Germanwings A320 Crash

Inquitus

It just made a controlled descent, and flew straight into the ground, per this infographic.

eatmyshorts

CaptainSkidmark wrote: »

Whats the general decent rate for an aircraft that get a decompression alarm? Im not too up on the terminology but if the aircrafts systems detect an actual or a false decompression, how fast do they descend to a safe altitude?

Holding Vmo, idle thrust, full speed brakes...around 5,000 fpm descent.

ectoraige

check_six wrote: »

What could cause such a strange reading (other than a sensor problem)? Would that be the equivalent of the aircraft standing on it's nose for a second and then leveling off again? Is the figure an average for that time period, or just a reading at that instant?

It would be a point-in-time reading. It shows how quickly the craft is ascending or descending. It is measured using variometers, which detect changes in pressure. As you go up, pressure decreases, as you go down, pressure decreases. So a reading of -14k would indicate a huge increase in the external air pressure.

Since the reported altitude remained the same for at least another 21 seconds, it wouldn't appear to be any actual sudden drop due to an air pocket. So it seems more likely that it's some sort of failure with the instrument.

It's possible though that some explosive event caused a pressure wave. The sensors would be reading the air pressure outside the craft, perhaps an uncontrolled decompression would lead to a momentary pressure spike outside if in the right position. It's important to stress this is highly unlikely, as the chances of it happening, being read, and being reported all at the same time are probably pretty astronomical.

It could also be nothing more that erroneous date caused by a noisy data transmission, and just coincidentally precedes the beginning of the descent. Any other day this would just be ignored as just that.

Either way, this is all pure speculation, while out there in the real world rescuers are tasked with victim recovery, and family members are still being contacted. Germanwings are to hold a press conference at 3pm.

arubex

astrofluff wrote: »

Very sad news.
When all the speculation about MH370 was happening, I remember one expert saying that the crew would not spend anytime contacting ATC as they need to concentrate on gaining control of the plane - ATC can't do anything for them.

ATC can't do anything for them, but they can clear other aircraft out of the area and notify emergency services. Perhaps save some lives if the disaster occurs.

My opinion is that the traditional aviate-then-communicate training should be re-evaluated.

Just like cockpit resource management made the cockpit a less captain-centric space, pilots have to be aware that they are one component of a crowded sky and it's not always their personal actions that will save lives.

Airlines are partly responsible for this communication conundrum, by insisting that additional cockpit crew were an unnecessary financial burden. So now we just have two crew, apparently too busy at critical times to let ATC know what is happening. That doesn't seem right.

Peregrine

wretcheddomain wrote: »

A distress signal was sent as the plane was descending - surely this rules out hijacking.

Don't want to go off topic but they could have squawked 7500.

cml387

The age of the aircraft, the suddeness of the onset of trouble and the fact that it happened in the cruise in probably clear air would tend to point to some sort of structural failure.

eatmyshorts

Nim wrote: »

Don't want to go off topic but they could have squawked 7500.

Why would they do that?

martinsvi

please don't treat that -14k fpm value as one actually detected and originating from aircraft sensors. Radio frequency used and ADS-B signal is prone to intermodulation with other signals, thus secondary radars as well as plane plotters ignore these extremes - they happen all the time, the busier the airspace, the more false pings

check_six

eatmyshorts wrote: »

Holding Vmo, idle thrust, full speed brakes...around 5,000 fpm descent.

So, would the flightpath here match that procedure? The airspeed didn't increase even though the plane was making a descent, would that suggest a degree of control over the speed brakes, or the engine thrust? Or is the recorded glideslope not steep enough to increase the airspeed much?

Peregrine

eatmyshorts wrote: »

Why would they do that?

Sorry that was in reply to a post, I don't know where the quote went. It wasn't meant to be speculation at all.

eatmyshorts

check_six wrote: »

So, would the flightpath here match that procedure? The airspeed didn't increase even though the plane was making a descent, would that suggest a degree of control over the speed brakes, or the engine thrust? Or is the recorded glideslope not steep enough to increase the airspeed much?

There's too much speculation on unconfirmed, unreliable data to make any assumptions.

RecordStraight

cml387 wrote: »

The age of the aircraft, the suddeness of the onset of trouble and the fact that it happened in the cruise in probably clear air would tend to point to some sort of structural failure.

But, on the other hand, the descent was steady, as was the speed.

Kencollins

The conclusions on this thread being drawn on the flight radar ect feeds are scary.

There is no way to verify the accuracy.

The information is correlated from numerous uncontrolled receivers.

In an air traffic control environment, neither Mode S or ADS-B are relied upon in isolation.

They are snapshots, NOT realtime data. The refresh rate could be anywhere from 6 seconds to 60 seconds.

3500 feet per minute in a descent is NOT uncommon at all. Many flights exiting Irish airspace going into Manchester and Birmingham do that rate and more on a daily basis. These aircraft have a level restriction at the Irish boundary and many choose to stay level until they are a few minutes from the boundary and then descend quickly to make the restriction.

We have NO way to know if this descent of the aircraft in question was controlled, intentional, or otherwise.

The aircraft crashed, why not leave it to the investigators to determine the cause instead of giving the news outlets another avenue for sensationalist headlines?

crisco10

Inquitus wrote: »

It just made a controlled descent, and flew straight into the ground, per this infographic.

Great chart. The number of airports the plane cruised over really jumps out at you. Incapacitated flight crew?

ectoraige

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

very informative, thanks.

For those (like me) who is seeing this type of data for the first time, the table should be read bottom up

I just edited it to add a few notes, hope it makes it a bit clearer.

CaptainSkidmark

aviation journalist, told Sky News: “The log suggests (the plane) went straight down at a significant rate, up to 5,000 feet per minute at one point, which suggests it happened in a matter of seconds.

“It is unlikely the passengers on board would have known anything about this.

”As far as I am aware that the pilots did not send a typical distress call, a squawk of 770."


Did the pilots squalk?

vicwatson

pfurey101 wrote: »

Bad timing OK, but maybe the guys in the office dont have the radio on or maybe it was a preplanned email launch.

Yes of course, I was just referring to the bad timing is all

RecordStraight

CaptainSkidmark wrote: »

aviation journalist, told Sky News: “The log suggests (the plane) went straight down at a significant rate, up to 5,000 feet per minute at one point, which suggests it happened in a matter of seconds.

This makes no sense. They started at over 38,000 feet. It took minutes to come down, not seconds.

Kencollins

Nothing happened in a matter of seconds...It would have taken nearly 8 minutes for the aircraft to come down from FL380 at anywhere near 5000FPM

eatmyshorts

crisco10 wrote: »

Great chart. The number of airports the plane cruised over really jumps out at you. Incapacitated flight crew?

Doesn't jump out at me. There may be lots of airfields, but most around there are just little GA strips.

martinsvi

cml387 wrote: »

The age of the aircraft, the suddeness of the onset of trouble and the fact that it happened in the cruise in probably clear air would tend to point to some sort of structural failure.

no, none of those things point out to structural failure

Kencollins

martinsvi wrote: »

no, none of those things point out to structural failure

It's the same guys that they have on sky news, cnn, every-other-rubbish-news-site.

CaptainSkidmark

RecordStraight wrote: »

This makes no sense. They started at over 38,000 feet. It took minutes to come down, not seconds.

I know! that entire post if from another source, i couldn't quote it properly

cml387

In all these ocurrences there is speculation.
It's not doing any harm, it's like a discussion around the water cooler.

Those who do not wish to discuss the accident don't have to either read or contribute to the thread.

A structural failure in flight is one possibility. There are of course others.

vicwatson

sugarman wrote: »

I'm sorry, but wtf has that got to do with anything?!?

Oh relax with yourself, should all the "amateurs" get out of the thread and leave all the "experts" to it?

crisco10

eatmyshorts wrote: »

Doesn't jump out at me. There may be lots of airfields, but most around there are just little GA strips.

Marseille, Toulon, Grenoble, Avignon, Military Airport at Valance, even Nice/Montpellier/Nimes given the altitude they had when they made landfall.

Plenty of options.

Jhcx

Gonna be very interested to read the report on one of the most advanced aircraft and how it came down.

Sad day

youreadthat

No mayday was received according to BBC News.

ProfessorPlum

arubex wrote: »

ATC can't do anything for them, but they can clear other aircraft out of the area and notify emergency services. Perhaps save some lives if the disaster occurs.

My opinion is that the traditional aviate-then-communicate training should be re-evaluated.

Just like cockpit resource management made the cockpit a less captain-centric space, pilots have to be aware that they are one component of a crowded sky and it's not always their personal actions that will save lives.

Airlines are partly responsible for this communication conundrum, by insisting that additional cockpit crew were an unnecessary financial burden. So now we just have two crew, apparently too busy at critical times to let ATC know what is happening. That doesn't seem right.

Part of the 'Aviate' bit - and a huge part of it, is situational awareness, so if an emergency descent is necessary for example, they will check the airspace below them or turn off track into clear airspace (in NATS for example). Even if they did get a mayday message out, ATC will take far longer to 'clear the sky' than the distress aircraft might have, so the 'fly the aircraft' bit comes first. I wouldn't like to see crews prioritise a communication over trying to regain control of the aircraft and situation. Surely that's the best way of saving lives??

PukkaStukka

RTE reporting

RTE wrote:

The crew of the Germanwings flight that crashed in the French Alps did not send a distress signal, civil aviation authorities said.
"The crew did not send a Mayday. It was air traffic control that decided to declare the plane was in distress because there was no contact with the crew of the plane," the source said.

If this is true, could this be a game changer?

Reoil

eatmyshorts wrote: »

Why would they do that?

Because 7500 is the squak code for a hijacking?

Reoil

PukkaStukka wrote: »

RTE reporting

If this is true, could this be a game changer?

I was think hypoxia but then the plane would have been on autopilot.
Surely structural failure would have lead to a great rate of descent.
Lack of fuel perhaps?

Tippex

conflicting reports about a mayday call (from the Germanwings press conference)
There was a check yesterday on the airframe (don't think they mentioned the level of the check)
The last C check was 2013.

Strumms

Reoil wrote: »

I was think hypoxia but then the plane would have been on autopilot.
Surely structural failure would have lead to a great rate of descent.
Lack of fuel perhaps?

If the aircraft was indeed flying at cruising altitude and hypoxia set in, incapacitating the crew, the aircraft would still have had fuel enough to reach its destination for a start and then also extra for holding, contingency and reserve etc.

unkel

How come a plane form Barcelona to Dusseldorf is diverted over the Alps as standard? Maybe I'm showing my ignorance here, but that makes no sense to me at all. Over the Alps gives you 10000 - 15000ft less to play with in case something case wrong / fewer options for landing and terrible prospects for rescue operations. Apart from the fact that the distance is further, so takes longer and uses more fuel. And I can't imagine any of the line between Barcelona and Dusseldorf be particularly busy with air traffic. No where near what you would have over greater London / Ruhrgebiet / Netherlands / Paris etc.

jaykay74

http://www.thelocal.de/20150324/germanwings-plane-crashes-in-french-alps-123

15:10 Germanwings is currently holding a press conference.

They confirmed that 144 passengers, including two babies, and six crew including two pilots and four flight attendants were aboard.

The plane had undergone a routine mechanical check on Monday in Düsseldorf, just hours before its final flight. Its last major service was in summer 2013 - as called for under the manufacturer Airbus' maintenance schedule.

The pilot had more than 10 years' experience with Lufthansa and Germanwings, and a total of 6,000 flight hours on the A320 model.

Germanwings, Lufthansa, and Airbus technicians are on their way to the crash site to help the investigation in any way they can.

"Together with the authorities we will do everything to understand the cause of this accident as quickly and comprehensively as possible," Germanwings CEO Thomas Winkelmann said.

galwayjohn89

Just heard on BBC that the aircraft had a technical examination yesterday. Did anyone hear exactly what that was?

ProfessorPlum

Vuzuggu wrote: »

Just heard on BBC that the aircraft had a technical examination yesterday. Did anyone hear exactly what that was?

All aircraft have a daily technical check. I presume this is what they are referring to.

galwayjohn89

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

All aircraft have a daily technical check. I presume this is what they are referring to.

Never realised they had a technical check each day. What exactly does it consist of?

Chemical Byrne

Of course this is just speculation but would there be anything to be said for some sort of electonic hijacking of the aircraft. Ie someone on board or on the ground either hacking the avionics and feeding false data or interfering with software? Or perhaps just jamming or confusing the plane's sensors and systems with noise.

With physical security being so tight in aviation these days perhaps well organised and resourced organisations like ISIS and Al Qaeda are moving towards electronic attacks to bring down aircraft? Or terrorist operatives who've infiltrated the aviation industry and rewrite software or physically doctor aircraft during maintenance to engineer a failure? Nothing would surprise me.

Of course this need not be non state actors, the Chinese have been hugely ramping up cyber warfare in recent years. It will be interesting to see their response to this. They have access to A320s.

cml387

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

Of course this is just speculation but would there be anything to be said for some sort of electonic hijacking of the aircraft. Ie someone on board or on the ground either hacking the avionics and feeding false data or interfering with software? Or perhaps just jamming or confusing the plane's sensors and systems with noise.

With physical security being so tight in aviation these days perhaps well organised and resourced organisations like ISIS and Al Qaeda are moving towards electronic attacks to bring down aircraft?

Until the true cause is found, there will be many theories as to what happened.

But not that.

ectoraige

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

Of course this is just speculation but would there be anything to be said for some sort of electonic hijacking of the aircraft?

No.

knucklehead6

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

Of course this is just speculation but would there be anything to be said for some sort of electonic hijacking of the aircraft. Ie someone on board or on the ground either hacking the avionics and feeding false data or interfering with software? Or perhaps just jamming or confusing the plane's sensors and systems with noise.

With physical security being so tight in aviation these days perhaps well organised and resourced organisations like ISIS and Al Qaeda are moving towards electronic attacks to bring down aircraft? Or terrorist operatives who've infiltrated the aviation industry and rewrite software or physically doctor aircraft during maintenance to engineer a failure? Nothing would surprise me.

Of course this need not be non state actors, the Chinese have been hugely ramping up cyber warfare in recent years. It will be interesting to see their response to this. They have access to A320s.

Something would surprise me. ANYONE giving this theory of yours any sort of credence.

ProfessorPlum

Vuzuggu wrote: »

Never realised they had a technical check each day. What exactly does it consist of?

Any engineers want to comment?

It's a pretty quick check, usually done when the aircraft is overnighting. There's a whole list of stuff that has to be checked and signed off, and I don't have it on me:pac: but a general inspection for damage, fluid levels - oils, hydraulic etc, safety systems, brakes, etc.

Tenger

vicwatson wrote: »

Oh relax with yourself, should all the "amateurs" get out of the thread and leave all the "experts" to it?

No need to be an ass. You posted a non related post in a an effort to cause shock. You were very quickly shown the non-relevance of that email post.
Keep to the topic on hand.



In a similar vein, can we all stop jumping to conclusions (old, plane, tail wing fell off, structural failure,pilot incapacitation) It could very well be a combination of 2-3 of these. As with many aviation disasters there can be several contributing factors.

I am not asking you all NOT to speculate, but please left it at speculation rather than making your mind up before the search teams have located the crash site and started the recovery of those 148 souls.

Chemical Byrne

cml387 wrote: »

Until the true cause is found, there will be many theories as to what happened.

But not that.

While unlikley, personally I don't see it as all that far fetched either. I mean would such a cyber attack be at least technically possible? Or failing a cyber attack, perhaps using some sort of directed energy, very powerful radar beam or whatever, to damage the avionics?

I'm no expert but if this was possible, the long and steady decent would in my mind point to the aircraft's systems being fed false data about its pitch or altitude or it software being doctored to produce this effect.

EDIT: As it turns out this is not an off the wall idea afterwards. Aviation expert Sally Leivesley suggested that Indonesian Airlines flight MH370 may have been the first victim of such a cyber attack.
http://www.ibtimes.com/new-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-cyber-hijack-theory-emerges-after-vulnerabilities-found-inflight

Tippex

DGAC now reporting that there was NO mayday communication including no "emergency, Emergency"

Inquitus

Loss of crew conciousness something akin to the Greek flight a few years back?

Tippex

Apparently the largest piece of Debris is the size of a car.

Calina

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

While unlikley, personally I don't see it as all that far fetched either. I mean would such a cyber attack be at least technically possible? Or failing a cyber attack, perhaps using some sort of directed energy, very powerful radar beam or whatever, to damage the avionics?

How would you see such a thing working out of interest?