Germanwings plane crash tinfoil hat society meeting

GameboyRMH wrote: On the topic of safety stats, the airlines like to mislead using statistics to calm people's fears. They measure safety per passenger or safety per mile, which look great because there are a huge number of passengers and miles involved...but if you look at safety per trip, flying on a commercial airliner is only slightly safer than hopping on the back of a random motorcycle. That doesn't sound so great now, does it?

Uhhh...

Adrian_Thompson wrote: The safety record for the A320 is approx. 0.14 deaths per million take offs. Multiply that up and it's one death per every 7,142,857 take offs. Seems safe to me. Compare that to climbing out the shower or putting up shelves.

Explain to me how that is misleading? For every 7.1 million flights, there is 1 death.

In reply to dyintorace: Wait, so if I interpret your post correctly a gummed up sensor caused a plane to crash? Good thing VW doesn't make planes

But that doesn't explain a lack of broadcasts from the cockpit of two pilots screaming their heads off about a plane that refused to respond to their commands.

dyintorace wrote: A friend who was a long-term Navy fighter pilot and then a long term commercial airline pilot sent this earlier today: I was told this plane just came out of phase ck maintenance and was washed before the flight. Possible suspect is static port system water freeze problem simalar to Air France 330 off Brazil.(-of course leading to erroneous airspeed/ altitude sensing.) Result: Computer takes away from pilot. In case of BOTH overspeed and alpha floor(stall)signals ;computer software causes the pilot to be locked out of any control inputs from the cockpit until these sensings are no longer interpreted by the ADC computers.

^That supposes that there is a bug in the system which could cause the control lockout...Airbus is in deep E36 M3 if that happened. Also you'd think they might send a message about not being able to control the plane.

In the case of the Air France accident it wasn't the pitot/static freeze-up that caused the accident, it's what the pilots did with the bad readings it caused - at least one of them was really dumb and they were fighting each other's control inputs. They basically stalled the plane into the sea from full cruising altitude because the airspeed indicator didn't say they were going too slow.

dyintorace wrote: A friend who was a long-term Navy fighter pilot and then a long term commercial airline pilot sent this earlier today: I was told this plane just came out of phase ck maintenance and was washed before the flight. Possible suspect is static port system water freeze problem simalar to Air France 330 off Brazil.(-of course leading to erroneous airspeed/ altitude sensing.) Result: Computer takes away from pilot. In case of BOTH overspeed and alpha floor(stall)signals ;computer software causes the pilot to be locked out of any control inputs from the cockpit until these sensings are no longer interpreted by the ADC computers.

Yes, this, this is what I was referring to earlier. Is it true that this can happen?

mtn wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: On the topic of safety stats, the airlines like to mislead using statistics to calm people's fears. They measure safety per passenger or safety per mile, which look great because there are a huge number of passengers and miles involved...but if you look at safety per trip, flying on a commercial airliner is only slightly safer than hopping on the back of a random motorcycle. That doesn't sound so great now, does it?

Uhhh...

Double-checking it I was not quite right. It's slightly safer than hopping on the back of a random bicycle, which is the next most dangerous thing to hopping on the back of a random motorcycle, but by a large margin:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Comparison_to_other_modes_of_travel

All the speculation is just that - speculation. No one knows what happened yet, especially internet keyboard commandos. Wait until they have a chance to do an investigation.

GameboyRMH wrote: On the topic of safety stats, the airlines like to mislead using statistics to calm people's fears. They measure safety per passenger or safety per mile, which look great because there are a huge number of passengers and miles involved...but if you look at safety per trip, flying on a commercial airliner is only slightly safer than hopping on the back of a random motorcycle. That doesn't sound so great now, does it?

Hi Gameboy,

I believe the statistical methodology is sound. Sure, you score a big win when you get hundreds of people to their destination safely but you score and equally bid fail when you crack up the plane.

If there’s any ambiguity, it’s in deciding whether to put hours or miles in the denominator. For instance, general aviation aircraft may only be twice as safe as motorcycles per hour of operation but because they’re going about three times as fast, they’re six times safer per mile. So, if you’re going to spend an hour enjoying your toy (plane or motorcycle) the plane is twice as safe but if you’re using your toy to accomplish an objective (get to a specific, predefined destination), it’s six times as safe.

Now, in defense of your comment above, it could be argued that using miles for commercial aviation safety statistics is somewhat misleading because people travel greater distances as a result of the aircraft being so fast.

In other words, I’m traveling 3,000 miles to my vacation destination rather than 500 miles because general aviation aircraft make the distance practical so I really should calculate safety in terms 3,000 by air vs of 500 miles by car.

Dr. Hess wrote: PHeller, at least you'll have time for a beer, if you have five bucks cash, that is.

Jeez grandpa, when's the last time you took a commercial fight?!?!

They don't accept CASH any more, it's all credit now!

aircooled wrote:

Dr. Hess wrote: PHeller, at least you'll have time for a beer, if you have five bucks cash, that is.

Jeez grandpa, when's the last time you took a commercial fight?!?! They don't accept CASH any more, it's all credit now!

HA!

Came to the 2nd page to post this!

RX Reven' wrote: ...In other words, I’m traveling 3,000 miles to my vacation destination rather than 500 miles because general aviation aircraft make the distance practical so I really should calculate safety in terms 3,000 by air vs of 500 miles by car.

Maybe, but if your vacation is 1,000 miles away, it's still WAY safer to go by plane.

If you are basing your vacation on the safest way to get there, then put up a tent in your back yard (just watch that loose step on the porch).

This site does not do a good job (it doesn't actually state the air safety numbers just that they are almost too small to bother to calculate), but it clearly states air travel is way safer by the mile:

http://traveltips.usatoday.com/air-travel-safer-car-travel-1581.html

aircooled wrote:

RX Reven' wrote: ...In other words, I’m traveling 3,000 miles to my vacation destination rather than 500 miles because general aviation aircraft make the distance practical so I really should calculate safety in terms 3,000 by air vs of 500 miles by car.

Maybe, but if your vacation is 1,000 miles away, it's still WAY safer to go by plane. If you are basing your vacation on the safest way to get there, then put up a tent in your back yard (just watch that loose step on the porch). This site does not do a good job (it doesn't actually state the air safety numbers just that they are almost too small to bother to calculate), but it clearly states air travel is way safer by the mile: http://traveltips.usatoday.com/air-travel-safer-car-travel-1581.html

I imagine that a significant percent of the population is actually safer on a commercial flight than they are at home.

Bad wiring, slippery tub, iffy neighborhood, etc…shoot, just having a defibrillator onboard probably provides more than a total offset of the risks for anyone at even moderate risk of experiencing A-fib.

Besides, if they kill you, I bet they’ll offer 500K+ right out of the gate to make your distort, besides themselves with grief but still capable of pulling it together long enough to cash the check heirs go away.

I'm not sure why or how the plane crashed, but CNN just flat out sucks. Their "news" coverage is horrid.

The news regurgitator-- Erin Burnett-- couldn't just say there were 160 dead.....instead she had to stress that "body parts were scattered all around the crash area" Really? Do we need to know / see that?

"The bubbleheaded bleach-blond comes on at 5

she can tell you about the plane crash, with a gleam in her eye

it's interesting when people die.....give us dirty laundry..."

GameboyRMH wrote: They might be talking about a fly-by-wire system, which could have ultimate control over *how* certain control inputs are executed, not *if* they're executed. For example I know on some fighter jets you don't have individual control over the ailerons, elevator and flaps like you would in a simple small plane, but if you tell it to pull up or roll left, the plane's going to do that with some combination of control surfaces (Fun fact: some fighters wouldn't be controllable without the computer controlling this, such as the Eurofighter Typhoon)

I think you might be able to say MOST using a fly-by-wire system. f-16, stealth fighter, stealth bomber, those silly planes that have props at the end of the wings and can rotate them to takeoff and land vertically, etc.

aircooled wrote:

RX Reven' wrote: ...In other words, I’m traveling 3,000 miles to my vacation destination rather than 500 miles because general aviation aircraft make the distance practical so I really should calculate safety in terms 3,000 by air vs of 500 miles by car.

Maybe, but if your vacation is 1,000 miles away, it's still WAY safer to go by plane. If you are basing your vacation on the safest way to get there, then put up a tent in your back yard (just watch that loose step on the porch). This site does not do a good job (it doesn't actually state the air safety numbers just that they are almost too small to bother to calculate), but it clearly states air travel is way safer by the mile: http://traveltips.usatoday.com/air-travel-safer-car-travel-1581.html

This. you have to think it terms of miles (or I can maybe see a justification for hours). If I drive to work, 1 mile, that is 1 trip. If I fly to Antarctica, eleventy-thousand miles, that is 1 trip. What if my flight connects in dallas? is that two trips now? What if I drive to the bus stop and ride the bus to work? Two trips?

1 trip here does not equal 1 trip there, and no one even knows how to define a trip.

That is the definition of deception in statistics.

I bet more people die each year doing the dirty (per hour, of course) than flying on airplanes. Yet, few people are scared of spending their time on the 'dangerous' activity.

There are lies.

Damned lies.

And statistics.

   - Benjamin Disraeli

Joe Gearin wrote: I'm not sure why or how the plane crashed, but CNN just flat out sucks. Their "news" coverage is horrid.....

CNN LIVES for this crap! It's there "thing" now. Have they gone to the simulator yet?

That sort of coverage kind or reminds me of when they show a car chase on the news, and it goes on for a long time. After a while, you can hear the presenters just struggling to say ANYTHING useful. Mostly, they just rehash what they already said and point out the obvious, but when they get really board they start with the wild ass guesses and assumptions.

I love it when they get the experts in that clearly don't know what they are talking about, or have really no information to provide a useful opinion so they just keep asking them the same question in different ways. My most favorite though, is when they throw all reason to the wind, and actually ask RANDOM people on the street on a subject... argh.

dyintorace wrote: Result: Computer takes away from pilot. In case of BOTH overspeed and alpha floor(stall)signals ;computer software causes the pilot to be locked out of any control inputs from the cockpit until these sensings are no longer interpreted by the ADC computers.

Except that isn't what happened with Air France 447. When the pitot tube froze over, the computer disengaged the autopilot. The pilots took over, but didn't confirm other instrument readings (like rate of descent), ignored the stall warning buzzer (which was on for nearly a full minute), made the incorrect inputs, and flew it into the ocean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Final_report

CNN now says on TV that a pilot was locked out of the cockpit before the crash and was banging on the door to try to get back in. Not on the website yet.

Have they released the names of the pilots?

Not that I've seen.

Here's the first web article on it:

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/germanwings-flight-9525-black-boxes/

Looks like it could have been caused by a pilot having health problems behind a locked secure cockpit door.

Ugh. Imagining seeing one of the pilots banging on the cockpit door franticly as the plane slowly drops in altitude...

GameboyRMH wrote: CNN now says on TV that a pilot was locked out of the cockpit before the crash and was banging on the door to try to get back in. Not on the website yet.

Yep, the pilot locked out of the cockpit thing totally changes everything.

If the remaining pilot wanted to crash the plane ASAP, he/she would have done a power off steep decent holding the plane slightly below VNE all the way down…I actually did that on my solo three leger as I was behind schedule from wrestling with fog earlier in the flight and was at risk of flunking due to landing after official evening civil twilight.

Anyway, this looks like an effort to get the plane in a position where it could be crashed immediately if desired. So, perhaps the pilot cut it too close (I don’t think the sun was up yet and it was foggy shortly after) or was distracted or the locked out pilot regained entry to the cockpit.

I know, I know, but at least the E36 M3 I make up has some semblance of logic.

PHeller wrote: I hate those comparisons of safety. It's not how likely I am to die, it is the method in which I shall be aware of eminent death. If I fall getting out of the shower, or in a car accident, I don't have time to say "well berkeley, this is it". I've been in a high speed accident. I had long enough to say to myself "I'm going to hit this guy, well berkeley." I didn't think about death, I just knew it was going to be bad. In those seconds, something in the back of my mind said "this will be bad, but you'll survive." If I'm awake and going down in an airliner, I've got 8 minutes to contemplate why the heck I got on this flying metal tube in the first place and why the hell I'm so damn uncomfortable in my last moments. I'm aware enough to know that "we're still traveling at 500mph, and it looks as though we're traveling into a mountainous area. Why hasn't the plane turned? Why haven't they warned us? This isn't normal. I'm gonna die. I wish I had more legroom."

On the way down take comfort in the fact that while you are going down into a spectacular field of debris that will be combed through by countless experts sparing no expense a dozen poor slobs have met their demise anonymously on a wayward bar of Dial.

I can't wait to see the CNN Alps simulator

At least we know the cockpit door lock did their job.