That depends on the controlling agency. I don't know about BEA regulations. Recall from the Malaysia Air "disappearance" that some controlling agencies don't require locking cockpit doors, at all.Originally posted by RuSnp:
4real - Does the door lock automatically on these things or would the pilot have to physically lock it once the other guy left?
Read on another site that authorities dispatched a Mirage fighter that didn't get there in time. Seems folks called authorities while the pilot was trying to re-enter the cockpit. That mirage fighter was broadcasting 7700 which I believe means hijack. Normally the hijacked plane would broadcast the ID not the Mirage but I could see why they would in this case.Originally posted by RU4Real:
That depends on the controlling agency. I don't know about BEA regulations. Recall from the Malaysia Air "disappearance" that some controlling agencies don't require locking cockpit doors, at all.Originally posted by RuSnp:
4real - Does the door lock automatically on these things or would the pilot have to physically lock it once the other guy left?
On U.S. carriers the door locks automatically but I'm pretty sure that the flight crew members have each have their own keys. That's why a 1st class flight attendant will always stand in the aisle between the cabin and the lav/galley whenever one of them is transitioning to or from the cockpit.
I wouldn't really trust that information. Most planes don't have direct sat phones in the cabin anymore and there's no way anyone is getting a cell signal up there. I suppose it's possible that they had wi-fi (does GermanWings do that?) and made calls that way, but... it seems fishy.Originally posted by RUScrew85:
Read on another site that authorities dispatched a Mirage fighter that didn't get there in time. Seems folks called authorities while the pilot was trying to re-enter the cockpit. That mirage fighter was broadcasting 7700 which I believe means hijack. Normally the hijacked plane would broadcast the ID not the Mirage but I could see why they would in this case.Originally posted by RU4Real:
That depends on the controlling agency. I don't know about BEA regulations. Recall from the Malaysia Air "disappearance" that some controlling agencies don't require locking cockpit doors, at all.Originally posted by RuSnp:
4real - Does the door lock automatically on these things or would the pilot have to physically lock it once the other guy left?
On U.S. carriers the door locks automatically but I'm pretty sure that the flight crew members have each have their own keys. That's why a 1st class flight attendant will always stand in the aisle between the cabin and the lav/galley whenever one of them is transitioning to or from the cockpit.
Now that doesn't mean there def was a takeover by one pilot because passengers seeing the other pilot locked out and trying to break in may have reported it that way.
I am also told that the only way the pilot could not get back in is if the other pilot prevents that.
Very fishy.
Former NTSB on Anderson said that cockpit door has zero access ( no keys) outside. Procedure supposedly is if pilot leaves , crew member must be present with remaining pilot to prevent lone individual in the cockpit. Just relaying what was stated , don't know if accurate.Originally posted by RU4Real:
That depends on the controlling agency. I don't know about BEA regulations. Recall from the Malaysia Air "disappearance" that some controlling agencies don't require locking cockpit doors, at all.Originally posted by RuSnp:
4real - Does the door lock automatically on these things or would the pilot have to physically lock it once the other guy left?
On U.S. carriers the door locks automatically but I'm pretty sure that the flight crew members have each have their own keys. That's why a 1st class flight attendant will always stand in the aisle between the cabin and the lav/galley whenever one of them is transitioning to or from the cockpit.
Agree on all. Just throwing it out there. The fighter was reported to be late (obviously, as you pointed out)Originally posted by RU4Real:
I wouldn't really trust that information. Most planes don't have direct sat phones in the cabin anymore and there's no way anyone is getting a cell signal up there. I suppose it's possible that they had wi-fi (does GermanWings do that?) and made calls that way, but... it seems fishy.Originally posted by RUScrew85:
Read on another site that authorities dispatched a Mirage fighter that didn't get there in time. Seems folks called authorities while the pilot was trying to re-enter the cockpit. That mirage fighter was broadcasting 7700 which I believe means hijack. Normally the hijacked plane would broadcast the ID not the Mirage but I could see why they would in this case.Originally posted by RU4Real:
That depends on the controlling agency. I don't know about BEA regulations. Recall from the Malaysia Air "disappearance" that some controlling agencies don't require locking cockpit doors, at all.Originally posted by RuSnp:
4real - Does the door lock automatically on these things or would the pilot have to physically lock it once the other guy left?
On U.S. carriers the door locks automatically but I'm pretty sure that the flight crew members have each have their own keys. That's why a 1st class flight attendant will always stand in the aisle between the cabin and the lav/galley whenever one of them is transitioning to or from the cockpit.
Now that doesn't mean there def was a takeover by one pilot because passengers seeing the other pilot locked out and trying to break in may have reported it that way.
I am also told that the only way the pilot could not get back in is if the other pilot prevents that.
Very fishy.
Also adding to the potential lack of credibility - the "trouble duration" was no more than 10 minutes. From phone calls to fighter jet on a wingtip in 10 minutes? No. F*cking. Way.
I fly probably 30-40 times a year. I've never seen that happen. Ever. The usual drill is:Originally posted by RUMcMahon:
Former NTSB on Anderson said that cockpit door has zero access ( no keys) outside. Procedure supposedly is if pilot leaves , crew member must be present with remaining pilot to prevent lone individual in the cockpit. Just relaying what was stated , don't know if accurate.
I watched a little bit of Cooper and his panelists.Originally posted by BeKnighted:
The New York Times article suggested the possibility of cockpit decompression, but a medical emergency also could have the same effect. You kind of have to assume that the pilot who still in the cockpit did something like slumping over the controls to cause the plane to descend, too.
But, of course, we don't really know anything yet.
What would be possible causes for the reduction of power?Originally posted by RU4Real:
I watched a little bit of Cooper and his panelists.Originally posted by BeKnighted:
The New York Times article suggested the possibility of cockpit decompression, but a medical emergency also could have the same effect. You kind of have to assume that the pilot who still in the cockpit did something like slumping over the controls to cause the plane to descend, too.
But, of course, we don't really know anything yet.
Cooper is an idiot, by the way.
Here's the problem I have with the "medical emergency" scenario:
So the sole remaining pilot in the cockpit strokes out while the other guy is dropping a deuce or trimming his pubes or whatever.
So what? Why does the plane go into a 3000 - 4000 fpm descent? The autopilot isn't wired to the dude's pacemaker, right? So he's dead. Big deal.
To make it work, you have to then say something like, "He fell over and hit the stick, which disengaged the sutopilot and so the plane went into a dive."
Except it wasn't a "dive". The ADS-B data on this flight is solid from take-off until impact. We discussed this above - "controlled flight into terrain". If somebody just pushed on the stick and put the aircraft into a dive, the airspeed would increase.
It didn't. It remained constant. It was a classic "cruise descent".
There is one thing and one thing only that will give you a cruise descent and that's a reduction in power. Which doesn't fit the "guy stroked out and fell over" scenario.
Engine failure, partial engine failure and somebody pulling back on the throttles.Originally posted by Veiox:
What would be possible causes for the reduction of power?
4Real - as usual, great insights on aviation practices, operations and safety, thanks. In reading the bold part of your post, I'm guessing you're familiar with the "Swiss Cheese Model" of accident/incident analysis, developed by James Reason in the 90s, as originally applied to aviation. In case you haven't and for the rest of the folks on the board who likely aren't familiar with it, I thought I'd provide a little background and a link to a well done article discussing its pros and cons, plus the graphic below, which represents how the model works, conceptually.Originally posted by RU4Real:
Air France (AF) 447 from Rio to Paris, 2009. I've written about it, here, a few times.Originally posted by krup:
If that's the same crash I remember from watching a cable show on it, the sophisticated computer system was foiled by the fact that the maintenance crew put a piece of tape over one of the areas the computer uses to draw information (to protect it during cleaning) and forgot to take it off (with the result that the computer was getting faulty inputs and giving crazy/contradictory instructions to the flight crew).Originally posted by T2Kplus10:
Didn't this happen to an Air France plane 5 or so years ago? Taking off from Brazil or somewhere in SA. The plane got caught in the nose-up stall and the pilots didn't realize they were descending until they hit the Atlantic Ocean.Originally posted by RU4Real:
One outside possibility is that they didn't know the aircraft was descending. This seems unlikely based on how the pitot-static system and the autopilot are tied together, but... it's technically possible.Originally posted by RU1977:
Very sad - still no clue as to what caused the crash. Very reliable plane with backup systems and good weather.
This post was edited on 3/25 8:10 AM by RU4Real
The aircraft encountered convective activity (thunderstorms) at cruise altitude over the Atlantic. It succumbed, initially, to pitot tube icing - which was a known problem on that generation of A-3xx aircraft and was well documented. In fact, the incident aircraft was due to have its pitot tubes replaced as soon as it returned to Paris on the trip in question.
Once presented with erroneous airspeed readings caused by the partial failure of the pitot-static system, the autopilot on the aircraft switched off and the FBW system flipped from "Normal Law" to "Alternate Law 2" - essentially, it swapped the fly-by-wire software and implemented a control routine that changes how the aircraft responds to control inputs.
At the time of the incident the A-330 was being flown by 2 co-pilots. As per policy, the duration of the flight (13 hours) dictated a 3 man crew so that one member could rest at any given time. The captain had briefed the two co-pilots on the weather and status of the aircraft and retired to the crew rest area.
We know that absent very rare and specific circumstances (Pan Am 103, et al), airplane crashes are not the result of a single event, but rather the unfortunate culmination of a sequence of events. In this case the pitot tube icing was the a key element in kickstarting the chain of events, but its tragic conclusion was brought about as a result of a crew failure.
When the autopilot kicked off and the flight crew realized the airspeed indicators (and altitude indicators) were unreliable, the responded by adding power and commanding a nose-up attitude. They did this secure in the knowledge that the A-330 FBW system does not accept control inputs that can result in an airframe stall.
In Normal Law.
What they forgot was that in Alternate Law (1 or 2) that capability is lost. So they stalled the airplane. And rode the stall all the way to the ground - never realizing, at any point, that they were the one causing the rapid, flat descent into the ocean.
As Richard Quest would say with English accent, "Indeed". I'd like to know a little more about the pilots and their backgrounds.Originally posted by RU4Real:
Engine failure, partial engine failure and somebody pulling back on the throttles.Originally posted by Veiox:
What would be possible causes for the reduction of power?
If the engines blinked out and nobody was controlling the resulting descent, the plane would have fallen from the sky in a much bigger hurry.
There aren't too many reasons I can think of why an engine in normal operating condition would suffer a partial reduction in power output due to a failure. Generally speaking, they're on and running normally or they're not on.
Which kinda makes me lean toward Option 3. It's too soon to know, of course. The FDR data will be the key to the puzzle in this case, since it records things like throttle settings.
It's curious to me, though, that the names of the flight crew haven't been released.
I saw the story, and while it's certainly a plausible (maybe even likely) explanation, the French prosecutor who's saying this seems to be basing it entirely on his interpretation of the voice recorder, which even by his account does not include any audio of the co-pilot saying anything. I don't think the flight data recorder has been recovered yet.Originally posted by WhiteBus:
Word out of France now is that this was a deliberate act by one of the two pilots. The other was locked out of the cabin and was banging on the door to get in.
This is fundamental Sherlock Holmes. There simply isn't another plausible explanation for what happened.Originally posted by BeKnighted:
I saw the story, and while it's certainly a plausible (maybe even likely) explanation, the French prosecutor who's saying this seems to be basing it entirely on his interpretation of the voice recorder, which even by his account does not include any audio of the co-pilot saying anything. I don't think the flight data recorder has been recovered yet.Originally posted by WhiteBus:
Word out of France now is that this was a deliberate act by one of the two pilots. The other was locked out of the cabin and was banging on the door to get in.
Originally posted by kapyoche:
Time has come to fly planes without pilots and be controlled from a central location like drones. We probably need a co-pilot on the plane in case there is a need for him to communicate with the central control center.
The main reason this is not going to happen is the pilot union. They have to protect the jobs of the pilots.
I'm just pointing out that the evidence in support of the theory is coming from someone who doesn't have access to all of the facts. (And is not even remotely an expert in the field.) As for what might be plausible, I'd suggest reading the rest of the thread, particularly the Swiss Cheese post. Most major airplane crashes occur because of a series of unlikely events that would seem implausible until they happen.Originally posted by RU4Real:
This is fundamental Sherlock Holmes. There simply isn't another plausible explanation for what happened.Originally posted by BeKnighted:
I saw the story, and while it's certainly a plausible (maybe even likely) explanation, the French prosecutor who's saying this seems to be basing it entirely on his interpretation of the voice recorder, which even by his account does not include any audio of the co-pilot saying anything. I don't think the flight data recorder has been recovered yet.Originally posted by WhiteBus:
Word out of France now is that this was a deliberate act by one of the two pilots. The other was locked out of the cabin and was banging on the door to get in.
Thanks, but since I wrote much of the rest of the thread, I'm gonna say I'm good on this. Maybe YOU should read the rest of the thread, which includes a lot of "rule out" and associated reasons behind them.Originally posted by BeKnighted:
I'm just pointing out that the evidence in support of the theory is coming from someone who doesn't have access to all of the facts. (And is not even remotely an expert in the field.) As for what might be plausible, I'd suggest reading the rest of the thread, particularly the Swiss Cheese post. Most major airplane crashes occur because of a series of unlikely events that would seem implausible until they happen.
Sometimes stupid is uttered in such a succinct manner!Originally posted by kapyoche:
Time has come to fly planes without pilots and be controlled from a central location like drones. We probably need a co-pilot on the plane in case there is a need for him to communicate with the central control center.
The main reason this is not going to happen is the pilot union. They have to protect the jobs of the pilots.
Is it your belief that drones don't crash?Originally posted by MozRU:
Why can't we have planes flown like drones?
Seems to me, the major crashes the last 5yrs are ALL pilot error.
I think you're missing a lot of "big picture".Originally posted by MozRU:
I trust a computer over a human.
Good luck selling plane tix to the public for "drone" flights.Originally posted by kapyoche:
Time has come to fly planes without pilots and be controlled from a central location like drones. We probably need a co-pilot on the plane in case there is a need for him to communicate with the central control center.
The main reason this is not going to happen is the pilot union. They have to protect the jobs of the pilots.