Airbus A320 Crashes in Alps

If it is they seriously need to do some more vigorous checks after maintenence, I kind of have a feeling some of these things are rushed through (although I could be very wrong), as an airplane on the ground is an airplane costing money, and not earning money

Airlines know very well that a crashed plane could wipe them out overnight, maintenance is never skimped on. Plus, the aviation authorities regulate maintenance very highly with strict schedules and tolerances.

Aviation works in the way that when a crash happens, it gets blamed (for use of a better word) on the furthest back person. If an engine falls off and turns out that it was a bolt that failed, the man or woman who made or checked off that bolt is the one who bears responsibility for the accident, so people tend to do their jobs properly.

I would doubt maintenance is directly to blame here, remember it safely flew to Barcelona with no issue the day before...
 
Hey everyone, thought I'd give my 2p here.

I am a commercial pilot, flew for Europe's "favorite" low fares airline for a while before moving into the world of corporate aviation. I've no experience on the A320 but I've got a few thousand hours in Boeing 737's and Citation XLS's to back up my opinions.

Sadly there are a lot of "experts" out there, even sadder still news channels like to talk to them and from a pilots perspective, it's embarrassing what comes out of their mouths sometimes. If you want facts, please disregard ALL mainstream media, please check out this rather excellent website which is well known in the aviation industry for being the source for reliable details: http://avherald.com/h?article=483a5651&opt=0

As for what happened, well I'm often reluctant to speculate because there isn't usually just one thing that goes wrong. Aviation is a system of backup on backup on backup, each layer with a multiple of holes, but the hope is through all backups the error can't slip through. It's nicknamed the Swiss cheese model, for obvious reasons.

However, there are some theories, the most plausible in my opinion being a pressurisation problem. These are relatively common (Though I've never had one and don't know anyone who has) but it is a very well practiced procedure: Oxygen masks on, establish cockpit communication, diagnose, descend. Depending on the nature of the depressurisation depends on how fast you go down. If it's a structural issue then you do not put any undue stress on the airframe, go down slow and steady. If it's an outflow valve stuck open (just one example of a non structural pressurisation fault), then it's cut power, set 10,000ft, airbrakes out and set speed to Vmo or Mmo (speed or mach maximum operating). The 737-800 that I flew for that certain Irish carrier would be about 320kts, the A320 I believe it's 350kts, you'll descend very quick, initially we're talking 4000fpm+, reducing to maybe 2000fpm by 10,000ft. This means that the 10 minutes to descend is well within the flight envelope.

We use 10,000ft, or Flight Level 100, because at that altitude the air is thick enough for us to be alert, unless you're a smoker then you can knock a few 1000 of that figure.

Airbus aircraft also have protection from over stressing the aircraft, if it sees the aircraft over speeding it will reduce rate of descent and automatically retard the thrust levers. The speed of impact would likely have been at the top end of this, 350kts = 402mph airspeed, which at 6000ft could be 450mph ground speed depending on pressure/temp/wind. Whatever happens, nothing will be left of the aircraft, which backs up the photos that are surfacing now.

They were heading over towards the Alps, over the mountains you've got to be very aware of your sector safe altitude, the lowest you can descend in the case of an emergency, as the ground comes up to meet you. The area around Mt. Blanc for example, you cannot descend below 18,000ft, so you can imagine if there is a problem the pilots would not continue towards the mountains.

So, again IMO, this leads us to possible pilot incapacitation, did they get the oxygen masks on in time? Did they start the descent then put them on? If this is the case they'd happily be descending at the average 3400fpm descent totally unconscious. As they pass 10,000ft they'd slowly gain consciousness, pulling out of the dive at 6400ft, where they apparently flew level at this altitude for 1 minute before impacting mountains roughly 9,000ft in height.

The only flaws in this I can see are a) why did both of the crew not get oxygen on in time, it's the very first thing to do and b) why did they set level off altitude at FL064 not FL100 or even better, the MSA? Why carry on into high ground and not turn off route into flatter land into France?

There are reports of possibly no mayday call too. The squawk was not set 7700, again this strikes me as incapacitation. The old aviation saying; aviate, navigate, communicate, is important in this. Communication is last on the list of things to do. First is fly the thing, then fly not in the right direction, then finally tell people what you're doing.

It's strange, we wont know until cockpit and black box recordings are analysed, which I believe is already underway, so we'll know a bit more in 48hrs.

As for the age of the aircraft, 24 years is not old at all. Aircraft are maintained to a standard that would far surpass what anyone could imagine, I believe this one had a major check in 2013 and came out of maintenance just the day before. It made it's way to Barcelona too, so it was likely maintained correctly.

It's a very sad day for aviation, a very sad day to see my fellow aviators die too. But this is not a common thing, this is not normal and not something to worry about. The A320 is one of the most common and safe aircraft ever produced, I'd have all the confidence to fly one and fly in one.

Remember that there are 10,000+ flights per day, every day, so whilst there are accidents, these things are rare.

Great post, thanks for your insight. I find it fascinating.
 
Agreed, makes a change from random hysteria and total guesswork.

Thanks chaps. The problem with these aviation accidents (as I mentioned) is that there is never one thing, but a multitude of things that go wrong. I can't stress enough my post is also total guesswork and you'll find outwith the mainstream media, it'll be facts with no guesswork until the authorities come back with some real data and conclusions.

I'm not sure what black box they've found, but both should give good info on what happened. I've no idea what voodoo magic material they make them with, but as CaptainRave said, it's incredible how anything can withstand a 450mph impact into a mountain side and still keep its data.

Either of the black boxes get shipped to a location (often the AAIB headquarters in Farnborough) for analysis. The cockpit voice recorder is listened to only be a select few in a sealed room. Naturally the CVR has the final moments voices of the crew's lives so the rooms are of the highest security, I even believe they're electronically shielded as well as guarded. From this they will be able to tell what happened even if the flight data recorder is damaged, though I'm sure they will find this too.

I'd say give it 48 hours and we'll hear what happened. Int he mean time, the only place for reliable info is definitely http://avherald.com/ (I have no involvement with this site apart from a frequent visitor)
 
like the flight where they had left the air system on manual instead of auto and the crew got hypoxia and then passed out and died and the plane just flew on with everyone o nbaord dead.

Funny you should mention that, I was watching a documentary with my wife about MH370 just yesterday which raised that very issue. I wasn't aware of it until then, but it is quite alarming that these things can happen. That's one tiny little fault / mistake which cost lots of human life.

You'd think that these aircraft would have some kind of air monitoring system. We have some in certain offices at work, they're only marginally larger than a match box.

Maybe they do now though.


Regardless, this is another dark day for the aviation industry. It makes me wonder if these events over the last couple of years seem more due to perception, or if there are actually more incidents. Might have to get some numbers out later and do some research.
 
To be fair, the Helios (ghost plane) incident was a 737, which, even in it's NG and MAX guises, is a 1960's airplane with lots and lots of manual stuff. Newer technology seeks to prevent those kind of issues impossible to happen (aside from an automation failure - less likely than a human missing a switch in an overhead scan).
 
Planes never fly in a straight line because it is a longer journey, and flight paths are both regulated and calculated to take advantage of winds.

For flights over this sort of distance through European airspace, it's more to do with permitted routes in the airways system to enable planning, flow control and conflict resolution.

Awful turn of events. :(
 
[TW]Fox;27820591 said:
No it wasn't - it was a string of errors and mistakes. It's never just one thing.

Many websites state that yes, although a bold statement saying never




Bird strike, engine failure, fuel starvation or leak

Those could be single point of failures

Very very few are, but not never
 
Last edited:
Airlines know very well that a crashed plane could wipe them out overnight, maintenance is never skimped on. .

I would love to elaborate on why you are wrong, but I work in aircraft maintenance and many of my colleagues use this site and for the sake of my job or people thinking I was talking about my own airline I just deleted the 500 word post I was about to make :) I wouldn't want a link to be made wrongly that cost me my job :)

Aviation works in the way that when a crash happens, it gets blamed (for use of a better word) on the furthest back person. If an engine falls off and turns out that it was a bolt that failed, the man or woman who made or checked off that bolt is the one who bears responsibility for the accident, so people tend to do their jobs properly...

No it doesn't. Which is why you have an accountable manager at an airline. Not only the man furthest back carries the can. After all look at who is and isn't in prison for the helios incident. If the man on the tools so to speak hasn't been properly trained and supported he won't be the man in jail.

I worked with the man that signed off the Helios flight and was the engineer on the radio when it all happened. I pray I never have to go through what he did for years. I hope I'm never in the shoes of these people that worked on the German Wings aircraft. It's bad enough for the anxiety mislaying a tool for a few hours let alone losing that many lives.

remember it safely flew to Barcelona with no issue the day before...

Not that relevant really with so much maintenance done at night these days, it could have been the first leg of the day. Also nothing to say it has to fail straight after maintenance.

You'd think that these aircraft would have some kind of air monitoring system. .

They did, you can't monitor for a pair of pilots badly trained.
 
Back
Top Bottom