Aviation News, Headlines & Alerts
 
Tag: <span>search</span>

Egyptair Flight MS804 Almost A Year Later

Elements of this image are furnished by NASA

Egyptair Flight MS804 (AKA EgyptAir Flight 804) was a Paris to Cairo flight that ended in the Mediterranean on May 19, 2016. Sixty-six people lost their lives: three security crew, fifty-six passengers, seven crew.

Egyptian authorities published a progress report on 28/06/16 that the BEA repaired the recorders. On 17/06 that the Technical Investigation Committee of the A320 accident studied FDR data as well as performing time correlation between FDR and CVR data and cockpit voice recordings before the occurrence of the accident where the existence of a “fire” was mentioned. That report did not determine the reason or location where that fire occurred. Smoke was reported during the flight in the bathroom and the avionics bay.

The investigation has been fraught with controversy. On 22 May, 2016, M6 (French TV) reported that a pilot told Cairo air traffic control about smoke in the cabin, and the pilot consequently made an emergency descent.

On May 20th 2016 The Aviation Herald received information from three independent channels, that ACARS (Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System) messages with following content were received from the aircraft:

  • 00:26Z 3044 ANTI ICE R WINDOW
  • 00:26Z 561200 R SLIDING WINDOW SENSOR
  • 00:26Z 2600 SMOKE LAVATORY SMOKE
  • 00:27Z 2600 AVIONICS SMOKE
  • 00:28Z 561100 R FIXED WINDOW SENSOR
  • 00:29Z 2200 AUTO FLT FCU 2 FAULT
  • 00:29Z 2700 F/CTL SEC 3 FAULT
  • no further ACARS messages were received.

No sooner did the report come out that the Egyptian Civil Aviation Ministry dismissed it as false.

One truism I have found in accident investigation is that it takes time to find the truth. Another is that facts can be misleading. Reportage from official sources moves slowly; reportage from commercial, so-called “news,” or social sources is frequently speculative, unsourced, or purely imaginary. Sometimes it is actually correct. It is difficult to tell the difference. Contradictions are a frequent finding, such as this:

  • Le Figaro reported that no explosives were found on Egyptair flight MS804 French victims’ bodies. The flight crashed in the Mediterranean in 2016.
  • On Dec 15th 2016 Egypt’s Civil Aviation Authority announced that forensic examination on behalf of the Accident Investigation Commission found traces of explosives with some of the human remains recovered. In accordance with Egypt law, the states prosecutor was informed, and a technical commission formed by the prosecution office opened their investigation into the crime.

How does a close reader respond to a statement that “traces of explosives were found WITH human remains?” A close reader finds more questions. With the remains is not ON the remains. But it could be either way since we are dealing with languages. In English, WITH the remains could mean a bomb was floating in the water near the bodies, or ashes, or gasoline or TNT residue. And what constitutes near? Inches? Miles? It all is relative. Or if the original report is loosely translated, did the original document use a preposition such as ON the remains? And then, there are the forensic questions. Were explosive remains washed off of bodies that were submerged in the ocean?

If the case goes to court, the court will want to know if something failed on the plane, and if so, what it was. Manufacturers of failed components are considered responsible parties. No matter what the cause, international treaty determines carrier responsibility to the victims of the crash.

The determination of failed components provides additional responsible parties. The discovery of a bomb would make airport security one of the potential responsible parties. In addition, international treaty provides guidelines for what carriers owe to the families. (Which treaty is involved depends on which treaty/treaties the involved country/countries are signatory to. If it sounds like it can get complicated, you are correct.)

It has been nearly a year since the accident, and though some things may be believed in the court of public opinion to be one way or another, questions remain unanswered. How grievous and how difficult for the families that must wait so long to find out what brought about this tragedy that took their loved ones.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

Lufthansa Flight Diverts to JFK Airport due to Bomb Threat

Lufthansa Airlines flight LH-441 had to divert and make an emergency landing at John F. Kennedy International Airport, New York, on December 12th.

The plane flying from Houston, Texas, to Frankfort, Germany, was diverted due to a bomb threat.

According to the airline, “LH441 was diverted as a matter of precaution in coordination with the relevant authorities and the pilot… Passengers disembarked and LH staff will take care of them. The aircraft will be searched.”

The authorities gave the all-clear after thoroughly searching the aircraft.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

LATAM Airlines Flight Makes Emergency Landing due to Bomb Threat

LATAMA LATAM Airlines flight had to make an emergency landing in Santiago, Chile, on November 10th.

The plane took off for Punta Arenas, Chile, but had to return shortly afterwards due to a bomb threat. It is believed that a female passenger had informed the crew that there was a bomb onboard.

The plane landed safely. Everyone aboard remained safe.

The woman was arrested while the authorities searched the plane.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

Small Plane Crashes into Lake in Louisiana; 2 Missing

A small Cessna crashed into Lake Pontchartrain near the New Orleans Lakefront Airport, New Orleans, Louisiana, on the night of August 27th.

There were three people onboard out of whom a woman was rescued and taken to hospital.

Two missing persons are still being searched for.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270

Australian Scientist Claims Monitoring Cloud Changes Can Help Locate MH370

While the search for missing MH370 continues, an Australian scientist has claimed that cloud microphysics can help in locating the plane.

According to Hydrometeorologist Aron Gingis, the technology is capable of identifying the cloud changes caused by the vapor trails which are left behind by fuel emissions of the plane. He claimed that this technology has been successfully used to track shipwrecks in the Pacific Ocean.

In a formal communication to the Malaysian High Commissioner Eldeen Husaini, Gingis wrote on April 3, “I believe that we have a realistic chance to follow flight path of Malaysian Airline MH370 and follow its flight direction and possibly identifying its landing or crash site…I would be required to fly to KL and to have a detailed briefing with Malaysian search and rescue authorities in order to be able to identify and search for specific satellite availability and all satellite data imagery frames that we can analyse using our cloud microphysics algorithms. The traveling to KL and back to Melbourne and 1 day briefing session will be sufficient to explain to your search and rescue authorities as of our ability to identify the flying trails of MH370…I believe that we will be able to utilize our expertise and identify the flight pass of MH370 and then to direct the search and rescue authorities to save or recover MH370 passengers.”

Gingis offered to provide help for $17500, however, both Malaysian and Australian authorities have rejected his offer.

#MH370 Statement by Orion Captain regarding #Search Status

In a public statement, after the April 8 day’s search for #MH370, RAAF P3 Orion captain Flt Lt glasssaid that he was optimistic about the wreckage being found.

Unlike the AF447 search at a parallel point in the search timeline one month in, there has been no visual confirmation of any wreckage or debris, possibly due to tropical storms in the Indian Ocean. The official statement is that the pings have been narrowed down to a twelve mile radius, but searchers are still trying to narrow this area.

Once the area has been narrowed down, an autonomous underwater vehicle will be deployed in a grid (so-called Mowing Lawn pattern) until wreckage has been located.

If the wreckage is found soon, it will have taken twenty-three months less than the search for Air France 447. So one should be perhaps less optimistic about the search, and more determined.

Most recently, Australia announced the search area down to 75,000 sq km. Searchers plan to keep using the Ocean Shield, because it searches more area faster. Once the area is pinned down, they plan to deploy the AUV.

Content not attributed to or linked to original, is the property of AirFlightDisaster.com; all rights reserved.

Site Credits