Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Airbus A320 crashed in Southern France

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Airbus A320 crashed in Southern France

Old 4th Apr 2017, 12:23
  #3481 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Ontario
Posts: 2
I'm sorry but what are AVHerald trying to insinuate with their latest article? It looks like a load of hogwash and I don't have the patience to try and read it..
A320ECAM is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2017, 12:34
  #3482 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 298
Avherald's a weird site. First off, because DavidReidUK is the Anti-Avherald: mention the site, and he's guaranteed to make an appearance, taking every opportunity to mock it.

Second, yes, it's just one guy, and he has some rather odd standards of journalism. For example, he doesn't report "unofficial" sources: as near as I can tell, he uses recordings from LiveATC and ADS-B sites, but he doesn't always credit them. In fact, he sometimes even claims it's his policy not to credit them.

Third, his coverage is spotty. Of course it is. He's aggregating a number of official and unofficial sources, and he won't tell you what they are. Every day, there are a variety of events -- IFSDs, In-flight emergencies, even evacuations -- that don't make it to his pages. We all know this.

Yet, if you want somewhere on the internet that brings together concrete (and not-so-concrete) information on aviation events, what else are you going to do? Read through 175 pages of some thread on PPRuNe, where the same facts are repeated every five pages in between moral indignation, idiotic speculation, and wild-ass pontification?

It's no wonder that Avherald has been the point-of-origin for a variety of aviation-oriented stories that hit the news.

This is also what's rather disappointing about Simon's weighing in on this issue after meeting with the parents. Reading his account, each piece of evidence in favor of the "suicide theory" might be suspect for a different reason. If you chain these improbabilities together, then it might be the case that something other than a suicide happened, provided there was an autopilot failure, door lock failure, FDR failure, and the poor FO suddenly passed out while maintaining a regular breathing pattern through the mouth. Oh, and someone falsified the record of his depression. That's considerably more improbable than case made.
The BEA, however, is interested in Probable Cause, not the preponderance of evidence or certitude beyond reasonable doubt.
DingerX is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2017, 12:39
  #3483 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Isla Grande
Posts: 835
Of course AvHerald isn't perfect, but do you know any better?
gearlever is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2017, 13:34
  #3484 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,894
Originally Posted by _Phoenix View Post
Originally Posted by gearlever View Post
Indeed. Still don't understand why Lubitz used his oxy mask....
Where does this information come from?
Not from the final report, though.

Is it just a rumor?
The assertion that Lubitz was on oxyen during his time alone in the cockpit was made first (I think) in this Paris Match article published on 31st March 2015 (7 days after the crash)

Inside the A320 - Exclusive: The final moments before the crash

and, unsurprisingly, picked up subsequently by many of the mainstream media.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2017, 13:41
  #3485 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Ontario
Posts: 2
So is the father trying to claim that his son never crashed the a/c on purpose?

What does he suggest happened then? The A320's autopilot set the altitude to 0 and then engaged OPEN DES mode all by itself?
A320ECAM is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2017, 13:45
  #3486 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 908
I think that is what he is saying. (If you read the report their are some "straws" he can grasp"
IcePack is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2017, 14:29
  #3487 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Isla Grande
Posts: 835
IMHO the father is only a victim of the PAID journo (self called expert) sitting on the far right.

https://youtu.be/RaJOTaPK0sc

Last edited by gearlever; 4th Apr 2017 at 16:12. Reason: video
gearlever is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2017, 14:45
  #3488 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2
I think the BEA checked with Airbus and Germanwings about how the cockpit door for this aircraft was programmed, apparently the normal access code generates a buzzer for only 980ms and they ruled out completely that a 'clacking' noise heard during the 980ms buzzer was the switch being set to LOCK. The noise probably was Lubitz doing something at that point in the process of locking the door and preparing himself for what he was about to do.
Marama is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2017, 16:18
  #3489 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dortmund
Age: 50
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by A320ECAM View Post
I'm sorry but what are AVHerald trying to insinuate with their latest article? It looks like a load of hogwash and I don't have the patience to try and read it..
Alright, so here is one father who says that he does not refuse to believe that his son did this, but that he would like to be offered more convincing evidence. And then he goes on to present the building blocks for a story (he doesn't really spell it out like that) that the co-pilot just liked to play with the altitude selector whenever the captain was away, just so he could watch the associated marker move on the ND, but on the accident flight he was unfortunately knocked unconscious by turbulence during one of these exercises. And the captain was not prevented to return to the flight deck by someone flipping the door control switch to LOCK, but because one digit on the keypad didn't work.

Btw., the reasoning offered for that specific last item is the one thing that makes the AVHerald article worth reading, more precisely the section titled "Keypad, normal and emergency entry".

But make no mistake, I have little doubt whether or not Lubitz did all this intentionally. From the BFU statement in the final report, appendix 3 (emphasis is mine):
This assessment of the capability to act combined with the factual information, that the co-pilot [...] has made enquiries concerning the function of the door system and suicides, according to documents available to BFU, resulted in the above-mentioned conclusion.
noske is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2017, 16:27
  #3490 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Isla Grande
Posts: 835
Originally Posted by noske View Post
And then he goes on to present the building blocks for a story (he doesn't really spell it out like that) that the co-pilot just liked to play with the altitude selector whenever the captain was away, just so he could watch the associated marker move on the ND, :
Is it enough to slect a lower altitude to see the banana? If my memory serves me right the alt knob has also to be pulled, e.g. starting a descent.

Stand to be corrected.

Last edited by gearlever; 4th Apr 2017 at 18:24. Reason: typo
gearlever is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2017, 18:18
  #3491 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 41
Didn't they find web searches on his tablet computer in the days leading up to the crash which included "ways to commit suicide" and "cockpit doors and their security provisions"?
MartinAOA is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2017, 18:32
  #3492 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,894
See the quote two posts prior to yours.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2017, 18:37
  #3493 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Isla Grande
Posts: 835
This is really strange (flight to BCN)

On the previous flight, the following facts can be noted:
ˆˆ at 7 h 19 min 59, noises like those of the cockpit door opening then closing were recorded and corresponded to when the Captain left the cockpit; the aeroplane was then at cruise speed at flight level FL370 (37,000 ft);
ˆˆ at 7 h 20 min 29, the flight was transferred to the Bordeaux en-route control
centre and the crew was instructed to descend to flight level FL350 (35,000 ft), an instruction read back by the co-pilot;
ˆˆ at 7 h 20 min 32, the aircraft was put into a descent to flight level FL350 , selected a few seconds earlier;
ˆˆ at 7 h 20 min 50, the selected altitude decreased to 100 ft for three seconds and then increased to the maximum value of 49,000 ft and stabilized again at 35,000 ft;
ˆˆ at 7 h 21 min 10, the Bordeaux control centre gave the crew the instruction to
continue the descent to flight level FL210;
ˆˆ at 7 h 21 min 16, the selected altitude was 21,000 ft;
ˆˆ from 7 h 22 min 27, the selected altitude was 100 ft most of the time and changed several times until it stabilized at 25,000 ft at 7 h 24 min 13;
ˆˆ at 7 h 24 min 15, the buzzer to request access to the cockpit was recorded;
ˆˆ at 7 h 24 min 29, noises like those of the unlocking of the cockpit door then its opening was recorded and corresponded to the Captain’s return to the cockpit;
ˆˆ at 7 h 25 min 32, the flight was transferred to the Barcelona en-route control
centre and the crew was instructed to descend to FL170;
ˆˆ at 7 h 26 min 16, the aircraft was put into a descent to its newly cleared flight level and the flight continued normally.
Due to the engaged autopilot modes, the changes in selected altitudes described above did not influence the aircraft descent flight path.
On page 28 of the final report you can find the corresponding graph, scary.

https://www.bea.aero/uploads/tx_elyd...0125.en-LR.pdf
gearlever is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2017, 13:15
  #3494 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,427
I must repeat my question as of before..

Is it true or false that BA no longer follow the two cockpit policy?
You can repeat your question as often as you want but no professional aviator with any sense will give you answers to questions involving security measures - being blunt there is a principle called "need to know" and in this case you don't "need to know".

If you insist on conflating this with the elderly pax: severe credibility probs with the media reports, done to death elsewhere on PPRuNe.
wiggy is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2017, 13:34
  #3495 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
You can repeat your question as often as you want but no professional aviator with any sense will give you answers to questions involving security measures - being blunt there is a principle called "need to know" and in this case you don't "need to know".
Nonsense, it's common knowledge. You can check this yourself - as pax - quite easily by sitting within sight of the front of the cabin at a time when a crew-member takes a comfort break.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2017, 14:17
  #3496 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 42
Posts: 2,628
You're free to find out. Just do not ask us to say it.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2017, 14:19
  #3497 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,427
Nemrytter - you're not wrong but as someone once said: "You might say that, I can't possibly comment

Seriously though, and just to clarify matters for the sake of A320ECAM ......

For good reason most (?all) companies have a blanket prohibition (on pain of dismissal) on staff discussing security matters with e.g. non employees and others outside the organisation.

Last edited by wiggy; 6th Apr 2017 at 07:49.
wiggy is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2017, 15:17
  #3498 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
or good reason most (?all) companies have a blanket prohibition (on pain of dismissal) on staff discussing security matters
Depends if you count the 2 person rule as a security measure or as a passenger comfort/reassurance measure.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2017, 15:51
  #3499 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Ontario
Posts: 2
I cannot believe that the AVH would give the father of Lubitz time considering what Lubitz did?

The moment the plane lost RT, the French should have sent up two F-16s to check what was going on in the flight deck. Had they seen Lubitz alive and conscious, then that would shut Lubitz' ignorant and unapologetic father up once and for all!
A320ECAM is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2017, 16:33
  #3500 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,427
the French should have sent up two F-16s
Leaving aside reaction time you might want to have a look at the French Air Force orbat.

In any event as I recall it at the time reports were they were pretty quick to react but no way they could intercept in time to observe events unravelling.
wiggy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.