Here is the crazy thing. The pilot asks the other pilot to get a fire extinguisher. WTH? The fire had to have been pretty close to the cockpit or the pilot would have had to seen flames or something to ask his other pilot to grab an extinguisher. Why no mention of a bomb.? It seems it was just a fire at that point.
"Crew members were
playing music wow and chatting amiably when the pilot, Capt. Muhammad Shoukair, 36, suddenly said there was a fire on board and asked the co-pilot, Muhammad Mamdouh Assem, 24, to get an extinguisher. That was the last human sound the recorder captured."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/world/middleeast/egyptair-804-crash-fire.html?_r=1
Unless it blew up right after the fire started or something. Its really strange. If there really is no large parts on bottom and if they are scattered miles apart then I could go with a bomb or something. But I think we need more evidence at this point. Not near enough has been found of the wreckage it seems.
After all these weeks then why isn't more of the wreckage located. This investigation has been way too secret so far. Something doesn't sound right yet.
And the other thing that does make me lean towards terrorism is smoke in the lavoratory and near the cockpit. Why both places. It was almost like one terrorist went into the bathroom and started a fire and another one went near the cockpit door and started another fire. That could explain why the pilot asked for an extinguisher. If a couple terrorists managed to bring on board flammable liquid like gasoline and then poured it under the door into the cockpit and then lit it on fire then it may explaine why the pilot asked the copilot to get an extinguisher. If enough liquid went under the door then they could have been burned so badly that they had to let go of the steering wheels and then the death spiral to the ground again.
I am mainly baffled why there was no explosion sound by the pilot unless an explosion happened after all the smoke. Maybe the whole time the terrorist were trying to detonate a bomb and it finally went off after a bunch of smoke and flames. l
This is another mystery right now to me.
I know everyone is getting tired of not having enough information from the planes when they go down. It seems we really need some major changes. Like instead of just voide recording. How about video of the inside of the cabin too. And how about GPS signal of location the whole time plane is in the air.
Some simple changes until they can create these systems could do the job.
Why not a simple Go Pro camera filming the cockpit and why not a simple hand held GPS device. Have them both in a protective shell and just turn the things one before each flight. Total cost is under 1500 bucks until they can install something better.
Its getting ridiculous with these mystery plane crashes.
Its unbelievable to think we can have kids with go pros filming stuff and getting them on Utube within hours of filming and have GPS devices in our cars and phones and these high tech planes cant tell us what happened or where they end up when they wreck.
Hi HAt,
I think some of problem is word choice, in terms of talking about what they believe happened. It was two main sequences IMO. First, the window then the smoke/fire and the crews attempt to deal with that which resulted in two events , the initial decent followed by the plummet.
IMO the initial drop occurred, but the plane was still controllable - the crew did seem to halt the decent for a brief period after the initial 17000 foot fall. IMO, this indicates at that point a intact aircraft.
Fire in avoics bay can often be a sequential loss of stuff. Like first one item in the cockpit fails, crew attention goes to that, then shortly thereafter another, its like cascading.
Then at some point visibility inside the cockpit over rides everything else, they cant see an instruments or buttons, so that IMO is the first drop.
I chuckled when I first read 360 turn - aircraft cant 360 its physics!
I totally agree with you , the 360 degree is not a "turn", it is the start of the spiral down, after control was totally lost, either passed out crew, the autopilot system had gotten so much erroneous information from the failing systems, that it either quit, or put the plane in a profile that resulted in a stall and spiral.
I do not think , and never did, that it was bomb, planes that are bombed cannot be somewhat in control for 17000 feet moo, especially in this size aircraft.
During a stall and spiral; forces on the structures gradual increase and exceed design specs. Different structures have different specs, so parts get pushed past there design limits at different times during the accident sequence.
It would be like a rear stabilzer snaps off, creating another totally different set of stresses to some other part of the structure, which then 8 seconds later shears off.During all this time, speed is continuing to build. Then a left wing shears, resulting in the beginning of fuselage failure, Even that is not like an instant event in its entirety, Its kinda like breaking pieces of bread apart, one at a time with your hands. (dint ask me where that came from!)
Metal fatigue is kinda like bending a paper a clip back and forth - at some stress point the paper clip "fails" - kinda similar !!
The debris Field is consistent with a in air break up as opposed to in air explosion. They are two different "events" - totally.
They found some clustering of wreckage and passengers (would be like as rows 21 22 detached, those 8 people are outside of the plane now), would have a similar trajectory, kinda like in group, because they were separated from the fuselage at the same time and height.
A few seconds later, some more passengers get ejected, but we have to remember the machine is picking up speed during the whole sequence, so the speed of their fall etc is totally different. If ejected side ways first they then start there decent from a different location, that clustering would impact the ocean at a different location IMO.
Finding some relatively big parts of wreckage also fits in flight breakup, for like the same reasons - design, how sheared off, at what angle, how far away from the ocean, how much of the chunk remained connected all would impact their decent as well. They would have different speeds, which would affect speed at impact and subsequent destination, individually.
All of which would result in a larger debris field than an intact aircraft impacting the water as one unit.
The debris field being large, defiantly indicates an in air event, but not an explosion in the bomb sense. They knew this pretty quickly- where I think this is turning into BS is money.
If it is (not) a design flaw- then Airbus has some very serious problems. It it is mechanical,related to substandard maintenance (yep) then the airline has some very serious problems. If they could get the "terrorist" angle to stick both parties get a pass.
After finding the New York times piece, clearly indicating no explosion, and that the investigations real focus now is what caused the first (window) ) failure, (then mist/fire) then we are back to Airbus Or Egypt Air. I was glad , to me it seemed like French investigators told them we are not going out there with a bomb- it is not what the information tells us - sorry guys, we do not work that way.
It was not a disintegration of an airplane at height, it was , IMO , a falling apart on the way down. I still get hung up on metal fatigue, the way they flew her. Lots of carriers do that short hopping, but if you have a sleazy maintenance group they kinda IMO, ignore that fact.
Aircraft used constantly on short segments, need extra special care to monitor metal fatigue. It is expensive and keeps the babies out of the wild blue yonder for long periods of time - she ain't making any money on the ground. Hummm Egypt Air???
They use ultrasound to monitor fatigue. It is manpower intensive - basically going over ever centimeter of an aircraft , kind of like going over a pregnant woman's womb. Need to do this testing is determined most by cycles flown (takeoff/landing) in conjunction with manufacture date --- number of cycles having far more weight.
In reality the actual age of an aircraft has nothing to do with its delivery date. Its how its flown. Lets say (baby numbers please!) a plane is designed for 100 flights. If a carrier is using one aircraft for 5 flights a day, while using another aircraft for one 19 hour flight, the short segment aircraft is aging much faster than the other one.
IMO,the CAUSE of the FIRE might actually be a result of structural failure. I just thought this the instant when I saw how many segments she did a day. If the rivets around the front part of the aircraft (window?) began to fail, that could cause a fire.
Rivets popping is not necessarily an instant event (speeds up tho), but if it started around the windows (cause of metal fatigue) , electronic equipment being jarred and pulled apart from other electronics would short out making smoke or fire.
Another thing that makes me go metal fatigue is the order of the SCARS message. The first being cockpit window related, as opposed to avionics smoke THEN windows. Windows first takes me to structure fatigue around a cockpit window, resulting in a shear, decompression, which then translated to the smoke /fire warnings.
Decompression results in a blueish fog in the cabin, a mist if you will. , which could have triggered them initially, and then a fire broke out as a result of shorting electronics.
I am placing my bet on Egypt Air failures, resulting in the loss of the lives of many.
All speculation of course...........
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/issues/15-february-2002/ultrasound-tool-makes-sense-of-metal-fatigue/
