It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Airbus A320 crash in Southern France

page: 12
39
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 07:09 PM
link   
The Daily Mail has drawn attention to the fact that on 5th November 2014 a Lufthansa sister plane flying at 31,000 feet near Pamplona, Spain, went into a dive without any input from the flight crew. On that occasion, the pilots were able to regain control when the plane was at 28,000 feet. The EASA determined that the dive was caused by blockage of the Angle of Attack sensors which, in a worst case scenario, would cause complete loss if control such that backward stick would have no effect. It seems to me that this may be a likely explanation for today's crash reply to: ragsntatters




posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: Zaphod58

Sad. Also some reports from a camper near the crash site that said they heard loud banging noises coming from the aircraft, before it went down. Wonder what that could have been?


Loud banging noises on that engine are very probably sounds of compressor stalls. Not an aerodynamic stall which has no sound but rather something in the nature of a backfire caused by a failure of smooth laminar flow through the 9 stage compressor section. There are a number of possible causes of compressor stall, including extreme alpha, FOD damage, or failure of the variable inlet guide vanes, bleed valves, or variable stator vanes.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: Char-Lee

Yea, that is what I was eluding too. If they have comm, they are required to do it. I guess you have to be there. No telling what happened in that cockpit as of yet.


What makes you think there is any requirement to communicate? The sequence that every pilot is taught in the event of an emergency is: 1)AVIATE (fly the damn airplane); 2) NAVIGATE (find the best place to go and head there); and, lastly, COMMUNICATE (Mama ain't going to teleport up and save your butt so why divert resources to talking when you should be doing.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Several Germanwings flights cancelled after crew refused to fly
Pilots and cabin crew refused to fly over concerns the Germanwings flight 4U 9525 crash may have been linked to a repair to the nose-wheel landing doors

www.telegraph.co.uk...

sorry if posted



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ciscoagent

It is of course possible that something like that might have occurred, but it should not lead to a crash, pilots would simply take control of the aircraft and fly manually as was the case in the flight which is mentioned in the article.

Considering it was a very experienced pilot, it is highly unlikely that this is the cause.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: F4guy
A faulty front landing gear bay door was fixed on Monday , it was out of service for 6h
other then that it should have been in flying condition
edit on 24-3-2015 by zerbot565 because: reply



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

On the Northwest Airlines emergency checklists, they would have "FLY THE AIRCRAFT" and "DO NOT HURRY" printed in giant letters on the top of every sheet of every emergency checklist.

That should signify the importance of flying the airplane first and then worrying about everything else later for anyone who might not understand the process of dealing with emergencies in the air.


edit on 24-3-2015 by justwanttofly because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   
here ya go commerical pilots dicussing it here ..


flightaware.com...



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: jf1961

No. Sorry, but intuition doesn't get you far. If there was such a system there would be proof of it somewhere.
]

Same argument - I think this was about the 4th time?

No, no, there would not be proof somewhere. Weapons are usually kept secret until they are either leaked or you know that it's so advanced there is no way they could duplicate it or develop counter measures.

Do you I have "proof" that someone can develop computer viruses that aren't currently known? No specific proof but based on past history almost every security system has eventually been hacked. If my hard drive is suddenly erased - it could be hardware or user error but most likely someone, for the sheer thrill of it, has developed a new virus. I wouldn't dismiss the possibility just because I was running a current anti-virus program.

Same thing with a computer system on planes. People are always thinking of ways to bypass security - they spend their entire life doing this work. So if there is a system that exists that is somewhat close to what's needed - you can bet there are people who are going to try to develop ways just to take that tech to the next level.

It's certainly more logical than coming up with a one in a million series of events.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Daughter2

So instead of an accident, which is a chain of events, leading to a bad result, you're going to argue that a completely unknown system, that not one person that works on has EVER even hinted exists, not only exists, but has been used repeatedly to cause planes to crash. And not one person involved has had a crisis of conscience about it.

Yep, far more logical than a mechanical failure, or human error.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ciscoagent
The Daily Mail has drawn attention to the fact that on 5th November 2014 a Lufthansa sister plane flying at 31,000 feet near Pamplona, Spain, went into a dive without any input from the flight crew. On that occasion, the pilots were able to regain control when the plane was at 28,000 feet. The EASA determined that the dive was caused by blockage of the Angle of Attack sensors which, in a worst case scenario, would cause complete loss if control such that backward stick would have no effect. It seems to me that this may be a likely explanation for today's crash reply to: ragsntatters



Strange that you would say that, I just watched this on another Airbus320 crash, also in the South of France, and those Angle of Attack sensors were mentioned as being a contributing factor. Obviously speculation at this point but very strange coincidence.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

It feels as though there are too many A320 crashes relative to fleet size over the past decade. Is that just me? I know there are a lot out there...but there are a HELL of a lot more B737's and nowhere near the incident rate.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Leonidas

At one point there were quite a few 737 accidents it seemed. A number involving rudders. There haven't been 30 A320 accidents IIRC.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 01:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: AgentSmith
a reply to: ragsntatters

Looking at the flight track it seems to have transpired as follows:

9:30 UTC - 38,000 ft, descent begins just coming past Marseille
9:41 UTC - Aircraft is at 6800 ft over the alps (which are generally higher), telemetry ceases

www.flightradar24.com...

My thoughts are with the families and friends of those involved, we can only hope there are some survivors :-(

Edit to add:

It was approaching 'Tête de l'Estrop' which Wikipedia says has an elevation of 2961m which is just over 9700 feet. So about 300 feet higher than the aircraft was flying. Why was he flying so low? Can we see if he was squawking 7700?

Edit again:

Actually I get notifications from flightradar24 if any aircraft squawks 7700 and there isn't one. I can't remember if there is anywhere we can look to see if they squawked another code?

It seems so odd they would descend like that but I don't know the normal flight plan. Perhaps they were incapacitated and the autopilot became disabled?


Am I missing something here? 9700 - 6800 is a lot more than 300...

eta- Oh... you must've meant 3,000. Well, sorry for this waste of a post then, but nobody mentioned it on the first page that I saw, so my initial thought was that I must have misinterpreted something or missed a detail somewhere.
edit on 3/25/2015 by 3n19m470 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Fuel starvation comes into play now .. no fires or burned areas indicates probably low fuel. Did they dump the fuel because they were preparing a emergency landing and failed to make it?

They were only about 58 miles away from the next serviceable airport (LIMZ - Cuneo International Airport) - about 6min flight time from the crash area.

Something went terrible wrong... :-(



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 03:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: flyandi
Fuel starvation comes into play now .. no fires or burned areas indicates probably low fuel. Did they dump the fuel because they were preparing a emergency landing and failed to make it?

They were only about 58 miles away from the next serviceable airport (LIMZ - Cuneo International Airport) - about 6min flight time from the crash area.

Something went terrible wrong... :-(


Why did they not control to descent further so as to ensure being able to reach that airport.
Seems to me that the crew did not have control over the aircraft, maybe unconscious/dead.
Looks like cockpit decompression which rendered the crew unconscious (hence no may day) and the plane then dropped down into the Alps. Other than that suicide or hijack.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Perhaps more details will emerge today as to the cause.



Experts said Flight 4U 9525's rate of descent did not suggest it had simply fallen out of the sky – prompting speculation that the pilots may have suddenly fallen unconscious. As the French authorities appeared to rule out terrorism, it also emerged that:

Five years ago two pilots from the same Germanwings airline nearly passed on landing in Cologne. Contaminated air was suspected;

It is the third serious incident involving the Airbus 'family' in six months – two of them fatal crashes that have left more than 300 dead;

A safety warning was issued last November after a sister plane of Flight 4U 9525 went into a dive over Spain, falling at 4,000ft a minute before the pilot regained control.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... ts-likely-killed.html#ixzz3VO0IL3no



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Wiki is showing 24 hull loses up to Apirl 2012 on the A320 family so the article obviously needs some updating.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: ragsntatters

Came across this little video on Youtube the premise of which is that the magnetic field produced by the CERN super collider may have somehow been responsible for the accident by way of influencing the planes avionics.

I don't know if this notion contains any credibility considering 1000s of planes must cross the same airspace every day without incident.


edit on 25-3-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Finnish papers have mentioned the possibility of ha decomp and unconscious pilots

but i agree that the frozen AoA might be a second or first culprint ,

very tragic if both occurred very tragic indeed



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join