New EgyptAir plane crash: how far will blackmail?

Humanitarian catastrophes (including resource wars and conflicts), natural, climate and industrial (except nuclear or oil forum fossil and nuclear energy). Pollution of the sea and oceans.
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: EgyptAir plane crash: how far will blackmail?




by izentrop » 02/11/16, 23:08

As for Obamot, the thesis of the attack suits the Egyptian authorities, but let us stay down to earth : Wink:
it is not an accident, but an attack, hammer the Egyptian authorities. The "proof": there are traces of TNT on the wreckage debris. The French air transport gendarmes in charge of the judicial investigation were asked to sign the report without seeing the exhibits or their seals ... Besides the fact that TNT is not the preferred explosive for terrorists (more amateurs of C -4 or TATP), the traces noted may come from a previous transport, hence the gendarmes' desire to go further in the investigation. Move around, there is nothing to see, means the Egyptian Ministry of Aviation. Is there a preferential Egyptian state thesis? It would not be the first time, and the previous major Franco-Egyptian accident, the crash of the Flash Airlines charter in Sharm el-Sheikh in 2004, encountered a difference between political "truth" and proven facts. The captain, a former Egyptian general and hero of the Six Day War, was officially out of the question, when his spatial disorientation at the controls was at the origin of the crash. http://www.lepoint.fr/monde/crash-du-vo ... or=CS3-192
0 x
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14138
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839

Re: EgyptAir plane crash: how far will blackmail?




by Flytox » 07/08/19, 20:48

2 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14138
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839

Re: EgyptAir plane crash: how far will blackmail?




by Flytox » 14/07/22, 15:39

Continuation of Boiiiingggg FAAA collusion issues


After problems with MCAS software, Boeing may retire the Boeing 737 MAX 10
unless exempt from security requirements

On July 10, 2022 at 17:52 p.m., by Stéphane le calme

Boeing's 737 MAX series has come under intense scrutiny after two fatal crashes involving Boeing 737 MAX aircraft in 2018 and 2019 respectively killed everyone on board. Both accidents were related to a software design flaw involving the MAX series Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS). Boeing has hinted it may retire the latest model of its 737 MAX

Aircraft maker Boeing has hinted that it may retire the latest model of its 737 MAX, which is currently in the process of obtaining certification, unless it is exempted from certain safety rules which will come into force in 2023. More than 600 examples of the 737 MAX 10, the most successful version of this type of aircraft, have been ordered by airlines around the world.

However, there is a catch - from next year, new aviation regulations will be introduced in the United States.

In 2020, Congress passed the Aircraft Safety and Certification Reform Act, stipulating that new aircraft must comply with the latest crew alert regulations imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in order to to be certified from 2023.

The 737 MAX line does not include this technology, as it is based on an aircraft first designed in the 1960s, reports One Mile at a Time.

If the MAX 10 misses the 2022 certification deadline, its flight deck will need to be outfitted with new safety technology, which will drive up costs and require additional pilot training.

This last requirement would be particularly detrimental, as one of the jet's greatest assets is that it can be flown by pilots familiar with the 737 without additional training.

In response, Boeing CEO David Calhoun hinted that the entire project could be pulled if the plane was not exempted from the new rules or extended until they come into effect. vigor.

He told Aviation Week, "The [737-10] is in a bit of an 'all or nothing' situation." “I think our case is strong enough [to get an extension]... It's a risk I'm willing to take. If I lose the fight, I lose the fight”. Calhoun added, "If you go through the things we've been through, the debts we've had to rack up, our ability to react, or our willingness to see things through even in a world without the MAX 10, it's not so scary ".

He said he doesn't expect the plane to be retired: "I think the outcome is going to be favorable and we're going to have a [737-10] in the air regardless of when." "It's just a risk," he said.


Fatal 737 Max accidents: engineers sidelined, a shortage of expertise

The Aviation Whistleblower report released in early December by a US Senate committee cites numerous oversight gaps in government and the aviation industry. The report was produced at the request of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation in response to two Boeing 737 MAX crashes in 2018 and 2019 that killed 346 people. It is based on testimony from seven industry whistleblowers from Boeing, GE and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Boeing designed the 737 Max to compete with the Airbus A320neo. In order to achieve comparable fuel efficiency, Boeing essentially installed new engines on the existing 737 airframe, allowing the passenger jet to avoid going through a new regulatory approval process.

The resulting 737 Max, however, had different handling characteristics than the 737, and Boeing tried to compensate by adding a software layer called MCAS, the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System.

MCAS adjusts the aircraft's position, adjusting the aircraft's control surfaces to maintain a set position. It was designed to do this based on input from a single angle of attack sensor, compared to three sensors in the comparable Airbus model. And it turned out to be disastrous.

In 2019, a 737 Max plane operated by Ethiopian Airlines crashed just five months after another plane belonging to Indonesia, Lion Air 610 (a 737 Max), plunged into the sea. Investigators found that n these two occasions, a faulty sensor caused an erroneous triggering of the automatic anti-stall system, the “Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System” (MCAS), forcing the aircraft to nose dive. Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines pilots battled to right their jets, but were overwhelmed by the automatic system every time they tried.

In 2019, the pilots of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, also a 737 Max, attempted to counter the effects of MCAS but were unable to physically move the mechanical trim wheel due to the aerodynamic force of the downward dive. floor.

Boeing reached a $2021 billion (about 2,5 billion euros) settlement with the US Department of Justice in January 2,18 for fines and compensation, which included a $500 million fund for compensate the families of the 346 victims of the two accidents of the 737 Max. The manufacturer, however, did not immediately admit guilt, which would have prevented him from receiving future government contracts. Instead, he entered into a deferred prosecution agreement.

But in November, following reports that highlighted flaws in the plane's design, the American was forced to admit it.

A Boeing spokesperson said: “Boeing is committed to ensuring that all families who have lost loved ones in accidents are fully and fairly compensated for their loss. The agreement filed with the court is an important step in this process. By accepting liability, Boeing's agreement with the families allows the parties to focus their efforts on determining the appropriate compensation for each family. »

British relatives of one of the victims welcomed Boeing's admission of responsibility. Mark Pegram, the father of Sam Pegram, an aid worker who died in the crash, told the BBC: "The main positive for us is that Boeing is admitting responsibility and not blaming Ethiopian Airlines or the pilots." .

No corporate officer faces imprisonment for misconduct acknowledged by the company. Boeing fired CEO Dennis Muilenburg in late 2019 over the 737 Max crashes and walked away with $62 million in compensation.


Former Boeing chief technical pilot charged with fraud

The Justice Department in October indicted Mark A. Forkner, a former Boeing 737 MAX chief technical pilot, with fraud. The government alleges that Forkner provided the FAA with false, inaccurate, and incomplete information about MCAS, leading to the misunderstandings that contributed to both crashes.

On October 14, the Justice Department indicted the former Boeing chief technical pilot for fraud. Mark A. Forkner is accused of misleading the Federal Aviation Administration's Aircraft Evaluation Group in its evaluation of Boeing's 737 MAX plane and of conspiring to defraud the US airline's customers of Boeing in order to obtain tens of millions of dollars for Boeing. As alleged in the indictment, Forkner provided the agency with materially false, inaccurate and incomplete information about a new part of the Boeing 737 MAX flight controls called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS).

"In an attempt to save Boeing money, Forkner allegedly withheld critical information from regulators," said Acting U.S. Attorney Chad E. Meacham for the Northern District of Texas. “His ruthless choice to mislead the FAA hampered the agency's ability to protect the flying public and left pilots in limbo missing information on certain 737 MAX flight controls. The Department of Justice will not tolerate fraud, especially in areas where the stakes are so high.”

"Forkner allegedly withheld crucial information about the Boeing 737 Max and misled the FAA, showing blatant disregard for its responsibilities and the safety of airline customers and crews," FBI Deputy Director Calvin Shivers said. “The FBI will continue to detain individuals like Forker. responsible for their fraudulent acts which jeopardize public security”.

The Aviation Whistleblower Report

The Senate Aviation Whistleblower report follows the Aircraft Certification, Safety and Liability Act, an aviation safety reform law enacted in December 2020 to address the issues that led to the two crashes.

It details the testimony of Ed Pierson, a former Boeing executive, who described 13 other reported safety incidents with the 737 Max that resulted in no loss of life. He observed:

“Most shocking of all, 11 of these 13 security incidents occurred in the five months between the Lion Air crash and the Ethiopian Airlines crash. So 2 security incidents per month. So at a time when Boeing and the FAA should have been operating with extremely high awareness after the Lion Air crash, the MAX continued to average two safety incidents per month for the five months leading up to the Lion Air crash. Ethiopian Airlines. At this rate, had the MAX not been grounded in March 2019, there could have been 42 more safety incidents involving aircraft systems (other than MCAS) by December 2020, which means a correspondingly higher probability of another fatal accident”.

The report found that the FAA's certification process puts aviation personnel under undue pressure.

For example, Richard Kucera, a former GE Aviation engineer, recounted "being placed in an untenable position where he was responsible for conducting engine compliance testing on behalf of [the] FAA, while also being responsible for preparing GE engines to pass those same tests.” And Boeing staff, the report explained, faced “relentless” schedule pressure when it came to the 737 Max.

The FAA, whistleblowers say, had too few safety engineers in its Seattle office overseeing Boeing and had certification processes that did not reflect current airworthiness standards.

Not only that, senior FAA engineers who raised safety concerns "were sidelined during certification of the 737 Max," the report said.

The FAA and the aviation industry, according to the report, also face the challenge of certifying and operating complex technical systems that involve the interaction of people and automated systems, a challenge compounded by the scarcity of experts who truly understand these systems.

“While automated flight control systems can improve safety, the increased reliance on automation creates new safety challenges,” the report states.

“These range from pilots' failure to use automated flight systems correctly, to software malfunctions that generate erroneous data, to degradation of manual piloting skills. »

The report makes numerous recommendations to increase the FAA's surveillance capabilities, particularly with respect to its Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) program - through which the U.S. Aviation Constable delegates its surveillance duties. to the workers of the companies it is supposed to supervise.

This practice of letting aviation company employees act on behalf of FAA personnel, the report notes, has led to the approval of systems that should not have been approved.

For example, Michael Collins, a former FAA engineer, testified that FAA directors delegated 95 percent of Boeing 787 Dreamliner certification to Boeing personnel.

"This delegation decision included the certification of a new high-risk battery installation technology, a decision made against the recommendation of a technical specialist who identified the system's safety-critical design flaw," says the report.

“In the absence of oversight from FAA technical and safety engineers, Boeing's ODA deemed the design of the lithium battery system to be compliant. Later, this exact design flaw led to dangerous 787 fires and the eventual FAA grounding of the 787 Dreamliner.”

Source: Aviation Week
3 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.

[Eugène Ionesco]

http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: EgyptAir plane crash: how far will blackmail?




by Obamot » 14/07/22, 22:07

izentrop wrote:As for Obamot, the thesis of the attack suits the Egyptian authorities, but let us stay down to earth : Wink:
it is not an accident, but an attack, hammer the Egyptian authorities. The "proof": there are traces of TNT on the wreckage debris. The French air transport gendarmes in charge of the judicial investigation were asked to sign the report without seeing the exhibits or their seals ... Besides the fact that TNT is not the preferred explosive for terrorists (more amateurs of C -4 or TATP), the traces noted may come from a previous transport, hence the gendarmes' desire to go further in the investigation. Move around, there is nothing to see, means the Egyptian Ministry of Aviation. Is there a preferential Egyptian state thesis? It would not be the first time, and the previous major Franco-Egyptian accident, the crash of the Flash Airlines charter in Sharm el-Sheikh in 2004, encountered a difference between political "truth" and proven facts. The captain, a former Egyptian general and hero of the Six Day War, was officially out of the question, when his spatial disorientation at the controls was at the origin of the crash. http://www.lepoint.fr/monde/crash-du-vo ... or=CS3-192
The only problem with this version is that it was the FRENCH investigators who found the traces of explosives...

Now I don't decide between: "accident”VS“attempt"..
So I don't see why you could say that "It suits me" (huh-huh-huh ...)
0 x
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 14823
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 4302

Re: EgyptAir plane crash: how far will blackmail?




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 14/07/22, 22:36

Ouaoua wrote:
The only problem with this version is that it was the FRENCH investigators who found the traces of explosives...

Well no, exactly:
It is the French Institute for Criminal Research of the National Gendarmerie (IRCGN) which has been tasked with validate the Egyptian chemical analyzes last summer.Traces of TNT do indeed exist the debris presented by Egypt, but according to someone close to the investigation, their signature is too concentrated to be credible. The analyzed TNT cannot have stayed in water, it is either pollution or a fake(see article dedicated to this question here). The Egyptian authorities also refused the French gendarmes access to the other seals on which additional analyzes could have been carried out... and France did not agree to co-sign the Egyptian declaration concerning this analysis.

http://www.peuravion.fr/blog/2017/01/ms804-apple/
: Mrgreen:
Last edited by GuyGadeboisTheBack the 14 / 07 / 22, 22: 55, 2 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: EgyptAir plane crash: how far will blackmail?




by Obamot » 14/07/22, 22:53

Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes- Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes- Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, Yes-Yes, : Mrgreen:
Obamot wrote:As long as you modified the content of my initial post (against my will, v/my refusal by PM). I feel that this one is no longer mine

RT-TV on Sep 17, 2016 wrote:TNT traces found on debris from flight MS804
French investigators reported finding traces of TNT on debris from the A320 of EgyptAir MS804 which crashed in the Mediterranean in May. Although the origin of the traces remains to be defined, they added speculation that the accident would be an "inside job".

Investigators from the National Gendarmerie's Criminal Research Institute (IRCGN), discovered traces of explosive [mid-September] during the visit to Cairo, reported Le Figaro >>>.

The Egyptian authorities have not authorized the French investigators to examine the debris in more detail ...

To confirm the finding, the Egyptians want to write a joint report with the French, but French investigators are unwilling to do so, unless adequate access to debris is granted.
Source: https://www.rt.com/news/359642-egyptair ... nt-traces/


Obamot wrote: This corroborates the doubts raised so far on the "accidental cause" of the disappearance of the plane. And in particular the fact that among the human remains found floating on the surface of the sea, the micro-debris having penetrated into the flesh had done so at "very high velocity(Reminder: the speed of 50 km / h is compatible with what is produced by the explosion of an explosive device and not the sudden disintegration of an airplane in flight for any technical reason ...)

It remains for France to go to the end, and to say what they discovered on the back-up of the black boxes (which they did not fail to do and which allows them to advance the thesis of "the insidious job» in correlation with the discoveries of the traces of TNT and the rest
natural-human-disasters/new-air-crash-egyptair-until-or-will-go-the-blackmail-t14735-80.html#p309956)
0 x
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 14823
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 4302

Re: EgyptAir plane crash: how far will blackmail?




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 14/07/22, 23:01

Obamot wrote:Investigators from the Criminal Research Institute of the National Gendarmerie (IRCGN), have discovered traces of explosives [mid-September] during the visit to Cairo, reported Le Figaro >>>.


The real sentence of Figaro, not faked by Ouaoua:

investigators from the Criminal Research Institute of the National Gendarmerie (IRCGN) could only see the presence of TNT on debris from the aircraft. https://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-franc ... ecaire.php

You shrink from any villainy, you.... : roll: CQFD again

Screenshot 2022-07-14 at 23-00-19 Egyptair crash traces of explosives cause trouble between Paris and Cairo.png
Screenshot 2022-07-14 at 23-00-19 Egyptair crash traces of explosives cause trouble between Paris and Cairo.png (41.44 KiB) Consulted 1290 times
Last edited by GuyGadeboisTheBack the 14 / 07 / 22, 23: 05, 1 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: EgyptAir plane crash: how far will blackmail?




by Obamot » 14/07/22, 23:04

I didn't change anything and I never change anything, I took it back as it was at the time.

Awoue! And you are ready to swallow the thesis of the pilot who smoked in the cockpit? Serious?

Do you even swallow the smoke? : Idea: : Oops: : roll:
Last edited by Obamot the 14 / 07 / 22, 23: 10, 2 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 14823
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 4302

Re: EgyptAir plane crash: how far will blackmail?




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 14/07/22, 23:08

No, I swallow the thesis of the enormous crash of Boeing which would go so far as to bribe the Egyptian authorities to pass over their shortcomings in silence. Remember that billions are at stake
1 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: EgyptAir plane crash: how far will blackmail?




by Obamot » 14/07/22, 23:13

bla-bla-bla of the guy who only goes after me looking for the slightest pretext... : Cheesy:

And to be credible you will have to US explain the how of the why of:
debris having penetrated the flesh at "very high velocity" and compatible with an explosion


Good luck anyway,..
You can also take all my posts since 2016 and scrutinize them, you have all summer : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen: : Mrgreen:

PS: you're getting as bad as ABC2019
Last edited by Obamot the 14 / 07 / 22, 23: 16, 2 edited once.
0 x

Back to "humanitarian disasters, natural, climatic and industrial"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 99 guests