Germanwings A320 Crash

tmq

Bob24 wrote: »

The White House feel like they have to comment on this and give their insight and that is fine ... But they are by no mean the single source of truth and I don't think anyone is considering them as such.

The main importance of their role is whether they are going to say it is terrorism! (regardless of the truth!)

the_monkey

Is the number of old A320s worrying ?

I remember being very nervous flying on an old A340 to Los Angeles from Madrid, as my mate on the flight said tho - "Don't worry, old planes are reliable" ... Now not so sure tho ... I'm flying on a Vueling A320 next week to Dublin, I'm a tad nervous to be honest.

the_monkey

I see from the vueling page
http://www.planespotters.net/Airline/Vueling

oldest A320 is 15 years, can I find out the reg of the plane I will be taking 9 days in advance ?

kippy

the_monkey wrote: »

Is the number of old A320s worrying ?

I remember being very nervous flying on an old A340 to Los Angeles from Madrid, as my mate on the flight said tho - "Don't worry, old planes are reliable" ... Now not so sure tho ... I'm flying on a Vueling A320 next week to Dublin, I'm a tad nervous to be honest.

Until the reasons behind the accident are established there is no need to make that assumption.
To be fair, once the aircraft is maintained in accordance with specified requirements there shouldn't be any problems and the age of the aircraft may not be a factor at all here.

I am not a great flyer myself but looking at the statistics often puts me at ease.

tharmor

kippy wrote:

Have you ever tried retrieving data from a black box? What is your reference point to make the assumption that they should be able to retrieve it quickly? What is "quickly"? They may retrieve the data far faster, they may not, but the analysis of this data in the context of the overall investigation and completion of report MAY take two years to complete, it may not and there may or may not be preliminary reports in the meantime.

Those were questions !! If i knew how to retrieve data o would not be replying to you right now in this forum !!

Tenger

the_monkey wrote: »

Is the number of old A320s worrying ?

I remember being very nervous flying on an old A340 to Los Angeles from Madrid, as my mate on the flight said tho - "Don't worry, old planes are reliable" ... Now not so sure tho ... I'm flying on a Vueling A320 next week to Dublin, I'm a tad nervous to be honest.

There are lots of "old" planes flying all over Europe. The all get the same regular checks that "new" planes get. Some of the papers are making a point about this being an "old plane" flown by a "budget carrier" which had a maintenance check recently.
But at the end of the day ALL airlines in Europe operate under the same regulation, in a similat vein ALL aircraft in Europe are certified by the same regulator. Every aircraft operated by every airline gets looked over each night and during the day.

tmq

kippy wrote: »

I am not a great flyer myself but looking at the statistics often puts me at ease.

regarding the statistics, have the recent spate (or what seems like) of tragedies (Malaysian x 2, german wings) made any impact on the statistical safety of flying? Its often said that flying is safer than driving, but I wonder how that assumption is made.

(I realise the recent incidents have very different/unkown causes, I'm just talking about the broad "chance of dying" type of statement.)

Reoil

andy_g wrote: »

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

Not if it was a pilot...

Reoil

Tenger wrote: »

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

Tenger, with all respect, it is a valid theory. It has happened before and could very possibly happen again. I'm not saying this is the cause of the crash, but it can't be ruled out, can it?

munchkin_utd

tmq wrote: »

regarding the statistics, have the recent spate (or what seems like) of tragedies (Malaysian x 2, german wings) made any impact on the statistical safety of flying? Its often said that flying is safer than driving, but I wonder how that assumption is made.

(I realise the recent incidents have very different/unkown causes, I'm just talking about the broad "chance of dying" type of statement.)

last year in Ireland there was 196 road fatalites in Ireland.
How many irish were killed in air crashes in comparison ?

in 2013 1713 were killed in road accidents in the UK
How many Uk people were killes in air crashes?

last year there was a staggering 3368 road deaths in Germany.
How many germans were killed in air crashes ?

in 2013 32,719 were killed in motor accidents in the USA
How many got killed in air crashes ?

if you want to question the stats then do, but you'd want to be fairly inventive to somehow make a case to say that flying is more dangerous than going by road.

Tenger

Reoil wrote: »

Not if it was a pilot...

We have had multiple Mod warnings about feeding the conspiracy theories and making unsubstantiated claims.
No-one else has annoyed me yet today, hence it a warning rather than a 2 day ban.

sully2010

the_monkey wrote: »

Is the number of old A320s worrying ?

I remember being very nervous flying on an old A340 to Los Angeles from Madrid, as my mate on the flight said tho - "Don't worry, old planes are reliable" ... Now not so sure tho ... I'm flying on a Vueling A320 next week to Dublin, I'm a tad nervous to be honest.

Absolutely nothing to worry about. I don't know the exact stats but I would say just as many newer aircraft have crashed than older ones. For example the last 2 crashes in Asia, the ATR and A320 were 10 months an 6 years old respectively. Ryanair flew a fleet of 20-25 year old 737's for 10 years with no major issues other than higher maintenance costs. Right now BA have several 20+ year old aircraft as do many other airlines. The media will look for any reason to create a story without any facts to back them up.

Calina

the_monkey wrote: »

I see from the vueling page
http://www.planespotters.net/Airline/Vueling

oldest A320 is 15 years, can I find out the reg of the plane I will be taking 9 days in advance ?

To be absolutely honest, I don't think you'd be benefited by knowing one way or the other. If the net result is that you'd be more scared, then I don't think it's a good idea to find out.

I think sometimes the age thing is highlighted because people see some sort of false equivalence between the impact of age, time and treatment on cars and assume it may be the same for aircraft. Mostly it isn't, and in particular, in Europe, it's not. There are stringent regulations around aircraft safety to the extent that Europe just stops airlines flying in and out if they are not deemed to be carrying out safe enough practices.

A 15 year old A320 is going to be piloted by a pilot who a) has to do a lot more flying instruction than a 18 year old in a 15 year old Nissan Micra b) has a first officer who is likewise more qualified in flying than an 18 year old in a 15 year old Nissan Micra. The plane itself will have a full maintenance history. It will not have been doing doughnuts on a road in Kerry at 4 in the morning. The dents get fixed.

The aviation industry has an extremely good track record in terms of investigating the causes of accidents. They are proactive in a way, for example, that shipping is not and they are heavily regulated for good reasons.

When I'm looking at questions, I occasionally question whether my life will be improved or worsened by knowing a detail which I can't control or change. I know that we have this narrative that we should know all that it's possible to know. I just think that if it causes is more stress, sometimes it might be better not to know.

_________________________

In the meantime, my heart goes out to the recovery crews in France. In one way, it's extraordinary how inaccessible parts of Europe can still be purely by force of geology. I don't envy them the task they have. The crash site photos are just shocking.

I do have to say that France has been extremely good, comparatively. They got an emergency declared reasonably quickly and they had aircraft looking for the missing aeroplane quickly and they have people on the ground lined up very quickly. Much as you don't want to do things like this, it has been an organised response.

Tenger

Reoil wrote: »

Tenger, with all respect, it is a valid theory. It has happened before and could very possibly happen again. I'm not saying this is the cause off the crash, but it can't be ruled out, can it?

No you cannot rule out everything until you have evidence disproving it. However so far on this thread we have had ground based hacking into the IFE to control the aircraft, direct energy weaponry, 'stealth' military aircraft colliding with the A320, terrorism, pilot suicide, explosions onboard, hijack.

While all of the above are 'valid', some are a lot less likely than others. Hence the mod decision to stop wild speculation (which always rears it head in these threads.)

NUTLEY BOY

Tenger wrote: »

No you cannot rule out everything until you have evidence disproving it. However so far on this thread we have had ground based hacking into the IFE to control the aircraft, direct energy weaponry, 'stealth' military aircraft colliding with the A320, terrorism, pilot suicide, explosions onboard, hijack.

While all of the above are 'valid', some are a lot less likely than others. Hence the mod decision to stop wild speculation (which always rears it head in these threads.)

Fair comment.

I have heard several media reports that the data recorder was recovered. I then heard some chap interviewed in the early hours this morning asserting quite positively that the cockpit voice recorder was found and implying that the data recorder had yet to be found.:mad:

I feel extremely sorry for the next of kin who have to put up with this nonsense as it only adds to their distress.

The official report will issue in it's own good time. Patience please - especially the media.....

Cookiemunster

https://twitter.com/AviationSafety/status/580696877806551041/photo/1

The CVR looks quite battered.

the_monkey

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Fair comment.

I have heard several media reports that the data recorder was recovered. I then heard some chap interviewed in the early hours this morning asserting quite positively that the cockpit voice recorder and implying that the data recorder had yet to be found.:mad:

I feel extremely sorry for the next of kin who have to put up with this nonsense as it only adds to their distress.

The official report will issue in it's own good time. Patience please - especially the media.....

The CVR and FDR are different things !

A flight has 2 black boxes.

Bigcheeze

Cookiemunster wrote: »

https://twitter.com/AviationSafety/status/580696877806551041/photo/1

The CVR looks quite battered.

That's fine. No fire or water damage.

fits

Colleague told me about this today. He was on this flight with his baby. Oxygen masks dropped but passengers didnt realise seriousness initially. He was reluctant to put mask on baby until ordered by crew. He realised shortly after that there was indeed no oxygen. He wasnt at all spooked by it though.

Different aircraft but these things can and do happen evidently.

From avherald

"A Finnair Airbus A321-200, registration OH-LZC performing flight AY-3184 from Madrid,SP (Spain) to Helsinki (Finland), was enroute at FL360 about 70nm southwest of Paris Charles de Gaulle (France) when the crew initiated an emergency descent to FL100 due to the loss of cabin pressure (average rate of descent 3250fpm) and diverted to Charles de Gaulle Airport for a safe landing on runway 27R about 25 minutes later.

The airline confirmed the aircraft diverted to Paris CDG due to cabin pressure issues. "

josip

munchkin_utd wrote: »

last year in Ireland there was 196 road fatalites in Ireland.
How many irish were killed in air crashes in comparison ?

in 2013 1713 were killed in road accidents in the UK
How many Uk people were killes in air crashes?

last year there was a staggering 3368 road deaths in Germany.
How many germans were killed in air crashes ?

in 2013 32,719 were killed in motor accidents in the USA
How many got killed in air crashes ?

if you want to question the stats then do, but you'd want to be fairly inventive to somehow make a case to say that flying is more dangerous than going by road.

Not disagreeing with your overall premise, but number of road trips/flights taken per capita would have to be factored in to any comparison.

kippy

josip wrote: »

Not disagreeing with your overall premise, but number of road trips/flights taken per capita would have to be factored in to any comparison.

Yes,
And that is why flying is so statistically safe. (there are figures out there that give those details)
More and more people are flying and per passenger the accident numbers have pretty much dropped over the years.

Sky (yeah I know) published a figure yesterday stating that the plan that crashed had flown over 6 BILLION passengers in it's lifetime.
I would assume they based that on the number of flights and assigned the plane to be full for every flight so it wouldn't be entirely accurate.

Calina

kippy wrote: »

Yes,
And that is why flying is so statistically safe. (there are figures out there that give those details)
More and more people are flying and per passenger the accident numbers have pretty much dropped over the years.

Sky (yeah I know) published a figure yesterday stating that the plan that crashed had flown over 6 BILLION passengers in it's lifetime.
I would assume they based that on the number of flights and assigned the plane to be full for every flight so it wouldn't be entirely accurate.

My understanding is they meant the plane type, not the specific plane.

kippy

Calina wrote: »

My understanding is they meant the plane type, not the specific plane.

Apologies, that would of course make a lot more sense. I just spotted the info graphic and misread it.

Amirani

josip wrote: »

Not disagreeing with your overall premise, but number of road trips/flights taken per capita would have to be factored in to any comparison.

Why necessarily number of road trips/flights? Why not time spent on road/in air? Or distance?

All three measures show flying being considerably safer, particularly the last two as the risk associated with flying isn't uniform throughout the journey, while in a car it pretty much is.

Bigcheeze

fits wrote: »

He realised shortly after that there was indeed no oxygen. He wasnt at all spooked by it though.

Different aircraft but these things can and do happen evidently.

Apparently it's not unusual for passengers to think the oxygen is not working as they expect the bag on the mask to inflate but it's not how the masks work.

fits

Bigcheeze wrote: »

Apparently it's not unusual for passengers to think the oxygen is not working as they expect the bag on the mask to inflate but it's not how the masks work.

I meant it took him a while to realise there was no oxygen in the cabin rather than through the mask. Looks to be a reasonably frequent occurrence going by av herald.

smurfjed

Have you ever tried retrieving data from a black box?

Yep, we have to do it annually to test the devices or after any event. The actual process and reconstruction doesn't take that long with modern software if the data is uncorrupted. But while it may be in the interest of the industry to have rapid responses in order to avoid a reoccurrence, it is in everyone else's interest to have a slow methodical investigation into all of the aspects affecting the flight prior the incident, that part becomes very time consuming.

tharmor

No debris bigger than size of a car door !! Can a plane get this much battered on impact ?? Any views ?

knucklehead6

tharmor wrote: »

No debris bigger than size of a car door !! Can a plane get this much battered on impact ?? Any views ?

the only really solid parts of an airplane are the engines and wheels.

Thew rest is just a (relatively light) metal shell. try driving a car into a wall at 300MPH, see what happens

batman_oh

tharmor wrote: »

No debris bigger than size of a car door !! Can a plane get this much battered on impact ?? Any views ?

<Snip>