Egypt Air flight MS804 missing!
Discussion
LambShank said:
Ok thanks.
Can't say I know much, if anything about planes, but surely where there is wiring there's also the potential fire risk?
I assume the avionics section is full of wiring?
The avionic bay on the A320 is indeed chock full of electrical equipment and wiring but no fire ext system for obvious reasons.Can't say I know much, if anything about planes, but surely where there is wiring there's also the potential fire risk?
I assume the avionics section is full of wiring?
There is also a smaller bay roughly underneath the co pilots seat with aircraft batteries but again no fire ext system.
nessiemac said:
The avionic bay on the A320 is indeed chock full of electrical equipment and wiring but no fire ext system for obvious reasons.
Pardon my ignorance, but it's not obvious to me - are gaseous systems (e.g. CO2) infeasible in aircraft for some reason (assuming that the avionics bay is hermetically sealed) ?el stovey said:
As people might expect, the standards of ATC vary massively around the world, Europe is largely excelent, with London and Maastricht being at the top of the list. The Greeks are near the bottom in Europe but still are much better than the Egyptians. Africa is largely poor. It reaches its worst near the horn of Africa where you speak to Mogadishu who are rarely even there.
In Europe now we often use datalink communications where we don't even talk on the radio at all and use something great called CPDLC. This magic thing involves sending and receiving clearances and requests by text message.
Datalink communication is great for oceanic areas like over the Atlantic where previously we had to use a rubbish HF radio, which was like talking down a device made of cups joined by string.
Some oceanic areas still involve using HF radios although many have been replaced by datalink communications. Some areas like the Indian Ocean and the Bay of Bengal involve having to speak to a heavily accented controller in India via an HF radio as the datalink isn't often working. This can be difficult and frustrating.
And after a post from someone like this, some bright spark will do 5 min google and 'explain' to stovey where he went wrong. In Europe now we often use datalink communications where we don't even talk on the radio at all and use something great called CPDLC. This magic thing involves sending and receiving clearances and requests by text message.
Datalink communication is great for oceanic areas like over the Atlantic where previously we had to use a rubbish HF radio, which was like talking down a device made of cups joined by string.
Some oceanic areas still involve using HF radios although many have been replaced by datalink communications. Some areas like the Indian Ocean and the Bay of Bengal involve having to speak to a heavily accented controller in India via an HF radio as the datalink isn't often working. This can be difficult and frustrating.
Selfishly hope that stovey, kapn and other knowledgeable people will not get too frustrated and stop posting.
jjlynn27 said:
And after a post from someone like this, some bright spark will do 5 min google and 'explain' to stovey where he went wrong.
Selfishly hope that stovey, kapn and other knowledgeable people will not get too frustrated and stop posting.
Hear Hear ! - this is good, interesting, stuff. Can the usual idiots please go and play somewhere else. Thank You.....Selfishly hope that stovey, kapn and other knowledgeable people will not get too frustrated and stop posting.
gothatway said:
Pardon my ignorance, but it's not obvious to me - are gaseous systems (e.g. CO2) infeasible in aircraft for some reason (assuming that the avionics bay is hermetically sealed) ?
Sorry for not explaining properly. I should have wrote that the nasty Halon fire supressant system is contained well in cargo bays and under engine cowling but the avionics bay isn't sealed and anything released would get into the flight deck very easily. nessiemac said:
Sorry for not explaining properly. I should have wrote that the nasty Halon fire supressant system is contained well in cargo bays and under engine cowling but the avionics bay isn't sealed and anything released would get into the flight deck very easily.
Thanks - but that then begs the question as to why not - is it simply that the cost would not be justified in terms of the perceived risk ?gothatway said:
Thanks - but that then begs the question as to why not - is it simply that the cost would not be justified in terms of the perceived risk ?
Why aren't the avionics bays sealed? No idea but it would require a huge amount of modification to incorporate sealed bays on the A319/320/321 aircraft. I assume as you say the potential risk vs cost can't be justified. jjlynn27 said:
el stovey said:
As people might expect, the standards of ATC vary massively around the world, Europe is largely excelent, with London and Maastricht being at the top of the list. The Greeks are near the bottom in Europe but still are much better than the Egyptians. Africa is largely poor. It reaches its worst near the horn of Africa where you speak to Mogadishu who are rarely even there.
In Europe now we often use datalink communications where we don't even talk on the radio at all and use something great called CPDLC. This magic thing involves sending and receiving clearances and requests by text message.
Datalink communication is great for oceanic areas like over the Atlantic where previously we had to use a rubbish HF radio, which was like talking down a device made of cups joined by string.
Some oceanic areas still involve using HF radios although many have been replaced by datalink communications. Some areas like the Indian Ocean and the Bay of Bengal involve having to speak to a heavily accented controller in India via an HF radio as the datalink isn't often working. This can be difficult and frustrating.
And after a post from someone like this, some bright spark will do 5 min google and 'explain' to stovey where he went wrong. In Europe now we often use datalink communications where we don't even talk on the radio at all and use something great called CPDLC. This magic thing involves sending and receiving clearances and requests by text message.
Datalink communication is great for oceanic areas like over the Atlantic where previously we had to use a rubbish HF radio, which was like talking down a device made of cups joined by string.
Some oceanic areas still involve using HF radios although many have been replaced by datalink communications. Some areas like the Indian Ocean and the Bay of Bengal involve having to speak to a heavily accented controller in India via an HF radio as the datalink isn't often working. This can be difficult and frustrating.
Selfishly hope that stovey, kapn and other knowledgeable people will not get too frustrated and stop posting.
The detail is very interesting.
el stovey said:
As people might expect, the standards of ATC vary massively around the world, Europe is largely excelent, with London and Maastricht being at the top of the list. The Greeks are near the bottom in Europe but still are much better than the Egyptians. Africa is largely poor. It reaches its worst near the horn of Africa where you speak to Mogadishu who are rarely even there.
In Europe now we often use datalink communications where we don't even talk on the radio at all and use something great called CPDLC. This magic thing involves sending and receiving clearances and requests by text message.
Datalink communication is great for oceanic areas like over the Atlantic where previously we had to use a rubbish HF radio, which was like talking down a device made of cups joined by string.
Some oceanic areas still involve using HF radios although many have been replaced by datalink communications. Some areas like the Indian Ocean and the Bay of Bengal involve having to speak to a heavily accented controller in India via an HF radio as the datalink isn't often working. This can be difficult and frustrating.
Really informative post. Thank you. In Europe now we often use datalink communications where we don't even talk on the radio at all and use something great called CPDLC. This magic thing involves sending and receiving clearances and requests by text message.
Datalink communication is great for oceanic areas like over the Atlantic where previously we had to use a rubbish HF radio, which was like talking down a device made of cups joined by string.
Some oceanic areas still involve using HF radios although many have been replaced by datalink communications. Some areas like the Indian Ocean and the Bay of Bengal involve having to speak to a heavily accented controller in India via an HF radio as the datalink isn't often working. This can be difficult and frustrating.
Harry H said:
I was on a flight to Spain recently. The seatbelt on sign came on. Every one had to go back to their seats and buckle up as you would expect. Once we were all in position the captain came out to go for a pee. Once he was back in the cockpit the seatbelt lights went off.
So they seem to have a system for being rushed when the door is open sorted. Not completely infallible if the terrorist happens to be sat in the first row but otherwise pretty secure in my book.
Ryanair do this. They're the only one I fly on that does though. So they seem to have a system for being rushed when the door is open sorted. Not completely infallible if the terrorist happens to be sat in the first row but otherwise pretty secure in my book.
gothatway said:
Pardon my ignorance, but it's not obvious to me - are gaseous systems (e.g. CO2) infeasible in aircraft for some reason (assuming that the avionics bay is hermetically sealed) ?
I've wondered this myself. Never been given an answer and I drive the things. My only thought is, CO2 possibly not much use as at altitude there is so little Oxygen anyway CO2 might be of little use? ( I hold my hands up - can't remember if the Avionics Bay is pressurised). Halon and such like, well obviously not ideal in amongst all the electronics. If I ever get to do another delivery flight from Hamburg I'll try to remember and ask.
el stovey said:
The PH air crash thread goes something like this.
1 aircraft crashes/vanishes
2 people post some sensible information
3 people start suggesting causes based on guesswork and little knowledge
4 suggestions get wilder and people post more nonsense dressed as facts
5 people who know a bit more get annoyed and correct group 3 and 4 pointing out why.
6 group 3 and 4 react badly perhaps post some irrelevant info to support their nonsense,
7 GG appears, tells everyone she was in the RAF and tears a strip off group 3 and 4
8 group 3 and 4 turn on GG, lots of name calling - thread dies
A few days pass
9 cause of the crash is revealed.
10 people who dont have a clue manage to convince themselves they were actually right after all and tell everyone else to do one. Usually involving the phrase "pilot error" and calling for all sorts of nonsense changes.
1 plane crashes/vanishes
1 aircraft crashes/vanishes
2 people post some sensible information
3 people start suggesting causes based on guesswork and little knowledge
4 suggestions get wilder and people post more nonsense dressed as facts
5 people who know a bit more get annoyed and correct group 3 and 4 pointing out why.
6 group 3 and 4 react badly perhaps post some irrelevant info to support their nonsense,
7 GG appears, tells everyone she was in the RAF and tears a strip off group 3 and 4
8 group 3 and 4 turn on GG, lots of name calling - thread dies
A few days pass
9 cause of the crash is revealed.
10 people who dont have a clue manage to convince themselves they were actually right after all and tell everyone else to do one. Usually involving the phrase "pilot error" and calling for all sorts of nonsense changes.
1 plane crashes/vanishes
so true.Although you forgot the "sanctimonious prick", and the "conjecture & speculation smartarse" groups. Or am I getting things confused with pprune?
Chuck328 said:
I've wondered this myself. Never been given an answer and I drive the things. My only thought is, CO2 possibly not much use as at altitude there is so little Oxygen anyway CO2 might be of little use? ( I hold my hands up - can't remember if the Avionics Bay is pressurised). Halon and such like, well obviously not ideal in amongst all the electronics. If I ever get to do another delivery flight from Hamburg I'll try to remember and ask.
Would be interesting to know why. There are other non-halon gaseous fire suppression systems that are breathable/non-toxic and compatible with electronics. Inergen for example, which is the go-to fire suppressant system for computer server rooms. Broadly speaking a pretty similar environment to an avionics bay.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff