***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 2 *****
Germanwings A320 down in French Alps
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32030270
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 27 Mar 15 at 10:25
|
Cruise phase but, according to emerging reports, with a mayday call before it disappeared from radar.
French Govt announcement says no survivors.
Rolling coverage (in French):
www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/fait-divers/en-direct-crash-d-un-avion-a320-dans-la-region-de-digne_1664367.html
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 24 Mar 15 at 11:19
|
www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/d-aipx/#5d42675
press play button - and zoom map
must have been a scary last 3 minutes, knowing you were over mountains.
|
|
Isn't Digne a little off course for Barcelona to Dusseldorf?
|
|
A lot. Not sure why route took it over the Alps
|
Some rather strange comments initially by German Wings.....
tinyurl.com/mwe9y26
|
|
So I'm told it's about normal for that route.
|
|
A direct route would perhaps go a little further east - Grenoble(ish). But I don't think it's that far off what might be expected allowing for airways routes through some very heavily used airspace.
|
>> A direct route would perhaps go a little further east - Grenoble(ish). But I don't
>> think it's that far off what might be expected allowing for airways routes through some
>> very heavily used airspace.
I can see the need to avoid Tolouse airspace, but the path it was flying would have taken it east of Geneva.
|
>> I can see the need to avoid Tolouse airspace, but the path it was flying
>> would have taken it east of Geneva.
Judging by the FR24 link posted above it got somewhere close to cruise altitude over the Med and began to lose height immediately after crossing the French coast. It's track up to that point was consistent with a route taking over eastern France and possibly western edge of Switzerland ie turning onto a northerly heading at some point.
Not saying it's definitely right/routine, just that it's not inconsistent with the sort of routings seen in crowded airspace. Indeed it's very close to route same flight took yesterday.
www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/4u9525/#5d219f2
What happens once it starts to descend is a different issue.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 24 Mar 15 at 12:44
|
the link that I posted above now shows the site has been taken down, (or is so busy it has crashed).
The press reports of a first reported problem from pilots emegency message at a height of about 6500' seems a little odd since it had rapidly been losing height from cruise over the last 6 minutes or so. Unless it had already been cleared to descend for an en route landing.
The reported time of 10.47 does not tie in accurately with the radar24 log of 10.41? Could be a setting problem on the receiver providing the feed to radar24?
|
My goodness how awful. Deepest sympathies to all concerned.
Whenever I hear of unexpected tragedies or see the aftermath of a road crash or whatever, I'm almost always moved to think of the way lives, not just the lives of the victims, but those of the people that were important to them have been turned upside down either by being extinguished or by the loss of that person to others.
Human nature being what it is, it's never long before we all see our own problems again more vividly but it should at least remind us to try to grasp the best from every day we can.
We can only speculate on the days those people were expecting to have and now won't. Some returning from a holiday perhaps, others travelling to meet friends or for business, all manner of possible reasons which are now snuffed out by whatever twist of fate caused the crash.
It's easy to say "live each day as if it were your last" and in most cases that wouldn't be an entirely appropriate maxim, but it does remind me to at the very least try to take as much positive out of every day I start out upon rather than to focus too much on any negative aspects.
You hope it won't be your last, and it statistically probably won't be. But these things remind you of that possibility and the vulnerability of our existence.
|
|
Very eloquent Runfer. Quite so.
|
Yes it was eloquent.
What another terrible tragedy involving flying!
If you look at Flight Radar 24 for previous routes, 4 of those shown have it flying across to near Marseille and then up towards Geneva and onwards to Dusseldorf. But on 18th March it flew up over Toulouse then onwards towards Paris and then Dusseldorf.
Where today's flight came down is near to where it has turned north in the past. No point speculating on today's route. It was very similar to the other days.
|
After the events of the last two weeks those words made a bit of sense to my world Humph.
Thank you.
Pat
|
I am very fortunate in being able to fly quite a lot on leisure. We take it for granted that we shall arrive safely, and the largest inconvenience will be lack of legroom, queuing at immigration or taking ones shoes off at security. Then life bites back with a vengeance. I know because I have experienced it twice, up close and personal.
That thing about living ones life to the full each day is a load of cobblers ( no pun intended Runfer) unless you are an adrenaline junkie, and even they need time out. Best to just go about your life, treating people like you hope they would treat you. We can't all lead super exciting lives, and like myself living in a beautiful part of the Dales, we take a lot for granted.
As the tourists tell us when I'm trying to push past them to get a pint in my local.
Last edited by: legacylad on Tue 24 Mar 15 at 17:31
|
Looks like it was just a smidgin under 25 years old...
Humph nails it.
|
>> Humph nails it.
He does. But if you think about it, most serious air crashes kill all or most of the crew and passengers.
It's why I don't like flying. The probability of a crash is slight of course. But I do remember that when flying to Australia the aircraft seemed to spend a lot of time over Afghanistan and northern India/Pakistan. That landscape was horrendous looking, not at all the sort of place for an emergency landing.
Give me the Sahara any day. At least that has a few flattish bits. Or cars, trains and ships as vehicles, rather than dodgy pressurised aluminium tubes with floppy wings and huge great fanjets hanging from them. Rush rush rush... what's the damn hurry?
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 24 Mar 15 at 18:48
|
"I am very fortunate in being able to fly quite a lot on leisure."
I very fortunate in being able to fly cheaper from Manchester to Warsaw than catching a train from Manchester to London.
|
>> I very fortunate in being able to fly cheaper from Manchester to Warsaw than catching
>> a train from Manchester to London.
Londoners are quite grateful as well
|
I use the west coast "Virgin" line quite a lot to and from London. Stupidly expensive if you want to be in the city for a working day but always packed too. It takes ( much ) longer to drive but even allowing for the M6 toll, the con charge, the fuel costs and horrendous central London parking charges it's still cheaper than the train. ( and you don't have to sit next to "people" )
|
>> I very fortunate in being able to fly cheaper from Manchester to Warsaw than catching
>> a train from Manchester to London.
I suspect you're comparing bananas and elephants. Book the Manchester to London rail fare in advance and choose cheapest option with no refunds/changes and the numbers are a lot closer.
|
|
I don't care how cheap it is to fly in a airplane.They are death boxes when there is engine failure.
|
>> I don't care how cheap it is to fly in a airplane.They are death boxes
>> when there is engine failure.
Would be in cases where all engines fail but they're few/far between and where they happen it makes no difference whether there are two engines or four, nor would it if there were sixteen.
|
>> >> I don't care how cheap it is to fly in a airplane.They are death
>> boxes
>> >> when there is engine failure.
>>
>> Would be in cases where all engines fail but they're few/far between and where they
>> happen it makes no difference whether there are two engines or four, nor would it
>> if there were sixteen.
>>
Engine failure isn't normally anything to worry about. Structural or control failures are much more deadly.
Humph nails it. I've been moaning today about a buggy iPhone. Irrelevant in the scheme of things.
|
|
There are those who have a fear of flying and in my experience no amount of logic or statistics will convince them that aircraft are inherently safe and probably the safest method of transport you can use.
|
|
If your numbers up etc. Not something I worry about when I fly.
|
|
It does strike me that sooner or later the will be a youtube video posted from within a wifi equipped doomed plane.
|
|
I blame DPs buggy iPhone for the crash
|
>> I blame DPs buggy iPhone for the crash
>>
I have been tempted to throw it high and far enough today that it might well have taken out passing airliners. Piece of poo.
|
'I don't care how cheap it is to fly in a airplane.They are death boxes when there is engine failure.'
It's a damned sight more expensive to own a car and a damned sight more likely to die in that taking a flight.
|
I think rail travel is actually saver if you compare the number of deaths per 1 million miles traveled (excluding one unders etc).
I don't fly myself not just because of fear but it doesn't agree with my body. Due to my hernia it isn't a wise idea to get the train to Spain this year due to over head racks etc so I am going to go by coach but book two seats so I can travel in comfort.
PS Manchester to London by train? I rarely pay more than £15 each way and takes two hours.
I feel very sorry for the all the people on the plane that were killed, but as usual if this was an accident in Africa it would not dominate the news so much but as soon as it happens in the western world it is major news.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Tue 24 Mar 15 at 21:25
|
This would appear to indicate that train travel causes 60% more fatalities per billion passenger KMs than air in Europe:
www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jul/25/how-safe-are-europe-railways
Take that with a pinch of salt as (a) I've only skimmed the article and (b) it's in the Guardian ;)
Last edited by: PeterS on Tue 24 Mar 15 at 21:38
|
>> This would appear to indicate that train travel causes 60% more fatalities per billion passenger
>> KMs than air in Europe:
>>
>> www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jul/25/how-safe-are-europe-railways
>>
>> Take that with a pinch of salt as (a) I've only skimmed the article and
>> (b) it's in the Guardian ;)
It's probably accurate but a tad misleading due the vast distances involved in air travel. Fatalities per passenger journey will be substantially different.
If you're a nervous passenger the calculation is 'what's my chance of getting off this thing alive' and is same for a 200km rail journey or 20,000km by air.
|
Oh I agree - especially given that take off and landing are when most accidents happen, though not in this case of course.
I'd imagine most trains have many more passengers on them than a plane though, as a counterbalance? So if it does go horribly wrong on a train then there are perhaps more people involved, accepting of course that your chances of surviving a train crash are almost certainly higher than surviving a plane crash?
|
>> I'd imagine most trains have many more passengers on them than a plane though, as
>> a counterbalance?
A four car electric multiple unit (Siemens Class 350) seats approx 230, so possibly 1k+ on a crush loaded 12car. But since wooden construction and gas lights were eliminated survivability was pretty good and in modern trains incredible - see Colwich rash in 1986.
|
'PS Manchester to London by train? I rarely pay more than £15 each way and takes two hours.'
That's good Rats, I've paid 21 squids for a mid-week, off-peak single ticket. I was expecting to pay a lot more although I haven't used it since the 90s.
|
Train travel can be remarkably cheap if you can plan ahead, and travel off peak. But in the real world that's seldom possible. I often need to go to Edinburgh from the South Coast, during the week at generally at 1 or 2 weeks notice from a booking perspective. BA from LGW is always round £180 for a semi flexible ticket (£30 ish less for no flexibility) ; FlyMayBe from Southampton a little less (for a lot less plane!!)
The cheapest rail fare I've seen is £155 for a super save off peak return, booking 2 weeks ahead. But I'm generally travelling during peak hours for at least one leg, which seems to make it nearer £250, and £350 if both legs are during peak time. And that's without any free drinks ;)
Now, to be fair, I'd save my employer around £35 in mileage claims and £70ish in valet parking by catching the train, but taxis and in-train catering would offset that I think :)
|
>> I don't care how cheap it is to fly in a airplane.They are death boxes
>> when there is engine failure.
>>
No, they're not. The A320 in particular is utterly benign in the event of an engine failure at take-off. So relaxed, in fact, that it doesn't even need an increase in thrust on the good engine.
If you want to be worried about something when you're flying, why don't you ask yourself how you can fly across Europe for less than a tenner?
|
|
Did I just her the BBC correctly? An A320 takes off or lands every 2 seconds somewhere in the world? So 30 a minute or 1,800 an hour? Assuming a three hour cycle (pure guess) then that's 5,400 aircraft. Sound about right? I didn't realise there were that many of them!
|
|
Slightly more actually. According to wiki there are 6,157 A320s in service.
|
|
Thanks! Right, I'm now calling myself an airline expert and touting my services to the BBC :)
|
>> Slightly more actually. According to wiki there are 6,157 A320s in service.
That's the number for the 'family' from the A318/319 'minibus' to the A321 which is close in size to Boeing's 757. Passenger capacity ranges from c115 to 220 but for safety stats purposes it's safe to lump them together.
|
But if you think about it, most serious air crashes kill all or most of the crew and passengers.
Two-thirds of air crashes (I think 'serious' is understood once you put the other two words together) have survivors. That's why things like escape routes are so important - as is situational awareness at takeoff and landing: headphones and reading light off, shoes and glasses on so you know what's going on and can get away from it with minimum faff.
I have never forgotten the first-person account of the woman who got herself and her grandchildren out of the burning train at Ladbroke Grove in 1999 because she had read the emergency instructions and knew what to do. That's why I read 'em - and listen to the announcement although I already know all the words. I don't expect to need that information but it will be in my head if I ever do.
|
|
It's a shame that you only get a safety video these days. I used to like the little demonstrtion of the seat belts and oxygen masks given by the stewardesses. Could almost be a work of art.
|
|
The sad thing is, when I flew home from Grenoble last Sunday with Monarch ( only a third full 321) I cannot even recall the safety briefing. That's how blasé I have become. Must try better to pay attention in future
|
>> The sad thing is, when I flew home from Grenoble last Sunday with Monarch (
>> only a third full 321) I cannot even recall the safety briefing.
>>
I don't knowledge of the safety routine would have made much difference to the poor souls on that German Wings flight, judging by the scenes of the wreckage.
+1 to Humph for his words.
|
|
Of course not, BB. But my point was that even within the exceptionally small number of airline accidents, no-survivor accidents are themselves exceptional. The erroneous perception that no air accident is survivable is itself dangerous because it encourages passengers not to do the simple things that could save their lives in an accident.
|
>> But if you think about it, most serious air crashes kill all or most of
>> the crew and passengers.
>>
>> Two-thirds of air crashes (I think 'serious' is understood once you put the other two
>> words together) have survivors.
>>
64% of the people on the Hindenburg survived, yet the disaster was enough to curtail all further use of airships.
|
>> 64% of the people on the Hindenburg survived, yet the disaster was enough to curtail
>> all further use of airships.
The war and Boeing did that, not the disaster.
|
>>I am very fortunate in being able to fly quite a lot on leisure.
You call going through that faff leisure, and describe yourself as fortunate?
Now, if you're flying form Northolt and don't need any of the faff, then fine. But on public services?
I make sure I always know where to find my nearest exit, and count the number of rows away so that I can find it even if it's pitch black. Paranoid? Probably. But have I anything better to do at that point? No.
|
The long haul flights are reasonable a bit more room to stretch your legs.
Agree Mapmaker leisure no.Sometimes necessary evil travelling by air.
|
Almost scared to admit it but I love travelling by plane. OK can get boring on a long flight but I love travelling. It' s a break from the normal routine and If you like people watching an airport can't be beat! All human life is there. You just have to adopt a zen like acceptance of minor inconveniences.
Actually enjoy all forms of travel but for the sheer magic of being somewhere totally different in a few hours you can't beat air travel
|
Travel does it for me as well. Plane, Ship, Train, Car - Love them all. Ok the actual time in the seat in the air is pretty boring, but that is a small part of the whole travel experience. Transport hubs and termini have a certain magic, a vibrancy, drama, excitement, sense of purpose and urgency.
Love it.
|
|
Airports exciting and vibrant? I need to start flying from the airports you two do! Have to say i find the getting there dull and uninteresting.
|
>> Airports exciting and vibrant? I need to start flying from the airports you two do!
>> Have to say i find the getting there dull and uninteresting.
>>
What they said.
When I was commuting to Stockholm on a weekly basis back in 2010 I'd be at LHR T5 by 05:30 in the morning with an hour and half to kill before gate opening, not much vibrating or excitement at that time in the morning!
|
>> When I was commuting to Stockholm on a weekly basis back in 2010 I'd be
>> at LHR T5 by 05:30 in the morning with an hour and half to kill
>> before gate opening, not much vibrating or excitement at that time in the morning!
Yeah, I used to do a 6:45 am to Glasgow on a Monday, and a 21:00 return on Friday commute for a year, and yes even that I found satisfying.
|
Must admit, I find the whole process pretty tedious too. From the moment you pull into the airport car park to the moment you drive out of it again you just get processed.
I'd be alright if they'd give me a shot of driving the aeroplane but they just don't do that do they?
;-)
|
>> I'd be alright if they'd give me a shot of driving the aeroplane but they
>> just don't do that do they?
>>
>> ;-)
>>
I dunno, it worked for me...
|
...not much vibrating or excitement at that time in the morning!
Huevos rancheros and a mango smoothie at the T5 Giraffe got me going when I was doing that trip a couple of years after you.
|
>>I love travelling by plane.
So do I, *IF* I am travelling alone.
After so much flying I drop off into my own little world of people watching and drifting around. I can get through any airport faster than anyone I know, I know most of them, but on the other hand queueing doesn't bother me.
Having the family with me though turns it into an ordeal. For example, one cannot get all Zen about standing in a queue if one has three people constantly reminding you that you are stood in a queue.
|
I love flying as well. We went to the US in 2013 on an arranged trip. Elven flights in all, most by business jet internally, I loved those flights, we were allowed up front on one of the Las Vegas legs which I'm sure was wrong ! Coming into land at a desert airfield we hit pretty bad turbulence, most of the other passengers were whit knuckled, I was doing the roller coaster thing with my arms...great fun
|
I don't find airports a hassle at all, but then in the UK I only use Leeds & Manchester. At Man I use PPS Meet n Greet, £35 for a week. Open 24/7. Phone them when I am 10 minutes from the airport, they are normally waiting outside departures, unload bags, hand over keys. A two minute transaction. A week last Sunday, it took us less than 15 minutes from arriving at MAN T2 in the car, to progress through check in and security, to be sat having a bacon bap drinking coffee and reading a paper. Admittedly it was early on a Sunday morning, but even so....could have been skiing by 1pm if I was so inclined, even after a 2,hour+!transfer to resort.
When I do my long haul out of Leeds, I use the early KlM flight to AMS. Again, normally less than 15 mins from arrival at Leeds to progress through check in, security, pick up my dollars airside at Travelex and be sat with a cuppa. I kid you not. However, at AMS there is normally a 30 minute security check with Delta, but a nice short connection for the onward flight to Portland, where US immigration can sometimes take almost take 15 minutes.
Hassle, what hassle?
|
Obviously, the days of visiting the cockpit on scheduled flights are long gone. As a nipper I remember flying on a BEA Comet 4B with my parents, LHR to Venice. I got a certificate signed by the captain! In the late 90s I flew Air NZ Christchurch-,Singapore. Chatting with the
CC it transpired that the captain & I were from the same part of Yorksire, and I spent several hours on the flight deck, even having my meal brought to me. Sadly, for the descent into Changi I had to return to my seat. Spoilsport!
|
Now reported that initial analysis of cockpit voice recorder indicates one of pilots was locked out of the cockpit:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32062278
|
>> Now reported that initial analysis of cockpit voice recorder indicates one of pilots was locked
>> out of the cockpit:
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32062278
Oh dear, this is going send the "8 minutes of terror" headline writers into apoplexy
|
>> Oh dear, this is going send the "8 minutes of terror" headline writers into apoplexy
>>
The press is trying hard to keep any angle of the story going.
e.g. Guards deployed to keep wolves ( with four legs) away from the crash site.
LH cannot even get the basic passenger list straight. Officially one British person died but do they not hear what the PM states / headlines on our news/ newspapers ?
CNN, last night had extensive coverage of the door story with lots of experts and close ups of a door lock all anchored by the top expert Richard Q.
|
Bear in mind that few of these so-called "experts" are actually uh, "expert". Especially so some of the regulars who are trotted out by Sky News et al, and even the BBC quoted a retired BA pilot who gave duff gen* regarding an emergency descent.
If they are even pilots at all, they're either out of touch or qualified on a different type. Most experienced pilots will have their own opinions, none of whom would enjoy spouting them on national TV.
|
I know it is speculation but what can have caused the crash Fursty Ferret.
I'm only asking because you are a pilot I believe.Or are pilots scared to voice a opinion regarding certain companies i.e.maintenance etc.
|
It seems (E & OE) that, unusually, the point of impact was very tightly concentrated. This is deemed unusual as past experience would suggest that debris is more likely to be spread over a wide area, even in a catastrophic systems/engine failure.
Make of that what you may.
Last edited by: Roger. on Thu 26 Mar 15 at 11:56
|
In a catastrophic failure or other in flight break up the debris trail will be long - think Lockerbie. Lightweight stuff will blow many miles on prevailing winds.
A dive or flat stall into the ground will leave debris concentrated in a small area - think Trident Papa India at Staines in 1972.
Flight into rising terrain, particularly cliffs or mountain ridges, will give a similar result to dive/stall. Added complication though of debris moving down slope, possibly together with large quantities of dislodged earth/rock.
Latest news briefings seem to be firming up as fact stories that emerged overnight of one pilot being locked out of the flightdeck.
|
>> I know it is speculation but what can have caused the crash Fursty Ferret.
>>
>> I'm only asking because you are a pilot I believe.Or are pilots scared to voice
>> a opinion regarding certain companies i.e.maintenance etc.
>>
I think over the last day or so most pilots -esp Airbus qualified - came to the same conclusion now being explained in press conference.
Very sombre mood here today.
|
>> I think over the last day or so most pilots -esp Airbus qualified - came
>> to the same conclusion now being explained in press conference.
>>
>> Very sombre mood here today.
Best start brushing up on your responses to the inevitable physiological profiling.
|
So because of 9/11 we have reinforced cockpit doors. I suspect they were always lockable from the inside but now a lot more secure. So if someone inside is intent on bringing the plane down there's nothing you can do.
I can see there will have to always be two on the flight deck being a requirement. Perhaps if the captain or co-pilot needs a comfort break another crew member goes inside the cockpit just in case.
I still cannot believe the co-pilot would do such a thing if he wanted to just kill himself. I wonder if there is more to this in terms of motive.
My thoughts are with all the families and the people involved in clearing up this mess. A shocking day.
|
>> I can see there will have to always be two on the flight deck being
>> a requirement. Perhaps if the captain or co-pilot needs a comfort break another crew member
>> goes inside the cockpit just in case.
Already a mandatory process on some airlines, but there is no regulation.
|
I got the answer to my question,can't believe what I am hearing.What a tragedy first a all the Dutch passengers shotdown and now a suicide by a young man 28.Taken everybody with him.
|
>>
>> >> I think over the last day or so most pilots -esp Airbus qualified -
>> came
>> >> to the same conclusion now being explained in press conference.
>> >>
>> >> Very sombre mood here today.
>>
>> Best start brushing up on your responses to the inevitable physiological profiling.
>>
I had to fill in a 300 questions psychological profile each time I joined an airline, I imagine they know my personality problems to several decimal places.
Last edited by: Fursty Ferret on Thu 26 Mar 15 at 13:36
|
All the questions
under the sun does not stop anybody making a fatal decision.
|
>> Because of that post or just in general?
>>
>> I had to fill in a 300 questions psychological profile each time I joined an
>> airline, I imagine they know my personality problems to several decimal places.
If it is indeed suicide, and the probability looks very high, then this is a 9/11 scale turning point for the industry. I know there are examples outside Europe/USA but this one's close to home.
Something will have to be seen to be done. Whether 'something' improves the situation is probably a long shot.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 26 Mar 15 at 13:37
|
>> I had to fill in a 300 questions psychological profile each time I joined an
>> airline, I imagine they know my personality problems to several decimal places.
Are they aware, you bought, by choice and with your own money an Insignia.
|
>>
>> >> I had to fill in a 300 questions psychological profile each time I joined
>> an
>> >> airline, I imagine they know my personality problems to several decimal places.
>>
>> Are they aware, you bought, by choice and with your own money an Insignia.
>>
>>
No, but I'm hoping they'll go after the Vectra owners first.
|
Not a suicide, but a mass murder and suicide.
I have to say I suspected a mad pilot scenario almost immediately. It's one of the things you have to not think about when boarding an aircraft.
I look forward to some proper information on the co-pilot's background, current circumstances and psychological profile, if any is forthcoming.
|
|
Pilot and copilot should never leave the cockpit and always take an empty bottle.
|
>> Pilot and copilot should never leave the cockpit and always take an empty bottle.
>>
What about a no.2?
|
|
hi... in this day and age why dont they use telemetry for flight data recording? takes all the hassle of looking or black boxes at the bottom of the oceans, burnt out wreckage etc etc
|
>> hi... in this day and age why dont they use telemetry for flight data recording?
>> takes all the hassle of looking or black boxes at the bottom of the oceans,
>> burnt out wreckage etc etc
In this case,it hasn't been needed. Checkout the wifi on planes thread for that argument.
|
hi... in this day and age why dont they use telemetry for flight data recording?
Been pointed out elsewhere, but basically it's a huge amount of data, satellite passing on is not 100% (planes still use HF radio etc) so not practical.
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Thu 26 Mar 15 at 15:50
|
Why on earth do we need pilots at all. Was it Clarkson who wrote a book something like 'Fifty (?) things every man should know' which included 'How to Land a Jumbo Jet and Live.'
If we think of the three most recent important crashes:
1. The Air France one that stalled over the Atlantic, pilot error; autopilot wouldn't have made the mistake.
2. The Malay Air plane that still hasn't been found; everybody might have been dead when the plane landed itself, but it would likely have landed itself.
3. Germanwings nutter; killed by the pilot.
On the flip side, the Hudson River crash would presumably have been fatal for all on board.
We don't need pilots, thanks.
|
Assuming the co-pilot did what the media is saying that he did then...
1) I hope there is a hell.
2) I hope he rots in it.
At least with a bomb, which is terrible enough God knows, you don't have to sit there and watch it coming.
|
>> Assuming the co-pilot did what the media is saying that he did then...
>>
>> 1) I hope there is a hell.
>> 2) I hope he rots in it.
I tend to agree. Where we are now it looks open/shut.
If, OTOH, once the voice recording is matched to the Flight Data Recorder it emerges that some other problem occurred there's going to be a lot of oeuf sur les visages of the French Investigating Magistrate and his colleagues.
And the world's media.
|
Someone like Fursty Ferret could perhaps confirm, but the door lock control in the cockpit has: unlock, normal and lock.
Unlock is obvious for letting someone out/in. Normal means the door is locked but can be opened with the keypad. Lock means to override the keypad and the door remains shut (to prevent someone entering). But the lock function last for 5 minutes and needs to be activated again.
If this is true the co-pilot repeatedly locked the door during the descent.
I wonder if this was a spur of the moment decision to crash the plane. He took advantage of a toilet break by the pilot. What if they'd cleared the mountains when he left? Where might he have brought it down? Maybe he wouldn't have.
Agree on the hell comment.
|
This is incomprehensible. Accidents from human error or technical issues are sad but understandable, flying is highly technical and things go wrong, gravity and speed are harsh bedfellows but for a pilot to deliberately destroy the aircraft is madness!
I wonder if it was a fantasy gone wrong?
The guy was a wannabee pilot, first a steward and glider pilot then trainee pilot etc.
Did he see the opportunity to fly through the Alps at low level but massively cock up as an Airbus A320 is nowhere near as maneuverable as a glider? Of course once the pilot returned he would have realised that his career was over and took the decision to do the deed?
Perhaps the mentioned flight conversation that took place at cruise altitude was the point that he cracked? Had he been asking to land the aircraft but the pilot said that he would do it? This is the sought of thing that a normal person would shrug off but someone with a grudge or deranged would not?
|
>> Assuming the co-pilot did what the media is ('are' actually FMR, media is a plural) saying that he did then...
>> 1) I hope there is a hell.
>> 2) I hope he rots in it.
Hope schmope. He's dead along with his many victims. There isn't an afterlife.
|
So many people should rot in hell if there is one.
Hope schmope agree.
|
>>
>> >> 1) I hope there is a hell.
>> >> 2) I hope he rots in it.
>>
>> Hope schmope. He's dead along with his many victims. There isn't an afterlife.
>>
Almost certainly mentally ill. I think almost by definition you would have to be to fly a plane into a mountain. Not much point in directing your anger at him really.
|
>> 1. The Air France one that stalled over the Atlantic, pilot error; autopilot wouldn't have
>> made the mistake.
I think in that one the AP tripped out as it was 'confused' by conflicting data.
|
>> >> 1. The Air France one that stalled over the Atlantic, pilot error; autopilot wouldn't
>> have
>> >> made the mistake.
>>
>> I think in that one the AP tripped out as it was 'confused' by conflicting
>> data.
>>
Sounds like the forthcoming election. Sorry.
|
Every few weeks here we read about a road incident caused by some combination of events - elderly driver, young driver, fog, winter tyres, whatever. Someone suggests we might change laws or conditions to make a recurrence of such incident less likely. No, says the consensus of the forum, we already have roads that are safer than average, why mess with them, there are more important things to fix.
Then along comes an incident in the air - already a vastly safer mode of travel than any road anywhere - and it's full-on Something Must Be Done: telemetry so we don't lose another MH370, or two in the flight deck so a rogue or incapacitated pilot can't monopolize the controls. Yes, the air incidents are bigger and more damaging than any individual one on the roads, but taken overall the same amount of effort, money and traveller inconvenience would yield greater benefits on the ground than in the air. So what is happening to our risk perception? Is is that road accidents happen to other people - less capable, less worthy drivers, perhaps - while an air accident might, just might, happen to us?
|
>> than any individual one on the roads, but taken overall the same amount of effort,
>> money and traveller inconvenience would yield greater benefits on the ground than in the air.
>> So what is happening to our risk perception? Is is that road accidents happen to
>> other people - less capable, less worthy drivers, perhaps - while an air accident might,
>> just might, happen to us?
Its news, few people have the ability to take hundreds of people with them when they decide to top themselves. Its morally unthinkable to most of us, we can't even consider how someone can do this.
And the cure is simple, quick, and cheap. Just a change in crew process.
|
|
What makes this crash different is it was probably deliberate. An equivalent on the road might be a coach driver with a full coach crashing head-on into another full coach. Not an accident. Or maybe an oil tanker driving into a school. Or maybe a train driver deliberately going too fast. Murder and suicide.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 26 Mar 15 at 22:51
|
|
But what's to stop my coach, train, tanker examples happening.
|
>> But what's to stop my coach, train, tanker examples happening.
Nothing, but the survival rate would be much higher.
|
>> Nothing, but the survival rate would be much higher.
Absolutely. Flying in a plane at hundreds of miles per hour into a mountain does not provide much change of surviving.
I could understand this tragedy more if it turned out he intended killing everyone for what he thought was a just cause. But if he did it because of depression - that's harder to understand.
|
>> And the cure is simple, quick, and cheap. Just a change in crew process.
How?
|
|
The one implemented by Easyjet today?
|
Not sure that your perception of forum's risk perception is correct if you see what I mean. I've re-read this thread and there are only a couple of suggestions that changes should be made to make things safer.
|
Not just this thread, CGN: there's the wifi one recently just for starters. Look back to the time of other air crashes and you'll find more.
As for this being deliberate, that's not really relevant because we didn't know it beforehand - and if we had, that pilot wouldn't have been aboard. A suicidal pilot is one risk - a tiny one - among many that we must run if we fly. Such pilots have caused maybe six crashes in 40 years, causing rather fewer deaths than drivers who can't see properly, or can't control a car. Yet we rush to fix the pilot hazard and regard the unfit drivers as one of those things.
Not saying either is wrong, necessarily, but they're not mutually consistent.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Thu 26 Mar 15 at 23:08
|
How many flights have been made, anywhere in the world, in the last 30 years?
How many planes have been deliberately flown into buildings in the last 30 years?
How many planes have been lost without trace in the last 30 years?
How many planes have been deliberately flown into the ground in the last 30 years?
Seems to me that we're trying to solve 0.00001% of issues with no chance of success. There'd be more chance of success if we just banned planes.
|
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990
And this also provides a really good reason why National Carriers should not hold evidential flight data.
|
|
The lawyers will be rubbing their collective hands and drooling at the thought of the fat % paydays to come. They'll be the only winners in this sorry affair.
|
>> The lawyers will be rubbing their collective hands and drooling at the thought of the
>> fat % paydays to come. They'll be the only winners in this sorry affair.
More than likely.
|
A less well known incident ?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Air_Botswana_incident
Not always a quick outcome.
|
>> >>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Express_Flight_705
>>
>> What's your point?
I'm sure the miserable old goat can defend himself, but, I think his point was that suicide pilots is not as unique or rare as the industry would like to portray.
The case in point of the the Egyptians trying to deny it, the more or less unspoken knowledge that MH370 was another, is trying to suppress the airline industries worse fear, Rogue Pilots.
Rogue, or death happy pilots will erode passenger confidence faster than an outbreak of ebola. Everybody knowns that the pilot, on a whim has the 100% ability to wipe you all out. Train drivers can't do it, bus drivers or coach drivers rarely get the chance to be sure of a 100% kill rate,taxi drivers ditto, but a pilot, if he so wishes, always has the option of ensuring that none of you has the chance of survival.
In passenger minds, that hasn't been a problem, because they have always had the assumption that the pilot has no more wish to die than you do.
That mental safety net has just been thrown out the window in the most shocking, public, graphical way possible. The Airline industry must be quaking in their boots.
|
Airliner crashes in Alps - Bromptonaut
