Germanwings A320 Crash

Larbre34

If those height values are correct, why would an A320 be at 38,000 ft in the first place? Highest Alpine peak is 16,000.

wretcheddomain

Larbre34 wrote: »

If those height values are correct, why would an A320 be at 38,000 ft in the first place? Highest Alpine peak is 16,000.

38,000ft is standard cruising altitude, why shouldn't it be that value?

cml387

Larbre34 wrote: »

If those height values are correct, why would an A320 be at 38,000 ft in the first place? Highest Alpine peak is 16,000.

They'd be flying at whatever height they filed in their flightplan or under ATC control.
They wouldn't be just trying to clear the mountains:rolleyes:

Nforce

tmq wrote: »

Do you mean 9:31? (just checking I'm reading this correctly)

Yes. Sorry. Tapped the 2 instead of the 3

Scary stuff....

God bless the people on board

RIP

flanzer

Bummer1234 wrote: »

Seems to be going fairly south indeed but could be doing what flanzer said, Could be a routine flight im not sure. Something to keep an eye on anyway.

I'm thinking that was a routine flight as it's gone now. If there are any aircraft in the crash area, it doesn't look like they have ADS-B, as there is nothing on flight radar

Bummer1234

PukkaStukka wrote: »

They need to be treated with the usual caution. Someone else over there also reported that the black boxes had already been found....:rolleyes:

One thing i wouldn't go by is the comments on that page.

pfurey101

Larbre34 wrote: »

If those height values are correct, why would an A320 be at 38,000 ft in the first place? Highest Alpine peak is 16,000.

The flight wasn't full. The higher it flies the less fuel it uses.

cppilot98

Looking at the FR24 data it took ten minutes to descend from 38000 to 6800 feet. That's an average descent rate of 3100 fpm. That is a long time to attempt to resolve a problem. The CVR and the FDR will probably reveal what was happening on the flight deck fairly quickly.

There is some similarity to the incident with the AOA probes on the A321 caused a rapid descent.

Very bad news indeed.

pfurey101

Plane Plotter shows a French Airforce KC135 holding in the area the last 90 mins. It cant pick up any other plots.

MoyVilla9

The main thing that bothers me is that problem seemed to begin just as they were passing over the French coast, yet there was no attempt to turn back in the 10 minutes it was descending, instead it just went straight towards the mountains. What in the name of god happened.

cml387

cppilot98 wrote: »

Looking at the FR24 data it took ten minutes to descend from 38000 to 6800 feet. That's an average descent rate of 3100 fpm. That is a long time to attempt to resolve a problem. The CVR and the FDR will probably reveal what was happening on the flight deck fairly quickly.

There is some similarity to the incident with the AOA probes on the A321 caused a rapid descent.

Very bad news indeed.

That's a good point.
The AOA problem was the subject of an emergency AD last year.

NoelJ

It seems like it went into a 5,000fpm dive at 38,000 feet, then as it got lower it reduced to 2,500 rpm. A320s have been freaking out lately, there's sensors on the wings called Angle of Attack probes, if they freeze up then the autopilot puts the plane in a dive because it thinks they are stalling, easily overridden by pushing 2 buttons though. The aircraft is one of the oldest a320s flying, I reckon a piece fell off the horizontal stabiliser (tail wing)

DamienOB

Not something you want to hear about when you're a nervous flyer and are due to go out next week.

Also, never something we really think about is it?

May all those on board RIP, and may their families have the strength to get through

check_six

What are the procedures if the cabin pressure is compromised? Do they descend to a particular altitude (like 10,000ft?)? Could there have been a problem, the pilots begin descent procedure, but are overcome due to lack of oxygen (they have their own air supply in case of emergency, don't they?). Maybe no one is conscious to level the plane off?
Terrible accident.

pfurey101

MoyVilla9 wrote: »

The main thing that bothers me is that problem seemed to begin just as they were passing over the French coast, yet there was no attempt to turn back in the 10 minutes it was descending, instead it just went straight towards the mountains. What in the name of god happened.

The first thing the flight crew will do is to fly the plane, to regain control. It looks like they had no time to even change the squawk, but only to transmit a quick call to ATC. Maybe turning back or anything else was not a possibility. The only thing they could do was as per those altitude and speed charts. As you say......what happened!

It'll be a while before we know.

triggermortis

Yet another sad day for aviation... RIP all aboard and lets hope the cause is found sooner rather than later

NoCrackHaving

Is there any possibility there could be survivors from a crash like this or does the terrain rule it out entirely?

ProfessorPlum

NoelJ wrote: »

It seems like it went into a 5,000fpm dive at 38,000 feet, then as it got lower it reduced to 2,500 rpm. A320s have been freaking out lately, there's sensors on the wings called Angle of Attack probes, if they freeze up then the autopilot puts the plane in a dive because it thinks they are stalling, easily overridden by pushing 2 buttons though. The aircraft is one of the oldest a320s flying, I reckon a piece fell off the horizontal stabiliser (tail wing)

Ok, lets not loose the run of our selves here. A320's have not been 'freaking out' lately. One incident of AoA probes causing an issue, (they're not on the wings btw, and there's 3 of them for redundancy) for which an airworthiness directive was issued. 5,000fpm is hardly a 'dive', much less than what you would expect in an emergency descent for example. Why do you think a bit of the 'tail wing' fell off???

wretcheddomain

NoCrackHaving wrote: »

Is there any possibility there could be survivors from a crash like this or does the terrain rule it out entirely?

The speed at which the descent took place, coupled with the ridiculously challenging terrain (look it up!), render the chances of finding anyone alive vanishingly small - indeed, zero.

Charlie-Bravo

Very sad news.

When all the speculation about MH370 was happening, I remember one expert saying that the crew would not spend anytime contacting ATC as they need to concentrate on gaining control of the plane - ATC can't do anything for them. Sadly, it would seem the call was made to ATC in the last moments as they knew they couldn't regain control.

ectoraige

According to Planefinder, here is the data from the minutes leading up to the loss:



Of interest is the VSI reading showing a rate of climb of -14,400 fpm, timestamped 09:30:20 while at unchanged altitude of 38,000 feet. The plane is then shown to be descending 39 seconds later. It also seems to be time around the beginning of a left turn from ~43 to it's eventual 26.

That's such a big value you'd normally write it off as a sensor anomaly, today though, it looks more like one of the holes lining up in the proverbial swiss cheese.

For information, this chart shows the most recent reading first, so it should be read chronologically from bottom to top. The column marked mtime is a timestamp marked in seconds:

1427189229 = 09:27:09 Earliest reading
1427189420 = 09:30:20 Anomaly showing RoC -14,144
1427189459 = 09:30:59 First indication of the descent
1427189963 = 09:39:23 Final reading

Heading is the direction of travel, based on degrees, with 0 being north, 45 north east. You can see that in the period between the anomaly and the beginning of the descent the plane made a left turn from North-East to almost North-North-East. Note that heading will tend to vary a certain amount due both to wind, and in variances in the Earth's magnetic field. It shows the direction the nose was pointing, which isn't always the same as the direction the plane is travelling. There's nothing jumping out there indicating a spin.

smurfjed

I reckon a piece fell off the horizontal stabiliser (tail wing)

Why? Has this happened to the A320 before? Or is there another precedent for your opinion?

(Disclaimer: I don't fly nor maintain A320 aircraft)

flazio

Aren't these aircraft on EIs fleet?

PukkaStukka

flazio wrote: »

Aren't these aircraft on EIs fleet?

Indeed. Which underscores what typically good aircraft they are.

flazio

Eye-witness account

Posted at 12:44
A hotel worker in Digne, the closest town to the suspected crash site, has told BBC Radio 5 live the plane was flying "very low". William says there are now several helicopters arriving at the site of the accident. He added that access to the crash site will be "very difficult" and that the area, normally covered in snow, is currently dry.

Amirani

flazio wrote: »

Aren't these aircraft on EIs fleet?

I've flown on 2/3 of them in South America over the past 2 weeks. Half the major airlines in the world have them in their fleets, and have done for many years.

A Dub in Glasgo

ectoraige wrote: »

According to Planefinder, here is the data from the minutes leading up to the loss:


Of interest is the VSI reading showing a rate of climb of -14,400 fpm, timestamped 09:30:20 while at unchanged altitude of 38,000 feet. The plane is then shown to be descending 39 seconds later. It also seems to be time around the beginning of a left turn from ~43 to it's eventual 26.

That's such a big value you'd normally write it off as a sensor anomaly, today though, it looks more like one of the holes lining up in the proverbial swiss cheese.

very informative, thanks.

For those (like me) who is seeing this type of data for the first time, the table should be read bottom up

check_six

ectoraige wrote: »

According to Planefinder, here is the data from the minutes leading up to the loss:

Of interest is the VSI reading showing a rate of climb of -14,400 fpm, timestamped 09:30:20 while at unchanged altitude of 38,000 feet. The plane is then shown to be descending 39 seconds later. It also seems to be time around the beginning of a left turn from ~43 to it's eventual 26.

That's such a big value you'd normally write it off as a sensor anomaly, today though, it looks more like one of the holes lining up in the proverbial swiss cheese.

What could cause such a strange reading (other than a sensor problem)? Would that be the equivalent of the aircraft standing on it's nose for a second and then leveling off again? Is the figure an average for that time period, or just a reading at that instant?

kona

flazio wrote: »

Aren't these aircraft on EIs fleet?

Quick ground them!