Plane Crash In French Alps

[Charlie Endell]

I've never had my eyes checked.

They've always been plain brown.

[scoobydoo]

I think mandatory breath tests would be better.

[DonnyMac]

Wit, check that they are breathing?

I suppose it makes sense as some of those stewardesses look like plastic dolls

[Flora MaDonald]

Wit, check that they are breathing?

I suppose it makes sense as some of those stewardesses look like plastic dolls

So do the stewards.

[Huddersfield]

We tend to avoid anything predicting severe turbulence. It's difficult to define a threshold as such, partly in that some forms of turbulence are difficult to forecast. Some is associated with strong winds such as a jet stream over high terrain, as in the Pyrenees or the Alps. As its "clear air" turbulence we can't see it either on our weather radar or out the window. This obviously makes it much more tricky to avoid. In this case we rely on the weather forecasts en route, experience and our knowledge of met phenomena and on a measure on our flight plan called the shear rate. This is a ratio of changing temperature over a given altitude. So a 2 on the flight plan is faily benign, a 10 is probably moderate to severe turbulence. Sometimes we have a 3 predicted and encounter moderate turbulence, sometimes with a 10 we get nothing. Weather is hard to predict and is a dynamic thing, so really it's a best guess. As for what we do about it. Well if it's associated with precipitation such as a thunderstorm we will fly around it and avoid. Sometimes that means being 100 miles off track (as was the case last night) to avoid the storm.

As you suggest we can change level by climbing or descending. Climbing can send us into clear air above any clouds, however it also reduces our aerodynamic margin. At high levels and high weights there is very little margin between stall speed and overspeed. This margin narrows as we climb and is, rather ominously known in aerodynamic terms as "coffin corner". So in unstable, turbulent air, climbing isn't always the best option. Sometimes we have to just sit with the turbulence and plough on through, but we certainly do all we can to avoid it. It's no fun for us either I can assure you.

So on the whole we will avoid turbulence if we can, however it may not always be possible. We will always avoid thunder storms as they can seriously impact the performance of the aeroplane, and can in fact cause structural damage and even break up of the aeroplane. So when we make that PA welcoming you all on board and suggest you keep your seatbelt fastened even when the sign is off........ We really do mean it!

As for the PA volume, it really depends on who is speaking on it. Sometimes the pilots are using their headset and the mic might not be picking everything up. A hand mic tends to work better and that's what the cabin crew use which is why you always hear the duty free goodies.

TM.

Thanks for the reply; really interesting reading. I love the'coffin corner' bit; the next time my terrified of flying wife is clinging on to my hand in a cold sweat I might just mention it in passing

[Tartan Monkey]

Surely they have mandatory regular eye tests?

Eye tests every year under 60 during medical. Over 60 the eye tests and medical are every 6 months.

[Tartan Monkey]

I think mandatory breath tests would be better.

All Middle Eastern airlines, and several worldwide airports and airlines employ random breath and drug testing.

[scoobydoo]

Interesting. When I go to work away from home I get tested every day. Normally at 5.30 am

[Toepoke]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/567196/Video-Germanwings-co-pilot-training

[Kirk]

I am serious. Aircraft flying is already unmanned but 'supervised' - it is not a requirement for a successful flight to have a pilot in there. The only real value is to calm irrational passengers who think he does something useful.

The pilot can't actually do more than a flight computer can (actually usually less) and the whole thing could be controlled remotely anyway.

If the pilot becomes ill or insane his role as supervisor is a threat to the safety of passengers. Why not lock the flight deck and then neither terrorists nor mad pilots can control the plane and we will all be a little safer.

You may think its bonkers but in 15-20 years we'll all be getting in autonomous cars, trains and planes and you wont think twice about it. Car safety protocols and ECUs are not yet developed to the same safety standards as planes and trains but they will be there in about 3-5 years.

Ill have some of what you are having. Make it a double in fact, its been hard day.

[Toepoke]

Key evidence found but something I certainly wouldn't want to watch....

http://metro.co.uk/2015/03/31/germanwings-flight-9525-cabin-video-shows-final-moments-before-crash-5129842/

[Auld_Reekie]

Key evidence found but something I certainly wouldn't want to watch....

http://metro.co.uk/2015/03/31/germanwings-flight-9525-cabin-video-shows-final-moments-before-crash-5129842/

I find it pretty depressing the amount of information and material that's been leaked during this investigation. I can only presume that someone has effectively went through the scattered belongings of dead people on the side of a mountain and punted it to the media. And given the remote location, that can only be rescue workers and emergency response. If this material has been leaked and sold for cash, it's pretty appalling.

It is surely only a matter of time before some of these videos make it into the public domain. Can only imagine how that will torture grieving families even more were they to see a video of their lost ones in absolute terror on that flight.

[Flora MaDonald]

Reported this morning the video footage is hoax.

[Toepoke]

Unbelievably sick hoax if so! Would take a fair bit of effort to make it anywhere near convincing though...

[aaid]

Hard to know what's sicker here. Emergency service workers looting the crash site and selling it to the media or people putting a hoax together.

[Auld_Reekie]

It's surely not a hoax. The relevant papers surely verified the source or were able to tell from the video footage if it was genuine. If the video's are being withdrawn, it's more likely to be because they've realised this stuff can't ever be published and they were wrong to take it in the first place.

[Bristolhibby]

It's surely not a hoax. The relevant papers surely verified the source or were able to tell from the video footage if it was genuine. If the video's are being withdrawn, it's more likely to be because they've realised this stuff can't ever be published and they were wrong to take it in the first place.

Newspaper hacks in conscience shocker.

That's the big story here.

Terrible leaking if true.

J

[Toepoke]

I wonder if Lubitz read Pilot & Plane magazine?...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/11506244/Dutch-pilot-predicted-French-Alps-crash.html

[UPROAR]

Ill have some of what you are having. Make it a double in fact, its been hard day.

you need to catch up with a debate that's years old and a technology that has long since been capable of this. Pilots are mostly supervisors on commercial flights - and probably supervising you more than the aircraft

The only thing keeping the pilot in the cockpit is your irrational idea that he is sitting there wrestling with the controls and saving you from some potential disaster. Your inability to think forward 20 years is not really my problem.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21567053-autonomous-civil-aircraft-could-be-flying-cars-go-driverless-your

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130502-pilotless-planes-plan-to-take-off

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/experts-see-pilotless-future-of-aviation/article23676871/

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/pilot-less-planes-not-a-pipe-dream-head-of-google-drone-project-says-1.2293572

[Tartan Monkey]

you need to catch up with a debate that's years old and a technology that has long since been capable of this. Pilots are mostly supervisors on commercial flights - and probably supervising you more than the aircraft

The only thing keeping the pilot in the cockpit is your irrational idea that he is sitting there wrestling with the controls and saving you from some potential disaster. Your inability to think forward 20 years is not really my problem.

you need to catch up with a debate that's years old and a technology that has long since been capable of this. Pilots are mostly supervisors on commercial flights - and probably supervising you more than the aircraft

The only thing keeping the pilot in the cockpit is your irrational idea that he is sitting there wrestling with the controls and saving you from some potential disaster. Your inability to think forward 20 years is not really my problem.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21567053-autonomous-civil-aircraft-could-be-flying-cars-go-driverless-your

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130502-pilotless-planes-plan-to-take-off

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/experts-see-pilotless-future-of-aviation/article23676871/

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/pilot-less-planes-not-a-pipe-dream-head-of-google-drone-project-says-1.2293572

For someone with such a strong view on the subject, your lack of knowledge into the job of an airline pilot is staggering. So 3 pilots commit suicide in the past 18 years, (allegedly, as I believe only one has been proven beyond all doubt) and you want to replace all pilots with a computer? As I have said before, there are many cases where the computers would not have saved the aeroplane and many cases where the computer has caused the accident. A computer would not have landed in the Hudson following a double engine failure, a computer would not have safely landed the Qantas A380 in Singapore. Indeed in the Qantas incident the computers were making the situation worse. To say we are redundant and only look out of the window while the computer does everything is both insulting to our profession and factually incorrect.

If and when the sky is full of pilotless aircraft (which incidentally Boeing and Airbus have no intention of designing in the near future) I for one will be happy to travel by whichever mode of transport is commanded by a human. It won't be in my lifetime though.

I welcome your view, and it is an interesting debate, but your comments on pilots are far from true.

[kumnio]

As someone who flies fairly often, Id rather take my chances with the possibility of a 1 in a million flight with a suicidal maniac at the controls, than a computer controlled flight.

Air traffic isnt as glamorous as it was, but its hardly the same as getting a bus.

[UPROAR]

it maybe comes across as a strong personal view but its not intended that way - it is a commentary - and I was trying to provoke a few irrational fears. I work in the part of the industry that deals with the functional safety of systems and components. I dont think there is a consumer appetite for pilotless flight at this stage but I spend a lot of time talking with tech entrepreneurs in the valley and beyond and there is no obstacle to it in many parts of the industry. In fact I think we will see military and freight significantly pilotless in the next 10 years - it already happens on a fairly large scale.

There are only 2 things that will limit this extending to commercial flight in the next 20 years are commercial appetite and consumer opinion. If passengers remain irrationally freaked out (as many seem to be) then it wont happen. But I think a generation of driverless cars will change that - in the end it will be cheaper to run many routes with no pilots.

Safety is not a limiting factor in this argument.

[kumnio]

Safety is not a limiting factor in this argument.

Was there not a high speed rail incident in China a few years ago? Not saying that the train driver could have saved anyones life, but you never know.

Safety is a massive issue, a driverless car bumping into something at 30mph should have minuscule effects, well for the passengers anyway, a plane into the side of a hill at 500mph and its game over. Computers can never be a substitute for serious cognitive tasks like this.

[Tartan Monkey]

it maybe comes across as a strong personal view but its not intended that way - it is a commentary - and I was trying to provoke a few irrational fears. I work in the part of the industry that deals with the functional safety of systems and components. I dont think there is a consumer appetite for pilotless flight at this stage but I spend a lot of time talking with tech entrepreneurs in the valley and beyond and there is no obstacle to it in many parts of the industry. In fact I think we will see military and freight significantly pilotless in the next 10 years - it already happens on a fairly large scale.

There are only 2 things that will limit this extending to commercial flight in the next 20 years are commercial appetite and consumer opinion. If passengers remain irrationally freaked out (as many seem to be) then it wont happen. But I think a generation of driverless cars will change that - in the end it will be cheaper to run many routes with no pilots.

Safety is not a limiting factor in this argument.

You can certainly fly an aeroplane remotely. However operating a successful commercial flight from A-B dealing with weather, air traffic control restrictions, emergencies and technical issues that are not in "the code" is another matter. Then you have to multiply that by every commercial flight there is around the world. There are currently around 100,000 passenger flights every day around the world. That's 36,500,000 a year (roughly).

So since the Silkair (alleged) pilot suicide in 1997, we have had (very roughly) 657,000,000 passenger flights worldwide, and 3 or 4 supposed pilot suicides. 3 or 4 too many I admit but it's hardly a common problem.

[Tartan Monkey]

Safety is not a limiting factor in this argument.

Perhaps that is your biggest problem. For us safety is everything. It's an old cliche but it is certainly true that if the pilot goes home at the end of the flight then so do the passengers. Despite this incident in the Alps that still hold up. We don't take risks, we accept that there is risk in our job, but we don't go looking for it. Computers don't have the ability to decide what is too risky and when a situation is going to deteriorate into something more serious. You simply will not see pilotless commercial aircraft in 10 years.