DS Forums

 
 

EgyptAir Flight MS804 from Paris to Cairo 'disappears from radar'


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 21-05-2016, 22:37
bluesdiamond
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,501
The more I think about it the more I think it may have been lithium batteries. You're not allowed to have any in hold baggage, but can take them in hand baggage, up to a certain amount, which escapes me now. If someone had gone through security with some in a cabin bag, which is not illegal as such batteries are used in laptops, phones, cameras, tablets, powerbanks etc, then that bag was taken off them at the gate for being too big then it would go in to the hold. The gate agents are meant to ask if there are lithium batteries inside, but it's not hard to imagine this either didn't happen or the passenger simply lied and said no.

As there is no further security check between the gate and the hold then these could have been loaded in to the hold and a fire started somehow, maybe by one of the batteries short circuiting by touching another one or a bit of metal. If that then caused a spark big enough to set something else on fire then a sudden intense fire could start in the hold before the pilots had a chance to put it out with the inbuilt system or it simply became too violent for that to deal with. I know it's a long shot, but I really don't think it was a bomb as the fact the ACARS managed to report smoke means that something could have been burning for a while.

BBC News saying all the smoke and heat warnings originated from the cockpit or toilet behind the cockpit. Perhaps someone smoking in the toilet. Now BBC news going on about the batteries. I want to state I made this post before the News at 10 went on about lithium batteries!
OMG

Just read up on this. Seems like people carry spares, or equipment with out securing batteries. Seems default position is carry on. But thinking how we carry so many electronic items, and of course counterfeit batteries, many authorities are at a loss on how to prevent such events.
bluesdiamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 21-05-2016, 22:41
francie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 20,674
It depends on the airport and airline. Any carrier I've worked with in the UK has had a "secure clean" done which basically means every overhead bin, seat pocket, cupboard, underseat area etc is checked by the cleaning team (who would be searched as they entered and exited the plane) and again by the cabin crew both in and out (if there is a crew change between flights). The cargo and baggage hold areas would get a similar check too. I'm not sure how much of it is industry standard, but I'd be surprised if such checks were not done in Paris and at the home base of Cairo, even more surprised if the plane had been to these places on previous days meaning a full check would surely have been done each night at least or morning.

- snipped -
A good, informative post!
francie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-05-2016, 22:59
lemoncurd
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bristol
Posts: 46,965
Wake up sheeple!
Is that wise? I've heard sheeple can lash out violently if disturbed from slumber.
lemoncurd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-05-2016, 23:01
lemoncurd
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bristol
Posts: 46,965
A incredible coincidence 804 days since MH370 vanished

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...-crash-8011492
Wow! The terror wrists must have been waiting until the first flight number that matched the days elapsed since MH370. Has anyone checked if there were any crashes 370 days before MH370?
lemoncurd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2016, 00:26
skp20040
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 43,693
Not necessarily. If you'll recall, the San Bernardino attackers were lone wolf ISIS sympathisers who had never actually had any contact with Syria or terrorist cells affiliated with ISIS and Syria. We only had complete confirmation of the attackers' motivations when the US government essentially admitted to having suppressed and covered up that aspect of the aftermath. Of course Western society, as is the norm nowadays, had no discernible reaction to such a revelation beyond passive disinterest in their own inevitable destruction.
Not a very good cover up then was it ?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...fter-shooting/

SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. — Authorities now believe that the two attackers who killed 14 people here last week had been radicalized for quite a while, an FBI official said Monday.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/san-bernard...police-1532434

As authorities investigate how the couple was financed, US government officials have said the FBI has not found the couple's finances linked to any foreign group. Reuters reported that a government source said Farook and his 29-year-old wife used a financial tactic previously followed by US-based militants: drain their bank accounts and instead rely on credit lines that they knew they would not pay back because they believed they were on a suicide mission.


On 7 December, the FBI said it appeared the two had been self-radicalised "for quite some time" and that the weapons and bomb-making equipment in their home suggested the attack was premeditated



I mean if you are covering up do you really tell the press less than week later that the couple had been radicalised and that the investigation is ongoing ? Where is the story where the government admitted their cover up.
skp20040 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2016, 00:30
Fizzbin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: East London
Posts: 25,846
Wow! The terror wrists must have been waiting until the first flight number that matched the days elapsed since MH370. Has anyone checked if there were any crashes 370 days before MH370?
I'd be very worried if I was about to fly on flight BA003 tomorrow...
Fizzbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2016, 06:16
Eater Sundae
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,674
The more I think about it the more I think it may have been lithium batteries. You're not allowed to have any in hold baggage, but can take them in hand baggage, up to a certain amount, which escapes me now. If someone had gone through security with some in a cabin bag, which is not illegal as such batteries are used in laptops, phones, cameras, tablets, powerbanks etc, then that bag was taken off them at the gate for being too big then it would go in to the hold. The gate agents are meant to ask if there are lithium batteries inside, but it's not hard to imagine this either didn't happen or the passenger simply lied and said no.

As there is no further security check between the gate and the hold then these could have been loaded in to the hold and a fire started somehow, maybe by one of the batteries short circuiting by touching another one or a bit of metal. If that then caused a spark big enough to set something else on fire then a sudden intense fire could start in the hold before the pilots had a chance to put it out with the inbuilt system or it simply became too violent for that to deal with. I know it's a long shot, but I really don't think it was a bomb as the fact the ACARS managed to report smoke means that something could have been burning for a while.

BBC News saying all the smoke and heat warnings originated from the cockpit or toilet behind the cockpit. Perhaps someone smoking in the toilet. Now BBC news going on about the batteries. I want to state I made this post before the News at 10 went on about lithium batteries!
Just as an aside. Does this mean that if you want to avoid having your hand luggage "bumped" into the hold as you get onto the aircraft, then you should always carry something with lithium batteries, or even just say that you are.

About 15 or 16 years ago, I used to occasionally travel short haul on business, with a small carry on overnight bag. On a few occasions it was taken from me as I got on the aircraft, and put in the hold. I don't recall ever being asked whether or not there were any batteries in it.
Eater Sundae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2016, 09:37
PaleHorse
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,396
Not a very good cover up then was it ?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...fter-shooting/

SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. — Authorities now believe that the two attackers who killed 14 people here last week had been radicalized for quite a while, an FBI official said Monday.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/san-bernard...police-1532434

As authorities investigate how the couple was financed, US government officials have said the FBI has not found the couple's finances linked to any foreign group. Reuters reported that a government source said Farook and his 29-year-old wife used a financial tactic previously followed by US-based militants: drain their bank accounts and instead rely on credit lines that they knew they would not pay back because they believed they were on a suicide mission.


On 7 December, the FBI said it appeared the two had been self-radicalised "for quite some time" and that the weapons and bomb-making equipment in their home suggested the attack was premeditated



I mean if you are covering up do you really tell the press less than week later that the couple had been radicalised and that the investigation is ongoing ? Where is the story where the government admitted their cover up.
http://conservativepapers.com/news/2...islamist-ties/

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/h...breaking-news/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...im-as-victims/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ot-be-ignored/

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...ided-terrorism

http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/obama-ign...ies-to-terror/

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/0...was-terrorism/

There you go. Essentially lying by omission, just as the truth finally coming out is essentially admitting to suppression. Months on, it's obviously difficult to convey the feeling at the time, but for anyone avidly following the story in the moment, there was a very obvious and palpable feeling among the general populace that Obama was forcing his own administration's hand into ignoring the obvious, stressing every possible alternative but the obvious, and burying their heads in the sand over the attacker's motivations. In global news coverage, a few days is forever. It took forever for the White House (and especially Obama) to acknowledge that the San Bernardino attackers were Islamic extremists. I don't even particularly recall there being much media coverage over the motivations being officially confirmed and acknowledged by the White House. Certainly not enough to the extent that it became watercooler conversation. But then Capitol Hill controls pretty much every liberal news source nowadays so...
PaleHorse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2016, 09:40
Ulsterguy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,015
Wow! The terror wrists must have been waiting until the first flight number that matched the days elapsed since MH370. Has anyone checked if there were any crashes 370 days before MH370?
'Terror wrists', I hope that's a spellchecker typo!
Ulsterguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2016, 10:37
bri160356
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Made it Ma, Top of the World!
Posts: 3,999
Wow! The terror wrists must have been waiting until the first flight number that matched the days elapsed since MH370. Has anyone checked if there were any crashes 370 days before MH370?
I had a slight bump on Sainsburys car-park;

…does that count?
bri160356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2016, 10:53
CSJB
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,037
Wow! The terror wrists must have been waiting until the first flight number that matched the days elapsed since MH370. Has anyone checked if there were any crashes 370 days before MH370?
I think the terror wrists of the conspiracy theorists must have been going ten to the dozen when they discovered this coincidence.
CSJB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2016, 11:00
Blofeld
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Scotland, Europe
Posts: 6,738
Just as an aside. Does this mean that if you want to avoid having your hand luggage "bumped" into the hold as you get onto the aircraft, then you should always carry something with lithium batteries, or even just say that you are.

About 15 or 16 years ago, I used to occasionally travel short haul on business, with a small carry on overnight bag. On a few occasions it was taken from me as I got on the aircraft, and put in the hold. I don't recall ever being asked whether or not there were any batteries in it.
Not really. If your bag is too big for the cabin the they will still take it. You would just need to carry any batteries with you. Ive seen people say they have batteries when asked just to try and stop the bag from being taken, but they were then told to just remove them and carry the devices or batteries on the plane with them, where at least if they malfunction it can be sorted out much easier. However there is no way for the staff to check if you have batteries in or not, its all dependant on passenger honesty and even if this plane did go down because of someone having faulty lithium batteries in the hold then I doubt it'd change most passenger attitudes towards airport staff enforcing cabin baggage rules anyway. They would still get abuse. If it turns out to be a scenario like I described then the no batteries in the hold rule will need to be enforced properly which will probably lead to searches of any hand baggage taken at the gate to ensure there are no batteries in there. Most gate Staff dont have that authority at the moment and it woild no doubt cause a lot more delays and arguments at the gates anyway.

15 years ago this wasn't an issue and wasn't a requirement to ask. Its only been a requirement for about 18 months or so and even then I think it may only be in the UK.
Blofeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2016, 11:26
lemoncurd
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bristol
Posts: 46,965
'Terror wrists', I hope that's a spellchecker typo!
Nope. It's an apt description for knuckle-draggers who have been fore-armed.
lemoncurd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2016, 12:02
solare
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,040
15 years ago this wasn't an issue and wasn't a requirement to ask. Its only been a requirement for about 18 months or so and even then I think it may only be in the UK.
I travel mostly in continental Europe and don't recall being asked if my checked-in bags contain electronic devices/lithium batteries. In fact, I've sometime (by mistake, without thinking) put my tablet or compact camera in my checked-in luggage. With no questions asked at the check-in desk, it's quite easy to forget. Of course, I will take care in future not to do that, but there is always the risk that people will check in devices with lithium batteries (either by mistake or purposely) and I'm not sure how the airlines can fully remove that risk.

Do aircraft have any kind of automatic sprinkler or fire extinguisher system in the hold, in case a fire breaks out?
solare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2016, 12:12
Icaraa
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,727
I travel mostly in continental Europe and don't recall being asked if my checked-in bags contain electronic devices/lithium batteries. In fact, I've sometime (by mistake, without thinking) put my tablet or compact camera in my checked-in luggage. With no questions asked at the check-in desk, it's quite easy to forget. Of course, I will take care in future not to do that, but there is always the risk that people will check in devices with lithium batteries (either by mistake or purposely) and I'm not sure how the airlines can fully remove that risk.

Do aircraft have any kind of automatic sprinkler or fire extinguisher system in the hold, in case a fire breaks out?
Oh yes, they do have a sprinkler system in the hold.
Icaraa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2016, 13:48
misawa97
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: London, UK
Posts: 11,516
I wish flights were still going to sharm.
misawa97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2016, 15:30
d'@ve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,730
The more I think about it the more I think it may have been lithium batteries. You're not allowed to have any in hold baggage, but can take them in hand baggage, up to a certain amount, which escapes me now.
Single device (e.g. laptop) lithium battery fires are easy to extinguish (water, halon extinguisher plus water, or even drinks from a bottle are effective) and would not have caused such a sudden deterioration with no mention by the pilots. Have a look at this video! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS6KA_Si-m8

Something as sudden and catastrophic as this has to be a deliberate bomb or incendiary, or a block of lithium batteries, bomb or incendiary in the forward hold such as happened with UPS Airlines flight 6 in 2010. But... stronger and better fireproof containing of hold luggage and cargo is supposed to have been introduced after Flight 6, so it's a mystery unless this plane was never modified.
d'@ve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2016, 18:54
Blofeld
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Scotland, Europe
Posts: 6,738
I travel mostly in continental Europe and don't recall being asked if my checked-in bags contain electronic devices/lithium batteries. In fact, I've sometime (by mistake, without thinking) put my tablet or compact camera in my checked-in luggage. With no questions asked at the check-in desk, it's quite easy to forget. Of course, I will take care in future not to do that, but there is always the risk that people will check in devices with lithium batteries (either by mistake or purposely) and I'm not sure how the airlines can fully remove that risk.

Do aircraft have any kind of automatic sprinkler or fire extinguisher system in the hold, in case a fire breaks out?
There risk is more associated with checking in spare batteries which are not packaged properly or aren't inside devices already. And if there is something in a checked in bag which shouldn't be there it will be picked up at security and the bag will be rejected. It's happened twice on my shift already this week and a passenger has had to come back and remove something from their bag (in both cases it wasn't batteries causing the problem) before we could allow it to be checked in again.

If you look at the dangerous goods posters next time you're at a check in desk or around the gate they should be displaying information about checking in spare lithium batteries. It is true that most airlines no longer ask the security questions these days, but the information is there, or at least it should be.

As an aside you really shouldn't be putting laptops or any kind of valuable device in your checked in baggage. If you check the airlines terms and conditions you almost certainly aren't covered if those things are damaged while in the hold because they specifically state that you shouldn't put them in hold baggage anyway. Also the risk of your bag being delayed or someone else picking it up off the belt (either in error or deliberately) is there too. I am absolutely astounded by the people who put house and car keys or even medication in checked in bags and then are totally screwed if the bag is delayed. Don't do it! Why on Earth would you?
Blofeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2016, 19:42
Mark.
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 51,361
Four years ago, I was flying back from Bratislava after attending a conference where I needed to carry an extra laptop for demonstrating software. This was in my checked bag, and an announcement came over for me and a colleague who was also carrying a spare laptop to identify ourselves to a member of staff.

We were taken to a side room where our cases were. After confirming they were ours and we opened them up, it turned out the issue was with the batteries still being in the laptops. They should have been removed and placed separately but securely in the case. I got a few funny looks at Edinburgh when I collected the case because it had a large pink "SECURITY CHECKED" sticker on it.

We didn't really have any choice but to carry the laptops in checked luggage. Cabin bags are restrictive enough (this was Ryanair) without trying to find space for an additional laptop.
Mark. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2016, 20:54
mrsgrumpy49
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,369
'Terror wrists', I hope that's a spellchecker typo!
I was trying to work out whether 'terror wrist' was some sort of deliberate play on words
mrsgrumpy49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2016, 21:34
Doctorb
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,232
Sort of off topic but...on a very recent flight we experienced turbulence and the flight attendant who was serving tea/coffee sat down and emptied the hot water onto the floor. Basically saying is this good for the electrics, is this a common practice. It seemed mental at the time.
Doctorb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2016, 22:41
skp20040
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 43,693
Sort of off topic but...on a very recent flight we experienced turbulence and the flight attendant who was serving tea/coffee sat down and emptied the hot water onto the floor. Basically saying is this good for the electrics, is this a common practice. It seemed mental at the time.
One would imagine the electrics are carried/insulated inside waterproof piping / coating so a bit of water would not harm them , so therefore safer then that hot water going all over someone
skp20040 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 22-05-2016, 23:23
Paulie Walnuts
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,410
I wish flights were still going to sharm.
Me too. I was in Hurghada earlier this month for a couple of weeks, still pretty nice but I prefer Sharm.
Paulie Walnuts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2016, 00:22
Dix
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: LFLF Research Div
Posts: 49,394
Huh?? Why would it be "a Migrant"? Migrant to/from where? Sadly, I think what's been found could be from any of the passengers or crew as a result of the crash. Fire on board could be caused by a lot of things - mechanical failure, bomb...
So many migrants crossed the Med not so long ago, which came to mind. But now think it came from the plane, from what's been said. However do wonder if any more body parts will be found seeing there are over 40 species of Shark in those waters. Seems fire was in the cockpit and the bog with alarms going off. Sad ending of everyone aboard.
Dix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-05-2016, 10:22
anne_666
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 30,190
If it's true, an odd contradiction re there not being a distress call.

EgyptAir flight MS804 pilot spoke with air traffic control 'for several minutes just before crash'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7041936.html
The pilot of the doomed EgyptAir flight spoke to air traffic control in Egypt for several minutes just before the plane crashed, a French television station has claimed.

M6 said that the pilot told Cairo control about the smoke which had engulfed parts of the aircraft and decided to make an emergency descent to try to clear the fumes.

As a result of the conversation, the pilot decided to make an “emergency descent”, depressurising the cabin, in an attempt to clear smoke fumes which had invaded the front of the aircraft.
anne_666 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:56.