Germanwings A320 Crashes in Southern France

Good deal.. the last I heard it was damaged too badly.. >Glad they got some info.

Aircraft are made after several hours and cycles a big maintenance inspection. Even X-ray are made in its structure. Corrosion are treated. Everything is like "new".

Mr Webb,

While I have some sympathy with your perspective on the Airbus, I totally disagree with a couple of your statements :

1. "That's why many fly gliders...better than nothing, I guess."

Please don't disparage glider pilots. British and German glider pilots have to learn a lot more about all aspects of aviation than US powered-flight pilots. Glider pilots don't have an engine to climb them out of trouble and when they run out of lift they have to land. So they have to be much more situationally, and locationally aware during all stages of flight. One example is take-off emergencies : it had been my experience that cable breaks on winch launches were far more common than powered-flight engine failures (which I've never experienced). From the take-off roll onwards glider pilots have to be planning where and how to put it down safely, and on a winch take off and climb, its from a nose high attitude part way down the runway. Weather knowledge and awareness is far more critical, gliders can't just turn around and head the other way. The only unsafe glider operations I've witnessed have been towed operations in the USA. One particularly dangerous US tow pilot started his roll on the grass beside the runway where I was just about to flare a Warrior. I had called position on unicom thoughout the pattern, including a direct reference to "tow pilot at New Garden", but he was not listening to the radio and the American wingholder had never been instructed in his responsibilities.

It was my experience that glider clubs in the UK were frequently populated by relatively unwealthy but extremely knowledgeable enthusiasts who spent all day on the field sharing the work on the winch operation so that they could get a few launches. Many Americans just show up and pay a tow pilot.

I witnessed some "professional" US pilots who didn't even learn the rules where they were operating. In the Persian Gulf in the late 1970s some TWA pilots were not aware there was no night VFR and would argue with ATC when their call to cancel their flight plan was denied.

2. You said "Never fly on a foreign carrier unless you have absolutely no other choice".

It has been my experience that British Airways flight and cabin crew are far more professional, and adhere much more rigidly to safe practices, than some US airline personnel. In one case I was a pax on a Northwest 727 from KMSP to KFAR where the stews were clustered together at the rear, chatting, all the way from pushback to takeoff roll, not checking seatbelts and completely ignoring the PA, including the instruction to "prepare for takeoff". As the roll started a couple of them frantically ran through the cabin slamming the overhead bin doors. We were airborne before they got to their seats. While some BA flight and cabin staff may have appeared somewhat arrogant I have never seen them display unprofessional or dangerous behavior.

Whenever possible I choose to fly BA over any US carrier.

I will withhold my perspectives on the demonstrated incompetence of (some) US National Guard pilots, but they do seem to periodically shoot up their own Marines, and allied ground forces, strafe a column of tractors pulling refugees on trailers because they "resembled BTRs", shoot down a Blackhawk they positively identified as a Hind, and even discard an A10 canopy while reaching for their sunglasses.

What was that about glass houses ?

As someone else says...Just sayin'

Some evidence of pilot skill,from both manufacturers,with crew from different nations to restore your confidence perhaps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_38

David, I believe your remarks to be very true and on the mark. When I look at acrft accidents involving foreign carriers what seems to stand out is the pilots are fine until they run into a situation in which they are totally unprepared to handle. and in so many cases do not understand.

I have worked for a lot of airlines and in the case of the smaller carriers flying smaller acrft, the auto pilot was not an option, hand flying in all cases. Airbus makes a fine product, but the automation makes clear that the human factor is being ignored w/ a justification that as you have said caters to low experienced pilots, but this automation is removing the most important factor, hands on experience, and this is where so many would be pilots can and do get weeded out.

Europe indeed suffers from all you have said, what is ironic here is a lesson that carriers should have learned from the early years of the space program. You had test pilots, aviators who came to the program and were pilots. They were being asked to fly in complex craft that indeed required a high degree of automation due to complexity, but like the first lunar landing Apollo 13 for example it came down to those skills which these guys came in with over years of experience. They understood their situation and took control.

When QANTAS suffered their A380 engine malfunction they were very fortunate they had not only two experienced pilots flying, but I think just as important and maybe more so, they had two other qualified individuals which took so much off the mental stress of those pilots. Another example United DC-10 crash in Iowa. I am a strong believer that 3 in the cockpit should be a requirement for crews w/ a first officer and or capt. with little experience, and even for crews w/ experience when operating very large acrft, 747,777, A380 etc.

This whole event has exposed some serious issues which should not be ignored and go well beyond the ill pilot, and the accident itself. You are right, we have some dire days ahead.

David: I can kinda sympathize with where you are coming from regarding foreign pilots, but knowing a lot of them, I'd have to put Speedbird and Lufthansa pilots right up there at top with the rest of us, and that is not slighting anyone else, but these 2 are coming to mind quickly. As to this particular happening, the 2 person cockpit rule might have been a deterrent but I don't know if it would have prevented this, regardless of carrier nationality.

Sad but true. Well said.

I think Bremen is primarily hiring and orientation phase. Phoenix is the primary flight School. Back in the day it was at Tucson. Not sure when it moved or why, but they use AZ because of 363 flying days in the year. That said, in my mind, this goes back in my mind that if they are going to fly in U.S. airspace, their pilots especially, and themselves as a carrier, should be subject to all requirements as a U.S. 121 carrier. We found out in the 214 crash at SFO that they were not. It seems that centered more on maintenance and operations but not on pilot qualification. Apparently it should have.

I believe there is a corresponding link somewhere here that shows same AD and procedure for the 320.

https://www.google.co.nz/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=jWISVYXDMqLu8we1zIDgDw&gws_rd=ssl#q=translate+german+words+to+english+free&revid=447289866

Thanks Andrew, I was thinking IAS, not GS.

Don't worry about it and I think Allen will agree, this thing ain't gonna be over for a good while. There is a difference between what the media, and it matters not which one, is saying and what officialdom is saying. Even the French President and his Safety board guru were not on the same page, so until something gets out there and stays awhile, we can start to accept it.

This is the same for any kind of tech problem. A fact or two and then vapid quotes and guesses.

Would it possibly be due to closer engines, i.e. under wing vs. tail mounted. idk, just asking