency checklist for that specific aircraft in that particular situation. Contacting ATC is not an immediate priority. In fact, an aircraft experiencing a mid-flight emergency doesn't have to contact ATC at all, although it's a good idea and pilots will do it if they get the chance.

Terrorism is emergency too.

 

[bilby]

No, it is your dismissal of terrorism as "very low probability hypothesis" which is irrational.

Could it have been a mechanical failure? Sure. Does that mean terrorism is a "very low probability hypothesis"? Hardly!

Airliner incidents are very rare. Terrorism is half as common as a cause as mechanical failure; and the vast majority of terrorism invokes either a hijacking, or a bomb. This incident was neither - a bomb is a sudden and catastrophic attack, it wouldn't take several minutes from the first indication of trouble to loss of the aircraft - therefore terrorism is a VERY low probability hypothesis for the cause. That you can't accept that merely highlights your lack of reason on the issue at hand.

It's not very intelligent, rational or reasonable, but it is very human.

Ditto for dismissing terrorism like you are doing.

In the contrary; my reasoning is clear and, so far, unchallenged. If you think I am wrong, explain what evidence and reasoning leads you to that conclusion.

The actual cause will be determined in due course.

One thing I can agree with you on.

I understand why you want it to be terrorism; it would validate your political stance if it were.

But it's almost certainly not.

 

[Arctish]

Loren is correct. When emergencies occur mid-air, the immediate concern of pilots is to control the aircraft, which mean following the emergency checklist for that specific aircraft in that particular situation. Contacting ATC is not an immediate priority. In fact, an aircraft experiencing a mid-flight emergency doesn't have to contact ATC at all, although it's a good idea and pilots will do it if they get the chance.

Terrorism is emergency too.

So are motherfucking snakes. That doesn't change the fact that contacting ATC is lower priority than controlling the aircraft and following the checklist.

 

[barbos]

Terrorism is emergency too.

So are motherfucking snakes. That doesn't change the fact that contacting ATC is lower priority than controlling the aircraft and following the checklist.

Nobody said it was high priority.

 

[Derec]

Airliner incidents are very rare.

Irrelevant. Since the crash happened, the probability it happened is 1.

Terrorism is half as common as a cause as mechanical failure;

"Half as common" would mean terrorism would still have 1/3 probability. That is hardly "very low probability".
And most mechanical failures occur either at take-off or landing. Airplanes dropping out of the sky because of mechanical failure is very rare.

and the vast majority of terrorism invokes either a hijacking, or a bomb.

I have not heard anything about a bomb being excluded. Do you have any evidence it has been excluded yet?

This incident was neither - a bomb is a sudden and catastrophic attack, it wouldn't take several minutes from the first indication of trouble to loss of the aircraft - therefore terrorism is a VERY low probability hypothesis for the cause. That you can't accept that merely highlights your lack of reason on the issue at hand.

Depends on the size of the bomb. A smaller bomb could have crippled and fatally damaged the airplane without destroying it immediately. These are improvised devices after all.
It seems to me you have a political reason not to want it to be terrorism.

I understand why you want it to be terrorism; it would validate your political stance if it were.

Funny, I was thinking the same about you. See above.

But it's almost certainly not.

You are most certainly wrong about that. Both possibilities are pretty much alive. And unlike you, I never tried to exclude mechanical failure.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Irrelevant. Since the crash happened, the probability it happened is 1.

Terrorism is half as common as a cause as mechanical failure;

"Half as common" would mean terrorism would still have 1/3 probability. That is hardly "very low probability".
And most mechanical failures occur either at take-off or landing. Airplanes dropping out of the sky because of mechanical failure is very rare.

and the vast majority of terrorism invokes either a hijacking, or a bomb.

I have not heard anything about a bomb being excluded. Do you have any evidence it has been excluded yet?

This incident was neither - a bomb is a sudden and catastrophic attack, it wouldn't take several minutes from the first indication of trouble to loss of the aircraft - therefore terrorism is a VERY low probability hypothesis for the cause. That you can't accept that merely highlights your lack of reason on the issue at hand.

Depends on the size of the bomb. A smaller bomb could have crippled and fatally damaged the airplane without destroying it immediately. These are improvised devices after all.
It seems to me you have a political reason not to want it to be terrorism.

I understand why you want it to be terrorism; it would validate your political stance if it were.

Funny, I was thinking the same about you. See above.

But it's almost certainly not.

You are most certainly wrong about that. Both possibilities are pretty much alive. And unlike you, I never tried to exclude mechanical failure.

The plane took off from Paris, therefore, bomb on plane shouldn't be expected.

 

[dx713]

Terrorism is emergency too.

So are motherfucking snakes. That doesn't change the fact that contacting ATC is lower priority than controlling the aircraft and following the checklist.

Yeah: Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. In that order.
(and Aviate can be split further. First, you control the aircraft, as much as possible, then only second you run the checklist to troubleshoot the problem)

 

[TSwizzle]

The plane took off from Paris, therefore, bomb on plane shouldn't be expected.

Maybe not expected but neither would I be surprised. After all, the Lockerbie bomb was loaded on at Frankfurt.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The plane took off from Paris, therefore, bomb on plane shouldn't be expected.

Maybe not expected but neither would I be surprised.

You should be, if it was. It would have been a severe failure in security at the airport.

After all, the Lockerbie bomb was loaded on at Frankfurt.

Yes, in Frankfort, nearly 30 years ago. An event that put a plug in airports being lax on screening for good.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

anybody claim responsibility yet?

 

[bilby]

Irrelevant. Since the crash happened, the probability it happened is 1.

Terrorism is half as common as a cause as mechanical failure;

"Half as common" would mean terrorism would still have 1/3 probability. That is hardly "very low probability".

Only if these two are the only two possible causes (they are not); and only if there is no other evidence than the raw statistics (there is)

And most mechanical failures occur either at take-off or landing. Airplanes dropping out of the sky because of mechanical failure is very rare.

and the vast majority of terrorism invokes either a hijacking, or a bomb.

I have not heard anything about a bomb being excluded. Do you have any evidence it has been excluded yet?

This incident was neither - a bomb is a sudden and catastrophic attack, it wouldn't take several minutes from the first indication of trouble to loss of the aircraft - therefore terrorism is a VERY low probability hypothesis for the cause. That you can't accept that merely highlights your lack of reason on the issue at hand.

Depends on the size of the bomb. A smaller bomb could have crippled and fatally damaged the airplane without destroying it immediately. These are improvised devices after all.

Yeah, it COULD have. But the probability of an explosion in a pressurized aircraft at FL370 not being immediately catastrophic is very small.

It seems to me you have a political reason not to want it to be terrorism.

Not at all. It's just something I assess to be VERY unlikely, given the information at hand.

I understand why you want it to be terrorism; it would validate your political stance if it were.

Funny, I was thinking the same about you. See above.

But it's almost certainly not.

You are most certainly wrong about that. Both possibilities are pretty much alive. And unlike you, I never tried to exclude mechanical failure.

I am not trying to exclude terrorism. Indeed, I have been VERY careful not to exclude anything. But I assess the probability of terrorism as very small; and so it seems irrational to me that people are making the kinds of political statements that assume that terrorism is to blame - something that both of the two front-runners in the US presidential election campaign have done.

A terrorist with the ability to get a bomb onto a plane in Paris would have a selection of far more impressive targets than a half full Egypt Air flight to Cairo, most of whose passengers are Egyptian nationals.
Even a very small bomb would likely cause the immediate loss of telemetry from an aircraft at FL370 - the Lockerbie device was very small, and it cause the almost immediate disintegration of a 747 (a much larger aircraft than an A320). But we see four minutes of ACARS messages.
The ACARS reports smoke, but no depressurization; that's not really consistent with a bomb - and the first ACARS report is a cockpit window heater failure, which is consistent with a cockpit or avionics bay issue (including an ACARS failure), but not with a cargo or passenger cabin event.

The CVR/DFDR will probably tell the full story; but it will be a while before those are recovered, and longer still before they are examined and the contents made public. Nothing can be ruled out at this early stage, but if I was a gambling man, I would have my money on a wiring fault leading to a fire in an inaccessible location.

 

[barbos]

The plane took off from Paris, therefore, bomb on plane shouldn't be expected.

So there are places where you expect a bomb?

 

[barbos]

A terrorist with the ability to get a bomb onto a plane in Paris would have a selection of far more impressive targets than a half full Egypt Air flight to Cairo, most of whose passengers are Egyptian nationals.

Depends on their goals. If terrorists want to finish Egyptian tourism industry in order to destabilize Egypt then that particular plane is logical target.

 

[fast]

anybody claim responsibility yet?

Not yet

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The plane took off from Paris, therefore, bomb on plane shouldn't be expected.

So there are places where you expect a bomb?

Say a plane leaving from Egypt wouldn't be surprising. A plane leaving London, Paris, Berlin would be surprising.

A terrorist with the ability to get a bomb onto a plane in Paris would have a selection of far more impressive targets than a half full Egypt Air flight to Cairo, most of whose passengers are Egyptian nationals.

Depends on their goals. If terrorists want to finish Egyptian tourism industry in order to destabilize Egypt then that particular plane is logical target.

Destabilize Egypt? It is still under military rule, pretty much since Mubarak stepped aside.

 

[barbos]

So there are places where you expect a bomb?

Say a plane leaving from Egypt wouldn't be surprising. A plane leaving London, Paris, Berlin would be surprising.

Should not be. You can bring a bomb through some Egypt airport and then board some plane transit through Berlin and give it to your accomplice in Berlin airport transit zone.

A terrorist with the ability to get a bomb onto a plane in Paris would have a selection of far more impressive targets than a half full Egypt Air flight to Cairo, most of whose passengers are Egyptian nationals.

Depends on their goals. If terrorists want to finish Egyptian tourism industry in order to destabilize Egypt then that particular plane is logical target.

Destabilize Egypt? It is still under military rule, pretty much since Mubarak stepped aside.

Egypt is economically dependent on tourists from Europe and Russia. Russia had been out before this last crash but they were talking about resuming. If it turn out this is terrorism then tourism would not get resumed.

 

[bilby]

A terrorist with the ability to get a bomb onto a plane in Paris would have a selection of far more impressive targets than a half full Egypt Air flight to Cairo, most of whose passengers are Egyptian nationals.

Depends on their goals. If terrorists want to finish Egyptian tourism industry in order to destabilize Egypt then that particular plane is logical target.

Not really; The plane was half empty, and most of the passengers were Egyptians, not tourists. There are much better targets if you want to hit Egyptian tourism.