Germanwings A320 Crash

smurfjed

OK, but what has the FDR got to do with this?

Irish Steve

smurfjed wrote: »

OK, but what has the FDR got to do with this?

In relation to this particular event, probably very little, or less, but with some other accidents, if material fatigue occurs, and a significant part fails, the manner in which the aircraft then responds to that failure can often be captured by the FDR, which can be very helpful clues to the sequence of events that are part of the overall picture.

The AA airbus accident in New York where the rudder came off is a case in point, in that the FDR captured the extremes of control movement from the flight deck that contributed to the overstress and failure of the rudder, and the data captured by the FDR showed the deviations from normal flight regimes that followed the rudder failure, which gave a clearer view of the event.

wretcheddomain

Irish Steve wrote: »

The AA airbus accident in New York where the rudder came off is a case in point, in that the FDR captured the extremes of control movement from the flight deck that contributed to the overstress and failure of the rudder

With this example in mind, would it be possible at cruising altitude - even with a cabin crew member in the cockpit as the captain, say, has a call from nature - that the first officer could repeat the same extremes of rudder movement to the degree that it fatally damages the aircraft? If it is possible, then I assume it wouldn't make much of a difference to have a cabin crew member in the cockpit.

mickdw

wretcheddomain wrote: »

With this example in mind, would it be possible at cruising altitude - even with a cabin crew member in the cockpit as the captain, say, has a call from nature - that the first officer could repeat the same extremes of rudder movement to the degree that it fatally damages the aircraft? If it is possible, then I assume it wouldn't make much of a difference to have a cabin crew member in the cockpit.

I'm far from an aviation pro but I believe that rudder movement is all controlled via flight computer which will limit movement to safe angle of attack using airspeed etc to make that judgement. I think recent cases of rudder damage occurred when airspeed sensors were faulty and allowed exaggerated rudder movement causing damage so in a functional aircraft, this wouldn't be possible imo.

tharmor

Video being spread on reddit as clip of #Germanwings crash is from 2014 American Airlines AA280 turbulence incident...youtube it

smurfjed

Thanks for the explanation Steve, that's exactly what the FDR is designed to do, but it has nothing to do with recording material fatigue !

As the AA A300 crash, i don't believe that it had anything to do with rudder metal fatigue but over stressed by the crew in accordance with their training.

Tenger

smurfjed wrote: »

......
As the AA A300 crash, i don't believe that it had anything to do with rudder metal fatigue but over stressed by the crew in accordance with their training.

I remember this incident....rumours circulated at the time that this airframe had received minor tail damage in construction.

Mountainsandh

According to the latest press conference by the procureur de Marseille, it has been confirmed that the pilot was alive and conscious until the crash. His breathing was heard of course (and I read somewhere that he had put on an oxygen mask, not sure how accurate), but it is also confirmed he switched off speed alarms in the last minutes before impact.
40 mobile phones have been found, and either 50 or 150 DNA profiles established. There's a typo in last paragraph !
http://m.20minutes.fr/marseille/1578495-crash-a320-trois-nouveaux-elements-enquete-devoiles-procureur-marseille

Edit : just double checked, it's 150 DNA profiles, at least that's something for the families, I don't know why but I think I would find comfort in having a family member's DNA identified in that situation.
Note, they haven't been identified yet, that's for the next few weeks.

The FDR was buried under 20cm of soil and shows signs of fire damage.

Irish Steve

smurfjed wrote: »

Thanks for the explanation Steve, that's exactly what the FDR is designed to do, but it has nothing to do with recording material fatigue !

As the AA A300 crash, i don't believe that it had anything to do with rudder metal fatigue but over stressed by the crew in accordance with their training.

I never said that the FDR records material fatigue, I think I said it records the effects of things like metal fatigue, where a possibly critical component fails, and then causes an accident.

Yes, the AA was a result of inappropriate control inputs which over stressed the rudder mountings, or, in other words, caused catastrophic fatigue failure in overload of the rudder attachment system.

the FDR captured the extremes of control movement from the flight deck that contributed to the overstress and failure of the rudder,

Material fatigue failure can occur progressively over a period of time, where something like a turbine blade cracks, or small fractures develop in the combustion chamber of the engines, and the crack propagates over time with things like heating and cooling cycles, until it fails, and maybe takes out the engine in the process. ( like the 737-200 engine failure during take off from Manchester)

Another fatigue failure can be caused by one event that over stresses a component beyond the design limits, and a catastrophic and sudden failure occurs that has no associated existing weakness in the area of the failure. (The AA Rudder)

When examined under high magnification devices, the engineers can determine with a very high degree of accuracy the difference between these 2 extremes of failure.

The FDR has no means to record the actual fatigue, but it very graphically records in minute detail the effect on the aircraft, which can be dramatic, and very clear in terms of the handling or the performance degradation, and these are the very strong clues that along with detailed viewing of the individual parts of the aircraft that lead to the conclusions about the cause of the accident.

The engineers will be able (for example) to determine from viewing the badly damaged remains of the main fan disc blades if individual blades failed as a result of impact damage (from the crash impact, or a bird impact into the blades) or if the blade failed due to a manufacturing weakness or internal defect that developed over time, The FDR will record the significant engine parameter deviations that occur as a result of something like a blade off failure, and things like the throttle settings, all of which are fundamental clues to analysing what happened to the aircraft moment by moment.

In this case, if the FDR is recoverable, it will either confirm or deny the exact time line of events in the cockpit relating to settings on the MCP, and any inputs made on the side stick, or other flight controls,

Irish Steve

wretcheddomain wrote: »

With this example in mind, would it be possible at cruising altitude - even with a cabin crew member in the cockpit as the captain, say, has a call from nature - that the first officer could repeat the same extremes of rudder movement to the degree that it fatally damages the aircraft? If it is possible, then I assume it wouldn't make much of a difference to have a cabin crew member in the cockpit.

From increasingly rusty memory, this would not be possible in the same way in the A320, the rudder deflection is limited by the FBW systems in higher speed cruise, and the rudder can't be deflected to the same degree as it can be at lower speeds.

The AA aircraft was an A 300, which doesn't have the FBW controls that are found on the A320, so there was not the same protection that is part of the A320 FBW

H3llR4iser

tharmor wrote: »

Video being spread on reddit as clip of #Germanwings crash is from 2014 American Airlines AA280 turbulence incident...youtube it

That is what I think is happening - some clip from a different incident is being passed as one coming from the GW flight.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Surely the last thing you would think of when approaching your death into a mountain is to film it on your smartphone?

Sorry,I don't believe the clip exists at all.

Well I sure hope not, for everyone's sake. Better to imagine and believe in just a few seconds of terror for all on board before the end..

Yeah, people would definitely whip out their phones and film anything, as the AA clip shows. You see people filming the scene of a road collision with nobody calling an ambulance/the police. In the end, it looks like it is true that mobile phones fry brain cells...only, not by virtute of "electomagnetic waves", but by "5 minutes of fame".

John C

According to a report in AFP the data in the black box have been read.

I am at my workplace and have no time to translate idiomatically. Hereunder is a paraphrase of the above AFP report. AFP=Agence France Prese.

The reading of the second black box of the Germanwings-Airbus backs up the theory of a deliberately caused crash. The french authority BEA on Friday in Paris stated that the copilot set the Autopilot to descend to 100 feet.
He then so changed the 'Autopilot' that the speed of the descending aircraft was accelerated.
This is a preliminary 'evaluation' of the Flight Data Recorder which was recovered on Thursday.

Please overlook any poor English I have used. For completion here is the AFP report in German.

http://www.afp.com/de/nachrichten/zweite-blackbox-bestatigt-absturzabsicht-des-copiloten
Die Auswertung der zweiten Blackbox des Germanwings-Airbus bestätigt die These von einem absichtlich verursachten Absturz. Der Copilot habe den Autopiloten wiederholt so verändert, dass die Geschwindigkeit im Sinkflug der Maschine beschleunigt wurde, erklärte die französische Luftfahrtermittlungsbehörde BEA in Paris. Das habe eine "erste" Auswertung des am Donnerstag geborgenen Flugdatenschreibers ergeben.

Carry

Your English is fine!

You'll find the same in the Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/03/germanwings-co-pilot-accelerated-plane-during-descent

Jimmy444

Never pass up an opportunity to make political capital out of an appalling tragedy:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/michele-bachmann-compares-president-obama-to-germanwings-copilot-andreas-lubitz-10154947.html

Stay classy, B/tchmann.

Panda_Turtle

Whats the normal descent speed in mph or kmph of a commercial passenger jet?

Tried looking it up but just got descent rate in feet (58 feet per second, 18m/s) so that works out out at 64.8kmph descent rate.

I am reading that this plane crashed at 430mph.

murphaph

It was descending at that rate but also being propelled forward by the engines.

smurfjed

Generally around 300 KIAS, give or take, then reduced to 250 KIAS at 10,000 feet. Rule of thumb for descent rate is 5 times your ground speed.

Panda_Turtle

smurfjed wrote: »

Generally around 300 KIAS, give or take, then reduced to 250 KIAS at 10,000 feet. Rule of thumb for descent rate is 5 times your ground speed.

I'm looking for the typical speed of a plane descending in mph or kph

Google says

250 knots is
287.694 miles per hour

smurfjed

Yep, google is your friend. We don't have gauges that show MPH nor KM's.

Panda_Turtle

smurfjed wrote: »

Yep, google is your friend. We don't have gauges that show MPH nor KM's.

So if the plane crashed at 430mph as reported and the typical descend speed from 10000feet is 285mph, the pilot was going about 50% faster than a typical descent. Crazy to imagine it.

smurfjed

Aha, now that i see what you are trying to do, you need to convert INDICATED AIR SPEED (IAS) into TRUE AIRSPEED (TAS) and then convert to MPH.

The aircraft will have a VMO (Max speed), reports stated that he changed the speed to stop the overspeed klaxon, so this would mean that he didn't exceed that speed. He wouldn't be restricted to 250 KIAS as this is a procedural speed rather than a limitation.

Have a look at this...

http://www.csgnetwork.com/tasinfocalc.html

eatmyshorts

Panda_Turtle wrote: »

So if the plane crashed at 430mph as reported and the typical descend speed from 10000feet is 285mph, the pilot was going about 50% faster than a typical descent. Crazy to imagine it.

You're getting muddled up there with how things are done.
Vertical speed is measured in feet per minute. Lateral speeds in knots.
Any quoted "usual" speeds from google are misleading. Is it IAS? CAS? TAS? GS? Its all interlinked

bkehoe

The Mode-S returns from the transponder show the last reported IAS was 343KTS.

As the automatics were being used there would have been no overspeed warning; the references to the pilot adjusting speed were probably simply that initially it was a Mach based descent, with a transition to IAS and as the aircraft descended into denser air the pilot simply increased the speed to keep it just below Vmo (the maximum IAS allowed), as Vmo (and Mmo) will increase during a descent.

The engines would not have been helping the descent; had the aircraft been "propelled forward by the engines", the rate of descent (in vertical speed, feet per minute) would have been lower and the descent taken much longer.

Polar101

bk wrote: »

Instead it mostly consistent of a psychologist asking you a bunch of questions and based on your answers the doctor makes a rough guess if you fall under certain mental health issues..

I think there is some confusion with psychology and psychiatry here - a psychologist isn't a (medical) doctor.

But yes, it's a valid point that neither is really an exact science, which makes preventing unfortunate incidents like this very difficult.

SpaceTime

Polar101 wrote: »

I think there is some confusion with psychology and psychiatry here - a psychologist isn't a (medical) doctor.

But yes, it's a valid point that neither is really an exact science, which makes preventing unfortunate incidents like this very difficult.

The two professions actually crossover quite a bit.

A clinical psychologist most certainly can and do make diagnosis of mental illness. The only major difference is that while a psychiatrist will have access to medication (and in some jurisdictions psychologists can now prescribe) a psychologist will take an approach of using cognitive behavioural therapies etc etc.

It's 100% accurate to say that mental illness cannot be diagnosed like a medical illness though where a battery of biochemical tests, blood work, scans etc can come to a conclusive diagnosis based on scientific facts. Psychology and psychiatry are much 'fuzzier' areas.

Where someone has a physical brain problem like dementia or some kind of degenerative disorder, it's often handed over to neurologists and neuroscientists, so psychiatric and psychology don't actually even tend to get all that deep into the nuts-and-bolts type problems that medical disciplines do.

It's like the difference between working with high-level code (where you don't quite understand the details of the underlying system) (psychology and psychiatry) vs a person who hacks and repairs the physical systems and chips (all other branches of medicine).

Dealing with a human isn't like dealing with a machine. Our brain is literally the most complicated system in the known universe. It's so sophisticated it has figured out that it exists and is busily analysing its own DNA... When you add the software system (the person), it's an unfathomable complex system and really you're just able to take a 'best guess' as to what's going in an individual's mind.

We'll never know what that pilot was thinking any more than we'll know what anyone else is thinking. Also, because his thinking was so abnormal, we probably may not even understand what broken logic he was using to justify his actions to himself.

So, in terms of ruling someone psychologically fit to fly an aircraft, they can only screen to the best of their ability and I think the biggest issue is elimination of stigma so that a pilot doesn't feel the need to hide a problem.

Open lines of communication, lack of stigma about stress, about mental health etc are absolutely vital in a job that is 100% safety critical.

All the tests in the world will not be able to see past a determined and probably highly intelligent person who wants to present a particular image and can see through the tests. That's the reality of what you're dealing with.

The only things the industry can changer are:

1) The protocols and systems around how the door works.
2) The culture - people need to have that open communication environment and a lack of stigma about imperfections.

smurfjed

Newspaper reports state that Lufthansa might be charged with corporate manslaughter due to allowing him to fly with mental health issues.
This is going to make it very difficult for airlines in the future to assess what will be an acceptable level of "issues", as someone has pointed out, should a pilot with "white coat syndrome" be grounded, or someone getting divorced?
Will be interesting to see how the legislation starts to deal with this.

smurfjed

smurfjed wrote: »

Newspaper reports state that Lufthansa might be charged with corporate manslaughter due to allowing him to fly with mental health issues.
This is going to make it very difficult for airlines in the future to assess what will be an acceptable level of "issues", as someone has pointed out, should a pilot with "white coat syndrome" be grounded, or someone getting divorced?
Will be interesting to see how the legislation starts to deal with this.

"Allowing" implies a level of knowledge on Lufthansas side, were they aware ?, what professional information did they have ? What recommendation did the professionals give ? All questions that will be answered in a court.

I agree, it's going to be very tough for both airlines and pilots in the future and indeed any associated professions.

SpaceTime

If this charge is under French Law you can expect it to stick.

The way they went after that U.S. Airline blaming it for Concorde's crash is pretty typical of French legal quirks.

murphaph

This could get out of hand really quickly. What about the maintenance teams? The cleaners? The caterers? More or less anyone working front line for an airline could theoretically bring a plane down or kill everyone on board if they were hell bent on it. Do you have special psych screening for techs in case they sabotage a plane? For the cooks in case they sprinkle the grub with rat poison? This could apply to anyone anywhere as well, not just airlines.

There are simply no guarantees in life. That's just the way it is.

Calina

smurfjed wrote: »

Newspaper reports state that Lufthansa might be charged with corporate manslaughter due to allowing him to fly with mental health issues.
This is going to make it very difficult for airlines in the future to assess what will be an acceptable level of "issues", as someone has pointed out, should a pilot with "white coat syndrome" be grounded, or someone getting divorced?
Will be interesting to see how the legislation starts to deal with this.

Unlawful killing might possibly be a better description than manslaughter but a lot depends on what's in the LH paperwork.

I really, really feel that this whole case has been monumentally undermined by the behaviour of the press.

PukkaStukka

Deleted User wrote: »

"Allowing" implies a level of knowledge on Lufthansas side, were they aware ?, what professional information did they have ? What recommendation did the professionals give ? All questions that will be answered in a court.

I agree, it's going to be very tough for both airlines and pilots in the future and indeed any associated professions.

SpaceTime wrote: »

If this charge is under French Law you can expect it to stick.

The way they went after that U.S. Airline blaming it for Concorde's crash is pretty typical of French legal quirks.

Proves the old adage about hard cases making bad law is indeed true

Tow

SpaceTime wrote: »

If this charge is under French Law you can expect it to stick.

The way they went after that U.S. Airline blaming it for Concorde's crash is pretty typical of French legal quirks.

French law (Napoleonic Code) is a presumption of guilt until proven innocent.

Regarding the Concorde crash, here are two hours of listening pleasure from an ex BA Concorde caption. It gets interesting in the last half hour then asked about his views on the crash. http://omegataupodcast.net/2015/02/166-flying-the-concorde/

smurfjed

Lufthansa may face corporate manslaughter charges for allowing suicidal pilot Andreas Lubitz to fly after he suffered a bout of depression, it has been claimed.
Yesterday it emerged doctors at Lufthansa - Germanwings' parent company - had recommended that Lubitz be given psychological treatment even though he was deemed fit to fly.

People have stated the opinion that people with depression should be able to be commercial pilots, regardless of the medical justifications for allowing this to happen, i think that corporations are going to take a very conservative approach to medical issues, and the result will be people hiding their issues rather than seeking help.

SpaceTime

Tow wrote: »

French law (Napoleonic Code) is a presumption of guilt until proven innocent.

Regarding the Concorde crash, here are two hours of listening pleasure from an ex BA Concorde caption. It gets interesting in the last half hour then asked about his views on the crash. http://omegataupodcast.net/2015/02/166-flying-the-concorde/

Actually, French law has a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise, just like we do.

"Any man being presumed innocent until he has been declared guilty" (since the mid 1700s)

I suspect sometimes it's a tad political though. Perhaps I'm being totally cynical here but I suspect they wanted to deflect attention from all things French during the Concorde investigation. It was the airport that failed to notice the debris on the runway...

Goshen

Just saw an article online stating that the pilot locked the captain out and practiced his controlled descent on his earlier flight that day. Why the hell was that not flagged before he went on to fly again???

mickdw

Goshen wrote: »

Just saw an article online stating that the pilot locked the captain out and practiced his controlled descent on his earlier flight that day. Why the hell was that not flagged before he went on to fly again???

I'd call bullsh1t on that.

Goshen

mickdw wrote: »

I'd call bullsh1t on that.

Well, check out every news outlet. They are all carrying the same story now.

Goshen

OSI wrote: »

Anything I've seen said he carried out a controlled descent for a short period on the earlier flight. Nothing about him locking out the pilot.

This one does
http://www.express.co.uk/

josip

Would The Express be a reliable source?

Goshen

josip wrote: »

Would The Express be a reliable source?

Lol - never heard of it before, so I couldn't comment.

Growler!!!

Would the original from the German tabloid BILD be any more reliable? Think of it as the Germanic equivilant of the Mirror.

Goshen

In any case, the f**ker tried it out earlier in the day. Why was it not noticed?

Goshen

The preliminary report is coming out at midday today paris time. It's obviously a leak.

Goshen

It appears it only came to light after examining the black box of his previous flight. Would it be normal that his captain on that flight would not have noticed a 1 minute descent?

Growler!!!

Think about it. Why would he practice a controlled descent when it was something that was done every single day while working.

Do airliners normally do anything other than a controlled descent?

Any descent would be quired by ATC .

So many holes in this non story.

Goshen

Growler!!! wrote: »

Think about it. Why would he practice a controlled descent when it was something that was done every single day while working.

Do airliners normally do anything other than a controlled descent?

Any descent would be quired by ATC .

So many holes in this non story.

Because he was trying to figure out how to get away with descending when he shouldn't be? Possibly checking out what alarms would go off? Figured out that he'd need to lock the other pilot out probably.

Goshen

Probably also realised that ATC did f all.

Growler!!!

Goshen wrote: »

Because he was trying to figure out how to get away with descending when he shouldn't be? Possibly checking out what alarms would go off? Figured out that he'd need to lock the other pilot out probably.

Lots of probablies.

What alarms would go off in a controlled descent?

How do we know it wasn't a descent requested by ATC? The flight data recorder only records there was a descent for a specified amount of time so we will never know. Speculation on the tabloids part methinks.

When the other pilot gets back into the cockpit they'll notice a different flight level set in the window and confirm it with ATC.

seamus

BBC reporting it:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32604552

It doesn't say he attempted to lock the other pilot out during the previous flight. He was probably seeing what he could do without setting off any alarms or automatic recovery systems.

Goshen

Growler!!! wrote: »

Lots of probablies.

What alarms would go off in a controlled descent?

How do we know it wasn't a descent requested by ATC? The flight data recorder only records there was a descent for a specified amount of time so we will never know. Speculation on the tabloids part methinks.

When the other pilot gets back into the cockpit they'll notice a different flight level set in the window and confirm it with ATC.

Alarms? The one telling him he was too low.
Requested by ATC? 1. The fact that he killed people later via the same tactic is a bit of a giveaway.
Other pilot? My point exactly. Why the fck was it not reported?