Egypt Air Flight has disappeared from radar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It didn't have many passengers.

It was a red eye, literally middle of the night flight, which I have taken out of CDG before, they are usually super cheap. That may be why not many people on board.

Tourism is dead in Egypt. Most of those people were likely returning back to Egypt and other points in Africa to see family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine this could be true but my coworker flies Egypt Air somewhat often and claims pilots and crew regularly smoke in the bathrooms & cockpit. He claims you can smell it. Can't wrap my head around how that could be true.

Smoking is possible - but I don't see how it would ignite the plane. Remember, up until just about 15 years ago, smoking was allowed on international flights. There used to be non-smoking "sections" of the plane - which of course, made no sense. I could see people trying to push the limits, in certain circumstances (I don't know if some cultures look the other way, for example). But again, with smoking being allowed as long as it was, I don't see how that could be a valid issue.

The cause seems far more suspicious than smoking. Has anyone come forward to claim responsibility (for anything else)?

Someone would be allowed on board with a lighter or matches?

People have matches and lighters on board every flight. They are permitted. Didn't you know that? How else is your hipster seat mate going to light his/her joint when they land?

[Anonymous]

No one has claimed responsibility. I think it was some sort of mechanical error/fire/etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine this could be true but my coworker flies Egypt Air somewhat often and claims pilots and crew regularly smoke in the bathrooms & cockpit. He claims you can smell it. Can't wrap my head around how that could be true.

Smoking is possible - but I don't see how it would ignite the plane. Remember, up until just about 15 years ago, smoking was allowed on international flights. There used to be non-smoking "sections" of the plane - which of course, made no sense. I could see people trying to push the limits, in certain circumstances (I don't know if some cultures look the other way, for example). But again, with smoking being allowed as long as it was, I don't see how that could be a valid issue.

The cause seems far more suspicious than smoking. Has anyone come forward to claim responsibility (for anything else)?

Someone would be allowed on board with a lighter or matches?

People have matches and lighters on board every flight. They are permitted. Didn't you know that? How else is your hipster seat mate going to light his/her joint when they land?

Lighters without fuel lol

[Anonymous]

What could this indicate?

"The alerts don't necessarily mean a fire occurred on the plane or that the crew even knew about the alerts, which are automatically transmitted, aviation experts cautioned."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What could this indicate?

"The alerts don't necessarily mean a fire occurred on the plane or that the crew even knew about the alerts, which are automatically transmitted, aviation experts cautioned."

I thought they said that sensors indicated the right cockpit window was opened a few minutes before the crash; seems they knew something was up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What could this indicate?

"The alerts don't necessarily mean a fire occurred on the plane or that the crew even knew about the alerts, which are automatically transmitted, aviation experts cautioned."

I thought they said that sensors indicated the right cockpit window was opened a few minutes before the crash; seems they knew something was up.

That's not the way I interpreted that report. I read it to mean there was also a sensor or heating issue with the window that opened in the cockpit, not that it was opened. Has that changed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What could this indicate?

"The alerts don't necessarily mean a fire occurred on the plane or that the crew even knew about the alerts, which are automatically transmitted, aviation experts cautioned."

I thought they said that sensors indicated the right cockpit window was opened a few minutes before the crash; seems they knew something was up.

No. Just means a sensor reported that. Opening a cockpit window at 37,000 while travelling at a ground speed in excess of 500 mph with the outside temperature at -50 degrees is probably not possible. If it is possible, it is a disaster in and of itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine this could be true but my coworker flies Egypt Air somewhat often and claims pilots and crew regularly smoke in the bathrooms & cockpit. He claims you can smell it. Can't wrap my head around how that could be true.

Smoking is possible - but I don't see how it would ignite the plane. Remember, up until just about 15 years ago, smoking was allowed on international flights. There used to be non-smoking "sections" of the plane - which of course, made no sense. I could see people trying to push the limits, in certain circumstances (I don't know if some cultures look the other way, for example). But again, with smoking being allowed as long as it was, I don't see how that could be a valid issue.

The cause seems far more suspicious than smoking. Has anyone come forward to claim responsibility (for anything else)?

Someone would be allowed on board with a lighter or matches?

People have matches and lighters on board every flight. They are permitted. Didn't you know that? How else is your hipster seat mate going to light his/her joint when they land?

Lighters without fuel lol

Bic lighters and matches are certainly allowed on board. As are zippos, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pan Am 103 did not break up immediately. After the bomb blew a less than 2 foot hole in the fuselage, the nose cone/cockpit peeled away. Intact. When it fully disengaged, it struck engine number 3 and fell. It crashed into the ground largely intact.

The remainder of the airframe separated into 3 pieces. 3. Not a bazillion. 3. All of which crashed in almost the same location.

Many of the people on board pan am 103 lived until it hit the ground.

Do you remember the Hawaiian Air incident. A full third of the airframe skin peeled off and away and the aircraft landed safely.

TWA 800? A massive explosion, yet large parts of the airframe remained intact until it hit the water.

I didn't say anything about a bazillion pieces. Pan Am 103 did break into thousands of pieces, even though there were a few very large chunks. The data I looked at says the front end of the aircraft broke away within 3 seconds of the explosion. It also says this "At this time a loud sound was recorded on the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) at 19:02:50. Five radar echoes fanning out appeared, instead of one.[12][13] Comparison of the cockpit voice recorder to the radar returns showed that, eight seconds after the explosion, the wreckage had a 1-nautical-mile (1.9 km) spread."

I don't understand why 3 seconds or 8 seconds would not be considered immediate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one has claimed responsibility. I think it was some sort of mechanical error/fire/etc.

Could be a lone wolf? Here's my crazy thought-what about an iPhone? All our phones have lithium batteries right and phones can explode.

[Anonymous]

Lighters aren't permitted on US flights. My husbands very nice lighter (fancier than Zippo) was taken by TSA last week.

[Anonymous]

Let's all say it together:

President Trump.
January, 20, 2017

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Let's all say it together:

President Trump.
January, 20, 2017

Trump has already called this terrorism. If it turns out to be a mechanical failure, Congress will have to launch a 3-year investigation into it.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's all say it together:

President Trump.
January, 20, 2017

Trump has already called this terrorism. If it turns out to be a mechanical failure, Congress will have to launch a 3-year investigation into it.

Lol