Aviation Discussion

[Harbornite]

It has since been claimed by the Egyptians that wreckage from the aircraft has been found, but this has been disputed by the Greeks. On another note, the British victim has been identified.

I've been in the airline industry for thirty plus years and my thoughts are...

Modern aircraft just don't fall out of the sky and the A320 had an excellent safety record. Whatever happened was 'catastrophic' as the pilots didn't have time to put out a distress call. Most mechanical failures don't cause an aircraft to disappear that quickly, there would have been some time before the crash. Security at Paris is red hot. It is unlikely a passenger could have got something through security or into hold baggage.

There are gaps in airport security, you can never eliminate the risk just make it as difficult as possible. Most scenarios involve a knowledge of airport procedures and layouts and the 'help' of complicit or most likely dozy staff. I have found passengers wandering behind the scenes at Heathrow, although not in a secure area because a staff member has failed to check a door has been closed behind them and a passenger following them thinking the toilets are nearby.

The aircraft had been to Asmara in Eritrea and Tunis before flying between Paris and Cairo, possibly just possibly something could have been put on board in these places.

The crew fly behind bullet proof, reinforced doors with two crew on the flight deck at all times, there have been unconfirmed reports of some kind of struggle on the flight deck, this could be a suicide-murder event again, it has happened before with Egyptair.

This may sound controversial but sometimes I'm more worried about the airport and airline staff than the behaviour from passengers. I'm a customer services manager with a well known Heathrow based airline and have had to raise concerns to the BAA about some of things staff and myself have overheard from other staff, particularly airport security. The response from the BAA 'we know, and we're watching them'.

Whilst all airport staff go through strict security vetting, nothing stops anyone from getting an airside pass as long as they pass their criminal record checks, they can still hold extreme views and work at an airport.

As I said, these are just my initial thoughts.

This article has a similar viewpoint to you regarding staff.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/may/19/egyptair-plane-cairo-paris-live-updates

 

[Airline Man]

On balance I think it's unlikely to be a mechanical failure. This leaves two possible options, either pilot suicide-murder or terrorism. If it is terrorism then unless a device was put on the plane in Eritrea or Tunisia it had to be in Paris where security has been ramped up even further. If so, then the chances are that an airport employee was involved.

This opens a whole can of worms and if true has major implications. This is why I believe this is such a major story.

 

[Iskra]

On balance I think it's unlikely to be a mechanical failure. This leaves two possible options, either pilot suicide-murder or terrorism. If it is terrorism then unless a device was put on the plane in Eritrea or Tunisia it had to be in Paris where security has been ramped up even further. If so, then the chances are that an airport employee was involved.

This opens a whole can of worms and if true has major implications. This is why I believe this is such a major story.

To me, the sharp turn, spirals and rapid descent suggests catastrophic structural failure, either due to a mechanical failure, or more likely due to unsustainable bomb damage.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

On the BBC News today there was a map showing these spirals in as geographical context, the end of the 360° circle was shown as pointing directly at Cyprus.

A coincidence in a hastily drawn map or an indication that the crew might have been trying to make an emergency landing in Cyprus?

The rapid descent would of course fit with the expected action following a decompression - by whatever cause.

 

[Busaholic]

BBC news report at 11 p.m. reported eyewitness accounts of smoke emanating from the plane as it fell - which of the possible causes this supports or eliminates I wouldn't know, or maybe it is of little relevance in itself.

 

[ModernRailways]

I find it strange how people were so quick to jump on the 'terrorists did it'. Maybe it's just me being a conspiracy theorist but they jumped to that conclusion pretty damn quickly with no supporting evidence other than the plane made sharp turns and didn't put out any callouts.

I've not heard if there was a mayday call or anything. All I've heard is tried contacting it, they couldn't get through. And then it disappeared.

Hopefully they find the flight recorders relatively soon though!

 

[zuriblue]

AvHerald is reporting that there were a number of ACARS messages talking of smoke or heat.

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

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

The ACARS messages are sent by the plane's computer to ground stations and passed on to the airline's maintenance organization. Airbus has confirmed the messages are genuine,

 

[Harbornite]

I find it strange how people were so quick to jump on the 'terrorists did it'. Maybe it's just me being a conspiracy theorist but they jumped to that conclusion pretty damn quickly with no supporting evidence other than the plane made sharp turns and didn't put out any callouts.

I've not heard if there was a mayday call or anything. All I've heard is tried contacting it, they couldn't get through. And then it disappeared.

Hopefully they find the flight recorders relatively soon though!

Perhaps it's because modern aircraft have good safety records and people naturally assume that it's a terrorist attack.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I find it strange how people were so quick to jump on the 'terrorists did it'. Maybe it's just me being a conspiracy theorist but they jumped to that conclusion pretty damn quickly with no supporting evidence other than the plane made sharp turns and didn't put out any callouts.

It's a fairly normal reaction, when American Airlines 587 went down in Queens in 2001 everyone originally thought it was terrorists.

My initial reaction was bomb. Now I'm not convinced. It reminds me a bit of Swissair 111.

 

[Bald Rick]

Changing the subject, I've just seen (but not heard!) a Finnair A350 on an LHR-HEL rotation.

Is this the first A350 on regular scheduled flights to/from the UK?

 

[WestCoast]

Changing the subject, I've just seen (but not heard!) a Finnair A350 on an LHR-HEL rotation.

Is this the first A350 on regular scheduled flights to/from the UK?

Yes, it is. Qatar Airways have conducted trials at Heathrow, but no commercial service yet.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, it is. Qatar Airways have conducted trials at Heathrow, but no commercial service yet.

I wonder if it was the first A350 departure in scheduled revenue service from the UK. In which case I was rather fortunate to be at the place I was (somewhere I haven't been for 11 years) and at the time I was, happening to be glancing out of a window in the right direction, and seeing it!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

It's a fairly normal reaction, when American Airlines 587 went down in Queens in 2001 everyone originally thought it was terrorists.

My initial reaction was bomb. Now I'm not convinced. It reminds me a bit of Swissair 111.

Isn't that the one where poor pilot training led to one of the crew using excessive and violent rudder movements to get out of wake turbulence and he caused the tail to snap off as a result?

Saw a documentary about it a few months ago on Channel 4 or Channel 5.

 

[Harbornite]

There's currently a doc on about Heathrow on ITV.

 

[Airline Man]

It wouldn't surprise me if Finnair were using the A350 on short haul flights for crew training, it's common practice with new types. Air France used A380's between Heathrow and Paris and I flew on a BA A380 to Frankfurt. That put a smile on most of the passengers faces for once!

 

[Butts]

Anyone got any idea why Liverpool Airport has not got self-service check in Machines for passengers just taking hand luggage.

Butts bungled big time on my return from Wales at the weekend to Edinburgh via John Lennon Airport.

Had to join the general queue. First largish airport I have been to without them for a while. 2 Ryanair only ones which were not on. Staff said the venue was to small but Southampton has them. I do not have a smartphone.

However not all bad news has a smoking area post security

 

[me123]

I think it's dependent on the airline and handler? Given that Liverpool only has flights to Belfast, the small Edinburgh route and a seasonal service to Newquay, it may not be big enough for flyBe to put self-service machines in (whereas, at Southampton, flyBe has a rather larger presence).

 

[Harbornite]

Slightly off topic, but I've noticed that aviation threads elsewhere on the internet tend to degenerate into arguments between Airbus and Boeing fanboys. Do we have any of those on here?

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Slightly off topic, but I've noticed that aviation threads elsewhere on the internet tend to degenerate into arguments between Airbus and Boeing fanboys. Do we have any of those on here?

I'm not bothered by them - true aviation fans fly Lancs

 

[Harbornite]

I'm not bothered by them - true aviation fans fly Lancs

I'm on about manufacturers, not models. Didn't Avro merge with the BAC in 1960, along with English Electric etc?

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm on about manufacturers, not models. Didn't Avro merge with the BAC in 1960, along with English Electric etc?

Not quite.

Avro was part of the Hawker Siddeley group (which incidentally bought Brush Electrical machines in the 50s)

Hawker Siddeley merged with BAC and was nationalised at the same time in 1977 to form BAe. BAe was of course a part of the Airbus consortium.

So you could argue that by ancestry, a Lanc is an early Airbus, but also a cousin of the Class 47.

 

[Harbornite]

Not quite.

Avro was part of the Hawker Siddeley group (which incidentally bought Brush Electrical machines in the 50s)

Hawker Siddeley merged with BAC and was nationalised at the same time in 1977 to form BAe. BAe was of course a part of the Airbus consortium.

So you could argue that by ancestry, a Lanc is an early Airbus, but also a cousin of the Class 47.

My mistake. By the 1960s, Hawker Siddeley and BAC dominated the UK market. Shorts managed to stay independent but eventually ended up with Bombardier, and didn't Armstrong Whitworth die off in the seventies?

Bit off topic but Brush had to keep their cuban type 4 locomotive contract secret because they didn't want to upset the USA and jeapordize Hawker Siddeley's chances of getting US defence contracts. As a result, they subcontracted the work to Clayton.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Did some googling, I was mistaken because Armstrong whitworth actually joined Hawker Siddeley. There was an aircraft company that went under in the 70s but I cant remember which.

 

[Domh245]

Did some googling, I was mistaken because Armstrong whitworth actually joined Hawker Siddeley. There was an aircraft company that went under in the 70s but I cant remember which.

Handley Page perhaps? Went into liquidation in 1970.

If not, you might be able to pull it out of this wiki page

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Slightly off topic, but I've noticed that aviation threads elsewhere on the internet tend to degenerate into arguments between Airbus and Boeing fanboys. Do we have any of those on here?

Dedicated aviation fora tend to be dominated by Americans, some of whom take a somewhat jingoistic view of aviation generally. And the older ones doubtless grew up at a time when Boeing, Douglas and Lockheed dominated sales to US airlines with only small sales achieved there by the likes of Avro, BAC and Fokker. These days in most markets it's a straight fight between Airbus and Boeing with Airbus having sold slightly more each year for a while now. Ultimately it's the sort of pointless flag waving so beloved of some of our American friends.

 

[Harbornite]

Handley Page perhaps? Went into liquidation in 1970.

If not, you might be able to pull it out of this wiki page

That was it. It's a shame that so many iconic aircraft companies disappeared during the '60s in nergers, but that's business for you.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Dedicated aviation fora tend to be dominated by Americans, some of whom take a somewhat jingoistic view of aviation generally. And the older ones doubtless grew up at a time when Boeing, Douglas and Lockheed dominated sales to US airlines with only small sales achieved there by the likes of Avro, BAC and Fokker. These days in most markets it's a straight fight between Airbus and Boeing with Airbus having sold slightly more each year for a while now. Ultimately it's the sort of pointless flag waving so beloved of some of our American friends.

That sums it up well. I try to have a balanced view, both companies have made decent airliners but I think that Boeing's designs are slightly more aesthetically pleasing and the company has a more diverse portfolio with a range of iconic designs

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

That sums it up well. I try to have a balanced view, both companies have made decent airliners but I think that Boeing's designs are slightly more aesthetically pleasing and the company has a more diverse portfolio with a range of iconic designs

The joys of opinions! While the Boeing 747 is undoubtedly iconic my preferred models from a purely visual point of view would be the Lockheed Constellation, the Convair Coronado, the MD11 and the A330.

 

[fowler9]

Slightly off topic, but I've noticed that aviation threads elsewhere on the internet tend to degenerate into arguments between Airbus and Boeing fanboys. Do we have any of those on here?

My favourite plane that I have flown on is the Airbus A340 (Not been on an A330 but am guessing it is pretty damn similar). The 747 and 777 are up there though. Not too keen on the 787 to look at, not flown on one though. Don't really think the A380 is that pretty either.

 

[anme]

My favourite plane that I have flown on is the Airbus A340 (Not been on an A330 but am guessing it is pretty damn similar). The 747 and 777 are up there though. Not too keen on the 787 to look at, not flown on one though. Don't really think the A380 is that pretty either.

If we're having this discussion, the A380 is the nicest to fly on - so quiet! Although it's ugly it does look impressive. A340-600 is the prettiest - slender, very long and rather elegant. The 747 is iconic; to be honest it's noisy and ugly but with an old fashioned appeal (and less favourably, often an old fashioned interior). The rest of the Airbuses and Boeings are fairly generic.

Other types, from Fokkers to Embraers, Avros to De Havillands are arguably more interesting.

 

[fowler9]

If we're having this discussion, the A380 is the nicest to fly on - so quiet! Although it's ugly it does look impressive. A340-600 is the prettiest - slender, very long and rather elegant. The 747 is iconic; to be honest it's noisy and ugly but with an old fashioned appeal (and less favourably, often an old fashioned interior). The rest of the Airbuses and Boeings are fairly generic.

Other types, from Fokkers to Embraers, Avros to De Havillands are arguably more interesting.

Yeah the A380 is very impressive. Love the A340-600 though. Went to Manchester a few times just to see it on the Manchester to Atlanta flight, I think they are A330's now. The A340 I went on was an A340-300, LAN from Auckland to Santiago on Christmas Eve 2011, we left at 4 in the afternoon and landed at 11 in the morning the same day after 13 hours. Time travel. Ha ha. A lovely plane.

 

[anme]

Yeah the A380 is very impressive. Love the A340-600 though. Went to Manchester a few times just to see it on the Manchester to Atlanta flight, I think they are A330's now. The A340 I went on was an A340-300, LAN from Auckland to Santiago on Christmas Eve 2011, we left at 4 in the afternoon and landed at 11 in the morning the same day after 13 hours. Time travel. Ha ha. A lovely plane.

Nice! A340 is very nice to fly on. Need to try the 787 and A350, but they don't look so cool.