Quoting theaviator380 (Reply 120): Communication and PR failure?

AFAIK, the usual reason for delayed passenger lists are pax with double citizenships.


Here is a list - I don't know from which source, though: http://shoebat.com/2016/05/19/the-na...shed-egyptian-air-flight-revealed/

Pascal Hess, one of the confirmed pax, is on the list. There are only very few passengers with a non-Arabic name.

The website seems to be on the Christian, anti-Muslim fringe.


David

[Edited 2016-05-20 05:59:33]

[Edited 2016-05-20 06:06:14]

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 121): AFAIK, the usual reason for delayed passenger lists are pax with double citizenships.

The other possibility is that the airline believes the relatives have the right to be told before the international media are. I've no idea if this is the case here, but it is a point of view I can agree with.

Quoting Andy33 (Reply 122): The other possibility is that the airline believes the relatives have the right to be told before the international media are. I've no idea if this is the case here, but it is a point of view I can agree with.

Yes... I'd rather be told by police officers, than by a bunch of greedy journalists calling me...


David

Assuming it was terrorism, one explanation for the lack publicity claims is that this not the only plot.

If an terrorist organization has found a crack in airport security why not milk for all its worth?

Everybody wants to believe these folks are crazy and while I'm sure some are, the leaders are crazy evil just like past megalomaniacs.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 102): Here is a map of the international waters - in the Mediterrenean Sea, there are none, and given the presumed crash location, chances are not bad that Greece gets to investigate the accident.

This is interesting since I think most people would agree that the Greeks do not have the financial wherewithal to perform an investigation of a plane crash at the bottom of the Mediterranean. Normally, this would support the Greeks waiving their right to investigate and letting the Egyptians go for it.

Problem being, the French have a real incentive to have this crash investigated by professional non-political investigators. If this investigation is simply handed off to the Egyptians, it is hard to imagine their report not saying that the plane was brought down by an explosive device planted at CDG. Makes me wonder if the French will provide generous compensation to the Greeks in exchange for them conducting the investigation. The French can then provide technical and recovery assistance to aid in the investigation.

Quoting eal46859 (Reply 15): The news is speculating that the bomb was put on the plane at an earlier stop (or even the first departure ) and then at CDG the suicide bomber boarded as a regular passenger. He then set off the bomb that was left for him.

At this stage speculations are a bit worrisome, especially when the speculations tend to show that the likelihood of some nations being more involved is higher than the others. We have all noticed these days how terrorists hit and infiltrate unexpected places.

MS804 Synopsis
==============


Background
----------
1. 66 people were on board. According to a leaked passenger list, only very few of the passengers have a non-Arabic name. None of the people on the manifest were on a terrorism watchlist.
2. Earlier that day, SU-GCC flew to Eritrea and Tunis, returning to CAI each time.
3. According to BBC, no terrorist organization has credibly claimed responsibility.

Flight History
--------------
1. Flight entered Athens FIR at 2:24 AM. Last successful communication was at 2:48, the flight was cleared to the exit of Athens FIR. "The pilot was jocund and thanked in Greek."
2. At 3:27, Athens ACC tried to communicate with the flight, to hand it over to the Cairo FIR. Repetitive calls, also on the emergency frequency, went without any response.
3. The flight passed the FIR boundary at 3:29 AM. At 3:29:40 AM, the flight was lost from radar, almost 7 nm southeast of KUMBI (KUMBI lies on the FIR boundary). The Greek Air Force was called, they were unable to track the plane with their radars.
4. Reportedly, the aircraft lost altitude while doing a 90° left turn, and then a 360° right turn.

Search
------
1. First debris spotted at around noon of May 20th.
2. Possible oil slick photographed by the European Space Agency's Sentinel satellite.

Possible Explanations
---------------------
1. The crew did not respond to repeated calls by Athinai air traffic control, yet the flight didn't disappear from radar until a few minutes later. This suggests the crew was either incapacitated or unable to respond (due to workload; struggling to regain control after a bomb explosion).
2. The time span between the attempted calls by Athens ACC and the disappearance rules out an explosion that would have totally crippled the plane.
3. A Helios-type of accident is improbable, as the plane would have simply continued the flight plan.


David

[Edited 2016-05-20 07:40:48]

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 127): 2. At 3:27, Athinai ACC tried to communicate with the flight, to hand it over to Cairo FIR. Repetitive calls, also on the emergency frequence, went without any response. 3. The flight passed the FIR boundary at 3:29 AM. At 3:29:40 AM, the flight was lost from radar

Thank you for the synopsis, flyingturtle.
So roughly 12 min elapsed between attempts to communicate with MS804 and loss of radar contact. That makes one think...

Quoting rbrunner (Reply 128): So roughly 12 min elapsed between attempts to communicate with MS804 and loss of radar contact. That makes one think...

No, 2 minutes and 40 seconds.

The time span between the last *successful* communication and the disappearance is about 42 minutes.

David

[Edited 2016-05-20 07:24:47]

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 129): Quoting rbrunner (Reply 128): So roughly 12 min elapsed between attempts to communicate with MS804 and loss of radar contact. That makes one think... No, 2 minutes and 40 seconds.

Does that roughly equate to the time taken for an uncontrolled plunge from 37 000' to lost radar contact. It sounds too long to me but I'm not an expert

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 129): No, 2 minutes and 40 seconds.

Sorry, you're right. I misread the time because of the seconds. Ohhhhps...

Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 130): Does that roughly equate to the time taken for an uncontrolled plunge from 37 000' to lost radar contact. It sounds too long

That is a descent rate of roughly 11,000 fpm, which is possible for an uncontrolled plunge.

Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 130): Does that roughly equate to the time taken for an uncontrolled plunge from 37 000' to lost radar contact. It sounds too long to me but I'm not an expert

AF447, while stalled, had a descent rate of 10'000 to 12'000 ft/min - but in that case, the plane was fully in control by the pilots.

Something like the Helios accident can be ruled out, in my modest opinion.

I wonder what the conclusions were if Athens ATC had tried to call earlier.



David

Quoting rbrunner (Reply 132): Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 130):Does that roughly equate to the time taken for an uncontrolled plunge from 37 000' to lost radar contact. It sounds too long That is a descent rate of roughly 11,000 fpm, which is possible for an uncontrolled plunge.

I believe the loss of radar contact being referred to is loss of secondary radar, not primary. The 2 min 40 sec would be the time from the last, unsuccessful attempt at communication to the loss of the transponder signal from the airplane.

[Edited 2016-05-20 07:43:05]

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 133): AF447, while stalled, had a descent rate of 10'000 to 12'000 ft/min - but in that case, the plane was fully in control by the pilots.

The AF447 crew was most definitely NOT in control of their aircraft.

[Edited 2016-05-20 07:45:52]

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 127): 3. The flight passed the FIR boundary at 3:29 AM. At 3:29:40 AM, the flight was lost

When crossing the FIR boundary,were they still cruising at FL370?

I have modified the synopsis several times...

Quoting hivue (Reply 134): I believe the loss of radar contact being referred to is loss of secondary radar, not primary. The 2 min 40 sec would be the time from the last, unsuccessful attempt at communication to the loss of the transponder signal from the airplane.

I think so too. The Greek Air Force was called if they could locate the plane...

Before I go swimming, I'll try to extend the synopsis a bit.


David

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 121): Here is a list - I don't know from which source, though: http://shoebat.com/2016/05/19/the-na...shed-egyptian-air-flight-revealed/ Pascal Hess, one of the confirmed pax, is on the list. There are only very few passengers with a non-Arabic name.

How can we explain the registration SUGBZ and not SUGCC on this list?

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 133): AF447, while stalled, had a descent rate of 10'000 to 12'000 ft/min - but in that case, the plane was fully in control by the pilots.

Wow, now that's a first. You can sit there and claim that the AF447 crew had full control of their aircraft?   I'm not saying they didn't have a difficult and confusing situation on their hands, but no one had control of that aircraft.

Quoting saleya22r (Reply 135): When crossing the FIR boundary,were they still cruising at FL370?

I think so, yes.

Quoting ZKCIF (Reply 137): How can we explain the registration SUGBZ and not SUGCC on this list?

This is strange. But still at least two confirmed victims (Ghassan Abou Laban, a painter with Palestinian roots and living in Amman, Jordania, and Pascal Hess, a French photographer) appear on it...


David

Quoting trnswrld (Reply 138): Wow, now that's a first. You can sit there and claim that the AF447 crew had full control of their aircraft? Wow! I'm not saying they didn't have a difficult and confusing situation on their hands, but no one had control of that aircraft.

Read the report. They were in full control of the aircraft. They held it in a stable, yet stalled position... thinking that they were NOT losing altitude!

(Your words are liable to awake a sleeping Pihero...)



MS804 Synopsis
==============
version 2016-05-20-17-01


Background
----------
1. 66 people were on board. According to a leaked passenger list, only very few of the passengers have a non-Arabic name. None of the people on the manifest were on a terrorism watchlist. A leaked passenger list can be found on a anti-Muslim website www.shoebat.com.
2. Earlier that day, SU-GCC flew to Eritrea and Tunis, returning to CAI each time.
3. According to BBC, no terrorist organization has credibly claimed responsibility.

Flight History
--------------
1. Flight entered Athens FIR at 2:24 AM. Last successful communication was at 2:48, the flight was cleared to the exit of Athens FIR. "The pilot was jocund and thanked in Greek."
2. At 3:27, Athens ACC tried to communicate with the flight, to hand it over to the Cairo FIR. Repetitive calls, also on the emergency frequency, went without any response.
3. The flight passed the FIR boundary at 3:29 AM. At 3:29:40 AM, the flight was lost from ATC radar, almost 7 nm southeast of KUMBI (KUMBI lies on the FIR boundary). The Greek Air Force was called, they were unable to track the plane with their radars (as it had already crashed at this time).
4. The aircraft stayed at FL370, at least when the transponder was still working.
5. Supposedly, the Greek Air Force's primary radars did record the plane's flight. "It turned 90 degrees left and then a 360-degree turn toward the right, dropping from 38,000 to 15,000 feet and then it was lost at about 10,000 feet." (Paul Kammenos, Greek minister of defense)

Search
------
1. First debris spotted at around noon of May 20th.
2. Possible oil slick photographed by the European Space Agency's Sentinel satellite.

Possible Explanations
---------------------
1. The crew did not respond to repeated calls by Athinai air traffic control, yet the flight didn't disappear from radar until a few minutes later. This suggests the crew was either incapacitated or unable to respond (due to workload; struggling to regain control after a bomb explosion).
2. The time span between the attempted calls by Athens ACC and the disappearance rules out an explosion that would have totally crippled the plane.
3. A Helios-type of accident is improbable, as the plane would have simply continued the flight plan.

Quoting trnswrld (Reply 138): Wow, now that's a first. You can sit there and claim that the AF447 crew had full control of their aircraft?   I'm not saying they didn't have a difficult and confusing situation on their hands, but no one had control of that aircraft.

It was a CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) accident. I think that's what he means by "controlled".

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 140): Read the report. They were in full control of the aircraft. They held it in a stable, yet stalled position... thinking that they were NOT losing altitude!

Good point. I will retract my criticism.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 140): (Your words are liable to awake a sleeping Pihero...)

Ha, right. We're all waiting...

For some reason, my gut feeling saying this is not terror or bomb explosion, more indicating towards mechanical issue.

I hope FDR and CVR is recovered undamaged and records are still readable.

Quoting ZKCIF (Reply 137): How can we explain the registration SUGBZ and not SUGCC on this list?

Was the plane swapped at the last moment? Perhaps with one from the hangar, with maintenance issues? SU-GBZ is a 320, so this rules out my initial fear that a 737 crew was piloting a 320... (earlier in the thread, it was mentioned that the flight was usually operated with a 737).

I don't know. But I go swimming now... perhaps there we'll know more in the evening.


David

Quoting A332DTW (Reply 141): Quoting trnswrld (Reply 138): Wow, now that's a first. You can sit there and claim that the AF447 crew had full control of their aircraft?   I'm not saying they didn't have a difficult and confusing situation on their hands, but no one had control of that aircraft. It was a CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) accident. I think that's what he means by "controlled".

AF447 was most assuredly out of control when it impacted the sea. The crew was unsuccessfully attempting to regain control. Therefore AF447 was not a controlled flight into terrain accident.

Earlier I said I thought this could possibly be a stall/upset accident. I still think that is a possibility, but it does not preclude the possibility of an explosive device. My problem with the bomb scenario is that aircraft that are bombed out of the sky to not typically make turns on the way down. What usually happens is the bomb starts a breakup of the airframe and the remains continue on the original course. Look at the flight paths of Metrojet 9268 and Malaysia 17, that is what it looks like when explosives break up an airframe in flight.

It could still be an act of terrorism without being a bomb and it could still be a bomb that only disabled the aircraft until it finally broke up, but this is not a classic example of what would be expected with an explosion.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 140): 2. The time span between the attempted calls by Athens ACC and the disappearance rules out an explosion that would have totally crippled the plane.

As far as I understand if a bomb is going off inside a plane and cuts a hole in the fuselage in cruising altitude the immense difference in pressure will force the plane to disintegrate.

Can one place a bomb somewhere on a plane where it will cause damage to the control surfaces but will not break up the fuselage so that the course of MS804 is explainable? Is there such a case in history?

Not a bomb but KAL007 manage to fly for a couple of minutes after being struck by the missile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007#Post-attack_flight

As bad as this sounds..... When will aircraft manufacturers install better locating devices on aircraft? It makes me sad with the technology we have today, we can't find a missing plane. In some cases, it takes days to find. Heck, if I lose my cell phone, I can track it's location. Thoughts?

Side note: I know they possibly found wreckage today, but time is of the essence when it comes to possible rescue. Even though the chances of survival are not good in this situation, it bothers me it takes so darned long.

Quoting GianiDC (Reply 146): As far as I understand if a bomb is going off inside a plane and cuts a hole in the fuselage in cruising altitude the immense difference in pressure will force the plane to disintegrate.

There are a number of different failure modes following damage to the fuselage. In the case of the Lockerbie Pan Am, a small hole in the fuselage amplified to a major problem when the airflow started peeling off portions of the fuselage skin, causing eventual disintegration.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 99): One of the scary things about civil aviation these days is the knowledge that all it takes is one conflicted employee to create a catastrophe.

Agreed, yet it seems most of the traveling public is willing to count on 'the law of big numbers'.

Quoting Yakflyer (Reply 145): Earlier I said I thought this could possibly be a stall/upset accident. I still think that is a possibility, but it does not preclude the possibility of an explosive device. My problem with the bomb scenario is that aircraft that are bombed out of the sky to not typically make turns on the way down. What usually happens is the bomb starts a breakup of the airframe and the remains continue on the original course. Look at the flight paths of Metrojet 9268 and Malaysia 17, that is what it looks like when explosives break up an airframe in flight.

Very good point. I personally think it's most likely a stall/spin accident or pilot suicide, but we should know fairly soon if the debris has signs of explosives or not.

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 148): Heck, if I lose my cell phone, I can track it's location. Thoughts?

You can't if it's underwater. It's the same reason as to why submerged crashed aircrafts are difficult
to find while AIrcrafts that crashes on land are generally found very quickly.

I'm just spitballing here, but what are the chances of a thrust reverser being accidentally deployed mid-air? Or, taking a more sinister tone, how easy/difficult is it to deploy one or both reversers manually?I think you see where I am going with this - I agree it is a very unlikely scenario but unexpected deployment has brought down an airliner before (Lauda AIr). I've never heard of it being a problem with the IAE engines as on this A320 though.

I'm troubled by the turns this plane took before disappearing from radar, it makes me think there was a struggle to control the aircraft as opposed to a large bomb which would basically cause immediate disintegration.

A sad time for Egyptair and all involved with this tragedy. My thoughts are with them.

Quoting richierich (Reply 152): I'm troubled by the turns this plane took before disappearing from radar,

I think it's important to understand that the airplane apparently was flying straight and level at FL370 until "disappearing from radar" --- i.e., secondary radar. The transponder quit while the plane was apparently flying normally. The turns and decent were seen by Greek military primary radar.

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 148):

Airbus wants to install floating black boxes on all aircraft with some way to locate them easily but for some reason Boeing was very against requiring aircraft manufacturers to have to install that.

It's impossible to manually open a thrust reverser on a 320 in flight.

This was the most stable part of any normal flight, at cruising altitude. Things can go wrong but not so common. The loss of communication and the turns are the most significant clues to date.

With regard to the turns and taking a lead from richierich I doubt reverse thrusting would be possible, even manually given the failsafes. However if the left engine were to detach from the wing for any reason then the additional weight of the right wing could well cause a 90 degree turn. Over compensating and general control moves by the pilot could include a 360 degree left turn.

This would seem more likely than an explosion where a turn would be possible, but physics prevents it from stopping to turn in one direction and then reverse course to the other unless there was additional external factor.

Avherald is now reporting that ACARS indicates a fire onboard.

I don't know how to read this, could someone translate?

From Avherald:

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

Avherald just added that ACARS messages from the aircraft indicate fire on board, first lavotory then avionics, so the disappearance was not abrupt.

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 149): In the case of the Lockerbie Pan Am, a small hole in the fuselage amplified to a major problem when the airflow started peeling off portions of the fuselage skin, causing eventual disintegration.

This is not correct. When the shockwave of the explosion reflectet from the aft bulkhead and moved foward it popped off the entire front section starting at door 1. Skin wont peel off easily, plenty of cases where a hole, and big holes they where, was flown around even for hours. Its not just one skin, its small parts riveted together.

Quoting ec99 (Reply 125): This is interesting since I think most people would agree that the Greeks do not have the financial wherewithal to perform an investigation of a plane crash at the bottom of the Mediterranean. Normally, this would support the Greeks waiving their right to investigate and letting the Egyptians go for it.

The Greeks are broke in part due to their huge navy. Their subs are probably more operational than the Egyptian ones.

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 148): As bad as this sounds..... When will aircraft manufacturers install better locating devices on aircraft?

The frustrating thing is that the technology is mature and available, it will be flying on the P-3 involved in the search, and the NTSB have been in favour of them since the late 90's.
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Docu...ts/Panel%203d_DRS_Vandenheuvel.pdf
If you replace the rear fixed ELT with a deployable combined ELT/DFDR/CVR you vastly increase your chances of getting timely notification of the crash location, and as a bonus you also mitigate against the data being rendered unusable. Aside from the need to determine the cause of the crash, there's the SAR aspect - people do survive incidents one would think unsurvivable. Take Yemenia flt 626 - one survivor, a young girl found 13 hours later clinging to wreckage. Could timely deployment of SAR assets, or diversion of shipping, save lives?

People talk about the cost (from memory it's c. $100K, from which you have to subtract the cost of a single fixed ELT). But the reality is we already spend a fortune on a system which is as much use as a chocolate teapot. Airbus are to offer them as an option on A350's and A380's, but I'd like to see them made them mandatory on over-water flights.

Quoting cpqi (Reply 156): This was the most stable part of any normal flight, at cruising altitude. Things can go wrong but not so common. The loss of communication and the turns are the most significant clues to date. With regard to the turns and taking a lead from richierich I doubt reverse thrusting would be possible, even manually given the failsafes. However if the left engine were to detach from the wing for any reason then the additional weight of the right wing could well cause a 90 degree turn. Over compensating and general control moves by the pilot could include a 360 degree left turn. This would seem more likely than an explosion where a turn would be possible, but physics prevents it from stopping to turn in one direction and then reverse course to the other unless there was additional external factor.

I still wonder about those turns. There is so far only one statement saying there were turns. To do a 360 at cruise speed takes some time. So they should have been on FR24. But nothing it just stopps. So either there was a problem preventing from broadcasting data and voice messages or there were no turns.

With a fire was there a way to stop both communications with the outside world at the same time? Anybody insights?

ACARS Indications are:
1- problem with first officer window heating system
2- problem with first officer sliding window sensor
3- smoke detected in the lavatory and probably will the one just behind the cockpit
4- avionics smoke detected which is beneath the cockpit
5- fault with the sensor of the first officer front fixed window
6- flight control unit FCU 2 fault, the unit to used all flight trajectory short term manual orders
7- SEC 3 the Spoiler Elevator Computer number 3 fault, as its name implies controls part of the spoilers and is aback up for elevator control.

This may point to a severe fire spreading in the forward fuselage area, the messages are spanned over three minutes, so it might seem that the fire might have affected the flight controls which could explain the sharp turns made by the plane during its plunge into the sea, what is more important what started the fire, t

sorry the message was clipped

what is more important what started the fire, technical, bomb or cargo material ?

Quoting 777X (Reply 157): 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

First officers window was open? Bomb in the cockpit? Seat map shows the lav on the left hand side, so maybe something in the galley or closet. The fact that window sensors, smoke, and FCU faults all occurred within 2 minutes shows whatever happened progressed rapidly.

The timeline (0026Z) roughly matches up with Flyingturtle's timelines (0028Z) (UTC +2 if they were in the Eastern Time Zone). However it would indicate the event happened 40 minutes before radar contact was lost.

Quoting GianiDC (Reply 146): As far as I understand if a bomb is going off inside a plane and cuts a hole in the fuselage in cruising altitude the immense difference in pressure will force the plane to disintegrate. Can one place a bomb somewhere on a plane where it will cause damage to the control surfaces but will not break up the fuselage so that the course of MS804 is explainable? Is there such a case in history?

Not sure if this is what you are asking but TWA 840 had a bomb that blew a hole in the fueslage at FL100 but did not destroy the aircraft.

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19860402-1

Or this recent one over Somali in February at FL120

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20160202-0

Of course there is Aloha Air 243 at FL240, not a bomb but enormous disintegration of the fuselage

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19880428-0

And then UA 811 at FL220, not a bomb but explosive decompression and major hole

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19890224-0

"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"


If accurate, would the "R sliding window sensor" indicate opening the window?

I am not an expert. My interpretation could be wrong.

However:

Interesting that the text does not indicate which lavatory smoke was detected in.

Also interesting that several faults were localized to the right side cockpit windows.

Isn't the forward lav on the left side typically in the A320?

I know the windows have heater grids in them, and that they can overheat/fail/crack, but it seems a major stretch to assume that a heater grid failure could cause a fire substantial enough to bring down an A320. Perhaps the ACARS message was sent as a result of an open circuit due to the window no longer being intact?

What exactly does the R SLIDING WINDOW SENSOR and R FIXED WINDOW SENSOR sensors sense/detect?

Would rapid depressurization result in fogging of the air within the cabin, and could that be detected as smoke? I don't know how the smoke detectors operate.

Quoting su184 (Reply 158): From Avherald: 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

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 28):

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 167): If accurate, would the "R sliding window sensor" indicate opening the window?

Or more likely a false signal from the sensor. I dont think you are abe to open the window while the aircraft is pressurized.

/Lars

Quoting larshjort (Reply 169): I dont think you are abe to open the window while the aircraft is pressurized.

I was thinking of the descent and 360 turn that was reported?

Of course if a bomb blew a hole in the plane, then it's not pressurized any longer...

[Edited 2016-05-20 11:26:17]