EgyptAir flight from Paris to Cairo has vanished from Radar

a reply to: gisolator


That's encouraging news. Hopefully they're easily salvageable, and in good condition.

Yes, let's hope for the best. I guess the last thing we need to deal with is one more plane disappearing / crashing into an ocean without any substantial evidence what triggered the catastrophe.

Something else I found this morning related to MS804: In this article euronows states, that within 24 hours prior to the event, the plane was forced to do three safety landing due to 'anomalies' shortly after take off.

a reply to: gisolator

There were no emergency landings in the last 24 hours prior to the crash.
There was however question of an alert message from ACARS during take-off at the three previous flights, smoke detection.
Nothing was found during checks after the aircraft landed at its destination.

is this plane still missing or has it been located?

i havent really been following this story

a reply to: combatmaster

still missing just found this article from today...they are closing in on the beacon..someone was quoted as saying sometimes the beacon comes off the box so they have to do mutiple dives around the are to find the box...if that happened here hopefully the boxes are close by

www.bbc.com...

a reply to: combatmaster

They are waiting for a deep dive recovery team to get there. They should either have arrived late last week, or early this week, then have to do gear checks, and get up to speed, etc.

I'm afraid 30 day batteries are just not enough.

a reply to: samkent

thanks zaph for clarifying......so what do you thinks the odds are of them finding the boxes before the beep runs out??

a reply to: research100

Even if the batteries run out they have the area narrowed down so there's a good chance of getting them. They found the AF447 recorders, in the middle of the Atlantic, years after the crash. This is easy compared to that.

a reply to: Zaphod58


Oh well i guess you were right.... www.bbc.co.uk...

this is why only fools argue with the Zaphod!

a reply to: combatmaster

oh you beat me to it...I found this article, they are saying it is down 10,000 feet

www.dailymail.co.uk...

So, Zaphod...like you, I've held back. It's not a matter of me being right (although I think I am). However, I am holding aside my beer money to buy you one (or a coffee) if you turn out to be right. So we have several disagreements on this thread. Know I am brutally honest, even with myself and my statements. If you're correct, I will acknowledge it...I hope you will do the same. Our points at issue are:

1. "They" didn't want to find it (my statement). Curious the Egyptians found it first, when the might of the western world couldn't do the same, but none the less...point, Zaphod. I will acquiesce.

2. Fire in the galley (again, my statement). No proof of any cause at this point, but there seems to be some data which would suggest the flight did not break up in flight. This is not conclusive evidence one way or the other, just an observation.

3. Explosive decompression due to windscreen failure (window heaters) (Zaphod's point). Could be, but it's looking like there was not a break up in flight. Again, no conclusive outcome at this point.

4. Terrorism (my statement). No conclusive proof one way or another. No one has claimed responsibility, but this means nothing; there could be any number of explanations for this. In any case, there is no conclusive proof to support terrorism or accident at this point.

5. Col. Sahiq did it in the Galley with the wine bottle. (think board game CLUE). (my statement). Again, no conclusive evidence one way or the other (just a theory on my part). However, there is equally no conclusive evidence on any other theory.

I will step back and just read. I will acknowledge if I'm wrong, I truly will.

Out.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Wouldn't be the first time I've admitted I was wrong if I am.

As for breakup it looks like they may have under 10,000 feet. That's when radar contact was lost by everyone, and depending on how far apart the debris is they may have broken up at low altitude.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I would say, an uncontrolled descent at high angle and extremely high rate of speed would definitely support an airframe failure in heavier more humid (lower) air.

We're in agreement here.

edit...I see nothing to suggest there was any controlled flight below FL 150 (really more like FL 210)

a reply to: Zaphod58

I just want to tell you two that it is really refreshing to see 2 posters acting like adults on here! lord knows we could use more of that around here!

a reply to: research100

Eh, I have my days. Heh.

Unfortunately, as Zaphod has stated, even if the FDR and CVR are found, they may not hold the answer. The fire in the avionics bay, if real, could interrupt the data to the FDR, and a comm fail due to fire on the flight deck could also interrupt the CVR...even if both devices were still powered up themselves.

This is maddening to me, but it's true.

Note - it would have had to have been one hell of a catastrophic fire to cause both to fail, but it is possible.

(heh, further to my point of an incendiary device in the galley...sorry, bud) LOL (all due respect).

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

It's probably going to boil to what the wreckage has to say.