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 26th Mar 2015, 19:53
  #1461 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by anengineer View Post
Just wondering why in this day and age there aren't video cameras on the flightdeck ? HD cameras and digital storage that can store weeks of video cost pennies. We shouldn't have to be relying on people trying to work out what's going on from audio alone.
Two issues:

1. Concerns about privacy and employers monitoring crew performance (union stuff)

2. A GoPro and a 256GB SD card indeed are not very expensive, but I doubt it will survive a 300+ kts crash

But you're right that the technology does seem a bit outdated. Why no redundancy in flight recorders for example? Both record cockpit ánd flight data so only one needs to survive and be found. Or why no Real time flight data transfer and storage to outside the A/C?
SauvignonBlanc is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 19:54
  #1462 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Belfast
Age: 37
Posts: 29
The autopilot on the Germanwings Airbus A320 that crashed in the French Alps on Tuesday was switched to descend to 100 feet, its lowest possible setting, before it began its fatal plunge, according to data from a specialist aviation tracking service, Reuters reported.

Online web tracking service FlightRadar24 said its analysis of satellite tracking data had found that someone had changed the altitude to the minimum setting possible of 100 feet: well below the crash site lying at about 6,000 feet.
"Between 09:30:52 and 09:30:55 you can see that the autopilot was manually changed from 38,000 feet to 100 feet and 9 seconds later the aircraft started to descend, probably with the 'open descent' autopilot setting," Fredrik Lindahl, chief executive of the Swedish tracking service said by email.

He said FlightRadar24 had shared its data with French crash investigators at their request.
weebobby is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 19:54
  #1463 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 66
Surely if any FD crew want to down an aircraft they would be able to do it. With the knowledge they have, opportunities and access to a/c systems what is to stop them?
c53204 is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 19:55
  #1464 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: wales
Age: 77
Posts: 316
Originally Posted by Pace View Post
There has been a contradiction on the mental make up of the FO by the prosecutor who has also dispelled suicide.
A lot of posts have referred to the young pilot poor employment and conditions driving him to take his life and everyone else.

The fact that the prosecutor has dispelled suicide isn't as stupid as it sounds
The prosecutor discussed that when they got to the landing briefing the FO became very kurt in his responses.

There are certain people who have anger management problems and cannot take criticism. On the surface they appear friendly until something triggers that anger and then they see Red, the anger becomes uncontrollable and they have to vent that anger on something or somebody.
Blind rage! and i stress the word BLIND

It is more likely seeing the prosecutors comments re suicide that the Captain triggered something in the FOs mind where he lost the plot.
He probably didn't even consider his own imminent death or the PAX but satisfying his rage against the Captain by crashing the aircraft.

Don't presume its some poor lad with lifes woes on his shoulders trying to kill himself this is something else and probably goes way back into his childhood
Spot on, and better fit with the one report where a german paper/magazine asked the CEO if he has anything on the "event" on the outbound leg, which they claim to have evidence of.
oldoberon is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 19:55
  #1465 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 441
Well blame the authorities for this situation, it was not that long ago when they more or less scrapped the self improver route, (PPL, Instructor, CPL, Turboprop, 1500 hours later ATPL and maybe the right seat of a jet) in the UK in favour of young button pushing wannabes coming out with a licence after 200 hours !!!!!
... a change required due to the unprecedented demand for pilots caused by the growth of the the low cost carriers in the 90s and early 2000s - not for the best, in my opinion.

I read something a while back about people with 'suicidal tendencies'. At least according to the article, it is quite common that when someone becomes suicidal, they do not consider the consequences of their action on other people. It's not that they don't care that other people may die, the thought that they could be killing other people never even occurs to them. Hence the person who turns their car into oncoming traffic never even thinks about the possibility that people in the car they collide with may be seriously hurt or killed.
Rather scary if true, but it would help explain things.
Well all the professionals I have ever talked to would agree with that. A person in a suicidal state has no conscience and it becomes the ultimate selfish act.

Imagine knowing that there were young children and babies on board and yet still carrying out that action ... it's incomprehensible to anyone with any conscience and thought for his fellow man.
FlyingOfficerKite is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 19:55
  #1466 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Auckland
Age: 62
Posts: 1
Looking at the findings of the Long Island A300 crash regarding separation of the vert stab due to rudder over deflection from a faulty actuator, surely all that stands between us and disaster is a swift right kick on the pedals...

Like most reactive responses to safety and security from knee jerk US-led mono cultural organisations, strengthened cockpit doors and granular inspections of 100ml bottles of shampoo are nothing to do with real safety - they're about the patronising reassurance of passengers assumed to be too thick to understand the futility of these charades, and the interests of companies who sell 'security solutions' to aid the official window dressing.

Let's face it, in a world of ever cheaper fares and screwed-down salary structures, passengers get treated like prisoners on remand and aircrew like jailers with trays. Where's the dignity in that?

If the FO had OD'd himself into oblivion during descent, it's all over rover and the cockpit 'security' door spelt doom for all. Not at all reassuring.
fearless195 is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 19:56
  #1467 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: both sides
Posts: 14
Too soon to say categorically suicide/murder

In light of the Delta Incident when the captain was locked out inadvertently and unable to get access back into the cockpit with the code or with the help of the cooperative FO due to a door MALFUNCTION. It is not correct to say that the only explanation for the Captain not being able to gain access is malicious intent on the part of the FO.

The door could have jammed at a time when something was going wrong and the FO was busy trying to handle it. The commanded descent may have been just an attempt to solve a problem we don't know about. The FO fairly inexperienced could have been confronted with something he couldn't handle and froze.
TERRIER two is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 19:56
  #1468 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Off the map
Posts: 1,007
@ DirtyProp - agreed, but costs are being driven down by the lowest common denominator LCCs , the question is are the regulators giving too much free reign which is putting too much financial strain on all carriers?
LCCs exist because they fill a market's need.
People want to go places, and they want to go there cheap and fast. These are the 2 main considerations. Ultimately the market decides, and if businesses want to survive they have to follow, or else.
The regulators are interested in one thing only: their job. As such they will give the public what they want: more regulations.
DirtyProp is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 19:58
  #1469 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 6,000
KarlADrage

He discounted suicide i.e. attempting to take his own life regardless of the 150 others going with him.
He also mentioned that from the tapes from being a friendly chat that in the approach and landing briefing the FOs responses became very kurt.
We all know of a condition on our roads called road rage! A year ago a Van driver drove straight into a bridge at 60 mph while experiencing road rage and injuring himself badly he wasn't trying to kill himself but venting his anger seeing RED into the bridge.
Yes he may have been stressed out and maybe some criticism or authoritative or demeaning tone instilled an uncontrollable anger in the FO who when left to his own devices vented that anger into a mountainside.
I do not suppose that his imminent death or the PAX even entered his head only venting an uncontrollable anger against the Captain.
We have seen that with cars mounting pavements and taking out innocent people the driver being in a blind internal rage and seeing nothing but red.
don't presume this is as simple as a poor young guy suffering with depression deciding to end it all I think reading between the lines this is what the prosecutor was hinting at
Someone mentioned he took time out with stress some people in those sort of situations have anger management problems an that anger flares up too quickly and is uncontrollable
Pace is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 20:00
  #1470 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: US
Age: 62
Posts: 410
Everyone is missing the point of having two in the cockpit. In the US it is required to visually confirm who is entering the cockpit and control the door at all times. The second person is there to visually check the person entering and immediately close the door if open and someone moves near the door. The lessons of 911 never really hit home in the rest if the world. It's a smart policy.
It has absolutely nothing to do with having someone up there to watch the remaining pilot.
Sailvi767 is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 20:05
  #1471 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Off the map
Posts: 1,007
I was always amazed at the efficiency of a crew – two pilots operating closely together, perhaps for the first time. There was one time before 9/11 when an interested passenger joined us on the flight deck and after a while asked us how long we'd flown together? He was astonished at my reply that this was the first time. This was a testament to the quality of training in my airline.

Importantly, we'd both come from a variety of immediate backgrounds i.e. staid family life, or bust-up with a girl friend, or major financial worries, yet we always – without fail – slotted into our roles as pilots and part of a responsible team.
In my view, that's what being a professional is all about.
Thank you for this post.
DirtyProp is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 20:05
  #1472 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: El Paso, Texas
Age: 68
Posts: 28
suninmyeyes;
It would be nice if this accident highlighted to the various aviation authorities the utter futility of making pilots go through airport security and have bottles of water removed etc. I am not saying all airport security for pilots should be removed but to impose the same restrictions on pilots as for passengers is clearly inappropriate. The present security restrictions can have an adverse effect on safety when it results in flight crew being heckled for queue jumping and results in them arriving at the aircraft late, frustrated and in a harassed frame of mind.
even the heightened security we have is less effective specifically because of exceptions like you suggest. If you had an exception to bypass security it would become known. You would then be a target to be exploited. You could be approached and told do this or else.
abdunbar is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 20:05
  #1473 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Age: 74
Posts: 112
Wednesday morning I was reading numerous posts about a conspiracy because there had been time to analyze the CVR data and nothing had yet been released. Surely they had time to listen and come to an immediate conclusion and publish. That may have partly been a result of the recent Taiwan crash where the CVR info condeming the pilots was released almost before the aircraft, under water, was recovered. So the analyzed info was released - how intentional its initial release is certainly suspect but it was released and many are saying it was too soon, before everything could be completely analyzed. I can understand an early release. People were bashing Airbus. Passengers were worrying. MY Boeing and GE stocks were falling. The reality is that most of the flying public has no idea what type of plane they are flying. Public learning the crash apparently resulted from a pilot with a death wish eases their mind about getting on their next flight versus "airliner crashes killing 150, cause unknown."
NWA SLF is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 20:09
  #1474 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Chissay en Touraine, France.
Posts: 36
I, for one, am grateful to whomsoever for whatever 'leaks' may have occured here.
There appear to be some simple facts which led to this dreadful crash/mass murder, depending upon your point of view.

It seems to be the case that an individual, a highly trained and assessed professional, alone on a flight deck, can perpetrate this kind of activity.
Whatever his motive and or motivations may have been.

The travelling public, who by definition, have to place their lives, and trust, into the hands of an airline and flight deck crew, need to be aware of the risk they are taking when boarding a simple point to point flight.
Infinitessamal, perhaps. But this incident demonstrates that such risk exists.

Shoot me down, in a metaphorical sense, or moderators remove this post as you will.
ChissayLuke is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 20:09
  #1475 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,115
Originally Posted by Dadlani View Post
German Pilots Cast Doubt on Blaming of Co-Pilot for Crash : Germanwings: Pilots Cast Doubt on Blaming of Co-Pilot for Crash
Slightly worrying that German Pilots Association's International Affairs Director doesn't seem to have a clue about how the A320's cockpit access works, or that use of the emergency code can be disabled from the flight deck.

Granted, he flies 737s (for Air Berlin), but a little more research before opening his mouth might have been wise.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 20:10
  #1476 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,045
Everyone is missing the point of having two in the cockpit. In the US it is required to visually confirm who is entering the cockpit and control the door at all times. The second person is there to visually check the person entering and immediately close the door if open and someone moves near the door. The lessons of 911 never really hit home in the rest if the world. It's a smart policy.
It has absolutely nothing to do with having someone up there to watch the remaining pilot.
I am sure airlines and countries / regions vary.

The systems fitted to our aircraft cover your requirements I have underlined. If these systems are mot available, then we use a second person as you suggest.

If we have these systems and require a second person, then the second person can only be there to "baby" the remaining pilot. Or for political / PR reasons

And this adds another dimension to the issue:
A JetBlue flight bound for Las Vegas had to make an emergency landing in Texas in March 2012. The co-pilot locked the captain out of the cockpit as the latter was behaving erratically. The captain then had to be wrestled to the ground by passengers.
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 20:13
  #1477 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Kerikeri New Zealand
Age: 85
Posts: 125
Men or women who have gone thru an ugly divorce/separation are most at risk for being temporarily unstable.
my airline made a policy if asked for time out because of serious domestic problems put the individual on sick leave for as long as six months .
I was told to go away and don't come back until I had got all my together and then I was allowed back on duty.
Maybe they should be looking at the copilots domestic scene.
gulfairs is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 20:15
  #1478 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 71
Interesting point Victor Tango. I'm not convinced that this is a simple as it's being made out to be.

As for the logic behind wanting video in the cockpit, Lone Wolf; no, that would not have stopped this tragedy, but it would certainly have helped unpick what happened. It could have been seen whether the FO did alter the altitude dial - or indeed whether he was even conscious. SauvignonBlanc; Obviously the storage would have to be inside the FDR

As a passenger, I couldn't care less whether pilots are upset by a 'lack of privacy'. Privacy ?? What on Earth do pilots need privacy for on the flight deck ???? If you are in total control of my life and that of my family, being as you are, in command of a metal tube six miles up in the sky, hurtling along at 500mph, I want everything you do visible, checked, cross-checked and scrutinised. Privacy is not an option.
anengineer is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 20:15
  #1479 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MN, USA
Age: 57
Posts: 19
Slats11

Unfortunately people quickly adapt to mitigate new security measures.

Hijacking / terrorism used to be about getting a gun (or bomb) onto a plane. So we Increased airport security and made that increasingly difficult.

9/11 was about getting a few people with some flying skills onto the plane. So we fitted toughened doors prevent unauthorised access.

The threat now is the mindset and ideology of the pilot sitting forward of these toughened doors. After MH370 and this latest incident, that threat is going to require some thought.
No that isn't quite correct. Prior to 9/11 it was the SOP to cooperate with hijackers on the assumption that they were not suicidal but seeking monetary or political "income"

That changed forever on 9/11 (even during the event) which is why the concern over nail clippers and secure doors has been misplaced. Under the new protocol the entire plane load of passengers is an "army" that can be activated to aid in overcoming the "invaders" (unless the plane is loaded mostly with invaders).

Having a secure door is a good idea but not one that can't let the crew in. It has neutralized the entire "army" on the plane concept as we seem to be seeing in this incident.

Changing the protocol in and of itself neutralized much of the on board threat (assuming TSA does a reasonable job).
jehrler is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 20:17
  #1480 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: wales
Age: 77
Posts: 316
tells us no more than we knew from here.

If one or both incapacitated entry possible , if a single pilot or both together don't want anyone to get, they won't get in.
oldoberon is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

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