Airbus A320 crashed in Southern France
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Citation: "I was wondering why the french military did not send fighters to intercept the aircraft as he didn't declare emergency nor sqwaked 7700."
Assuming a 'normal' peactime alert state (10 minutes to airborne) it would be impossible to 'scramble' to an event which reportedly lasted 8 minutes.
I think it was said a while back that fighters airborne in the nearby training area (which is probably the cause of the 'bend' in the track between BCN and DUS) were diverted to the scene (and apparently reached it pretty quickly).
Assuming a 'normal' peactime alert state (10 minutes to airborne) it would be impossible to 'scramble' to an event which reportedly lasted 8 minutes.
I think it was said a while back that fighters airborne in the nearby training area (which is probably the cause of the 'bend' in the track between BCN and DUS) were diverted to the scene (and apparently reached it pretty quickly).
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: pub
Age: 41
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it was said a while back that fighters airborne in the nearby training area (which is probably the cause of the 'bend' in the track between BCN and DUS) were diverted to the scene (and apparently reached it pretty quickly).
Yep. In one of the first interviews with local witnesses of the prang, one was quoted to say that fast jets buzzed the crash site within a minute of it happening.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A number of posters do seem to be making (unwarranted IMHO) assumptions of the purpose of the CC on the flight deck. I believe the primary purposes of the CC are to (a) alert the pilot who is currently absent if the flying pilot becomes ill or in any other way erratic and (b) open the sodding door so that the other pilot can enter.
There has been speculation that the flying pilot might disable the CC but given the pilot will be strapped in (at least initially) I think the only way that could easily happen would be by means of a gun which is a different bag of worms.
Will this proposal solve the problem completely? NO! It is however comparatively easy to implement, from the airline's point of view does not increase crew costs although there may well be some increased costs for training.
There has been speculation that the flying pilot might disable the CC but given the pilot will be strapped in (at least initially) I think the only way that could easily happen would be by means of a gun which is a different bag of worms.
Will this proposal solve the problem completely? NO! It is however comparatively easy to implement, from the airline's point of view does not increase crew costs although there may well be some increased costs for training.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1400 people, including relatives of victims, rescue workers, senior politicians from several countries attended a memorial service in Cologne today, which had elements of a state funeral. Some people argued whether there should be 149 candles or 150, yet the catholic cardinal insisted there were 150 victims, and that he's not the one to judge. I'm usually sceptical to priests and the like, but forgiving is probably a sensible way to deal with such tragedies, for those affected.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of the suggestions in this thread sound like a solution in search of a problem. Yes admittedly this happened once but how likely is it to happen again? Yes, we can learn from this accident, but I don't think many pilots will spend the rest of their working life being completely paranoid about their colleagues. There are better ways to improve aviation safety imho, that will yield better results. Overworked, tired pilots, unstabilized approaches, get-there-itis, while miniscule threats to safety judging by the numbers of accidents, still seem like a vastly bigger issue, realistically
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US has a system that worked the one time it appears to have been used, EASA has a system that didn't work the one time it was needed. It seems reasonable that some effort is spent to review the respective systems and reflect if any changes should be made.
The general thrust of the comments from European commercial aircrew show a (to me at least) surprising concern about the security status of the cabin crew and a worrying concern about spending time alone with them occupying the flight deck jump seat.
I am not sure if this is a real concern or more a response to introducing a limit on the handling pilot's authority, even if this authority is limited only to override the handling pilot's decision to bar the non-handling pilot from the flight deck.
I would suggest people think back to the occasions they* (or people they know, or even have heard about) have decided it was appropriate to lock the other pilot out of the flight deck. Was there any occasion where you consider the circumstances might have resulted in any CC incorrectly siding with the locked out pilot and letting them back onto the flight deck against the wishes of the handling pilot.
* realistically, I am assuming almost no one has actually had occasion to lock a member of the flight deck crew out so this will mostly be a reflection on the publicized events.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Germanwings Crash Exposes History of Denial on Risk of Pilot Suicide
In the days just after the Germanwings co-pilot Andreas Lubitz, 27, flew himself and 149 other people into a French mountainside last month, Lufthansa’s chief executive confidently pronounced that Mr. Lubitz had been “100 percent” fit to fly, highlighting how little the airline knew of the pilot who shook confidence in the company’s reputation for training and management rigor.
Mr. Lubitz’s journey to the moment when he found himself alone at the controls of Germanwings Flight 9525 from Barcelona to Düsseldorf on March 24 exposes a series of failures and weaknesses at Lufthansa and throughout the industry and its regulators in dealing with mental illness among pilots. And it shows how little the industry and its regulators have done to acknowledge and address the most extreme manifestation of those psychological strains: pilot suicide.
Mr. Lubitz’s journey to the moment when he found himself alone at the controls of Germanwings Flight 9525 from Barcelona to Düsseldorf on March 24 exposes a series of failures and weaknesses at Lufthansa and throughout the industry and its regulators in dealing with mental illness among pilots. And it shows how little the industry and its regulators have done to acknowledge and address the most extreme manifestation of those psychological strains: pilot suicide.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/wo...id=145194&_r=0
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The best (only) chance we have is not to allow such a person from strapping in at the controls.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LordSpandexMasher wrote:-
Yes there is:-
1. Vastly enhance current aircraft control systems so that they simply refuse deliberate control inputs by a pilot in charge that could only have the intent of crashing the aircraft. This would include obvious things that seem to not currently exist such as auto pilots also knowing about the height of all terrain and high buildings or masts etc on the ground so they would never accept any flight route that would fly the airplane deliberately in to terrain. The aircraft should only be capable of being descended to anywhere near ground level at locations where there are known suitable airports of an adequate minimum runway length for that aircraft type.
2. As part of that vast enhancement in auto pilot systems also require that all commercial passenger aircraft over 40 seats or whatever figure is decided on (it is probably going to be too expensive to retrofit and/or fit at all these kinds of protections for very small scheduled passenger aircraft) have a capability where the flight controls on the flight deck can be locked out from the pilot in charge and an auto land sequence to land the aircraft at the nearest commercial airport with a long off runway be initiated remotely by either the nearest ATC centre or the airline's own operations and control centre.
3. In order to facilitate the use of the remote auto land facility at point 2 above ensure that there are various prominently marked emergency telephones in break glass type cabinets in the passenger cabin (with a suitable threat of an up to 10,000 Euro fine or up to 6 months in jail for inappropriate or malicious use) and galley areas that either cabin crew or passengers can use to contact ATC or the airline base in an emergency to demand that control be taken out of the hands of the flight deck crew right now and the plane auto landed at the nearest suitable airport in terms of runway length and current weather conditions.
None of this can be done overnight but it could be designed in to all new builds within may be two years and retro fitted to all aircraft still flying within five years if they still have at least five years expected remaining use as a commercial aircraft ahead of them at that point in time. So in ten years we might actually be fully protected against such a possible event in all but very small passenger airplanes (which only carry a tiny percentage of total passenger numbers and passenger hours flown) will probably not have such protection because it is not economically viable (although it may become so in the fullness of time such as another 25 years from now)
At this point a pilot in charge could then only crash the airplane by carrying on materials that would let him set fire to the flight deck or similar but in principle security checks for getting airside also ought to prevent any pilot from being able to do that.
With the current state of computer automation it surely can be done if the threat is perceived to be large and significant enough and there is also the political will to force the manufacturers and the airlines to do it.
There isn't a solution.
1. Vastly enhance current aircraft control systems so that they simply refuse deliberate control inputs by a pilot in charge that could only have the intent of crashing the aircraft. This would include obvious things that seem to not currently exist such as auto pilots also knowing about the height of all terrain and high buildings or masts etc on the ground so they would never accept any flight route that would fly the airplane deliberately in to terrain. The aircraft should only be capable of being descended to anywhere near ground level at locations where there are known suitable airports of an adequate minimum runway length for that aircraft type.
2. As part of that vast enhancement in auto pilot systems also require that all commercial passenger aircraft over 40 seats or whatever figure is decided on (it is probably going to be too expensive to retrofit and/or fit at all these kinds of protections for very small scheduled passenger aircraft) have a capability where the flight controls on the flight deck can be locked out from the pilot in charge and an auto land sequence to land the aircraft at the nearest commercial airport with a long off runway be initiated remotely by either the nearest ATC centre or the airline's own operations and control centre.
3. In order to facilitate the use of the remote auto land facility at point 2 above ensure that there are various prominently marked emergency telephones in break glass type cabinets in the passenger cabin (with a suitable threat of an up to 10,000 Euro fine or up to 6 months in jail for inappropriate or malicious use) and galley areas that either cabin crew or passengers can use to contact ATC or the airline base in an emergency to demand that control be taken out of the hands of the flight deck crew right now and the plane auto landed at the nearest suitable airport in terms of runway length and current weather conditions.
None of this can be done overnight but it could be designed in to all new builds within may be two years and retro fitted to all aircraft still flying within five years if they still have at least five years expected remaining use as a commercial aircraft ahead of them at that point in time. So in ten years we might actually be fully protected against such a possible event in all but very small passenger airplanes (which only carry a tiny percentage of total passenger numbers and passenger hours flown) will probably not have such protection because it is not economically viable (although it may become so in the fullness of time such as another 25 years from now)
At this point a pilot in charge could then only crash the airplane by carrying on materials that would let him set fire to the flight deck or similar but in principle security checks for getting airside also ought to prevent any pilot from being able to do that.
With the current state of computer automation it surely can be done if the threat is perceived to be large and significant enough and there is also the political will to force the manufacturers and the airlines to do it.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2. ... have a capability where the flight controls on the flight deck can be locked out from the pilot in charge and an auto land sequence to land the aircraft at the nearest commercial airport with a long off runway be initiated remotely by either the nearest ATC centre or the airline's own operations and control centre.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capvermell
Your solution(s) are decades away from being technically feasible, let alone financially acceptable.
For instance:
would require huge infrastructure investments.
We are far from any aircraft being able to truly "autoland". Today's aircraft can land without a pilot manipulating the flying controls in the landing phase, but require 100% interaction, monitoring and potential intervention from the crew in the approach and landing phase.
This I agree with - we are far from meeting either of those factors IMO.
Quote:
There isn't a solution.
Yes there is:-
There isn't a solution.
Yes there is:-
For instance:
and an auto land sequence to land the aircraft at the nearest commercial airport with a long off runway
We are far from any aircraft being able to truly "autoland". Today's aircraft can land without a pilot manipulating the flying controls in the landing phase, but require 100% interaction, monitoring and potential intervention from the crew in the approach and landing phase.
if the threat is perceived to be large and significant enough and there is also the political will to force the manufacturers and the airlines to do it.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LordSpandexMasher wrote:-
Yes there is:-
1. Vastly enhance current aircraft control systems so that they simply refuse deliberate control inputs by a pilot in charge that could only have the intent of crashing the aircraft. This would include obvious things that seem to not currently exist such as auto pilots also knowing about the height of all terrain and high buildings or masts etc on the ground so they would never accept any flight route that would fly the airplane deliberately in to terrain. The aircraft should only be capable of being descended to anywhere near ground level at locations where there are known suitable airports of an adequate minimum runway length for that aircraft type.
Yes there is:-
1. Vastly enhance current aircraft control systems so that they simply refuse deliberate control inputs by a pilot in charge that could only have the intent of crashing the aircraft. This would include obvious things that seem to not currently exist such as auto pilots also knowing about the height of all terrain and high buildings or masts etc on the ground so they would never accept any flight route that would fly the airplane deliberately in to terrain. The aircraft should only be capable of being descended to anywhere near ground level at locations where there are known suitable airports of an adequate minimum runway length for that aircraft type.
2. As part of that vast enhancement in auto pilot systems also require that all commercial passenger aircraft over 40 seats or whatever figure is decided on (it is probably going to be too expensive to retrofit and/or fit at all these kinds of protections for very small scheduled passenger aircraft) have a capability where the flight controls on the flight deck can be locked out from the pilot in charge and an auto land sequence to land the aircraft at the nearest commercial airport with a long off runway be initiated remotely by either the nearest ATC centre or the airline's own operations and control centre.
3. In order to facilitate the use of the remote auto land facility at point 2 above ensure that there are various prominently marked emergency telephones in break glass type cabinets in the passenger cabin (with a suitable threat of an up to 10,000 Euro fine or up to 6 months in jail for inappropriate or malicious use) and galley areas that either cabin crew or passengers can use to contact ATC or the airline base in an emergency to demand that control be taken out of the hands of the flight deck crew right now and the plane auto landed at the nearest suitable airport in terms of runway length and current weather conditions.
At this point a pilot in charge could then only crash the airplane by carrying on materials that would let him set fire to the flight deck or similar but in principle security checks for getting airside also ought to prevent any pilot from being able to do that.
Like I said.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NigelOnDraft wrote:-
So what is the Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot then?
See Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Of course I realise this is an Airbus A320 but normally Airbus is way ahead of Boeing on such matters and it says above that Honeywell was also taking to Airbus about its system.
And even if no regular scheduled Boeing commercial aircraft yet has it on board it seems to be in a state of development where that could happen within 5 years if the political will was there.
Your solution(s) are decades away from being technically feasible, let alone financially acceptable.
We are far from any aircraft being able to truly "autoland". Today's aircraft can land without a pilot manipulating the flying controls in the landing phase, but require 100% interaction, monitoring and potential intervention from the crew in the approach and landing phase.
We are far from any aircraft being able to truly "autoland". Today's aircraft can land without a pilot manipulating the flying controls in the landing phase, but require 100% interaction, monitoring and potential intervention from the crew in the approach and landing phase.
See Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot is a set of sub-routines aimed at defeating attempts at aircraft hijacking by removing electrical power from an aircraft's flight deck, and irrevocably passing pilot authority to the autopilot and navigational computer for an automated landing at a safe airfield that can deal effectively with the incident.
In 2005, avionics supplier, Honeywell, was reported to be talking to both Boeing and Airbus about fitting a device aimed at preventing a 9/11-style hijack. On 16 April 2003, Honeywell filed patent [9] Airbus and BAE Systems, had been working on the project with Honeywell. Development sped up after the September 11, 2001 attacks.[10][11] The patent for the system was awarded to Boeing in 2006
In 2005, avionics supplier, Honeywell, was reported to be talking to both Boeing and Airbus about fitting a device aimed at preventing a 9/11-style hijack. On 16 April 2003, Honeywell filed patent [9] Airbus and BAE Systems, had been working on the project with Honeywell. Development sped up after the September 11, 2001 attacks.[10][11] The patent for the system was awarded to Boeing in 2006
And even if no regular scheduled Boeing commercial aircraft yet has it on board it seems to be in a state of development where that could happen within 5 years if the political will was there.
Last edited by Capvermell; 24th Apr 2015 at 09:09.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back on topic...
BEA plans A320 flight to validate Germanwings CVR data
Some interesting details:
The article also states that a preliminary report will be published "within weeks".
FlightGlobal -- Investigators will conduct a flight with an Airbus A320 to validate sounds picked up by the cockpit voice recorder of the Germanwings aircraft that crashed in the French Alps on 24 March. ...
The aim is not to simulate events on board that aircraft before it crashed, says BEA. Instead, the investigators want to ensure that the sounds of selector knobs and switches being used – as recorded by the CVR on the Germanwings flight – can be precisely attributed to specific controls in the cockpit.
The aim is not to simulate events on board that aircraft before it crashed, says BEA. Instead, the investigators want to ensure that the sounds of selector knobs and switches being used – as recorded by the CVR on the Germanwings flight – can be precisely attributed to specific controls in the cockpit.
[German transport ministry Alexander Dobrindt] says the co-pilot's capacity to act throughout the descent has been "fully proven". FDR data shows that the first officer not only changed the altimeter and speed settings several times but also "actively used the control organ [sidestick]" during this period, he says.
"These three elements are verifiable on the FDR and thus [make] conclusively clear that the co-pilot intervened several times consciously to bring that aircraft to a crash," he says.
"These three elements are verifiable on the FDR and thus [make] conclusively clear that the co-pilot intervened several times consciously to bring that aircraft to a crash," he says.
SBS Dateline, 8,30pm Sunday 26th
Are our planes safe?
Examines the recent German Wings tragedy.
Should be available to watch soon on SBS on Demand
Regards RW
What is SBS On Demand? | watch tv online | SBS On Demand
Are our planes safe?
Examines the recent German Wings tragedy.
Should be available to watch soon on SBS on Demand
Regards RW
What is SBS On Demand? | watch tv online | SBS On Demand
Should be available to watch soon on SBS on Demand
"Due to publishing rights, the content you are trying to watch is currently not available outside of Australia".
It was a doco by ITN Productions for Channel 4's Dispatches programme with Matt Frei,so it's probably already been on in the UK.
Here:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/h...mand/61713-001
llll
llll
llll
llll
Here:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/h...mand/61713-001
llll
llll
llll
llll
Last edited by TWT; 26th Apr 2015 at 11:58.
