New EgyptAir plane crash: how far will blackmail?

[Obamot]

PS: we can therefore note that this relatively old plane (MD11), with thermal insulation not correctly fireproofed at the time (and which propagated the fire) had still been able to fly for another 1h20 before unfortunately crashing. And this because of a sky marshal who had made a terrible mistake, by not having understood the degree of urgency of the situation, and that the pilots asked to land in emergency, because if he had heard it , the plane would have materially had time to land at a nearest airport, we learned from the investigation! assuming that the aircraft's flight controls would still have responded correctly on landing.

There for Egyptair - and admitting the idea of ​​the fire (even if I do not find it very credible in view of the above) - they only had half an hour of flight left to ask the shortest ....

[Gaston]

if we remember correctly, the Concorde which crashed after taking off on fire, flew for a long time and it was not a recent plane.

According chronology crash

• 16:43 min 9 s: a wheel on the left main train of the Concorde rolls on a titanium strip. A tire bursts, pieces are thrown against the plane, vibrations propagate in the left wing and in the fuel contained therein, causing a rupture of the interior of the tank. The fuel leaks and ignites.
• 16 min 43 s: two reactors start to lose power
• 16:43 min 21 s: takeoff is effective.
• 16:44 min 9 s: the number 1 engine begins to lose its power.
• 16 min 44 s: the plane escapes the pilot's control and crashes into a hotel.

In total, 1 min 13 seconds including 1 min 1 second of flight ...

The duration of "survival" therefore depends on the type of fire ...

[Flytox]

if we remember correctly, the Concorde which crashed after taking off on fire, flew for a long time and it was not a recent plane.

According chronology crash

• 16:43 min 9 s: a wheel on the left main train of the Concorde rolls on a titanium strip. A tire bursts, pieces are thrown against the plane, vibrations propagate in the left wing and in the fuel contained therein, causing a rupture of the interior of the tank. The fuel leaks and ignites.
• 16 min 43 s: two reactors start to lose power
• 16:43 min 21 s: takeoff is effective.
• 16:44 min 9 s: the number 1 engine begins to lose its power.
• 16 min 44 s: the plane escapes the pilot's control and crashes into a hotel.

In total, 1 min 13 seconds including 1 min 1 second of flight ...

The duration of "survival" therefore depends on the type of fire...

By "type of fire" I guess you mean that there may or may not be a direct and immediate effect on the maneuverability of the zinc.

In fact, during the take-off phase, the engines are stressed almost at full throttle and in the cruising phase at high altitude the engine is relatively lightly loaded and can be slowed down. (It has enough potential energy and finesse to hover (tens of minutes?)).

In the first case, the room for maneuver is very limited and the planet very close, the slightest problem of loss of power can lead to a crash (the example of Concorde), in the second case, at high altitude, the power doesn’t is not priority # 1. The crew certainly has more time to analyze where the fire is, the problems and priorities and to evaluate the exit solutions.

[Obamot]

Yes I admit, it was 2 extreme examples.

if we remember correctly, the Concorde which crashed after taking off on fire, flew for a long time and it was not a recent plane.

According chronology crash

• 16:43 min 9 s: a wheel on the left main train of the Concorde rolls on a titanium strip. A tire bursts, pieces are thrown against the plane, vibrations propagate in the left wing and in the fuel contained therein, causing a rupture of the interior of the tank. The fuel leaks and ignites.
• 16 min 43 s: two reactors start to lose power
• 16:43 min 21 s: takeoff is effective.
• 16:44 min 9 s: the number 1 engine begins to lose its power.
• 16 min 44 s: the plane escapes the pilot's control and crashes into a hotel.

In total, 1 min 13 seconds including 1 min 1 second of flight ...

The duration of "survival" therefore depends on the type of fire ...

at 35 ft it's 000sec. (180min) of free fall + 3sec = 73sec / 253 = 100 x 2,53 = 73% more than 28,8min ... everything is relative!
but flight MS804 did not have a reactor on fire, ACARS would have listed it, and since it did not fly at 45ft it makes us well 000min

[Obamot]

j'don't believe it!

are we going to repeat the same move as the MH370?

already a week of lost battery life, it will be 10 days when they are in the area!

http://www.france24.com/fr/20160527-france-egypte-crash-egyptair-recherches-sous-marines-navire-laplace-boites-noires

"pings" were reportedly detected on a pifometer on May 26, reducing the search area to .... 5 km

http://www.air-journal.fr/2016-05-27-crash-degyptair-des-signaux-de-la320-detectes-5163593.html

[Obamot]

Okay, okay ....

After the UFO, here is now the trail of the computer bug !

Could a false alarm given by the smoke detectors of the Airbus A320 which crashed in the Mediterranean have caused the plane to crash?

In 2011, a false smoke detection alert had already forced an A320 to land. But the plane had not ... crashed!

Smoke Alerts Like That on Flight 804 Have Raised Questions in the Past

Incorrect warning led to emergency landing in 2011; investigators explore scenario in EgyptAir crash

A United Airlines Airbus A320 made an emergency landing in New Orleans on April 4, 2011 after-pilots received a smoke alert That turned out to be incorrect.

Source: http://www.wsj.com/articles/smoke-alerts-like-that-on-flight-804-have-raised-questions-in-the-past-1464390994

Another smoking hypothesis to make a smoke screen?
First there were detectors which recorded an increase in temperature, then only then, not just one, but two smoke detectors (one in the hold in the nose of the plane and another in the toilet) detected smoke. 3 minutes after the plane crashed ....

It is therefore not the same scenario, and I find this hypothesis a little absurd, insofar as:
- if the pilots had wanted to start this procedure, they would first have had to find and read the F ... ing Manual, then read the instructions and consult and decide according to their appreciation of the situation ... it would have probably taken them more than three minutes, since during this time it is still necessary to carefully ensure flight continuity. .
- not being in an immediate danger situation, they then had time to contact the tower, to reserve a runway for an emergency landing, but they did not do so, the press did not report it : They would have contacted Cairo which was not the first airport within their reach, but not to prepare an emergency landing: it takes time, it is necessary to put foam on the runway (... even if the information are confused at this point, denied after denied, it's not the kind of thing that goes unnoticed ...)
- time passing and the place of destination approaching, I would not see too many experienced pilots taking such a risk by hastily deciding to launch a "emergency checklist", to shut down all essential security systems, including the autopilot protection controls when they only had a little over 20 minutes of flight time to reach the first airport!

And besides (in a contradictory report of communication with air traffic control) hadn't the pilots said that the cockpit was overrun with smoke? So it was not just an illusion. Because in the case of proven smoke, it would not have been the same procedure as the pilots should have undertaken.

There is always a fear that we will never know the end of this tragic story.

[Arnaud M]

The real reason for all these breakdowns and crashes is the Earth's core which emits very (very) strong electromagnetic pulses. Just like the earthquakes more and more frequent in France its treaty with the fun and obscured, the media do not want to speak about these problems of EMP.
Nobody made the link between the following 3 events following a period of strong aircraft question breakage?
day before yesterday:
An entire region blocked at the SNCF level due to an electronic failure (EMP?)
http://www.francetvinfo.fr/economie/tra ... 71297.html
here:
2 grilled transformers block the worldwide broadcast of Roland Garros (EMP?).
http://rmcsport.bfmtv.com/tennis/roland ... 78136.html
today :
a new computer crash blocks the montparnasse station this morning (EMP?)
http://www.lepoint.fr/societe/sncf-pann ... 819_23.php

Anything that contains a winding, especially the largest (transformers) or the most fragile / critical electronics such as flying machines, is likely to be affected.

Well, the goal was just to warn you that the plane will become more and more dangerous in the months to come. You do what you want with it.

[Obamot]

Not completely impossible, But before you can say that you need proof.

In this case, why would you want to add another layer of irrational reasoning to the ambient human irrational ... Because in the state, the indices do not go in this direction there, otherwise the data of the ACRARS system would have transmitted the maintenance info for the defective element to be replaced at the next stopover (since it is the initial purpose of this system, to have the parts in stock at the next stopover, to repair aircraft as quickly as possible and immobilize them on the ground as short as possible: whether the plane fell or not, this data had to be automatically transmitted (or the defect of the entire block to be changed) which was not the case! (To my knowledge).

In the logical sequence of failures according to a current scenario, we possibly have:

1) failure of an element or identification of the block to which it belongs as the very first alarm (triggered by all the redundant armada of computers, and which worked perfectly since the ACARS messages were indeed sent but WITHOUT detecting this type of prior failure. ..CQFD). The pilots were not otherwise alarmed (but this point is subject to confirmation and in any case does not explain such rapid degradation, as seen above)

2) following the breakdown and a short circuit causing a fire, a cascade of other breakdowns should then be reported in turn one after the other by ACARS and immediately alerting the pilots to degraded systems: that did not take place ... Nor did the pilots alert the air traffic control. No may Day (request to be confirmed / clarified too) ...

3) then only then detection of significant heat increase!

4) then only then with propagation of a fire, detection of smoke .... BUT / AND besides, how to explain the detection of smoke in the toilets first (assuming a fire in the hold, it is there rather than - logically - the smoke had to be detected first, because there was a massive presence) then only smoke detection in the toilets ENSUITE, otherwise it does not stand up. ..

And besides, there is redundancy of all the vital systems in an airplane, therefore a blown coil by the effect of "strong electromagnetic pulses from the Earth's core"cannot explain on its own a crash, which is always at least the simultaneous sequence of three circumstances, according to the" tree of causes ". Moreover, the plane being> 11 m above 'a body of water, this one forms a screen and the intensity of electromagnetism decreases with the distance ...! I imagine that there is even worse phenomenon, like the planes affected directly by the lightning and yet it happens every day and does not crash them for all that: the actions - voluntary or not - of humans being much more formidable, alas!

Because whatever the offending or accidental cause, it can only be human and factual in this case (either in the wrong conception or intention ...)

[Obamot]

PS:

what would make me now possibly lean for the hypothesis of a criminal act, it would be:

1) not only the cascade of denials / retractions which in themselves are already "indicators":

2) until the precise moment of the crash -3min, we have a flight without history, with all the parameters at the top;

3) the absence of degradations in cascades that would suggest the progression of a fire on board, especially in the electrical part?

4) but ESPECIALLY the factual elements which indicate an explosion on board on certain "human remains", (by explosive or not).

5) the speed of sequence, causes and effects (the A320 drops to 200km / h suddenly, say the radars, so you need a "trigger"!)

6) that in the event of an initial situation that was not badly degraded, the choice was not to land on the airport located within 1/2 hour. flight !

7) visual observation by boat: fireball compatible with an explosion (accredits the initial US thesis then denied)

8} confirmation of the speed of deterioration of the situation by ACARS (which can continue to transmit after an explosion)

9) and above all a fact never mentioned before in the press, which is that the detection of smoke is located opposite to the detection of the heat source, which is precisely the case during the explosion of a bomb, where the fumes are projected on the periphery, this is what ACARS detections possibly say! And who can even explain by the pressure that they are detected first beyond the epicenter ...!

10) Last but not least, a second plane of an Egyptian company which crashes in six months and this in the framework of the Paris / Brussels attacks, where bombs specifically targeted an airport! And even if the worst is not certain (for the time being). But what makes this strange after the threats painted under the belly of the fuselage.

[izentrop]

It will not be possible to recover for at least 12 days the black boxes of the Paris-Cairo flight of EgyptAir which crashed in the Mediterranean with 66 people on board. This was announced by sources close to the investigation, Sunday, May 29. This delay corresponds to the time necessary before a specialized vessel arrives on site.
The Airbus A320 disappeared from radar screens in the middle of the night, on May 19, before falling into the sea between Crete and the north coast of Egypt for an unknown reason. Only the analyzes of the flight recorders will make it possible to know precisely the causes of the accident. Time is running out since the black box beacons can only transmit four to five weeks before their batteries are exhausted.

If my calculations are good, they may only have a week to find them.
http://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/europe ... 74865.html