trousers Posted 24 March, 2015 Posted 24 March, 2015 That looks like a controlled decent to me. Thoughts with all those onboard and their families of course.
Lighthouse Posted 24 March, 2015 Posted 24 March, 2015 Horrible accident with no survivors by the sound of it. Also very strange. For a modern A320 to crash from cruising altitude would take something massively unusual. I very much doubt it was a controlled descent Trousers. If anything a bomb on board would fit the description best but there is no evidence for that yet.
trousers Posted 24 March, 2015 Author Posted 24 March, 2015 (edited) I very much doubt it was a controlled descent Trousers. I was basing that deduction on the FlightRadar24 data. The image shows a relatively gradual decent rather than a sudden one (the colours representing the altitude go from purple to dark-blue to light-blue over a distance of about 50 miles). Granted, that's a fairly rapid decent but its not sudden. Anyway, will leave the speculation to the media as they're very good at that. Edited 24 March, 2015 by trousers
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 24 March, 2015 Posted 24 March, 2015 Sent a distress signal 46 minutes after take off. Horrible news, just horrible. With the number of issues recently it's making me more and more nervous flying (myself and the missus had a horrible flight to Geneva last year).
Bearsy Posted 24 March, 2015 Posted 24 March, 2015 Anyway, will leave the speculation to the media as they're very good at that. They'll look into that once they've finished speculating how many English people might have been on board.
stevegrant Posted 24 March, 2015 Posted 24 March, 2015 While 2014 saw a number of high-profile issues, it was actually a record low in terms of the actual number of plane crashes. I think it's just that it's been well-known airlines in this part of the world who have been involved that has brought it into the spotlight a bit more. You're still apparently 7 times more likely to die by falling out of bed
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 24 March, 2015 Posted 24 March, 2015 While 2014 saw a number of high-profile issues, it was actually a record low in terms of the actual number of plane crashes. I think it's just that it's been well-known airlines in this part of the world who have been involved that has brought it into the spotlight a bit more. You're still apparently 7 times more likely to die by falling out of bed Of course you are, and we're all aware of that,sort of statistic but it's difficult not to worry about something like that! I know it's irrational, but still worries me. I think it's got worse since having children mind.
buctootim Posted 24 March, 2015 Posted 24 March, 2015 (edited) While 2014 saw a number of high-profile issues, it was actually a record low in terms of the actual number of plane crashes. I think it's just that it's been well-known airlines in this part of the world who have been involved that has brought it into the spotlight a bit more. You're still apparently 7 times more likely to die by falling out of bed MLG pedant spot. There are lots of those stats - more likely to die on the drive to the airport for example. The falling out of bed one is misleading though - its basically refers to elderly ill people who collapse and die upon getting up out of bed. A horrible way to die, no matter how often it happens (plane crash that is). Edited 24 March, 2015 by buctootim
Bearsy Posted 24 March, 2015 Posted 24 March, 2015 I'm gonna start sleeping on the floor, just in case
saint si Posted 24 March, 2015 Posted 24 March, 2015 I'm gonna start sleeping on the floor, just in case Won't save you if the plane you're on hits the mountains.
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 24 March, 2015 Posted 24 March, 2015 I'm gonna start sleeping on the floor, just in case But more people choke on mice per year...I think you'll just have to quit sleeping.
Goatboy Posted 24 March, 2015 Posted 24 March, 2015 But more people choke on mice per year...I think you'll just have to quit sleeping. In-flight meals aren't what they used to be.
buctootim Posted 24 March, 2015 Posted 24 March, 2015 You're still apparently 7 times more likely to die by falling out of bed I'm gonna start sleeping on the floor, just in case Won't save you if the plane you're on hits the mountains. Lie flat business beds seem to be the problem.
Lighthouse Posted 24 March, 2015 Posted 24 March, 2015 I was basing that deduction on the FlightRadar24 data. The image shows a relatively gradual decent rather than a sudden one (the colours representing the altitude go from purple to dark-blue to light-blue over a distance of about 50 miles). Granted, that's a fairly rapid decent but its not sudden. Anyway, will leave the speculation to the media as they're very good at that. To get from 38,000ft to 5,000ft in 50 miles would take a rate of descent around 5-6,000ft per minute which is very steep. A normal descent of 33,000ft would take around 110 miles, so if this descent was in any way controlled they would probably have needed the gear down. The only need to do that would be an onboard fire, however that track shows no change in course towards an airport for an emergency landing. An AF447 style stall could be possible but there were no thunderstorms in the area and only light possibly moderate turbulence forecast.
HedgeEnder Posted 24 March, 2015 Posted 24 March, 2015 Sent a distress signal 46 minutes after take off. Horrible news, just horrible. With the number of issues recently it's making me more and more nervous flying (myself and the missus had a horrible flight to Geneva last year). Holy s**t I'm flying to Geneva Friday morning for a long weekend skiing in the Alps
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 24 March, 2015 Posted 24 March, 2015 Holy s**t I'm flying to Geneva Friday morning for a long weekend skiing in the Alps It'll be fine, we just had very bad turbulence on the way over. You don't know bad turbulence until you've had it btw, was pretty scary. Where you skiing? We were off to Chamonix, again for a long weekend, first few days away from our little one (she was 1 and a half at the time). Think we were more scared for her growing up without parents than anything else in all honesty.
stevegrant Posted 24 March, 2015 Posted 24 March, 2015 To get from 38,000ft to 5,000ft in 50 miles would take a rate of descent around 5-6,000ft per minute which is very steep. A normal descent of 33,000ft would take around 110 miles, so if this descent was in any way controlled they would probably have needed the gear down. The only need to do that would be an onboard fire, however that track shows no change in course towards an airport for an emergency landing. An AF447 style stall could be possible but there were no thunderstorms in the area and only light possibly moderate turbulence forecast. Some sort of rapid decompression issue, perhaps? [/wild speculation]
hutch Posted 24 March, 2015 Posted 24 March, 2015 The fact that there seems to have been nearly no radio communication in the almost 10 minutes it took to unfold means that either the crew were already "incapacitated" or were totally focussed on fighting against some kind of catastrophic malfunction. ATC would have known almost immediately that they departed their cleared altitude, so would have been requesting details from the crew for several minutes.
Lighthouse Posted 24 March, 2015 Posted 24 March, 2015 Some sort of rapid decompression issue, perhaps? [/wild speculation] In an emergency descent you would get down as soon as possible but still not that steep. In that case they would go down to 10,000ft not 5,000 where this aircraft crashed. They would also likely take vectors from ATC, away from the mountains. More to the point a depressurisation shouldn't cause a crash at all. The pilots have plenty of oxygen to get them down to a lower altitude. It would have to be associated with some kind of major structural damage.
Frank's cousin Posted 24 March, 2015 Posted 24 March, 2015 Are they saying it was 'of course' or that 'further east than expected' is still within normal parameters?
Mattio Posted 24 March, 2015 Posted 24 March, 2015 I'm flying to Canada with the family next week, this'll get them all shat up.
John Boy Saint Posted 24 March, 2015 Posted 24 March, 2015 Is that not a levelling out or slight climb along with acceleration at the end of the graph?
Mattio Posted 24 March, 2015 Posted 24 March, 2015 They'll look into that once they've finished speculating how many English people might have been on board. Took their time: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32042323
Lighthouse Posted 24 March, 2015 Posted 24 March, 2015 Is that not a levelling out or slight climb along with acceleration at the end of the graph? To me it just looks like the data continued to record the last known speed and altitude after the accident, baring in mind this is not black box data so wouldn't necessarily have ended when the plane hit the ground. IF you were right, it would indicate the autopilot and autothrottle were still engaged at the time of the accident. This would require pilot input into the autopilot, which shouldn't happen until after the pilots put their O2 masks on. Which would beg the question, how did the pilots become incapacitated if they were wearing the masks. It is possible they panicked and tried to descend before putting the masks on but the instinct would surely be to grab an oxygen mask asap. In one sentence it's possible but implausible, I'd say it's more likely the data is just tailing off.
Hatch Posted 24 March, 2015 Posted 24 March, 2015 Took their time: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32042323 Why does it take so long 'to check'. We all know that they know exactly who was on board.
whelk Posted 25 March, 2015 Posted 25 March, 2015 Why does it take so long 'to check'. We all know that they know exactly who was on board. I assume priority may not be to release to media more to notify relatives. Why don't they just snapchat the passenger manifest immediately?
trousers Posted 25 March, 2015 Author Posted 25 March, 2015 (edited) Pilot on BBC Breakfast just now confirming that the rate of decent from 38,000 feet is the rate at which they are trained to descend at when there is decompression in the cabin. Which would suggest the pilot was in control until c.6,000 feet. Still doesn't explain why there was no alarm raised during that 8 minutes though. Edited 25 March, 2015 by trousers
hypochondriac Posted 25 March, 2015 Posted 25 March, 2015 Is there some technical reason why they can't have live streaming audio or video inside all planes? I mean we can get pictures back from space millions of miles away. Is it simply a cost issue? It seems bizarre that in this day and age we have some antiquated black box and voice recorder.
CB Saint Posted 25 March, 2015 Posted 25 March, 2015 To me it just looks like the data continued to record the last known speed and altitude after the accident, baring in mind this is not black box data so wouldn't necessarily have ended when the plane hit the ground. IF you were right, it would indicate the autopilot and autothrottle were still engaged at the time of the accident. This would require pilot input into the autopilot, which shouldn't happen until after the pilots put their O2 masks on. Which would beg the question, how did the pilots become incapacitated if they were wearing the masks. It is possible they panicked and tried to descend before putting the masks on but the instinct would surely be to grab an oxygen mask asap. In one sentence it's possible but implausible, I'd say it's more likely the data is just tailing off. that looks like it stops at 7500 feet, which coincidentally is the height of your average alp. I suspect that was the impact point.
CB Saint Posted 25 March, 2015 Posted 25 March, 2015 Why does it take so long 'to check'. We all know that they know exactly who was on board. Notify the families first?
buctootim Posted 25 March, 2015 Posted 25 March, 2015 Is there some technical reason why they can't have live streaming audio or video inside all planes? I mean we can get pictures back from space millions of miles away. Is it simply a cost issue? It seems bizarre that in this day and age we have some antiquated black box and voice recorder. If passengers can have wifi aboard then you can be sure its just cost. The reason the Malaysia airlines plane is still missing is because they didnt want to pay $10 per flight for live tracking.
Lighthouse Posted 25 March, 2015 Posted 25 March, 2015 If passengers can have wifi aboard then you can be sure its just cost. The reason the Malaysia airlines plane is still missing is because they didnt want to pay $10 per flight for live tracking. It is cost basically. Accidents are very rare. Accidents where the black boxes are irretrievable are a tiny fraction of very rare. Off the top of my head there was MH370 and a South African Jumbo which went into the India Ocean about 30 years ago. Even AF447 was found eventually. It's not a requirement, so the airlines aren't going to pay for it. It's also not an infallible system as you cannot guarantee universal satellite coverage. The onboard wifi now used by some airlines has frequent trip outs, needs to be reset and then still doesn't work half the time. It is less reliable overall than a black box although if it wasn't it would certainly have advantages.
buctootim Posted 25 March, 2015 Posted 25 March, 2015 It is cost basically. Accidents are very rare. Accidents where the black boxes are irretrievable are a tiny fraction of very rare. Off the top of my head there was MH370 and a South African Jumbo which went into the India Ocean about 30 years ago. Even AF447 was found eventually. It's not a requirement, so the airlines aren't going to pay for it. It's also not an infallible system as you cannot guarantee universal satellite coverage. The onboard wifi now used by some airlines has frequent trip outs, needs to be reset and then still doesn't work half the time. It is less reliable overall than a black box although if it wasn't it would certainly have advantages. It is incredibly rare, but then the costs are incredibly tiny when worked out per flight divided by, say, 200 passengers. The $10 per flight cost was quoted by Inmarsat for satellite tracking. Video of the cockpit during the entire flight need'nt be streamed - it could be saved to an upgraded black box. Footage like that would be useful for training following all kinds of incidents, not necessarily fatal.
Hatch Posted 25 March, 2015 Posted 25 March, 2015 Notify the families first? Thats what I mean, why don't they say that then, instead of pretending they don't know.
hutch Posted 25 March, 2015 Posted 25 March, 2015 Some confused issues on here. Satellite coverage isn't an issue here, it wasn't lost and everybody knew where it was. There's a strong likelihood that MH370 was deliberately switched off anyway. Upgraded black boxes already exist, called QAR's. They record much more data than the FDR, and are used for maintanance purposes. Many "switched-on" airlines already communicate that data automatically on-line during the flight to home base so that maintenance and spares are ready when they land. The problem would be global standardisation, of equipment both in the air and on the ground. I think the "it's only $10 a flight" is nonsense. And it's another potential source of delay. It would be a bit knee-jerk, a bit like making 500 million people a year take their shoes off and put them through X-ray machines because a bloke once got on a plane with a box of matches in his socks.
CB Saint Posted 25 March, 2015 Posted 25 March, 2015 It is incredibly rare, but then the costs are incredibly tiny when worked out per flight divided by, say, 200 passengers. The $10 per flight cost was quoted by Inmarsat for satellite tracking. Video of the cockpit during the entire flight need'nt be streamed - it could be saved to an upgraded black box. Footage like that would be useful for training following all kinds of incidents, not necessarily fatal. When broken down like that it is cheap, however when you look at it as a line item on a annual P&L. It is a big number eg Malaysian Airlines move 43,000 passengers a day. Assuming 250 passengers per plane (long haul and regional) that is 172 flight / day or 63k per year. At $10 per flight that is $630k pa of cost that, given the airlines precarious profitability, that are going to avoid if they are not compelled to spend it.
HedgeEnder Posted 25 March, 2015 Posted 25 March, 2015 It'll be fine, we just had very bad turbulence on the way over. You don't know bad turbulence until you've had it btw, was pretty scary. Where you skiing? We were off to Chamonix, again for a long weekend, first few days away from our little one (she was 1 and a half at the time). Think we were more scared for her growing up without parents than anything else in all honesty. I've flown many times but have been lucky not to experience any really bad turbulence. Not really worried about the flight but can't help get a bit of the jitters bearing in mind the timing and location of this crash. We are off to Les Gets which is around an hour's drive from Geneva. Haven't skied for nearly 20 years so hoping it's a bit like riding a bike in that once you've learnt you never really forget how to do it......
buctootim Posted 25 March, 2015 Posted 25 March, 2015 Some confused issues on here. Satellite coverage isn't an issue here, it wasn't lost and everybody knew where it was. There's a strong likelihood that MH370 was deliberately switched off anyway. Upgraded black boxes already exist, called QAR's. They record much more data than the FDR, and are used for maintanance purposes. Many "switched-on" airlines already communicate that data automatically on-line during the flight to home base so that maintenance and spares are ready when they land. The problem would be global standardisation, of equipment both in the air and on the ground. I think the "it's only $10 a flight" is nonsense. And it's another potential source of delay. It would be a bit knee-jerk, a bit like making 500 million people a year take their shoes off and put them through X-ray machines because a bloke once got on a plane with a box of matches in his socks. Got to love Saintsweb. Posters who know more than the companies providing the tech. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-would-have-been-found-if-communications-box-had-10-upgrade-1441174 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10712034/How-MH370-vanished-and-how-it-could-have-been-avoided.html
hutch Posted 25 March, 2015 Posted 25 March, 2015 As I said, it was switched off on MH370, but anyway I'm intrigued. Just how would it have stopped the Airbus yesterday from crashing into a mountain?
buctootim Posted 25 March, 2015 Posted 25 March, 2015 As I said, it was switched off on MH370, but anyway I'm intrigued. Just how would it have stopped the Airbus yesterday from crashing into a mountain? Caught spouting nonsense so changing the subject instead of holding hands up. Got it.
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 25 March, 2015 Posted 25 March, 2015 I've flown many times but have been lucky not to experience any really bad turbulence. Not really worried about the flight but can't help get a bit of the jitters bearing in mind the timing and location of this crash. We are off to Les Gets which is around an hour's drive from Geneva. Haven't skied for nearly 20 years so hoping it's a bit like riding a bike in that once you've learnt you never really forget how to do it...... Yeah, you don't forget. Wear a helmet though...
Lighthouse Posted 25 March, 2015 Posted 25 March, 2015 Yeah, you don't forget. Wear a helmet though... For the skiing or the turbulence?
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 25 March, 2015 Posted 25 March, 2015 For the skiing or the turbulence? Potentially both...
hutch Posted 25 March, 2015 Posted 25 March, 2015 Caught spouting nonsense so changing the subject instead of holding hands up. Got it. OK Tim, if you say so. But just to be clear, I'll break it down into small bits for you: 1. Satellite coverage isn't an issue here, it wasn't lost and everybody knew where it was. 2. There's a strong likelihood that MH370 was deliberately switched off anyway. 3. Upgraded black boxes already exist, called QAR's. They record much more data than the FDR, and are used for maintanance purposes. 4. Many "switched-on" airlines already communicate that data automatically on-line during the flight to home base so that maintenance and spares are ready when they land. 5. The problem would be global standardisation, of equipment both in the air and on the ground. 6. I think the "it's only $10 a flight" is nonsense. And it's another potential source of delay. So, which of the six are "nonsense" Tim?
buctootim Posted 25 March, 2015 Posted 25 March, 2015 Pretty much most of it. More interesting though is why you feel the need to to try to disrail a reasonable discussion about updating the black box and transponder technology used in commercial aviation - which hasnt really changed in 25 years despite the digital revolution. Its a no loss change so your objections are 'odd'. 1. It isnt lost? where is it then? Is it in Diego Garcia? No one said satellite coverage was the issue, its paying for data transmission which is. 2. Its easy to design a system that cant be switched off. The reason Inmarsat have some data is because the pilot wasnt able to switch it off. 3. There are all kinds of data recorders but the mandatory black boxes used are standardised and record very limited information. 4. Yes, and many dont. Its the ones who dont who are the issue. 5. Err yes, we know. 6. Inmarsat quoted the price. Given its their business, I'd take their word over yours.
hutch Posted 25 March, 2015 Posted 25 March, 2015 Sorry Tim, you're right. My mistake, I was posting my coments about the Airbus that crashed yesterday.
buctootim Posted 25 March, 2015 Posted 25 March, 2015 (edited) CNN reporting that voice recorder indicates one of the pilots was locked out of the cockpit and was trying to break the door down. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/25/europe/germanwings-crash-main/index.html Edited 26 March, 2015 by buctootim
Gingeletiss Posted 26 March, 2015 Posted 26 March, 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/world/europe/germanwings-airbus-crash.html?_r=0
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now