EgyptAir Flight MS804

[flyboy2548m]

What ground? If you want to be ON THE GROUND soon, then keep it high up to the point where you will reach ground at the end of the emergency descent. The ground speed you can keep up there is quite higher than at say 10K ft.

Worked great for SR111, didn't it?

[flyboy2548m]

I don't know the procedures, and this kind of stuff doesn't apply to the Tomahawk, at least not in the same way.

Indeed. Not that that's ever stopped you before.

[3WE]

So, a question:

...

Do you: a) [or] b)

I'll play along...

For starters, I think the praying part is a good suggestion- because aircraft fires can be nasty things and maybe sometimes, in spite of the pilots best efforts and parlour talk suggestions, sometimes there just isn't a solution.

And. who suggested that an emergency descent is bad?...someone at Jetpictures, or some actual insider at your work? (Sorry, not going to the effort to search this one out).

I'd have to think that 300/whatever knots up at cruise is more than enough wind to feed the fire and that bumping that up to 500/whatever knots in an emergency descent...umm...yeah, could conceivably make some sorts of fire worse, but again, does that really matter at the end of the day versus sitting up high with the 300 knot wind?

I'm thinking you need to get down, because I'd hate for the ELACS computer (or something truly important) to burn up or something.

On the other hand, air-tight-fire-snuffing compartments are part of the equation here...but I think the "get down and see if you can land/ditch/whatever-you-gotta-do" is probably the best answer.

Of course the right answer is to follow Evan's FCOM checklists (whatever they are for the particular aircraft and situation) and revel in the acronyms like EMER ELEC CONFIG.

[flyboy2548m]

And. who suggested that an emergency descent is bad?...someone at Jetpictures, or some actual insider at your work? (Sorry, not going to the effort to search this one out).

The Kuttaphugoidist did. In fact, as you can see, he's STILL suggesting as much.

[Gabriel]

What ground? If you want to be ON THE GROUND soon, then keep it high up to the point where you will reach ground at the end of the emergency descent. The ground speed you can keep up there is quite higher than at say 10K ft.

Worked great for SR111, didn't it?

Nothing worked great for SR111, even when they started the descent. When the fire got really nasty, they were quite low already.
And, opposed to this case, they were too high to close to the diversion airport (Halifax), so they had to make turns to make more room. In the Egypt Air case, an emergency descent would have left them still over the sea.

Again, if smoke is your main concern (and it is known that smoke kills much more people than fire), then descending, depressurizing and venting looks like a very reasonable idea. This is something that I had not considered in my original post on the other forum, and it was a mistake.

[flyboy2548m]

Again, if smoke is your main concern (and it is known that smoke kills much more people than fire), then descending, depressurizing and venting looks like a very reasonable idea. This is something that I had not considered in my original post on the other forum, and it was a mistake.

Since I can only imagine how excruciatingly painful it must have been for you to even admit that much, I'll take it.

[3WE]

And. who suggested that an emergency descent is bad?...someone at Jetpictures, or some actual insider at your work? (Sorry, not going to the effort to search this one out).

The Kuttaphugoidist did. In fact, as you can see, he's STILL suggesting as much.

Gabriel, you and Evan both are a bit over the top in the analysis and speculation and suggestions on mitigation procedures on a crash where we've got nothing but ACARs messages, no ATC communication and orange boxes still on the bottom of the ocean. Wind fans flames, but umm, yeah, I think it would be a rare day where you wouldn't want to be closer to mother Earth...wind fans flames, but water puts them out (generally speaking, of course).

[Gabriel]

Gabriel, you and Evan both are a bit over the top in the analysis and speculation and suggestions on mitigation procedures on a crash where we've got nothing but ACARs messages, no ATC communication and orange boxes still on the bottom of the ocean.

I agree. All is wild speculation by now. Nothing to be taken as a serious analysis of the actual case but just scenarios and "what if".

Wind fans flames, but umm, yeah, I think it would be a rare day where you wouldn't want to be closer to mother Earth...wind fans flames, but water puts them out (generally speaking, of course).

I am still trying to figure out what wind are you talking about.

First remember that the wind "up there" feels (to all, including the lift, the drag and the fire) much slower than "down here". At a TAS of 450 kts the IAS/EAS/CAS may be "just" 250 kts (this means the it "feels like" 250 kts). So you can actually fly much faster up there while fanning the flames less than at a much slower speed down here.

But more importantly: Have you ever felt the 160 kts wind in your face during take-off? Or the 250 kts wind during the climb up to 10000ft? Or the 450kts / M 0.8 wind in cruise? No. So why would the fire INSIDE THE FUSELAGE feel the external wind?

[Sickbag]

Is it possible the pilots opened the windows to let the oxygen out in order to dampen down the fire?

[3WE]

...But more importantly: Have you ever felt the 160 kts wind in your face during take-off? Or the 250 kts wind during the climb up to 10000ft? Or the 450kts / M 0.8 wind in cruise? No. So why would the fire INSIDE THE FUSELAGE feel the external wind?...

Look, I'm late to this party and don't think I want the full context.

Flyboy posed a question.

It's possible that more wind would feed a fire more oxygen...potentially through leaks in doors or the distinct possibility of the fire burning through the fuselage, and encountering wind speeds very different, though still related to the aircrafts speed.

[Pipe]

Second time this year I access this board in order to get swift answers from the Über-Aviation-Pros.
And then you get SchleimBoys usual bickering. Climate changes .......... but not this.

[flyboy2548m]

Second time this year I access this board in order to get swift answers from the Über-Aviation-Pros.

That's your first mistake.

[flyboy2548m]

Nothing worked great for SR111...And, opposed to this case, they were too high to close to the diversion airport (Halifax), so they had to make turns to make more room.

Actually, they weren't too high, they just thought they were. You'll be amazed what kind of descent rates you can get out of an airplane banked 45deg, boards out, wheels down. Well in excess of 10,000 fpm. Even if you have to overspeed the gear, who cares at that point? They had 30 miles to work with. That's plenty to do a spiral descent. I think it was more that Capt Zimmerman thought he had more time than he did.

[3WE]

...You'll be amazed what kind of descent rates you can get out of an airplane banked 45deg, boards out, wheels down. Well in excess of 10,000 fpm. Even if you have to overspeed the gear, who cares at that point?...

Freaky to have done similar things in MSFS...probably scared the virtual passengers virtually shitless.

[Gabriel]

Nothing worked great for SR111...And, opposed to this case, they were too high to close to the diversion airport (Halifax), so they had to make turns to make more room.

Actually, they weren't too high, they just thought they were. You'll be amazed what kind of descent rates you can get out of an airplane banked 45deg, boards out, wheels down. Well in excess of 10,000 fpm. Even if you have to overspeed the gear, who cares at that point? They had 30 miles to work with. That's plenty to do a spiral descent. I think it was more that Capt Zimmerman thought he had more time than he did.

Actually, I agree. I was surprised when I saw in the report that they would not have made it even with the best course of action, because they were burned beyond control at a time where they could not have reached Halifax yet (in coordinates and altitude).

The rule of thumb is 3-to-1 (3 nautical miles every 1000ft) for a nice, smooth, efficient glide in clean config. Full spoilers, landing gear out and Vne/Mne gives you what? 1-to-1? If yes, with 30 NM you could get rid of 30000ft, and they were not that high by then (which is good because you will need the few extra NM to slow down).

But, again, this is not the case of Egypt Air since they were some 150 NM off the shore. An emergency descent would have left them still in the middle of the sea. Which is still a good (or less bad) option if a) your concern is not the fire but the smoke (you can depressurize and vent) or b) you judge that you or your plane will be burned to death before reaching ground anyway hence ditching under control becomes the only alternative.

I seem to remember one case (without any detail) where the pilot of some big plane (i.e. not GA) actually did that: decide to ditch instead of keep flying a plane that was burning (I think it was an uncontrollable fire in the engine or wing and the pilot concern was structural integrity).

[Gabriel]

Duplicate

[Gabriel]

Duplicate

[3WE]

Second time this year I access this board in order to get swift answers from the Über-Aviation-Pros.

That's your first mistake.

No mistake if you want swift answers from Uber-Aviation-Parlour-Talkers.

Yes, the jabbing persists, but (and I can't believe I'm saying this) the sanity level here is well above average.

[Not_Karl]

Second time this year I access this board in order to get swift answers from the Über-Aviation-Pros.

That's your second mistake.

Fixed .

I seem to remember one case (without any detail) where the pilot of some big plane (i.e. not GA) actually did that: decide to ditch instead of keep flying a plane that was burning (I think it was an uncontrollable fire in the engine or wing and the pilot concern was structural integrity).

This one?

[Gabriel]

This one?

No. I don't know if I would recognize the case if you showed it to me, but this one can be discarded because the one I say was much much more than 5 years ago.

Anyway, depending on what was the decision making, it could be a good example.

[3WE]

Headline: "Plane did send out distress call" "Distress signal from EgyptAir flight 804 confirmed by authorities in Cairo and US."

Critical Sentence: A posting on Egypt’s State Information Service website said investigators had “received satellite reports indicating receiving an electronic distress call from the plane’s emergency locator transmitter (ELT)”. The co-ordinates were being used to narrow down the search area, the statement said.



Distress...we have encountered a rainstorm so severe that it's just 100% water, beginning around 0 feet MSL....Distress...we have suffered some structural failures.

[Verbal]

Yes.

[Gabriel]

On Jun 15th 2016 Egypt's CAA reported that the ship "John Lethbridge" has identified several main locations of wreckage of the A320, first images of the wreckage on the sea floor were forwarded to the accident investigation committee. The crew of the ship and the accident investigation team are currently mapping the findings.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4987fb09&opt=0

[Rabbi O'Genius]

CVR recovered
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36551464

[Rabbi O'Genius]

FDR too.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36557134