EgyptAir Flight MS804 Disappears en Route From Paris to Cairo

[Gladiator]

Your point? There is ZERO evidence of terror being the cause of it.

There is no CONCLUSIVE evidence, but there is evidence that terrorism was involved.

If HS804 caught on fire due to manufacturing defects, then a recall would be ordered. There is no recall, or even idea to check anything.


It is possible that an overheated windscreen heater shorted out, and caused over heating, heat damage and maybe fire.

Plane fire caused by Airbus windscreen heater | Inquirer News

"The fire, which started in a windscreen heating system, was observed by pilots while flying 427km SW of Guam on June 10 2009. The fire was extinguished by the crew and the aircraft diverted to Guam.

The ATSB report found that the fire had initiated from an electrical connection to the windscreen heating system, and concluded that the overheat failure was related to the use of a polysulfide sealant (PR1829) within the body of the electrical connector terminal block.

A subsequent safety action by Airbus has seen all A330 windscreens that had been produced with the PR1829 sealant to be replaced.

The full report is available at Investigation: AO-2009-027 - In-flight fire - Airbus A330-202, VH-EBF, 427 km south-west of Guam, USA, 10 June 2009

ATSB releases report into Jetstar A330 cockpit fire | Australian Aviation

https://www.google.com/?#q=guam+windscreen+fire+A320



Fires rarely occur on planes, unless deliberately set. So since there was a fire, on HS804, then probably somebody set the fire.

Evidence of unexplained fire, is evidence of Terrorism,

Why did HS804 break up before hitting the water? The bodies of people in the plane were not protected inside the plane, hitting the water in tact. The bodies were torn apart by the impact directly with the water, because the plane broke apart in the air.

The plane had been marked for destruction with graffiti.

Witnesses saw a fire ball, but did not see the plane. The plane apparently disintegrated in the fireball.

Smoke in the lavatory is a sure signal of Terrorism origin of an aircraft fire.

There is a lot of evidence of Terrorism, but not conclusive, yet.



//

 

[shanners]

Egyptian Media Blame Israel for A320 Passenger Jet Crash

"Al-Mesri al-Youm newspaper wrote that in its report of the plane's crash, Greece hasn’t mentioned Israeli warplanes' wargames in the Southern parts of Crete Island which was revealed earlier this month by Tel Aviv, adding that the maneuvers had started one night before the Egyptian plane's crash.

"It added that the exercises are staged with the goal of training the Israeli air force pilots using Greece's airspace which is adjacent to Egypt and Libya."

Farsnews

 

[Hawkeye10]

Four days and counting trying to find a plane, again, when we should have continuous instant information on where they are with-in meters.

This is called failing.

Seriously.

 

[Mithros]

Decompression doesn't cause explosions. You might want to actually read the sources you posted.

Explosive decompression IS an explosion. Explosions happen when energy is released suddenly, there's no rule that an explosion must require an oxidizer. If you place liquid nitrogen into a sealed container and then heat it, what happens? BOOM. The pressure inside eventually becomes too great and violently ruptures the container. Also an aircraft is travelling at 500-600mph. What do you think would happen if something opened up a leading surface of the aircraft?

There is so much speculation here treated as fact, and the only rational seems to be to place the blame on terrorists. Since the goal of terrorism is to intimidate through violent acts, it makes little sense to give them credit for an act that may or may not be terrorism... unless you happened to be a terrorist, then it's a pretty smart idea.

Just a few examples of things we *know*:

• We *know* there was a fire. Actually we don't, we strongly suspect there was a fire. The lavatory smoke detector is an optical sensor. It can trigger with various particulates in the air including a dry shampoo aerosols. It could be smoke from a fire, dust from an explosion or decompression, mist from a decompression, or a failed sensor from some other unrelated problem.
• We *know* the pilots were incapacitated. Actually we don't. Lack of radio contact can mean many different things. Pilots ANC (aviate, navigate, communicate). In an emergency the pilots will try to save the aircraft. The last thing on the pilots mind is making sure the public knows what happened.
• We *know* the order in which things happened. Again we don't, (at least I don't think so). We know the order an times the errors were reported, but we don't know when the failures which caused the alarms happened or what caused the failures to be reported. Individual subsystems are going to have different "heartbeats" for running internal diagnostics. A system that's only checked every few minutes could fail first, but reported after one that's checked every second. Other systems could fail, but not be reported or wiring faults etc could cause working systems to appear to have failed. Also problems that might occur elsewhere can manifest themselves somewhere else. The lavatory has air intake and vents to an outflow system, so it could trigger based on a fire from somewhere else in the aircraft.
• We *know* the plane performed various manuevers. We don't know that either. We have so many conflicting stories here from different sources with different limitations.
• We *know* that planes just don't fall out of the sky. Except when they do. Failure rates are failure rates for a reason, even the strictest safety standard is a probability (10^-9), not a certainty.

 

[apdst]

Explosive decompression IS an explosion. Explosions happen when energy is released suddenly, there's no rule that an explosion must require an oxidizer. If you place liquid nitrogen into a sealed container and then heat it, what happens? BOOM. The pressure inside eventually becomes too great and violently ruptures the container. Also an aircraft is travelling at 500-600mph. What do you think would happen if something opened up a leading surface of the aircraft?

There is so much speculation here treated as fact, and the only rational seems to be to place the blame on terrorists. Since the goal of terrorism is to intimidate through violent acts, it makes little sense to give them credit for an act that may or may not be terrorism... unless you happened to be a terrorist, then it's a pretty smart idea.

Just a few examples of things we *know*:

• We *know* there was a fire. Actually we don't, we strongly suspect there was a fire. The lavatory smoke detector is an optical sensor. It can trigger with various particulates in the air including a dry shampoo aerosols. It could be smoke from a fire, dust from an explosion or decompression, mist from a decompression, or a failed sensor from some other unrelated problem.
• We *know* the pilots were incapacitated. Actually we don't. Lack of radio contact can mean many different things. Pilots ANC (aviate, navigate, communicate). In an emergency the pilots will try to save the aircraft. The last thing on the pilots mind is making sure the public knows what happened.
• We *know* the order in which things happened. Again we don't, (at least I don't think so). We know the order an times the errors were reported, but we don't know when the failures which caused the alarms happened or what caused the failures to be reported. Individual subsystems are going to have different "heartbeats" for running internal diagnostics. A system that's only checked every few minutes could fail first, but reported after one that's checked every second. Other systems could fail, but not be reported or wiring faults etc could cause working systems to appear to have failed. Also problems that might occur elsewhere can manifest themselves somewhere else. The lavatory has air intake and vents to an outflow system, so it could trigger based on a fire from somewhere else in the aircraft.
• We *know* the plane performed various manuevers. We don't know that either. We have so many conflicting stories here from different sources with different limitations.
• We *know* that planes just don't fall out of the sky. Except when they do. Failure rates are failure rates for a reason, even the strictest safety standard is a probability (10^-9), not a certainty.

Decompression doesn't cause an aircraft to explode. An aircraft is NEVER pressured up to the point that it blows up.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Decompression doesn't cause an aircraft to explode. An aircraft is NEVER pressured up to the point that it blows up.

An aircraft is pressurised in flight. The pressure inside is higher than the pressure outside any weakness in the airframe will cause catastrophic release of the pressure inside, pushing the contents outwards as in an explosion. There are no depths to the stupidity in arguing irrelevance to defend a mistaken pointette you made.

 

[apdst]

An aircraft is pressurised in flight. The pressure inside is higher than the pressure outside any weakness in the airframe will cause catastrophic release of the pressure inside, pushing the contents outwards as in an explosion. There are no depths to the stupidity in arguing irrelevance to defend a mistaken pointette you made.

Show me an example where an over pressurized cabin cause a breach in the fuselage.

 

[DA60]

I don't even bother to speculate (with rare exceptions) on plane crashes. I usually justs wait until the final verdict is in.

Unless it is one where no verdict probably ever will come in - like Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (which I strongly believe was a pilot murder/suicide, btw).

 

[EnigmaO01]

I am guessing that the fireball happened at the surface when the plane crashed and as it rose into the sky these morons who saw it reported it as being in the sky.

But you're guessing and they saw something.

 

[EnigmaO01]

I am guessing that the fireball had nothing to do with the fire and smoke on board the plane.

The fireball was from the friction of the impact of the jet fuel detonating on impact with the surface of the sea.

You're guessing again.

 

[EnigmaO01]

I am guessing that the fireball had nothing to do with the fire and smoke on board the plane.

The fireball was from the friction of the impact of the jet fuel detonating on impact with the surface of the sea.

Friction on the water surface causes the fuel to detonate? You can't be serious.

 

[EnigmaO01]

I am guessing they will find lithium ion batteries were the cause of the fire and crash.

The rags would have taken credit by now if it was they.

Plus too many Muslim Egyptians died. They would not have targeting a plane going TO Egypt.

They would have targeted a plane departing FROM Egypt. More Russians and French that way.

OMG you're guessing again!

 

[Mithros]

Show me an example where an over pressurized cabin cause a breach in the fuselage.

More assumptions without any facts. No one said anything about an over pressurized cabin. There's ~8.5 PSI difference between Cabin Air Pressure (~6kft) and Atmospheric Pressure at 35kft. 8.5PSI doesn't sound like much, but that's 6.5 tons of pressure on a square meter of fuselage. Failures happen, and for many reason. Was that the case here? Probably not, but we don't know. That's the point.

From the beginning you've pushed a unproven terrorism angle. You've insulted anyone who's tried to tell you that there wasn't enough evidence to come to that conclusion. If there was a design or maintenance flaw that caused this crash, your approach would never uncover it. There's a reason why investigators take a conservative approach to investigations, rather than a reactionary one where they jump to the first conclusion that fits their political leanings..

 

[apdst]

More assumptions without any facts. No one said anything about an over pressurized cabin. There's ~8.5 PSI difference between Cabin Air Pressure (~6kft) and Atmospheric Pressure at 35kft. 8.5PSI doesn't sound like much, but that's 6.5 tons of pressure on a square meter of fuselage. Failures happen, and for many reason. Was that the case here? Probably not, but we don't know. That's the point.

From the beginning you've pushed a unproven terrorism angle. You've insulted anyone who's tried to tell you that there wasn't enough evidence to come to that conclusion. If there was a design or maintenance flaw that caused this crash, your approach would never uncover it. There's a reason why investigators take a conservative approach to investigations, rather than a reactionary one where they jump to the first conclusion that fits their political leanings..

8.5 PSI isn't enough to cause an aircraft to explode.

 

[Deuce]

More assumptions without any facts. No one said anything about an over pressurized cabin. There's ~8.5 PSI difference between Cabin Air Pressure (~6kft) and Atmospheric Pressure at 35kft. 8.5PSI doesn't sound like much, but that's 6.5 tons of pressure on a square meter of fuselage. Failures happen, and for many reason. Was that the case here? Probably not, but we don't know. That's the point.

From the beginning you've pushed a unproven terrorism angle. You've insulted anyone who's tried to tell you that there wasn't enough evidence to come to that conclusion. If there was a design or maintenance flaw that caused this crash, your approach would never uncover it. There's a reason why investigators take a conservative approach to investigations, rather than a reactionary one where they jump to the first conclusion that fits their political leanings..

This line of conversation only started because someone claimed that depressurization and exploding (implying explosives) have the same outcomes. It's false.

 

[beefheart]

Very very interesting:

EgyptAir plane emergency landings in day before crash: report - Business Insider

The EgyptAir plane that mysteriously disappeared in the Mediterranean on May 19 with 66 people on board made three emergency landings in the 24 hours before the crash, the French broadcaster France 3 reports. The report has yet to be confirmed by government or airspace authorities.

The plane used for the EgyptAir Flight 804 connecting Paris to Cairo reportedly had to turn around three times and perform emergency landings on each occasion while travelling among Eritrea, Egypt, Tunisia, and Paris.

Emergency signals indicated a problem on board shortly after takeoff each time, prompting the plane to turn around, France 3 reports.

A technical verification on the ground took place after each landing, but no problems were found and the plane continually took off again and continued on its route, according to the information obtained by France 3. The French newspaper Le Parisien also reported this information.

 

[Deuce]

How the **** do you send a plane back out after three emergency landings when you haven't actually found the issue?

 

[beefheart]

How the **** do you send a plane back out after three emergency landings when you haven't actually found the issue?

Ever heard of Allegiant Airlines?

They do it all the time. Its a very unsafe airline, but it is in the US.

As i said in my first post on this thread, EgyptAir (MS) is not known for its quality MX staff.

 

[beefheart]

BTW, Allegiant had a plane that had a hydraulic leak the other day in flight, landed, they repaired it..and next day a full hydraulic failure. They are not a safe airline.

The Aviation Herald

The Aviation Herald