744 Forum

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/558655-a320-down-southern-france.html

http://avherald.com/h?article=483a5651&opt=0

Another airbus crash from cruise level...not a good day.

http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/d-aipx/#5d42675

Just been reading avherald during lunch. very, very sad news.

Very sad news.
Frozen pitot tubes again??

Nic

Looks bad... Looking carefully at the FR24 reported speeds (remembering it is GROUND SPEED) the aircraft descended at approximately VMO all the way.

It also does not appear to have deviated off track.

The final report will be an interesting read.  :'(

The following link contains photos of the crash site.

http://www.ledauphine.com/haute-provence/2015/03/24/un-a320-s-ecrase-dans-la-zone-de-barcelonnette

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/558654-airbus-a320-crashed-southern-france-10.html#post8914460

Le Dauphine are reporting that one data recorder has been recovered already.

Is the report on AirAsia Flight 8501 out? I can't seem to find it online anywhere....

The 8501 report is not released, it may never be. Developing countries often take a slightly different approach to freedom of information. This one of course will be released in line with ICAO guidelines: A first report will be released 30 days after the crash, and the final report up to about a year later. Given the DFDR has been retrieved already, and given there will be substantial pressure by first world families who demand to know what happened, I suspect there will be more than just the usual information blurb in the first report.

But that's all speculation, as is the pprune party in progress...

Cheers

- Balt

Quote from: BaltGiven the DFDR has been retrieved already

Is that official? I read it was actually the voice recorder (and it was damaged).
Search for DFDR still going on, according to that press (i.e. not official either) article.
Or do they now have both?

Martin

Quote from: martin

Quote from: BaltGiven the DFDR has been retrieved already

Is that official? I read it was actually the voice recorder (and it was damaged).
Search for DFDR still going on, according to that press (i.e. not official either) article.
Or do they now have both?

Martin

They're talking about the AirAsia crash.

Official word from the French on the Germanwings crash is that the CVR is "damaged, but could still provide useful information", whilst the search for the FDR continues.

The authorities yesterday said the descent took 8 minutes.

If we assume no large fluctuations in the descent rate, with a vertical descent distance of approximately 30000 ft, then the average fpm was about -3500 to -4500 fpm. That looks to me like a controlled rapid descent with gear down & speedbrakes.


|-|

What I don't understand is, why they didn't send an emergency call or changed the Transponder code. If they had eight minutes, until they crashed, it should have been possible for them to do this. I cannot believe they were so busy they had no time to do this. So I assume after they began the descent, the pilots were either dead or unconscious at that time. I cannot find another explanation. The question is why? Just saw a picture of the DVR. It looks seriously damaged. Unbelievable everything. :'(

Speculation: Smoke in the cockpit.

It is normal for a flight recorder to be damaged in a crash. However, the enclosure where the data are stored (semi-conductor memory or tape) is not supposed to be damaged inside either mechanically or by fire and is designed accordingly. Even if the recorder seems OK, the investigative authorities will never use the original recorder electronics to play back and retrieve the data to prevent erasure by damaged electronics.

> What I don't understand is

probably nobody understands this at the moment.

> So I assume after they began the descent

I don't want to speculate but personally my assumption is similar, thinking that the start of the descent was intentionally programmed, for whatever reason, and not discontinued, for whatever reason. (And I also think that there are more possible options, but see previous sentence.)

Markus

I have of course not much experience with smoke. (I accidentaly was in the Düsseldorf airport, when there was this big fire back in the ninties. The smoke was horrible and you had to pay attention not to panic, because of this very strong plastic smell and the feeling  of not getting enough oxygen)But could smoke be so effective, that the pilots had no chance to grab their oxygen masks? I have doubts.

Newest rumour. Broken window.

From the New York Times:
What We Know
The pilots did not issue a distress call or initiate any communication with air traffic controllers as the plane began its eight-minute descent.
Investigators have so far been unable to retrieve data from one black box, and the other was badly damaged and its memory card was missing.
The aircraft, an Airbus A320, was 24 years old but had no history of serious maintenance problems.
What We Don't Know
Whether the plane was flying on autopilot or under the manual control of crew members.
Why the plane descended after reaching its cruising altitude.
Whether the plane suffered any kind of technical failure.

A missing memory card? Can it pop out on impact or was it missing before the plane took off?

Quote from: HardyThat looks to me like a controlled rapid descent with gear down & speedbrakes.

That seems to be the current "consensus" on PPRuNe, too: rapid but not excessively so, and not outside normal parameters.

Quote from: HardySpeculation: Smoke in the cockpit.

Even mere fumes can be (far) worse than I had thought: see this quote on PPRuNe from a report of the German "Bundesstelle für Flugunfalluntersuchung" (Federal Air Accident Investigation Authority), concerning a Germanwing A319 at Cologne in December 2013.

Martin

This post is full of speculation, but based on facts where possible.

Rate of descent: as Hardy rightly points out, it looks good for a VMO descent.

Smoke in cockpit: Whilst I question the debilitating effects if oxygen masks are donned as soon as smoke is seen/odd smell encountered, the fact the aircraft started a descent suggests this was already done (#1: masks, #2: get the aircraft descending). Was there a problem with the oxygen system?

Aircraft forward speed: FR24 uses ADS-B data, which reports ground speed. Accounting for altitude and winds aloft, and working the figures backwards, the aircraft doesn't appear to exceed VMO at any point. It also doesn't appear to get any slower than 300 kts at any point.

No communication of problem: This is where my thoughts will remain private. It seems very strange that nothing was said/transponder set accordingly.

Aircraft remained on flight plan route: Combined with the above, this is where things start getting very weird. They were descending towards mountains, whilst the sea and an alternate field for emergency landing were *behind* them and easily reachable. A 180 deg. turn would have put them nicely over the sea. Why wasn't any turn away from mountainous terrain ahead initiated?

Reports it flew level before crashing: Let's assume this was true...why such a low altitude as 6000 ft? MSA for the crash site was 7300 ft, and increasing to 14200 ft for the route. Even rushing the altitude selection - 12000 or even 14000 ft would work, even if totally depressurized. You won't pass out (10000 ft isn't some magic altitude).

CVR looks OK - the dome part is intact, and that is the part that matters. My confidence in BEA is low.

In the actual press conference they said they could read the data from the VDR. They have the complete audio file and at the beginning everything is normal.

Well this got very interesting...

National news here in the UK tonight reported that the investigators have out-ruled explosion, or loss of cabin pressure.

Can anyone else corroborate this???

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/25/recordings-voices-alarms-extracted-cockpit-crashed-germanwings-flight-4u9525

QuoteHowever, he said the information investigators had put together suggested the plane had not exploded and did not suffer a "classic decompression situation".

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/world/europe/germanwings-airbus-crash.html?_r=0

QuoteThe senior French official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation was continuing, said that the lack of communication from the pilots during the plane's descent was disturbing, and that the possibility that their silence was deliberate could not be ruled out.

Wow.  :shock:

"possibility that their silence was deliberate"

Typical yellow press nonsense. With the "inability to exclude every possibility" trick the journalist can mention whatever he or she likes. On the press conference one just needs to ask the question "Can you exclude that the ...?" -- "At the moment, we can't exclude that the ..."

Whilst that is true 99% of the time, why would the investigators rule out so early the top 2 reasons for the aircraft departing cruise altitude suddenly and with no communication?

They said "it flew to the end", meaning it was in full control via (insert method here) from their perspective.

Even if they're talking to the press, they're usually much more guarded than this if they aren't sure.  :?

A member of FS2Crew died on that flight :(

In a smoke in the cockpit scenario, with no vision available, I could imagine the aircrew being able to find the alt sel knob and dial in a lower altitude  (of unknown magnitude), but not be able to dial in the correct ATC distress code. Dialing in a distress frequency on VHF might be impossible (unless already in the standby window), but that wouldn't stop you simply sending a distress message on the current frequency.

I assume the A320 is fitted with EGPWS, in which case, they should have received sufficient warning time to avoid terrain (but if you can't see, how can you dial in a safe altitude?).

Other theories included a cracked windshield, but this doesn't seem to fit the facts. The crew would still be able to make emergency calls (since the airplane appeared to be under control).

There was also a previous A320 safety report about a false cabin altitude warning. The crew made a descent despite the cabin pressure showing normal values.

Being reported now that by the voice recorder a pilot was locked out of the cabin.

Speculation currently is bathroom break followed by a medical emergency with the remaining pilot. Thought that if the "joystick" was bumped the plane could have been put into a descent.

Don't know enough about the Airbus to speculate myself....

On pprune, this link was posted, allegedly being the V/S data for the flight.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2015/03/rapid%20descent.jpg

 Is it possible that *anyone* outside of the real accident investigation team would have access to such data?  I would think that the airline and any other participants would lock up their records and data with strict security after a crash.

The New York Times is reporting that one pilot left the cockpit and then tried to re-enter, pounding louder and louder on the door, unable to get back in:

Begin quote:

A senior military official involved in the investigation described "very smooth, very cool" conversation between the pilots during the early part of the flight from Barcelona to Düsseldorf. Then the audio indicated that one of the pilots left the cockpit and could not re-enter.

"The guy outside is knocking lightly on the door and there is no answer," the investigator said. "And then he hits the door stronger and no answer. There is never an answer."

He said, "You can hear he is trying to smash the door down."

"We don't know yet the reason why one of the guys went out," said the official, who requested anonymity because the investigation is continuing. "But what is sure is that at the very end of the flight, the other pilot is alone and does not open the door."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/world/europe/germanwings-airbus-crash.html?_r=0

This seems to be so unbelivable, but would explain everything.In this scenario the pilot must lock the door actively from inside. So it is impossible that he was unconscious at that moment. And what that means...

Quote from: Phil BunchOn pprune, this link was posted, allegedly being the V/S data for the flight.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2015/03/rapid%20descent.jpg

 Is it possible that *anyone* outside of the real accident investigation team would have access to such data?  I would think that the airline and any other participants would lock up their records and data with strict security after a crash.

The data looks like the ADS-B data from flightradar24.

Basically I'm thinking about two possibilies... a passed out pilot or suicide.

Avoiding to speculate too much, some remarks on what I've read here that might help to avoid speculating certain cases:

With smoke your first action before descending would be to turn to your closest alternate "in time". Which never happened so the scenario is very unlikely. It is also very true that with an oxygen mask on your face, everything in front of you is reachable, however anything sideways/up/down requires your head to move since the mask destroys all peripheral view and "restrains" your head movement because of the hose connected it, especially if you want to look down. The center pedestal in between pilots is the most difficult to reach so changing VHF or squawk codes becomes annoying. However, in Europe your emergency call is on the active ATC frequency, not on 121.5. ATC usually then comes back with discrete frequency which is where the annoying stuff starts :-).

Concerning all remark on decompression: it is funny everybody thinks about rapid decompression, while I have always found the "slow" ones to be more challenging. You look at it happen and think: what do we do? Oxygen? Rapid descent to avoid oxygen use? There's a lot of looking, waiting and thinking going on. Rapid decompressions are a matter of procedures "ox on, check intercom, dive..."

EGPWS is indeed present although it isn't bullet proof, there is no performance calculation whatsoever. Especially not if you are targetting upslopes of 70% during an emergency descent.

The most strange thing in the real scenario is why there wasn't a leveloff close to 10000ft, the path of the aircraft doesn't seem to change a tiny bit. 10000ft altitude is just one of those magic values in aviation that makes a pilot "do" stuff. It didn't in this case apparently. So either the pilots weren't there or they were not conscious is as far as my speculation goes.

So if the New York Times is correct (see my post above for the reference), then one pilot was locked out of the cockpit during the descent.

Not wanting to be too speculative, that does suggest a few scenarios, such as the remaining pilot being incapacitated by a medical condition. If he had a seizure or something, he might have flailed about, enough to disengage the autopilot and begin a descent, followed my medical unconsciousness. Or he could have been hand-flying with the autopilot off while the other pilot left the cockpit, and then coincidentally had a heart attack. In-flight heart attacks have happened in airliners on a number of occasions; it's conceivable that he was rendered unconscious while the autopilot was off and while the other pilot was locked out of the cockpit.

Those are improbable scenarios, perhaps, but then so is the whole idea of an airliner descending from cruise flight into a crash without any distress calls. So you have to think about improbable events...

But the pilot who is inside the door must activate a switch at the door to block it for opening on the outside. As far as I know you normally can unlock it with an code. But it is not possible to open if it is blocked from the inside. The inner pilot normally has no reason to block it from inside. So the scenario that he had an heart attack or something is not very likely in my opinion.But I hope I am wrong.

I don't know about Airbus aircraft... whether a pilot can get in with a key or a code, or whether a pilot has to be specifically granted access by someone in the cockpit.

I believe this is not Airbus or Boeing-specific, but a global standard rule.

Door is unlocked on the ground, locked in flight.
Crew can exit at any time.
Nobody can get in without:
1. Crew opening the door, OR
2a. Entering the entry code and waiting 30 seconds, UNLESS
2b. within those 30 seconds the crew denies access.

What I don't know is whether that access denial must be repeated every time the code is re-entered, or that this is a latched position on the cockpit door lock switch?


H

Do you know what the rule is? I'm curious. Is it "fail secure," where nobody gets in without permission of the current cockpit occupant(s), or "credential secure," where someone with the correct password or key can enter no matter what?

I guess a third option would be "credential secure" with an optional manual override, where the current occupant(s) might decide to keep even authorized people out.

It seems both: you can get in UNLESS the flight crew actively denies you access (time after time). This seems the best of both worlds. The only flaw is that once inside, the bad guy/gal is in total control -- but I sort of agree that this seemed a good idea as the one up front is in total control.


H

A320 and especially Germanwings seem to have serious problems with contaminated cabin air.

Reports all in german

http://www.airportzentrale.de/luftpost-89-kabinenluft/38277/

http://www.austrianwings.info/2015/02/giftige-kabinenluft-fluggesellschaft-und-luftaufsichtsbehoerde-muessen-handeln/

http://www.austrianwings.info/2015/02/geruchsvorfall-auf-germanwings-flug-sicherheitslandung/

http://www.austrianwings.info/2012/09/germanwings-vorfall-interner-bericht-widerspricht-darstellung-der-airline/

Peter

Here is a link to a video which explains the door lock system in detail.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixEHV7c3VXs
It seems the inner pilot can lock/block the door for at least five minutes.
But it also seems that he can lock the door for further five minutes, if he brings the switch in the lock position again.

@%#$@%$#%@

About the only thing remaining to give us some hope is that a really confused pilot about to pass out may attempt to open the door but instead locks it.


H

Is it possible that the positon of the lock/unlock switch  is saved somewhere in the datarecorder?

Those things nowadays record thousands of parameters and this one seems logical to be there as well.  Now first find the SD card.


H

Now official. The copilot has made the crash with full intention. :x
No tecnical or human problem.

8:06 a.m.: The name of the co-pilot was Andreas Lubitz, Marseille prosecutor Brice Robin said.

• 7:55 a.m.: The co-pilot of the doomed Germanwings flight "accelerated the descent" of the plane when he was alone in the cockpit, Robin said Thursday. That can only be done deliberately, he said.

• 7:55 a.m: The co-pilot was alive until impact, Robin said, citing the sound of steady breathing in the cockpit.

• 7:55 a.m: There was a "deliberate attempt to destroy the aircraft," Robin said.

Cockpit door locks were to prevent unauthorized access to the cockpit.  Its a real problem when a pilot is the one who should be denied access.  It started to sound bad last night when the Times report came out. Unfortunately it seems to be confirmed.  What a shame.

"deliberately" -- So it was true indeed. Sad.


Here's another example of a pilot being locked out:
https://youtu.be/YIVFQY0doYg
https://youtu.be/VPEHyN57IXE

Refer to my post on page 1 where I talk about "private thoughts".

I'm shocked even though the indications already pointed to it. :(

BBC News article confirming intentional pilot actions to crash the aircraft:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-32070570

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32063587

Sad news, one of the content creators of FS2Crew was also on the flight.
RIP.

Quote from: FalconeyeThe copilot has made the crash with full intention.

Quote from: Hardy"deliberately" -- So it was true indeed.

We don't know that at all.
(Or did not at the time when I wrote this)

From what I read, the French ?Attorney General? (don't know his correct title) did not always  know what he was talking about and/or was mis-reported and/or was mis-translated and/or was in part severely out of line .

For background, one ought to recall that for various, in part unsavoury, reasons "pilot error" (or in this case "intention") is always a favourite; often the first, sometimes the only cause under discussion. Also the easiest one when the accused cannot defend themselves any more.

So, there was a press conference given by the Attorney General in Marseille*, mainly based on the results from the evaluation (so far) of the CVR.
* [size=8]i.e. not the one by Germanwings which seems to be in progress right now.[/size]

Some excerpts (see footnote for source)
[size=8][My translations from German to English. The German quotes (from the French or possibly English) are all in indirect speech mode (subjunctive), which I don't know how to translate properly, therefore rendered here in the indicative mode. The quotes refer all to statements of the ?Attorney General? in Marseille, M Brice Robin.]
[/size]
Initial summary:
When alone in the cockpit, the co-pilot intentionally initiated the descent:
¤ [quoted verbatim in source]: "It looks as if he apparently made the aircraft crash intentionally and destroyed it."
Note the (correct) use of "looks as if", and "apparently" in this statement.

¤ One heard [CVR recording] a seat being pushed back and the clapping of a door. After that, the co-pilot was alone in the cockpit.
From this alone, it can of course not be concluded that it was the FO.
It can however (probably) be concluded from the later events (when the Captain, outside the cockpit, tried to call the FO via Interphone.)
So, perhaps not wrong, but sloppy logic.

¤ After that, the FO apparently "played around" [verbatim quote in source] with the FMS in order to initiate the descent.
As evidenced by the CVR?

¤ "That can only have been done intentionally" (verbatim in source).
But for what reasons? There are scenarios for initiating a descent other than the wish to crash the plane.
Besides, I don't think "intentionally" is absolutely proven at this point.

Then came the attempt of the captain to call the FO from outside the cockpit via Interphone, in order to get him to open the cockpit door, but he did not get any reply.
It's probably safe to assume that this establishes at least that the FO was in the cockpit, and the Captain outside.

¤ At this time, only a "normal regular human" breathing could be heard in the cockpit.
A glaring omission: Either the Attorney or the press report completely fails to mention the scenario where the FO is alive but unconscious.
In fact, "normal regular" breathing is not what I should expect from someone conscious and thus fully aware that his own death, intentionally or not, is imminent in the next few minutes...

Finally, the "out of line" part:
The families of the victims are severely affected by the information that this is a case of intentional action.
(Die Familien seien schwer betroffen von der Information, dass hier Vorsatz vorliege.)

I am unfamiliar with the legal system of France, but very strongly suspect that such a statement (without "apparently" or "looks like") is for a court or jury to make, not for the investigating attorney.
(But again, it is quite possible that he was misquoted.)

I also had a quote saying that a button has to be turned not just pushed in order to initiate descent; and that was given  as further evidence for an intentional descent / crash.
My question was, How about (pre-)dialing in, but not activating a lower flight level in preparation of descent, which I believe is  normal procedure?
But I can't find the quote any more. May be me, or may be the breath-taking dynamics of modern "information" media...

My point is not to assert that the conclusion "intentional crash" is wrong.

My point is that (at the time I read it) it is (was) based on sloppy and unsound logic (which can have the correct result, but is still a bad thing).

Anyhow, it does not really seem to matter any more: while I have been writing this, a flood of more "information" has sprung up: The "Media" seem now throughout to have made up their mind, and to take for granted as solid fact (which is really the same thing) that the FO indeed crashed the plane intentionally.

Never mind diligent legal procedure for establishing guilt (which procedure to achieve took Europe a few hundred years and a lot of sacrifices. By the French Revolution, among other things...).

Martin

Source: Die Zeit.
(in particular, the post marked "12:39"; push the button "Mehr Beiträge laden" to see older posts.)
This is one of the leading (and highly respected) German weeklies.
However, the article in question is a "Live Blog", and was time-stamped at 12:39 CET -- if I got the schedule right, this would have been 9(!) minutes(!!) after the begin(!!!) of the press conference being reported...

What can't be argued is the silence of the authorities. They are not denying the reports, nor are they saying anything along the lines of "we haven't reached a conclusion yet".

As rubbish as the media are at reporting these things, sometimes events are straight-forward to investigate, and the cause is obvious.

In this case, they have the CVR, and no doubt they have the world's best experts doing analysis of the recording to establish what happened. You don't always need 6 months to reach a conclusion.

This is another tragic event, and unfortunately worst fears about events are playing out.

While nothing is proven conclusively yet, and may never be, the logic of all random accidental events lining up to result in this accident are hard to imagine.

But with the evidence currently known, one has to wonder about the larger picture as a whole. This is possibly the second such event where apparent unexplained crew actions have resulted in the deaths of innocent people. In both cases everything about the flight is as one would expect, and then events lead to unexplained tragedy.

As much as we would like to believe there is an accidental element to this, I am just not seeing it.

Quote from: martin

Quote from: FalconeyeThe copilot has made the crash with full intention.

Quote from: Hardy"deliberately" -- So it was true indeed.

We don't know that at all.
(Or did not at the time when I wrote this)

But we can assume that the captain or at least a flight attendant remembers the code to be entered so that the door unlocks in 5 minutes. The copilot can deny this request by pushing and turning the deny selector. If he doesn't, the door opens in 5 minutes.


|-|

Quote from: Hardy Heinlin

Quote from: martin

Quote from: FalconeyeThe copilot has made the crash with full intention.

Quote from: Hardy"deliberately" -- So it was true indeed.

We don't know that at all.
(Or did not at the time when I wrote this)

But we can assume that the captain or at least a flight attendant remembers the code to be entered so that the door unlocks in 5 minutes. The copilot can deny this request by pushing and turning the deny selector. If he doesn't, the door opens in 5 minutes.


|-|

I really wish the conclusion would be wrong. But at the moment everything points in the direction of the copilot. I don't think the authorities would tell this in an pressconference if they wouldn't be sure. The CEO of Lufthansa also confirmed it in an pressconference. In the german radio I heard, currently the police is searching in the appartments of the pilot in Düsseldorf and Montabaur to find something.
They said during his training for his pilot licence he had a break of nine months. Nobody knows at the moment what was the reason for this. Or at least they are not allowed to say it.

From the telegraph
"A mother of a schoolmate told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that he had told her daughter he had taken a break from his pilot training because he was suffering from depression."
She said her daughter had seen him again just before Christmas and that he had appeared normal. She added he was a "lovely boy". "He had a good family background," she told the paper."

Quote from: HardyBut we can assume that the captain or at least a flight attendant remembers the code to be entered so that the door unlocks in 5 minutes.

Yes, you have spotted without fail the weakness in my post; I saw the (now "viral") Youtube video from Airbus only afterwards and began to wonder myself.

Not to "defend" my post by all means, but that video, while published on Youtube in April 2014,  is "Copyright September 2002" (see credits at the end).
Can we assume that the system is still the same (probably yes), and, more importantly, that it is standard (or retro-fitted) on all  machines? And not e.g. a company option?

In any case, I still think (apart from the technical aspects) that the whole media handling surrounding this sad event is highly irregular and undesirable in many respects.
But that is probably par for the course nowadays -- another example of the Red Queen principle; or alternatively, of an increasingly self-referential and self-amplifying "media" system (both features never good news for the stability of any system).

Martin

On a side note:
The crash happened at 09:53Z. At 10:14Z and 10:25Z (i.e. long before any rescuers could even have reached the crash site) you could already see the stocks of Lufthansa (LHA) and Airbus (AIRB), resp., take a dive (stock exchange Frankfurt; I have screenshots).
Such is the rationality of the belief system we let govern our lives (i.e. The Market)...

Do we know if the authorities  have any other source of data apart from the CVR? Does the airline subscribe to an acars system, etc?

Just read this.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/26/us-france-crash-flightradar-idUSKBN0MM2EV20150326

Jon

The delays on the doors are programmable (just as the entry codes are). Engineering programme them to suit airline specifications. Now that the standard time delays have been made public, I can imagine some  airlines changing these.

Note that there has always been a locking system on cockpit doors (even pre-9/11). However, the doors are now, basically, impenetrable . If the person in the cockpit doesn't want you to get in, you won't get in. Even overriding the electrics (which is also next to impossible because the circuit breakers are inside the cockpit) won't guarantee you entry.

QuoteOnline web tracking service FlightRadar24 said its analysis of satellite tracking data had found that someone had changed the altitude to the minimum setting possible of 100 feet: well below the crash site lying at about 6,000 feet.

how does FR24 know the alt settings in the MCP?

It's part of the ADS-B data stream. The data is only available on request by a ground station.

Quote from: farrokh747

QuoteOnline web tracking service FlightRadar24 said its analysis of satellite tracking data had found that someone had changed the altitude to the minimum setting possible of 100 feet: well below the crash site lying at about 6,000 feet.

how does FR24 know the alt settings in the MCP?

According to their website:

Flightradar24 combines data from several data sources including ADS-B, MLAT and FAA.

Reading into ADS-B maybe their source. Now your quote above doesn't provide full context, but was the MCP altered or as has been reported the FMC was changed?

the quote is from jb's link above here....  

Quote"Between 09:30:52 and 09:30:55 you can see that the autopilot was manually changed from 38,000 feet to 100 feet and 9 seconds later the aircraft started to descend, probably with the 'open descent' autopilot setting," Fredrik Lindahl, chief executive of the Swedish tracking service said by email.

Are these data streams carrying this amount of detail? I was under the impression it's just lat/long and alt.....

OK It appears they have a ton of data streaming:

http://forum.flightradar24.com/threads/8650-We-have-analysed-the-raw-data-from-the-transponder-of-4U9525-and-found-some-more-dat?p=64616

Quote09:30:51Z.636 T,3c6618,43.120453,5.675092,38000,GWI18G
09:30:52Z.386 MCP/FMC ALT: 38000 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:30:52Z.567 T,3c6618,43.122208,5.676482,38000,GWI18G
09:30:53Z.036 T,3c6618,43.122894,5.676993,38000,GWI18G
09:30:53Z.546 T,3c6618,43.124271,5.678166,38000,GWI18G
09:30:54Z.083 MCP/FMC ALT: 13008 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:30:54Z.096 T,3c6618,43.125295,5.678689,38000,GWI18G
09:30:54Z.676 T,3c6618,43.125961,5.679421,38000,GWI18G
09:30:55Z.156 T,3c6618,43.127157,5.680259,38000,GWI18G
09:30:55Z.397 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:30:55Z.453 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa

about 3 secs to dial down the knob from 380 to 96 ft

So reading the discussion in the fr24 thread, it appears that ATC can request certain params via the xpdr?

I am confused about the reported training hours of the copilot.  From cnn.com (repeated by other major news media):

"He had been with Germanwings since September 2013 and had completed 630 hours of flight time, the company said. Lubitz had trained at the Lufthansa flight center in Bremen, Germany."

"He only had about 100 hours of experience on the type of aircraft he was flying, but he had all the necessary certifications and qualifications to pilot the aircraft alone, the prosecutor said."

----------------

I don't understand how 100 hours in a type could be enough to allow you to fly an airliner unless you were transitioning from a very similar aircraft.  

Also, I don't see how 630 hours (total hours as a commercial pilot???) would be enough to qualify as a copilot in any airliner.  

My superficial understanding is that in the USA, it would be typical for an aspiring pilot to acquire something like 1500 hours as a commercial pilot, perhaps in the Caribbean, etc, in order to *begin* at a commuter airliner, probably a turboprop.

What am I misunderstanding?

I don't understand these arguments about any pilot not having sufficient hours to fly an airliner. What people are saying with that statement is that the training is inadequate and/or the test standards are not stringent enough.

QuoteMy superficial understanding is that in the USA, it would be typical for an aspiring pilot to acquire something like 1500 hours as a commercial pilot

A bit of history is in order. This 1500 hour rule was a typically ill-conceived, knee-jerk piece of legislation, in response to the Colgan Air Flight 3407 crash. The mentality was that "something must be done!", and that was it.

The reality is that the experience (or lack thereof) of the First Officer in the germanwings crash is utterly irrelevant, as it was apparently a conscious act to commit a devastating crime (mass murder).

It's time we told it as it is, instead of trying to wish the problem away by looking for things that aren't there.

Really, the metric of hours to measure experience is flawed. Let's say a long-haul pilot, on average, spends 8 hours flying somewhere. It takes maybe 2 minutes to takeoff, 25 minutes to reach cruise, 20 minutes to descend, and 5 minutes to land.

Adding all that up gives us 52 minutes of flight time doing something other than sitting and watching the automation fly the aircraft (assuming the climb and descent are hand-flown). That is only 10.8% of the entire flight duration. Based on that, a pilot with 10000 hours, is only worth 1080 hours actual hands-on flying experience.

Compare that to your short-haul crew who spend maybe 30 minutes at cruise on a 1 hour flight. Their 10000 hours experience is worth 5000 hours.

With the level of automation dependence that crews are forced to endure by company SOP, these numbers are probably much lower (some airlines stipulate AP ON at 400 ft and OFF at DH). Whilst the crews are guiding the aircraft, they don't have any real "stick time" with the aircraft. We are starting to see crashes that are the result of this inexperience (AF447, Asiana Airlines Flight 214).

IMHO, the training provided to pilots needs to be re-evaluated. More emphasis on flying the aircraft manually needs to be made, and much more time spent on "stick and rudder" skills than systems management. We've fallen down the other side of the safety bell-curve.

O/T: the forum is malfunctioning and extremely slow since whatever maintenance was performed on it earlier this evening.

Quote from: Phil Bunch"He only had about 100 hours of experience on the type of aircraft he was flying, but he had all the necessary certifications and qualifications to pilot the aircraft alone, the prosecutor said."

----------------

I don't understand how 100 hours in a type could be enough to allow you to fly an airliner unless you were transitioning from a very similar aircraft.  

Also, I don't see how 630 hours (total hours as a commercial pilot???) would be enough to qualify as a copilot in any airliner.  

My superficial understanding is that in the USA, it would be typical for an aspiring pilot to acquire something like 1500 hours as a commercial pilot, perhaps in the Caribbean, etc, in order to *begin* at a commuter airliner, probably a turboprop.

What am I misunderstanding?

When I got my pilots license in 2010 in the USA the minimum requirement to get your ATP was only 250 hours. A few years ago they bumped that up to 1500 hours.

But in those days 250 hours plus whatever it takes for a type rating got you into the right seat of many a (commuter) airliner. Not sure about other aviation authorities around the world, but I believe this co-pilot hours are not unusual in Europe or in Asia

The FAA has done considerable research into finding a correlation between pilots experience (flight time) and fatal accidents and have found none. To put it differently you have the same statistical chance of a fatal accident flying with a very low hours pilot as with a pilot with very high number of hours!

The FAA research resulted in the FAA WINGS program which aimed to increase safety and reduce GA fatalities. It did not focus on hours or even flying technique, but it did focus on saftery awareness, improving aeronatical decision making etc. Three years into the program, it was proven that GA pilots participating in the WINGS program had statistically a 50% smaller chance of having a fatal accident then pilots not participating.

Admittedly this was all around GA, but in the USA that involves also a huge number of business jets. Maybe smaller then your average commercial liner, but often faster, able to fly higher and just as complex and advanced if not more so then some commercial liners.

Just another little nerdy/anorak fact; if you want to improve the safety in the cockpit from the human point of view, you might want to look at at least a male / female crew, or better yet, an all female crew. As the other gender is making it into the worlds civilian and military cockpits more and more evidence is beginning to appear that female pilots have fewer (fatal) incident and accidents than male pilots.

Jeroen

The only thing I would certainly require from an ATP candidate would be to have a current Glider Pilot License, just like Lufthansa required from their pilots up to the late seventies...

I also remember that through all my pilot ( private ) life ( more than 34 yrs now ) I was "observed" by a psychologist only once.  A friend of mine, who was an airline pilot for many years, had to give up due to stress / panic attacks.

I believe stress, and today's way of living our lives pretty much promotes the most unexpected behaviours from us, or causes us problems that we would probably otherwise never experiment.

Maybe the rules will now try to adapt to this new reality. At least two known accidents of the same type in a year starts to make us think...

In this context an interesting test a university in Germany made together with the Lufthansa. They tested the skills of pilots landing the plane manually in difficult situations.
The pilots were divided in two groups. One group were only pilots flying on longhaul routes. And the other group only shorthaul flyers. The result was that the shorthaul pilots had significant better results then the other group, even though they had  less flying hours. The reason for this is, that the shorthaul pilots are flying much  more manually approaches then the longhaul pilots. So the conclusion is or was, that the number of flying hours is not necessarily a  sign of the quality of the pilot. The exact data were kept secret unfortunately, but Lufthansa has changed their simtraining since then, they said.

Quote from: jcommThe only thing I would certainly require from an ATP candidate would be to have a current Glider Pilot License, just like Lufthansa required from their pilots up to the late seventies...

The germanwings copilot had also a glider pilot license. He was flying in an local glider club since his youth.

Yep,

I noticed that too.

I'm still finding it difficult to believe what happened was exactly was is being described, but, then again - there's that lack of psicological / psychiatric evaluation along a commercial / line pilot career, that many professions, not obnly pilot's, should have...

Quote from: farrokh747the quote is from jb's link above here....  

Quote"Between 09:30:52 and 09:30:55 you can see that the autopilot was manually changed from 38,000 feet to 100 feet and 9 seconds later the aircraft started to descend, probably with the 'open descent' autopilot setting," Fredrik Lindahl, chief executive of the Swedish tracking service said by email.

Are these data streams carrying this amount of detail? I was under the impression it's just lat/long and alt.....

One fundamental part of the ADS-B data stream that FR24 gets is whats called intent. Intent gets the positions of certain switches on the MCP (Commanded Altitude for one), the active waypoint and Next WP and Next WP + 1, and a whole bunch of other parameters.  They can also see if the aircraft has one of the emergency codes set in their transponder.

ADS-B has saved several gross nav errors in the North Atlantic from becoming much worse because the controller can see all that data - or at a minimum their flight data processing system can at least warn the controller when the intent data in the ADS-B isn't set to what they expect.

Quote from: United744Let's say a long-haul pilot, on average, spends 8 hours flying somewhere. It takes maybe 2 minutes to takeoff, 25 minutes to reach cruise, 20 minutes to descend, and 5 minutes to land.

Adding all that up gives us 52 minutes of flight time doing something other than sitting and watching the automation fly the aircraft (assuming the climb and descent are hand-flown). That is only 10.8% of the entire flight duration. Based on that, a pilot with 10000 hours, is only worth 1080 hours actual hands-on flying experience.

It's even worse if you take into account that only one pilot is actually flying the aircraft (so the 1080 hours drops to 540) and in the very long legs you may have a third if not a fourth crew member who doesn't fly the aircraft at all.

Cheers,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3016656/Killer-pilot-Andreas-Lubitz-dreamed-flying-Boeing-747-carry-660-people.html

Revealed: Killer co-pilot wanted to fly a BIGGER Airbus

The more I read, the sicker I get of all the allegations. Why is it so simple to lock a cockpit door? Why can't you get in easier? Why can you descend an aircraft with just the twist of a knob? Isn't this unsafe? Are big aircraft not too inviting to crash?

Its NEVER good.


Hoppie

Next installment: make it mandatory that both pilots have guns.
After that: require all tanker trucks to have two drivers, both with steering controls.
Next: and guns.

I am increasingly frustrated with sensation-driven news headlines related to this tragedy.  Some examples from major news sites as well as less well-regarded news sources:

"Killers in the cockpit"  

"Germanwings killer Andreas Lubitz 'trawled internet for suicide and sexual perversion websites"

"Twisted obsessions of killer in cockpit: Lubitz trawled 'dark side' of the web""

-----------------------
In reality, such incidents are unimaginably rare, when measured in terms of pilot illness caused crashes divided by the number of flights per year.  By reporting events in the style described above, news media stereotype pilots in a very inappropriate way and contribute nothing to improving aviation safety.

Now two persons have to be in the cockpit all the time.
A pilot and a stewardess together alone in the cockpit? I think very dangerous! :D
Much more dangerous then a pilot alone in the cockpit.

Unfortunately to all of this there are no good answers or easy solutions.

1. It should be easy to deny access to the cabin, 9/11 proved that.
2. Having a second person at all times is a first band aid, but is not foolproof nor a solution.
3. Pilot less cockpits nor cameras on the flight deck are solutions either.
4. In this situation a gun does not help.

Somewhere in there has to be a mix of items that can prevent such incidents. Computer programming should be able to resolve the issue of setting the plane on a course to crash into a mountain. Technological changes may need to further advance, for instance now the computer not only needs to know positional data, but terrain data also, but with these pieces be unable to set a for instance MCP value that is below terrain levels on the course path.

Cameras could be installed, and able to be accessed if the situation warrants it. Taking over the plane remotely if the situation warrants it should also be possible. The technology is there, the only question is how to implement in a smart way. There are security issues, hacking of the systems being a prominent one, but if the co-pilot was unable to achieve his goal, and the pilot would have been able to get external help, could this have been avoided? The only last piece to that question is a solution to the issue of not being able to disable systems as was done on the missing 777.

Now this situation is unique and do you take these steps because of this? Maybe not, but how many other incidents could be resolved, such as a rapid decompression that renders the crew unconscious? Now we have a way of saving the flight....

I am sure debates will dominate for the near future, we can only hope that well thought out and implemented action comes out of it.

For me, it continues to be all very very strange, and I am finding very difficult to accept the explanations that are being offered from the various sources...

It doesn't match, for me it simply doesn't match...

My first in flight cockpit visit was on BOAC in the 60's on a flight from Nairobi to London to be inducted by the Captain into the "Junior Jet Club".
In around 1996 I was on an Alitalia 777 flying from Singapore to Bombay. From TOD to stopping at the Gate I was in the jump seat. My qualifications to be there - a twin instrument commercial FAA ticket and a log book with 750 hours of PRIVATE flying small GA planes.
Throughout the 80's and into the 90's, while based in Hong Kong I must have landed in the jump seat (Cathay, BA, SQ, Thai, BCal) on the IGS 13 so many times I lost count. I once flew most of the flight from SFO to Heathrow on BA in the jump seat. I spent the whole flight in the jump seat on a CX A330 from Manila to Hong Kong. Another time I gave my business class seat on a full flight to a pilot dead heading back to Kong Kong in return for his jump seat.
I have to confess that many times, after the Captain or FO had given me the safety briefing and a short welcome before returning to concentrate on his work, it went through my mind that having me there was a huge risk. Except for Cathay where I knew many of the Captains, to all the other airlines I was a complete unknown stranger.
I think back when, except for the USA where the FAA had banned cockpit visits ages back, it was relatively easy to "get" the jump seat as long as the flight was not a training flight.
I've only flown 2 times since 9/11 from Bangkok to Vienna and back and then a return from Bangkok to Hong Kong. No jump seat of course but how things have changed in such a relatively short time period. The whole experience was different. After those two flights I was relieved to be at my destination and away from the airport environment. Pre 9/11 I looked forward to every flight and savoured every moment. Even in my late 50's it was exciting to fly!
And now, with the tragedy of Germanwings, more changes and more controls to maintain safety to add to all those already in place.
It's a very confusing and in many ways, sad world that we live in.
RIP the 149 innocent Souls.

Quote from: jcommFor me, it continues to be all very very strange, and I am finding very difficult to accept the explanations that are being offered from the various sources...

It doesn't match, for me it simply doesn't match...

Do I think he did it intentionally? Yes.

Do I think any of the motives postulated so far are correct? No.

Unfortunately, we will never know the real reason he did this. Only he knows why he ultimately did it.

Would I fly? Any time. I still have more chance dying in a car crash on my way to the airport.

I'm going to be extremely controversial here: how many terrorists did the cockpit door stop since 9/11 vs. pilot action?

This is a bad week - the general flying public is probably going to get very rattled - AF, 2x MAS, GW, ...

http://avherald.com/h?article=483e7337&opt=0

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/558968-air-canada-a320-accident-halifax.html

The Air Canada crew and pax were very lucky.....

QuoteThe Air Canada crew and pax were very lucky.....

That is an understatement!  :shock:

I hope people don't think we need to make some kind of new rule in response to this tragedy. We have 100,000 flights that take off every single day, and most days, every single one of them lands safely. Incidents like this are horrific, but rare. Very, very rare.

Yeah...I don't understand the hysteria that seems to be surrounding this.

As they said on the radio the other day here -  there is a real risk that people will think all pilots are depressed psychos wanting to hurt everybody given the slightest excuse. That just isn't true! Unfortunately people seem to take leave of their senses and just go with whatever gets reported in the media (and IMHO journalists should be nailed for promoting this crap).

I am surprised at the sort of level of indignation in the (social) media around this accidents. The call for action to ensure it never happens again, is in my opinion not even realistic. Everything in life carries a certain amount of risk. You cant avoid it. If this case really turns out to be a "murder suicide" (and it appears that way) it should be recognized for what it is. A very rare occurence. Apperently so rear that there simply isnt even enough occurence and data to get any sort of understanding on what makes these (very few) people behave like this.

Of course, every accidents needs a proper investigation to the end, lessons learned and where appropiate new and adttional measures taken. But against the safety record of the commercial aviation industry, you might want to questions how much more investment you want to pour into it, to try and prevent the extremely odd one off.

If the locked door and how many persons should be in the cockpit needs revising, that's fair enough, but only on the basis of the limited knowledge we have on this accident to date? I think that sends the wrong message as well. It suggest there was a very serious safety threat and that has now been adressed. If this turns out to be a murder suicide, I dont think it was a very serious safety threat perse, as they are extremely rare and I don't think having a FA in the cockpit will solve this in all cases either.

Having said that, if it was any of my loved ones that perished in this accidents, I'm pretty sure I would leave no stone unturned to demand it never happens again.

Jeroen

The general opinion "over here" in the US seems to be "those totally irresponsible Europeans finally got it and now it is just as it has been forever over here: everybody out, two pilots in, with guns."

People really like this simple explanation of the world.

Politicians really like to dictate what the industry must do, and they are not known for being driven by scientific research or common sense.


Hoppie

Well the problem is always "SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!111!11!!!".

In response to Colgan, it was increasing minimum pilot hours to 1500, but in reality it does nothing for flight safety.

After 9/11 the response was to make the cockpit door impenetrable, but as we are now discovering, it is causing unforeseen side-effects, such as locking out legitimate flight crew due to failure/malfunction, or even enabling crew to do bad things (as in this case).

There is no fix to this problem. Reality is people are people, and they will always do something unimaginable.

"If you make something idiot-proof, they will just invent a better idiot".

Without wanting to revert to stereo typing, unfortunately there is a large cross section of the population that believe the worlds problems can be solved by just a few, max 2-3, bullet type statements..

These days if you cant formulate the problem and the solution in a 35 second youtube clip, people dont take you seriously anymore.

Somehow, some call this progress?! Of course, these days Im just an old git that doesnt understand social media.
Jeroen

Quote from: United744Well the problem is always "SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!111!11!!!".

In response to Colgan, it was increasing minimum pilot hours to 1500, but in reality it does nothing for flight safety.

After 9/11 the response was to make the cockpit door impenetrable, but as we are now discovering, it is causing unforeseen side-effects, such as locking out legitimate flight crew due to failure/malfunction, or even enabling crew to do bad things (as in this case).

There is no fix to this problem. Reality is people are people, and they will always do something unimaginable.

"If you make something idiot-proof, they will just invent a better idiot".

No argument here. If this guy snapped when he was driving his car he may have done it that way who knows. Because of the casualties in air crashes there is an uproar of "WE HAVE TO CHANGE/FIX SOMETHING!" These kinds of things unfortunately have happened on the roads in places of business etc. Just a different tool used same result. I'd rather fly than drive any day. These men and women are professionals and a few bad ones will slip through the cracks but it shouldn't cast doubt on the whole profession.

Quote from: Jeroen HoppenbrouwersNext installment: make it mandatory that both pilots have guns.

Too late - 10-20% of US pilots armed already.  Solves which problem?  Arrrggh

Unanticipated consequences escalate.

Torrence

Quote from: torrence10-20% of US pilots armed already.

Can they take it aboard?

Yes, they can.

From wikipedia:

QuoteThe Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program is run by the Federal Air Marshal Service with the aim of allowing volunteer pilots of commercial airline flights to carry firearms for the purpose of defending the flight deck against 9/11-style attacks. Following the September 11 attacks in 2001, the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act, part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 directed the Transportation Security Administration to develop the Federal Flight Deck Officer program as an additional layer of security. Under this program, flight crew members are deputized Federal Law Enforcement Officers authorized by the Transportation Security Administration to use firearms to defend against acts of criminal violence or air piracy undertaken to gain control of their aircraft. A flight crew member may be a pilot, flight engineer or navigator assigned to the flight. Participants in the program are meant to remain anonymous, and while armed, are prohibited from sharing their participation except with select personnel on a need-to-know basis. Any pilot or flight engineer employed by a commercial airline is eligible to volunteer for the FFDO program. Program size quickly exceeded TSA expectations after the program was opened for volunteers in early 2003.

OK... So in the US one pilot can shoot the other, then crash the aircraft? How does that help "security"?

Australia has adopted the 2 in the cockpit rule:

http://australianaviation.com.au/2015/03/australia-introduces-two-person-cockpit-rule/

Thanks Will,

That doesn't make me feel better or safer (and I don't fly in the USA).
Can they take it when they fly outside the US (I guess there are no problems as long as they are on the aircraft but once they are outside of it – they are outside US territory – it is something else)?

I wonder what ammunition they use. If standard (with powerful gun), that would really scare me!

Cheers,

I wonder whether the US now is going to reconsider the vetting rules for which pilot is allowed to carry a gun? After all, one real pilot now proved pretty much that he could kill. Do we trust all pilots that have guns to be mentally stable?

Add the anonymous guy in seat 1D to the equation. Do we trust all TSA Air Marshalls?


Hoppie

Quote from: AviI wonder what ammunition they use.

From the experts:

Quote from: The Gun Zone.44 Special Glaser Safety Slugs.

Shoot safely!

 8)

Glaser safety slugs are controversial. They are super light (and thus high-speed) frangible rounds, meaning they break apart into little pieces when they his something that gives resistance. They're basically the smallest grade of bird shot, packed into a copper housing.

They are called "safety" because they won't penetrate walls inside a home. Even sheetrock will make the bullet break up into these little pellets, and the sheetrock won't be penetrated. Supposedly, this lets you use them indoors without the risk that the bullets will travel into an adjacent room and hit unintended targets. One can see how this would make sense inside an aircraft.

They are controversial, because they are utterly destructive when they hit living flesh. They hit with the same total kinetic energy of a conventional bullet, and since they penetrate flesh and clothing (but not walls), all of the energy goes into the target. It's not the type of hit that's usually survivable.

When the crew carries guns, wouldn't it be safer if the passengers too carried guns? This way, when one pilot goes nuts, the passengers could defend themselves better?


!-!

Quote from: Hardy HeinlinWhen the crew carries guns, wouldn't it be safer if the passengers too carried guns? This way, when one pilot goes nuts, the passengers could defend themselves better

Yes... but if you're going to have one gun, I want two, so I can keep one holstered and one in my hand so I can start shooting if I see you reaching for yours, or turbulence causes me to drop my first one on the floor (or ceiling, depending).

In fact, I propose we remove the pilots from the aircraft entirely and fly them remotely. You can also put 8 economy seats where the flight deck would have been.

Let's limit the number of guns to 3 per passenger.

Not because of safety. Because of the gross weight.


!-!

Quote from: Hardy HeinlinLet's limit the number of guns to 3 per passenger.

Not because of safety. Because of the gross weight.

Here's a better idea: ban the carriage of passengers (they're just dangerous cargo at this point), and convert all aircraft to freighters. Then the pilots can have as many guns as they like.

 :mrgreen:

Ban pilots and passengers! Let ATC fly empty airplanes around for fun by remote control.

Seriously, the insistence on total safety is absurd. We've reached "peak safety" now, where anything we do to try and make the system as a whole safer, is actually just trading one risk for another.

We are likely to get these sort of announcements from the cockpit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jtf4Zma8kMU

Even though this incident is very sad one must appreciate that given the volume of air traffic, this type of eventuality is possible although very very unlikely.

What the air transport industry has to do now, is to enable a crew member to be able to gain access to the cockpit.

Let's see whether the just found FDR still works and if so, whether it may corroborate the current theories.


Hoppie

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32173632

I guess that confirms what we already thought.