Airbus A320 Down

Warlock said:
Seems easy to find how to open the door as crew guides are on the internet... but I guess someone with knowledge could kill that system.
Click to expand...

It requires a conscious person and a deliberate action of someone inside the flight deck to lock someone out and prevent entry to the flight deck.
 
Henning said:
IIR the FDR tracks correctly it was only the #2 that failed, and only briefly. The other two maintained signal, but it's been a while since I went through all that.
Click to expand...

So the final report (as quoted above) is wrong in using the plural?
 
RotorDude said:
So the final report (as quoted above) is wrong in using the plural?
Click to expand...

Remember, it is a translation from the French report. I believe the plural to be an error from the best of my recollection. I went through all the data presented and was astounded that a single, brief, pitot failure could possibly lead to the loss of a modern airliner.
 
Last edited:
Please tell me this security device intended to protect people from the 1 in a billion chance of a terrorist attack didn't cause the deaths of all those people.

:no:
 
Henning said:
Remember, it is a translation from the French report. I believe the plural to be an error from the best of my recollection. I went through all the data presented and was astounded that a single, brief, pitot failure could possibly lead to the loss of a modern airliner.
Click to expand...

Well here is the original (bold added):
Il y a eu incohérence entre les vitesses mesurées, vraisemblablement à la suite de l’obstruction des sondes Pitot par des cristaux de glace.
Click to expand...

Are you saying even the original final report is wrong?
 
Henning said:
I believe the plural to be an error from the best of my recollection.
Click to expand...
From the final:
"The disabling of this warning was probably due to the fact that, between 13.4 and 15.5 and then between 17 and 19, and possibly at other times, the three Mach values were abnormally low (three Pitot probes iced up)."

Just so we're clear, you believe the statement above to be a translation error? In that case do you also consider the analysis based on failure of the three pitot probes to be a 'translation error'? Note that this is but one of several instances of failure mode analysis based on a triple fault in the final.

Nauga,
and even the most casual observer
 
cowman said:
Please tell me this security device intended to protect people from the 1 in a billion chance of a terrorist attack didn't cause the deaths of all those people.

:no:
Click to expand...

Ok, but yeah, the irony struck me as well.
 
N801BH said:
Maybe the plane had wifi and the pilot locked out emailed home office of his situation... ...
Can this get any more bizarre :dunno::dunno::confused:
Click to expand...

If they plane had WiFi enabled, I would think several hundred people would have sent messages (or at least dozens).
 
nauga said:
From the final:
"The disabling of this warning was probably due to the fact that, between 13.4 and 15.5 and then between 17 and 19, and possibly at other times, the three Mach values were abnormally low (three Pitot probes iced up)."

Just so we're clear, you believe the statement above to be a translation error? In that case do you also consider the analysis based on failure of the three pitot probes to be a 'translation error'? Note that this is but one of several instances of failure mode analysis based on a triple fault in the final.

Nauga,
and even the most casual observer
Click to expand...

Ok, fine, I retract, however it's immaterial to this thread. A failed system sent it into a law that offered the ability to exceed protections. I'm wondering why that wouldn't happen by popping a select breaker or two?:dunno: The Airbus is is highly complex, but it's not HAL either.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
If they plane had WiFi enabled, I would think several hundred people would have sent messages (or at least dozens).
Click to expand...

Or taken videos on their cellphone of the captain trying frantically to get back into the cockpit, in which case their memory chips might still yield a clue.
 
Henning said:
Ok, fine, I retract, however it's immaterial to this thread. A failed system sent it into a law that offered the ability to exceed protections. I'm wondering why that wouldn't happen by popping a select breaker or two?:dunno: The Airbus is is highly complex, but it's not HAL either.
Click to expand...


If you retract, your thread count should go back up.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
If they plane had WiFi enabled, I would think several hundred people would have sent messages (or at least dozens).
Click to expand...


Kinda makes you wonder just if, and how the " guvmint" can store /delete/ alter electronic communications to fit their story......
:dunno::dunno::dunno::dunno:
 
RotorDude said:
But not the cellphones shooting videos of the captain banging on the door...
Click to expand...

I would expect cell signal to be less-than-wonderful at altitude over the Alps. But the memory cards might yield useful data.

Rich
 
N801BH said:
AS hard as that plane hit that mountain.. I would expect most cell phones to be in a million pieces...:dunno::redface:
Click to expand...

Sure, but memory chips are tiny. They just need to find them.
 
N801BH said:
AS hard as that plane hit that mountain.. I would expect most cell phones to be in a million pieces...:dunno::redface:
Click to expand...

Many phones have a very light weight micro SD mem card. If they can find one, it might be intact enough to reconstruct. They are very low mass, but I do understand about the amount of energy they had to survive. I guess - it's possible.
 
As steep and rocky as that terrain looks, one good rain and all those little plastic pieces are washing downstream.
 
Matthew said:
As steep and rocky as that terrain looks, one good rain and all those little plastic pieces are washing downstream.
Click to expand...

Well, if they can establish it's the captain banging on the door in the audio, adding video to it would add little probative value.
 
Do we know if it was the captain or the FO doing the banging?
 
Will be interesting to hear the news tomorrow. So far, only the NYT is claiming this is what was on the CVR. Once the European news outlets crank up in a few hours over there, I wonder how they react.
 
Matthew said:
Will be interesting to hear the news tomorrow. So far, only the NYT is claiming this is what was on the CVR. Once the European news outlets crank up in a few hours over there, I wonder how they react.
Click to expand...

Lufthansa saying they are "aware" of NYT story but have no comment.
 
who was doing the banging?
Click to expand...

Can we get "phrasing" back into the rotation?

(people who don't watch Archer pls disregard my silliness)
 
If this turns out to be some kind of "jihad" move by the FO, well, Europe will become a bit more of an uncomfortable place for Muslims to be living...
 
The NYT report doesn't say which one was locked out.
 
It probably doesn't matter to us, but it might matter to investigators if they need to find out whether one of the pilots has something in their history that would give a clue.
 
Palmpilot said:
It probably doesn't matter to us, but it might matter to investigators if they need to find out whether one of the pilots has something in their history that would give a clue.
Click to expand...
I matters to all of us imo.
 
dans2992 said:
If this turns out to be some kind of "jihad" move by the FO, well, Europe will become a bit more of an uncomfortable place for Muslims to be living...
Click to expand...

It would make it more of an uncomfortable place for everyone else.
 
Palmpilot said:
It probably doesn't matter to us, but it might matter to investigators if they need to find out whether one of the pilots has something in their history that would give a clue.
Click to expand...

What difference will it make? If it was a terrorist, well, like the FBI on 9/11, day late and dollar short. It's not like they will learn anything useful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top