Germanwings A320 Crash

JCX BXC

Also, you should watch BA3. It oftens goes from London all the way up to Dublin then down to Shannon.

Van.Bosch

Carnacalla wrote: »

Will this spell an end for the brand "German Wings"? Id imagine Lufthansa will be very quick to rebrand it Eurowings or even something different.

That is planned anyway.

JCX BXC

Van.Bosch wrote: »

That is planned anyway.

I know, but its like 2018 or further along. Will this crash speed it up.

Spanish Eyes

martinsvi wrote: »

ATC have software that advises on potential conflicts, and aircraft need to be separated by height and distance anyway, combine that with TCAS and your likelihood of a mid-air collision is practically 0.

https://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/course_content.aspx?cID=40




this been said here many times before - definitely looks like a high speed - high energy impact, so not likely a stall. That's it, nothing else can be drawn out of these pictures. We don't know the size of the debris field, we don't know how far objects have travelled from each other - these details would give us much more information about the last seconds before the disaster

I did say the pics "may" throw some light on things. That's all.

It's early days yet I know. A Tragedy for all involved.

Easy for us to sit and comment all the same when not personally involved.

irishgeo

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I did say the pics "may" throw some light on things. That's all.

It's early days yet I know. A Tragedy for all involved.

Easy for us to sit and comment all the same when not personally involved.

looking at the pictures its carnage. i hate to be up on that mountain looking for 150 bodies.

Van.Bosch

Carnacalla wrote: »

I know, but its like 2018 or further along. Will this crash speed it up.

Autumn 2015

Tenger

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

I'm surprised by the debris field having such small pieces of wreckage if the plane crashed in to the ground intact. If you look at MH71 which was shot down there is much more recognizable plane parts despite the fact it would have been breaking up as it fell from the sky.

Impacting a mountainside at high speed has a different effect to mid air break up and impacting on (mostly) agricultural land.

CardinalJ

Does each of an aircrafts two black boxes record different parameters? Of do they have two with the same info to increase the chance of finding one intact?

BorneTobyWilde

Is this crash very strange?

JCX BXC

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Is this crash very strange?

Yes. Very.

I can't think of one solid theory for it.

Tenger

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Is this crash very strange?

Every aircraft loss is a mystery at first. The authorities will endeavour to get to the cause as quickly as they can. This tragic loss is 'strange' so far in that there is no explanation yet, no distress signals, no comms from the flight crew and no obvious reason for the descent and impact.

highly1111

My husband suggests that maybe the pilot believed that auto pilot was on when in fact, it was not??

I've no idea though. He had over 6000 flight hours.

BorneTobyWilde

No call for help from pilots , descends in a way that suggests it was flying ok, not out of control? Do we know that already that it flew all the way down in a controlled manner?

JCX BXC

highly1111 wrote: »

My husband suggests that maybe the pilot believed that auto pilot was on when in fact, it was not??

I've no idea though. He had over 6000 flight hours.

Very unlikely the pilot could reach 6,000ft without noticing.

BorneTobyWilde

Carnacalla wrote: »

Very unlikely the pilot could reach 6,000ft without noticing.

That would suggest something sinister is a distinct possibility .

ProfessorPlum

CardinalJ wrote: »

Does each of an aircrafts two black boxes record different parameters? Of do they have two with the same info to increase the chance of finding one intact?

One is the FDR Flight Data Recorder - it records all the technical parameters that enable the insvestigators to piece together the flight down to minute details. The other is the CVR Cockpit Voice Recorder - it records conversations in the cockpit and with ATC and cabin crew.

fr336

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

That would suggest something sinister is a distinct possibility .

Such as?

andy_g

Possible no as if something sinister happened a group would claim it by now.

kippy

CardinalJ wrote: »

Does each of an aircrafts two black boxes record different parameters? Of do they have two with the same info to increase the chance of finding one intact?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/black-box.htm
TLDR:
They do not record the same data, one is primarily for recording cockpit sounds and conversation, the other telemetry and system data.

Tenger

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

That would suggest something sinister is a distinct possibility .

We have already had 1 poster banned for conspiracy theories. Don't be the 2nd.

BorneTobyWilde

fr336 wrote: »

Such as?

I hate to speculate.

kippy

Been following this thread all day and I am a bit disappointed by some of the absolute off the wall stuff getting speculated upon.

Most of the conspiracy theory type stuff pops up almost every time there is an incident nowadays and I cannot understand how people jump to the most ridiculous conclusions when history tells us that the vast majority of incidents are explainable and generally caused by a similar types of factors.

I have to admit I watch a lot of Aircrash Investigation and it is worth watching.

What I have learned from it is:
The thoroughness of the investigation is unparalleled no matter what the circumstances.
The reasons behind an incident are usually found and steps put in place to stop it happening again.
Pretty much all of the incidents I've seen are explainable.
It may take a while but the answers come out in the end.


RIP today to all that were lost, hopefully the reasoning behind what happens will come out, but it may take a while.

fr336

andy_g wrote: »

Possible no as if something sinister happened a group would claim it by now.

I understand practically and security wise, and morally and whatever else I suppose too, we should be open to these things but jeez why so much more prominence given if there's a terrorist link to things that happen like this? Either way people are dead and aren't coming back. Hyping about terrorism and the like devalues the central event imo.

JCX BXC

It was almost definitely not a terriost attack, no group claiming responsibility and it would have usually crashed into a populated area in that case.

unkel

highly1111 wrote: »

maybe the pilot believed that auto pilot was on when in fact, it was not??

That doesn't make much sense. See post #35 from Tabnabs.



You can see that the angle of descent is steeper than the angle of descent. You don't need to be a pilot or have any instruments just to feel that. Every person on board would just feel that the plane is descending rapidly

And the steep decent was sustained for a full 10 minutes. Even completely in the dark with zero instruments any captain / officer would know that on their flight path, that would roughly take them down from cruising altitude right down to the ground (Alps) (see the picture, from 38000 to 8000ft in 10 minutes)

My guess (or is it hope) is that something catastrophic happened at cruising altitude

JCX BXC

What could cause such a steep rate of decent? Nosedive? Complete engine flameout?

irishgeo

Carnacalla wrote: »

It was almost definitely not a terrorist attack, no group claiming responsibility and it would have usually crashed into a populated area in that case.

yeah just like united 93 did :rolleyes:

JCX BXC

irishgeo wrote: »

yeah just like united 93 did :rolleyes:

Ah they knew that was a terriost attack. It had a clear motive and is so different to this crash.

irishgeo

the puzzling thing is that nothing seems to been done to stop the descent or call in any problem?

JCX BXC

I have a few questions. Could people help with the answers?

*When were ATC last talking to 4U9252?
Was it during the decent?

*Did the plane level at 6,800ft or is that when it crashed?

*Is hypoxia a possible cause or just some random theory?

billie1b

Carnacalla wrote: »

What could cause such a steep rate of decent? Nosedive? Complete engine flameout?

In all honesty it wasn't that steep or nosedive angle, i've seen aircraft leaving their cruise and descending at that rate to get onto the approach in DUB

JCX BXC

billie1b wrote: »

In all honesty it wasn't that steep or nosedive angle, i've seen aircraft leaving their cruise and descending at that rate to get onto the approach in DUB

I realise that. But it was more than your average Joe decent.

mickdw

unkel wrote: »

That doesn't make much sense. See post #35 from Tabnabs.



You can see that the angle of descent is steeper than the angle of descent. You don't need to be a pilot or have any instruments just to feel that. Every person on board would just feel that the plane is descending rapidly

And the steep decent was sustained for a full 10 minutes. Even completely in the dark with zero instruments any captain / officer would know that on their flight path, that would roughly take them down from cruising altitude right down to the ground (Alps) (see the picture, from 38000 to 8000ft in 10 minutes)

My guess (or is it hope) is that something catastrophic happened at cruising altitude

I wouldnt agree with that.
That graph makes its look much more drastic than it would have been. Remember for 99 percent of the climb phase, the aircraft would be pretty level, similarly, dropping from 38000 to 6000 ft over 8 to 10 mins wouldn't require a sharp nose down at all. I believe if there was a situation where the autopilot was getting faulty info and the aircraft was being kept reasonably level, it may not be at all noticeable that it was dropping until they were looking into the mountains. Sure airspeed and throttle settings would highlight that airspeed was being maintained at near idle but if you are unsure of which instruments are telling the truth and perhaps in foggy conditions, things get tricky.

fr336

irishgeo wrote: »

yeah just like united 93 did :rolleyes:

Shot down! Maybe.

Captain Chaos

I think the speed remaining fairly steady during the "rapid" decent indicates that it was at least somewhat controlled or in control by either autopilot or the pilots. But is the speed on the graph indicated or true?

imurdaddy

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

That would suggest something sinister is a distinct possibility .

Well in ok weather in daylight with visual reference it would be impossible not to know your descending! Im not up to speed with the weather at the time but I looked good and if thats the case good visibility, so unlikely to have AP just fly into the mountains and not noticed!

Its like the just reached cruise and started the descent straight off, but someone was controlling the throttle to keep decent speed steady?

But anything is possible!

God rest there souls.

JCX BXC

Captain Chaos wrote: »

But is the speed on the graph indicated or true?

That's a golden thought. The flight crew may not be seeing the same speed as us.
OR
The flight crew may have had the same details as us but it may not have actually being true.

unkel

mickdw wrote: »

I wouldnt agree with that...wouldn't require a sharp nose down at all.

You're missing my point. I wasn't suggesting for a moment that there was a sharp nose dive. Just a significant descending angle (similar to approach) and prolonged for a long time (these are facts you can read directly from the graph). Any pilot would have just felt something was very amiss here (without needing any visibility or any instruments for that). I'm sure most people on the plane were aware of this too.

If they were concious, the pilots must have noticed. From that logic, they either couldn't control it or they weren't concious / alive.

cembellines

CardinalJ wrote:

Does each of an aircrafts two black boxes record different parameters? Of do they have two with the same info to increase the chance of finding one intact?

Ive got the same question

eatmyshorts

6800 ft equals 7000ft corrected for the local Marseille QNH.
Therefore if 7000 was set in the altitude window, and the aircraft levelled off at that, it would be approx 6800 ft altitude.

The first thing in starting a rapid descent is to set a lower altitude in the FCU.

JCX BXC

eatmyshorts wrote: »

6800 ft equals 7000ft corrected for the local Marseille QNH.
Therefore if 7000 was set in the altitude window, and the aircraft levelled off at that, it would be approx 6800 ft altitude.

The first thing in starting a rapid descent is to set a lower altitude in the FCU.

Can you explain that in layman's terms?

Irish Steve

To bring some specifics into this, the scenario that seems to be the closest fit to what's happened is a sudden dramatic loss of cabin pressure.

The factor that's significant is that at FL380, the time of useful consciousness for a fit crew is between 15 and 30 SECONDS, so the absolute critical thing in the event of a depressurisation is to get the Oxygen mask on before trying to do ANYTHING else, as if you don't, you may not be capable of doing anything else anyway.

The appearance of the profile is that the aircraft was put into a rapid descent but if for some reason the crew didn't get on to oxygen quickly enough, they may not have been able to complete the changes needed to make that descent safe. 6800 Ft is below the altitude that would normally be set for descent, 10,000 is normally regarded as being a safe level without supplementary oxygen, so that will be a significant investigation factor.

In the same vein, knowing that they were heading towards hostile terrain, a course reversal would have been appropriate, as that would have allowed descent to sea level without issues, but a change of transponder to 7700 before making that change would be the normal procedure.

The critical factor is that 15 to 30 seconds. You have to factor in the time for recognition of what's happened, if it was a sudden decompression, then there would have been some confusion over what happened, and that would have eaten into the very short time available. Pressurisation failure can't be fully practised in a simulator, as it's at (or relatively close to ) sea level, so there is not the hypoxia issues that will affect performance in the real event.

While it shouldn't have happened, there may have been some form of technical issue with the crew oxygen that meant it didn't work correctly, so they got their masks on, then started dealing with the issue, by starting an emergency descent, and were unable to carry on dealing with it because they didn't get the oxygen they would have needed to continue to function. If they passed out, then the aircraft would very happily have continued doing whatever they had set it up to do, the computers don't need oxygen.

The debris field is relatively small, so it would seem that the ground contact was what broke the airframe. Whatever happened was quick, in that it seems that there was no change in status (an emergency squawk, or Mayday radio call), but the level flight mode was changed in a stable way, as it seems to have been stable all the way down, which suggests a clear input from the flight crew.

The flight data recorder should reveal a lot of what happened in this scenario, as should the cockpit voice recorder, as it will have "supporting sounds" that will give the investigators a lot of background clues in terms of "noises" that are not related to conversation, but could be related to incidents or events on or close to the flight deck.

A word of caution, after the recent ATR incident in Taiwan, where information gathered from the FDR was released within a few days of the accident, it is very unusual for information gathered from a flight data recorder (or cockpit voice recorder) to be issued with any urgency, the in depth analysis of the FDR is normally not fully revealed until the final report, which could take several years to be produced, and the CVR data is not normally revealed at all. So, while there may be interim report(s), with some specific details, especially if there is an issue that affects all models of Airbus and requires changes by the manufacturer, or changes in procedure by the airlines, the specifics of this crash are unlikely to be fully revealed for some considerable time.

And NO, this is not a repeat of the AF447 type of incident, 447 was in a nose high stall all the way down, this flight was in a high speed stable controlled descent all the way down. The question that will have to be answered very urgently is was the crew still in control, or did they become passengers shortly after the incident started, with no further contribution made by them to the eventual tragic outcome.

Rayne Wooney

Would it not have been obvious to everyone on the plane that something was wrong? Assuming they were all conscious

Irish Steve

Carnacalla wrote: »

Can you explain that in layman's terms?

There is a window on the autopilot that the non flying pilot sets the altitude, or flight level that has been approved by Air traffic control, and the Pilot flying will then "accept" that setting, and activate it, and the aircraft then responds accordingly.

Air pressure varies on a minute by minute basis, depending on where you are on the face of the globe, and what the local weather is doing. To ensure that flights are correctly separated vertically, the standard procedure is that above a determined altitude, the sub scale setting of the altimeter is changed to use a "standard" pressure, and all flights operating above the transition level/altitude use this standard pressure, and as the actual height above the ground is not now involved, when using standard pressure, the height indicated is referred to as a flight level.


In the same vein, there is a pressure setting used for an area, (such as the Dublin area) which is the QNH pressure setting, which ensures that an aircraft operating anywhere in the Dublin Flight information region will have a minimum separation from terrain when operating using the QNH setting on the altimeter. It is (not a 100% accurate definition, but near enough) the sub scale setting that allows the altimeter to indicate the height of the aircraft above sea level. The altimeter sub scale is set to QNH when operating below the transition level, and is the setting used during the take off and landing phase of a flight.

And for what it's worth, the height indicated on sites such as Flightradar 24 are based on the Flight level system, so close to the ground, if the actual pressure is significantly different from the "standard" pressure (1013 Mb or HP), there will be a significant difference in the figure reported.

The only time the altiimeter shows the actual height above the (local) ground is if the aircraft is flying using the QFE pressure setting on the sub scale, which is the setting needed for the altimeter to indicate 0 when on the ground at the airfield where the setting relates to.

Hope that helps, it's a complex area of flight operations.

smurfjed

is it possible that the ILS locked onto some beacon in the alps/ outside the mountains?

Nope as range is only good for about 18 miles.

kub

Morning Ireland just got a report saying that the recovered black boxes are damaged

kippy

kub wrote: »

Morning Ireland just got a report saying that the recovered black boxes are damaged

This is the kinda stuff that annoys me again about 24 7 news. There always has to be some thing new about a story.
Of course they are damaged.....one would expect them to be. But it is much too early to determine if that damage will effect the data retrieval.

tharmor

Isn't the 2 year period to retrieve blackbox information too long ? They should be able to retrieve it quickly ?

Any ideas why it takes so long??

irishgeo

tharmor wrote: »

Isn't the 2 year period to retrieve blackbox information too long ? They should be able to retrieve it quickly ?

Any ideas why it takes so long??

On a plane that old its going to be a tape that tbe data is recording on. If the tape is physically damaged.it might need lots of work to get some data off.

RecordStraight

Mention of a door needing repair before takeoff on Morning Ireland there. Might lend some weight to the hypoxia argument.