[Closed] Plane crash in the alps

@geetee. Got a friend who has spent the last 5 years as a "western" pilot flying out of Japan. He's employed on the basis that he is western and so won't simple do as the older pilot/manual says. He's one of 10 western pilots for the regional airline he works for - all employed for the reasons you alluded too.

Major electrical issue?

It's a aeroplane. Doesn't need electricity to fly.

They couldn't access the flight because it was locked.

It's a aeroplane. Doesn't need electricity to fly.

Very bizzare that the aircraft was absolutely on the correct flight path but just descended fairly rapidly. Seems like the automatic navigation/control systems where working partially at least. They flew past Marseilles so if there had been a major issue and the pilots where in control they could have turned back.

@flaperon, it's a modern aircraft and is so totally reliant on electricity. You don't have cables controlling things these days it's all electrical.

I may be wrong but I believe he flies one.

Just tragic. RIP to those on board.

I'm sure they'll resolve this quickly as they've found the FDR according to the Beeb.

@geetee - really ? Personally I'd give smashing the door down a really good go

Well since 9/11 they've largely made the flight deck a secure place.

Great. Nervous flyer here notices 2 days ago my holiday plane has changed from a 747 to an A330...

RIP. 🙁

RIP to all and condolences to all families especially for the 16 schoolchildren. Heatbreaking and chilling as I have flown in and out of Geneva today without any knowledge until I was back in London. Awful news.

(Actually saw first female BA pilot at LHR and flight back had lady First Officer)

Well given no-one yet knows what caused it let's all share what we reckon happened.

My sister was on an Airbus that had to make an emergency landing at Barcelona only last week...

[url= http://www.****/travel/travel_news/article-3002206/Ryanair-plane-makes-emergency-landing-Barcelona-fire-extinguisher-discharges.html ]http://www.****/travel/travel_news/article-3002206/Ryanair-plane-makes-emergency-landing-Barcelona-fire-extinguisher-discharges.html[/url]

...(and is the quoted expert in the Daily Fail article)

The cause of that one was an accidental discharge of a Halon fire extinguisher in the cockpit - the pilots had to go to emergency oxygen and the plane descended and diverted. I know from experience that Halon (used to be used by Police public order teams, but now banned...) is excellent at putting out fires - but horrendous when you accidentally breathe it in - almost as if you haven't inhaled at all, which makes you gasp but your lungs are already full, so you gasp etc etc.

I wonder if a similar thing happened today, but oxygen wasn't reached in time?

Kryton57

Fret not; I fly an A330 for a living and it's a very safe aeroplane. The 320 is too, in fairness.

Far more chance of getting killed on your daily commute to work on the UK roads, assuming you don't work at home!

Worth noting, for the more nervous flyers, that if you want to avoid dying on your way to your holiday, then statistically, you are much much better off deliberately taking more care as you drive to the airport, than you are worrying about your plane crashing.....

(i bet not one of those nervous flyers even thinks about crashing their car on the way to the airport......)

Terrible thing especially since there was a group of school kids on board. But air travel is safer now than ever though no consolation to the families involved. It was s very quick descent (5000ft/min so not typical - 8 mins from cruise altitude instead of around 30 mins according to Sky news) so clearly not a controlled descent into terrain, and pilots don't fly aircraft these days so not an issue of oxygen starvation - the aircraft would have flown on for a good couple or three hours on autopilot until it ran out of fuel as the Helios aircraft did. Whatever happened the pilots had no time to react or even get useful coms out. We must wait until the experts analyse the data.

We must wait until the experts analyse the data.

Terrible news. A320 has an excellent safety record and I've always been impressed with germanwings pilots. Not enough info at the moment so only speculation.

Siwhite, Ryanair don't fly A320's. The dailyfail article correctly states 737.

With modern avionics, and GPS, flying into a cloud stuffed with rocks is much less likely to happen than back in the forties, fifties and sixties; thinking of an airliner that flew into the Boisson Glacier on Mt Blanc, and another that flew into a glacier in South America, which only came to light in recent years.
Personally, I'd be much more afraid of flying over certain unstable parts of the world, politically speaking.

Electronics have undoubtedly made airliners safer, however, many pilots can no longer fly by the seat of their pants so when the electronics go wrong the aircraft ends up spinning into the ocean - even when they have good visibility/a horizon.

16 minutes of largely inane twaddle in the BBC news coverage. Sad and inappropriate. Most of the detail (sic) is of no relevance to the general public.

16 minutes of largely inane twaddle in the BBC news coverage. Sad and inappropriate. Most of the detail (sic) is of no relevance to the general public.

+1

All we needed to know was that a plane had gone down, I didn't need to see images of crying parents. It's ****ing depressing, I'm hardened enough as it is.

condolences to all, Brassneck I hope your colleagues are safe.

The wife always comments on this. They call it 'time of useful consciousness' and at 30,000ft it's about 15 seconds. The passengers all get drop down masks in the event of the sudden loss of cabin pressure but the pilots have to reach down and pull out their own supplies and then fit them because there is no 'overhead' compartment that you can fit them in on a flight deck.

There was a plane a few years ago that lost touch with air traffic and fighter jets were scrambled. They were able to visually confirm the passengers were all alive but the pilots were either unconscious or by that point dead. Plane ditched into the sea when it ran out of fuel.

Awful awful way to go. Nothing the passengers could do. They couldn't access the flight because it was locked.

I find it a little unbelievable that the likes of Boeing and Airbus can't redesign the flight decks, see how much crap Lockheed has managed to cut out of the F-35 cockpit.

Or just wear a flight helmet and mask all the time like the RAF heavy pilots. Then again, the airline pilots would mess up their hair up.

Or just wear a flight helmet and mask all the time like the RAF heavy pilots. Then again, the airline pilots would mess up their hair up.

I've Never seen any Hercules or c-17 pilots with helmet and mask for routine flight.(I'm only a plane geek no actual experience)

The plane in question had a routine service yesterday, in the Greek crash I remember it just having been serviced but some problem with a valve in the tail was missed/introduced.

Yeah thinking about, they do quite often forgo them. Whilst the fast jet and heli lot have to put up with them. I guess wearing them for extended flights day in and day out could cause serious neck issues.

If pilots passing out because they can't get masks on in under 15 seconds is a problem, I still can't see why they can't design a very lightweight strap and drill routinely so the masks are a couple of seconds away from being on at all times.

There's always room for improvement somewhere.

I still can't see why they can't design a very lightweight strap and drill routinely so the masks are a couple of seconds away from being on at all times.

They have and they do.

There was a plane a few years ago that lost touch with air traffic and fighter jets were scrambled. They were able to visually confirm the passengers were all alive but the pilots were either unconscious or by that point dead. Plane ditched into the sea when it ran out of fuel.

Are you thinking of [url= http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522 ]Helios 522[/url]? The passengers all died too, except for one flight attendant, who gained access to the flight deck, but lacked the knowledge to fly the plane, it ran out of fuel and crashed into a mountain. I can't even begin to imagine how terrifying that would be.

I was reading this earlier the same day
[url= http://www.avherald.com/h?article=47d74074/0000&opt=0 ]Aviation herald[/url]

so clearly not a controlled descent

THou the pilot oxygen mask don't drop down, they are very easily accessible and to be fitted to over the head ONE HANDED. (pass one need two hands)
and have diff air flow rates.
Also the Pilots also have there own oxygen bottle, where passengers have a oxygen generator.

So de-pressurisation, set to rapid descent but maintain course, lost conciousness so no course deviation, mayday or levelling off, slammed into mountain?

Seems to be a safe bet at the moment. Not seen any mention of explosion/fire/fuel yet but the de-pressurisation scenario has to be more likely than a lack of fuel one, especially given previous history and lack of mayday.

Doesnt fit with stall behaviour (eg Air France pitot/stall crash) or massive structural failure (eg tail off)

Wonder if that plane has had a tail strike in the past?

So de-pressurisation, set to rapid descent but maintain course, lost conciousness so no course deviation, mayday or levelling off, slammed into mountain?

Seems to be a safe bet at the moment.

No, it's not.

I find all these "opinions" distasteful.
There were probably Brits on that plane, their families or friends could end up reading this thread. Can you not find some other way of satisfying your engineering/aeronautical/know-it-all egos?

ElShalimo - Member
I find all these "opinions" distasteful.
There were probably Brits on that plane, their families or friends could end up reading this thread. Can you not find some other way of satisfying your engineering/aeronautical/know-it-all egos?

Let's hope they don't have any access to TV radio or newspapers then.

Are you thinking of Helios 522?

Yes that was the one. Truly a horrible thing; the only person left on board alive having to sit there while the plane went down.

That particular incident sparked a long conversation between my wife and I. Yes, pilots are drilled regularly for how to deal with a sudden cabin depressurisation but that's not what happened on the Helios flight (and this is in no way speculation on the German Wings incident, it's just discussion).

This was slow despressurisation. The passenger air supply is automatically triggered when the pressure drops too low. That doesn't happen on the flight deck and and as you can read from the account of Helio, there is no entirely unambiguous warning that you're losing cabin pressure. There were warnings, but the pilots mistoook them for something else. Hypoxia has a huge impact on congnitive processing so once it sets in, your decision making and judgement is impaired compounding the problem.

I only know about this stuff from my wife but I still don't understand why there isn't a very specific, unambiguous warning system on the flight deck that tells the pilots they are losing air pressure. Maybe some planes have them, but the 737 doesn't.

I find all the "opinion" heartening.

The fact people are interested, want to discuss, and actually care about what happens to other people in the world.

Discussing "what might have happened" is a natural human reaction, and part of the healing process.

The world would be a terrible place if the reaction to say a plane crash was "so what" wouldn't it.......

If I'd lost friends or family in a plane crash, a mountain biking forum is the very first place I'd be looking to for answers.

The world would be a terrible place if the reaction to say a plane crash was "so what" wouldn't it.......

I agree that in web fora there is always a lot of point-scoring, especially when contributors are keen to display their impeccable PC credentials. However there do appear to be a couple of real pilots on this thread, who can contribute useful information.

I just hope this doesn't turn out to be another case of an Airbus out-thinking humans but getting it wrong, as happened with AF447.

So the Helios accident hasn't led to a system to warn pillows of slow depressurisation and the Air France accident hasn't yet let to longer lasting and better beacons fitted to flight recorders?

So the Helios accident hasn't led to a system to warn pillows of slow depressurisation

Almost certainly it has. The industry is very good at learning from these mistakes. It might not be in the form of a retrofit warning light, but it would certainly come in the form of training and SOP updates. If XYZ happens then make sure you check DEF as well as ABC.

The first thing my wife did when she got home yesterday was review the update that was issued recently in relation to the A320 on what you need to do if the plane, for some unexplained reason, suddenly starts to descend; as she put it, just a glitch in the system but one not resolved by simply pulling back on the control stick. You have to switch off two other systems or something first beore the plane will respond.

Are you thinking of Helios 522?

Just read about that. Grim. Also read the Air France story several times along with a few others and one thing keeps standing out. It's the fact that the pilots can misinterpret the warning signals. With all the sophisticated technology available, how is this possible? Maybe it's my luddite tendencies, but can't they design the systems to ensure there's no ambiguity?

Why do pilots ignore their senses and believe their instruments? Have you seen the effect a Sat Nav can have on a driver. We are quite used to being deceived by our senses and are more ready to question those than the output of a machine. And in most cases the machine may be right, but occasionally it's our senses that are right and the machine that is wrong.

Why do pilots ignore their senses and believe their instruments?

Because human senses aren't very good at discerning flight parameters (eg gaining/losing height or angles) so when it's dark or the weather's bad and they have no visual indicators, you can't tell what's happening though senses - just like you can be in a plane not paying attention and then look out of a window and realise that you're banking fairly sharply.

I just hope this doesn't turn out to be another case of an Airbus out-thinking humans but getting it wrong, as happened with AF447.

That's not what happened. They had a sensor issue and misinterpreted what was happening and responded contrary to their training (the co-pilot was fully pulling back almost the whole time believing incorrectly for that circumstance that the plane would not allow a stall)

Why do pilots ignore their senses and believe their instruments?

It will be interesting to see what the other pilots have to say on this, but the one I live with just responded by saying 'because the instrument is far more likely to be right'. She also explained how when gaining her PPL she had it drummed into her that, in a small plane, it's not uncommon for your senses to become confused in thick cloud and that you have to trust your instruments and fly on what they are telling you.

This is an interesting read:

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_disorientation ]Spatial Disorientation[/url]

It's easy to see how the brain can become confused: in a very small way it happens when I stall my car, which has all kinds of annoying interlocks and won't start until you've got the seatbelt on, the gearbox in neutral and the clutch disengaged. When it stalls, trying to get back into the mental sequence and get it re-started can be annoyingly difficult.

That's exactly the point I was making geetee, 99% of the time the machine is right. What every flight deck needs is a TJ to argue that black is white. A pain in the arse most of the time but just occasionally a voice of reason.

Do you trust your instincts when approaching a speed camera or the speedo on your dash? Your instinct is normally to trust your speedo, but what if it's wrong?

Two main factors for humans are an acceleration force and a visual point of reference. Other things like noise etc are also important.

Going back to the speedo in a car you will generally have a good source of visual reference and a good perception of speed when driving. So if your speedo is telling you that you are doing 30 but your eyes (and probably engine revs, suspension vibrations etc) are telling you that you are doing 60mph then you know that there is something wrong. If you go from an old car to a modern new big executive cruiser you can actually be quite confused and it is very easy to speed as your senses are not telling you the usual story.

When you are in a big plane acceleration changes can be very slow and gradual and in a plane you are in 3D space so acceleration can mask direction of travel - eg a banked turn will exert a G loading that can mask the gravitation direction. You also have very little to go on in visual point of reference and again we are used to travelling in 2 dimension when on the ground.

A good example is rapid pitch or altitude changes due to turbulence are very easy to detect. But slow sinusoidal changes are not and you can end up with massive variation in altitude that goes unnoticed by those on board, including the pilots.

Another problem is angle of attack and pitch angle are not the same. Angle of attack is the angle at which the air is hitting the wings. If you are travelling perfectly forwards at constant altitude then yes they are the same, if you are falling as well as travelling forwards then the angle of attack is greater as the wing is now seeing air approach from a different angle to the horizon. I remember someone claiming that the artificial horizon is the same as an angle of attack indicator. It is not unless in true level flight (and ignoring the set angle of the wings etc to keep it simple).

Not going to speculate on any crashes or causes further as it just makes people get shirty so just pointing out some examples of where humans AND instruments can be problematic.

The question is do you trust instruments or your senses?