EgyptAir flight from Paris to Cairo has vanished from Radar

a reply to: roadgravel

The ufo theory is the biggest joke. A Turkish flight saw a green light they called a possible ufo several hours before 804 went down. That somehow became EgyptAir seeing a ufo shortly before they crashed.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: roadgravel
The ufo theory is the biggest joke.

At least nobody on MSM is suggesting the "black hole" theory (this time).

There is a report on Reuters that EgyptAir is contracting with French and Italian firms to help with finding the "black boxes". Here is an excerpt:

EgyptAir chairman Safwat Musallam did not name the French and Italian companies involved but told a news conference they were able to carry out searches at a depth of 3,000 meters.

Two French diplomatic sources said Egyptian authorities and France's BEA air accident investigation agency were finalizing a contract with two French companies, Mauritius-based Deep Ocean Search and Alseamar.

"The objective is to go extremely quickly so they can find the boxes that are probably in very deep waters," said one source.

The source said the costs of the contract would be shared between France and Egypt. Neither source was aware of talks with the Italian company.

So… are any of the other “ASW” jocks out there as confused as I am over the role that the P-3’s out of Sigonella, Sicily (VP-4) are playing in this search for the EgyptAir flight 804?

From the news coming in (sparse at best), they are tasked with only the surface surveillance for debris, and not in what they do best…. Sonic detection. Why are we not hearing of sonobuoy patterns being dropped? The reason it did not work in the MH380 search (over 80 buoys were dropped), is because they were dropped in the original places they thought the search would be productive, not, as we know now, in the more extreme south China sea…


In this particular case, unlike MH380, the probable area of the crash is much more localized. A straight line search pattern oriented along and through the bearing line where the aircraft was lost from radar contact, to it’s expected flight path to Cairo would certainly be a suggested approach, but why are we not hearing about it? The P-3 drops a long pattern on that bearing and loiters around it , ready to drop a perpendicular array across any buoy that picks up a signal. Standard SAR/ASW. And, old technology at best.. well documented. One can only guess at what is available now.

I do NOT like the utter lack of information that this is being done. If it is not being done, it is certainly perplexing, as this is what would occur if it happened on this side of the pond.

30 days of life in those pinger batteries (it appears, as we have not even been told what types of pingers they were).

It bothers me a lot. Anyone else?

a reply to: charlyv

Because of the depth of water in area you will not likely be able to hear the sonar pinger on the surface because of
water conditions

There are thermoclines (layers of water of differing temperature) and haloclines (layers of water with different
salinity) which interfere with sound propagation

You would need a towed hydrophone array lowered near the bottom to pick up signals from the pinger which has range of
only few miles

a reply to: charlyv

Not an "ASW Jock", but yes; just like MH 370, they don't really want to find MS 804. They just want everyone to wonder...so they can spin all manner of stories about what happened. Why? because they already KNOW what happened to MS 804.

They won't get "serious" about 'trying' to find MS 804 until AFTER the pinger batteries go dead. Then, they can waste a WHOLE bunch of money for nothing.

It's all window dressing. All the mis-information makes it pretty obvious.

FWIW, I've wondered the same as you. Here we have the World's finest, ASW guys (and presumably gals) who are able to truly find a needle in a haystack. They can find something whose sole purpose is to NOT be found, yet they're not allowed to do the same job to find something which is DESIGNED to be found. If this isn't telling, I don't know what is!!

a reply to: firerescue

And those same guys are completely ineffective at finding ballistic nuclear missile submarines too, for the same reasons, right??? Submarines who use those same thermoclines and haloclines to remain hidden.

BTW...sonobouys don't remain on the surface (or just below it).

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Because every other plane crash in deep water was found five minutes after it crashed. But since this one hasn't been they don't want to.

a reply to: charlyv

How do we know they aren't? As you said, the information is sparse. They can have multiple aircraft on scene with one doing surface and one doing undersea.

a reply to: charlyv

Never underestimate the capacity of the Egyptian military (who are leading the search as the plane went down in Egyptian waters) to display outstanding levels of incompetence.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Pretty much!

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: charlyv

Because of the depth of water in area you will not likely be able to hear the sonar pinger on the surface because of
water conditions

There are thermoclines (layers of water of differing temperature) and haloclines (layers of water with different
salinity) which interfere with sound propagation

You would need a towed hydrophone array lowered near the bottom to pick up signals from the pinger which has range of
only few miles

Well aware of thermoclines. The hydrophones can get below them into the DSC which carries sound for great distances. Did it for years. They are more of a problem for surface sonar in ships. Buoy patterns have the advantage of massive, concurrent coverage.

Additionally, piezo crystals themselves resonate at this frequency (37.5Khz), and, there is low absorption of sound energy in seawater in the ranges of 30-40khz, Basically that is why the pinger’s in the black boxes use this range. Another factor for the selection of that frequency is that the range is usually not produced by most of marine life. (excluding dolphins, whales and shrimp, which are easily identified.)

Hey guys, I'm curious, did they receive radio transmissions from an ELT yesterday, or not?
From CNN 22 hrs ago:

Airbus has detected signals from the Mediterranean Sea where EgyptAir Flight 804 crashed last week, Egypt's state-run Al Ahram news agency reported Thursday. The signals were emitted by the plane's emergency locator transmitter, a device that can manually or automatically activate at impact and will usually send a distress signal.

But then I read subsequent articles citing a Reuters source and the Guardian, stating that no new signal was found, or that it was unlikely.

Doubts have been cast on whether an ELT on flight 804 could have survived or sent signals from underwater. John Cox, a former A320 pilot and chief executive of Washington-based Safety Operating Systems, expressed caution about the reported signal from the sunken wreckage.
“There is a low likelihood the ELT would survive, and radio doesn’t work as well as acoustic signals underwater,” he said.

I thought land to submarine communication used very low frequency (and lower) radio waves. Radio Spectrum

a reply to: Olivine
Yeah, that would be wierd to get an ELT hit at this point.
The ELT's (Emergency Locator Transmitters) are radio transmitters that normally start transmitting on impact.
They are completely different than the so-called "pingers" attached to the "black-boxes".
Those "pingers" are acoustic in nature - i.e. they make a sound that can be heard over long distances underwater.

a reply to: EnhancedInterrogator

Thanks for your reply. So, it is unlikely that Airbus picked up an RF signal via satellite from an emergency locater transmitter, because too much time has passed and it is assumed the transmitter is under nearly 2 miles of water?

a reply to: Olivine
Essentialy, yes. ELT signal would only work on the surface or shallow water. Radio doesn't travel very well underwater. And, ELT's I do not think are really designed to survive being submerged for long-periods (days instead of hours or even minutes). That is exactly why they had to come-up with the underwater "pinger" system.

a reply to: EnhancedInterrogator

The ELT is different than the locator beacon. It's designed to survive a crash and transmit through satellite. Many rafts have them attached and are designed to float. So it is possible, though unlikely, they did get a signal.

In 2011 a United A320 received a warning of smoke in the avionics bay. Pilots began following the checklist, and wound up losing some radios, their transponder, nose wheel steering, and more. They ended up having to be talked to the runway by controllers. When the NTSB investigated they found no evidence of smoke or heat in the bay.


www.wsj.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

No smoke or heat? How?