This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Dismiss
Back to Squawk list

Germanwings A320 Crashes in Southern France

提交时间:
 
An Airbus plane operated by Lufthansa's Germanwings budget airline crashed in southern France on Tuesday en route from Barcelona to Duesseldorf, police and aviation officials said. (www.reuters.com) 更多...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


akayemm
Sad , very sad . Let's see what the black box says ?
May the souls R I P
preacher1
preacher1 3
Well, there are several key questions that seem to be surfacing and they are not really speculation. While a little aggressive, the rate of descent was not anything to get excited about as a cause, per se. It appears controlled hence CFIT. The question there is why? A comparison to an L-1011 crash in Florida back in the 70's has been drawn. In that case, all 3 in the cockpit got involved trying to handle a gear problem, failed to notice that autopilot had kicked off and that they were losing altitude. By the time it was noticed, it was too late to recover. The other thing noted is that there was no impact fire and explosion. CFIT and lack of fire are not really speculation. The boxes will tell us why.
FrankHarvey
Frank Harvey 1
But what was in Control of the FIT, computer/autopilot or humans ?
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
The FDR will have to answer that question... I hope that they find the memory card...
wopri
According to Agence France Presse the voice recorder did give usable information:
(text in French)

http://www.lapresse.ca/international/europe/201503/25/01-4855321-vol-4u9525-des-donnees-extraites-de-la-premiere-boite-noire.php
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
Good deal.. the last I heard it was damaged too badly.. >Glad they got some info.
allench1
allench1 1
Wayne I just now have info that the cockpit recorder had been reviewed and they have ruled out decompression, also no communication from either pilot was heard!
allench1
allench1 1
Wayne new info: one of the pilots, probably the captain was locked out of the cockpit and was heard banging on the door. good news for the 320 and terrorist, bad news for the world.
preacher1
preacher1 2
I had heard that this morning. So far, media is saying it's a leak and they are waiting on officialdom, but generally where there is smoke there is fire.
preacher1
preacher1 1
That leak is starting to become a flood. By the time officialdom gets around to confirming it, it will be old news. If it turns out to be suicide, all this will disappear PDQ. If something else, speculation will run a pretty good while.
allench1
allench1 0
Wayne just talked to john in London he heard direct from thief insider that there were voices but not from the crew and that they were believed to be incapacitated.
wopri
Apparently the aircraft did a lot of short flights in its 24 years of service, with an average of 5.3 flights per day. That might have caused structural problems, but, as you say, the black boxes will tell the story.
preacher1
preacher1 3
This series and the 737's are short flight, multi hop experts. That is actually what they are made for.
wopri
Wasn't there something several years about an aircraft used for short hops in Hawaii that had developed structural problems? I remember vaguely something about a huge hole.
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
There problem was a high number of cycles and low time in a corrosion rich environment. The main and biggest problem with that particular incident was differential metals corrosion and that flight alone is why we have the Aging Aircraft Program...
Zeman340
Jose Fonseca 1
Aircraft are made after several hours and cycles a big maintenance inspection. Even X-ray are made in its structure. Corrosion are treated. Everything is like "new".
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Yes and no... Once an a/c reaches a certain number of cycles then they can no longer fly in the US. It is different for different aircraft.. I know some a/c time out after 80,000 hours or 80,000 cycles, which ever comes first.
akayemm
A technical/engineering necessity followed up by legal compulsion . For safety sake ! Right ?
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
You could say that... It is to prevent a similar fate of "Aloha Airlines Flight 243" where they blew their top... These planes can only be pressurized and depressurized so many times before they pop... Just like a balloon... It is fact that stretching the metal continually over time it is going to eventually get weaker and blow its top so to speak... When this happens, very rarely is there a good ending... That is today why we have an "Aging Aircraft Program"
bentwing60
bentwing60 1
Think about it Sparkie, the rivets were designed for tension, not shear! All the stretchy, contracty stuff causes more shear than tension stress on the rivets. When was the last time one didn't fail at a rivet line?
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Actually there are both types Shear and Tension. Most however are shear. Depends on the application.
birtsjoe
Joe Birts 1
Aloha Airlines. Section peeled off due to metal fatigue and cracks; Craft survived but I believe a Flight Attendant was literally sucked out of the aircraft.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Yeah, it was an Aloha Air Boeing 737. Turns out, I think it was way above recommended cycle count. Here is what Wiki says about that. There is more that you can just Google.

"While the airframe had only accumulated 35,496 flight hours prior to the accident, those hours were over 89,680 flight cycles (a flight cycle is defined as a takeoff and a landing), owing to its use on short flights.[1]"
akayemm
Dear friend , please allow some space for my quarter cent . Like you wrote about A320 earlier also using the word "sturdy" . We all know and understand that this simple but important word is to be use in a relative way . A/C 380/747 are as sturdy as 320/727 ! But we all know the difference of this "sturdiness" . Long haul A/C if put on continuous hopping flight or if hopping type A/C are put on long haul with continuous hops both may shorten their lives . Reasons are better known to and better understood by you all , past masters of your subject . And some of you have reiterated some of these factors also so vividly and so candidly . I hail you all .
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, in generalities, I see where you are coming from. In reality, AC are certified for hours as well as cycle count(landings/takeoff is a cycle) and in that respect, it makes no difference on long or short haul. The U.S. has put an upper limit now on older aircraft, known as the Aging Aircraft Act. I have attached a link for you and we can go from there.

http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/books-online/AgingAircraftSafetyAct.pdf
gowest84
Phil Springer 7
http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2014_0266_E.pdf/EAD_2014-0266-E_1

I think this link might be a strong clue. There was an A321 that experienced something similar but was able to pull out and land safely. The cause in that airplane and the reason for this EASA AD was the Angle of Attack tubes froze up giving the airplane false information.

Obviously, there are no concrete facts to suggest this airplane experienced the same issues as the one in November, but there are some similarities.

I am no expert in any of this, but based on what was published and a similar event happened within the last 6 month, this seems to me a pathway to go down.
SWEATINTHSWAMP
How did the crew on that A-321 overcome the problem?
narit01
Ian Narita 1
Interesting. According to Flight Aware tracking logs the aircraft made a left turn from a heading of. 43° to 26° on crossing the Mediterranean coast. At about that time the aircraft began its descent.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I haven't looked at it myself but somewhere on here someone has said that they did and that was pretty well standard, as that most of the previous flights did the same. I think it is just coincidental that it came about the same time.
mariofer
mariofer 1
We need to go back to hydraulic assisted cables and pulleys before HAL has a REALLY bad day. Maybe he already did on this one.
FrankHarvey
Frank Harvey 2
HAL already seems part way there, look at Tony Smith's post below (from about 15 hours earlier than this post) on the override procedure for humans to regain control. Simple in a simulator when you know how but what about in a gale swirling around a locked, depressurizing cockpit when your window just busted out and the FO is bleeding all over you from being hit in the head by debris.

Its not just in aviation; some years ago one of the US Navy's latest anti-aircraft cruisers, which is supposed to protect an entire aircraft carrier battle group, had to be towed back to Norfolk when the engines quit and refused to restart. The cold water intake sensor had broken and in the absence of a cooling water signal the computer had decided that they couldn't run the engines without cooling else they might be damaged. The actual cooling system was functioning properly, only a sensor was down, but there was no way to override the computer. In a combat situation the group would have lost its primary AA protection. I think there was also a similar case for a cruise ship full of kids off the coast of Alaska or Washington State in a storm a few years ago, which left the ship rolling around in bad conditions, and the Chief Engineer having to rip out wiring to bypass the computer, but I can't remember the exact details of that one.

We need to build in simple bypasses or overrides to anything controlled by silicon, and with the hydraulics you suggest run a redundant system through the ceiling (L-1011) and not just the floor (DC10).
bentwing60
bentwing60 1
They were conscious.
boettcherkarin
Schlichtweg Trauer für alle Opfer dieses Fluges, Mittgefühl für alle Angehörige, aber auch Mittgefühl gegenüber den Mittarbeitern von Garmanwings - sprachlos über die Tatsache und Machtlosigkeit gegenüber dieser Tragödie in den Alpen - Hoffnung auf volle Aufklärung -

ein Schreckenstag für mich als Fan der Luftfahrt - in Trauer Mathias Böttcher
preacher1
preacher1 8
Google translate: Simply sorrow for all the victims of this flight , Mitt feeling for all members , but also mid- feeling towards the mid workers of Garmanwings - speechless about the fact and powerlessness over this tragedy in the Alps - Hope for full enlightenment -

a dreadful day for me as a fan of aviation - in mourning Mathias Böttcher
Shenandoah
David Webb 13
Three comments:

1.The sad, but possible truth to the Germanwings fiasco is that even if the Captain had been able to bash his way back into the cockpit of that A-320 he may not have been able to save the airplane.

If the Airbus "computer" decided the Captain was, let's say, commanding a three G pullup to clear the mountain tops it would not have let him do it and the aircraft would have impacted the top of the mountain instead of the valley mountain side.

A Boeing, on the other hand, would have been over-G'd with a three G pullup, a wing spar might have been bent and the aircraft would certainly have required an inspection, but the Captain would have had complete control of the aircraft instead of some "computer" and 150 lives may have been spared.

2. That Germanwings co-pilot would NEVER have been hired by any US carrier, period. Too little experience, "experience" that quite possibly would have weeded him out of the gene pool way before he even had an opportunity to apply for an airline job.

3. In my thirty-seven year airline career I flew with plenty of guys who were probably "clinically depressed." Guys going through divorce, guys with wives with cancer, guys with kids with severe drug problems or in jail for one thing or another, married guys whose girlfriends were pregnant. You name it. Airline pilots are no different than any other cross section of professions.

The huge difference was that those guys knew how to separate their personal lives from their professional lives.

They always few the jet.
gearup328
Peter Steitz 6
Dave, Dave, Dave, you're my man. Your #3 is right on. Don't bring your personal life into the cockpit. You have to "compartmentalize" and leave it at home. One scenario I have used in class during CRM (I have taught recurrent and newbys) is......you're on a 4 day trip. On the second day, your spouse tells you that she's filing for divorce. What do you do? I actually relished in my flying because it took me out of the mundane world and into a place that I loved. I retired with 14000 hours of love and hate but I really loved every minute. Fly the jet! It's a vacation sometimes.
bentwing60
bentwing60 4
Most cogent assessment of the 300 some odd on this thread, and I concur with Peter on the love hate thing after 35 aviating years, but one thing I will tell you that I believe is, They don't make em like they used to, and I ain't talking about the equipment!
gearup328
Peter Steitz 6
bentwing60, this is a generation of teach me quick. Just tell me what I need to know and make me a pilot. Cram and pass the FAA exam and presto you're a pilot. I don't think so.
TWA55
TWA55 5
Yup, today, fly a 172 for few hours, get sim training and next thing you know your flying as a co-pilot on a complex jet, makes sense to me. There is no substitute for experience, and w/ or w/out a mental problem, this guy as w/ many others does not belong in a complex jet w/ his obvious lack of experience. Still in shock
Shenandoah
David Webb 1
Peter, Bentwing and Vince,

Foreign carriers, with the possible exceptions of NO ONE, do not have the quality of pilots that US carriers have. They simply do not have a source for them and with the surge of airline flying this problem will get more critical.

They do not have extensive Air Forces, Navies or Armies with pilots who then go the airlines to fly. They do not have charter operators, commuter carriers or any of the other myriad of other means by which pilots in the US gain the experience to advance to the cockpits of major carriers.

The philosophy of Airbus (and it was a conscious, corporate decision), therefore, was to design their airplanes to cater to these very low time, inexperienced pilots. The Bus is meant to be flown on autopilot -- as much as possible. Therefore, these low time pilots, then, never gain any real stick and rudder time throughout their careers unless they fly on the outside -- which is very expensive due to the high price of fuel. That's why many fly gliders...better than nothing, I guess.

They get hired by the guys who trained them and then, theoretically, get OJT while in the right seat being tutored by a Captain (who came from the same background) who may, or may not be capable of mentoring a neophyte pilot. My guess is that a lot of them are simply "gear raisers and radio operators."

In the US, many new airline pilots (as well as many not-so-new pilots) are still flying in the Air Guard or Reserve and sharpening their skills outside of airline flying. Many fly on their days off in other aircraft sharpening their skills. I flew F-84F's and F-100C's in the Guard for a number of years early in my airline career and built and flew a bi-winged aerobatic plane to hone those stick and rudder skills. None of this is available to foreign pilots, or only available to a very, very few.

With the retirement of older pilots -- who always had "hand flying" experience due to the fact that aircraft were not designed during their days to be computer dependent -- we are running into a new generation of pilots (this is now occurring in the US as well) who really have little stick and rudder experience. That may be all well and good when things go the way they should. But, when it turns pear-shaped and a pilot has to rely on basic flying skills he has BIG problems.

Also, years of experience prior to gaining a seat at a major carrier exposes a pilot to peer and superior review and weeds out the weak dicks along the way, either by natural attrition or simply being fired due to any number of causes, ie. lack of ability, instability or the greatest equalizer of all -- impact with the ground, etc.

This self policing situation generally does not exist in other countries.

In addition, their training slots and subsequent airline jobs, in many cases, go to the son's of the "privileged" classes, the son's of the wealthy, the son's of the "connected." Kids who really have, generally speaking, no concept of what it is to work and sacrifice for anything; entitled kids who believe they are "owed" the job.

Their whole system is fraught with failure from their pilot training to their airplanes...but, welcome to the new world of foreign airline flying.

So what, as a passenger do you do to insure survivability?

1. Never fly on an Airbus unless you have absolutely no other choice.
2. Never fly on a foreign carrier unless you have absolutely no other choice.
FrankHarvey
Frank Harvey 6
Mr Webb,

While I have some sympathy with your perspective on the Airbus, I totally disagree with a couple of your statements :

1. "That's why many fly gliders...better than nothing, I guess."

Please don't disparage glider pilots. British and German glider pilots have to learn a lot more about all aspects of aviation than US powered-flight pilots. Glider pilots don't have an engine to climb them out of trouble and when they run out of lift they have to land. So they have to be much more situationally, and locationally aware during all stages of flight. One example is take-off emergencies : it had been my experience that cable breaks on winch launches were far more common than powered-flight engine failures (which I've never experienced). From the take-off roll onwards glider pilots have to be planning where and how to put it down safely, and on a winch take off and climb, its from a nose high attitude part way down the runway. Weather knowledge and awareness is far more critical, gliders can't just turn around and head the other way. The only unsafe glider operations I've witnessed have been towed operations in the USA. One particularly dangerous US tow pilot started his roll on the grass beside the runway where I was just about to flare a Warrior. I had called position on unicom thoughout the pattern, including a direct reference to "tow pilot at New Garden", but he was not listening to the radio and the American wingholder had never been instructed in his responsibilities.

It was my experience that glider clubs in the UK were frequently populated by relatively unwealthy but extremely knowledgeable enthusiasts who spent all day on the field sharing the work on the winch operation so that they could get a few launches. Many Americans just show up and pay a tow pilot.

I witnessed some "professional" US pilots who didn't even learn the rules where they were operating. In the Persian Gulf in the late 1970s some TWA pilots were not aware there was no night VFR and would argue with ATC when their call to cancel their flight plan was denied.

2. You said "Never fly on a foreign carrier unless you have absolutely no other choice".

It has been my experience that British Airways flight and cabin crew are far more professional, and adhere much more rigidly to safe practices, than some US airline personnel. In one case I was a pax on a Northwest 727 from KMSP to KFAR where the stews were clustered together at the rear, chatting, all the way from pushback to takeoff roll, not checking seatbelts and completely ignoring the PA, including the instruction to "prepare for takeoff". As the roll started a couple of them frantically ran through the cabin slamming the overhead bin doors. We were airborne before they got to their seats. While some BA flight and cabin staff may have appeared somewhat arrogant I have never seen them display unprofessional or dangerous behavior.

Whenever possible I choose to fly BA over any US carrier.

I will withhold my perspectives on the demonstrated incompetence of (some) US National Guard pilots, but they do seem to periodically shoot up their own Marines, and allied ground forces, strafe a column of tractors pulling refugees on trailers because they "resembled BTRs", shoot down a Blackhawk they positively identified as a Hind, and even discard an A10 canopy while reaching for their sunglasses.

What was that about glass houses ?

As someone else says...Just sayin'
delta97
Cole Parsons 2
Going off on that tangent, I think that as far as passenger experience quality goes, foreign airlines do it best. In the United States, airlines are too concerned with making a large profit, and as long as they are able to keep a pretty consistent monopoly on the market, they will continue to do whatever they please.

This being said, U.S. airlines certainly do have a superior flight record comparatively to international carriers. This is due to many things, but mainly because the airline/aviation infrastructure in the U.S. has been around longer, and therefore, has had time to adjust to what government officials feel are the best, safest operating standards. The whole "two crew members in the cockpit at all times" thing has been around since at least 9/11 in the US, but in Europe, there hasn't really been a strong motivation to implement this policy until now. Hopefully, airlines in Europe will catch onto the policies in the United States that allow it to consistently come out on top for airline safety, having the least amount of air-to-air incidents, and the most rigorous application process for becoming certified to operate on the flight deck.

Whenever they do, if they do, switch over to U.S. styled policy-making, hopefully it won't have a lasting impact on their impeccable customer experience. :)

RIP to those who passed away in the accident, and good luck to them as they move on to the next hurdle of the universe.
Shenandoah
David Webb 0
Had an interesting conversation today with a young guy I met at the cigar store I own. He is thirty four years old and just hired on with Delta Airlines.

Fifteen years ago he joined the local Air Guard unit and was a wrench on the F-16's here while he completed his education. Ten years ago he went to USAF pilot training through the ANG program but with another Air Guard unit flying KC 135's.

The past ten years he has been flying the KC-135 all over the earth AND flying a Bombardier Global Express for a private family out of Chicago -- again all over the world.

You could not find a more qualified airline new hire -- remember, he is thirty four years old.

He said that all the majors were averaging 70-75% ex-military pilots in their new hire programs and the rest were coming from regionals with years of experience.

When I hired on in '66, 100% of my new hire class was ex-military.

Absolutely no one would have the balls to show up at any US carrier today with two hundred and fifty hours of flying time and expect to be shown anything but the door.

As for sailplane experience? I would imaging that would be a bit like going to bed with a hooker; fun while your are doing it, but not something you would want to tell your friends about.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Keep in mind that Scully of USAir had Float Plane and Glider experience.... It sure paid off in the Hudson !!
Shenandoah
David Webb 0
Sparkie,

Not to in any way diminish the accomplishments of Sully and his event. But, I seriously doubt that any competent airline pilot would have anything other than the same result. The "float plane and glider experience" was not an issue.

After all there was really no other real alternative but to land in the river.

I instructed, during my thirty seven year career, as a pilot check airman and simulator instructor (among other things like FAA designee, etc), hundreds of pilots for my airline. One of the exercises I always gave them was to snap shot them in a simulator to a position 100 miles east of LAX at 31,000 in VFR conditions and shut down their engines (unable to restart) and tell them to land at LAX, any runway, their choice.

I never had one man fail the exercise, ever. Were they all pretty? No, but they were all survivable and stopped on the runway.

LAX runways are 200 feet wide and roughly 10,000 feet long (don't remember exactly). The Hudson river was five miles long at that point and a half mile wide, albeit wet. Rescue craft were there in minutes.

Any of the men I trained, with or without glider experience, should have been able to do the same thing.

Airliners are not gliders with glide ratios of 40 to 1, but they will glide when slowed to their best lift/drag speed a long, long way. The secret is the speed and even that can be played with to the pilot's advantage depending on conditions.
preacher1
preacher1 2
David, that may very well be so as we all know that normally a plane, contrary to popular opinion, just does not fall out of the sky when unpowered. That said, Sully himself gave credit to that experience being able to help him land as he did.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Very true, and also other pilots in a simulator were unable to make that landing and survive it.
Shenandoah
David Webb 1
??? Where did you hear or read this?

Show me a link or substantiate your claim.

I know some gamers came out with a simulation online where people could try to land on the Hudson and some people succeeded and some failed. But, I have never heard of any test situation of real pilots in a real simulator trying to duplicate Sully's landing and fail, or otherwise.
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
That subject has been discussed in a number of forums. That it has not come to your attention yet in no way detracts from that.

A quick google search "pilots fail Simulation of hudson airbus landing" found the following in short order.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703612804575222482042335978
http://www.wired.com/2010/05/ntsb-makes-recommendations-after-miracle-on-the-hudson-investigation/

The first is interesting that pilots expecting the scenario did a successful RTB. As they say, the first one is genius, the rest are engineeering.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
I do not know where this statement was, but I know that USAir ran pilots through this scenerio and none got it.
waterfall925
I believe we Americans can safely (generally) differentiate between British airmanship and that which is found in Germany. Like US carriers, British carriers have not suffered an accident in some time. While Lufthansa had a sterling reputation until now, Mr Webb is correct that the ab initio aspect of Lufthansa, followed by transition into line work, does result in some experiential gaps in pilot portfolios. Mr harvey makes Mr Webb's point in that many UK pilots, himself included, do have American experience, which , because of its subjection of pilots to a rich ( and, yes, sometimes dangerous) variety of experiences which does produce a far more versatile pilot than mere ratings can provide.

However, i stand with Mr Webb in that it cannot be denied that foreign cArriers outside of the English-speaking world simply do not have the safety record recently that US-UK-Canadian-Australian-New Zealand-South African operations have. As for the United States, yes, the seats are too small, the cabin crew sometimes giggles and gossips, and you get a soda, but---when it's 400 feet and 1/2 in Denver in blowing snow, put me in the back of one of those regional jets any time, because you can be sure that those airmen ( and women)---- who fly them for nothing and live from crash pad to crash pad---damn well know what they are doing and will get you there safe and sound
Shenandoah
David Webb -1
Mr. Harvey,

1. My intention was not to disparage gliders and I apologize if I offended your sensitive nature on that subject. My point was that sailplane flying was better than no flying...I guess.

2. Sorry, but I must disagree with your BA statement. BA has the same problem as all other foreign carriers -- no pool of qualified new hires. So they also have ab initio programs that take people from zero to a couple of hundred hours and put them in the right seat of a jet transport and left to be "trained" by the Captains they fly with. This is no different than Germanwings.

Also, I never mentioned anything about "professionalism" with foreign carriers. Many of them are very professional. Professionalism, however, does not equate to "proficiently."

Your anecdotal example of a flight on Northwest means nothing, really, and you are talking about Flight Attendants, not pilots. I have ridden in the jumpseats of BA 767 and 777 cockpits and can tell you that their cockpit crews are nothing to write home about.

As for the competence of "some US National (sic) Guard pilots" it is obvious that you understand nothing about war in regards to how it is fought from the cockpit of a fighter. Mistakes are unfortunate, but they have always been a thread thinly woven in the tapestry of battle. At least the US is fighting, something I see little of from our "great ally," Britain.

What you should worry about is your country and its obvious bend on self destruction in regards to the Muslim problem you have internally. There is no doubt, sir, why Britain lost its empire...
gearup328
Peter Steitz 3
I would like to see this discussion stick to the piloting of modern jets. However, it now has sunk into the political. I guess, now days this can be expected. When I was in USAF flight school, I had two classmates who were Iranian. We trained them in our Air Force. In Vietnam, I flew alongside Australians. This Germanwings event could have occurred right here in the US. Where do we draw the line? I flew with crews where I wondered if we should be here today. However, I could not question and then judge until I really saw something I could prove. They were all "qualified" and "certified" to fly. Were they really? Actually, was I?
waterfall925
not really
waterfall925
Great Points Mr Webb!

1. Gliders have little utility and are not that useful as a primer to powered flight, except in the matter of the selection of a suitable landing area in the event of an engine failure. However, with its exagerrated glide ratio, a glider does not duplicate the gliding performance of a light general aviation aircraft

2. i've learned something...i had always supposed that BA flight crews were among the very best in regard to proficiency...I do think it's interesting that most foreigners cannot differentiate between 'professionalism" and 'proficiency' with regard to the quality of a pilot's operations.

3. While I am sure that RAF crews would love to be more actively in the fray, Europeans generally and european politicians especially, want America to do their fighting for them, while they tut-tut America as the land of the gun-toting Cowboy, which they have of course risen above...and I couldn't agree more about their Mslim problem...Mr Obama joins them, unfortunately, in his inability to see Radical Islam as trhe defining challenge to Western Civilization that it is and has been for centuries.
alastairp
Al Palmer 2
While everyone is entitled to their opinion, I take issue with your third statement. I understood WWII, in particular, was fought as an allied effort. Am I mistaken, but didn't the RAF hold back the enemy advance under Churchill's courageous leadership during the Battle of Britain when she stood alone, using home built Spitfires and Hurricane aircraft?
As someone mentioned above, Just sayin'...
waterfall925
World War II was then...modern European free riding on American defense is now...i actually think we Americans are far too rude in this world for Europeans and we should withdraw from NATO... However I do feel the Norwegians, the Danes, the Irish, the French, the Dutch, the Italians, the Scots, and especially the Swedes, are worth defending...Just sayin' 2
Shenandoah
David Webb 0
No one here is talking about WWII, when, if the US had not entered the war, the results would have been quite different and German would now be the language of Europe.

The RAF recognises seven aircrew personnel who were from the United States of America as having taken part in the Battle of Britain. American citizens were prohibited from serving under the various US Neutrality Acts; if an American citizen had defied strict neutrality laws, there was a risk of losing their citizenship and imprisonment. Even so, it is believed that another four Americans misled the British authorities about their origins, claiming to be Canadian or other nationalities.

Just sayin'
alastairp
Al Palmer 2
As I mentioned previously, everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's now easy to understand why certain citizens from certain nations are considered 'rude' in the world...
Shenandoah
David Webb 1
Yes Al,

At least in this country, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and it is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment of our Constitution.

However, everyone is not entitled to their own facts... Huge difference...
alastairp
Al Palmer 1
I'm sorry, but didn't I say 'arrogant' as well?! And besides, who mentioned names? I guess the old proverbial applies, "If the shoe fits.."

Btw, I am an American Citizen whose father was a G.I. and stationed in Britain during the war. However, I'm not going to stand idly by and see my country of birth being insulted by the likes of you two!
waterfall925
"The likes of you two"...??? Please, Mr Palmer, don't be a crybaby...and we Americans routinely endure overseas insults...BTW, I happen to really like the Brits, despite their arrogance and the FACT that they drive on the wrong side of the road...:))))...if you can show demonstrable evidence that modern European aviation is in some ways NOT seriously DEFICIENT in the formation of PROFICIENT airmen that are VERSATILE under all operating scenarios, then by all means please do so...the fact that they are safe in the carefully controlled EUROPEAN environment and on well-worn long haul routes is no real evidence, in my view...and I grant you that there are always individuals who are exceptions

So, please wear your American citizen hat and chill out

jusgt sayin'5
alastairp
Al Palmer 2
Also, please accept my apology to both you and Mr. Webb, for saying certain things regrettably, in the heat of the moment. It would help to have an edit option on these posts, at least for me anyway..
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
The edit function is covered my the checklist item:
Be sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth
(or in this case, the send key).
Alas, the item is overlooked my many, myself included at times.
alastairp
Al Palmer 0
You might be surprised to hear this, but I agree with the majority sentiments here. I'm also pro-Boeing, and have been practically all my life. My very first flight as a passenger was on a BOAC 707 back in the summer of 1961. Today, Boeing also has the advantage of being technically superior over Airbus with their 787 program. The A350 uses old technology (pneumatics and hydraulics), while the Dreamliner is all electric, state of the art. Even Forbes refers to the latest Airbus as a 'white elephant'. No contest there!
preacher1
preacher1 1
IMHO, that is part of what's wrong with our current generation. As we do and act today, may just not line up with 50 years ago. We have some dark spots back there. Some today want to deny or change those spots but it is what it is and they must accept it.
waterfall925
There is nothing wrong with our current generation, sir. I grew up in the '60s when another generation went to war in Vietnam on the lies and notions of an earlier generation, and accomplished nothing...it was a fiasco and I am so sorry for all of those who had to participate in it...I'm especially sorry for about 500 women, children, and babies in the town of My Lai, and all we did about the monster that did it was "lights on for America"....so no, the current generation is an improvement, in my view...harsh, but true

just sayin' 4 and always glad and proud to be an American and what we really stand for
preacher1
preacher1 1
I grew up in the same generation and as you say, we cannot do anything but apologize for the likes of Bill Calley. That said, what I spoke of about generation is that while we remember it and now abhor/ apologize for it, there are some, not all, members of that generation that would just flatly like to deny that that and other atrocities did not occur at all, taking a naïve look and hoping they see a rosy world out there, then sadly disappointed when reality does set in.
waterfall925
i totally agree with what you are saying and the present generation cannot escape its obligation to serve a cause higher than itself...I was a jet mechanic in the US Air Force and i was damned glad to throw my sharpest salute at those who taxied away and put their lives on the line for our country.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, I was Stationed at the bottom end of South Korea and a couple times a month a taker crew would drop by and pick us up as the had to have a flight medic on board to hit a combat zone. This undoubtedly would mean a nite at DaNang or Cam Rhan Bay, sortying in and out. Let's just say there were times when the boys out of the North ran short on gas before they could get back to a safe zone. Everybody talks about the BUFF's that got shot down over there but you don't hear anything about dumbo. Had it not been for a damn good pilot, we could be pushing up daisies over there as well.
Shenandoah
David Webb 3
Guess my two hundred and fifty combat missions in an F-100 in Nam in '68-'69 ain't chopped liver after all...
preacher1
preacher1 1
We may have won the war, but when I was an Army brat in the late 60's, all the Germans did cusss you behind your back and talk about how inferior you were, but the sure didn't mind taking your money. Later on as a young man and in USAF myself, Southeast Asia wasn't much different. From what I saw before I retired, not much change.
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
Didn't they find a similar comment on a wall in Pompeii?
waterfall925
yes it's very similar to the one on the wall here in El Paso
waterfall925
Unfortunately we all have our stereotypes, which i suppose is why British villains are a staple in American cinema...however, we do find the British to be particularly intolerant of our 2nd Amendment, for example, and our 2nd Amendment really is our affair, isn't it? Americans largely do not return the favor by flooding your media with disparagement of your monarchy, so please count that, if you will, as one small courtesy we extend to you, even in the face of our rude behavior...er, behaviour

That said, there is no doubt that an American duplication of the Germanwings SITUATION (which really was an invitation for abuse by by an unstable, low-time disturbed pilot) would not occur here. The Germans dropped the ball, period, and it's time they admitted it and moved on, rather than trying to hide behind a silly discussion about American manners and what used to be done "globally"

Just sayin' 3
waterfall925
Hear, hear
Radiostationx
Mike Rsx 1
Some evidence of pilot skill,from both manufacturers,with crew from different nations to restore your confidence perhaps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_38
gearup328
Peter Steitz 2
I think some of these posts were harsh on the Bus. I have never flown it but would still like to have total command of the flight. Having said that, I used autopilot almost all the time in the larger aircraft that had it. It was smooth and relieved me from constant stick and ruder flying. However, I grew up in the Jetstream J-31--no automation and like trying to stand on a beachball. Hand flying 100%. Maybe this is what we need now.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, I cut my teeth on a 707 and it will suffice to say that the 757 was a hellacious improvement, and at the last a newer 767 and CRJ. As far as the Airbus, I have not flown one, but I am told that without going through the process of one of their flight law changes, that you cannot go outside the flight envelope on the aircraft. I guess that is a good idea in theory, but every upset I have ever been involved in there has literally been no time to do anything other than handle the problem. Everything has a safety margin built in and sometimes you may have to use it, even if it damages the AC or requires an inspection later. As one poster said here, if the pilot had gotten back in, he might have had to over G the aircraft and the computer would not have let him. He would have crashed into the mountaintop instead of in that valley. The computer was a factor in AF447. It has not reared it's head in the last few years but I don't think anything has been done to correct it. The other thing that came into play was non-linked sidesticks. New manufactures like Bombardier and Gulfstream are linking them but Airbus has never corrected to my knowledge. Computers and FBW are a fine thing in place of hydraulic, but as the hydraulic, should be only an assist and not thinking for themselves. There is even talk now of a redundant hydraulic system for the FBW so who knows where it will all end.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
There is a lot to be said for the 707 that in some places is still flying today..... 60 plus years of service... I doubt and who here has the gonads to take an A320 and do a barrel roll.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KNbKFMBsQE
gearup328
Peter Steitz 0
Sparkie, if you do a barrel roll correctly, the aircraft will only get maybe 2-4 G's. Over the top and backside, you float--might be a fuel and oil problem for a non acro plane.
Shenandoah
David Webb 3
Peter,

A properly executed barrel roll is a "1G" maneuver. If you get anywhere near 2G's you have screwed up the roll. Almost any certified aircraft can be barrel rolled, no matter if it is a C-172 or a B-777.

You should be able to put a cup of coffee on the glare shield, perform the barrel roll, and not spill a drop of coffee. Fuel and oil systems would not know if they are right side up or upside down.

Sustained negative G's might require a flop tube in the fuel tank to keep from starving a reciprocating engine from being fuel starved. Oil systems in aerobatic aircraft that are designed to maintain sustained negative G's have specially designed oil systems to do the same.
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
David, in the pull up to the top of the barrel, you HAVE to pull more than 1G. The pull up is not a steady state, 1G climb. Likewise, after floating down the backside, more than 1G is required to arrest the descent back to where you started. Don't confuse a barrel roll with an aileron roll.
bentwing60
bentwing60 1
Watch this. Bob Hoover for the res of you who are correct.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMWxuKcD6vE
Shenandoah
David Webb 1
Peter.

I beg to differ with you. I have flown hundreds of barrel rolls in my Christen Eagle II as well as other aerobatic aircraft. A perfect barrel roll can be flow at 1G -- it is all dependent on the rate of your roll maneuver. And, I do know the difference between an aileron roll and a barrel roll.
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
You have a point here. It does depend on the size and rate of roll. The larger the barrel the longer it takes, rate of roll is slow and unless you have lots of power you will runout of airspeed and have to float over the top and down the backside in order to have a perfect circle. The object is not to do it fast but to scribe a perfect circle while G's and airspeed are constantly changing. Remember your Chandel practices?
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Check this out... A Perfect Barrel Roll in a Kingair - Pouring a drink during a barrel roll... Check it out... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGprpxA0Q8M If they can do this, the oil will stay where it is supposed to, and so will the fuel.
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
I think you are incorrect.... 1G maneuver and the 1G would be pointed to the bottom of the aircraft not the ground... The oil would have stayed where it was supposed just as the fuel would... You did not watch the video.. Tex him self talks about it.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Seems to me,the 'correct' way to barrel roll the A320 is not at all.
Which leads to the question of whether the A320 computer system is programmed to deal with inverted.
preacher1
preacher1 1
If it is outside the flight envelope, it is either not programmed/or just flat won't let you.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Exactly... So if something were to get it into that position, how would it get itself out... If the programming is not tre.. it is not going to happen...
preacher1
preacher1 1
I wouldn't be crazy about barrel rolling anything. LOL
wopri
But on the other hand the safety record of the A320 is second only to your beloved 757. I understand you reluctance to fly anything you can't control 100%, but there must be something Airbus is doing right, otherwise the safety record would show it with such a mass produced aircraft.
preacher1
preacher1 2
I still don't like a machine that thinks for itself. That's what a pilot is for. You are correct about the safety record but I think that it is just luck that it hasn't reared its head somewhere. I think the mistake in all the FBW, regardless of mfg, is that the computer and electronics can be an assist rather than a primary function. I think that Boeing is set up this way, not sure. I know the 777 had some FBW and the 787 is all FBW but they kept the stick/yoke rather than go sidestick.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Agreed... Pilot should have the final authority over the plane when it is in the air... France Airshow low fly over was an excellent example.... Computer over road the crew.... The fact that Bus thinks that airplanes should have authority over the captain is my main problem with the entire series of planes.
wopri
I understand perfectly what you mean preacher & sparkie, and I agree. But the present level of safety in aviation is so high, at least in most countries, that I have no problem to do my job as self-loading cargo. In the last three years I've parked my butt in an Embraer, an ATR, a Dash 8, and several Boeings and Airbusses, from 737 to A380, with Air Canada, Air France, Lufthansa, Bulgaria Air, Royal Air Maroc, SAA and Swiss. I've never had the slightest hesitation to get on board, simply because the chances of anything going wrong are lower than being hit by lightning in my own bed. And I'd rather have several large suppliers of aircraft than only one, simply because they will push each other to be better, with different approaches.
joelwiley
joel wiley 0
"And I'd rather have several large suppliers of aircraft than only one, simply because they will push each other to be better, with different approaches"
As long as the competition pushes innovation and safety forward, I agree
TWA55
TWA55 1
David, I believe your remarks to be very true and on the mark. When I look at acrft accidents involving foreign carriers what seems to stand out is the pilots are fine until they run into a situation in which they are totally unprepared to handle. and in so many cases do not understand.

I have worked for a lot of airlines and in the case of the smaller carriers flying smaller acrft, the auto pilot was not an option, hand flying in all cases. Airbus makes a fine product, but the automation makes clear that the human factor is being ignored w/ a justification that as you have said caters to low experienced pilots, but this automation is removing the most important factor, hands on experience, and this is where so many would be pilots can and do get weeded out.

Europe indeed suffers from all you have said, what is ironic here is a lesson that carriers should have learned from the early years of the space program. You had test pilots, aviators who came to the program and were pilots. They were being asked to fly in complex craft that indeed required a high degree of automation due to complexity, but like the first lunar landing Apollo 13 for example it came down to those skills which these guys came in with over years of experience. They understood their situation and took control.

When QANTAS suffered their A380 engine malfunction they were very fortunate they had not only two experienced pilots flying, but I think just as important and maybe more so, they had two other qualified individuals which took so much off the mental stress of those pilots. Another example United DC-10 crash in Iowa. I am a strong believer that 3 in the cockpit should be a requirement for crews w/ a first officer and or capt. with little experience, and even for crews w/ experience when operating very large acrft, 747,777, A380 etc.

This whole event has exposed some serious issues which should not be ignored and go well beyond the ill pilot, and the accident itself. You are right, we have some dire days ahead.
preacher1
preacher1 1
David: I can kinda sympathize with where you are coming from regarding foreign pilots, but knowing a lot of them, I'd have to put Speedbird and Lufthansa pilots right up there at top with the rest of us, and that is not slighting anyone else, but these 2 are coming to mind quickly. As to this particular happening, the 2 person cockpit rule might have been a deterrent but I don't know if it would have prevented this, regardless of carrier nationality.
Shenandoah
David Webb 1
Preacher,

Possibly the "old school" guys you knew. I do not know any Lufthansa guys but do know plenty of old school Speedbird guys. They are a different breed of cat than the "new school" foreign pilots altogether.

The ones in the right seats are a very weak link in the chain and only luck and the odds keep them out of trouble.

As for the two-person cockpit rule when someone has to leave their seat, we will never know if, in this case, a flight attendant up there would have made a difference. My gut feeling is that it would have.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Well, regarding the 2 person thing, the fact that he put it in a controlled descent, rather than just nosing it over and sticking it in the ground, tells me that he wanted to do it his way. That might have been a deterrent, idk, but if he would have been hell bent on it, ala the FedEx guy a few years back, I don't know how far anybody could have gone.
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
Preacher, all the FA would have to do is flip the switch and let the Captain back in and then there would have been a struggle. I don't fly much anymore but I have seen the FA put the beverage cart in front of the CP door when a pilot got out. I have no idea where this idea came from. In a single FA airplane, I don't know it is prudent to leave the cabin unattended. In a multiple FA aircraft it makes sense.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
FA posted a video of the new AB door lock mechanism and procedure. It indicated that there was a 30 second delay after entering the override code the door would unlock for 5 seconds. Could this be countered by an action on the flight deck such as reflipping the lock switch?
preacher1
preacher1 1
If flipping a switch was all there was to it, no big deal, but one thing none of the EXPURTS or Talking heads hit on very much was the fact that the is a manual bolt on that door as well. kinda like a deadbolt
waterfall925
just hire a 2nd FA
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
William, the regionals can't. Only one FA is required up to 50 seats. They say the cost is prohibitive and of course, the airlines only do as much as the FAA dictates. Fortunately, the 50 seaters are going away. All the larger regional aircraft--ERJ 175/190 and CRJ 700/900 have two FA's.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Sad but true. Well said.
preacher1
preacher1 2
I guess we'll leave the nationality out of it but in none of these response did I see any disagreement about the Airbus. I never have flown one but I will not fly a machine where I cannot in total control. That should be enough said, other that I am old school and believe in stick and rudder skills or you don't belong in a cockpit.
paultrubits
paul trubits 3
Preach: Didn't Sully land a Bus in the Hudson? As my golf buddies say: It is not the arrow, it is the Indian.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Yeah, I think it was an A320, just like this one
Shenandoah
David Webb 1
Sully did land an A320 in the Hudson, however, Sully did not ask that A320 to do anything that the computers disagreed with. If he had had to it may have ended up quite differently.
wopri
But even the best stick and rudder skills mean nothing when used with malicious intend. Andreas Lubitz learned to fly gliders at age 14, so he probably had sufficient skills.

http://heavy.com/news/2015/03/andreas-lubitz-copilot-germanwings-flight-4u9525-plane-crash-french-alps/
preacher1
preacher1 1
responses -------- cannot be in total control
preacher1
preacher1 4
Speaking on stick and rudder in general about this younger generation of pilots and Airbus's computer control theory. I am well familiar with the glider/sailplane pilots and winch takeoffs. Used to watch them at Mannheim all the time when I was an Army Brat kid about 10 years old. You are totally correct about a deranged person. You cannot protect for everything. As with the hardened cockpit door, we kept out the very one that might've saved the day.
konatom
T Economou 2
They don't make them like they used to?? Unfortunately true.
konatom
T Economou 2
It would be very interesting to see PIC time routinely listed as time hand flying and time on AP.
alastairp
Al Palmer 1
I concur, and what makes it worse is Lufthansa now admits they did indeed know about the FO's mental state, of which their CEO denied several days ago. This, of course, opens them up to a potential massive law suit..
Shenandoah
David Webb 1
Signing off this thread. Thanks for the discussions as well as the food for thought.

Dave Webb
preacher1
preacher1 1
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
I going.
yr2012
matt jensen 1
#1. But if he had been able - the outcome might have been different, but at least he tried.

#2. He was trained in Phoenix like all Lufthansa pilots. And, if he were hired - it would be on a CJ or regional carrier.

After 17000+ hrs in jets, I'm back to flying turboprops and damn glad to do it.
Doobs
Dee Lowry 1
David- So true. Pilots these days say, "Am I automated yet"? Very few "hands on" hours in the "sim"...or outside, for that matter. Emergency scenarios that would require a mind and not a computer. Very disturbing and sad.
Hans58
Hans58 1
Too little experience?

In the USA the pilots were born with 2.000 hours of experience, probably!!!!
akayemm
Perhaps that's why it's called the land of opportunity and this is what the American Dream mean ! ha ha ha
TWA55
TWA55 0
That Germanwings co-pilot would NEVER have been hired by any US carrier, period. Too little experience, "experience" that quite possibly would have weeded him out of the gene pool way before he even had an opportunity to apply for an airline job.

You are soooooooo right here. German Wings and DLH have a lot to answer for, this is one time I hope the lawyers clean house.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Even minus the 1500 hr/ATP rule, most weren't hiring until the 800-850 range
wopri
As far as I know Lufthansa has their own flight school, maybe that is why they have FOs with few hours.
BaronG58
BaronG58 2
They train them in Bremen and Phoenix, AZ
preacher1
preacher1 2
I think Bremen is primarily hiring and orientation phase. Phoenix is the primary flight School. Back in the day it was at Tucson. Not sure when it moved or why, but they use AZ because of 363 flying days in the year. That said, in my mind, this goes back in my mind that if they are going to fly in U.S. airspace, their pilots especially, and themselves as a carrier, should be subject to all requirements as a U.S. 121 carrier. We found out in the 214 crash at SFO that they were not. It seems that centered more on maintenance and operations but not on pilot qualification. Apparently it should have.
BaronG58
BaronG58 1
Agree on the 121 requirement for foreign carriers. The way it is today it is the equivalent of foreign drivers coming here and driving by the rules of their country.
wopri
It would be interesting to find out about the number of flight hours of the Lufthansa pilots that actually fly into the US. Perhaps only senior staff gets these routes?
preacher1
preacher1 1
If it is, it only by seniority and/or pure luck; I doubt anything regimented, but as you say, it would be interesting to know, not only Lufthansa but on the other foreign carriers as well.
wopri
Anyway, Lufthansa does seem to have a very good safety record, nothing substandard about it.
preacher1
preacher1 2
I will agree to that and they seem sincere about handling the aftermath in a responsible way. As with anything, there will be a lot of hindsight about things that should have been done. I just hope there is not some kind of knee jerk reaction to this thing that somebody says will fix it all because there isn't. Many will point to a low time pilot. I personally would rather have a low time pilot and train them in type rather than some of these banner pulling CFI wonders that waltz in the door with 1500 hrs. and an ATP.
wopri
You are so right about the knee jerk reaction danger. More technology is always the easy answer, it brings money to the well-connected that can in return help their politician friends in the next election, but any technology can be misused to conter its intended purpose. Better psychological screening and better supervision seems to me the answer, and also fine tuning of privacy laws, like in this instance the doctors were not allowed to warn Germanwings about the problems of the co-pilot. There should be exceptions for pilots or other jobs with public safety more important than individual privacy.
preacher1
preacher1 1
There might be an out here for an AME but I think he went to a private physician who would have had no obligation to anyone except the patient. Most physicians give a work excuse at request of the patient, so they don't have to work. I really can't figure this out unless physician just gave it as a standard thing or he requested it and then changed his mind. We'll never know.
gearup328
Peter Steitz 2
Hey, Preach, you are absolutely correct. My family doctor really relied on me for the flight job. He really had no training on anything except ground based people who go to work everyday, drive cars and sit in an office in a building. My AME only did eyes, hearing, urine and a short interview. Then we signed the complicated FAA medical form. Many of us went back to the same AME because he had our records and he knew we had to fly for a job. I'm choosing now to not renew my medical and airmanship. I just love the classroom and teaching. I'm 71 and hope to pass on some experience.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I have let mine go so far. I turned 65 last November and that killed the ATP anyway, but I had been on waivers for Diabetes & Afib on my heart. That was OK but in December, I had to start insulin so I think that kills anything. That said, my AME was telling me that the LANTIS insulin, which is just taken daily like a pill once per day, may soon be allowed for waivers as well. We'll see. Let's just say I'm taking some "familiarity flights to keep up on things. LOL
paultrubits
paul trubits 1
Preach: It should be. The route of adminstration should have nothing to do with it. If you are OK to drive, you should be able to fly.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Yeah, but it was like when I had the truck line. As long as it was labeled insulin and had to do with a needle, you were out of it. I had some aces that were in there 40's that were on minimum dosage as well and this stuff killed them as drivers. It is just another case of our law not keeping up with our technology. I was waivered on type 2 forever it seems like. The erractic up & down is with type 1. Type 2, while a pain, is not near as bad.
paultrubits
paul trubits 1
Government tax dollars at work. Still stuck in the 20th century.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Bulldozer as 'specialty equipment'? No EIR or site mitigation plan before starting.
wopri
If I read correctly the bulldozer was brought in to make an access roead.
preacher1
preacher1 1
You would really have to understand our EPA to appreciate all the humor in that.LOL
wopri
Looks like the French EPA is less dogmatic than yours then... :)
preacher1
preacher1 12
What I have a problem with is WOLF, trying to read things into something just not there on something he doesn't know a damn thing about. Kudos to Les & Mary for putting him in his place. Damn fearmonger.
waterfall925
I suggest that commenters leAVE POLITICAL BIASES out of their postings...WOLF is a JOURNALIST doing his job. As a pilot myself, I would say that the record and flight control system of the A320 is NOT above scrutiny and I find myself in frequent disagreement with LES as well...for example his personal opposition to firearms in the cockpit, which i support....

At this point I would say the accident appeard to be a CFIT for reasons unknown
preacher1
preacher1 7
I would agree on the cause. I stand by my feelings on Wolf. Yes, I will occasionally disagree with Les but Wolf is a continual teeth grit. He tries to be a lot more than your average journalist. Just Sayin'
bartmiller
bartmiller 11
(I'll repost this at the top level:)

If you look at the flight track data (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/GWI9525/history/20150324/0835ZZ/LEBL/EDDL), you'll see:

Time Lat Lon Course KTS MPH Alt Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
05:30AM 43.0412 5.5936 43° 476 548 38,000 Level
05:30AM 43.1105 5.6674 31° 479 551 38,000 -316
05:31AM 43.1845 5.7177 26° 475 547 37,600 -1,455
05:31AM 43.2415 5.7546 26° 472 543 36,400 -3,200
05:32AM 43.3014 5.7931 26° 478 550 34,400 -3,455
05:32AM 43.3687 5.8368 26° 473 544 32,600 -2,636
05:33AM 43.4327 5.8782 26° 472 543 31,500 -3,877
05:34AM 43.5026 5.9234 26° 480 552 28,400 -4,036
05:35AM 43.6535 6.0222 26° 488 562 24,100 -3,818
05:35AM 43.7269 6.0701 26° 486 559 21,400 -3,750
05:36AM 43.8476 6.1496 26° 450 518 18,100 -3,273
05:37AM 43.9609 6.2244 27° 429 494 14,800 -3,242
05:38AM 44.0744 6.3000 26° 417 480 11,400 -3,188

You expect an airliner descent rate typically in the 1500-2000 fpm rate. 3000-4000 is excessive, PDQ as a previous responder noted.
spatr
spatr 2
While it is an aggressive descent rate, it isn't uncommon. I have routinely done 3000+ to make a crossing or when told to expedite. The A320 can handle it and maintain a safe Mach/IAS.
jkudlick
But have you maintained 3000+ fps for several minutes? That is what is so striking here.

At least one of the black boxes have been found, and I will return to yelling at the television "experts" giving their knee-jerk interpretations of what may have happened. The final report is likely to take quite a long time to produce.
preacher1
preacher1 5
I think we all have been there at one time or other, for various reasons, in various AC types. I think, as Jeremy says here, what is unusual, is for the length of time that it was sustained. Until the FDR/CVR is recovered, I don't think we have head any speculation yet. I will go back to hollering at the "EXPERTS" as well.
capstar362
capstar362 0
"experts" huh?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/24/europe/france-plane-crash/index.html

click on the video Titled:

Analyst: Airspeed declined before France


show me in the logs where this guy says the speed "Declined"

"Experts" <-- yeah, experts at making complete fools of themselves.
nasdisco
Chris B 3
That jumped out at me when I saw it. Outside of normal operation specifications.

There was another Lufthansa that experienced a similar sudden drop last year after the computer responded to faulty data and put the aircraft into a dive of similar severity. The crew recovered.
wbnethery3
Bryan Nethery 1
Do you have links to reports of that incident? It would be useful information in this thread.
OnTheHorizon
Tony Smith 4
From the incident report:
"When Alpha Prot is activated due to blocked AOA probes, the flight control laws order a continuous nose down pitch rate that, in a worst case scenario, cannot be stopped with backward sidestick inputs, even in the full backward position."
So even of with functioning flight controls, the plane thinks it should be able to overrule the pilots and fly the plane the way it sees fit. Nice systems design (sarcasm).
preacher1
preacher1 2
That's the Bus for ya. Just sayin'. Some guys on here will swear by them though, and I can't do anything but offer secondhand feelings as I have never flown one.
avihais
Hopefully an A320 pilot can verify but I understand procedure for 330 models up is to turn off two ADIRU units to gain control but the 320 has a different system?
nasdisco
Chris B 2
http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=171411

Today's event has a different flight profile. It had not "just" completed its climb as in the earlier event. Rather it had reached and maintained cruising altitude for some time.

hmmm....
cacornett58
Craig Cornett 1
I thought the data says it reached FL380 and cruised for only a few minutes before descending?
preacher1
preacher1 1
I believe there is a corresponding link somewhere here that shows same AD and procedure for the 320.
FrankHarvey
Frank Harvey 1
Is this an A320 at LEBB Bilbao in November 2014 ?
Titusfly
That rate can be normal, an Airliner doesnt des at 1500 ft/min if they can choose, with the a320 if you pull idle open des in Mach your rate will be much more, i have been flying for 7 Airlines two of them were major And nobody wants you to des earlier
ppgooding
Paul Gooding 5
Sorry 2-person fans, that scheme is not going to prevent the Germanwings event. The two person rule is there to protect the pilot in the cockpit, not prevent a bad act by the pilot in the cockpit. A lunatic intent on destroying the plane, who happens to be one of the pilots, is not going to be deterred by a flight attendant in the cockpit. The rule is useless in the present case. The entire subject of cockpit security will have to be reengineered to prevent a crazy pilot from crashing the plane. Parking a flight attendant in there is not going to do the job.
StarFlyr
StarFlyr 2
It may cause other security problems, but the only way to fix one pilot leaving the cockpit and guarantee access back would be to have an "overide" switch that would guarantee the pilot leaving, access to return WITHOUT having the pilot remaining to push a button to let him in.

Even that may not prevent a similar incident/accident. I think when the Egypt Air dive that was caused by the copilot happened about 10 years ago, the Captain did gain access back into the cockpit, but couldn't stop the dive into the Atlantic.
joelwiley
joel wiley 4
Maybe, at the end of the day, we must acknowledge that we cannot prevent every possible adverse event ( a set larger than every conceivable event) and that we live in an imperfect world. Screening of individuals for 'trusted' positions will never be perfect.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well said my friend.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Well, it may be our good fortune but we haven't had one since 911. While it may not be a stopper, to someone teetering on the idea, it may be a deterrent, just the fact that the can't get alone
Flightdog
Roger Curtiss 1
How about giving the pilots bottles to pee in so they don't have to leave the cockpit.
piechen
pie che 2
And for a woman, what do you suggestion?
paultrubits
paul trubits 1
Depends with the company logo?
carlpickin
carlpickin 5
The FlightAware graph for the flight is interesting:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/GWI9525/history/20150324/0835Z/LEBL/EDDL/tracklog

All of the data was generated by ADS-B. This means that the data came from the plane's on board sensors.

The first obvious point is that the plane appears to have descended rapidly while maintaining airspeed. This is what is being reported in the media and on this forum.

I'm not an expert, but in addition to the above, the airspeed line on the graph shows 2 interesting things.

1) It could be corrupt Flightaware data, but there seems to have been a glitch in the airspeed at about 12 minutes into the flight. This could indicate a problem with the airspeed instrumentation. Note that the same chart on FlightRadar24 does not show the glitch.

2) About 4 minutes after the plane started to descend, the airspeed on the graph starts to reduce. However the rate of reduction tapers off in a very smooth curve. Is this what we would expect from the proposed scenarios, or could it be a pitot tube problem?

I welcome any thoughts on this observation. As I said, I am not an expert & haven't flown anything bigger than a C172.
carlpickin
carlpickin 1
I just realized that the speed in the graph is ground speed, so the pitot is unlikely to be involved. What I don't know is whether the ground speed in the graph is generated from the ADS-B provided Lat / Long by FlightAware, or whether it comes from the on-board instruments. Either way, it is likely GPS based, so the speed glitch could just be a GPS error.
erisajd
erisajd 1
the reduction of airspeed could be expected from a reduction in true airspeed as the airplane descends. Most commercial pilots assume that they need 210kits indicated for a glide - the speed over the ground should decrease as they descend because the difference between true airspeed and indicated/calibrated airspeed, given a standard atmosphere the ground speed will decrease if you are trying to maintain a fixed indicated airspeed.

Also - you could just be seeing a reduction in tail wind component as the aircraft descends out of the jetstream . . .
Quackers
Quackers 1
Pitot issue sprang to mind too. (But granted, I am just speculating and am not a pilot). Could be a combination of bad data being fed to pilots (ie pitot iced up), bad reaction to the bad data, and a little snowblind / loss of spatial awareness as they got low... by the time GPWS comes out its too late...
Doobs
Dee Lowry 3
You know...I just think everyone on this forum is in an "ozone" after the recent developements concerning the Co-Pilot. Just doesn't seem possible that the commication between the "Flight Surgeon", who grounded him...or put him on sicklist, didn't communicate his mental state to "Flight Ops" and notify notify the Crew Desk that this Crew Member was not fit to fly. If they were notified they would have a Reserve in to replace him in the "right seat". No Communication. No one knew he was on "sicklist". Red flag!! Nobody knew. This "event" will definitely unite the "world" carriers. Aviation regulations will all be on the same page. I hope that another 149 "souls" won't have to perish because of a "true professional", who had everything going for him, who had a mental problem. What more can I say. To the Passengers and Crew Members of "Germanwings" Flight 9525, who paid the ultimate price...GOD SPEED.
suejillings
Sue Jillings 3
Depression still has stigma attached to it and I'm wondering how many people reading this have had depression or know someone in their family with this illness. It is very common nowadays and very sad for suffers and their families. They can present as stable and settled when assessed and hide their symptoms so maybe after a few episodes of depression a job in caring for people's safety should be looked at and scrutinised perhaps given other duties and monitored on the ground for a long period even though the person is saying they are well .Risks can not take place when people's lives are at stake. My heart goes out to every person aboard that plane and their families and friends. Also we must not forget the co-pilots parents ! They have to live with what their son done, took his own life with 150 innocent people who wanted to live.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Yeah, authorities are now backing away from any religious connotation and are now laying the whole thing on mental illness of some type, hiding it from employers.
bartmiller
bartmiller 3
A bit of data analysis. The descent started just offshore, about 10 NM DE of Marseille. If an emergency was noted at the time and the crew was able, they were in glide range of a major airport.

Also note the course change from 043 deg to 031 deg right at the start of the rapid descent. It's not a terribly constructive course change, as it didn't steer them towards any useful destination. Might just be a coincidence (a flight planned course change), but could show that some loss of attention of the crew or loss of control.
FrankHarvey
Frank Harvey 2
After 0530 there is no heading change and even with the high rate of descent there is no appreciable speed change for the first half of the dive and after that they're bleeding off speed and reducing the descent rate. If the dive is under pilot (not computer) control they're not deviating heading looking for a place to put her down. Can the spoilers/brakes partially deploy on a 320 at 400 knots ?
wbnethery3
Bryan Nethery 2
The flight path of previous days overlay very closely with the route of this flight, including the heading change just before crossing the coast. At least it appears that way to me.
jayperkins
jay perkins 1
Note the speeds listed are ground speeds. Airspeed in rapid descent are higher.
bartmiller
bartmiller 1
The speedbrakes operate fine in cruise descent. If the autopilot is engaged on an A320 (the normal case), then they are limited to 1/2 extension. The designed failure mode for something wrong with a speedbrake is for it to retract.

They were far from their destination, and it is a very unlikely failure mode for the speedbrakes to spontaneously extend.
FrankHarvey
Frank Harvey 1
Thanks very much Bart. I'm just an elderly amateur trying to understand the limited amount of data I'm seeing. I feel for the poor buggers who were involved, both in the cockpit and the pax, and what they were experiencing for the 8 minutes after 0530.

I was speculating on what the pilots were trying to achieve (if they were concious)after 0530. The AF447 CVR transcripts really make sad reading. They were so overwhelmed but didn't give up trying what they knew, even if it was grossly inadequate.

Many thanks for answeing my speedbrake question. I asked because I wondered if there was some effort being made to regain control. In sailplanes in the 1970s we used brakes to control rate of descent and stick to control airspeed. In this instance the airspeed seems to have not been a problem.

As for unsafe failures in critical components, it can happen if you recall for example the Flight Director failure in the Air India 747-200 on climb out from Bombay back in the 1970s which caged itself advising continuing to raise the nose in a climbing turn, advice which was being followed by the pilots until it completely lost airspeed and rolled on its back. That example was cited as the reason to continually scan the whole panel and not fixate on a single instrument.
capstar362
capstar362 1
that 400 Kts is GS, not IAS, the speed is showing in relation to Ground. when up at that level its indicating to the aircraft more around 2-300 partial deploy is capable for any aircraft within its normal envelope.

what gets me on this is, i see several instances of over 2K rates in the history of this aircraft.

i see a few instances of the same route.



that 3-4k rate is either going to be duress or control loss.

also, can the 320 maintain cabin pressure regulation at that kind of rate? did they pass out and just wind up in the mountain side unconscious?


sad though, yet ANOTHER aviation incident, involving mass loss.
FrankHarvey
Frank Harvey 1
Thanks Andrew, I was thinking IAS, not GS.
capstar362
capstar362 1
no problem.

a lot of people above are making some interesting speculation.

though a pertinent question still remains.

can a 320 sustain cabin pressure during a 3-4k rate sustained dive?
manuelgomes
Manuel Gomes 1
I don't know the A320's cockpit layout, but it is possible that the pilots, as they insert 031 deg in the autopilot wrongly inserted 031 in the descent rate? descent rate does hover about -3100 from that point on...
bartmiller
bartmiller 1
("DE" should've been "SE" (southeast))
erisajd
erisajd 3
A) speed was far in excess of that needed to glide.

B) if they lost power and were gliding why no turn around and head out of the alps?

C) if they were gliding why didn't the speed go down as they descended [true airpseed would have trended downward as the speed necessary to glide at 210kias comes down with increaseing air density]

D) Not ANOTHER bad info to the computers causing an Airbus crash and poor stick and rudder skills?

E) A descent at that rate is necessary for loss of cabin pressure- could there have been a Loss of Cabin Press and ENER DSNT keyed in and then everyone lost consciousness - airplane flew itself into the mountains?
preacher1
preacher1 7
Well, we have a 24 year old aircraft so mechanical is an option, but more important, as bad as the rivalry may be at times, why do we have to lead a story with the aircraft type, like we are tickled to death that it is one type rather than the other, instead of leading with the fact that in this case, there were 142 souls probably lost.
BaronG58
BaronG58 4
I think they lead with the aircraft type because it immediately satisfies the publics curiosity. First question most people ask is " what type of plane was it?" It helps us to pre-determine the possible gravity of the situation.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Yeah, just bloodlust, I guess.
TMcDonnell
which may explain why the 1st report I saw on Cable news said A380.... even while showing an A320 on screen...
jkudlick
During the press conference, Germanwings said that the aircraft had routine maintenance yesterday and the last C-check was in summer 2013. PIC had over 6,000 hours in type, but no information was given on the First Officer's experience.
gearup328
Peter Steitz 2
The 1500 hour rule and an ATP is just a recent law in the US thanks to Colgan at BUF. I remember flying with FOs who only had 500 TT in Cessnas. Most were competent but still it was OJT. On The Job Training. We made it happen. None were mentally or physically impaired. Todays world is not your grandfather's. Now you're expected to step into a regional jet like a CRJ-900 or Embraer-175 with 70+ pax. These are big aircraft. Not too many years ago USAir and Northwest (old names) flew the DC-9 and Fokker-100 at the mainline level. These newer, glass cockpit, same size aircraft are much more complex and ATC is also. I opposed the 1500 hour rule at first but now after reconsidering, it might be needed.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I opposed the 1500 hr rule and still do, primarily because if you take a low time FO and train him up, you know what type training he has going into his ATP. It is totally a crapshoot and should be a gut feel from the employer rather than arbitrary. There is nothing sure anymore. There may have to be some medical privacy given up in the event of sick leave or unfit as in the company being notified, but again, that can probably only come from an AME / FS type and most folks will go to their personal physician for treatment such as this, so IDK the answer. There is not a one size fits all here.
BaronG58
BaronG58 1
Peter...When they passed the 1500 hour rule didn't they also pass a "restricted privileges ATP certificate" allowing pilots with fewer than 1500 hours to fly as co-pilot as long as they met certain educational requirements? Going from memory here, so I could be wrong. Just remember reading something,
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
Yes, with a 4 year degree or training at a school like Embry Riddle. I still think you have to be 23 to get the ATP.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Seems like there was a military exemption in there too and I think you are correct on the age limit.
v3rn0nat0r
Benjamin Bray 2
The preliminary information reminded me of Helios 522. I wonder if we will learn of any passenger communications that were sent.
preacher1
preacher1 2
It is sorta similar except that 522 did not dive. It stayed at cruise, then had a flame out just as a crewmember that was still conscious got in the cockpit. That said, that is one good reason not to just gloss over something because a captain has a gazillion hours. This guy had had 16000+ and he made a mistake. I could happen to any of us. Some we catch and live to fly another day. Some we don't and it leaves the rest of the folks wondering how in the Sam Hill they could have done something that stupid.
rlefleur
It is presumptuous to say that if the FO wanted to destroy the aircraft......therefore he should have gone into a steep dive to do so.
It is looking obvious he wanted to die and he did it in his way that his mind and planning was dictating. For what ever reason, he wanted a controlled crash in the mountain. I am a retired trauma surgeon, and I have seen how terribly sick, irrational, and confused the mind can be.
Credit to the authorities letting important info out as they find it.
Granted something things may be misinterpreted but I feel the current technology both from airlines, controllers, and medical revelations, this will be shown to be a deliberate act.
Quackers
Quackers 1
News reports saying plane was obliterated weren't kidding.... horrifying stuff.
preacher1
preacher1 1
They do have some boots on the ground but they had to rope down off the helicopter as the choppers could not land. This is gonna be a tough one. All parties have indicated that there are no indications of terrorism
allench1
allench1 2
I just now have info that the cockpit recorder had been reviewed and they have ruled out decompression, also no communication from either pilot was heard!
carlpickin
carlpickin 2
Source??
preacher1
preacher1 1
That is weird. I was never a part of any upset where there wasn't at least an expletive of some kind. That leads back to even more wondering and speculation.
allench1
allench1 1
I retrieved this from Fox news GB office from a college in London. They did say that they recovered some information but were waiting to review the flight parameters and other info from the other black box. Best guess is either fire/smoke or complete electrical failure, very disturbing either way. One other point, i could not define an impact point or evidence of a fire on the ground
LeonardoJones
I do not quite understand what they were new facts in this video. The reporter said only that "the black box can help you understand why there was no radio communication during the fall," and we already knew. But the researcher who gave a press conference today was very clear in stating that heard the content, and that "it is too early to say who were the voices". Which means had voices. He also said he did not seem to have had any decompression, but that does not rule out any possibility.
LeonardoJones
Arrg...sorry guys. I forgot to correct the google translate before publish that comment. Researcher->investigator, and so on...
preacher1
preacher1 1
Don't worry about it and I think Allen will agree, this thing ain't gonna be over for a good while. There is a difference between what the media, and it matters not which one, is saying and what officialdom is saying. Even the French President and his Safety board guru were not on the same page, so until something gets out there and stays awhile, we can start to accept it.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I heard what he said. Dang that just really throws the stuff on it.
allench1
allench1 1
sure does Wayne.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
No audio from either pilot, but they have enough info to know it was not decompression.... They would by now have had plenty of time to rule out smoke, and if the crew had passed out for some reason the chances of both of them are negligible. I hope they have enough left of the crew bodies to do an autopsy as that may bring some evidence.... Never saw a crew that got that close to the ground without saying something, even if it is off topic. The specifically say "from either pilot"... I wonder what was heard as the CVR's not only tap both crew mics and headsets, but also an area mic that can hear beyond the cockpit... As much as I hope it is not true, I hope it was not Crew Premeditated Suicide. It would appear that the CVR has created more of a mystery instead of solving them.
allench1
allench1 1
I agree sparkie I retrieved this from Fox news GB office from a college in London. They did say that they recovered some information but were waiting to review the flight parameters and other info from the other black box. Best guess is either fire/smoke or complete electrical failure, very disturbing either way. One other point, i could not define an impact point or evidence of a fire on the ground
kenish
kenish 2
The flight log data is being misinterpreted. The rates of descent aren't as dramatic as they seem because they are instantaneous values between data points. The average rate from 37600 to 11400 feet is 2911fpm....an "agressive" descent but not too unusual. I believe an uncommunicated deviation from an airway requires a 10 degree left turn, the track log shows a 12 degree turn, then another 7 degrees. But this could be pure coincidence.

There's an unusual, momentary drop in airspeed climbing through 23,200 feet that doesn't seem to affect the climb profile.
rahill
Rich Hill 1
37,600 at 2:31 to 11,400 at 2:38 is 26,200' in 7 minutes -- that's an average of -3,740 fpm which is consistent with the data shown.
fxg107
felipe gomez 1
still the v/s values are pretty consistent and achievable in an emergency descent.
bobrennard
The unfortunate fact is that this disaster was not caused by lack of the right type of flying experience.
rk2kin
Not to have assumptions till we hear complete dissection/deciphering of Black box signal.
watkinssusan
as many on this site have aviation experience,it is a normal thing to speculate about the pilot,co pilot,the circumstances and the aircraft itself..i have listened to the reports and also the speculation from experts in the field on cnn,fox,msnbc and the regular networks,who have worked with crashes,the faa,the ntsb,or have flown this particular aircraft..i have watched video clips of the door operation,and the control used to have the plane descend and override the computer..what I am trying to say is listening and waiting for the evidence is far better than comparing this tragedy to other crashes,or accidents such as the hawaiin jet whose top ripped open, or the eastern airlines l1011 from back in the 70s,as some here have mentioned..the tragedy is the loss of life due to the deliberate actions of one person,as per the evidence so far...
gearup328
Peter Steitz 2
Mary Susan Watkins--the computer on the bus is referred to as "fifi". She is Ok as long as you are in the envelope. 99.9999% of flights are in the envelope. The envelope is where all aircraft are certified to operate within. Get out of it and all is test pilot stuff. This FO could have easily eased the jet into a descent that took them into the rocks. I want to hear the cockpit recorder screaming "terrain. terrain" as they went down. How about "pull up, pull up"? Why didn't that wake this guy up and tell him that death was imminent? Because he didn't care.
FrankHarvey
Frank Harvey 1
Hi Mary,

A lot of old people have had experiences young people might not have had. Years ago we used to sit around smelly old chairs at the FBO and bull and in a way sites like this supplement such times. Sometimes things old people experienced never made it into the manuals or training programmes, things which young pilots may never have thought of, such as occasionally looking out of the windscreen. On EA401 there were 3 people looking at a light bulb and no one was looking at how close they were getting to the ground.

There were young pilots on AF447 who didn't seem to comprehend the attitude of their aircraft in relation to the warnings they were receiving. Maybe if they had had the opportunity to learn about the relationship between attitude, airspeed and a stall the outcome might have been better.

Sticking to the checklist IAS can be hazardous. On short finals at 40 knots IAS in a Blanik, losing height, and going backwards, away from the runway, in a 45 Kn headwind, if you wait too long to stick the nose down, you don't make it to the threshold. It may be counter-intuitive to stick the nose down rather than pull back to stretch the glide, but you have to understand and recognise the situation so that you can increase airspeed.

In a tight turn your inside wingtip travels much slower than the outside wingtip and with a large wingspan sailplane (or a U-2) even though you may have an IAS of 40 Kn, well above a placarded 33 Kn stall, the inner wing can stall while the lift still being generated by the outer wing slams you over violently into a spin. Entering a spin at 600 foot AGL in the pattern you won't have a lot of time to recover. In gusty situations, and tight turns you may want to add airspeed to that in "the book".

Old people's speculation based on their experiences might not help explain a situation which has already happened, especially in Papa-Xray, but it might one day help young people get out of one or even induce young people to try some highly improbable event in a simulator, such as how long they can stretch a glide in a 767, which one day might save a hundred or more lives.

In a sailplane you're usually looking for a place where it might be safe to land. Not so with reliable Pratt and Whitneys and ample fuel. But then one day ....for an improbable series of events, take a look at : hawaii.hawaii.edu/math/Courses/Math100/Chapter1/Extra/CanFlt143.htm

As someone else says...Just sayin'
Frank
BaronG58
BaronG58 1
And how does the FAA and NTSB determine causes of tragedies such as this...By comparing their knowledge gathered from all past accidents and incidents.
watkinssusan
certainly they use past evidence and accidents as a reference..my point is the 2 accidents i referred to (which people on this site mentioned) are in no way similar to this one by comparison of circumstances,type of aircraft or even the actions of the crew..every crash that happens boils down to a mechanical malfunction of some system or pilot error..in this case,it is proving to be not pilot error,but a pilots deliberate actions..one more chapter to add to the knowledge gathered from past accidents and incidents...
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
Mary Susan Watkins, I have spent a good part of my life analyzing accidents and I learn from every one. I teach young and old pilots the benefit of learning from other's misfortunes. We all can learn to not repeat the same mistakes over and over and expecting different results. This crash is very different. The FO has a real life issue and decided to take his own life.
preacher1
preacher1 1
All totaled, I flew 41 years, til my certificate and health crapped out in November and my philosophy during that time was that if I didn't learn something new every day, no matter how big or small, then it was a wasted day. That said, each accident is a tad different. Though they may be similar, there is always some small difference. Just like this one. Why did he set the descent and hold the speed where he did rather than just kick the nose over and speed like heck to the crash scene. That raise questions about his mental state by itself. Was he actually wanting somebody to get in there and stop him? We'll never know but we must take whatever precautions we can to keep it from happening again.
Lee1209
JOhn LEe 1
Does anyone one remember a French/Swiss movie about a plane crash with lots of rich people in the Alps that got swallowed up by glaciers. In the spring or later it was exposed and the locals took jewelry etc. before it got lost again. There was a lot of melodrama.
cl1485
Maybe a good reason to go back to 3 pilots, always 2 in the cockpit?
Hels1
Hels1 1
The flight deck titles are as follows: Captain and First Officer, for flight duties related to the aircraft manual, they are referred to as Pilot Plying and Pilot Not Flying. Both are, for the mostpart, equally trained in the aircraft, swap flying and non-flying responsibilities every other leg, at least in the US. An A320 in a 3000-4000 ft/min descent is nothing unusual. The aircraft, in stabilized cruise speed in a controlled descent, would still only have a negative deck angle in descent of approx 7-10 degrees nose down. Not nearly the "dive" the media is portraying. And think about this, the media is also judge and jury to the FO as well. If he were truly trying to "purposely destroy the airplane," wouldn't he have a descent rate of more like 10,0000 ft/min, or a deck angle resembling a true dive, or at least more like 30 degrees nose down??? Come on Media, stop sensationalizing the story. To me,this is like comparing the portrayed actions of the FO to trying to outrun a police officer doing the speed limit down a city street. The media has not learned that premature speculation is dangerous. Once again, they probably have it all wrong. I will chooose to wait for the final and offical avaiation investigative findings.
preacher1
preacher1 1
The media speculation was in there at first but now, most everything seems to be coming from the French prosecutor. I too question the dive speed and angle but they seem pretty solid that he was NOT incapacitated.
Hels1
Hels1 1
Ever heard the term "Armchair QB"?
preacher1
preacher1 1
or hindsight is 20-20 or shoulda, coulda, woulda
Hels1
Hels1 1
As a former airline pilot, I find it so incrediby frustrating that global media can get a fraction of truth in their detail, mixed in with almost total complete inaccuracies when it comes to aviation. They suddenly become experts on the subject. That would be like me trying to report on brain surgery. And people believe it, that's crazy.
MartyC4
Martin Cooper 2
This is the same for any kind of tech problem. A fact or two and then vapid quotes and guesses.
wopri
So true, but not just for tech problems.
rickyshaw
Richard Shaw 1
You guys are the experts but I guess you could calculate airspeed based on the ground speed (reported) and rate of discent. Anyway, what is the rate of desent of the A320
without power?
fireftr
Dale Ballok 1
Are you freakin' kidding me that Lufthansa and other airlines have no policy, like in the US, to have TWO bodies in the cockpit at all times? Of course, it took 150 people to lose their lives, some of which were employees, for that policy to be put in place. That move took no time at all!
Even I can figure out that anything could happen in the few minutes that the second crew member is off the fight deck...medical issue, errant aircraft, suicidal pilot, etc. We'll probably never know how this atrocity was planned out. What if the Captain never vacated his seat? Would the FO still have tried to bring the plane down?
God bless all the passengers and crew members that were aboard, and damn the responsible owners for their complacency.
I hope the surviving families sue the shit out of them! IDIOTS
professorasoniamagaly
sonia santos 1
My God. God save your souls.
yr2012
matt jensen 1
I ask once more, was the pilot dumping fuel as I see there was no burning wreckage?
BaronG58
BaronG58 2
I don't think the A320 has fuel dumps. Think it is certified to land at MTOW. Could be wrong.
tip896
william pryor 1
I wish we could allow for time to grieve and give the experts time to analysis and digest the possible causes before coming to a conclusion. Alas, its not possible so we must live with the moment.....
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
There is no other cause. Gimme a reason to believe that the Captain would step out and then not be let back in. What are the chances the 28 YO FO had a medical emergency and would not be able to flip a switch?
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
One reason referencing back to Jet Blue when the capt left the flight deck and basically went crazy, basically telling people they were going to die and so forth.. The FO locked him out of the cockpit. From the article: "A JetBlue pilot arrested after an apparent meltdown aboard a March flight has been found not guilty by reason of insanity.", "Unruly JetBlue pilot found not guilty by reason of insanity". However, I do not think that is the case in this situation, and I cannot think of another situation.
cheops711
I recall an incident in either the late '80s or early '90s where a PSA pilot had a meltdown and nosed the aircraft over reaching super sonic speed before crashing
saskip
My best wishes for the parents of the victims.
StarFlyr
StarFlyr 1
I find it incredible that the voice recorder can pickup the sound of the co-pilot breathing. The A320 MUST be a very quiet cockpit if that is true. My cockpit experience is with the C-135, C-130, C-121, C-141, Boeing 707, 727, 747 and Lockheed 1011. In none of these plane could I hear other crew members breathing even bring a foot or two away.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I don't think the cockpit is any quieter, but it shows you the sensitivity of the microphones.
StarFlyr
StarFlyr 1
Hadn't thought of that. Hot mikes! In every ship I flew, we only used hand mikes for outside communications and spoke to the other pilot without a hot mike.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Those CVR mikes are really something. Even in a fairly new 767, you can't really crosstalk unless you got a headset on, without having to yell. You really wouldn't think it but the cockpit is a noisy place.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
From my observations, Buses have much louder cockpits than Boeings, but an interesting observation a CRJ 700/900 Next Gen plane is much quieter than many of their larger relatives. Not being a pilot, but flying Jump seat as a Company Mechanic.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Would it possibly be due to closer engines, i.e. under wing vs. tail mounted. idk, just asking
preacher1
preacher1 1
Talking about the CRJ's here
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
My experience has been that the air system was the loudest in the cockpit. Shut it off and everything becomes silent. There's a lot of heat in the CP that has to be cooled. That being said, rear engine aircraft are inherently quieter in the cockpit.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Very true, and particular to the CRJ, the cooling fans for most of the avionics is not within Hearing Distance of the cockpit, even though you can hear the air, you cannot really hear the fans.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Crew headsets have mics on all the time tied to the CVR... PTT and Intercom features only make it hot when used, but the recording continues. Not to mention the area mic in the cockpit is VERY sensitive and as we have seen here picks up many sounds... ALso keep in mind that once downloaded the sounds can be filtered out by computer so that they can hear only what they want to hear, or to remove what they do not want to hear... IE: Wind Noise passing the windows.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Sparkie, I'll defer to you on this one. You are the mx guy here
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
Now that we know it was not a Bus problem......Only the Captain signs the release verifying he/she is fit to fly and is qualified. I have flown with some crews where I had doubts. However, you can't prejudge everybody. I just took it into my "situational awareness" and pressed on. In the United States, a CFR 121 pilot takes a physical every 6 months (Captain) and FO's every year. We sign the medical form, under penalty, stating we are complying and are fit to fly. There is almost nothing you can take or be on or program to be in if it will have any effect on your ability to fly. If we lied, we could lose our medical and license and maybe even serve jail time. Say good by to your career. OTC meds are routinely taken when they really shouldn't. You have to keep flying. The FAA and company knows this. There's a fine line between reality and legality. It's a legal thing where the company cannot be held liable because in the Ops Manual it clearly states their position--comply with the regs. Lufthansa is scrambling now to justify their hiring and screening practices.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Probably a lot of other jobs tightly regulated too but this is one where you not only have your company standing there but also the government. Pilots are only human and not perfect, but they are expected to be,
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
Yeah, we are now going into the GoPro video everything era. I know some truck drivers have a camera on them and one on the road to video all events. They have GPS to track every mile. I don't even want to address the police. I believe this is insurance driven. Liability is more important then getting the job done.
kenish
kenish 2
A cockpit area cam could help with accident investigation. In cases of deliberate malice, a piece of tape over the lens will literally mask all the evidence.

I'm a design engineer... backups, interlocks, failsafes, redundant systems, procedures, etc. are excellent protection against mistakes and stupidity. And almost no protection against malicious intent.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Goes back to an earlier comment of mine, a lock will only stop an honest man.
preacher1
preacher1 1
ALPA can fight and squeal but I figure that somewhere down the line, there will be cameras in the cockpit. I am glad I am retired and out of the hassle.
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
Me too, old preach.
suejillings
Sue Jillings 1
Yes worth reading Ev. Very informative! I think all pilots who go off sick for more than the usual 7 days should have to get their GP to send the sickness certificate to the company, what ever airline they are working for. This should be written and insisted upon in their contracts when flying commences with the company. If the airline doesn't receive the certificate then the pilot should be grounded and be assessed by the airline Doctors and psychologists. This will stop future pilots throwing their " not fit for work" in the bin!
evbutler
Ev Butler 1
This link from Reuters is interesting: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/27/us-france-crash-idUSKBN0MN11N20150327

Note from Physician destroyed by FO.
suejillings
Sue Jillings 1
Pierre these comments are not pointless. Yes we know a lot more now but what are the air lines going to do about it? Mental illness is not always visual to colleagues, it's not a transparent illness. Remember the cockpit door system was only invented and managed this way due to terrorist!! We now have to look at a pilots stability but this is going to be a very difficult task. I agree with the airlines so far who are already having 3 people in the cockpit due to this horrific event!
preacher1
preacher1 1
Just FYI, it is 2, not 3, in the cockpit
sprumontp
How pointless can nearly all these comments be, now that we really know the cause of the disaster. Mental health of cockpit personnel must be, if possible, better checked.

And peace to all the victims, including the mad author of the mess.
ddk1psu
Dan Klees 1
I noticed on the flight log that they were only at FL380 for about 3 minutes before whatever happened. Wonder if that is a clue or just random.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Germanwings CEO just said that they were at cruise for only about 1 minute. R I P
rlefleur
Many reports surfacing this morning..3/27..
Copilot respirations perfectly normal down to impact. (open mike). Not one word spoken.
Captain tried to break down door with Axe from emergency kit.
Lock to cabin intentional in lock position so keypad and emergency code inactive.
Of course have to wait for final official statements. All indications point to planned suicide.
rlefleur
Reports now there were psychiatric issues with CP .... never relayed to parent company.
Was not supposed to be flying that day.
uccella
Lufthansa should never have let her fly an airplane to a person who had stopped for depression the training course , even though he had passed the disease and it was brilliant result in the completion of course.Strange that none of the friends and family has never noticed anything. I believe that depression is a latent evil that may come up suddenly after having apparently overcome, sometimes with some signs that those close should perceive. If the first driver had known depression ( perhaps for privacy did not know ) , should not have left only the co-pilot who , apparently , after a first flight seems " quiet " has proved " laconic " with the commander , before they came out of the cabin .
FlightNerd
David French 1
Could loss of cabin pressure explain such a rapid descent?
preacher1
preacher1 2
At this stage of the game, anything is possible but there is generally no loss of control on an emergency depress, besides leveling at 10000. Something happened here that turned bad ugly.
FlightNerd
David French 1
...by which I mean could the descent have been deliberate but under the duress of a cabin decompression situation the pilots misjudged it?
bartmiller
bartmiller 2
Certainly a rapid descent is a standard procedure when there is a loss of cabin pressurization. That leaves a couple of things unexplained, though.

First, the descent rate was too high. Second, it doesn't explain the course change (which wasn't towards any airport or away from higher terrain). Third, there was no subsequent mayday call.

If the decompression was explosive (sudden due to a major structural failure or loss of door, there will be noise and, for a short period, dense fog. At 35,000' the time for useful consciousness for a sitting person is only 45 seconds (they were at 38,000), so the crew has to respond quickly. When a decompression happens, the first task is to grab a quick-donning oxygen mask. These are always within reach of the flight crew for aircraft that operate at these high altitudes. This task is extensively practiced in the simulator.

Once the masks are on, the descent is a rapid but controlled maneuver.
bhanuchandernz
very sad.......
latteju
latteju 1
Eye witnesses saw the plane 30 seconds before impact. "There was no smoke coming from the plane, but it was so low it was clear it was going to crash".
Another witness reported the plane making "a strange sound, as if something was wrong with the engine" .
Honestly, I think that every plane flying at low altitude at 400 kts sounds strange.

http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20150324_01595933
bartmiller
bartmiller 2
I saw mention of this also. It sounds like (definitely only an inference based on second reporting from a non-trained observer) that the plane was under some control and wasn't spiraling in.

Excessive sudden descent, no communications, significant change in course, but then the appearance of (somewhat) controlled flight into terrain

These accidents are so often puzzles that take time. Hopefully the data recorders will give more insight. The voice recorder should be really informative.
erisajd
erisajd 1
'strange sound' could have been the RAT too . . .
FrankHarvey
Frank Harvey 1
Does it deploy automatically ? If they lost engine generated power and manually deployed it wouldn't they have had time for (a brief) emergency communication ?
wenmor
John Morris 1
I am an aviation enthusiast, certainly not a pilot nor an expert in aviation. However, I haven’t seen any mention in this thread of a possible decompression.

Patrick Smith in his book Cockpit Confidential talks of the procedures that should be taken in such a case. They seem to fit what happened in the Germanwings crash. He says standard procedure is, after dealing with Oxygen masks, to initiate a controlled but fast dive. From 35,000 feet to not less than 10,000 feet probably taking eight or nine minutes. He adds that things are more complicated in mountainous regions but even here there are supposedly “escape paths” for airplanes at lower altitudes.
preacher1
preacher1 2
It's in here somewhere.
KevinBrown
Kevin Brown 1
CNN is reporting that a distress call was received from the doomed aircraft
KevinBrown
Kevin Brown 1
From CNN

"The President of France says the conditions of the crash does not appear clear but it doesn't appear that there will be any survivors"
shaddi2009
Pankaj Verma 1
RIP from SEO Company.
shaddi2009
Pankaj Verma 1
Very sad and pray that justice is done. Love from all at http://www.ganpatizone.biz
nasdisco
Chris B 1
The second black box, containing technical data on the aircraft has been found.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/germanwings-crash-second-black-box-found
LucieCoyote
When I try to sort this list to "newest", nothing happens. What's up with that?
archiea
uma tragedia;nossa sugestão - 3 pessoas na cabide sendo oãcomandante,co-piloto e engenheiro de hard and softaware com nossos de pilotagem , como havia antes nos aviões a pistão - um de cada vez ao deixar a cabine
Edison - Porto Seguro - Bahia
preacher1
preacher1 1
Google Translate -

one tragedy , our suggestion - 3 people in the hanger being oãcomandante , co- pilot and engineer softaware hard and with our pilot , as he had before the piston airplanes - one at a time to leave the cabin
Edison - Porto Seguro - Bahia
Lee1209
JOhn LEe 1
Does anyone know if opening any or all the doors could have affected the speed of the plane or caused a less catastrophic accident. What about jumping out? Throwing baggage out? anything in addition to useless pounding on a door built to resist.
btweston
btweston 1
A guy flew a plane into a mountain on purpose.

Restart thread.
aviation321
william peers 1
its not very good news.
yapur8
jose yapur 1
Loe airline errors are frequent cassis what ay to lower the incidence of these unfortunate events Germanwings flight, 1 st the expert and technical security of aerial lines must find a more direct method in the search for a more workable solution open door where are the pilots in aircraft passenger-reaching
yapur8
jose yapur 1
Loe errores aereos son casis frecuentes lo que ay que bajar es la incidencia de estos hechos lamentable del vuelo Germanwings, 1 ero los experto y tecnicos de seguridad de las lineas aereas deben buscar un metodo mas directa en la buscar una solucion mas viable de abrir la puerta donde estan los pilotos en los aviones de gran calado de pasajeros
gearup328
Peter Steitz 1
Please reply in English. I can piece together but my Spanish is weak.
catherinemicol
terrifiant d'être dépendant d'un personnel naviguant qui n'a plus toute sa tête !!!!!!!!!!!!
latteju
latteju 1
This chart shows altitude and speed.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CA3B54uUQAAPG39.png

You can see that they descended in about 10 minutes from 38.000 to 6.800 feet.
I can't match the chart with a distress call at 9:47; that would be after the crash. Probably the distress call was just before the crash.
FrankHarvey
Frank Harvey 1
"Distress call" or ELT ?
stiri
stiri 2
latest news say there wasn't any distress call from the plane at 9:47, it was the emercency call from the flight controllers
stiri
stiri 4
this is an excerpt from the link below (in french)

"La Direction générale de l'aviation civile (DGAC), qui avait indiqué dans un premier temps que le vol s'était déclaré en état de détresse à 10 h 47, est revenue sur ses propos. « L'équipage n'a pas émis de “mayday”. C'est le contrôle aérien qui a décidé de déclarer l'avion en détresse car il n'avait plus aucun contact avec l'équipage et l'avion », a-t-elle expliqué."

http://www.lemonde.fr/crash-germanwings/article/2015/03/24/crash-d-un-airbus-a320-de-germanwings-dans-la-region-de-barcelonnette_4600118_4600138.html
latteju
latteju 2
Thanks. This is a more plausable explanation. It matches with the missing flight date after 9:42.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Google translation:
"The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), which had initially indicated that the flight had declared in distress at 10 am 47, is back on his words." The crew did not issued "mayday." This is the air traffic control that has decided to declare the aircraft in distress because he had no contact with the crew and the aircraft, "she has said."
FrankHarvey
Frank Harvey 1
Thanks for this chart, very very interesting.
preacher1
preacher1 1
One thing I always did like about our 135/91 operation was coming to work with the same people all the time rather than having to size somebody on the fly. At least with a steady partner, you could tell if they were having a bad day. A lot of the time you might wind up being an intermediary, but in my case, the flying was an escape and just put people more on their game.
atoblan
Realmente yo no soy experto en aviones, pero por lo regular los accidentes en la aviación, ocurren por errores en la fase de revisión final en virtud de que los mecánicos que revisan o los que cierran las puertas de equipaje no entienden el idioma en que esta escrito la ADVERTENCIA y ahí es donde se comete el ERROR.
Por otra parte están haciendo leña del árbol caído en virtud de que siempre se lleva un período largo en el análisis de las cajas negras y que casualidad que ahora fue de inmediato.
Posiblemente este dictamen es el mal menor sobre todo en lo referente a lo económico o sea pago de seguros
preacher1
preacher1 1
This is google translate, please address any further comments in English:

I really am not an expert on aircraft, but usually in aviation accidents occur due to errors in the final review under the mechanics who review or closing the doors of luggage do not understand the language in which this WARNING written and that's where the mistake.
Moreover they are beating a dead tree under a long period always takes on the analysis of the black boxes and accident that was far away.
Possibly this opinion is the lesser evil especially regarding either economically or insurance payments
ilikerio
ilikerio 1
D-AIPX, here's the most recent picture of the aircraft..
http://www.planespotters.net/Aviation_Photos/photo.show?id=522351
preacher1
preacher1 1
Lot's of questions without answers here and either I missed something or something is being withheld. Since they haven't recovered the FDR yet, how do they know, as some have reported, that the altitude was set to 100'?
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Maybe in ADS-B transmissions?
bardisviu
I was on an A-320 last July on a domestic flight in Brazil, where I live. Already on the tarmac computers onboard shut down and the pilot had to move back to the gate for an it operator restart the system. If the same happens during a flight, what might happen? That is the question I ever wanted to know. I know nothing about those adorable modern jetliners, have no idea on what happened up there on flight 4U 9525. As far as I am concerned to fly today is safer than never. I am, like everyone, very interested in knowing what happened up there.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Computers are part of our daily lives now and have been for awhile. That said, the program that Airbus has out there has been under much scrutiny for doing just a bit too much. It is one thing for Fly By Wire and a computer assist rather than a hydraulic assist. It is another for the pilot to be locked out of the loop and not be able to control the plane. When Mr. Murphy walks in to a cockpit and upsets things, that pilot is paid to correct that upset to the best of their ability and doesn't need anything in the way that he has to get out of the way before he can deal with the problem. Most of the computer program is written with logic and not flight experience and there is one hellacious difference.
carlpickin
carlpickin 1
A question for the experts:

Would the size of the debris pieces have a bearing on whether the plane was still pressurized at the time of impact?
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Not really... That would play a very small roll I believe... Breaking up in flight or on the ground is the big item.. If breakup in flight, then it would have been spread for miles.
kangforpres
The FDR is missing it's microchip? Well then it's essentially useless. I thought FDR's and CVR's were designed to withstand high velocity, high energy impacts like a jet slamming into a mountain at high speed? First MH370 and now this. The aviation industry and government regulating agencies need to make a whole new commitment to flight safety no matter what the cost.
allench1
allench1 1
bad info they have not found the second box as yet
joknecht
Alon Gross 1
BBC now reporting from French authorities that the cockpit voice recorder has usable "information" an that the flight data recorder has not been recovered.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Fantastic info... I heard they found the FDR, but the memory was missing.... Hope they get that as well.
joknecht
Alon Gross 1
Latest reports are that the cockpit voice recorder is so badly damaged that the information may be irretrievable, and that the memory card is missing from the flight data recorder....this may be a hard one to solve.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
I Heard that as well, and the crash site is not exactly the easiest place to access either... Bad all the way around. Hope they find the memory card... In Tact.
mdlacey
Matt Lacey 1
Reports saying it had just been inspected yesterday. Maintenance didn't close something out that manifested itself once they switched to cruise? What would not be used during climb that would be used once it got to cruise?
preacher1
preacher1 1
I was thinking maybe something on pressurization after being reminded about 522, but I would have thought that the FD would have taken it on at altitude if that was the case. I just think something real ugly came into the cockpit and they tried to deal with it, running out of airspace in doing so. For the what, we'll have to wait for the boxes.
allench1
allench1 1
Wayne I have a few thoughts to bring to the tabletop discussion: 1. I am absolutely puzzled by the lack of communication from the cockpit, three seconds to repeat mayday. 2. it bothers me that there are no fire or impact points on the ground which seems odd considering the fuel on board. Other than that my only guesstimate would be a froze AoA indicator commanding a descent by the flight director whereas the pilots could not work the many check list items in order to get the system into alternate law in order to regain control.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, that lack of communication is a big point in about any thought or discussion on this crash. As you say, 3 seconds to holler mayday and not much more to hit a transponder. I just can't believe that no matter what, that in the space of 14 minutes, that they couldn't find a few seconds to let somebody know something. That is what is fueling all the talk about pilot incapacitation, so idk.
allench1
allench1 1
no fire or impact points on the ground is equally mystifying considering the speed of impact
preacher1
preacher1 1
Yeah, they said it looked like 2 scatter points, meaning there was like impact on a ridge and then scattered down a couple of ravines.
allench1
allench1 1
no fire or impact points on the ground is equally mystifying
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Not a good sign, NYT reporting problems w/ recorders:"But the search for clues about what caused the crash was dealt a setback Wednesday afternoon, as investigators said they had so far been unable to retrieve any data from the plane’s cockpit voice recorder. The inquiry has been hampered further, an official said, by the discovery that the second black box, which was found on Wednesday, was severely damaged, and its memory card was dislodged and missing."
nasdisco
Chris B 1
Other sources saying the Black Box analysis indicates structural failure involving windshield failure.

Too much speculation running around for me to believe anything.

Pictures attributed to the aircraft's black box reveal very badly crumpled pieces of metal.

Anyone else wishing that instant telemetry available?
preacher1
preacher1 1
And if little or nothing can be retrieved, it will be endless speculation for a real good while. I am still inclined to believe it was a case of CFIT. Why is going to be the question. There are a lot of folks that would like to start Airbus bashing about now but whether you are a fan or not, until there is some firm evidence, they will just be guessing
allench1
allench1 1
I almost do not want to speculate on this subject, but, I have seen other recorders with this much and more damage and the info for the most part were retrieved which leads me to the thought that if it was a pilot induced descent liability goes up exponentially. just saying.......
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
If it was a LH rep that found the FDR, check his pockets...
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Lufthansa, the parent firm.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
That makes since... Just did not put the 2 together
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Looking at the debris field, reconstructing the accident from the wreckage will be like solving a jig-saw puzzle whose pieces were run thru a shredder.
preacher1
preacher1 1
As Allen says in another comment here below, the lack of fire or explosion on impact gives cause for concern as well. So many things, a cause will be impossible if the can't get something off the recorders. I guess those recorders aren't as indestructible as thought. I still haven't heard anything final off that Indonesian plane that went down in the water last month or whenever.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
It really gives you an idea of how had they hit...
DerekCooks
Derek Thomas 1
Yes, the level of damage on the box(es) is appallingly real. And thank you to you, Sparks, and Preacher, as well as a few others for some common sense. Listening to the press briefing this morning, I was amazed at the stupid journalists repeatedly asking "why, how, when, where.." just, really, within hours of the crash. Sounded like, "well...maybe if I ask the same questions with different inflection they will answer differently..." DOH!!!!!
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Yeah.. I agree.. I think the pattern of debris will give them more information that the debris itself.
rhhardin
rhhardin 1
If you wanted to descend as fast as possible to low altitudes, how would you do it?

What with going supersonic and limits on speed brake deployment at high speed, wouldn't it be about what they did?

In effect the speed brakes support some fraction of the weight of the airplane, and they're limited in what they can support.

Say and then they passed out from whatever it was and the descent continued into the ground.

If not depressurization, then perhaps noxious fumes. Some DC-9 went into the Everglades from that.
davidhoc
david hocde 1
Choosing FL380 as first FL cruise is quiet high, isn't it ?
BaronG58
BaronG58 1
38K is pushing the limit for the A320,I believe the certified ceiling for the A320 is 39k and change. Don't know if this would be a factor. Some of the "Heavy Metal"jockeys would know more than me.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I haven't never flown a Bus, but on a Boeing, you have an unpublished play factor above the certification.
onfiregirl
Alysha Angel 1
Hello gentlemen of our global friendly skies. I have been paying close attention to this disaster since my friend first pointed it out to me earlier yesterday afternoon. Now I am not a pilot or even a stewardess for that matter, im here for self education purposes .
What i find interesting about it all are the eye witness reports right before the plane in question crashed. a lot of unanswered questions . yet its way too soon for any of them to be properly answered.
would sudden fuel loss shortly after cruise altitude be a factor in the cause of the overall accident ? because according to eye witnesses on the ground pointed out that the plane was NOT in flames as she crashed into the mountain and no smoke either . or im just a fool asking stupid questions about something i know nothing about ...
preacher1
preacher1 1
Anything is possible at this stage of the game, Alysha. What is really unusual but has really not been called into question is the lack of explosion or fire on impact.
cacornett58
Craig Cornett 1
Surprised the media hasn't spewed the words "terrorist attack", or have they.
androo729
Oh, plenty of people online (mostly on the right) have been saying that.

I'm...not gonna comment further on that...
androo729
Is anyone reminded of the ValuJet crash? That said, those guys were able to radio the tower.
vincenzo571
il cavallo di battaglia di molte compagnie aeree
preacher1
preacher1 1
translated: the workhorse of many airlines
FrankHarvey
Frank Harvey 1
A320, the European 737
cacornett58
Craig Cornett 1
I think loss of cabin pressure and or loss of elevator control. Pilots unconscious, no comms and loss of elevator control.
kangforpres
I've heard in a media report that the descent was programmed into the FMC. Could that be known this early into the investigation?
preacher1
preacher1 1
I think that is speculation. I don't think the box is in possession of authorities yet. If it is, it's still bad early.
csoubzmaigne
Now we know : depressed suicidal copilot ! How could we imagine this....
palpinha
dieses Mal von Traurigkeit hier lasse ich mein Bedauern Familie , dass Gott segne Sie alle
preacher1
preacher1 1
translate:



this time of sadness here I leave my regret family that God bless you all
bartmiller
bartmiller 1
I tend to over obsess on these crashes, trying to visualize how I would handle a similar situation (there but for the grace of god go I).

One last observation is that the airspeed reported was pretty darn consistent from FL380 down to below FL180. This would seem to indicate that the aircraft was under some control. As Frank Harvey points out in his comments below, the crew of AF447 was totally overwhelmed by a sequence of failures and the Airbus' barrage of information presented to the pilot. But that plane had just flown into am major thunderstorm.

If the crew of 9525 was overwhelmed, what got to them? Multiple flame outs (engine failures)? If they kept up there airspeed but had no power, could that explain the descent rate? (need to see the performance tables for the A320 to confirm ... just a guess) If the autopilot was engaged, then should not have changed course.

Sorry for all the musings. Just frustrated.
nasdisco
Chris B 1
Multiple reports indicate no report from the plane of problems.
Com's failure?
eureka123
Ralph Wyman 1
One quick note: dual flameout is urgent but should not cause a rapid descent. Heck, a Transat A330 flew close to 100 miles as a glider once.

Flightglobal is now indicating that the craft may have started descent as soon as one minute after leveloff at FL380.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Actually, that report came from Germanwings at least an hour ago.
FrankHarvey
Frank Harvey 0
Thanks for tolerating my uninformed speculation, Bart

One time I was a pax on a very early morning Easyjet 737 sitting on the tarmac at EGGP-Liverpool listening to the all sorts of bells, klaxons and "pull up...pull up" coming from the cockpit where a couple of mx bods were trying everything to stop the various confusing and overlapping noises. Listening to the cacophany made me wonder how anyone could concentrate and aviate with a clear head without being distracted by all these "warnings".

Additionally the mx people were getting very frustrated and voices were being raised between them and the flight crew who seemed to be under the impression that they had been told by dispatch that the problem(s) had been "cleared up" and signed off the night before. From the discussion it appeared that at EGGP, Easyjet mx was contracted and the contractors felt that Easyjet were not the quickest, or happiest, at paying their bills and wanted to be certain they'd be paid expeditiously. The discussion and debate made interesting pre-flight entertainment. I was sitting next to dead-heading company personnel who were scheduled as crew for another flight and which was now going to be late and were getting increasingly frustrated themselves. The cabin crew looked embarrassed but couldn't close the cockpit door because of the mx' toolbags and the coming and going on the stairs.

I got the impression that there might still have been some u/s equipment on our flight when we did eventually depart.

Then enroute a baby projectile vomited over his mother's shoulder onto a well dressed pax on the seat behind. That pax, wearing a really nice suit, was travelling to EGAC-Belfast for what he said was an important meeting. The smell of baby-milk vomit throughout the cabin made the flight even more memorable.

But at least no one was killed, or injured.

If anyone is offended by my rambling I apologise, but there's no nearby FBO for me to go and sit for a chat.
yr2012
matt jensen 1
Were they dumping fuel - I saw no evidence of fire?
preacher1
preacher1 2
What bothers me about this whole thing is why the dive on autopilot. Why not just shove the nose over and firewall the throttles and stick it in the dirt. Matt, there is no evidence of fire, but like the 737 and most of the smaller jets, the A320 has no fuel dumps.
paultrubits
paul trubits 1
Saying prayers?
preacher1
preacher1 1
For the families.
paultrubits
paul trubits 0
My guess the selfish bastard was only praying for his own soul.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I have no idea about him but I am speaking of what I am doing.
preacher1
preacher1 2
That is one thing that has buffaloed me in this whole thing; in all the pictures there is no real impact point and no evidence of fire/explosion at all.
preacher1
preacher1 2
And some other folks as well.
Lee1209
JOhn LEe 1
Too cold
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Very good possibility.. Once they find the FDR that question will be answered.... They may have been just lucky.. Good chance of it as I do not remember any notations in the news of the smell of jet fuel... Just no fire.
DrDe
Walter Demel 1
A general question about the flight-by-wire/flight computer logic: shouldnt the flight computer be able detect that the programmed descent will lead to a crash at some point and overrule? It probably would not help in the case when you are headed into mountains but even that could theoretically be considered if the computer has terrain information and GPS location to plot his trajectory..
onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 1
I always try to be the optimist ....maybe there was smoke and the pilot in the cockpit was trying to make it to El Prat and just passed out....seems a lil fishy with one being locked out of the cockpit and the other can't get back in...This seems to be happening more and more..There needs to be a remote way that operations can open the door.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
There used to be a way before 911... As a Line Mechanic prior to 911 I carried a cockpit key... Many times I would respond to an anonymous call from a captain needing to see maintenance only to open his door because he is locked out. One time I was at an outstation with no maintenance headed home from Vacation.. The flight was being delayed and I talked to the captain and asked him what was going on.. He said they were locked out of the cockpit... I pulled out my key ring, and said "Whats The Problem"... No delay, was about to call maintenance, and he got me a free upgrade to first class...
onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 1
I am thinking more on the line of by satellite...Kinda like you can wireless start your car by cell phone or lock your front door or garage....The request would be sent through operations kinda like On-star.
LeonardoJones
Hi, where is showing that the flight change the course? Everywhere i looked, today's flight was following exactly the same course of yesterday. The same turns and everything. Thanks!
bartmiller
bartmiller 1
Look at the table of location, speed, course and altitude below. The colum with the degree symbol is the flight course. It goes from 43 deg to 31 deg to 26 deg and they stays at or near 26 deg. This chance is contemporaneous with the descent.
LeonardoJones
Tks! =)
preacher1
preacher1 1
You beat me to it. That's how it is when you get old and slow. LOL
BaronG58
BaronG58 1
You beat me...if that makes you feel any better. 8-)
LeonardoJones
LOL, but i just checked, and that change of course is normal in that airway. Exactly around 30 minutes after takeoff (some difference maybe because of wind), the course of yesterday flight changed from 42º to 25º~24º. So for me, the plane didnt change course beside of what was expected.
kenish
kenish 1
If you're replying to my comments, you're correct. I didn't compare headings to previous flights. It does appear to be a planned heading change. That said, it's interesting (but hardly conclusive of anything) that the turn was at the same time the descent began. The previously mentioned airspeed dip on climbout is unusual...although is simply could be an ATC-requested speed reduction for spacing or traffic.
boughbw
Brian Bough 1
Looks like the New York Times is all but saying the pilot flying the plane intentionally crashed it after locking the other pilot out of the cockpit...
AONeal79
AONeal79 1
They're being sensationalist, I think. More likely the pilot flying was hypoxic.
beford
Bruce Ford 0
If that was the case, the entire plane would be hypoxic, including the hypoxic other pilot trying to get into the cockpit door... assuming the source is correct. We shall hear sooner rather than later.
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
I'll wait for the CVR transcript
preacher1
preacher1 2
Even the media is saying that is a leak and not official. I'll wait too.
fmcmath
Gary McMath 1
I've never liked the idea of a fly-by-wire computer sending signals to servos or solenoids and jackscrews for controlling any movable control surface for which my life depends in any vehicle. That is the method these days in newer jet airliners, and it has usually proven safe.

However even with older style solid mechanical linkups to movable flight control surfaces, if the airplanes auto-pilot was set in error by dialing in the altitude preset, to descend at 3500-4000 FPM, the auto speed adjustment not to exceed 400 knots, and left unattended for awhile, the 8-minutes to descend through the clouds from 38,000 feet altitude into a mountain could easily go unnoticed by the hapless crew and busy passengers.

Everyone was likely getting adjusted for the short trip at cruise altitude and also perhaps getting acquainted, 8 minutes of distraction is not really that long of time.
Sava1970
Sava Lopiano 1
There should always be 2 people in the cockpit, then this disaster would not have happened. ..RIP apart from Co pilot he will rot in hell.
wenmor
John Morris 1
So sad. So unfair.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
I hate it when my suspicions are right... Pilot (or in this case Co-Pilot Suicide).... I would have rather it had been a structural failure than murder... My condolences to the families.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Suicide is never good by itself. Problem here is there are 149 souls here that probably did not agree with him.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
I agree... That is why I used the term Murder :) My prayers go out to the families.
beford
Bruce Ford 1
Well, from this point, I think we can accurately deduce there was nothing mechanically wrong with this aircraft.
beford
Bruce Ford 0
Everyone will have a million questions, but I have one nagging one at this point: Was this young German pilot being laid-off by Germanwings? We will find the answer soon I'm sure.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Lufthansa pilots have engaged in several strikes recently. Is this perhaps an escalation of job actions by the union? I don't think so.
onfiregirl
Alysha Angel 0
offcial news conference reported by CNN. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/26/europe/france-germanwings-plane-crash-main/index.html
it was done on purpose by the copilot, Marriage problems? major family problems ? in either case , its really incomprehendeable to even think about.
ekia68
Emmanuel KING 1
L’Égoïsme de l’être humain, il aurai put le faire tout seul chez lui.
Condoléance à toues les familles.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
English please!
KevinBrown
Kevin Brown -1
This is very sad and shocking. It would appear at this point in time that all 142 souls on board have been lost. It's almost inconceivable that this could happen to a subsidiary of Lufthansa. I think that terrorism will be high on the list of causes.
boughbw
Brian Bough 2
I'm not sure why this comment is getting down-voted so much. The A320 is an extraordinarily safe plane. While it is not unthinkable, mechanical failures are fortunately unlikely to be the cause.

We like to think of dramatic hijackings or bombings when it comes to terrorism, but given where we are technologically, why not hacking? That would be truly terrorizing -- computer code is much easier to conceal than weaponry, and you don't even have to be on the affected aircraft to ensure its destruction.
rickyshaw
Richard Shaw 0
Was it a distress signal or distress call?
Very strange to give distress call and no contact afterwards, even though the crash was 45 minutes later.
BaronG58
BaronG58 1
I'm like you..have heard it reported both ways. Possibly made initial call then squawked 7700. Then got busy dealing with problem.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, CBS just reported that it went fromFL400 to 6k PDQ.
BaronG58
BaronG58 1
Wow! Descent like that explains lack of communications.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Yeah, I forget the actual time frame but it was basically a dive.
bartmiller
bartmiller 3
If you look at the flight track data (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/GWI9525/history/20150324/0835ZZ/LEBL/EDDL), you'll see:
Time Lat Lon Course KTS MPH Alt Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
05:30AM 43.0412 5.5936 43° 476 548 38,000 Level
05:30AM 43.1105 5.6674 31° 479 551 38,000 -316
05:31AM 43.1845 5.7177 26° 475 547 37,600 -1,455
05:31AM 43.2415 5.7546 26° 472 543 36,400 -3,200
05:32AM 43.3014 5.7931 26° 478 550 34,400 -3,455
05:32AM 43.3687 5.8368 26° 473 544 32,600 -2,636
05:33AM 43.4327 5.8782 26° 472 543 31,500 -3,877
05:34AM 43.5026 5.9234 26° 480 552 28,400 -4,036
05:35AM 43.6535 6.0222 26° 488 562 24,100 -3,818
05:35AM 43.7269 6.0701 26° 486 559 21,400 -3,750
05:36AM 43.8476 6.1496 26° 450 518 18,100 -3,273
05:37AM 43.9609 6.2244 27° 429 494 14,800 -3,242
05:38AM 44.0744 6.3000 26° 417 480 11,400 -3,188

You expect an airliner descent rate typically in the 1500-2000 fpm rate. 3000-4000 is excessive, PDQ as a previous responder noted.

It went off radar at 5:38...which isn't surprising as that's pretty close to terrain altitude.
preacher1
preacher1 2
That is definitely PDQ.
clandel
That works out to a descent rate of 40 - 45 mph. Not free-fall (I think), but certainly PDQ.
FrankHarvey
Frank Harvey 1
Thanks jacob
FrankHarvey
Frank Harvey 1
3k to 4k fpm ? In a 320 ?
capstar362
capstar362 1
from looking at all this, a consistent dive around 3-4K is looking to be duress descent or failure of controls.

he started the descent @ -316, then it surged to -1455 that is nearly a 5 fold increase in rate, then surged again at almost DOUBLE the 1455 rate. at one instance i see a less than 3k rate.

the turn started during the dive, and remained constant.

at that rate though, could the 320 maintain cabin pressure?
capstar362
capstar362 1
i went back, and checked the history, there are SEVERAL instances of 2k rates of descent. this is something they do frequently.

several routes clone the one for this incident. and there are a few other routes taken.
eureka123
Ralph Wyman 2
A 2,000 fpm descent is quite normal. If you fly, you've almost certainly been in a standard descent at that rate, and 2.500 is not all that unusual for a couple of minutes if a fairly quick altitude change is needed (ATC advising quicker descent for traffic, for example). But multiple minutes above 3,000 fpm, and up to 4,000 might only be called for if there was a severe fire situation or other very major emergency.
Though if that's the case, then a course change would typically also be directed, especially 1) knowing the Alps are approaching and 2) Marseilles and other airports are nearby the flightpath. Unless the crew was so focused on the emergency that they failed to aviate as first priority.
latteju
latteju 1
(non pilot here)
Dive... but speed is not going up dramatically.
And what is PDQ ?
Thanks for helping us understand.
BaronG58
BaronG58 2
PDQ...: " Pretty Damn Quick"
FrankHarvey
Frank Harvey 0
This is pure speculation:

They got to cruise and relaxed. Its a bread-and-butter milk run. CAVU at FL 380.

Suddenly - Bang Junk flying everywhere, hitting the pilots, zero visibility.

What happens if the cause of explosive decompression is the sudden loss of a cockpit window or windscreen at FL 380 ? What are the conditions on the flight deck in a 400 Kn airstream with locked cockpit doors ? What happens if the debris incapacitates one (or both) pilots (I understand the window debris leaves but what about the cockpit contents such as metal-edged Jepp cases) ? How robust is the flight deck emergency oxygen delivery system to flying debris ? What happens on a messed up, fogged up, flight deck if injured or incapacitated pilot(s) manage to start descending to 10000 with zero visibility but terrain is at 11000 ? What was terrain ltitude where the incident started ? Eight minutes at 400 Kn covers a lot of ground.

Situational Awareness : EA401 in Florida.
BaronG58
BaronG58 1
Frank...your speculation reads like a rough draft for a made for TV movie. I would watch it. 8:)
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
I would watch it.. Sound interesting... All jokes aside, there is already too much evidence to suggest parts did not come off the a/c prior to the crash.
FrankHarvey
Frank Harvey 1
Understood no parts came off this particular a/c. The reality of this incident is terrifying. Imagine you're the pilot locked out of the flight deck trying to break in and realizing the descent profile. Eight minutes can be a very long time.
FrankHarvey
Frank Harvey 1
Baron- As a kid I was a pax in a DC3/C47 flying in rain and I remember that the windows leaked quite a lot. Those rides around the Islands and the Guianas could be really bumpy. But there were benefits, back then we were allowed to ride in the cockpit.
Thanks for the perspective on my speculation, it comes from my nightmares. Sometimes I used to wake up covered in sweat.
birtsjoe
Joe Birts 1
Flew through a number of rainstorms on TTA back in the late 60's; just about every window leaked on the DC-3's. But of course you were only a few thousand feet above the ground. I don't remember a door to the cockpit, just a curtain across the aisle.
BaronG58
BaronG58 1
Whoa!...TTA..that brings back memories as a kid in the 60's riding my bike to Hobby (KHOU), going too the observation deck and watching the TTA DC-3's.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I was a Johnny Come lately to them in the late 60's I guess. They were already up to the early DC9's by the time I started flying them.
BaronG58
BaronG58 1
Yeah...when I was making my bike trips to Hobby in the late 50's early 60's TTA was flying DC-3s then Convair 240s...600s...DC9-10s in the late 60's.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Seems like some of the convairs may have still been around. This was 68-69.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Too early to answer those questions, but the fact is that most of the plane is in one general area... If a window did blow out, it will be somewhere else.... If a plane brakes up in air, parts are usually spread for miles. Once they get all the parts if it is a window, then they will be one short when they sort things out, but for right now, it appears that everything is in one single crash site... Note the rudder on the American Airlines in Queens NY where "Abrubt rudder inputs broke off the rudder" the rudder was found in Jamaica Bay miles from the crash site.
birtsjoe
Joe Birts 1
Single crash/impact site but a lot of relatively small pieces. Just getting them out will take weeks or months and putting the jigsaw puzzle together will take months or years. Hopefully the recorders will provide some answers.
bartmiller
bartmiller 1
Loss of windscreeen is a biggy. Total chaos, really, and really hard to have any forward viz. The quick-don oxygen masks are each separate, self-contained units on a bracket within reach of the pilot. If you could reach them, they'd work.
FrankHarvey
Frank Harvey 1
Then again its got to be about negative 52 centigrade up there. Even at lower altitudes over the alps at this time of year its cold on the ground and with DALR about 3 degrees per 1000 pilots could be incapacitated by cold instead of hypoxia.
FrankHarvey
Frank Harvey 1
Thanks again Bart, that scratches my speculation that the pilot(s) might have both passed out after setting autopilot for descent to 10,000 due to inoperable or damaged O2 equipment.
cl1485
3 in the cockpit might have saved Airfrance 447 also.
Flightdog
Roger Curtiss 3
Apparently not. There were 3 in the cockpit after the captain came back in and they still could not figure out what was happening.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I don't think he got back in there in time.
nasdisco
Chris B 0
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Lufthansa jet crashes in the Alps after transmitting distress signal

A plane carrying 142 passengers and six crew has crashed in the southern French Alps en route from Spain to Germany.
The Airbus A320 disappeared from radar in the Alpes de Hautes Provence after sending a distress signal at 10.47am local time (9.47am GMT).
Debris from the jet, operated by Lufthansa's Germanwings budget airline, has been found scattered over a wide area near Barcelonnette.
French president Francois Hollande said that he did not expect there to be any survivors.
He said: It's a loss, a tragedy which has happened on our soil.
'I am seeking information about homes in the area it came down. It's difficult place to access. In the meantime solidarity must prevail.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3009151/headlines-news-Germanwings-plane-crash-french-alps-crash-Airbus-A320-Barcelonnette-Barcelona-Dusseldorf-francois-hollande-Lufthansa-4U9525.html#ixzz3VIqnAi6j
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3009151/headlines-news-Germanwings-plane-crash-french-alps-crash-Airbus-A320-Barcelonnette-Barcelona-Dusseldorf-francois-hollande-Lufthansa-4U9525.html
ekia68
Emmanuel KING -1
L’Égoïsme de l’être humain, il aurait pu le faire tout seul chez lui.
Condoléance a toute les Familles.
uccella
Lufthansa non avrebbe mai dovuto far pilotare un suo aereo ad una persona che aveva interrotto per depressione il corso di formazione, anche se aveva superato la malattia ed era risultato brillante nel completamento del corso.Strano che nessuno degli amici e dei parenti non si sia mai accorto di nulla. Credo che la depressione sia un male latente, che può venir fuori improvvisamente dopo averla apparentemente superata, talvolta con alcuni segnali che chi è vicino dovrebbe percepire. Se il primo pilota avesse saputo della depressione (forse per la privacy non lo sapeva), non avrebbe dovuto lasciare solo il copilota che, pare, dopo una prima pare del volo "tranquilla" si sia dimostrato "laconico" col comandante, prima che questi uscisse dalla cabina.
giomic18
Il serait intéressant d'avoir le chronologie à partir du moment exact ou le commandant de bord est sorti du cockpit ...du verrouillage et la fermeture volontaire de la porte de la cabine de pilotage et de récupérer, hélas, sur le lieu du crash le maximum de téléphones car il pourrait y avoir des personnes qui auraient pu filmer... l’intérieur de l’avion… le comportement et la réaction du commandant avant l'impact…..
Paix aux malheureuses innocentes victimes…MG
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
Please speak english
btweston
btweston 1
You are a dickhead.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Google translate to PC English "You are a[n] <expletive deleted>"
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Google translate:
It would be interesting to have the timeline from the exact moment when the captain came out of the cockpit ... locking and voluntary closure of the door of the cockpit and recover, unfortunately, the scene of the crash the maximum phones because there might be people who would have been able to film ... inside the plane ... the behavior and reaction of the commander before impact ... ..
Peace to the unfortunate innocent victims ... MG
tucsonguy
Ralph Addison -2
So when will airlines spent a few bucks and transmit flight data via satellite. Why Airlines, cut some funds from the overpaid CEO and stop the black box foolishness. Airlines needs to reconsider why they are in business. In 2015 they are so outdated in key safety areas.
Quackers
Quackers 3
Great idea. Just ground every plane on the planet for months, spend the billions required to install and connect all of the devices, ensure secure, uninterrupted links, assume there won't be any technical "kinks" to work out.

It takes time. And these incidents aren't as common as the media makes them out to be.
piper348
piper348 0
It's sad that we now seem to look to 'evil-doers' when back in the day we assumed mechanical failure.
lboyette
Lloyd Boyette 0
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

German Wings A320 crashes in the Alps.

A German airliner crashed near a ski resort in the French Alps on Tuesday, killing all 150 people on board, in the worst plane disaster in mainland France in four decades.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/airbus-a320-crashes-in-french-alps-security-source/ar-AA9VxqS?ocid=ansnewsafp11
glen4cindy
Glen England -1
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

German Airbus A320 plane crashes in French Alps

A passenger plane for the airline Germanwings flying from Barcelona to Dusseldorf has crashed in southern France, officials have confirmed.

The Airbus A320 making the flight for Lufthansa’s lowcost arm, Germanwings, crashed near the small mountain village of Barcelonette in the southern Alps. It had made a distress call at 10.47am then disappeared off the radar at around 11.20am, Le Figaro reported.

The French TV station iTele said there had been at least 142 passengers and six crew-members on board.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/24/german-a320-airbus-plane-crashes-french-alps
ssjan
Jan F 0
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

German plane crashes into Alps

Nearly 150 people were killed when a Germanwings jet crashed on Tuesday.

http://jansaviation.com/news.php?art=german-plane-crashes-into-alps
VisApp
Dave Mills 0
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Airbus A320 crashes in French Alps with 148 people on board: latest

Germanwings plane flying from Barcelona to Dusseldorf disappeared off the radar before crashing near Digne les Bains

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11491587/Airbus-A320-crashes-in-French-Alps-with-148-people-on-board-live.html

登录

还没有账户吗? 现在就注册(免费),设置诸多自定义功能、航班提醒等等!