Plane crash in Southern France.

[photonrider]

Safe travel via major airline is definitely up in the air now. While the law of averages, in consideration to the amounts of flights daily, shows small chance of millions being affected, it is the few who lose their lives with no warning (or reason at all - except the ongoing fragility of human psychology) who pay the price of our learning what the future can hold. More, and more, incidents like this bring to the surface the importance of cold, sober professionalism (and accurate, regular and focused reviews) needed by those whose jobs entail holding the lives of many in their hands at any given time.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Safe travel via major airline is definitely up in the air now. While the law of averages, in consideration to the amounts of flights daily, shows small chance of millions being affected, it is the few who lose their lives with no warning (or reason at all - except the ongoing fragility of human psychology) who pay the price of our learning what the future can hold. More, and more, incidents like this bring to the surface the importance of cold, sober professionalism (and accurate, regular and focused reviews) needed by those whose jobs entail holding the lives of many in their hands at any given time.

Same is true of bus drivers of course, and cabbies, and train drivers. Who are nowhere near as safe.

 

[photonrider]

Yeah - my cabbie drives a very large cab - I must have a word with him, check out that smell around his head.

 

[eran0004]

I missed the part about his former burnout and depression. Is there a link for that?

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung published an interview yesterday with the mother of a former classmate of his to whom he had revealed his depression during the pilot training.

Der Spiegel reports that investigators have found documents in his apartment that says that he was "kranksgechreiben" at the time of the flight and was undergoing treatment, so if that's correct it wasn't just a former depression but also a current one. They also say that he kept his illness secret to his employer and colleagues.

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/just...-unglueckstag-krankgeschrieben-a-1025956.html

 

[MonSpaNur]

Ok, lets start with the CFIT.
In my opinion, that is either incomplete or invalid.
This is the way it is described:

Controlled Flight into Terrain (CFIT) occurs when an airworthy aircraft under the complete control of the pilot is inadvertently flown into terrain, water, or an obstacle. The pilots are generally unaware of the danger until it is too late.

Most CFIT accidents occur in the approach and landing phase of flight and are often associated with non-precision approaches.

Many CFIT accidents occur because of loss of situational awareness, particularly in the vertical plane, and many crash sites are on the centreline of an approach to an airfield. Lack of familiarity with the approach or misreading of the approach plate are common causal factors, particularly where the approach features steps down in altitude from the initial approach fix to the final approach fix.

The description did not include a situation like the one occurred last Tuesday and that means that it will need, or to be completed, or to be invalidated and replaced by two definitions, UCFIT (Unintentional Controlled Flight into Terrain) and ICFIT (Intentional Controlled Flight into Terrain).
For the remain of this commentary and because is what it really is, I will assume that CFIT was UCFIT.

So, you said:

At the time, you made a guess as to what the cause of the crash was.

But that is not true, I never said what the cause of the crash was, I said what the only possible cause based in the information available was and I can prove it.

I said this:

Hopefully other explanation appears.

This:

Any conclusion must be reached after a comprehensive investigation and this takes a long time (years in some cases) to be completed.

Believe me, even if the investigation do not reach a conclusion, I really hope that it will, at least, exclude the suicide as a possible cause for the accident.

And this about the "pilot blackout theory":

Yes.
But only if this coincidences occurred:
- The plane wasn`t on autopilot.
- The pilot initiated the descend while blacking out.
- The pilot was alone in the cockpit.

I believe in very unlikely coincidences, I have had a small collection of them in my life.
So, hopefully that is the explanation.

For example, this is a very unlikely scenario, so the investigation can discover something very astonishing about yesterday crash.

I must stress again, the suicide is the worst scenario for me, but at moment, and with all the information that we have now, it is the most plausible.
If not the only one.

So, I think it is clear that I never said that the suicide was the cause for the crash.

Is clear for me that you (and many more people in this forum) do not know the way air crash investigations work.
The investigators did not waste time wondering about the possible causes, they analyse the evidence available and, only from that evidence, they create all the possible scenarios that explain the accident.
If new evidence appears, then they react accordingly.
But until then, they only consider valid the scenarios extracted form the evidence available.
And that is very logic, they do not know if/what new evidence will surface, so why waste time wondering about it?

You can said whatever you want, when I posted this (before the CVR data)...

Based in all information that we known at moment, the only reason for the crash is a suicide.​

... it was the only valid scenario, the available evidence already denied the possibility of decompression and CFIT.

I already said this to Famine and I`m saying it to you now, if do not think so, then produce a valid scenario (that can be explained only by the evidence available).
If you do not do so, just like Famine did not (until now), then everything you posted about my statement of fact is also a bunch of garbage.

 

[Barra333]

Skipping most of the semantics

.
.
.
So, I think it is clear that I never said that the suicide was the cause for the crash.

Umm... that is exactly what you have said several times.

You can said whatever you want, when I posted this (before the CVR data)...

Based in all information that we known at moment, the only reason for the crash is a suicide.​

-----------------------------------------------------

... it was the only valid scenario, the available evidence already denied the possibility of decompression and CFIT.

I already said this to Famine and I`m saying it to you now, if do not think so, then produce a valid scenario (that can be explained only by the evidence available).
If you do not do so, just like Famine did not (until now), then everything you posted about my statement of fact is also a bunch of garbage.

When I made the post below, all we knew was the graph of the altitude. I still say that it was a plausible theory based on the information available. Famine also posted the same somewhere, but hasn't bothered to repeat himself as many times as I have.

I agree with the CFIT theory, based on the little info we have - something happened at cruise altitude, plane descended at a fast (but safe) rate, however the target altitude (above sea level) and the altitude of the terrain at that spot were incompatible with each other.

-------------------------------------------------------

Is clear for me that you (and many more people in this forum) do not know the way air crash investigations work.

Do you work in air crash investigations? If not, you are no more qualified at this than Famine or I am (and most others, but I know there are a few people here who work in aviation). Incidentally, I am a scientist, and he used to be. That means we have both been trained to make hypotheses based on the evidence available, yet be ready to change that hypothesis as new evidence becomes available, until all other possibilities have been excluded. As far as I understand, air crash investigations run a similar track, but get second guessed and scutinised by more keyboard warriors than my research does.

 

[TenEightyOne]

But that is not true, I never said what the cause of the crash was, I said what the only possible cause based in the information available was and I can prove it.

Is not my fault if you are not able to distinguish between my fact (based in all information know at moment, the only reason for the crash is a suicide) and your suppositions (there are many possible bla bla bla, potencially explosive bla bla bla and supposing bla bla bla...).

Why you did not answer to my question: why what I said is wrong?
You have no answer?

I see that English may not be your first language and, on an English-only board, you have my sympathy.

I also note that your grandfather was an air traffic controller 70 years ago so you have some knowledge of the subject... but you really ought to stop flapping now, it's embarrassing

 

[Dennisch]

keyboard warriors

SIR YES SIR!

 

[Famine]

I also note that your grandfather was an air traffic controller 70 years ago so you have some knowledge of the subject...

My brother is an ATCO right now and I have no more knowledge of the subject than I do of being dead - which is what my grandfathers all are.

Anyway, @Barra333 has now nailed it twice, so there's nothing more for me to do in this conversation than like his posts and go do something else.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

How many serving airline pilots are there in the world now? How much of a secret would the override be, and how do you stop it being operated by someone with a gun to their head?

Once again did you read the entire post, I posed several fixes not just one. And a code that changes every time and only lasts for that travel path is one method. Like security drop boxes that you input your own code and then once that's over a new code gets inputted. Sure they could use the same code, but it can be programmed to not take the same code twice.

Remember that until the pilot crashes the plane we don't know that he's not just a normal pilot who doesn't want to crash the plane. In the Germanwings crash there was nobody unauthorised in the cockpit.

That's great but then you have the other parts what I said to help squash that issue....

 

[TenEightyOne]

That's great but then you have the other parts what I said to help squash that issue....

The only things I saw were external door-overrides (very insecure) or forced autopilot intercession (very dangerous). At the end of the day everything requires trust in the pilot, that's what failed here, nothing else.

EDIT: And life goes on. An assessment of Lufthansa's potential insurance liabilities.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The only things I saw were external door-overrides (very insecure) or forced autopilot intercession (very dangerous). At the end of the day everything requires trust in the pilot, that's what failed here, nothing else.

EDIT: And life goes on. An assessment of Lufthansa's potential insurance liabilities.

No one said anything else here failed and how is autopilot intercession dangerous? As well as dual override insecure. You give the method of gun to the head, but then what's the point of an air marshal to solve that. We are talking about moments like this from happening not the hypothetical of something else that isn't like this situation.

 

[TenEightyOne]

As well as dual override insecure. You give the method of gun to the head, but then what's the point of an air marshal to solve that.

Your air marshalls were also compromised, I'm afraid.

We are talking about moments like this from happening not the hypothetical of something else that isn't like this situation.

No one said anything else here failed and how is autopilot intercession dangerous?

Because there will be (and have been) situations where a pilot genuinely knows better than the computer. In this case the pilot turned the altitude dial and set the descent rate, he could easily have disconnected the autopilot if he'd had to do so (he had no need in the circumstances). In this case I accept that if the autopilot had read the radar altitude and forcibly made the plane climb then the crash could have been avoided in the first instance. That doesn't get the plane home and nor does it get the other authorised crew member into the cockpit.


In other cases the autopilot may well not understand or feel the things that a human pilot does for a variety of reasons. Look at the garbage-in-garbage-out case (Air France 447) where an Airbus went into Alternate Law mode and allowed the pilots to fly it into the sea. Would the autopilot alone have been able to make any difference? No. Arguably the autopilot and the pilots' reliance on it killed them, the autopilot couldn't read accurate situational data for the aircraft and had no way of knowing what was wrong.

What about UA232? In that case an mandatory autopilot intercession would very likely have crashed the plane, no pilot or computer since has successfully replicated what those pilots did.

UA1549? Would an autopilot allow Captain Sullenberger to manouever as he did and position for a Hudson landing? Of course not, it appeared suicidal (if you'll pardon that expression in this particular thread). As we actually know it was an act of heroism and piloting genius on his part.

A flight computer cannot replace human skill, intuition or situational awareness to that level. The situation remains that if we cannot trust pilots to keep planes safe then we can trust noone.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Your air marshalls were also compromised, I'm afraid.

How so in the situation you gave? You wanted to talk about a gun men and an air marshall is a direct challenge to that. Until robots start piloting the plane or pilots do it it remotely from the ground there no way of preventing that info other then a resilient crew not giving into demands because it's lose lose. If you are back to talking about this situation then yes as I said myself already an air Marshall isn't going to do much. And that's exactly why we should stick to this situation.

Because there will be (and have been) situations where a pilot genuinely knows better than the computer. In this case the pilot turned the altitude dial and set the descent rate, he could easily have disconnected the autopilot if he'd had to do so (he had no need in the circumstances). In this case I accept that if the autopilot had read the radar altitude and forcibly made the plane climb then the crash could have been avoided in the first instance. That doesn't get the plane home and nor does it get the other authorised crew member into the cockpit.

No one is talking about the current form of auto pilot systems but a more advanced system to help prevent this and in idea perhaps land a compromised aircraft as well if need be.

In other cases the autopilot may well not understand or feel the things that a human pilot does for a variety of reasons. Look at the garbage-in-garbage-out case (Air France 447) where an Airbus went into Alternate Law mode and allowed the pilots to fly it into the sea. Would the autopilot alone have been able to make any difference? No. Arguably the autopilot and the pilots' reliance on it killed them.

So a retrofitting or reconfigure wouldn't take this into consideration...I had no idea engineers were so oblivious. Thanks for the bode of confidence in us. What you're looking at in all these scenarios you give is the current state of things and saying to yourself and others "I don't see how this possibly can be solved because of how I know it to be", rather than how it could be or developed. That's what I'm saying and what you're missing.

What about UA232? In that case an autopilot intercession would very likely have crashed the plane, no pilot or computer since has successfully replicated what those pilots did.

Highly rare situation that is probably even more unlikely to occur than this current one.

UA1549? Would an autopilot allow Captain Sullenberger to manouever as he did and position for a Hudson landing? Of course not, it appeared suicidal (if you'll pardon that expression in this particular thread).

Why could it not if the plane is compromised outside of human error? Because a machine can't be designed and programmed to a capacity of such or better yet have a programming in place that would allow full reigns of such an event to the pilot because it recognizes human error or intent wasn't the cause of such.

A flight computer cannot replace human skill, intuition or situational awareness to that level. The situation remains that if we cannot trust pilots to keep planes safe then we can trust noone.

Yes humans can do great things, and among that is making programs, vast lines of code and machines that can try and emulate that with some great precision. No one is saying take it away from pilot hands but give more safety protocols in situations where a human isn't even in control of the situation or can't be and allow for a method of safe return.

 

[TenEightyOne]

@LMSCorvetteGT2, if what you're saying is that current autopilots couldn't do the job then I agree. Who can rule out future developments? Noone.

In summary you say

No one is saying take it away from pilot hands but give more safety protocols in situations where a human isn't even in control of the situation or can't be and allow for a method of safe return.

which seems to continue to miss the point; this incident was in the pilot's hands. A future system of mandatory autopilot intercession would have to have authority to override the pilot. For the reasons (and case studies) I showed above that can be more dangerous than a human given the current sensing and awareness ability of a flight computer.

You can diss engineers all you like but we're preprogrammed to leave fast calcs to computers and ethical calcs to humans

 

[Robin]

And he's a pilot.....

Why don't people tell Police these things!

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

@LMSCorvetteGT2, if what you're saying is that current autopilots couldn't do the job then I agree. Who can rule out future developments? Noone.

Which was the core of my point. Which is why it's a head scratcher as to how you contrived what you did.

which seems to continue to miss the point; this incident was in the pilot's hands. A future system of mandatory autopilot intercession would have to have authority to override the pilot. For the reasons (and case studies) I showed above that can be more dangerous than a human given the current sensing and awareness ability of a flight computer.

You can diss engineers all you like but we're preprogrammed to leave fast calcs to computers and ethical calcs to humans

How am I dissing engineers exactly, why would I diss myself? You seem to be not following still what I was actually saying. Like I had you then I lost you. Anyways I've given my input on why I do believe a system can be developed for the commercial use and not something that is more likely seen in military use before hand.

 

[MonSpaNur]

Skipping most of the semantics

So, you threw into the skip all the evidence against your accusation.
With this tactic is very easy to have reason on your side.

But that`s fine, I don`t need it to prove that you are wrong.
Because I said this...

Based in all information that we known at moment, the only reason for the crash is a suicide.​

...you are accusing me of saying that the suicide is the only cause of the accident.
But, for your accusation to be true, you must throw this to the skip (again the same tactic)...

Based in all information that we known at moment​

...and take into consideration only this:

the only reason for the crash is a suicide​

Your accusation is based on the second part alone and this makes it useless.

But, just in case and preventing the hypothesis you refuse to accept my argument, I can apply your tactic in this:

the pilot committed suicide

So, now you can either, or admit that you said that the pilot committed suicide (before the cockpit voice recorder contents were revealed), or you can throw your accusation to the same skip where you threw the other stuff.

---------- X ---- X ---- X ----------​

When I made the post below, all we knew was the graph of the altitude.

That isn`t true, at that time we knew a lot more.

For example: that graph shows not only the altitude (as you mentioned), but also the speed and the time.
Other example: we knew the communications between the plane and the control tower.

Again, the usual tactic, your skip must to be full by now.

---------- X ---- X ---- X ----------​

When I made the post below

I still say that it was a plausible theory based on the information available.

I agree with the CFIT theory, based on the little info we have - something happened at cruise altitude, plane descended at a fast (but safe) rate, however the target altitude (above sea level) and the altitude of the terrain at that spot were incompatible with each other.

Well, for me that "theory" is a (very short) summary description of the crash and based on a very small part of the evidence available.
Hardly what we should expect from a scientist who are "very well trained to make hypotheses based on the evidence available".
And scientists usually do not create theories containing unknowns, just like you did (highlighted), they create them to explain the unknowns.

Anyway, until you find a explanation for the "something that happened at cruise altitude", your "theory" don`t explain why the plane crashed.

Coincidentally, is just this unknown who, based in all the evidence available at the time, can only be explained by a suicide.
And, until someone find another explanation, it will stand as the only one.

 

[squadops]

Why don't people tell Police these things!

Also, it appears the young man was being treated for a mental illness so he should have been under a close supervision of some sort. I commend anyone who faces those sorts of troubles and seeks help, as for some social reason, they are treated much differently then say, a cancer patient. I have to ask though, and hope some answers are given about his state and his treatment because I'm thinking he was most likely on medication. The same sorts of medication that many young males who commit such horrible actions have been prescribed.

If he was indeed being treated for a mental illness and properly monitored I believe there is a good chance this would have been prevented.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Which was the core of my point. Which is why it's a head scratcher as to how you contrived what you did.

But the developments that you hint at (which naturally cannot be excluded) are currently a pipe dream, along with food replicators and riding to work in silver jumpsuits on monorails.

In the near-and-now what you suggest is impossible both computationally and ethically. If we're pipe dreaming then the planes of the future will be entirely autonomous without need for those pesky squidgy things up front.

And I misunderstood your point about engineers, apologies

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

But the developments that you hint at (which naturally cannot be excluded) are currently a pipe dream, along with food replicators and riding to work in silver jumpsuits on monorails.

In the near-and-now what you suggest is impossible both computationally and ethically. If we're pipe dreaming then the planes of the future will be entirely autonomous without need for those pesky squidgy things up front.

And I misunderstood your point about engineers, apologies

They're not that much of a pipe dream but okay.

 

[mister dog]

And he's a pilot.....

Why don't people tell Police these things!

I think the daily mail spiced it up a bit. In the Belgian papers there was no mention of this fruitcake saying "heinous act", they mention he said "something spectacular", so that could have meant lighting up 15 birthday candles stuck in his anus.

 

[InSight]

Also, it appears the young man was being treated for a mental illness so he should have been under a close supervision of some sort. I commend anyone who faces those sorts of troubles and seeks help, as for some social reason, they are treated much differently then say, a cancer patient. I have to ask though, and hope some answers are given about his state and his treatment because I'm thinking he was most likely on medication. The same sorts of medication that many young males who commit such horrible actions have been prescribed.

If he was indeed being treated for a mental illness and properly monitored I believe there is a good chance this would have been prevented.

As soon as he'd be officially treated, his career would be over forever. On one would ever employ him. All that stressed schooling and training down the drain.

Like Elliot Rodgers. Having everything, but nothing at the same time... Cover up from a society, which is SOO obsessed with media, success, popularity, love, happiness and stresses you out at the same time.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I think the daily mail spiced it up a bit. In the Belgian papers there was no mention of this fruitcake saying "heinous act", they mention he said "something spectacular", so that could have meant lighting up 15 birthday candles stuck in his anus.

I'd consider 15 lit birthday candles in my butt a heinous act.

As soon as he'd be officially treated, his career would be over forever. On one would ever employ him.

Like Elliot Rodgers. Having everything, but nothing at the same time... Cover up from a society, which is SOO obsessed with media, success, popularity, love, happiness and stresses you out at the same time.

Should pilots with mental illness be flying our planes, assuming that's the case of course?

 

[TenEightyOne]

As soon as he'd be officially treated, his career would be over forever. On one would ever employ him. All that stressed schooling and training down the drain.

Like Elliot Rodgers. Having everything, but nothing at the same time... Cover up from a society, which is SOO obsessed with media, success, popularity, love, happiness and stresses you out at the same time.

It appears that he was being officially treated and that Lufthansa had knowledge of his depression both during his (interrupted) flight training in Arizona and during his career in Europe.

The press (such as they are) are hinting at another illness (or possibly a more serious facet to his depression) of which his employers were unaware. Certainly he'd been signed off sick for the day of the flight and therefore shouldn't have been at work.

 

[Prenny]

The victims nationality is already discovered.

— 72 Germans, confirmed by Germanwings.

— 35 Spaniards, according to Germanwings; Spain says there may be up to 50.

— 3 Argentines, confirmed by the government. Germanwings could only confirm 2 Argentines.

— 3 Americans, confirmed by the government. Germanwings could only confirm 2 Americans.

— 3 British, confirmed by the government, which says there may be more. Germanwings could only confirm 1 British.

— 3 Kazakhs, confirmed by the government

— 2 Australians, confirmed by the government and Germanwings.

— 2 Colombians, confirmed by the government. Germanwings listed 1 Colombian.

— 2 Iranians, confirmed by Germanwings.

— 2 Japanese, confirmed by the government. Germanwings listed 1 Japanese.

— 2 Mexicans, confirmed by government. Germanwings listed 1 Mexican.

— 2 Venezuelans, confirmed by Germanwings.

— 1 Belgian, confirmed by Germanwings.

— 1 Dane, confirmed by the government and Germanwings.

— 1 Dutch, confirmed by the government and Germanwings.

— 1 Israeli, confirmed by the government and Germanwings.

— 1 Moroccan, confirmed by French Prime Minister Manuel Valls.

— 1 Turk, confirmed by the government.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/25/germanwings-passenger-nationalities_n_6937912.html

 

[Johnnypenso]

Looks like he got dumped the day before the crash:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/0...irlfriend-day-before-crash-being-treated-for/

 

[Sanji Himura]

I think the daily mail spiced it up a bit. In the Belgian papers there was no mention of this fruitcake saying "heinous act", they mention he said "something spectacular", so that could have meant lighting up 15 birthday candles stuck in his anus.

It isn't the Daily Mail that was saying this. It's Reuters. This little gem may convince you otherwise (said by ex-girlfriend by way of Reuters):

One day I’ll do something that will change the system, and then everyone will know my name and remember it.

Killing 149 people sure did the job.

 

[mister dog]

It isn't the Daily Mail that was saying this. It's Reuters. This little gem may convince you otherwise (said by ex-girlfriend by way of Reuters):
One day I’ll do something that will change the system, and then everyone will know my name and remember it.

I guess 15 candles up ones buttocks doesn't change the system. Maybe she thought he was gonna run for mayor

 

[TenEightyOne]

The press (such as they are) are hinting at another illness (or possibly a more serious facet to his depression) of which his employers were unaware. Certainly he'd been signed off sick for the day of the flight and therefore shouldn't have been at work.

Further to that rumour... this morning's rags are suggesting that Lubitz "feared he was going blind" and that he'd sought specialist help. The British papers aren't an official news source, of course.

There are also suggestions that German pilots' organisations feel the investigators have made their conclusion prematurely, something that I think several people in this thread will agree with.