You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I agree that in web fora there is always a lot of point-scoring, especially when contributors are keen to display their impeccable PC credentials. However there do appear to be a couple of real pilots on this thread, who can contribute useful information.
I just hope this doesn't turn out to be another case of an Airbus out-thinking humans but getting it wrong, as happened with AF447.
So the Helios accident hasn't led to a system to warn pillows of slow depressurisation and the Air France accident hasn't yet let to longer lasting and better beacons fitted to flight recorders?
So the Helios accident hasn't led to a system to warn pillows of slow depressurisation
Almost certainly it has. The industry is very good at learning from these mistakes. It might not be in the form of a retrofit warning light, but it would certainly come in the form of training and SOP updates. If XYZ happens then make sure you check DEF as well as ABC.
The first thing my wife did when she got home yesterday was review the update that was issued recently in relation to the A320 on what you need to do if the plane, for some unexplained reason, suddenly starts to descend; as she put it, just a glitch in the system but one not resolved by simply pulling back on the control stick. You have to switch off two other systems or something first beore the plane will respond.
Are you thinking of Helios 522?
Just read about that. Grim. Also read the Air France story several times along with a few others and one thing keeps standing out. It's the fact that the pilots can misinterpret the warning signals. With all the sophisticated technology available, how is this possible? Maybe it's my luddite tendencies, but can't they design the systems to ensure there's no ambiguity?
Why do pilots ignore their senses and believe their instruments? Have you seen the effect a Sat Nav can have on a driver. We are quite used to being deceived by our senses and are more ready to question those than the output of a machine. And in most cases the machine may be right, but occasionally it's our senses that are right and the machine that is wrong.
Why do pilots ignore their senses and believe their instruments?
Because human senses aren't very good at discerning flight parameters (eg gaining/losing height or angles) so when it's dark or the weather's bad and they have no visual indicators, you can't tell what's happening though senses - just like you can be in a plane not paying attention and then look out of a window and realise that you're banking fairly sharply.
I just hope this doesn't turn out to be another case of an Airbus out-thinking humans but getting it wrong, as happened with AF447.
That's not what happened. They had a sensor issue and misinterpreted what was happening and responded contrary to their training (the co-pilot was fully pulling back almost the whole time believing incorrectly for that circumstance that the plane would not allow a stall)
Why do pilots ignore their senses and believe their instruments?
It will be interesting to see what the other pilots have to say on this, but the one I live with just responded by saying 'because the instrument is far more likely to be right'. She also explained how when gaining her PPL she had it drummed into her that, in a small plane, it's not uncommon for your senses to become confused in thick cloud and that you have to trust your instruments and fly on what they are telling you.
This is an interesting read:
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_disorientation ]Spatial Disorientation[/url]
It's easy to see how the brain can become confused: in a very small way it happens when I stall my car, which has all kinds of annoying interlocks and won't start until you've got the seatbelt on, the gearbox in neutral and the clutch disengaged. When it stalls, trying to get back into the mental sequence and get it re-started can be annoyingly difficult.
That's exactly the point I was making geetee, 99% of the time the machine is right. What every flight deck needs is a TJ to argue that black is white. A pain in the arse most of the time but just occasionally a voice of reason.
Do you trust your instincts when approaching a speed camera or the speedo on your dash? Your instinct is normally to trust your speedo, but what if it's wrong?
Two main factors for humans are an acceleration force and a visual point of reference. Other things like noise etc are also important.
Going back to the speedo in a car you will generally have a good source of visual reference and a good perception of speed when driving. So if your speedo is telling you that you are doing 30 but your eyes (and probably engine revs, suspension vibrations etc) are telling you that you are doing 60mph then you know that there is something wrong. If you go from an old car to a modern new big executive cruiser you can actually be quite confused and it is very easy to speed as your senses are not telling you the usual story.
When you are in a big plane acceleration changes can be very slow and gradual and in a plane you are in 3D space so acceleration can mask direction of travel - eg a banked turn will exert a G loading that can mask the gravitation direction. You also have very little to go on in visual point of reference and again we are used to travelling in 2 dimension when on the ground.
A good example is rapid pitch or altitude changes due to turbulence are very easy to detect. But slow sinusoidal changes are not and you can end up with massive variation in altitude that goes unnoticed by those on board, including the pilots.
Another problem is angle of attack and pitch angle are not the same. Angle of attack is the angle at which the air is hitting the wings. If you are travelling perfectly forwards at constant altitude then yes they are the same, if you are falling as well as travelling forwards then the angle of attack is greater as the wing is now seeing air approach from a different angle to the horizon. I remember someone claiming that the artificial horizon is the same as an angle of attack indicator. It is not unless in true level flight (and ignoring the set angle of the wings etc to keep it simple).
Not going to speculate on any crashes or causes further as it just makes people get shirty so just pointing out some examples of where humans AND instruments can be problematic.
The question is do you trust instruments or your senses?
Okay, there's clearly some misunderstanding by some:
The instruments will let you down far less than your senses/seat of the pants/whatever. Trust them. Your performance instruments (Speed/height/vertical speed) will be cross checked against your attitude reference to confirm all is as it should be. That's what they didn't do on AF447 and as a result applied inappropriate side stick inputs worsening the situation.
Yes, instruments fail, and yes, the seat of the pants is one small part of building up the overall picture, but the reason why modern airliners have duplicated and triplicated displays is they are your primary source of attitude reference. If you've got a good external horizon, that can form part of your data set to achieve situational awareness, but it won't be how you accurately set the attitude; that will be done using your primary flight display.
Civilian pilots don't wear masks all the time because it's not practical. Most military heavy pilots don't even wear helmets, however if flying low level or in tactical environments they do.
Fast jet pilots do as it forms an integral part of their survival system should they need to abandon the aircraft.
As far as this awful accident, who knows what happened? There will be experts analysing that data asap and those highly trained people will produce the required reports so the rest of us can learn from it. RIP.
Spatial Disorientation- Thats what killed John F. Kennedy (Jnr)
The first thing my wife did when she got home yesterday was review the update that was issued recently in relation to the A320 on what you need to do if the plane, for some unexplained reason, suddenly starts to descend; as she put it, just a glitch in the system but one not resolved by simply pulling back on the control stick. You have to switch off two other systems or something first beore the plane will respond.
It scares me that such a glitch exists in the first place, and is reliant on a human knowing/having read an update to resolve it....
As far as this awful accident, who knows what happened? There will be experts analysing that data asap and those highly trained people will produce the required reports so the rest of us can learn from it. RIP.
Rumors on PPrune that it was a windshield blowout in the cockpit....I'd like to point out that they are rumors.
Anyway, just read a study that the average time for pilots to put on masks having been given decent decompression training is about 6-7 seconds, 14 seconds maximum, whilst the average for untrained pilots is 15 seconds. The odds therefore don't seem exactly brilliant even with two trained pilots in the cockpit in the event of a rapid decompression at FL380.
Do they do military style decompression training where they stick you in a decompression chamber, in the commercial world?
Do they do military style decompression training where they stick you in a decompression chamber, in the commercial world?
Apparently not
Rumors on PPrune that it was a windshield blowout in the cockpit....I'd like to point out that they are rumors.
Not knowing anything about it, you wouldn't think that would do the pilots a lot of good at that kind of speed and altitude. 🙁
Not knowing anything about it, you wouldn't think that would do the pilots a lot of good at that kind of speed and altitude
Not a lot, no.
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_5390 ]BA Flight 5390[/url]
Atchison ordered the cabin crew to not release Lancaster's body despite the assumption of his death because he knew that releasing the body might cause it to fly into the left engine and cause an engine fire or failure which would cause further problems for Atchison in an already highly stressful environment.
He flippin well earned his salary that day!
The Today programme on R4 this morning went over to their "reporter on the scene", who then spent two minutes describing search helicopters arriving, accompanied by the sound of them doing just that. I switched the radio off. If R4 delivers this sort of trash tabloid style reporting, what hope is there for the rest of the BBC?
Tom_W:
As a long term viewer of PPrune (haven't posted in years, I hasten to add!), I would take anything said with a pinch of salt. The press often quote from PPrune threads despite them not having any basis in fact.....
Best wait until the report is released.
GeeTee, decompression not practiced in the civilian world. One of many great attributes the mil training system offers.
I find all these "opinions" distasteful.
There were probably Brits on that plane, their families or friends could end up reading this thread. Can you not find some other way of satisfying your engineering/aeronautical/know-it-all egos?
What's the view like up there on the high ground?
GeeTee, decompression not practiced in the civilian world. One of many great attributes the mil training system offers.
I find that disgraceful considering the profits airlines have been seeing and the potential for high fatalities. Pretty surprised they don't provide this when two people (the pilots) are responsible for the lives of hundreds of passengers.
Military pilots are only ever generally responsible for themselves, their crew and maybe a platoon or two of squaddies that they are about to push out the back over a drop zone, yet they find a reason to include decompression training.
[quote=CountZero ]What's the view like up there on the high ground?
More to the point, has he got his oxygen mask on?
interesting thread and discussion, @geetee thanks for the info from your wife
Tom,
It's all based on magnitudes of risk. Pilots regularly train in the simulator for rapid decompression; the occurrence of rapid decompression events doesn't justify every airline having access to decompression facilities. The same factors come to play in every aspect of life; it's not reprehensible nor irresponsible. Your car would be unaffordable if it had all the safety systems required to save your life in all situations for example. There should be, even at the highest cruising levels, enough time to mask up. It will be tight but you do train the muscle memory in the sim.
Rapid decompression and emergency descent is something I re-brief myself about on a regular basis whilst in the cruise.
The more common type is a slow decompression; I've experienced that myself over mountainous terrain and at night which wasn't nice. In my case certain advisories were indicated, which only made sense if there was an insidious cabin pressurisation fault. (I hadn't noticed any effects of hypoxia at that stage, but the cabin altitude was only about 13000'.) A further climb above 14000 would have set off warnings.
I have recently used a synthetic training facility that replicates a slow decompression without the dangers of being in a hypobric chamber (basically your O2 is turned down) which was very interesting. Cheaper and probably more useful in the commercial world. But still unlikely to be required due to the low incidence of decompression.
All commercial aircraft have systems to alert you to an undesirable cabin altitude, normally this will give you lots of time to mask up and get your descent on. Again this strikes me as good practice not irresponsible.
Your knowledge of military crews is seriously lacking; transport crews can be responsible for hundreds of passengers and any flight over any built up area regardless of civilian/mil transport/FJ/Rotary status carries an equal level of responsibility.
I think you should direct your sense of outrage at the 10,000s of dangerous drivers on the UK roads instead.
Tom_W1987Military pilots are only ever generally responsible for themselves, their crew and maybe a platoon or two of squaddies that they are about to push out the back over a drop zone, yet they find a reason to include decompression training
Surely this is for a number of reasons that make flying a military fast jet rather different to a passenger airliner? (like the presence of Ejection seats for a start, which kinda "decompress" the cabin rather explosively if you ever need to use it, and the fact that Military jets fly in close formation, get shot at, and generally contain a lot more cutting edge tech that can let you down etc etc)
Surely this is for a number of reasons that make flying a military fast jet rather different to a passenger airliner? (like the presence of Ejection seats for a start, which kinda "decompress" the cabin rather explosively if you ever need to use it, and the fact that Military jets fly in close formation, get shot at, and generally contain a lot more cutting edge tech that can let you down etc etc)
I'm pretty sure the heavy pilots do it as well.
I think you should direct your sense of outrage at the 10,000s of dangerous drivers on the UK roads instead.
Car companies are actually trying to rectify that though aren't they, by introducing self driving cars. Given the profits airlines make, I'm not sure the expensive car analogy holds up. I'm also pretty sure that your average airline pilot is responsible for far more lives each year and over the course of their career than a military pilot.
I'll tell you what, when driverless cars have any kind of footprint in terms of sales anywhere in the world, then you can start to make that argument. Until then, you are still far more likely to die from cars than any other form of transport.
It seems like allowing a single pilot to be alone in the cockpit with the post 9-11 reinforced doors is a bad idea. Though the chances of something bad (heart attack, seizure, etc.) happening are miniscule, the result would always be catastrophic.
The fix is easy; when a pilot leaves the cockpit, a flight attendant goes into the cockpit until the pilot returns. While the flight attendant couldn't fly the plane, they could open the door and let the other pilot who can back in!
Edit - another lockout earlier this year [url= http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/30/travel/feat-delta-captain-lockout/ ]http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/30/travel/feat-delta-captain-lockout/[/url]
Yup BBC reporting either Pilot or 1st officer locked out of cockpit with audio supporting timid then more frantic efforts to get back in...
Yikes.
Given the profits airlines make, I'm not sure the expensive car analogy holds up
Second time you've said that, but most airlines make either very meagre profits, or spectacular losses these days! They're doing alright right now with low oil prices, but that's very volatile.
Fact is that decompression is a very rare occurrence in civil aviation. You can't conceivably train for absolutely every potential incident.
How much per pilot per course, the one day courses can't be much more expensive than say....the oil industry having to train for helicopter ditching. Don't buy it really, Easyjet have been making consistent profits since 2000 and last year put away 450m after tax.
Tom
On many flights profit is down to a handful of seats. Lo-co airlines have higher margins, but their crews still have to pass the regulatory training.
Your comments regarding responsibility highlight you don't know much about aviation in general; there's clearly no point in me elaborating as you obviously don't get it. I have done both (mil and airline flying) and I treat both types of flying with the same respect. The ground will kill you and those with you whatever your uniform. The law won't discriminate between uniforms either.
I'm sure details will be released soon for those desperate to point blame, Tom, I hope the families get to grieve without intrusion. RIP.
I'm interested more than anything Mike, quite happy to listen to you. Hypobaric training cost about $100 per pilot back in the 90s according to an ex A-10 pilot I know.....
I am sure that on a previous thread a STW 'expert' said that there is a way in to the flight deck that only crew know?
FunkyDunc - Member
I am sure that on a previous thread a STW 'expert' said that there is a way in to the flight deck that only crew know?
Also alluded to on R4 this morning in a "ways we don't talk about on air" kind of way. What's surprising is how this stuff has got out, given that the same guy said there are only three rooms in Europe in which these voice recorders can be listened to.
Getting conflicting info about that.... supposedly, if the deadbolt has been put in place there is no way you can get back in. The easiest solution would be to just have two crew members on the flight deck at all times - anyone care to explain to me why no one has thought that wrapping pilots in an armored box might lead to it's own set of problems? Or is there actually a way for pilots to get back in safely?
Do they have an image recording 'black box' within the cockpit as well as the voice recording one?
"The fix is easy; when a pilot leaves the cockpit, a flight attendant goes into the cockpit until the pilot returns. While the flight attendant couldn't fly the plane, they could open the door and let the other pilot who can back in"
TBH I thought some airlines do that, but that os down to each company's operation manual.
Yes the A320 has a electric keypad on the outside cockpit door to unlock it, (and having been locked out of the cockpit on checks having to make a phone call for the code is bit embarrassing) to be able to get in, but it can be over ridden (locking the door) from in the cockpit, as they also have cameras above the door and galley area, so the pilots can check for people hiding or holding crew hostage.
Huge coincidence that the rapid descent started whilst the pilot was locked out. The plane was on cruise, so something catastrophic and unrecoverable happened in that short space of time.
Do they have an image recording 'black box' within the cockpit as well as the voice recording one?
No, but they could, the same as they could have a pressure sensor in the pilots seats (same as in cars) to indicate which seats were occupied.
This is another incident showing how planes should/could be transmitting certain information live.
I know quantas have quite a lot of data live streamed back from their newer planes, so much so that the pilots will often get a message letting them know of any error from the ground crew/engineers during a flight.This is another incident showing how planes should/could be transmitting certain information live.
I'm pretty sure that when the engine failure on the A380 ([url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32 ]Qantas Flight 32[/url]) happened a few years back the ground crew attepmted to let the pilots know what wasn't working, but so much was failed it actually hampered them
EDIT: here is the "operations center"
This is another incident showing how planes should/could be transmitting certain information live.
Does seem a bit archaic that investigations are still so heavily reliant on finding a couple of black boxes amongst the wreckage.
Though conversely I can see why pilots might not be entirely comfortable with the thought that everything they say in the cockpit should be broadcast live to their boss.
So if the leaks are true, suicide.
Again, this is not coming from me, it's coming from an A320 pilot.
The flight deck door can be opened from the outside by a code but the door will only open if the code has been authorised from inside the flight deck by pilot(s). This is to prevent the cabin crew from gaining access under duress. Cameras are installed that allow the pilots to see what's going on in the galley.
If one pilot is inside the flight deck and another outside and the one outside can't gain access then it's either because the pilot inside is actively denying them access or has become incapacitated in some way.
[i]So if the leaks are true, suicide. [/i]
or just illness?
It'll be desperately sad if measures taken to prevent terrorists accessing the flight deck caused this crash.
Illness seems less likely as the plane would have continued at the same altitude on autopilot. As Joe G points out, a steward in the cabin would prevent such a situation if one pilot needs a pee.
I think I'll stop speculating and wait.
Illness seems less likely as the plane would have continued at the same altitude on autopilot. As Joe G points out, a steward in the cabin would prevent such a situation if one pilot needs a pee.
Some airlines have just that policy.
You won't have to wait long, wwaswas, the leak will have to be confirmed or denied rapidly. Within a couple of hours.
[i]This is another incident showing how planes should/could be transmitting certain information live.[/i]
and if the live feed stops/breaks/interrupted by weather?
TBH you could go endlessly one with ever greater and greater redundancy safety systems...at what point do you stop?
@geetee1972 Probably not a good idea to post access info for secure areas on a public forum, regardless of the source (who clearly isn't an A320 pilot anyway).
Apparently there was an 'expert' on the radio saying there was some sort of lock override available from outside the cabin. Which makes a mockery of locking it in the first place, if true.
@geetee1972 Probably not a good idea to post access info for secure areas on a public forum, regardless of the source (who clearly isn't an A320 pilot anyway).
This was on The Today Programme this morning
@geetee1972 Probably not a good idea to post access info for secure areas on a public forum, regardless of the source (who clearly isn't an A320 pilot anyway).
I'd better not post the manufacturer's master override code then....
and if the live feed stops/breaks/interrupted by weather?
who cares.... it would still be recorded on the FDRs. Any dlive ata is better than no data. It's frankly ridiculous that passengers can get wifi yet a live data link isn't in place.
I'd better not post the manufacturer's master override code then.
1234?
This was on The Today Programme this morning
Not in that level of detail, it wasn't.
Looking at the sequence of events now it very strongly points to suicide.
The first pilot leaves the cockpit, moments later the plane enters a controlled descent. The descent profile is such that the pilot at the controls would have had to be in control to deploy the spoilers etc to ensure the rate of descent was controlled. First pilot then tries to re-enter the cockpit but is locked out. Banging and noises can be heard which indicates no loss of cabin pressure so points that the crew would not have been incapacitated.
@geetee1972 Probably not a good idea to post access info for secure areas on a public forum, regardless of the source (who clearly isn't an A320 pilot anyway).
Source:
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32062996 ]BBC report on how the doors work on a plane[/url]
Clearly nothing confidential in my post.
As for my wife 'clearly not being an A320 pilot', er, yes. She really is. Well I think she is. I mean, she gets up every morning to go to work and wears a pilot's uniform but I guess she could be living a lie.
No, hang on, I just remembered. I proposed to her on the flight deck. The capatain left for a moment (we were on the ground) and I'm sure he would have said something if she wasn't really a pilot.
Except that was back in 2006 and she was flying the 737 at the time. You know what, those two whole months last December and January she wasn't here because she was on a conversion course for the A320.....maybe she was having an affair. Or maybe she was abducted by aliens! She might even be working for MI5 (no hang on that was what I wanted to do. I'm getting really confused now).
Oh I give up. If anyone can tell me what my wife does for a living I'd be really grateful.
damn you and your access to first hand knowledge geetee1972 😉
Oh I give up. If anyone can tell me what my wife does for a living I'd be really grateful.
You're clearly not really married.
Yeah sorry for also being so sarcastic - <offers to shake flapperon's hand>
Sorry geetee, assumed it was a copy and paste from one of the flight sim pilots on Pprune.
Ooo, it's all kicking off now...
If it's true about the lock out, that is bloody awful. It's bad enough anyway but Christ alight and this would not be the first time by a long chalk. That's all.
If anyone can tell me what my wife does for a living I'd be really grateful.
GeeTee: Bravo
[img]
[/img]
Just as an aside, and not to make light of this terrible situation, but I really did propose on the flight deck. It was the last time I was every in the command seat.
Honestly I just wanted to share that because I'm really proud of what my wife has achieved and ever time she goes up I barely even think about the risks because they are so utterly negligable. But when something like this happens, for one moment you just end up thinking, what if.
Love you honey!
Probably not a good idea to post access info for secure areas on a public forum
There's far more detail being discussed on Reddit (And I'm sure a hundred other places), including images from the A320 manuals (don't know if thats a manual just for the door lock system or the whole plane). Saying "you need to type in a code" doesn't really pose much of a security risk unless the person reading it knows what the code is.
AIUI (all second hand info from internet experts, so y'know, pinch/bucket of salt)
-The door can be set to open, normal,or lock.
-Unlock means no code has to be entered to open the door
-Normal means a keycode has to be entered and then the door unlocks.
-Locked means that if the correct code is entered the lock beeps/flashes/gives some other alert that someone is trying to get in. The person inside the cockpit then has a set amount of time to reject the attempt. If the attempt is not rejected (e.g. because the person in the cockpit is unconscious) then the door opens. If the attempt is rejected then the door cannot be opened (or attempted to be opened) from the outside for a few minutes. This is there so that if a hijacker has a member of the crew hostage they can't gain access to the flight deck by forcing someone to enter the code.
[i]IANAP, IANA pilot's husband, the above could all be lies, don't trust a word of it, etc etc[/i]
It was the last time I was every in the command seat
Euphemism alert... 😀
and ever time she goes up
Such rich pickings... I'll leave the opposite of that alone... 😛
Knock yourself out Bolbo - I'll see the funny side 😀
Just spotted the latest details on the news and although the curiosity in me likes getting this information as soon as possible I am wondering if they shouldnt have released it without knowing all the facts as it could point towards a lot of distress going on for the passengers which will not do the feelings of the families much good.
Without all the information retrieved yet no one can draw conclusions, the previous thought that it was another decompression is just a hypothesis, could be wrong, probably is wrong but that was an early hypothesis based on initial info. Now small snippets of important and potentially confusing information are coming in it can cause a lot of jumping to conclusions and a lot of distress for the families.
eg claims of suicide.
It could still be a case of decompression as we don't have the timeline of events.
illness/pilot slumped on controls unlikely as no course deviation?
Some sort of malfunction?
etc etc. So I am in the "going to wait for more information" camp now.
I know, I'm sorry. It is your Mrs after all but I just couldn't resist the double entendre.
[i]French Prosecutor: Co-pilot, alone at helm of Germanwings, began descent manually, 'intentionally'[/i]
I am wondering if they shouldnt have released it without knowing all the facts
They didn't, this has been 'leaked'. Many of the reports on the BBC start by acknowledging the seriousness of that leak:
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32062994 ]Former Director of Cranfield Aviation Safety Centre[/url]
Mass murder
The co-pilot of the Germanwings flight that crashed into the French Alps wanted to "destroy the plane", French investigators have said.
French prosecutors, citing information from the cockpit voice recorder said the co-pilot took sole control of plane and intentionally started its descent.
The pilot had just left the cockpit and was locked out.
Neither of the names of the pilot or co-pilot have been released.
The co-pilot was alive until the final impact, the prosecutors added.
The Airbus 320 from Barcelona to Duesseldorf hit a mountain on Tuesday after a rapid eight-minute descent.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32063587
So so sad. ALl those people who also had to die. I know suicide is a cry for help but to take so many others with you....
[quote=geetee1972 ]If anyone can tell me what my wife does for a living I'd be really grateful.
I would, but her pimp would kill me.
Oh boy.
Just back from a ride and checked the news.
Speechless.