|
|
Post by Mike Monce - HJG on Mar 25, 2015 13:21:07 GMT
Any thoughts on the A320 crash? My best guess as the info this morning indicated the plane stayed on it's lateral flight path: rapid decompression which would lead immediately for the crew to dial in an rapid descent into the AP, and then a loss of consciousness of the flight crew. At 38,000 ft they should have had enough time to get their O2 masks on, but then suppose a cockpit window which was cracked and leaking then blew out? At that altitude the temperature is around -50 C, they would then have froze quickly to incapacitation. The AP would have then just flown the plane into the terrain along its flight path.
They have a voice recorder recovered but in bad shape; no word yet on data recorder. This will be an interesting one to see what happened.
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Mar 25, 2015 19:39:08 GMT
Hi Mike: Some informations net yet in the media. That morning for the region around Barcelona was a SIGMET valid with Thunderstorms up to FL 300 INTENSIFYING. In the flighttracker: de.flightaware.com/live/flight/GWI9525/history/20150324/0835Z/LEBL/EDDL/tracklogOne sees a forceful loss of airspeed at 10:12 and a less violent one at 10:23. Could be sign of heavy turbulence and/or passing very active cells. So the known problem with the pitot tubes could be there. According to a communication of today from the French minister of transport the last communcation received was a routine message minutes before the crash. The silence lasted so long, that a Mirage fighter took off from Orange airbase not far away to look for the airplane. Also according to this declaration the CVR had already been read and there was only the last radiocall to be heard afterward there could not be distinguished what could be the crews internal communication. So it will be a long and difficult investigation. That the 150 persons which died may rest in peace. Walter |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Monce - HJG on Mar 25, 2015 20:34:08 GMT
Walter,
Interesting and thanks for the link. I also just found out about this similar incident from last year:
"Last year an Airbus A321 owned by Lufthansa went into a sudden descent at 31,000ft, falling at the same rate – 4,000ft per minute – before the crew managed to regain control. The European Air Safety Directive said in that incident the aircraft’s angle of attack sensors had become blocked and tricked the computer into thinking the aircraft was about to stall. The EASA said that in that situation: “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. “This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of control of the aeroplane.”
|
|
|
|
Post by Herman on Mar 26, 2015 3:21:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Dee Waldron - HJG on Mar 26, 2015 11:11:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Mar 26, 2015 12:19:55 GMT
Hi: The French authorities have declared know (13:00 MEZ) that at 10:30 after the approach briefing and comunicating with ATC the Captain handed over the control to his Copilot (600 hours 3 months with Germanwing) and goes to the toilet. Left the cabin, after the door closed behind him the Co programed a 2000 ft descent into the AP. The captain comes back immediatly, talks over interfone, no answer, knocks lauder, the Co actuates the security switch to stop the automatic of the door for 5 minutes, the captain tries to put manually in the emergency pin code. From the Copilot one hears only normal breathing, the captain tries to force the door, the airplane hits something on ground and crashes. The French authorities for the moment draw the conclusion that the CO. voluntary flew the airplane into the ground and voluntary closed out the Captain. A case very similar already had happened (TM 470): In that case it was the captain who flew the airplane voluntary into the ground. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAM_Mozambique_Airlines#Accidents_and_incidentsThere is wisdom in the US rule for two pilot operations, that in case of leaving the cabin by one pilot a member of the cabin crew has to remain in the cockpit. Kind regards Walter |
|
|
|
Post by Dee Waldron - HJG on Mar 26, 2015 13:19:14 GMT
Egypt Air 990... Deja vu all over again.
Dee
|
|
|
|
Post by Adonis on Mar 27, 2015 3:13:44 GMT
There's just one thing I don't get with this: Shouldn't the A320's FBW override the pilot attempting to crash the plane?
|
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Mar 27, 2015 13:37:41 GMT
Hi: The FBW overrides the pilots inputs if they are outside a safe flight envelop. In the case Germanwings the FMC or old expression AP was programmed for a 2000 ft descent. The FBW system does not "know" the actual safe terrain clearence. The FMC did advertise the upcomming terrain, but that was not respected as the PF alone in the cabin did fly intentionally into the ground remaining inside the "safe flight envelop" means no excessive bank or pitch or airspeed or climb descent rates or AoA.
Why the Co (Andreas L.) did fly under antidepressive medication and written unfit to work by his psychiatrist is still an open question. If the medication had influence on his last catastrophic actions is also still to investigate.
What is clear now is the flaw of philosophy in the security of cockpit operations, never assuming that a deadly problem can come also from one of the pilots closed in alone in the cockpit. In my country (Austria) from today on all aircarries under Austrian flag have to apply the four eyes principle, means in practice if one of the pilots leaves the cockpit a cabin crew member has to be in his place not to fly the airplane but in the case of an emergency to open the door to the other cockpit crew member.
Walter
|
|
|
|
Post by Benoit - HJG on Mar 27, 2015 14:36:47 GMT
The same rule for Canada effective yesterday, as a we were about to leave for our flight back from Frankfurt-Toronto, we received an internal memo about the immediate rule change/application, although it had initially been such ruling post 9/11, it had been relaxed a few years back, I'm glad to see it being reverted back to standard operating procedure.
Benoit
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Madge - HJG on Mar 27, 2015 15:55:30 GMT
Yes UK carriers seem to be adopting this new method, to be honest it makes sense not just in this tragic instance but because if the remaining crew member was taken ill then it could be a couple of minutes before anyone would know. Also Co Pilot it seems from the news was given a sick note but ripped it up and went to work, he was suffering from depression but hid the fact  I know from my flying career on the Police Helicopter as crew we had to submit any medication we were on and there are strict rules as to what any crew member could be taking whilst being aircrew, we also had one guy who was depressed after losing a family member and was taken off flying duties until cleared back to fly. All makes sense in light of this crash |
|
|
|
Post by Dan K. Hansen on Mar 28, 2015 0:32:02 GMT
I think that the French prosecutor, Mr. Robin, has been far to quick to close this case, based only on the play-back of the CVR. Even making the pilots names public within the first 12 hours after the crash is totally horrific and an overwheling disrespect for the families. We know next to nothing of what happened and yet name-saying and hate-comments are all over the internet due to one guy that obviously seem to follow the rule: "Quilty until proven innocent" ... A disgrace! This will be my only comment to this case, until we have a final report from the investigation group.
|
|
|
|
Post by tokolosh on Mar 28, 2015 1:04:01 GMT
I have to agree with you Dan. All too quick, too convenient. They haven't even recovered the second box yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adonis on Mar 28, 2015 4:49:08 GMT
Hi: The FBW overrides the pilots inputs if they are outside a safe flight envelop. In the case Germanwings the FMC or old expression AP was programmed for a 2000 ft descent. The FBW system does not "know" the actual safe terrain clearence. The FMC did advertise the upcomming terrain, but that was not respected as the PF alone in the cabin did fly intentionally into the ground remaining inside the "safe flight envelop" means no excessive bank or pitch or airspeed or climb descent rates or AoA. Why the Co (Andreas L.) did fly under antidepressive medication and written unfit to work by his psychiatrist is still an open question. If the medication had influence on his last catastrophic actions is also still to investigate. What is clear now is the flaw of philosophy in the security of cockpit operations, never assuming that a deadly problem can come also from one of the pilots closed in alone in the cockpit. In my country (Austria) from today on all aircarries under Austrian flag have to apply the four eyes principle, means in practice if one of the pilots leaves the cockpit a cabin crew member has to be in his place not to fly the airplane but in the case of an emergency to open the door to the other cockpit crew member. Walter I have also heard an FMC entry of 100ft from places, which is straight out wrong. Airbus FMGC's (and also other airliner FMC's) cannot take an altitude entry lower than 1000ft to their CDU's, nor V/S entries, those things can only be done through the MCP, BUT the FBW would level out the plane because of a terrain collision warning automatically. I'm with Dan on all this, usually it's the press or the people who don't understand how airplanes work those who jump to conclusions on a regular basis. |
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Mar 29, 2015 16:54:47 GMT
Hi Adonis:
The sad fact is that some airliners with all the gadgets like FBW etc were flown under control into the ground so:
Airblue Flight 202 (AB 320)
Armavia Flight 292 (AB 320)
Sukhoi Flight 36801 (Sukhoi Superjet)
Air Inter Flight 148 (AB 320) but this one had no GPWS.
Kind regards
Walter
P.S.:
There is so much gossip and unfunded speculation about the GW crash, that it is better to wait for the results of the investigations of the aviation authorities.
|
|
