Germanwings A320 Crash

Tenger

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Is this crash very strange?

Every aircraft loss is a mystery at first. The authorities will endeavour to get to the cause as quickly as they can. This tragic loss is 'strange' so far in that there is no explanation yet, no distress signals, no comms from the flight crew and no obvious reason for the descent and impact.

highly1111

My husband suggests that maybe the pilot believed that auto pilot was on when in fact, it was not??

I've no idea though. He had over 6000 flight hours.

BorneTobyWilde

No call for help from pilots , descends in a way that suggests it was flying ok, not out of control? Do we know that already that it flew all the way down in a controlled manner?

JCX BXC

highly1111 wrote: »

My husband suggests that maybe the pilot believed that auto pilot was on when in fact, it was not??

I've no idea though. He had over 6000 flight hours.

Very unlikely the pilot could reach 6,000ft without noticing.

BorneTobyWilde

Carnacalla wrote: »

Very unlikely the pilot could reach 6,000ft without noticing.

That would suggest something sinister is a distinct possibility .

ProfessorPlum

CardinalJ wrote: »

Does each of an aircrafts two black boxes record different parameters? Of do they have two with the same info to increase the chance of finding one intact?

One is the FDR Flight Data Recorder - it records all the technical parameters that enable the insvestigators to piece together the flight down to minute details. The other is the CVR Cockpit Voice Recorder - it records conversations in the cockpit and with ATC and cabin crew.

fr336

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

That would suggest something sinister is a distinct possibility .

Such as?

andy_g

Possible no as if something sinister happened a group would claim it by now.

kippy

CardinalJ wrote: »

Does each of an aircrafts two black boxes record different parameters? Of do they have two with the same info to increase the chance of finding one intact?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/black-box.htm
TLDR:
They do not record the same data, one is primarily for recording cockpit sounds and conversation, the other telemetry and system data.

Tenger

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

That would suggest something sinister is a distinct possibility .

We have already had 1 poster banned for conspiracy theories. Don't be the 2nd.

BorneTobyWilde

fr336 wrote: »

Such as?

I hate to speculate.

kippy

Been following this thread all day and I am a bit disappointed by some of the absolute off the wall stuff getting speculated upon.

Most of the conspiracy theory type stuff pops up almost every time there is an incident nowadays and I cannot understand how people jump to the most ridiculous conclusions when history tells us that the vast majority of incidents are explainable and generally caused by a similar types of factors.

I have to admit I watch a lot of Aircrash Investigation and it is worth watching.

What I have learned from it is:
The thoroughness of the investigation is unparalleled no matter what the circumstances.
The reasons behind an incident are usually found and steps put in place to stop it happening again.
Pretty much all of the incidents I've seen are explainable.
It may take a while but the answers come out in the end.


RIP today to all that were lost, hopefully the reasoning behind what happens will come out, but it may take a while.

fr336

andy_g wrote: »

Possible no as if something sinister happened a group would claim it by now.

I understand practically and security wise, and morally and whatever else I suppose too, we should be open to these things but jeez why so much more prominence given if there's a terrorist link to things that happen like this? Either way people are dead and aren't coming back. Hyping about terrorism and the like devalues the central event imo.

JCX BXC

It was almost definitely not a terriost attack, no group claiming responsibility and it would have usually crashed into a populated area in that case.

unkel

highly1111 wrote: »

maybe the pilot believed that auto pilot was on when in fact, it was not??

That doesn't make much sense. See post #35 from Tabnabs.



You can see that the angle of descent is steeper than the angle of descent. You don't need to be a pilot or have any instruments just to feel that. Every person on board would just feel that the plane is descending rapidly

And the steep decent was sustained for a full 10 minutes. Even completely in the dark with zero instruments any captain / officer would know that on their flight path, that would roughly take them down from cruising altitude right down to the ground (Alps) (see the picture, from 38000 to 8000ft in 10 minutes)

My guess (or is it hope) is that something catastrophic happened at cruising altitude

JCX BXC

What could cause such a steep rate of decent? Nosedive? Complete engine flameout?

irishgeo

Carnacalla wrote: »

It was almost definitely not a terrorist attack, no group claiming responsibility and it would have usually crashed into a populated area in that case.

yeah just like united 93 did :rolleyes:

JCX BXC

irishgeo wrote: »

yeah just like united 93 did :rolleyes:

Ah they knew that was a terriost attack. It had a clear motive and is so different to this crash.

irishgeo

the puzzling thing is that nothing seems to been done to stop the descent or call in any problem?

JCX BXC

I have a few questions. Could people help with the answers?

*When were ATC last talking to 4U9252?
Was it during the decent?

*Did the plane level at 6,800ft or is that when it crashed?

*Is hypoxia a possible cause or just some random theory?

billie1b

Carnacalla wrote: »

What could cause such a steep rate of decent? Nosedive? Complete engine flameout?

In all honesty it wasn't that steep or nosedive angle, i've seen aircraft leaving their cruise and descending at that rate to get onto the approach in DUB

JCX BXC

billie1b wrote: »

In all honesty it wasn't that steep or nosedive angle, i've seen aircraft leaving their cruise and descending at that rate to get onto the approach in DUB

I realise that. But it was more than your average Joe decent.

mickdw

unkel wrote: »

That doesn't make much sense. See post #35 from Tabnabs.



You can see that the angle of descent is steeper than the angle of descent. You don't need to be a pilot or have any instruments just to feel that. Every person on board would just feel that the plane is descending rapidly

And the steep decent was sustained for a full 10 minutes. Even completely in the dark with zero instruments any captain / officer would know that on their flight path, that would roughly take them down from cruising altitude right down to the ground (Alps) (see the picture, from 38000 to 8000ft in 10 minutes)

My guess (or is it hope) is that something catastrophic happened at cruising altitude

I wouldnt agree with that.
That graph makes its look much more drastic than it would have been. Remember for 99 percent of the climb phase, the aircraft would be pretty level, similarly, dropping from 38000 to 6000 ft over 8 to 10 mins wouldn't require a sharp nose down at all. I believe if there was a situation where the autopilot was getting faulty info and the aircraft was being kept reasonably level, it may not be at all noticeable that it was dropping until they were looking into the mountains. Sure airspeed and throttle settings would highlight that airspeed was being maintained at near idle but if you are unsure of which instruments are telling the truth and perhaps in foggy conditions, things get tricky.

fr336

irishgeo wrote: »

yeah just like united 93 did :rolleyes:

Shot down! Maybe.

Captain Chaos

I think the speed remaining fairly steady during the "rapid" decent indicates that it was at least somewhat controlled or in control by either autopilot or the pilots. But is the speed on the graph indicated or true?

imurdaddy

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

That would suggest something sinister is a distinct possibility .

Well in ok weather in daylight with visual reference it would be impossible not to know your descending! Im not up to speed with the weather at the time but I looked good and if thats the case good visibility, so unlikely to have AP just fly into the mountains and not noticed!

Its like the just reached cruise and started the descent straight off, but someone was controlling the throttle to keep decent speed steady?

But anything is possible!

God rest there souls.

JCX BXC

Captain Chaos wrote: »

But is the speed on the graph indicated or true?

That's a golden thought. The flight crew may not be seeing the same speed as us.
OR
The flight crew may have had the same details as us but it may not have actually being true.

unkel

mickdw wrote: »

I wouldnt agree with that...wouldn't require a sharp nose down at all.

You're missing my point. I wasn't suggesting for a moment that there was a sharp nose dive. Just a significant descending angle (similar to approach) and prolonged for a long time (these are facts you can read directly from the graph). Any pilot would have just felt something was very amiss here (without needing any visibility or any instruments for that). I'm sure most people on the plane were aware of this too.

If they were concious, the pilots must have noticed. From that logic, they either couldn't control it or they weren't concious / alive.

cembellines

CardinalJ wrote:

Does each of an aircrafts two black boxes record different parameters? Of do they have two with the same info to increase the chance of finding one intact?

Ive got the same question

eatmyshorts

6800 ft equals 7000ft corrected for the local Marseille QNH.
Therefore if 7000 was set in the altitude window, and the aircraft levelled off at that, it would be approx 6800 ft altitude.

The first thing in starting a rapid descent is to set a lower altitude in the FCU.