Plane crash in Alps ### MOD NOTE 1st POST

Specialun

Stories breaking online of a plane crashing in the alps. Plane was travelling from barcelona to dusseldorf

http://uk.businessinsider.com/plane-flying-from-barcelona-to-dusseldorf-crashes-in-france-2015-3?r=US

Hope for the best



MOD: It's disturbing that this has to be said, but cut out the jokes.

Mr.McLovin

Airbus 320, do any of the irish carriers use this plane?

Specialun

Mr.McLovin wrote: »

Airbus 320, do any of the irish carriers use this plane?

Rumoured to be a german vendor

Harry Palmr

Just seen this, Alps crash can only be the worst of news.

The airline is GermanWings, a budget carrier.

MayoForSam

Mr.McLovin wrote: »

Airbus 320, do any of the irish carriers use this plane?

A320 is one of the most popular aircraft out there, almost 6000 in service. Aer Lingus have 29 of them. Airbus safety record has not been too good at all recently.

Wacker The Attacker

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Just seen this, Alps crash can only be the worst of news.

The airline is GermanWings, a budget carrier.

Indeed. I imagine any rescue attempt would be enormously complicated.

Captain Chaos

MayoForSam wrote: »

. Airbus safety record has not been too good at all recently.

How many have been pilot error or other non mechanical events? 2 777s were lost last year down to event's that had nothing to do with problems with the airframe for example.

The A320 that crash landed in the Hudson River did fine thanks to the pilot and a good bit of luck.

suicide_circus

Not looking good, wreckage found

rob316

French ministry says no survivors expected

Deathwish4

Horrible time for Aviation. RIP to all souls lost.

bogwalrus

My biggest fear is being on a plane that is about to crash. A minute would feel like an eternity.:(

Red Kev

Thoughts are with the families.

With people flying more and more, and especially with us being an island nation it could happen to any of us. Flying has become a lot safer but its not infallible.

From FlightRadar24 it was losing altitude quickly for a few minutes beforehand, looks very odd.

Horrible news.

bogwalrus

bogwalrus wrote: »

My biggest fear is being on a plane that is about to crash. A minute would feel like an eternity.:(

http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/d-aipx/#5d42675

kneemos

[Deleted User] wrote: »

From FlightRadar24 it was losing altitude quickly for a few minutes beforehand, looks very odd.

Horrible news.

For a plane to crash it would have lose altitude,how is that odd?

Knex*

148 feared dead

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0324/689326-germanwings-plane-crash/

Report there says "The accident happened in a zone that is particularly hard to access". I can't imagine that they don't run that flight daily, though.

BeerWolf

Another one?

bogwalrus wrote: »

My biggest fear is being on a plane that is about to crash. A minute would feel like an eternity.:(

If there's rapid decompression you'd be passed out long before impact.

tayto lover

Really hope there were no children on it.
It would be bad enough knowing it was going down but if you had children with you it would be a lot worse.
God love them all. RIP.

kneemos

kneemos wrote: »

For a plane to crash it would have lose altitude,how is that odd?

Everything was going fine followed by a rapid descent and no change of direction. The distance from when the descent started looks like a crash landing somewhere other than the mountains straight ahead may have been possible but wasn't attempted.

Gone West

tayto lover wrote: »

God love them all

Apparently not...

bogwalrus

According to that radar data during take off the plane was ascending 2,000ft per min. Before it crashed it was descending as much as 6,000ft per min. I know what its like to take off on a plane at an angle so three times that in a descent must have been like and arrow straight down.

Deathwish4

Deathwish4 wrote: »

Horrible time for Aviation

There's never been a safer time to fly. Probability and number of fatal commercial-airline crashes has steadily decreased.

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/fatal%20accidents.jpg

G_R

Fuzzy wrote: »

Apparently not...

Mod

Not cool. Be respectful or don't bother posting.

ZiabR

The crashed A320 is 24 years old and has been with the parent Lufthansa group since 1991, according to databaseairfleets.net.

Does that not seem a very long time for an aircraft to be in service? The tech on a 24 year old aircraft would be considered stone age when you compare it with newer aircraft.

RIP to all on board, very sad.

Gone West

logik wrote: »

The tech on a 24 year old aircraft would be considered stone age when you compare it with newer aircraft.

Why present this nonsense as fact?

Tar.Aldarion

All are dead, sorry to hear. It dropped over 10 minutes and a distress had been going out for about half an hour. Ugh, poor people.

take everything

RIP

thelad95

RIP to all those involved. Without speculating too much, given the location it's likely there were Irish passengers on board.

Knex*

Fuzzy wrote: »

Why present this nonsense as fact?

To be fair, you left out the part where the poster asked a question, displaying that they themselves were not sure.

tayto lover

I thought these planes could glide even with engine failure?
Loads of airports around there.

Menas

I hate when these things happen. Knowing that there are families seeing this in the news right now and realizing that their loved on is on board.

Luke92

logik wrote: »

The crashed A320 is 24 years old and has been with the parent Lufthansa group since 1991, according to databaseairfleets.net.

Does that not seem a very long time for an aircraft to be in service? The tech on a 24 year old aircraft would be considered stone age when you compare it with newer aircraft.

RIP to all on board, very sad.

This is why these threads should be left in the aviation forum. No attack on logik, just that the guys over there would sort this out quick enough.

ted1

I landed in Barcelona airport a short while ago. It would have been just after the crash. Crazy to think that it departed from where I just landed

P_1

Not a route you'd expect to see a bird down on.

RIP to all aboard.

ZiabR

OSI wrote: »

Not really, most of BAs Boeing fleet averages 20 years+ old.

You learn something new everyday. Didn't know that. I know it does not change a thing, I just thought aircraft would be removed from service well before 20, 24 years.

RIP

Beefy78

Knex. wrote: »

148 feared dead

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0324/689326-germanwings-plane-crash/

Report there says "The accident happened in a zone that is particularly hard to access". I can't imagine that they don't run that flight daily, though.

I assume they mean it is hard for people to reach the crash zone.

tayto lover

tayto lover wrote: »

I thought these planes could glide even with engine failure?
Loads of airports around there.

Someone on the A+A forum mentioned something similar happening where a sensor froze on ascent and then caused a similarly rapid descent until over-ridden.

Larbre34

logik wrote: »

You learn something new everyday. Didn't know that. I know it does not change a thing, I just thought aircraft would be removed from service well before 20, 24 years.

RIP

All I can say is, dont hitch a lift on a freight aircraft, some of those still in service are 40 years old, and Im not talking about tin cans flying in the third world.

Knex*

Beefy78 wrote: »

I assume they mean it is hard for people to reach the crash zone.

That would make a lot more sense to whatever I was thinking. Cheers.

Bob24

Mr.McLovin wrote: »

Airbus 320, do any of the irish carriers use this plane?

Just saw a few stats on a website:
- A320 is Airbus' most popular aircraft
- Introduced in 1988
- 11500 have been ordered
- 6200 currently in service
- Has carried 6 billion passengers since 1988

This is a sad accident and hopefully they can figure out what it was caused by. But even if it is a technical failure, I guess with the equivalent of the whole world population moved from point A to point B safely since 1988 the track record of the A320 will still be considered a good one.

Brussels Sprout

crazy stat: Airbus says on its website that that an A320 family aircraft takes off or lands every 2.5 seconds of every day.

ZiabR

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

crazy stat: Airbus says on its website that that an A320 family aircraft takes off or lands every 2.5 seconds of every day.

That is unreal.

Tearin It Up

tayto lover wrote: »

Really hope there were no children on it.
It would be bad enough knowing it was going down but if you had children with you it would be a lot worse.
God love them all. RIP.

I hate this ****, its a plane full of people and there's always someone who comes along hope its not a plane of kids. Somehow, its OK if there's no children on the plane.

Not having children on the plane doesn't make it any way better.

148 lives lost. Its a terrible tragedy.

murpho999

Deathwish4 wrote: »

Horrible time for Aviation. RIP to all souls lost.

People always say this but it's not really.

They make big news but are still rare events.

Over a million people die every year on the roads and people think cars are safe whilst less than a thousand died on civil aircraft in 2014.

Plane crash stats

The Peanut

Tearin It Up wrote: »

I hate this ****, its a plane full of people and there's always someone who comes along hope its not a plane of kids. Somehow, its OK if there's no children on the plane.

Not having children on the plane doesn't make it any way better.

148 lives lost. Its a terrible tragedy.

Really don't think that's what the poster was saying. I think taytolover meant that the horror for any individual on the plane would be ramped up drastically if they had their kids with them and knew that their kids were also about to die with them.

Either way, RIP to all involved; huge loss of life.

Tearin It Up

Tearin It Up wrote: »

I hate this ****, its a plane full of people and there's always someone who comes along hope its not a plane of kids. Somehow, its OK if there's no children on the plane.

Not having children on the plane doesn't make it any way better.

148 lives lost. Its a terrible tragedy.

That's not what the poster said - At. All.

He said that if you were on the plane with your children, it's hard enough knowing you're about to die, but knowing your children are about to die must be horrible. And he'd be right.

eviltwin

The Peanut wrote: »

Really don't think that's what the poster was saying. I think taytolover meant that the horror for any individual on the plane would be ramped up drastically if they had their kids with them and knew that their kids were also about to die with them.

Either way, RIP to all involved; huge loss of life.

That's how I took it. Its bad enough knowing I'm going to die but knowing my kids are going to die...that's something else entirely.

emeldc

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

All are dead, sorry to hear. It dropped over 10 minutes and a distress had been going out for about half an hour. Ugh, poor people.

Jaysus, that horrific.

tinkerbell

Such a terrible horrific tragedy Those poor people didn't stand a chance given the area that it happened in

Not that this would prevent a crash happening but the airline companies really need to sort out the black box issue - having all that data stored locally on the plane in this day and age is just baffling.

RIP to everyone on board, their poor families

Menas

OSI wrote: »

Where else would it be stored?

In the cloud. Off the craft. Somewhere safe.

Soups123

Tearin It Up wrote: »

I hate this ****, its a plane full of people and there's always someone who comes along hope its not a plane of kids. Somehow, its OK if there's no children on the plane.

Not having children on the plane doesn't make it any way better.

148 lives lost. Its a terrible tragedy.

Thats not what he said. He is right going down knowing you were powerless in helping your child is more terrifying than the crash about to happen.

RIP to all onboard, always feels worse when so close to home