German wings A320 down in French Alps

+1

Also, wouldn't they find a significant crater at the site of impact? Even disintegrating on impact would cause a point of impact. However, if it exploded in the air, the debris is more likely to be scattered out in a wider pattern. I would think that if it impacted the ground at a certain angle, the majority of the debris would also continue in that direction after impact.

But I guess, here comes the hypothesis theories.

 

Doubtful, if the pilots were German.

 

Probably not a real crater. Ground is mostly rock, not soft soil. The plane is like a giant aluminum beer can hitting the ground at 500 mph, except it's made of thousands of small pieces. Just shatters, I'd think.

 

Bob,

It is interesting to see how small the parts are. It brings back memories of the jets from 9/11 and what little there was left of them in the field in PA and at the Pentagon. If you look at the crash photos of the UAL/TWA crash in the Grand Canyon in 1956, the destruction isn't as complete, but the planes were probably only going 250-300mph instead of 500mph. That extra energy would explain the difference in what was left, at least in my mind.

I wonder if the plane caught the top of a ridge and came apart and scattered, or if it hit at the base and shot up the face of the ravines? It looks to me like it hit low and shot up the mountain. The one pic they show that has part of the landing gear looks like a main point of impact.

 

Wouldn't "Giant composite beer can" be more accurate?

That being the case, a debris field that looks like litter doesn't surprise me.

 

Take a look at PSA 1771. It looks very similar. Almost complete obliteration.

Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The door can indeed be opened from the outside, even with no one in the cockpit. However, if the remaining people in the cockpit do not want the outside pilot getting back in they can prevent it without getting out of their seat.

If there was an incapacitation, the autopilot could disconnect by a number of ways, pushing on the rudder, pushing on the sidestick etc. Once disconnected the flight control laws would hold the pitch and bank at the last input. So a constant descent is clearly a possibility.

But in this case it appears that it was an intentional act by the remaining pilot and not incapacitation. Once the outside pilot attempts to re-enter the cockpit, the inside pilot can prevent the re-entry, as there is a lag time. If the inside pilot was incapacitated, the outside pilot would have been able to re-enter. This description is how the aircraft systems work on the A-320 series aircraft.

 

Bob,

Didn't the news agencies in the USA give you the information that there were actually a few eyewitnesses who saw the plane seconds before it crashed, and others who heard it crash?
This is why the authorities dismissed almost from the beginning the possibility of an inflight explosion.

For instance:
Crash A320 Germanwings: "On n'a pas le temps de réaliser", raconte un témoin

Among others: a man working in a small sawmill was checking logs outside when he heard the engine noise; he did not look up immediately because the "Armee de l'Air"'s Mirage 2000 usually train above, but quickly thought "this is not their usual engine noise", looked above, saw the plane and thought: "what is this big airliner doing here, he is much to low, he will never clear the ridges".
Two women taking a stroll in the forest saw it probably a few seconds before the crash barely clearing a ridge, and one said to the other: "but it will never clear the next one".
No-one among the eyewitnesses can be considered as "trained in aviation matters" but nevertheless they said that the flying attitude of the plane seemed "normal" to their "untrained eyes", that is: it was flying level, not climbing, not diving.

The rescue teams all said that the surface onto which the debris are scattered is actually "very small, about the size of four football (= soccer for our american friends) fields together".

Rgds

 

Not the impression we had here, although what was very clear was that when the data were analysed and the sequence of evenements began to appear, a difference of opinion about who was responsible, or who was the main responsible, between the plane manufacturer, or the plane systems designers on one hand; and the pilots (and how the pilots' unions would react in such case) on the other; was to arise.
A "certain number" of pilots still do not fully "accept" the official conclusions of the enquiry.

Rgds

 

Was the particular aircraft involved in this incident equipped with the door lock system described in the following Airbus video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixEHV7c3VXs

TL;DR: in case the pilot is incapacitated, an unlock code can be entered from outside the cockpit which will cause the door to open after a 30-second delay. The unlock request can be overridden from inside the cockpit.

 

Aren't modern planes made out of (a lot of) carbon fibre ... so an impact would cause carbon fibre to shatter everywhere ...
Pete

 

That A320 was not a modern plane. It was already 24 years old and designed in the early 80s.

 

Authorities are confirming it was a deliberate act by the copilot.

 

As more information comes to light from the CVR, suspicions of a voluntary act by the pilot that remained in the cockpit are growing here...

Crash de l?A320*: l?hypothèse de l?acte volontaire se confirme

Five minutes ago, at 12:58 Paris time, the district attorney said that "the pilot that flew the airplane initiated the descent on purpose, and this could well be analysed as a voluntary act to destroy the plane".

Rgds

 

The assistant District Attorney (procureur de la République adjoint) is in the middle of a press conference, that is still ongoing.

Basically he says that evidence from the CVR recorded conversations shows that the co-pilot, one Andreas Lubitz, locked the door when the first pilot left the cockpit, then initiated the descent on purpose and deliberatly did not open the door despite all attemps by the flight crew.
Also that the passengers did not understood what was happening until the very last seconds, because there is not shouting at all on the records until the very seconds before the crash.

Rgds

 

Latest info in English:

Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot flew plane deliberately into ground after locking himself in cockpit - Mirror Online

Rgds

 

The French say someone intentionally flew the plane into the ground.

Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot flew plane deliberately into ground after locking himself in cockpit - Mirror Online

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/germanwings-plane-crash-co-pilot-flew-5404073

 

Dam...I stand corrected!

Wow, times have changed. 15-20 years ago, all passengers really had to worry about, is whether or not the pilot was tipsy!

 

^^ A320 Fuselage and wings are aluminium

 

I believe only the new Dreamliner has been made out substantial amounts of carbon fibre.

 

Securing the cockpit after 9/11 has found its flaw.

I see another change happening or at least better procedure.

I like the idea of always having 2 people in the cockpit when the pilot or co pilot leaves, maybe there was a protocol in place but not followed.

 

Pretty sure all the newer Airbus planes are substantially CF also.

 

Only the new A350, I believe.

 

The only person they could do that with is the FA, and they can't fly the plane. They will not go back to a 3 man flight crew on short flights without a major flight from the Airlines. In fact if they did 1/3rd of the flight schedules would be cancelled the day it started!

 

If it was deliberate, why not put it into a high speed dive instead of a relatively gradual descent?