66 Dead: Egyptair Flight 804 Crashed Into the Mediterranean

[KL-666]

No worries HJ1an, Scarebus flights mostly go right, unless they go wrong, then you hang.

Kind regards, Vincent

[jwocky]

@Vincent:
Nothing, nothing, has more urgency as the investigation into any plane disaster in which a bomb could be involved. Because if if if, then it means some bunch of terrorists has found a way to bring a bomb in that plane and a successful attack would encourage them to blow more planes up before security can close that gap. So, as soon as there is even the faintest possibility of a bomb attack, I disagree with the idea of "having all time in the world".
And even if it was no bomb but a technical defect ... which we don't know any more than that it was a bomb ... there are some hundred more planes of the same or similar type in the air right now transporting alone today thousands of people.

[KL-666]

There is a little bit of information trickling through.

On Jun 29th 2016 Egypt's CAA reported that the flight data recorder has been successfully downloaded, more than 1200 parameters are being decoded and validated. Data are present from departure at Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris until the aircraft was at FL370 just after the ACARS messages (see below in data section) were transmitted, the data are consistent with the ACARS messages of lavatory and avionics bay smoke. Recovered wreckage parts from the forward section of the aircraft show severe heat damage and evidence of thick black smoke (soot). The investigation is going to undertake comprehensive analysis to try to determine the source and cause of the fire.

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

Note the "Recovered wreckage parts from the forward section of the aircraft show severe heat damage and evidence of thick black smoke (soot)". Thick soot is caused by a relatively slow burning fire, not a quick explosion. So it is very likely that the cause is a fire mishap. Unless someone wants to persist believing that terrorists changed tactics from a quick explosion to having a barbecue on the plane.

Kind regards, Vincent

[jwocky]

So, it was a fire .. a fire we don't know where it came from. And at this moment, some hundred very similar planes fly passengers around. So ... despite all you happiness that you were right, I still think, it would be helpful to know fast what went down there, just in case it is connected to a construction method, a mistake in cabling or something that could also hit the other Airbuses of the same series and building time.

[KL-666]

I do not need to be right, i just hate senseless speculation without any evidence. Here is some more evidence: From the cvr there is mention of fire.

http://www.civilaviation.gov.eg/News/news%20pages%20ar/messs_16_7_16.html

Kind regards, Vincent

[jwocky]

We have to agree to disagree on this, Vincent. Those guys who write those reports, they speculate, then check all of their speculations against what they got in evidence and figure things step by step out and with every crash, the understanding about things that can go wrong increases. A sad fact, but a fact.

So, here is a story from history. In 1912, the Titanic sank. Now, the chief designer, Andrews was under the dead, so nobody could ask him anymore about what went wrong. So, one thing was obvious, not enough lifeboats and everybody of course dashed out in all hurry new rules about lifeboats. Which, at a closer look, wouldn't have helped at all because the boats of the Titanic weren't even completely filled.
But what always scares me more in the story of the Titanic is how many people expressed their hate against senseless speculation. People just took what the official sources fed them, they actually believed, the Lusitania would be save, it was only a Titanic problem (actually two sisters of her would still go on transporting thousands and thousands over the Atlantic too for the next 30+ years). People were told, speculation is senseless, leave it to the experts. The not so funny side note: When the Lusitania was torpedoed, she went down in 21 minutes, compared to the little over 2 hours, the Titanic kept up. There was not enough time to bring out lifeboats, a lot of people didn't make it even above deck ... one of them was a gentleman named Samuel Jasper Whites ... he was a member of the British commission that had investigated the loss of the Titanic and he was one of the main propagators of the idea to suppress speculation. He didn't of course realize that people were speculating back then about other ships as well, especially about the oversized mid section with the two main restaurants on the Lusitania class, the factor that later would lead to this quick brutal loss.

So, while I am not going so far to say, he deserved to drown for his attitude, I will admit, I am still a big fan of occasional speculating.

[HJ1an]

I enjoy a little bit of our own analysis and speculating, especially with somewhat slightly more informed minds - that's how my brain works.

I will readily admit that I, or we, don't work as aviation accident investigator, and we are analyzing based on news sources, about as remote as can be.

But it makes a good discussion; far better than some people I've met who instead of delving deep into the technicals, get into UFOs, ghosts, spirits, supernatiral and other far fetched scenarios. The discussion simply wasn't enjoyable at that point.

[KL-666]

Yes, i enjoy (not really a right word considering the circumstances) interpreting data too. Sometimes slightly different from the investigators. One might call that speculating.

What bothers me is speculating with no data at all, or being in denial of data. We can not just disbelieve all evidence, can we? Then we never have anything, no basis, only pure speculation. I tend to trust data that is delivered by investigators. Not necessarily their conclusions from their data.

Kind regards, Vincent

[HJ1an]

(not really a right word considering the circumstances)

Yeah, not the best choice of words