Plane Crash In France

[Nuggets Mahoney]

On an A320 there are 7 computers controlling each other (7 times redundancy) so such a thing should never happen, unless caused by an external EMP-like event...

How many Angle of Attack/ Stall Sensors?

If those screw up and report the plane is close to stalling would the plane's systems put it into a dive and prevent the pilot lifting the nose?

[happy_renting]

Sure, but the way the plane descended makes it look like a strong possibility.

The two data sources for the graphs conflict, and both still show a reasonably steady descent that is slower than one might expect if the aircraft disintegrated. So the plane was probably flying, rather than falling. You don't need a total avionics failure to explain that.

According to you, total avionics failure can only be due to an EMP-like event, an implausible event due to the unlikeliness of any such scenario, and absence of any corroborating evidence of an EMP event (which would surely be apparent by now).

[Nuggets Mahoney]

A few seconds googling...

March 21, 2015: Lufthansa airliner nearly crashed in November, airline admits

FRANKFURT: An Airbus A321 plane operated by Lufthansa nearly crashed four months ago after some of its outside sensors iced over, German news magazine Der Spiegel reported Friday.

Lufthansa confirmed Friday to dpa that there had been an incident which was not made public at the time of the November 5 flight from Bilbao, Spain to Munich, Germany.

Spiegel said the automatic flight management system of the airliner had switched the craft from ascent to a steep descent after receiving false data from external sensors.

The pilot took control and ended the dive before the plane could approach the earth's surface.

Lufthansa confirmed Friday to dpa that there had been an incident, saying the Airbus crew "responded appropriately".

The plane landed in Munich with all 109 passengers unharmed, an airline spokesman said.

Lufthansa immediately replaced the sensors on all 80 aircraft it operates from the narrow-body A320 family, the airline said.

Germany's Aviation Accidents Investigation Agency told dpa if would be publishing a report on the incident on Tuesday next week

[The Eagle]

The two data sources for the graphs conflict, and both still show a reasonably steady descent that is slower than one might expect if the aircraft disintegrated. So the plane was probably flying, rather than falling. You don't need a total avionics failure to explain that.

Not necessarily total avionics failure, but rather total electronics failure.

What else could explain it then? I'm not set on my explanation, if you have something more convincing, I'm all ears.

According to you, total avionics failure can only be due to an EMP-like event

What else could cause a total electronics failure, given the 7-fold redundancy and the fact that the A320 is mature plane that has been built since 1988?

absence of any corroborating evidence of an EMP event (which would surely be apparent by now).

How would an EMP event be apparent by now?

[The Eagle]

A few seconds googling...

March 21, 2015: Lufthansa airliner nearly crashed in November, airline admits

Lufthansa immediately replaced the sensors on all 80 aircraft it operates from the narrow-body A320 family, the airline said.

Interesting, but given that German Wings is a wholly owned Lufthansa subsidiary I would expect that they changed the sensors on all German Wings A320's too.

[OnionTerror]

Interesting, but given that German Wings is a wholly owned Lufthansa subsidiary I would expect that they changed the sensors on all German Wings A320's too.

If it were deemed worrysome, Airbus would have put out an alert to all airlines using these aircraft..

[The Masked Tulip]

Interesting, but given that German Wings is a wholly owned Lufthansa subsidiary I would expect that they changed the sensors on all German Wings A320's too.

According to wikipedia Lufthansa has 55 A320s but if you add on all the ones in its various subsidaries there are far more than 80.

[The Masked Tulip]

This is interesting.

Sensor icing caught out A320 crew in Perpignan crash

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/sensor-icing-caught-out-a320-crew-in-perpignan-crash-347457/

[OnionTerror]

This is interesting.

Sensor icing caught out A320 crew in Perpignan crash

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/sensor-icing-caught-out-a320-crew-in-perpignan-crash-347457/

Do they mean Pitot tubes?

[Nuggets Mahoney]

If it were deemed worrysome, Airbus would have put out an alert to all airlines using these aircraft..

Interesting, but given that German Wings is a wholly owned Lufthansa subsidiary I would expect that they changed the sensors on all German Wings A320's too.

Not that that would be any guarantee that the replacements are not prone to fouling up. Presumably, the previous units weren't expected to screw up either.

edit: and another, an A330 this time...

2012: Details of A330 angle-of-attack sensor incident emerge

Since the European Aviation Safety Agency issued an emergency airworthiness directive requiring airlines prepare their Airbus A330 and A340 pilots to cope with the effects of stuck angle of attack vanes, more detail has emerged about the nature of the event that sparked the new measures.

As the A330 was climbing through FL113 (11,300ft) at about 250kt indicated airspeed, with the outside air temperature at minus 12C, the angle of attack vanes became stuck at an indication of 5°.

Airbus says it is keeping its mind open as to whether this was icing-related or some other fault, but icing appears likely because the unit, manufactured by Goodrich, became unstuck during the descent.

The pilots had no direct indication of the stuck vanes and continued to climb toward cruise altitude. But at FL310, as the Mach number increased, the effect of the stuck vanes showed itself through the activation of the "alpha prot" stall-protection system, which pitched the nose down.

Effectively, the combination of high Mach number and a falsely-indicated 5° angle of attack misled the A330's flight-control system into concluding the aircraft was approaching a high-altitude stall, so it took automatic action to reduce the angle of attack.

At all times during the flight, says Airbus, the indicated airspeed was reading correctly, but the stall-protection system depends on angle-of-attack readings.

The crew levelled the aircraft and turned off all three air data reference units. This action took the aircraft out of normal flight law into alternate, which de-activated the stall-protection system. Then the pilots reviewed the situation and decided to divert. During descent, Airbus notes, the angle-of-attack vanes became unstuck once more.

When the event occurred Airbus notified its customers, via an all operators telex, as well as EASA, under the mandatory occurrence reporting system. But there has been no call for a formal incident investigation.

[happy_renting]

Not necessarily total avionics failure, but rather total electronics failure.

What else could explain it then? I'm not set on my explanation, if you have something more convincing, I'm all ears.

What else could cause a total electronics failure, given the 7-fold redundancy and the fact that the A320 is mature plane that has been built since 1988?

How would an EMP event be apparent by now?

Explain what? A total avionics/electronics failure? I am not claiming there was one, you are, and you are stating that only EMP (or similar) could have been the cause of that. As I say, there is no evidence of a total avionics (or worse, electronics) failure. The only evidence you cite is the (apparently controlled) rate of descent, which on the contrary is more likely evidence that the avionics and electronics were at least partially working.

EMP-like events are either due to detonation of a nuclear or EMP weapon (why?? who by?? what for???) or solar in origin - a localised mass coronal discharge that somehow does not manifest itself in any other system in the locality (power lines, telephones, etc.) At that latitude? I have never heard of such a localised event occuring.

The steady, probably controlled descent is evidence that the plane was flying, not falling. So I do not have to explain why there was a total electronics failure - there is no evidence there was one.

Invoking EMP as an explanation is just plain silly.

[The Eagle]

Explain what? A total avionics/electronics failure?

No, explain the crash, given the way it happened.

Like I said, I'm open to other explanations if they sound more plausible.

Invoking EMP as an explanation is just plain silly.

In the absence of more plausible explanations it's anything but silly.

[XswampyX]

What about this? http://consumerist.com/2008/06/13/pentagon-looking-to-invent-kill-switch-for-airplanes/

It might explain all the 'weird' plane crashes / missing planes of late?

The primary focus of the “divert an aircraft” task is to control the airspace and enforce no-fly or restricted flight zones. Effects should be focused on the aircraft, not the pilot or other personnel on board. The capability should enable the enforcement of flight restriction zones (e.g., metropolitan Washington, D.C.), protection of critical infrastructure and other high value assets from a possible aerial threat.

Even if such a device could be properly engineered and implemented, would you be at ease with flying on an airplane that had a government-controlled kill switch which could suddenly take control the aircraft at a moment’s notice? Instead of preventing harm, it seems to us, that such a device would only create another avenue for terrorists who could exploit such a device to their advantage. Furthermore, it seems reasonable to believe, like any piece of technology, that this device could malfunction and potentially activate itself.

[The Eagle]

Not that that would be any guarantee that the replacements are not prone to fouling up. Presumably, the previous units weren't expected to screw up either.

edit: and another, an A330 this time...

2012: Details of A330 angle-of-attack sensor incident emerge

Yes but in both cases you quoted, the pilots were able to override the computer and take control manually, so why wouldn't they have done so this time given that they had 8 long minutes to detect the problem and react?

[The Eagle]

What about this? http://consumerist.com/2008/06/13/pentagon-looking-to-invent-kill-switch-for-airplanes/

It might explain all the 'weird' plane crashes / missing planes of late?

A directed EMP weapon would be an effective kill switch...

[Goat]

How many Angle of Attack/ Stall Sensors?

If those screw up and report the plane is close to stalling would the plane's systems put it into a dive and prevent the pilot lifting the nose?

It would but...........

In a situation like that the pilots are clearly going to be aware that the plane is in a 4,000 ft/min dive, there's no way they're not going to intervene and sit idly by until they crash into a mountain.

The only situation I can envisage is some kind of pilot incapacitation.

Edit: the pilots can always override the autopilot.

[Nuggets Mahoney]

Yes but in both cases you quoted, the pilots were able to override the computer and take control manually, so why wouldn't they have done so this time given that they had 8 long minutes to detect the problem and react?

Because something prevented them from doing so (i.e. overriding the override) in this instance. There's no reason why this tragedy isn't the product of two or more rare-foul ups coinciding. That's how accidents often work isn't it?

What I'm curious to know is what's the reason for sticking angle of attack sensors on the outside of a plane where they, clearly, are prone to icing. Why not stick a secondary, back-up unit inside somewhere?

[OnionTerror]

Because something prevented them from doing so (i.e. verriding the override) in this instance. There's no reason why this tragedy isn't the product of two or more rare-foul ups coinciding. That's how accidents often work isn't it?

What I'm curious to know is what's the reason for sticking angle of attack sensors on the outside of a plane where they, clearly, are prone to icing. Why not stick a secondary, back-up unit inside somewhere?

They measure outside air speed...which wouldn't really work inside...AFAIK, they had a heating element inside, to prevent icing...

[The Masked Tulip]

It would but...........

In a situation like that the pilots are clearly going to be aware that the plane is in a 4,000 ft/min dive, there's no way they're not going to intervene and sit idly by until they crash into a mountain.

The only situation I can envisage is some kind of pilot incapacitation.

Edit: the pilots can always override the autopilot.

I suspect that they were unconcious for whatever reason - slow decompression or some kind of fumes on the flight deck - hence the slowish straight-line descent and nothing after the initial reported "Emergency, emergency!" call.

[happy_renting]

No, explain the crash, given the way it happened.

Like I said, I'm open to other explanations if they sound more plausible.

In the absence of more plausible explanations it's anything but silly.

Structural failure, rapid decompression. there is too little infor mation so far. It could be lots of things; an EMP weapon isn't one of them.

If you think an EMP weapon is the most likely cause, then you are so far beyond reason there is no point in engaging with you.

[SpewLabour]

It would but...........

In a situation like that the pilots are clearly going to be aware that the plane is in a 4,000 ft/min dive, there's no way they're not going to intervene and sit idly by until they crash into a mountain.

The only situation I can envisage is some kind of pilot incapacitation.

Edit: the pilots can always override the autopilot.

I tend to agree.

There is always the old chestnut of pilot suicide to consider, and of course it is quite possible that only one of the pilots was in the cockpit at the time, and the other was locked out. There are endless possibilities for what happened (except a barking mad one about someone letting off an EMP weapon).

[libspero]

Am I the only one now hoping it was an EMP weapon just to confound the cocksure

[happy_renting]

Am I the only one now hoping it was an EMP weapon just to confound the cocksure

Yes.

[ccc]

I was thinking about two errors as well. Whilst highly unlikely - they must happen sometimes ?

Auto pilot puts you heading down due to faulty sensor - no bother just switch to manual - woops that's not working - spend 8 mins panicking whilst you head towards a mountain....

I doubt any pilot would waste time on the radio in that situation - waste of time when your life is flashing in front of you.

Anyway - all conjecture.

[Bloo Loo]

No, explain the crash, given the way it happened.

Like I said, I'm open to other explanations if they sound more plausible.

In the absence of more plausible explanations it's anything but silly.

Bloo Loos guess.

Failed windscreen component, disables pilots, decompresses the cockpit and cabin, pilots unable to get Oxygen due to hurricane on deck, everybody dies, plane continues auto descent on decompression, et voila.