EgyptAir flight from Paris to Cairo has vanished from Radar

a reply to: anonentity

Because it would have to be insanely huge or carry a bunch of them, and add so much weight, they could barely carry passengers or cargo and still get off the ground.

Do we know yet if this was kebab?

a reply to: Zaphod58


Surely its a calculation of scale, if a six seat Cessna can have one, the weight problem might not be that much of a problem with regard to the passenger cargo already carried. Military jets already have them deployed to slow them down in fast landings, I cant see much of a problem.
The thing is that no plane will ever be totally safe, the more electronics the more complicated they become the more risk is built in. If a terrorist bomb or projectile hits a plane at altitude, and it stops flying, the loss of life could be mitigated by this method, and would not require the loss of hundreds of people.

a reply to: firerescue

The United and USAir flights were on approach when they crashed. United 585 was the first. They were cleared for a visual approach to Denver, and suffered the rudder reversal and rolled onto their back and hit the ground four miles short of the runway. USAir 427 was on approach into Pittsburgh behind a Delta 727, and hit 6 miles short of the runway.

a reply to: anonentity

A Cessna 182 weighs 1,970 pounds empty. A Cessna Turbo 210, six seat aircraft weighs 2,300 pounds empty. An Embraer 170, one of the smaller commercial aircraft, used for regional flights, weighs 46,610 pounds. An A320, which is what we're talking about here, has an Operating Empty Weight of 93,900 pounds.

Start to see the problem?

As for military jets, the only ones that use a drag chute are some small fighters, and the B-52. And the one used on the B-52 is huge. I've recovered enough of them to know. It's big, and the latch that connects to the aircraft is heavy as hell. It's a lot easier to use one to slow a plane down on landing, when it's already slowing, than it is to bring one down gently. Most crashes occur during takeoff and landing. A chute wouldn't do much to bring you down, because you're going to be at such low altitude, the chances of it deploying in time, stopping your forward motion, and gently lowering you to the ground, from low altitude, at the speed a commercial aircraft is flying are so low it's not funny.

This is one part of what I was referring to before.

There have been electrical problems with window anti-ice heaters in A320s. In 2003, the FAA required windshields replaced in all A320s in the United States. It's not known whether Egypt followed the FAA directive.

www.cnn.com...

a reply to: earthling42
There is flight tracking software that plugs into a receiver (Nooelec usb) that will live track aircraft over you as well as report internationally. The chap that had it had reviewed the last 6 flights, found on average prior 5 were 560 kts, this one slowly accelerated til crash to 610 kts. (weather anomaly) ?. this is unusual but can easily be checked.

Zaphod, ...

Please stop with the reaching for explanations "other" than terrorism. You and I both know what happened...well, at least I do...

Cause - Terrorism

Event - Explosion in the forward galley

Device - Likely a wine bottle (or similar)

Trigger - Simple booby trap, no altitude or time fused device.

Perpetrators - Catering ground staff (or conspirators)

Sequence - Explosive device, likely simple fuel (i.e. gasoline or like) triggered in forward galley. Large incendieary event, concussion but not large enough to puncture pressure hull integrity. Forward bulkhead behind FO damaged (possibly penetrated), flight deck breached. Injury or death of FO. Damage to right side of flight deck. Fire. Heat and thermal fatigue on windscreen and adjoining areas as well as potential maintenance issues. High stress on airframe due to rapid descent.

Operation - PIC initiates emergency descent (right turn 90 degrees) out of airway. No FO/PNF to squawk 7700. Raging fire, loss of control...control, system and PIC overload...

Result - Complete loss of control and loss of aircraft.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Really? So we should just jump on the terrorism bandwagon, because planes don't just crash? Sorry, but just no. I'm not jumping on any bandwagon until there is conclusive evidence that it was terrorism or a mechanical fault. A plane went down. Guess what? Just because a bunch of people say "terrorism" doesn't mean it was terrorism. So if you don't like my looking for alternate explanations, deal with it. I'm not going to stop until there is at least evidence one way or the other.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Do you have an evidence or simply speculating or playing out some conspiracy fantasy....?

Lets wait until some hard evidence before inventing terrorism scenarios......

As I;ve shown in flight fires are not uncommon and often result in total destruction of aircraft

Method of entry - bonded liquor catering cart off catering truck, docked into catering cart hold...in the forward galley.

No...It's just too obvious.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

And you have evidence of this, besides "I say so", right? And evidence of it being terrorism besides, "The talking heads say so", right? Because right now there's just as much evidence of mechanical failure as there is of terrorism.

a reply to: firerescue

None at all...just 30 years in the aviation business!

a reply to: Zaphod58

No, I have no evidence. Just my theory.

I don't listen to talking heads...at all.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

So your 30 years trumps mine, because.....

You still need evidence besides "I say so" or "the talking heads say so" and right now there isn't a shred of evidence besides the plane crashed.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

So because you have a theory we should stop looking at alternative explanations? Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Until there's evidence you can't rule out a possible explanation because you like one better.

a reply to: Zaphod58

No argument with your statement.

Again, just my educated guess.

ACARS messages don't mean much to me given the time frame. Too many events, too fast...too near the end.

Clearly a catastrophic event.

a reply to: anonentity

A Cessna 172 weighs about 1,100 kg, an Airbus 320 can weigh in excess of 75,000kg at take-off. A parachute would have to be so big there would be no room for passengers or cargo.

a reply to: Zaphod58

No, not at all. Every possiblity should be exhausted until the true solution is found, beyond doubt.

I'm just predicting what that end solution truly is.

Let's face it, the ACARS messages are telling...so why aren't the media talking about them...at all?????????

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Obviously, because it crashed. But I'm damned if I'm going to jump to a conclusion and stop looking at all possible explanations until there's at least evidence for them besides people having a theory. The ACARS messages are a data point, as are the turns and the descent. You can't just look at something and say "I'm going to ignore this because of.....". You have to look at all data points and figure out which ones are important and which aren't. At this point you can't throw them out yet.