Germanwings A320 Crash

MoeJay

A few people asked about how long etc. an emergency descent would take...I'm not sure if it was answered...

For the A320:

"When in idle thrust, high speed and speed brake extended, the rate of descent is approximately 7 000 ft/min. To descend from FL 390 to FL 100, it takes approximately 4 min and 40 nm."

Chemical Byrne

Calina wrote: »

I'd be interested in more details to be honest with you. In particularly, how they experimentally demonstrated the concept and on what plane.

Secondly, a lot of A320s used for short haul do not necessarily have individual passenger controllable inflight entertainment systems installed. I don't want to state for certain whether this plane did or did not but since it's common for short haul flights not to have them, it might be worth confirming that it did first.

I don't know the exact ins and outs of how it's done but this Teso guy has developed malware that he says is capable of attacking the navigation capabilities of the aircraft.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/465126/Missing-Malaysia-Airlines-plane-may-have-been-cyber-hijacked-using-mobile-phone


Of course politicians just turn up for the photo op and to get their mugs in the papers.

CathalDublin

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94814106&postcount=178

Tenger

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

I don't know the exact ins and outs of how it's done but this Teso guy has developed malware that he says is capable of attacking the navigation capabilities of the aircraft.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/465126/Missing-Malaysia-Airlines-plane-may-have-been-cyber-hijacked-using-mobile-phone......

Move this conspiracy theory debate to the CT forum. Any more in relation to this 'experimental possibility' will result in an infraction and possibly a ban from A&A.

sjb25

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

I don't know the exact ins and outs of how it's done but this Teso guy has developed malware that he says is capable of attacking the navigation capabilities of the aircraft.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/465126/Missing-Malaysia-Airlines-plane-may-have-been-cyber-hijacked-using-mobile-phone


Of course politicians just turn up for the photo op and to get their mugs in the papers.

....

Chemical Byrne

Tenger wrote: »

Move this conspiracy theory debate to the CT forum. Any more in relation to this 'experimental possibility' will result in an infraction and possibly a ban from A&A.

Done
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057402563

ectoraige

fits wrote: »

Why do politicians feel the need to announce that they will travel to crash site? Wont they just get in the way and divert efforts away from the recovery? (not that theres much to be done for the poor souls who perished now). Seems ridiculous to me

To play devil's advocate, it's the one place they are most likely to receive accurate information, and to be able to query whether their interpretation of the information is correct. In critical incidents, information management becomes a major job, trying to maintain accuracy can be difficult. We saw an example already today when the initial report of a distress call was interpreted as having come from the crew. It turned out that it was a call made by ATC, but in the meantime the misinterpretation caused a lot of confusion.

The authorities look better the less confusion there is. That's why the politicians go there. And it looks good on their CV.

*Kol*

L1011 wrote: »

The packages only exist due to people with aircraft that age wanting to keep them longer, though - LH and 4U are unlikely to have used the aircraft much more lightly than other A320 operators, the cycle count is in line with the age.

The package actually exists because there were operators reaching the limit of validity early because their utilisation was different to the original 1.25 FH: 1 FC that the limit of validity figures of 48,000 FC and 60,000 FH are based on. For example an operator with a utilisation ratio of 3:1 would reach the FH limit after only 20,000 FC.

JCX BXC

The desent was slow, nothing too crazy. It started near Marseille, just a few minutes after reaching the crusing altitude of 38,000ft. Strange they didn't try to divert to Marseille. Something in my head is telling me that the crash was intentional on someone's half.

Amirani

ectoraige wrote: »

The authorities look better the less confusion there is. That's why the politicians go there. And it looks good on their CV.

Agreed. They'd also be slated by many if they didn't go.

NoelJ

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

No it didn't.

Links please.

Here it is;

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/others/Bilbao.html

Skuxx

*Kol* wrote: »

It's unlikely that they will have performed the extension package on an aircraft of that age. Most likely the aircraft would be retired in the near future. That extended service goal package involves a lot of heavy maintenance actions which would probably not be economical to perform on such an old aircraft.

Untrue! The ESG is for exactly aircraft of this type! This aircraft hadn't undergone the ESG check but it was due this year! I worked on an ESG of another lufthansa aircraft of similar age, actually older, only last month!
It involves a lot of NDT inspections that wouldn't be on a standard maintenance check!

Bob24

One of the flight recorders has been found.

Anyone knows how long it usually take for the authorities to have a first look at it and release some of their findings?

JCX BXC

Bob24 wrote: »

One of the flight recorders has been found.

Anyone knows how long it usually take for the authorities to have a first look at it and release some of their findings?

Weeks I think.

Calina

Some of the images on the youtube link here are just....

http://www.bfmtv.com/societe/en-direct-un-a320-s-ecrase-avec-148-passagers-a-bord-871175.html

ProfessorPlum

NoelJ wrote: »

Here it is;

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/others/Bilbao.html

Completely different issue to what you were suggesting though, isn't it?

L1011

*Kol* wrote: »

The package actually exists because there were operators reaching the limit of validity early because their utilisation was different to the original 1.25 FH: 1 FC that the limit of validity figures of 48,000 FC and 60,000 FH are based on. For example an operator with a utilisation ratio of 3:1 would reach the FH limit after only 20,000 FC.

Both are valid reasons - but amongst older A320 operators the hours:cycle ratio is extremely unlikely to be that high. A 1990 build with 46k cycles is definitely going to be up for life extension if fully paid for.

Call me Al

DubDani wrote: »

„France Info“ as well as „La Provence“ are reporting that there might be a survivor, according to the rescue coordinator General David Galtier.

Oh wow. I'd be amazed if anyone has walked from that but it's incredible if they have.

smurfjed

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.

Wow, this is real off the wall speculation......

This one is even better.....

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?

Sorry, Tenger, i posted prior to reading your warning... delete if you desire and i wont touch on the subject again....

munchkin_utd

munchkin_utd wrote: »

could it be similar to this failure on a Lufthansa A321 which decided off its own bat to make a decent of 4000fpm last november.
http://www.aeroinside.com/item/4946/lufthansa-a321-near-bilbao-on-nov-5th-2014-loss-of-4000-feet-of-altitude

only for the pilot being very experienced and know details of the planes architecture that aparantly was beyond whats normally expected, that plane would have crashed too.

to answer myself... The operations chief of German Wings Stefan-Kenan Scheib specifically referenced the same incident I mentioned above, and ruled out the possibility of it being a repeat occurence.
He also said that theres many many reasons why the plane may have done what it did - so basically saying that they know nothing.

source (in german):
http://www.n-tv.de/panorama/Germanwings-Maschine-zerschellte-an-Felswand-article14763951.html

and in english with a vaguely translated reply to the question of whether it was the same systems fault as before:
http://www.ibtimes.com/what-happened-germanwings-flight-4u-9525-crash-occurred-after-steep-fast-drop-french-1857296

smurfjed

seem to think that such an occurrence is possible and have experimentally demonstrated the concept

Actually i think that most of these people want their 5 minutes of fame. Do you know anything about the Arinc 629 bus in the B777 and the Primary Flight Computer disconnect switch?

A Dub in Glasgo

munchkin_utd wrote: »

to answer myself... The operations chief of German Wings Stefan-Kenan Scheib specifically referenced the same incident I mentioned above, and ruled out the possibility of it being a repeat occurence.
He also said that theres many many reasons why the plane may have done what it did - so basically saying that they know nothing.

Which begs the question why did he rule it out when they have very little do go on

JCX BXC

To clear up confusion, 4U9525 did not send out a mayday. ATC declared an emergency due to an unresponsive crew. Still a breaking story but the word "Hijack" is in my head. Another strong possibility is that it was a rogue crew member.

Could this be related to MH370? The flight path 4U9525 looks strange IMO, but its hard to tell.

eatmyshorts

smurfjed wrote: »

Actually i think that most of these people want their 5 minutes of fame. Do you know anything about the Arinc 629 bus in the B777 and the Primary Flight Computer disconnect switch?

I'd say about as much as I know about neurosurgery!

smurfjed

Another strong possibility is that it was a rouge crew member.

Wouldn't you consider that kind of insulting to the families at this stage?

Calina

smurfjed wrote: »

Wouldn't you consider that kind of insulting to the families at this stage?

TBH, I think the families of all the victims are probably finding the photographs of the wreckage harder to handle. I know I would in their position.

munchkin_utd

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Which begs the question why did he rule it out when they have very little do go on

to quote him exactly....

"Ein Technik-Problem, wie es kürzlich bei einer Lufthansa-Maschine aus derselben Airbus-Familie bekanntgeworden war, sei daher bei dem Unglücksflieger nicht zu erwarten."

which translates to ....
(due to software updates) "A technical problem, like was recently made public regarding a Lufthansa aircraft of the same airbus family, is therefore not to be expected with the doomed aircraft"

I don't know how to take a statement like that, from a spokesman for an airline running a heap of aging airbuses of the same model and vintage, configuration and maintentance regime.
From an airline who are first to raise questions about other airlines (ahem, Ryanair) when it comes to safety matters, so self serving propoganda regarding safety issues isnt new with them.

He is right to say that theres no reason to suspect that its the same fault, but jeepers, its a bit of a co-incidence

sjb25

Carnacalla wrote: »

To clear up confusion, 4U9525 did not send out a mayday. ATC declared an emergency due to an unresponsive crew. Still a breaking story but the word "Hijack" is in my head. Another strong possibility is that it was a rouge crew member.

Could this be related to MH370? The flight path 4U9525 looks strange IMO, but its hard to tell.

From flight radar on Facebook the flight followed the same flight path as previous flight apart from altitude wasn't strange

bronn

Carnacalla wrote: »

The flight path 4U9525 looks strange IMO, but its hard to tell.

Flightradar have put this up to show that the flight path is normal for 4U9525:

The flight path for today begins the same as the flight path for yesterday

Poor people.

Bob24

Footage showing the debris and the search team. Crazy :-/

NoelJ

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Completely different issue to what you were suggesting though, isn't it?

They are both instances of the AoA probes overriding the pilots and trying to kill everyone on board. The Airbus can't deal with getting bad data.

cnocbui

Carnacalla wrote: »

To clear up confusion, 4U9525 did not send out a mayday. ATC declared an emergency due to an unresponsive crew. Still a breaking story but the word "Hijack" is in my head. Another strong possibility is that it was a rouge crew member.

Could this be related to MH370? The flight path 4U9525 looks strange IMO, but its hard to tell.

A communist crew member?

flazio

Which control room would be in charge of the alpen airspace that the flight was operating in and is this available on live ATC ?

highlydebased

flazio wrote: »

Which control room would be in charge of the alpen airspace that the flight was operating in and is this available on live ATC ?

The sector in which it was flying would've been Marseille ACC- sadly one of the few not on LiveATC

One of the black boxes has been recovered according to French ministry

Gringo180

Some crazy theories being posted up in here holy jaysus.

martinsvi

flazio wrote: »

Which control room would be in charge of the alpen airspace that the flight was operating in and is this available on live ATC ?

it has to be Marseille FIR, Marseille Center, LFMM_CTR, there's no feed for it on LiveATC

flazio

Looking at the helicopter shots, I don't see any impact craters. Not wanting to feed conspiracies but could it have been an explosion?

Calina

flazio wrote: »

Looking at the helicopter shots, I don't see any impact craters. Not wanting to feed conspiracies but could it have been an explosion?

I don't think there would be any impact craters. The plane is going to be much, much softer than the rocks up there.

Cianmcliam

flazio wrote: »

Looking at the helicopter shots, I don't see any impact craters. Not wanting to feed conspiracies but could it have been an explosion?

I'd imagine there's little loose soil on a steep mountain slope like that, scree might slip back in after an impact too I guess.

Bob24

flazio wrote: »

Looking at the helicopter shots, I don't see any impact craters. Not wanting to feed conspiracies but could it have been an explosion?

Didn't some reports mention that the small size of the wreckage area would tend to indicate the plane didn't explode before hitting the ground?

Spanish Eyes

Well sadly the plane has crashed, seems all aboard are now dead. RIP.

I don't want the investigations to show pilot error or rogue pilots or whatever. I don't want hijack or bombs.

In fact I don't want anything for the sake of aviation and passengers. But that's not possible now. Something caused it, and if it turns out to be systems failure or the like, well we can learn from that for the future.

Hypoxia is looking likely to me. Maybe the oxygen masks for the FD didn't work, or couldn't be applied quickly enough. Don't know, but it's scary anyway no matter whether you are pax or professional. How and why does sudden decompression happen anyway? Systems?

Sad day for the families of all concerned. And a worrying day for all of those who fly these birds and those who take a plane regularly and never have a problem.

mayotom

flazio wrote: »

Which control room would be in charge of the alpen airspace that the flight was operating in and is this available on live ATC ?

I think its Weetabix.... The Area comes under Marseille FIR

cml387

I would not be putting too much into the lack of comms from the cockpit.

Aviate, navigate, communicate .

If they had a serious malfunction or structural issue they'd try to fly the aircraft and troubleshoot first.

murphaph

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Hypoxia is looking likely to me

I'd say it is unlikely, given what we currently know (which isn't much really).

Spanish Eyes

murphaph wrote: »

I'd say it is unlikely, given what we currently know (which isn't much really).

Well if not that, and they were awake and in control, why did they not divert to one of the many nearby airports instead of heading into the Alps?

Sorry, it's impossible not to speculate on events I know nothing about. But am interested just the same.

cml387

murphaph wrote: »

I'd say it is unlikely, given what we currently know (which isn't much really).

The problem with the hypoxia hypothesis is that in the case of Helios (and the Aer Lingus frighteningly similar incident some years previous to that) the plane was never properly pressurized from takeoff. In that case the onset was subtle and not noticed by the crew.

A sudden depressurisation at 38,000 is far from subtle. The crew would have been on oxygen immediately. So now you need depressurisation + a crew oxygen failure. It's possible but unlikely.

MoyVilla9

Why does people think hypoxia is the case? It wouldn't bring the plane down, the plane would just keep on flying until it ran out of fuel.

JCX BXC

RTE News's had a man on reporting Hypoxia as a likely cause.

Calina

MoyVilla9 wrote: »

Why does people think hypoxia is the case? It wouldn't bring the plane down, the plane would just keep on flying until it ran out of fuel.

The plane did also start descending and found a mountain in its way.

It is possible - and I am open to comment on this - that the pilots may have an hipoxia issue and also, there is some other technical issue with the plane causing it to reduce altitude.

Most accidents are not single cause accidents; they are a collection of events which on their own might be inocuous, or fixable, but which, altogether, cause a different and more catastrophic sequence of events.

I doubt there's a single point of failure here.

mickdw

MoyVilla9 wrote: »

Why does people think hypoxia is the case? It wouldn't bring the plane down, the plane would just keep on flying until it ran out of fuel.

Rapid decompression, crew would send plane into a dive to 12000 ft or so. I guess if the crew were suffering effects of this, it is possible that the aircraft was flown straight into the mountain instead of levelling off at safe height.