Flight 604 Flash Airlines

The flight Flash Airlines FSH 604 is the name of the flight of the Avion registered SU-ZCF pertaining to the airline company Flash Airlines. This apparatus was victim of an accident the January 3rd 2004 off the seaside resort of Charm el-Cheikh, killing 148 people.

Protagonists

The crew

the pilot . Born the February 26th 1950, it is formed in Soviet Union in the years 1970. Pilot in the Egyptian army, it especially steals on Mig 21 (fighter plans), then on Hercules C-130 (transport aircraft of troops). He would be particularly illustrated during the Guerre of Kippour (October 1973), without the army not revealing the least detail on this subject. At the end of its career, it has the rank of general. It passes the theoretical tests of airline pilot in 1984 to Egypt, the December 15th 1984 (Transport Pile Egyptian Certificate Number 561). It returns to the Flash Airlines company the February 16th 2003. It passes the practice exams in 2003, with the Morocco, on a flight simulator rented by Flash Airlines. The drive on simulator takes place between the April 28th and the May 12th 2003. The May 12th 2003, it passes its Last Proficiency Check for Boeing 737-300/400/500, qu' it obtains. The company does it directly commander, whereas its weak experiment of the Boeing 737 should be worth a nomination as copilot to him in order to gain in experiment. Indeed, it never yet stole on a truth Boeing 737. In June 2003, it takes the orders of a plane for the first time. When the plane is crushed, it adds up 474 hours and 15 minutes of flight on Boeing 737, which is very little.
the copilot . Born on January 1st 1979, it succeeds in the theoretical test to control Cessna the April 12th 1997. It obtains its Last Proficiency Check the June 30th 2002. Young person and without experiment, it had the advantage of being able to claim only with one wages of initial pilot. He adds up at the time of the crash landing only 788 hours and 53 minutes of flight, including 242 hours and 28 minutes on Boeing 737.
the third man . According to the factual report/ratio, it is present on the aircraft in order to supplement its drive, to be engaged by the airline company.

Passengers

They are 134 French and a Morrocan woman having accomplished a tourist stay with Charm el-Cheikh. Their stays were organized by three travel agencies: FRAM, Jet Tours and Zigzag, which called upon an intermediary to charter the apparatus, Air Masters. According to the declarations of a spokesperson of the ministry for transport made the January 3rd 2004, 80% of the passengers were customers of FRAM.

The airline company

Flash Airlines is an Egyptian company based with the Cairo. It is about a subsidiary company of Flash Group, Egyptian company specialized in tourism. Founded in 2000, Flash Airlines knows multiple security issues. In 2002, the Swiss interdict with the company to land on its ground, and the Polish office of civil aviation suspends its license until June 2003. It is not possible to know the economic health of this company, the Egyptian board of inquiry not having carried out investigations on this subject.

The broken apparatus

The plane is a Boeing 737-300, entered in function in 1992. The range of the 737 is launched at the end them years 1960 in order to supplement that of the 707 and the 727. The 737 count 6 rows of seats, and are slightly longer than the 737-200 (33,4 meters against 30,53). The apparatus can be posed on small tracks, which enables him to penetrate the African market, then, later, those of Central America and the south. First flight of one 737-300 date of the January 17th 1984. The November 14th of the same year, the plane obtains its certification. It enters in service as of the December 7th 1984. It is the December 17th 1999 which the last apparatus is delivered. Boeing 737-300 are been driven by engines CFM56, resulting from the collaboration of General Electric and the Snecma within the framework of company CFM. That which knew the accident had engines of the type CFM56 3C1, long 2,36 meters. The contract of initial development of the CFM 56-3 goes back to May 1981. Certified in January 1984, they enter to the service in December of the same year (for the 737-200). The production ceases in 1999.

During its career, the plane had one owner, ILFC, which rented it with several companies. During the period when the airline company Flash Airlines has the plane, this one knows several engineering problems:

1988, May 16th: the plane is ordered.
1992, October 9th: First flight of the plane.
1992, October 22nd: the apparatus is delivered in hiring to TACA, company Salvadorian. The owner of the plane, until the crash landing, is ILFC which proposes it in hiring. Registration: N373TA
1998, May 28th: Color Air, Norwegian company new tenant of the apparatus. British registration: G-COLB
1999, November 22nd: ILFC takes again full possession of sound well. Registration: N161LF
2000, April 21st: ILFC rents the plane with Heliopolis Airline. Registration: SU-ZCE.
2000, May 17th: ILFC takes again the full control of the apparatus.
2000, July 10th: The plane rented again by Heliopolis Airline which sub-leases it with Mediterranean Airlines (as from October 2000 according to the World of January 13rd, 2004). Registration: SU-MBA
2001 : Incident implying the plane, then used by Mediterranean Airlines: a wing of the plane is hung by a vehicle in track.
2001, June 23rd: The plane joined the fleet of Heliopolis Airline. Registration: SU-ZCF
2001, July 22nd: Flash Airlines takes the continuation of Heliopolis Airline. Even registration.
2002, April 27th: Control SU-ZCD of the company by the OFAC. 11 indexed anomalies (6 level 3,2 level 2). 4 corrected before the authorization of redécollage. Qualified low register gaps are observed: missing documents of navigation, calculations of the fuel level not established according to the international standards, indication of the fire exits out of use, failures in the maintenance of the landing gear, as well as power unit and orders of vol. the OFAC then requires the correction of these problems before any plane of the company does not land again in Suisse.
2002, August 1st: Inspection SAFA of the SU-ZCF by the Norwegian authorities with Oslo 5 indexed anomalies (2 level 1,3 level 2). Information with the Egyptian authority.
2002, October 11th: During a new control operated on another plane of the company, the SU-ZCF, the OFAC note on this apparatus the same concern as on the other. 14 indexed anomalies (7 level 3,2 level 2,5 level 1) 7 corrections carried out before takeoff (Source: official statement of the DGAC). The OFAC prevents that the planes of Flash Airlines will be able to land in Switzerland only if the Egyptian authorities attest irreproachable state of the apparatuses. The EAC is prevented on October 15th by the OFAC. The following day, the EAC warns the European countries. October 22nd, the Egyptian authorities are prevented prohibition.
2002, October 11th: During a new control operated on another plane, the OFAC notes on this apparatus the same concern as on the other. The OFAC prevents that the planes of Flash Airlines will be able to land in Switzerland only if the Egyptian authorities attest irreproachable state of the apparatuses. The EAC is prevented on October 15th by the OFAC. The following day, the EAC warns the European countries. October 22nd, the Egyptian authorities are prevented prohibition. Two apparatuses, therefore the SU-ZCF, presents failures.
2002, from November 4th to December 20th: Boeing SU-ZCF is revised in Norway by Braathens with Stavanger. The engines are not the subject of this revision.
2003, of the January 2nd to the January 16th: The company is inspected by the Egyptian authorities: 27 failures with safety are raised. For example: no the program of drive, the crew does not use a checklist on safety, or of the extinguishers of fire nonin conformity.
2003, January: Boeing SU-ZCF undergoes a revision engine by the SNECMA Morocco Engine Services with the Morocco. An engine of replacement is rented and assembled. The old engine is posed again on the plane in this same month.
2003, March: apparatus SU-ZCF receives a new engine installed by the SNECMA Morocco engine services, in Morocco.
2003, at the end of September - at the beginning of October: At a questions session to the National Assembly, Gilles de Robien, Minister for transport, announces that at the end of September - at the beginning of October, the German civil aviation had controlled thoroughly the apparatus implied in the crash landing, without anything to find.
2003, October 22nd: control plane SU-ZCF with Toulouse. Nothing abnormal. However, only 20 points are checked on 53, including 10 on the documentation of the appliance and 10 on its external general aspect.
2003, December 12th: apparatus SU-ZCF is controlled by the engineering team of Flash Airlines. This checking consists of a visual monitoring as well as an operational control.
2004, January 2nd: apparatus SU-ZCF carries out 4 rotations: Charm el-Cheikh - Turin, Turin - Charm el-Cheikh, and after midday: Charm el-Cheikh - Venice, Venice - Charm el-Cheikh (departure with 23:35).
2004, January 3rd: 4:45 (local time) is 2:45 UTC: accident of Boeing SU-ZCF.

Source principal on the chronology of the SU-ZCF: Airfleets.net. The www.planespotters.com site offers some differences in its chronologie.

Assessment

It is established as follows:

148 died, including 135 passengers and 13 team members.
No survivors.
the remainders of the plane rest at the sea-bed. Certain remains were fished out.

After the catastrophe

2004

Saturday January 3rd 2004: The official news agency of the Egypt, CARRIED OUT it, announces the crash landing. The Egyptian ministry of the Civil aviation then hastens to publish an official statement dismissing the assumption of an attack. The French Ministry for Foreign Affairs creates an crisis cell, like Aéroports of Paris. The Egyptian Minister for Transport, Ibrahim Al-Doumeiri and of the persons in charge of the Egyptian civil aviation go on the spot of the crash landing. The French Secretary of State to Transport, Dominique Bussereau goes to the Aéroport Roissy-Charles-of-Gaulle where it arrives at 11:45. Gilles de Robien, Minister French for Transport, arrives ten minutes after him, then later, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, French Prime Minister. In a point presses, Dominique Bussereau indicates that the plane knew a problem on takeoff, fact half-turn to join the airport and that it was crushed during this operation. Ahmed Shafik, Minister Egyptian for aviation, declares on television that the cause of the crash landing is of technical order, and that the last revision operated in Norway had not given anything. Then Faysal Al-Chennaoui, person in charge of the Egyptian ministry of the Civil aviation, affirms that the crash landing is with engineering problems. Dominique Perben, Minister French for Justice, requests the opening of an investigation from the Parquet of Bobigny (on which Roissy depends where the plane was to arrive). In end-of-day, press conference of Georges Colson, owner of the travel agency FRAM, during which it describes the company as being serious, and affirms that Boeing of Flash Airlines never knew problem. Renaud Muselier, secretary of foreign affairs, goes to Charm el-Cheikh in the evening. In the night, the French government announces the sending of a plane, a frigate and a submarine robot on the spot.

Sunday January 4th 2004: in the morning, Renaud Muselier goes to the mortuary to see the human remainders recovered and notes the absence of burns on the bodies (what draws aside the thesis of an attack by the use of explosives). Then a spokesperson of OFAC explains that the accused company is prohibited in Suisse, and affirms that the related informations with this prohibition were delivered to the Egyptian authorities. It announces that a plane however received the authorization to land with Geneva following an emergency in 2003. The pilot chief of Flash Airlines, Hassan Mounir, contradicts whereas the company was prohibited for technical reason, and affirms that for him, this situation was due to financial problems. In after midday, of Robien is careful as for the declarations of the spokesperson of OFAC, and indicates that on its level and that of the ministry for Transport this information is not known. Noëlle Lenoir, minister delegated to the European Businesses, dismisses the terrorist assumption. Georges Colson, as for him, declares himself surprised by the prohibition of overflight of the territory Suisse pronounced against Flash Airlines. A little later the arrival of three French planes is announced by the press: an apparatus of transport Hercules C130 with a submarine robot named Achilles as well as a team, a maritime plane of patrol Atlantic Breguet II and a plane coming from Djibouti with 13 plungers. DGAC then indicates not to have alarming information relating to Flash Airlines. The engineering services of Braathens having carried out a technical control on the apparatus (except on the engines) state not to have noted the presence of problems on the disappeared apparatus. Later, the spokesperson of the Aéroport of Geneva confirms that the airline company blamed knew two emergency landings: October 27th, 2002 (Greece) and on January 4th, 2003 (Geneva). It is in the evening which Gilles de Robien declares that the France received reserves on the company on behalf of Switzerland. He adds that there were three controls in France: with Toulouse, Lyon, then Marseilles. In the evening is held a mass at Notre-Dame de Paris, celebrated by the archbishop of Paris, in the presence of certain close relations of victims, of the Minister for Transport Gilles de Robien, come with her wife, of the secretariat of State to Transport Dominique Bussereau, of the woman of Jean-Pierre Raffarin, French Prime Minister, and of the mayor of Paris Bertrand Delanoë accompanied by Anne Hidalgo, first associated with the mayor.

Monday January 5th 2004: The morning on France 2, Renaud Muselier refutes the thesis of the attack, and states not to have noted the presence of burns on the found human remainders. Interviewed by Jean-Pierre Elkabach on Europe 1, Michel Godin, managing director of the National police force, also draws aside this possibility. Gilles de Robien, declares to him that the companies charter are controlled than the national companies and than Flash Airlines had good reputation. To the exit of a ceremony of the wishes of the government to the President, Gilles de Robien says that a plane will be chartered by the government to take along the families of the victims to Charm el-Cheikh, and Renaud Muselier adds to France 2 that a member of the government will accompany them. The director of the airport of Angers, as for him, declares that at the time of a voyage in a Boeing of this company, it had noted that the interior of the apparatus was worn. Moreover, the flight was diverted on Milan because there was not enough fuel. Shortly after midday, Dominique Bussereau, Secretary of State to Transport, on Europe 1 is expressed. According to him, the catastrophe resembles a traditional accident of takeoff, and affirms that no assumption is privileged. It confirms proposes them Gilles de Robien concerning the frequency of controls on the charters. Shortly after midday, a person in charge French, anonymous, declares that the wreck would be about localized. A frigate equipped with sonars must arrive of Djibouti, and a French team specialist in DNA is awaited in the course of the day. In the same day, the examining magistrate of Bobigny seized of the legal shutter of the crash landing emits an international letters rogatory. The judge also seized the Murder squad and the Brigade of investigation on the attacks with the person. In after midday an anonymity telephones the office of the AFP of the Cairo, and asserts an attack on the apparatus in the name of an Yemeni islamist organization which would be called Ansar el-Haq , unknown factor in addition. The man, speaking in Arabic with an Egyptian accent, threatens to organize of them another against a plane of Air France if the decision to prohibit the veil is not withdrawn. Then the news leaves which the wreck of the apparatus would be with 400 meters of depth. In end according to midday, the officer ordering the French cell of human diving and underwater research declares that the wreck was not found yet, and that a pole will be deployed in order to collect the signals of limp black. Dominique Perben, him, remains careful as for the claim. Then he announces the establishment of a committee charged to follow the compensation for the families with the victims, as well as subsequent meeting between the families, FRAM and his insurer to clarify the families about the compensations. Suzanne Mubarak, wife of the Egyptian president is collected in the seaside resort and launches a spray of flowers. Mohammed Nour, president of Flash Airlines, states to have made carry out the improvements claimed by the OFAC. Then the news leaves that the DST judge that the claim of an attack against the plane is not very credible. But the director of DGAC refuses him to exclude any assumption. He also explains to have received notification of controls of OFAC, but why those related to only the outside of the plane, and that the company had made improvements. Then Jean-Claude Cousseran, ambassador of France in Egypt, declares that the families of the victims will go to Charm el-Cheikh on January 7th, and refutes the thesis of the attack. In the evening, a weak signal is detected by a pole under navy.

Tuesday January 6th 2004: The morning of this day, the Secretary of State to Transport draws aside the possibility that the French air authorities were not rather vigilant. He states to wish an intensifying of the control. He also affirms that the French air authorities took account of the warnings coming from the Suisse. Always in the morning, an Egyptian agency, quoting a French source, affirms that the wreck of the plane is found, as one of limp black, information contradicted shortly after 12:00 by the special correspondent of Europe 1 with Charm el-Cheikh. It announces however that a signal was collected. In after midday, the French National Assembly observes one minute of silence. Hosni Mubarak, president of the Egypt, declares later in the course of the day: “I do not believe that it is about a terrorist act because it is not possible at Charm el-Cheikh, or elsewhere in Egypt”; in addition the United States announces to send a team of investigators, of which experts of Boeing. It is also learned that the French Minister for the Foreign affairs, Dominique de Villepin, will accompany the families. During the meeting of the questions to the National Assembly, Gilles de Robien plans to make it possible to the French to know the name of the company in which they must embark, like one thorough audit of the alien companies working for French tour operators. He adds that at the end of September - at the beginning of October, the German civil aviation had controlled thoroughly the apparatus implied in the crash landing, without anything to find. In the course of the day, the signal of one of limp black is collected, but it seems to be located too deeply to be fished out quickly, the French authorities seeking to find companies able to provide more powerful equipment. In the evening, the president of the National Assembly, Jean-Louis Debré, known as favorable to the installation of a mission of information on the crash landing.

Wednesday January 7th 2004: At the beginning of morning, the Polish office of the civil aviation announces that Flash Airlines saw its license suspended in Poland in 2002, to find it in 2003. At the end of the morning the families of the victims which must fly away by Airbus with Charm el-Cheikh are accommodated with the house of honor of the Aéroport of Orly, where Jacques Chirac goes, president of the French Republic, after the Council of Ministers, where the drama was evoked. Dominique Bussereau, Secretary of State to Transport, announces that the investigators of BEA reconstituted the trajectory of the apparatus using the statements radar: after takeoff, the plane would have carried out a turn which was envisaged, then would have flown in an irregular way with rises, stages, rises, stages, etc, before going down. The apparatus carrying the families takes off with 13:45 approximately. In addition to the close relations, are present civils servant of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, 10 doctors and psychologists, 5 representatives of various religions as well as French police officers. 300 pinks are embarked in the Airbus has 320. In end of the afternoon, one learns that France Telecom places at the disposal of the French government a submarine able to work up to 1100 meters of depth, which will be guided starting from the ship Île of Batz, property of the Dreyfus company. Later, is made public the call of the government with the company of underwater work Comex, which has a submarine (Rémora 2000) able to work up to 600 meters of depth, as well as robot (Super Achilles) able to go up to 1000 meters.

Wednesday January 8th 2004: Pauses in research. Two ceremonies of homage take place this day with Charm el-Cheikh. The morning, the first ceremony proceeds on a beach giving on the place of the catastrophe, in the presence of Suzanne Mubarak, wife of the Egyptian president, and Dominique de Villepin. This last makes a speech, like Ahmed Maher, Egyptian Minister for the Foreign affairs. Then Suzanne Mubarak and the French Minister for the Foreign affairs deposit spray of flowers on a provisional marble monument or are engraved the names of the victims. The families then deposit pinks and eyelets before gathering around the monument. Then takes place a religious service. After this ceremony, the families embark aboard French ship the Sum , and pay homage to their deaths. Has 23 hours, the Janus II , boat of the Comex, leaves the port of the Red Point in Marseilles with the robot Super Achilles and the Rémora submarine on its board.

Thursday January 9th 2004: research shows, after the interruption of the day before. The Tourville frigate of the National marine carries out master keys in order to probe the underwater funds; listen to echoes. Ahmed shafik declares in end-of-day that large fuselage would be intact. Always in end-of-day, Georges Colson, chairman of FRAM declare that its company is ready to compensate the families for the victims to height of its responsibilities, but does not envisage an immediate compensation.

Saturday January 10th 2004: the robot Scorpio 2000 of France Telecom flies away towards 12:30 in Antonov 124. With Charm el-Cheikh, detection of a nominal echo in the south of the precedents.

Monday January 12th 2004: first meetings in the Island of Batz to set up a strategy of research. Master keys are carried out to make additional bathymetric statements. Preparation of the room of work of the investigators. Arrival of robot Scorpio 2000 in the afternoon. It is not descended at sea because of strong gusts of wind and too important waves. The French gendarmes receive the authorization of the general prosecutor of Cairo to inquire into the catastrophe.

Tuesday January 13rd 2004: in the morning, the office of the National Assembly decides to create a mission of information on the safety of air transport. The Scorpio robot carries out a diving test with 7:30 (UTC) so devaluating the funds and to test the robot in operation. That makes it possible to know that the bottom is at 1022 meters, that it flat and is composed of compact sediments, and that the visibility is good. No the marine current.

Wednesday January 14th 2004: The Scorpio robot begins its work with the lifting of the day (5h UTC). The work of Scorpio is stopped by the great number of remains present.

Thursday January 15th 2004: Scorpio continues its work and transmits images of the remains of the apparatus. 4 buoys of localization of company ACSA are installed and seek to locate the second limps black, Scorpio seeking the first. Arrival of the French ship Beautemps-Bowsprit . Finalization of the procedure of handing-over of limp black with the Egyptian authorities.

Friday January 16th 2004: departure of the Sum . Transmission of the results of the bathymetry of the Beautemps-Bowsprit to the Island of Batz . With 18:45, one of limp black, the FDR (Flight Dated To retie: recorder of the data of the flight), is located visually. Localization: 27° 52' 3602 N 034° 22' 0233 E. Scorpio recovers the FDR and goes up up to 100 meters of depth, where it awaits the rise on board Egyptian authorities in order to officialize the recovery of limps black.

Saturday January 17th 2004: Scorpio leaves water with the FDR, in the presence of the Egyptian legal authorities at 2 o'clock in the morning. With 9:00 (YOU) limps it black, locked up in a blue basketful, is posed on a table covered with a blue cloth. Limps black is shown with the press, then is embarked in an Egyptian record player to be transported by plane with the Cairo where the laboratory of the ministry for the Civil aviation is. With 20:30, visual localization of the CVR (Voice Cockpit To retie: recorder of the voices in the cockpit). Localization: 27° 52' 3474 N 034° 22' 0233 E. Scorpio awaits the arrival of the Egyptian authorities to leave limps it black of water. Arrival of the Janus II .

Sunday January 18th 2004: with 4:30, Scorpio and the CVR are on the bridge of the ship, in the presence of the Egyptian and French authorities. Research is distributed between the Île of Batz and the Janus II . The CVR is not in good state. The CVR is given to the prosecutor of the the Sinai, Abdallah Adel Aziz, by the chief of the department investigation of BEA, Stephan Corcos. The prosecutor gives then limps it black with the chief of the Egyptian board of inquiry, Shaker Qelada.

Monday January 19th 2004: Janus and Scorpio do a work of cartography in a zone, Super Achilles in another. A landing engine and gear are discovered.

Tuesday January 20th 2004: continuation of the work of cartography of Super Achilles. Reading and analyzes preliminary data of the recorders. At the beginning of after midday, Shaker Kelada draws aside the thesis of an attack while being based on this work. Moreover, the news leaves that experts in explosives analyzed the remains and did not find anything of suspect.

Wednesday January 21st 2004: an anonymous person in charge of the Egyptian civil aviation reveals that ordering it did not alert the air-traffic controllers.

January 28th 2004: In the night, revelation that certain passengers had sent SMS shortly after the takeoff of the Avion. These messages indicated that something did not go in the apparatus. The news is cancelled by Marc Chernet. Shaker Kelada affirms in the afternoon that there is contradiction between the course of the flight and the data recorded by limp black: the plane would have outward journey in a given direction, but it would have gone in another. Kelada does not concern problem concerning the cockpit. Always in the afternoon, Scorpio 200 finished its mission; super Achilles continues his while seeking to locate other remains.

Thursday January 29th 2004: public the news is made that the court of Bobigny received a complaint with constitution of part civil for manslaughter, failure deliberated with an obligation on safety, and endangered of the life of others.

Saturday January 31st 2004: Parisian the and Le Monde evoke the possibility that the crash landing is with a defect in construction of the back rudder of the apparatus. According to Parisian the , Shaker Qelada confirmed with its interlocutors that the examination of the trajectory and the data of flight suggests that engineering problems could occur. Le Monde announces him that the order activating the hydraulic fluid of the drift of the Boeing planes of the type 300 can be blocked in a position reverses that desired. There are several precedents: crash landing of Colorado Springs and Pittsburg. In October 2002, FAA (Civil aviation states-uniennes) ordered with Boeing to provide kits improving this problem, before replacing the failing system (by November 2008). In the afternoon, Dominique Perben receives the families of the victims. He stated to wish that the compensations be done as quickly as possible. The 350 people met persons in charge of all the ministries concerned, and Paul-Louis Arslanian, director of BEA, demented person information concerning the drifts.

February 4th 2004: Dominique Perben known as with satisfaction to accommodate the first offers of compensation for the French insurers to the families of the victims. According to the French federation of the insurance companies (FFSA), it is question of an advance about compensation for 10.000 euros per passenger via a bottom consisted French insurers, equipped with 1,3 million euros. No time is given as for the payment of the advances.

February 6th 2004: the director of BEA affirms that the crew of the Boeing did not panic until the 3 last seconds. The flight would have proceeded as follows: arrived at 600 meters of altitude, the plane slowly reverses its turn until the line, then the apparatus is inclined more and more while going up. With 1700 meters of altitude, the Plane, very tilted, starts to prick. The pilots do not contact the tower of control. Then it strikes the sea.

March 3rd 2004: According to the French daily newspaper Le Figaro , the crew thought wrongly of having engaged the autopilot. Rétorque BEA that nothing made it possible to know of what it turned over.

March 4th 2004: Le Figaro returns to the load, by affirming that the evoked assumption the day before comes from Paul-Louis Arslanian (directing of BEA) itself. According to his remarks, the pilot could be the prey of a sensory confusion. The article also traces its possible scenario of the crash landing: rise, then turn on the left. Then the pilots believe to have engaged the autopilot. However the autopilot did not function. Then the turn is reversed slowly. It is inclined towards the line until being on the section. Then the pilots realize of the problem, try to solve it without including/understanding what it acts. The nose goes down, the Avion declines. They less try an operation of recovery than 4 seconds before the impact, but the plane is too low. Le Figaro announces qu there is however a problem, because the starting of the autopilot must start an indicator lamp. But it may be that the pilots were too occupied to see that this lamp was extinct. Egypt will declare (unknown date) that the autopilot remained engaged 4 seconds, then that it was cut by the pilot.

April 20th 2004: Gilles de Robien declares that nothing shows that controls would have made it possible to envisage or to prevent the accident. He also affirms that the co-operation between the Egyptian and French investigators is good. In the afternoon, the minister attends the technical control of a plane of Air Mauritius by agents of DGAC to the Charles airport of Gaulle.

April 21st 2004: according to an official statement of BEA the investigation entered a new phase in measurement or work on flight simulator started, in France or with the the United States. Moreover, the quality of reading of the magnetic band of the CVR was improved.

May 29th 2004: the edition of May 29th of the French weekly magazine the Express train reports that the representative of the families of the victims, Marc Chernet, requested from the Egyptian public prosecutor in load of the business the access to the data of the recorders of vol.

May 30th 2004: the representatives of the families of the French victims are in Egypt. It is about a delegation of 5 lawyers and 5 representatives of the families, accompanied by a representative of the consulate of France. The goals of this displacement are to obtain a copy of the flight recorders for the examining magistrate of Bobigny, like obtaining a better comprehension of the organization of Egyptian justice. Working session with Qelada Shaker. After the meeting, Qelada declares that the preliminary report/ratio will be published in October 31st at the latest. Being expressed in the newspaper the Breaking news of Alsace , Chernet declares that the first observations would dismiss assumption of an attack, like that of the back drift.

May 31st 2004: the delegation goes to Al-Turn in order to see the personal objects of the victims and to discuss with the prosecutor the area. Visit hangar or are stored the remains of the plane.

June 15th 2004: the emission the Right to know , diffused on the French chain TF1, affirms that the crash landing is with the rudder, other crash landings being due to a defect of this element.

Week from June 21st to 27th 2004: Marc Chernet meets Nicole Guedj, Secretary of State to the Rights of the victims in order to exchange legal information about the file.

June 26th 2004: the French daily newspaper Le Figaro reveals the presence in the cockpit of a third man. The Egyptian investigators speak about a pilot assistant. According to the newspaper, it could be a question of an instructor. General meeting of the association of the families of the victims. Association establishes are rules of procedure. Marc Chernet, his president, declares with the AFP that the convention of mutual aid free-Egyptian woman of 1983 is not respected by the Egyptian legal authorities which did not answer the requests present in the letter of request of the examining magistrate of Bobigny. Qelada confirms the presence of this third man.

July 1st 2004: according to Christian Roger who expresses himself in Paris Match , the 3rd man would be a pilot having to take the relay lasting the stopover of the Cairo. Christian Roger went in Egypt at the end of May 2004. He suspects the Egyptians of hiding a human failure.

July 7th 2004: exit of the parliamentary report on air transports.

July 8th 2004: Eurocockpit announces that the national union of airline pilots (SNPL) wishes to constitute civil part in the legal shutter of the accident.

September 4th 2004: the French daily newspaper Le Figaro reveals that the Boeing SU-ZCF which was damaged at sea knew an accident on the ground: one of its wings was hung by a vehicle of track.

September 11th 2004: in the French daily newspaper Parisian the , interview of Marc Chernet, president of the association of the victims' families of the crash landing, which affirms that the preliminary report/ratio will not be ready for the end of October 2004, that the personal effects of the victims are always in Egypt, and that the families must take part in the financing of the final memorial in homage to the victims.

September 13rd 2004: according to the French ministry of the Foreign affairs, Shaker Qelada would have informed the consulate of France of the Cairo that the factual report/ratio would be made public mid-November 2004. Moreover, the first report of the Egyptian judge would have been given to the examining magistrate of Bobigny.

September 28th 2004: Article of the Barber affirming that the crew did not read a check list. Renaud Muselier, secretary of foreign affairs, receives a delegation of victims' families to reassure them as for the projection of the investigation. He declares to them that this type of investigation is generally long, and that French justice required of the Egyptian authorities the transmission elements necessary to the investigation, in particular the recorders of vol. the president of the association of the victims' families states himself satisfied, in measurement or the government was committed making respect the convention of mutual aid. He adds that the examining magistrate could yet have no element to inquire. Renaud Muselier however ensures that the co-operation with the Egypt is perfect, and refuses to comment on an article of the Figaro affirming that the commander and the copilot did not observe the procedures. The identification by DNA is still in hand.

November 1st 2004: manifestation of the victims' families in front of the embassy of Egypt to Paris. A new assumption is done day: the external leading edge of the left wing would not have fully returned during takeoff. The dissymmetry of lift would have then prevented the maintenance according to the autopilot required by the commander, and would have produced an effect of rolling towards the line. Moreover, the pilot would have claimed to three recovery the interlocking of the autopilot whereas the checklist of the procedures of help on Boeing 737 indicates that in the event of problem it is necessary to control manually.

November 11th 2004: Publication of the factual relationship with press conference of Qelada Shaker. With the question Which is faulty, the plane or the pilot? , he answers 50/50.

December 13rd 2004: the association of the victims' families of the crash landing engages an legal action with the the United States against ILFC, Honeywell, Boeing.

2005

January 3rd 2005: ceremonies of homage to the Cemetery of the Father-Lachaise in Paris, like Charm el-Cheikh.

January 18th 2005: the parts are with the court of Bobigny to settle the question of the procedure, but the representatives of Flash Airlines and its insurer did not come. The court returns the audience on a not fixed date.

June 1st 2005: announces that the final report is deferred to the end of the year 2005.

22 month after the accident, the October 17th 2005, the victims' families could recover 67 skins. A scandal was born because this repatriation was done in any discretion. The close relations were not held informed of the return and thus could be present at the arrival of the airfreighter of Air France bringing back the coffins, no ceremony collective nor burning chapel had not been envisaged as that is usually the case in this type of catastrophe.

2006

January 3rd 2006: the observations of BEA on the final report are given to Shaker Qelada.

February 21st 2006: the exit of the final report is deferred to the March 25th 2006.

March 25th 2006: publication of the final report, which estimates that the crash landing is with a technical failure. Divergence with the French investigators who estimate that the pilot is responsible for the crash landing.

March 27th 2006: presentation of the report/ratio to the victims' families in France by Qelada Shaker. Sixteen bodies are repatriated in France.

April 20th 2006: During an official visit with the Cairo, the French president Jacques Chirac pays homage to the victims of the air crash of Charm el-Cheikh and states, with the intercontinental Hotel of Cairo: “I would like to say to their families and their close relations who this tragedy remains for us all a great pain, and whom with the Egyptian authorities, France puts all works about it to make the light and to help the families to overcome this terrible test”.

May 10th 2006: inauguration of a final memorial with Charm el-Cheikh.

May 27th 2006: Pleadings of the various parts committed in the legal proceedings relating to crushing. The association of the victims' families requires of French justice to be deprived on civil behalf of the business, with the profit of American justice. Its objective is to benefit from an American procedure called discovery procedure , according to which it is possible to raise questions with the opposing party, obliging it to answer without lying, under penalty of heavy sanctions. That must make it possible to know the answers of the industrialists to the Egyptian investigators but kept secret under cover of the industrial secrecy. The prosecutor is favorable to such a decision. The request is put on of deliberated at the June 27th 2006.

June 27th 2006: The Court of Bankruptcy of Bobigny refuses the application of the Defense association of the victims' families of the xatastrophe of Charm-el-Sheik (ADFVC) who wished that the civil shutter of the business be transferred to the the United States. The ADFVC has fifteen days to deposit a recourse.

September 4th 2006: Dominique Perben, Minister French for Transport, announces the adoption of the Label Horizon , new name of the Blue, supposed Label to distinguish the companies from quality.

2007

January 3rd 2007: Inauguration of a memorial to the cemetery of the Lachaise Father, Paris.
June 1st 2007: Presentation with the Press of the collegial Report/ratio drawn up by the experts of the Technical Cell of the association of the victims' families of the crash landing of Charm el-Cheikh.

Causes

Possible causes

The causes of the accident yet were not clearly released. However, several types of causes were considered:

a technical failure: in this case, either the manufacturer is in question, or it acts of a problem of maintenance. Several possibilities were considered: seizing of the orders of ailerons, problem with the rudder, spoilers inopportunely engaged. The assumption of a technical failure is privileged by the Egyptian board of inquiry.
an human error: had with a lack of attention of the crew, with his inexperience (license in the case of this crew). The human factor could have caused the accident, have amplified a technical failure, or have prevented from saving the apparatus if that were possible. The factual report/ratio shows that the crew had carried out few hours of flight with this type of apparatus. The conversations recorded in the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) show that the crew did not know to face the problem arising from the plane: the commander asks for the lighting of the autopilot whereas in the event of urgency, it is manually that the plane must be controlled. Moreover, the autopilot cannot be engaged if the angle of the plane is higher than 50 degrees. The thesis of the human error is privileged by NTSB and BEA.
an attack: had with the explosion of a bomb, a system of radio guidance or the action of the pilot. The crash landing took place whereas Tony Blair, possible target, was with Charm el-Cheikh. The suspicions were fed by the eagerness of the Egyptian authorities to affirm that the thesis of the attack was excluded. Moreover, one terrorist group named Ansar el Haq, unknown in addition, asserted an attack against the apparatus and threatened to carry out of them another against a plane of Air France if the Islamic veil were interdict in France. The terrorist thesis is contradicted by the fact that the remainders of the bodies do not carry traces of burn, and by the fact that the claim was considered to be not very credible by the DST. Moreover, since the vote of a law on the religious signs in France, no plane of Air France was victim of an attack.

Legal proceedings

The association of the victims' families engaged of the legal proceedings against 6 companies: Flash Airlines; its insurer; Boeing, manufacturer of the plane; ILFC, owner of the apparatus; Parker Hannifin which carried out the hydraulic devices; and Honeywell which created the electronic devices, and in particular the autopilot.

The factual report/ratio

Returned public in November 2004, it is written by an Egyptian board of inquiry, in particular made up of Kelada Shaker and Hassan Musharrafa. This ratio of 431 pages comprises many technical elements gathered after investigation, into the plane, Flash Airlines, and the vol. However, Christian Gerard (Former President of the National union of Airline pilots (Air France)) and Jean-Pierre Otelli call into question the serious one of this investigation:

the name of the pilot is spelled differently with the wire of the pages: for example Khedr (factual Report/ratio, p. 2,72) and Kheider (factual Report/ratio, p.55, 71).
the Boeing is sometimes indicated like a 737-3Q8, sometimes like one 737-500.
the incidents announced by the press are ignored by the report/ratio.
the pages of the Technical Log book , register where one consigns the breakdowns and interventions of maintenance made on the apparatus, are absent for January 1st, th and 2nd 2004. This loss of data is not compensated by the collection of testimonys of the pilots having sailed with this plane lasting these two days.
In the report of the conversations of the crew, the writer gives a report on a communication with one 757 of the company Blue Panorama. In fact it is about one 767, because this company exploited forever of Boeing 757. The writer was satisfied to take again an observation of the trainee present on the aircraft and indicating this apparatus of Blue Panorama as being one 757.
incorrect Arab-English Translation: Jean-Pierre Otelli announces that with 2:00 44.01, the commander known as “ Mets it ” (i.e. the autopilot) whereas into English the term is not translated and is not qualified “exclamation remark” (“exclamation notices”). According to this author, this error would be voluntary.
Test on Multi purpose Engeneering Cab Simulator of Boeing: the tests are described, but not the results of simulation.
Simulation: the report/ratio gives to see the graphs comparing the behavior of the broken Boeing and that of simulation. But these graphs are incomplete, which makes their data not easily exploitable.
Jean-Pierre Otelli puts forth the assumption that certain parts of the band containing the conversations of the pilots were badly retranscribed, even unobtrusive of the retranscription. Thus, the engineer of maintenance enters the cockpit before the plane does not take off. However, the transcription does not contain traces of its departure of the cockpit. However, it is well gotten out of the plane, because it does not form part of the victims.

The final report

Presentation: This report/ratio gives the conclusions of the investigations carried out by the Egyptian investigators. The Sunday Times on October 27th 2005 indicated that this report/ratio would make approximately 1000 pages. The final report, such as it left, comprises 1313 pages of data and English analyzes. It is composed of 4 parts and an appendix. The first part entitled Factual information (777pages) includes/understands factual data, recoveries to some extent of the factual report/ratio and the addendum to the factual report/ratio. The second part (386 pages), entitled Analysis, constitutes the study of these data. In a third part (9 pages), the Egyptian board of inquiry announces its conclusion, while the fourth (a page) states its recommendations. At the end of the document the appendices are (140 pages), made up of the comments carried out by the Americans (130 pages), the BEA (3 pages), the company Flash Airlines (6 pages) and the ECAA ( Egyptian Civil Aviation Authority ) (a page).

Chronology :

In November 2004, the Egyptian authorities state that the final report/ratio will be returned public in June 2005.
on June 1st 2005, the person in charge of the Civil aviation of Egypt announces that new elements are being studied, which defers the publication of the report/ratio to the end of the year 2005.
In November 2005, a draft report is presented to the French authorities and states-uniennes. From this date, the BEA and the NTSB have two months to make remarks on the text. There are then three possibilities: 1) If none of these organizations has remarks to make, the text is published such as it was forwarded to them. 2) If the BEA and the NTSB make remarks which are accepted by the Egyptian authorities, the text is modified according to these indications then published. 3) If these agencies make remarks not accepted by their Egyptian interlocutor, they are placed in appendix.
the January 3rd 2006 the observations of BEA are given to the President of the Egyptian board of inquiry.
Then, new carryforward for the February 14th 2006.
the February 21st 2006, leaves the news that the revelation of the conclusions of the investigation is again pushed back with the March 25th 2006.
the March 25th 2006, the Egyptian authorities publish the final report.

Choice of the publication date : According to the site Eurocockpit.fr , the coming out date of the report/ratio would have been selected according to that of the meeting of the directors of the civil aviations of the whole world to the seat of ICAO to Montreal, which took place the March 22nd 2006.

Conclusions of the report/ratio: a leading article of Eurocockpit indicated that the pilot would be shown finger by the investigation. But according to a dispatch of Reuters quoting the person in charge of the investigation, this report/ratio would be satisfied to give tracks, without beginning. An article of Release dated from the October 17th 2005 as several dispatches stated however that the investigation would conclude with a failure from the autopilot and guidance systems. The report/ratio does not manage to release from single cause to the catastrophe. It considers however four possibilities, very of technical order, which could combine:

an unfolding of trim of aileron. This device makes it possible to move the neutral point of the control surfaces of ordering of the ailerons, which makes it possible the wings to remain horizontal when the pilot releases the orders
the autopilot would have known a problem: with 2:44 the autopilot is engaged, but disconnects himself 2 seconds afterwards.
temporary seizing of a cable of spoiler: they are the mobile surfaces located on the top of the wings which, if they rise in a nondesired way can cause rolling
left inopportune the spoilers in vol.

This interpretation of the data runs up against that of the NTSB and the BEA, which privilege the human error. According to their conclusions, the apparatus was controllable throughout the vol. BEA, in its conclusions, eliminates the possibility that a spoiler was the cause of the crash landing, and puts forward the responsibility for the crew which would not have known to answer the emergency. BEA also underlines the lack of training of the pilot. NTSB privileges the thesis of a space confusion of the pilot.

The report/ratio of the Association of the victims' families

Marc Chernet, President of the Association of the families, had initiated the creation of a Technical Cellule to draw up a report/ratio intended to clarify the families in a language accessible to all, to provide to the examining magistrate ways of investigation and to lawyers of the facts likely to highlight civil responsibilities.

Its conclusions are following the :

The strong points which result from our study are the following:

1 Because of its many failures, the investigation is to be remade, the excavations to be begun again.

2 DGAC does not do its work: it delivers authorizations of flight in infringment with the rules and/or worse without intelligence, without trade, in an administrative way in a world which is not it. One sees it in business CHARM EL SHEIK, one saw it in the crash landing of WEST CARRIBEAN, one will re-examine it if nothing is done. The signal sent by the Swiss and the Poland prohibiting for solid reasons any overflight and any stopover to this Company was not taken into account.

3 Associations cannot play their part fully: beyond the diplomatic contacts, testimonys of compassion and management of the human aspects, very difficult, they do not exist for the foreign investigators, they do not exist for the French technical investigators, they do not exist on the international legal level, they do not form part of the boards of inquiry auprès of which they are not represented and must pass through lawyers to ask the magistrates to carry out international acts of instruction whose exit is long and dubious.

4 the precise cause of the catastrophe of Charm el-Cheikh is not known, but it resides in multiple dysfunctions of the plane as well in electronics as in hydraulics, even of the anomalies structural related to the former accident of the right wing not quoted in the report/ratio. The bad design of the sensors existing, the savings made on the presence of crucial sensors the such sensor of effort on the orders of flight or the position of the trim of aileron, the complete absence of maintenance or calibration of the existing sensors deprive to us of the knowledge of the precise circumstances.

5 One can resolutely draw aside the thesis of the space confusion of the commander and the copilot. On the other hand, one could not exclude an escape on behalf of the pilot (i.e. an inaccuracy of piloting), as that was observed with a catch of excessive plate before the setting in turn on the right, which could contribute to the setting in unusual position.

The inexperience of the crew on B737 is to be underlined without it being however possible to show a cause and effect link between this lack of experience and the catastrophe.

6 BOEING 737 present of many defects of design, in particular as regards, design of hydraulics and of presence information system of several closed systems likely to function in loop and to block the interventions of the crew. It is not a question of defects resulting from the age of the model but well of devices absent or badly designed whereas the technical training of the time would have to push the manufacturer to adopt them or to modify them for a better safety.

7 the Company Flash Airlines defrauded by absence of compliance with the rules of maintenance, of recruitment of composition and training of the crews.

8 the Ministry for the Civil aviation Egyptian does not do its work; it delivers or delivered authorizations of exploitation to a company which did not enter obviously the standards.

9 It will be necessary to clear up in writing the question of knowing which decided the stop of the excavations at sea at the end of January 2004.

10 the American Company ILFC let steal an apparatus which strongly had already been damaged; it did not respect its obligations of maintenance.

11 “the economic one” is omnipresent in this business: economy on maintenance so much by the owner than by the owner, economy on the equipment on behalf of the manufacturer, economy in the control of the investigation: no trial flight, not recovery of the parts, not spectral analysis of the recorder of sounds, choice of these companies low cost by the French tour operators.

This report/ratio comprises in particular a chapter on the defects of design of the Boeing 737.

External bonds

Protagonists

Site of Group Flash, owner of Flash Airlines

----Analyzes, comments

an analysis of the accident.
Page on crushing
an analysis proposing an explanation of the crash landing.
Page of 1001crash.com
Newspaper of the accidents and the catastrophes: January 3rd, 2004
Articles of the Eurocockpit site devoted to the air crash:

2004 :

----The plane

Photographs of the plane implied in the catastrophe. In English.
Information about the apparatus. In English.
Information on the vol.
Information on the plane, its career and on the crash landing.

----Reports/ratios

Press release of the BEA containing a report/ratio about research operations at sea.
factual Report/ratio of the NTSB
the factual report/ratio of the Egyptian board of inquiry, in English.

----Official pages

Site of topicality of the BEA. See the heading: Accident of a Boeing 737 on January 3rd, 2004 with Charm-el-Sheik.
Press release of the BEA containing a report/ratio about research operations at sea.
virtual Reconstitution of the accident. On the site of the BEA.
Page of the DGAC
Press release of the OFAC (federal Office of the civil aviation) of January 5th, 2004 announcing prohibition made at Flash Airlines attend the Swiss airspace.

----Right

Some legal precise details on legal Lexinter.net
Question. In English.

Random links: