Quote: I am still saying it is option 1 and a faulty oxygen mask / tank scenario where right at the moment of losing consciousness the pilot was turning the ALT knob to 10,000 but went too far and lost consciousness OR adjusted the vertical rate AP setting with no floor so it just kept descending.

Part of the pre flight check is to do functional test of Oxy Masks and check ECAM Oxy contents are >1000PSI. The crew would press the "Crew Oxy" push button as part of pre flight check on the overhead panel. This opens a supply valve from the Oxy bottle and supplies pressure upto masks.

For both F/O and CAPT masks to fail is highly unlikely, but possible.

Quoting litz (Reply 38): 9/11 (likely pulverized in the building collapses)

They did find an almost intact arab passport though...

Here is a (coincidentally also Germanwings) incident that came to mind when I heard about this crash:

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=434e753b/0019&opt=0

I'm not saying this is what happened, but unless this aircraft was brought down by deliberate action, it is something that could make the flight crew lose control of the aircraft.

Was wondering if there was selected altitude and what was the value. I do not know the capabilities of the french ATC system in AIX, but that flight was well in the coverage of Geneva ATC sectors and we have a lot of data from mode S. Guess if they run the radar data recordings they can check if there was a selected level or the descent was initiated while the selected level was stil FL380. Might help the investigation

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 4): A stupid statement for him to make, and a stupid intepretation by the news media. What he is really saying is that there is no evidence of a gigantic explosion that caused the aircraft to disintegrate in the air. He was observing that the aircraft appeared to hit the ground basically-intact.

I appears to me that he is saying that the CVR recording is complete up until the moment of the crash - and there are no explosive sounds, nor are there any sounds of alarms from decompression of the aircraft on the recording.

Maybe I'm reading too much into his statement, but that's what is sounds like to me.

Quoting litz (Reply 40): I think you've partially answered your own question ... with an impact speed of 450mph, the aircraft is sufficiently atomized that there isn't much to burn ...

Aircraft don't 'atomize' when they crash. They fracture like an egg thrown against a wall with great force. The French authorities have stated that nothing larger than a small car remains. That would be the engines, and some far exterior parts of the wings and tail structure. Maybe something really heavy like the APU and wheel assemblies. The entire rest of the aircraft and everything inside the fuselage is likely in pieces no larger than a few inches square. And a substantial amount of the wreckage will be buried in the dirt on the mountainside - not lying on top of the ground.

Quoting litz (Reply 40): The fireball would consume itself and snuff out in fairly short order.

Correct - there would not be enough mass of flammable material to sustain a fire for very long. Almost certainly there was some fire - the aerial photos I see make me thing that there was a quick flash fire on the outsides of the main impact point. To my knowledge the A320 does not carry a significant amount of fuel within the fuselage.

Quoting holzmann (Reply 27): So let's focus on depressurization. Let's say we have two options: 1) An abrupt depressurization. We know that the windscreen cannot just break, fly in the pilots' faces and render them blind from shards of broken glass.

As posted by A342 in part 4, post 128, the internal cabin pressure is greater than the external pressure of the oncoming airstream (see my emphasis):

Quote: In no way I want to fuel speculation or anything, but this issue got me interested. Let's try to approximate if the windshield would have blown outwards or inwards using this tool: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/scripts/atmosphere/ Internal cabin pressure (equivalent to 8000 feet): approx. 752 hPa Total pressure (static pressure + compressible dynamic pressure) at FL380, Mach 0.78, ISA conditions: approx. 309 hPa (For you guys arguing oxygen starvation, static pressure at FL380 is approx. 207 hPa compared to 1013.5 hPa at sea level.) Thus if it had fragmented, I reckon it would have blown outwards. However, if fragments could find their way back through the hole I don't know.

Also, for those speculating that a broken windshield would result in a 400kt headwind hitting the pilots, this is not true for two reasons.

First, because of lower air pressure at altitude, you would "feel" much less force from the wind. This is captured by the difference between indicated airspeed and true airspeed. At FL380 and Mach 0.78, TAS is roughly 450 knots in standard conditions, but IAS (what the plane feels) is about 250 knots.

Second, you would not be exposed to the full of 250 knot IAS headwind because once pressure equalizes, the wind has nowhere to go - it can't flow through the plane unless structural failure further aft creates an outlet (imagine a cup-shaped vessel with the open end facing into the wind). It would create horrific, extremely dangerous, and potentially deadly "turbulence" in the cockpit in the sense of eddying winds coming through the broken windscreen. This could well incapacitate the pilots but would not be equivalent to the free-stream airflow.

That said, the broken windscreen scenario doesn't make much sense to me. A ~3,000 fpm descent is too leisurely for a pressurization problem, and it's very unlikely that the flight crew would be able to initiate a descent but not set a reasonable target altitude. Personally I think a more plausible scenario is an in-flight fire that affected communications and ultimately flight control, but this still cannot account for the slow descent rate.

-B2707SST

Quoting holzmann (Reply 27): Option two may be the more worrisome scenario based on the quote above. A slow, steady killer of O2 starvation and deprivation where the body goes from normal to giddy to feeling high to unconsciousness and death in a relatively short period of time but yet not as abruptly as the scenario in Option 1.

The crew would see the cabin altitude climbing and if it continued to climb they would get an ECAM message saying Cabin Pressure Excess Altitude. FL is measured in 100s of feet so FL380 is 38,000 ft

Quoting susej772 (Reply 35): OR adjusted the vertical rate AP setting with no floor so it just kept descending.

I'm concerned with a possibility of ALT HOLD not engaging with V/S selected to continue the descent.

When fuel vaporizes it becomes more flammable not less. Atomization allows more fuel air mixture not less. I don't believe it's possible for several thousands of pounds of fuel just to have flashed and left no burns or smoke... Kerosene leaves a very black smoke plume even if it burns very fast. And sadly, in a post-9/11 world we've all seen the fireball when tons of jet fuel hit a solid unmovable object. That's what vaporized jet fuel looks like when it "flashes."

Every time I've seen a crash scene (military vet) the fire signs are very noticeable, unless the plane runs out of fuel, then there is almost no evidence of fire at all. Take value jet 592, it scorched a swamp.

Quoting JmeDubya (Reply 57): I don't believe it's possible for several thousands of pounds of fuel just to have flashed and left no burns or smoke..

What are you saying? Most of us are trying to understand the evidence before us. You seem to be saying that what we have seen in pictures and have been told is wrong.

So it seems that decompression can be ruled out according to the statement released today. This makes it almost more mysterious.

Quoting JmeDubya (Reply 57): When fuel vaporizes it becomes more flammable not less. Atomization allows more fuel air mixture not less. I don't believe it's possible for several thousands of pounds of fuel just to have flashed and left no burns or smoke... Kerosene leaves a very black smoke plume even if it burns very fast. And sadly, in a post-9/11 world we've all seen the fireball when tons of jet fuel hit a solid unmovable object. That's what vaporized jet fuel looks like when it "flashes."Every time I've seen a crash scene (military vet) the fire signs are very noticeable, unless the plane runs out of fuel, then there is almost no evidence of fire at all. Take value jet 592, it scorched a swamp.

Except that there was nothing here to scorch. Rock doesn't burn. And much of the rock at this site is of dark color to begin with, so you wouldn't be able to see proper burn traces even if they were there. Plus a lot of this site is loose gravel. The impact may very likely have caused some of the earth to shift in a small landslide that buried both some pieces of the plane and any burn evidence.

Quoting tailskid (Reply 58): So it seems that decompression can be ruled out according to the statement released today. This makes it almost more mysterious.

I think they only ruled out "classic" decompression scenarios (whatever "classic" means in this context). I suppose "non-classic" decompressions were not excluded.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 10): Jouty said it was too early to give details of the cockpit recording. However, he said the information investigators had put together suggested the plane had not exploded and did not suffer a “classic decompression situation”.

IMO, this is not ruling out decompression. There very well may have been something going on. Just not what most view as "Classic (Rapid) Decompression."

[Edited 2015-03-25 15:28:43]

I'm trying to do the same, but my observation and that of some others is there's no evidence in the pictures of even a flash fire. Vaporizing fuel does not mean it disappears or loses its flammability. When it's atomized and burns it still produces all the same effects just in less time. Even in a swamp it leaves a very large soot stain. The CVR, the large pieces of wreckage and even the flew pieces of paper and cloth in pictures show any of this. Why do I bring this up?

I'm curious about fuel starvation. Long decent, no obvious fire, could we be seeing another Airtrans236 without the happy ending? I'm not suggesting the crew did anything wrong but in that case an unsecured pipe caused a total loss of fuel at cruise altitude.

A320 experts, it doesn't explain lack of coms, but would a zero thrust decent be able to maintain this flight speed with this sink rate?

Flyingturtle, in response to a question from the previous thread:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 1): So the stuff that comes with your Sukhoi Superjet ist not yet mandatory (or standard equipment) on a A320? Does it depend on the operator to choose TAWS over more basic terrain warnings like GPWS?

What do you mean by the SSJ 100 equipment? TAWS is legally mandated equipment in airliners and has been for almost 20 years.

Quoting exfss (Reply 3): and if so, is the A/P wil react in any way if the requested altitude is below MSA?

Yes, the AP doesn't know the MSA.

Quoting captainsimon (Reply 37): With a plane that must have contained approx 1.5 hrs - 2hrs of fuel why does there appear to be no fire at the crash site or any sign of burning.

Nothing big enough to burn for a long time was left.

Quoting sirto (Reply 48): Maybe they were even ashamed to report that to ATC what happened and poorly managed the descent ending up poisoned by the fumes...

That is completely ridiculous.

Quoting sirto (Reply 48): but I am strongly convinced that the reason is linked to the reaching for the TOC.

Based on what?

Quoting z3jj (Reply 53): I do not know the capabilities of the french ATC system in AIX, but that flight was well in the coverage of Geneva ATC sectors and we have a lot of data from mode S. Guess if they run the radar data recordings they can check if there was a selected level or the descent was initiated while the selected level was stil FL380.

No, the controllers have no way of knowing what was selected in the FCU...

Quoting JmeDubya (Reply 57): I don't believe it's possible for several thousands of pounds of fuel just to have flashed and left no burns or smoke...

Make it happen with an strong upwind lift while all remaining part go sliding down,
and I believe not much would burn around.

Interesting Boeing Training video covering pilot windows opening on takeoff and in flight and operating in such circumstances (3.10): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQZzTPd1HJw

[Edited 2015-03-25 15:35:06]

Quoting JmeDubya (Reply 57): Take value jet 592, it scorched a swamp.

One critical difference is that we know that Valujet was on fire long before it hit the ground.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 10): Jouty is head of the BEA and he seems to rule out a rapid decompression.

The Guardian says so, but that isn't really substantiated by what Jouty actually said. From his comments, I don't see that he ruled out decompression at all.

Quoting sirto (Reply 48): What happens at TOC?

Nothing in particular. It's not a remarkable phase of flight. Procedure-wise, it's not any different to 5 minutes before or after TOC. From what we know so far, with have no reason to assume that whatever happened to the flight had anything to do with the fact that the aircraft had just reached TOC.

Quoting JmeDubya (Reply 57): I don't believe it's possible for several thousands of pounds of fuel just to have flashed and left no burns or smoke...

In the earliest aerial videos from the helicopters, there was a fair bit of smoke still rising from the crash site. Also, the images we've seen are absolutely in line with other images from similar crashes in mountainous terrain.

What you're hinting at is fuel deprivation. While fuel deprivation (by refueling error or tank leak) cannot be ruled out, it seems extremely unlikely at this point. It wouldn't explain the straight flight into terrain or the absence of voice communication. These two factors alone are so unusual that the full explanation of what happened to flight will have to accomodate them.

Quoting JmeDubya (Reply 63): Even in a swamp it leaves a very large soot stain.

And even a swamp consists mostly of flammable plant material, very much unlike a pile of black gravel on a mountainside.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 64): No, the controllers have no way of knowing what was selected in the FCU...

Actually we have. I get selected level, speed/mach number, track flown, wind data, etc... Even we get an alarm if there is disagreement between selected level in the ac and cleared level in our system.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 64): What do you mean by the SSJ 100 equipment? TAWS is legally mandated equipment in airliners and has been for almost 20 years.

I refer to a reply in thread #5, where somebody replied that the 320 was equipped with GPWS. I take GPWS as ground-proximity warning, anything that engages as soon as the plane approaches the ground, measured by radar altitude for example. EGPWS (Enhanced GPWS) takes into account the proximity to an airport, as traditional GPWS would be defeated as soon as you approach a mountain in landing configuration.

When somebody answers that 320s have GPWS, then I assume that they don't have TAWS.     


David

Quoting AirCalSNA (Reply 8): Can't they even build a Black Box that will do what it is supposed to do (i.e., survive a crash and provide information)?

The CVR certainly did.

Quoting AirCalSNA (Reply 36): yet all of the news reports suggest that the data is probably, at best partial.

I think that's being misreported.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32056861

Quote: French investigators say usable data has been extracted from the cockpit voice recorder of Germanwings 4U 9525 but it has so far yielded no clues as to the cause of the plane's crash.

Quoting DDR (Reply 59): So it seems that decompression can be ruled out according to the statement released today. This makes it almost more mysterious.

I'm left with fire. But what an odd fire to go from zero to enough smoke/fumes to incapacitate the crew in one minute and yet not consume the entire aircraft before it crashed.

Other thoughts?

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 55): Personally I think a more plausible scenario is an in-flight fire that affected communications and ultimately flight control, but this still cannot account for the slow descent rate.

It could if it was not considered an emergency but had some direct affect on the auto-pilot that the pilots weren't aware of. That goes back then to my earlier suggestion of a distracted crew troubleshooting a problem until the AP flies them directly into the ground.

Or it could have been a misuse of the auto-pilot. There was an A320 accident some years ago in which the pilots input a 3,300 fpm descent rate instead of 3.3 degrees, but this kind of thing was supposed to have been fixed. Also, that seems unlikely given the weather; the crew would still need to be distracted by something else. But there could be a combination of factors at play here, as there usually is in most accidents.

One thing I want to bring up:

Quoting AirCalSNA (Reply 8): I know it's very early in the investigation but I am alarmed at another seemingly inexplicable crash where there is little or no data and no communication with the ground (or anyone) that is apparently of any use.

I increasingly see this kind of thing in every accident thread. If the accident isn't conclusively solved within 24 hours, there is a contingent here that goes nuts. Calm down, guys - the data is all up there on the mountain and will be analyzed in due time. The investigators' priority is to do it right, not to do it fast.

Quoting btblue (Reply 66): Interesting Boeing Training video covering pilot windows opening on takeoff and in flight and operating in such circumstances (3.10)

Windows can't open at altitude, even if it's not locked completely closed at takeoff, if it makes it to the point the airplane pressurizes it will close. The handle will break off before it opens if you try when you are pressurized.

Quoting JmeDubya (Reply 63): A320 experts, it doesn't explain lack of coms, but would a zero thrust decent be able to maintain this flight speed with this sink rate?

An open decent thrust goes to idle and the airspeed is controlled via pitch. In an emergency decent you spin the altitude down, pull the knob, then dial the airspeed up. It will start to pitch down and maintain the airspeed selected.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 73): I'm left with fire. But what an odd fire to go from zero to enough smoke/fumes to incapacitate the crew in one minute and yet not consume the entire aircraft before it crashed. Other thoughts?

As I implied above it could be a fumes/TCP incident without a fire.

Tb727 thank you. If you would entertain a fuel starvation issue... If you lost both engines and RAT deployed would you have time to communicate with all the restrictions and limited systems that would cause? I'm sure the RAT gives you ability to communicate, correct?

Does anyone know how many systems remain if you lose power due to fuel starvation? How would FBW laws be affected in this situation? In a no power decent, is there a target speed, AoA, and rate of decent?

Guys I'm not discounting anyone's theories, just pointing out a fact that even flash fires and explosions leave signs. Physically they are just fast burns, not all of the fuel would burn in the blink of an eye.

[Edited 2015-03-25 16:18:18]

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 74): I increasingly see this kind of thing in every accident thread. If the accident isn't conclusively solved within 24 hours, there is a contingent here that goes nuts. Calm down, guys - the data is all up there on the mountain and will be analyzed in due time. The investigators' priority is to do it right, not to do it fast.

I think it may be due to the cumulative effect of several years worth of "mysterious" crashes that began with AF447 and also the voracious, inescapable 24/7 news cycle. Nevertheless, it is hard to understand why there seems to be so much shoulder-shrugging among aviation officials these days. To place it in context, a friend of mine was flying from So Cal to Nor Cal last week and her plane lost an engine and had to divert. I was tracking the flight in real time while I ate breakfast at home and I was able to listen to the ATC communications throughout the episode so I could relay what was happening to other friends while they were driving to the airport to pick her up. I realize that is very different from an official investigation of a deadly crash, but it is still troubling that a plane descends from FL38 to smash into the side of a mountain over Western Europe and the official response comes across as befuddlement or stonewalling. I'm sure there is much going on behind the scenes that we are not privy to, but I also think the powers that be need to reconsider how they communicate with the public in the digital age.

Thoughts and prayers to the souls onboard and their families and friends. Shocked.

Quoting AirCalSNA (Reply 78): and the official response comes across as befuddlement or stonewalling.

I am not sure that this is a fair comment, even the national leaders and airline execs can only communicate information that is available, no matter how serious the event.

Even now it was only 36 hours ago, and so little information is available.

Quoting AirCalSNA (Reply 78): I think it may be due to the cumulative effect of several years worth of "mysterious" crashes that began with AF447 and also the voracious, inescapable 24/7 news cycle. Nevertheless, it is hard to understand why there seems to be so much shoulder-shrugging among aviation officials these days. To place it in context, a friend of mine was flying from So Cal to Nor Cal last week and her plane lost an engine and had to divert. I was tracking the flight in real time while I ate breakfast at home and I was able to listen to the ATC communications throughout the episode so I could relay what was happening to other friends while they were driving to the airport to pick her up. I realize that is very different from an official investigation of a deadly crash, but it is still troubling that a plane descends from FL38 to smash into the side of a mountain over Western Europe and the official response comes across as befuddlement or stonewalling. I'm sure there is much going on behind the scenes that we are not privy to, but I also think the powers that be need to reconsider how they communicate with the public in the digital age.

Its been a day and everyone is dead who can tell us what happened. They also probably know things that we do not at this point.

Quoting DDR (Reply 59): So it seems that decompression can be ruled out according to the statement released today. This makes it almost more mysterious.

I also read that decompression now seems unlikely, at least 'explosive' decompression, and that's the only type of decompression that could have occurred between the final (apparently normal) ATC transmission by the crew and things going awry.

I personally believe that the crew were incapacitated fairly quickly by 'something' and were not in a position to transmit anything on radio during the 8 minute (approx) descent.

Regardless of the protocol of 'flying the plane' taking precedence over radio calls, I simply refuse to accept that, over an eight minute period, the crew did not have time to say a short phrase on the radio. German precision alone would ensure that even in a critical situation, at least a short transmission would have been made at some point over the eight minutes. Listen to the SWR111 ATC recording and you will hear a number of (very professional) transmissions made even when things were becoming quite critical. I think that their excellent emergency progress communication with ATC only stopped when cables were burned through and systems were quickly failing. Even with smoke hoods on and the instruments virtually unreadable, they were still trying their best to continue a dialogue with ATC.

This then leads to some other form of incapacitation in the case of GWI 9525. We are therefore in the realms of speculation to suggest; fire/fumes/other poisonous gas/malicious incident on board, etc etc.

Within an hour of hearing about the crash and seeing the last eight minutes of ADSB data (which I saw within an hour of the crash), I immediately thought that the crew had found themselves dealing quite suddenly with an emergency, had set an emergency descent on the MCP but had entered a wrong level off altitude, then got so engrossed with addressing the emergency situation that they failed to check the descent progress in low visibility or cloud until it was too late. It wouldn't be the first time that type of scenario has occurred. I then discovered that there wasn't much cloud around at the time. When I heard that there were no radio transmissions, this scenario quickly fell apart for me.

The authorities have been very quiet about the fighter jet(s) which was/were scrambled to intercept GWI 9525 after communication stopped. It appears that at least one fighter did catch up with the doomed plane but we have not heard what was observed by the intercepting jet's crew. I don't want to start any needless speculation but the possibility crossed my mind that GWI9525 could even have been 'taken out' at low altitude by a military jet to ensure that it wasn't a terrorist on board attempting to crash into a town or building, albeit there aren't many such places in the crash area. That would explain there being no evidence of a fuel fire on the ground, ie. fuel burned up in the air. Anyway, don't get carried away with those thoughts, they have no source other than in my mind and the debris field is quite concentrated.

Until we get a few more pieces in the jigsaw, we can only speculate. I just hope we get something quicker than in the case of MH370 or Air Asia 8501.

For those who have said that recent airline accidents have dented their confidence in flying, consider the very true statement made today by the CEO of Lufthansa. Lufthansa or its subsidiaries have NEVER lost a plane during cruise until yesterday. Think about it, this is a truly amazing feat. The hours of cruise flying over the history of the airline are uncountable!

Any scenario involving the front landing gear door failure mid-flight?
We know the front landing gear door had a problem that was supposedly fixed the day before.
The UA 747 accident comes to mind. The cargo door opened mid-flight and it was devastating even for such a large plane.
The a320 is much a smaller aircraft. It could have suffered a similar failure and still remain in one piece till it hit the ground.

The gear bay isn't pressurized? So what scenario are you getting at?

Quoting VCEflyboy (Reply 83): The UA 747 accident comes to mind. The cargo door opened mid-flight and it was devastating even for such a large plane.

It also completely disabled the cockpit oxygen supply.

Re the fire on value jet, very fair point gentlemen.

Quoting awthompson (Reply 82): For those who have said that recent airline accidents have dented their confidence in flying, consider the very true statement made today by the CEO of Lufthansa. Lufthansa or its subsidiaries have NEVER lost a plane during cruise until yesterday. Think about it, this is a truly amazing feat. The hours of cruise flying over the history of the airline are uncountable!

I agree with your general point that flying is extremely safe and the recent spate of accidents doesn't change that, and on top of that LH is an extremely safe airline. That said, the CEO's statement is a bit weasely. Most accidents don't occur during cruise anyway. And LH did have a few hull losses with fatalities during takeoff and landing (Nairobi 1974, Warsaw 1993 - not counting subsidiaries, Cargo or earlier chrashes in the 50s and 60s).

Germanwings Pilot Was Locked Out of Cockpit Before Crash in France


From the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/wo...ings-airbus-crash.html?smid=tw-bna

Quoting yaps30 (Reply 87): Germanwings Pilot Was Locked Out of Cockpit Before Crash in France From the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/wo...ings-airbus-crash.html?smid=tw-bna

You cannot rule out pilot suicide if that is true  

Quoting yaps30 (Reply 87): Germanwings Pilot Was Locked Out of Cockpit Before Crash in France From the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/wo...w-bna

Wow. So it could be assumed that the pilot who was remaining in the cockpit became unconscious - but then, why would the computers fly the aircraft into the ground?

I dare say it, but... Suicide?

Quoting yaps30 (Reply 87):

If true, and I have no reason to believe it's not, this drastically changes the scope of this investigation. Absolutely tragic.

Cheers,
Cameron

Quoting kaneporta1 (Reply 52): Here is a (coincidentally also Germanwings) incident that came to mind when I heard about this crash: http://www.avherald.com/h?article=434e753b/0019&opt=0 I'm not saying this is what happened, but unless this aircraft was brought down by deliberate action, it is something that could make the flight crew lose control of the aircraft.

That is crazy. Especially the very bottom of it where it states this happened three times in a 10 day period:

Quote: In a similiar event involving the very same Germanwings A319 the Irish AAIU concluded "The probable cause of the adverse symptoms reported by the aircraft crew and some passengers could not be determined", see Accident: Germanwings A319 at Dublin on May 27th 2008, pressurization problems. Two more aircraft had similiar issues within 8 days prior to this accident, see Incident: Germanwings A319 at Cologne on Dec 11th 2010, smoke in cockpit and Incident: Germanwings A319 near Cologne on Dec 16th 2010, smell of smoke.

And now we have this...

Quoting yaps30 (Reply 87): Germanwings Pilot Was Locked Out of Cockpit Before Crash in France

That is crazy as well.

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 88): I dare say it, but... Suicide?

That's the first thing that comes to my mind too.

If the pilot remaining in the cockpit had been suddenly incapacitated (a stroke, say), the plane would have continued flying to the next programmed way point, right? Instead, it began to descend. Somebody must have commanded that descent.

Does this mean why BEA CEO was reluctant to say what was found on CVR until maybe they are sure?

Quoting UALWN (Reply 92): If the pilot remaining in the cockpit had been suddenly incapacitated (a stroke, say), the plane would have continued flying to the next programmed way point, right? Instead, it began to descend. Somebody must have commanded that descent.

I would have to agree this new information makes a controlled descent seam much more plausible. The FDR would instantly confirm that if it is the case.

Quoting AirCalSNA (Reply 78): I think it may be due to the cumulative effect of several years worth of "mysterious" crashes that began with AF447 and also the voracious, inescapable 24/7 news cycle.

Perhaps, but I think part of the problem is that people seem to live in a bubble where they believe that information about *everything* must be readily available within seconds or minutes. To the general public, a black box recording might as well be a CD, ready to be popped in a machine, or an MP3 where one can just press "play" and voila! The entire sequence of events is displayed with absolute clarity.

We all know (even the majority of us not involved with air crash investigations) that this isn't the case. The CVR may provide clues as to what may have caused a series of events to occur, but the FDR is also invaluable in showing *exactly* what the aircraft did (voice/environment recordings notwithstanding). The process for both to occur can be time-consuming. One can't just listen to the data, or read the data, and immediately draw a conclusion. Especially if an official report (along with recommendations) must be delivered. The public doesn't want a half-baked analysis of the incident.

Quoting AirCalSNA (Reply 78): I'm sure there is much going on behind the scenes that we are not privy to, but I also think the powers that be need to reconsider how they communicate with the public in the digital age.

To agree with part of your point, however, the general public (those not familiar with aviation) have had the media shove "flying is the safest way to travel" down their throats for decades, and with advancements in technology, it's easy to see why people become alarmed when a modern aircraft crashes with no obvious reason (i.e witnesses seeing a flock of geese hitting an engine). Statistically, I agree that flying *is* still the safest way to travel; however, it's important that the public realize that even with all the advancements we've made in recent years, air travel is not invincible. An ounce of realism may be the solution.

How can the pilot be locked out of the cockpit unintentionally? I thought there was a keypad or something that enabled those that knew the passwords to the cockpit to get in there. Especially with 8 minutes to do so? I guess I never realized they were THAT lock-able.

Quoting z3jj (Reply 70): Actually we have. I get selected level, speed/mach number, track flown, wind data, etc... Even we get an alarm if there is disagreement between selected level in the ac and cleared level in our system.

I don't know what aircraft you are referring to, but on the A320, the ATC controller has NO way of knowing what altitude is selected on the FCU. NO way.

He knows to what altitude the aircraft is cleared. He knows what altitude is read back by the pilots. He also knows the current information about the aircraft ... current altitude, speed, track ... but in no way does the controller know the actual altitude the pilots have selected in the FCU for the autopilot to capture.

Quoting yaps30 (Reply 87): Germanwings Pilot Was Locked Out of Cockpit Before Crash in France From the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/wo...ings-airbus-crash.html?smid=tw-bna

I really hope this is not sensationalist media. How did they get this information and no one else yet. Makes me wonder if something foul was going on here.

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 88): You cannot rule out pilot suicide if that is true

Occam's razor strikes again. It is still possible the pilot remaining in the cockpit had the door locked per procedure, then had a fatal cardiac event or some other form of incapacitation before the Captain returned. But even that is statistically less likely than a human motivation.

All of the other speculations of maintenance faults and software glitches and micro-meteorites and metal fatigue induced windscreen failure all require detailed analysis of several points of hypothesis to prove them true. The human motivation factor requires only one.