Egypt Air flight MS804 missing!

[Jader1973]

Just a thought but is there a reason that there couldn't be a designated emergency channel activated by a panic button in the cockpit?

Pilots wouldn't have to think, simply hit the button and whatever is going on in the cockpit gets broadcast on a set frequency.

That allows them to continue to manage any issues but also means someone can listen/record what is going on in the event that the recorders end up too deep under water to recover.

[Blaster72]

dvs_dave said:

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.

Avionic bays could be sealed and protected in this way if the designers chose to do so, most airliners have a different design though where they use robust circuit protection, smoke detection systems and finally overboard venting in the event of smoke / fire.

It's very rare for any component in an avionics bay to catch fire, components are designed to self extinguish and the greatest risk really comes from accumulation of dust and ageing wiring both of which can be mostly mitigated by sticking to the set maintenance program.

[Jader1973]

kapiteinlangzaam said:

Jader1973 said:

Just a thought but is there a reason that there couldn't be a designated emergency channel activated by a panic button in the cockpit?

Pilots wouldn't have to think, simply hit the button and whatever is going on in the cockpit gets broadcast on a set frequency.

That allows them to continue to manage any issues but also means someone can listen/record what is going on in the event that the recorders end up too deep under water to recover.

There already is. 121.5Mhz. Its activated by pushing the radio PTT switch, and is recorded in many, many places.

Adding 'extra' frequencies would bring nothing, and in any case would be hugely expensive.

If it already exists is it used? I know the mantra of Aviate then Communicate gets trotted out - why couldn't it be push the PTT switch then Aviate? Surely it only takes a fraction of a second, and there are 2 people up front.

I can't help feeling that would have helped in this case given there is talk that the recorders may be too deep to find.

Also, given these things are flown by a computer, could it be automated i.e. if certain alarms got tripped the system starts broadcasting automatically. Like avionics smoke for example.

[MrBarry123]

I may have missed something but am I correct in thinking we now "know" it was an internal explosion that caused the crash but don't know what caused the explosion?

[Disastrous]

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

Laugh. Exactly.

Have we had a '4x4 response' type poster yet, who has 'run the numbers' and concluded the search team is looking in the wrong place (despite them finding the crash site)?

[anonymous-user]

MrBarry123 said:

I may have missed something but am I correct in thinking we now "know" it was an internal explosion that caused the crash but don't know what caused the explosion?

I don't believe so. I may have missed something though.

[pushthebutton]

Jader1973 said:

If it already exists is it used? I know the mantra of Aviate then Communicate gets trotted out - why couldn't it be push the PTT switch then Aviate? Surely it only takes a fraction of a second, and there are 2 people up front.

I can't help feeling that would have helped in this case given there is talk that the recorders may be too deep to find.

Also, given these things are flown by a computer, could it be automated i.e. if certain alarms got tripped the system starts broadcasting automatically. Like avionics smoke for example.

Nicely done.

[SilverSpur]

Jader1973 said:

kapiteinlangzaam said:

Jader1973 said:

Just a thought but is there a reason that there couldn't be a designated emergency channel activated by a panic button in the cockpit?

Pilots wouldn't have to think, simply hit the button and whatever is going on in the cockpit gets broadcast on a set frequency.

That allows them to continue to manage any issues but also means someone can listen/record what is going on in the event that the recorders end up too deep under water to recover.

There already is. 121.5Mhz. Its activated by pushing the radio PTT switch, and is recorded in many, many places.

Adding 'extra' frequencies would bring nothing, and in any case would be hugely expensive.

If it already exists is it used? I know the mantra of Aviate then Communicate gets trotted out - why couldn't it be push the PTT switch then Aviate? Surely it only takes a fraction of a second, and there are 2 people up front.

I can't help feeling that would have helped in this case given there is talk that the recorders may be too deep to find.

Also, given these things are flown by a computer, could it be automated i.e. if certain alarms got tripped the system starts broadcasting automatically. Like avionics smoke for example.

I'd guess the pilots don't require outsiders chipping in when they are already too busy. ITs better to get on and fix the issue locally rather than getting lots of unrequested radio traffic chipping in with silly questions and asking for updates.

Just remember, someone far more clever than you has already decided everything that gets done by the industry and there will be no countenance of queries from outsiders.

Also, do not speculate or postulate about anything to do with this incident, you must wait for the official report. What do you think this is, an open forum on an unrelated car enthusiast forum or something? Only officially released and sanctioned updates from industry officials can be tolerated here.

In fact, why don't we just ban every non commercial pilot or ATC poster from this thread?

[xjay1337]

Jader1973 said:

If it already exists is it used? I know the mantra of Aviate then Communicate gets trotted out - why couldn't it be push the PTT switch then Aviate? Surely it only takes a fraction of a second, and there are 2 people up front.

I can't help feeling that would have helped in this case given there is talk that the recorders may be too deep to find.

Also, given these things are flown by a computer, could it be automated i.e. if certain alarms got tripped the system starts broadcasting automatically. Like avionics smoke for example.

How dare you suggest that
don't you know there are pilots and atc people on here?
you fking idiot.

[Munter]

I think we have achieved posting force 8.5 on the stovey scale.

[pushthebutton]

SilverSpur said:

I'd guess the pilots don't require outsiders chipping in when they are already too busy. ITs better to get on and fix the issue locally rather than getting lots of unrequested radio traffic chipping in with silly questions and asking for updates.

That is one of the reasons. Distractions management be vital and is something that we are taught, exposed to and trained to manage. Communication can be important and can be a distraction.

SilverSpur said:

Just remember, someone far more clever than you has already decided everything that gets done by the industry and there will be no countenance of queries from outsiders.

I'd say that many many people far more experienced than you have gathered and analysed data from history's accidents and learned valuable lessons that continue to apply. I think a reasonable person would listen?

SilverSpur said:

Also, do not speculate or postulate about anything to do with this incident, you must wait for the official report. What do you think this is, an open forum on an unrelated car enthusiast forum or something? Only officially released and sanctioned updates from industry officials can be tolerated here.

No issues with speculation or postulation, but don't be offended when those with a great deal more exposure and experience in these matters offer a more qualified alternative view.

SilverSpur said:

In fact, why don't we just ban every non commercial pilot or ATC poster from this thread?

Because don't want to.

[SilverSpur]

Back to speculation for a minute or two.....


Anyone think the Egyptian authorities are deliberately withholding info that should be public knowledge by now?

[bitchstewie]

SilverSpur said:

Back to speculation for a minute or two.....


Anyone think the Egyptian authorities are deliberately withholding info that should be public knowledge by now?

Almost certainly, but I wouldn't smell conspiracy, it's just what they do (they have previous).

[Dan_1981]

Out of interest you referenced sending up some fighter jets in an earlier post....

How often do you have to do something like that?

[djc206]

kapiteinlangzaam said:

b) because doing so in a genuine emergency would cause many, many very serious problems by blocking a freq. Block my freq on a busy summers day for 60s+ and you will find me as a dribbling mess in the corner

Edited by kapiteinlangzaam on Monday 23 May 11:09

Amen. We've all had the "ladies and gentleman this is your captain speaking, we're now at our cruising...... Weather in Faro......"

For the first 5 seconds it's funny and you start thinking up a witty response, then you start to think oh fk if he doesn't shut up soon I'm in the st, then comes the panicked trying to burn through on the frequency combined with uncoupling of other frequencies to try and salvage some level of control. If it ever got to a minute I'd need a bottle of gin with a straw in it.

[Jader1973]

kapiteinlangzaam said:

The problem with this extra frequency is the same problem that faces the current one.... people misuse and abuse it. Imagine a pilot on aircraft one leans over to get his coffee and accidentally pushes 'big red button' and starts the whole auto recording procedure (or whatever it will be ) and begins to record what he had for dinner last night.... in the meantime the wings have fallen off aircraft 2, and nothing gets recorded save some dinner plans.... it happens all the time to a degree or another!

Any transmission made on 121.5 (or 243.0) or indeed any CIVIL/MIL ATC frequency is recorded at the control centre as well as in the cockpit. In the current situation the investigators do not need to find the aircraft to study the ATC tapes. Anything that was said to open mic has already been recorded at a land based station. And FWIW we do NOT want a situation where there is a button that automatically puts everything to open mic for recording on the active ATC freq in emergency situations because...

a) for the false alarms above

and

b) because doing so in a genuine emergency would cause many, many very serious problems by blocking a freq. Block my freq on a busy summers day for 60s+ and you will find me as a dribbling mess in the corner

Edited by kapiteinlangzaam on Monday 23 May 11:09

I see - makes sense that you can't have umpteen aircraft all broadcasting on the same frequency at the same time. I'd overlooked that bit

I was thinking it could be possible to have one single dedicated emergency channel that was used as a cockpit voice recorder but remotely in the event of an emergency without the ATC being able to talk back. Like the police radios that go into broadcast mode at the press of a button so the control room can record everything that is going on.

Surely in this day and age, when I carry a hugely powerful computer masquerading as a phone in my pocket there has to be a way of enabling such a system?

Mind you, people can't, or won't, stop flying, so I guess the industry has no driver to even consider such a system.

[SilverSpur]

kapiteinlangzaam said:

a) for the false alarms above

and

b) because doing so in a genuine emergency would cause many, many very serious problems by blocking a freq. Block my freq on a busy summers day for 60s+ and you will find me as a dribbling mess in the corner

Edited by kapiteinlangzaam on Monday 23 May 11:09

Do you also think that in some Airlines and /or regional cultures there is still a culture of not wanting outsiders to know of problems, to not broadcast an issue until they have it under control, or to not let anyone else know they are not perhaps sure of the actions they should be or should have taken?

Do you (or anyone else in the industry) think that some regional cultures still actively cover up aviation problems?

[djc206]

Dan_1981 said:

Out of interest you referenced sending up some fighter jets in an earlier post....

How often do you have to do something like that?

I couldn't answer that question without getting in trouble but not very often. It does make it into the news http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3571118/Sonic-boom-rattled-north-east-England-caused-Typhoon-jets-racing-intercept-Air-France-flight-wasn-t-responding-radio-calls.html

Edited by djc206 on Monday 23 May 11:42

[pushthebutton]

SilverSpur said:

Do you (or anyone else in the industry) think that some regional cultures still actively cover up aviation problems?

Yes, definitely, and for a number of different reasons. An open reporting culture is generally accepted by the developed aviation nations to be the best/safest way of reporting incidents. Some nations adopt a management-by-fear approach, which results in incidents not being reported, which can result in mistakes being repeated.

[djc206]

Jader1973 said:

I see - makes sense that you can't have umpteen aircraft all broadcasting on the same frequency at the same time. I'd overlooked that bit

I was thinking it could be possible to have one single dedicated emergency channel that was used as a cockpit voice recorder but remotely in the event of an emergency without the ATC being able to talk back. Like the police radios that go into broadcast mode at the press of a button so the control room can record everything that is going on.

Surely in this day and age, when I carry a hugely powerful computer masquerading as a phone in my pocket there has to be a way of enabling such a system?

Mind you, people can't, or won't, stop flying, so I guess the industry has no driver to even consider such a system.

You asked about some sort of ground based black box essentially. I don't see why cockpit voice recorders can't be both physically on the aircraft with a link to a ground based counterpart. Coverage would be an issue in some parts of the world I'm sure but if I can use the Internet half way across the Atlantic on a plane why can't the same plane be sending cockpit voice data to a ground based black box?