It appears that they had managed to aviate since the plane didn't appear to have stalled or spun in

 

Or perhaps it was the autopilot that was flying the plane. With Airbus flight envelope protection you can remove the pilots at any phase of flight and the plane won't end up stalling or flying upside down even with autopilot off. 

 

When the descent  started the aircraft was over French coast, all it would have taken for them to be able to descend safely would have been a simple turn that would have taken them back over the Mediterranean. Suitable diversion airports are located on the coast too. 

This turn never happened, I think the reason for that has to be pilots not being able to fly the aircraft for a some reason. 

Or perhaps it was the autopilot that was flying the plane. With Airbus flight envelope protection you can remove the pilots at any phase of flight and the plane won't end up stalling or flying upside down even with autopilot off.

 

When the descent started the aircraft was over French coast, all it would have taken for them to be able to descend safely would have been a simple turn that would have taken them back over the Mediterranean. Suitable diversion airports are located on the coast too.

This turn never happened, I think the reason for that has to be pilots not being able to fly the aircraft for a some reason.

Of course it was on autopilot. They did indeed begin the descent while over water. So that indicates to me that high terrain being a factor would not be the first thing on their mind. Why should you expect them to turn? When I lost pressurisation at FL340 in real life, I continued along the airway as well. A loss of pressurisation is not a cause for an immediate divert and landing. It is cause for a speedy descent and to pull out the qrh. Once the qrh is complete and the plane is at an altitude where you can breathe, then you evaluate what the best course of action is. Divert or continue, those are matters you can deal with in time. Their gotcha was that they descended towards the Alps from over the Mediterranean Ocean. They didn't realize mountains were going to be an issue as they worked the qrh.

 

 

Their gotcha was that they descended towards the Alps from over the Mediterranean Ocean. They didn't realize mountains were going to be an issue as they worked the qrh

 

Perhaps that would be believable had they hit a mountain somewhere around 10 000 feet. But a descent all the way to 6800 feet without paying any attention to where they were heading? Sorry, not very believable at all, by the time they reached an altitude with breathable air they surely would have started paying attention on where to go next. 

Comments on avherald suggest that the pilots' oxygen might have failed.

German news report that a number of Germanwings pilots are refusing to fly.

 

One thing could be connected with the other one.

Perhaps that would be believable had they hit a mountain somewhere around 10 000 feet. But a descent all the way to 6800 feet without paying any attention to where they were heading? Sorry, not very believable at all, by the time they reached an altitude with breathable air they surely would have started paying attention on where to go next.

It looked pretty cloudy there from the tv.....

Guys that mountain range it ran into is only 8000' so they were under 8000' when it hit the mountain. It appears to be a very consistent descend from cruise to the crash site and it doesn't appear to have leveled off at any point or divert from its course in any way. Of course black box is required to know. All we know is what Radar is showing us

Very sad news.

 

Thoughts to all the families of those that were on the flight

Sad day. I send my condolences, hopefully the investigation is swift and effective. 

Terrible stuff,  thoughts are with everyone involved,  them poor kids. 

. Over the alps, I would expect them to have driftdown escape procedures defined for that route..

See my first post.

When I lost pressurisation at FL340 in real life, I continued along the airway as well. A loss of pressurisation is not a cause for an immediate divert and landing. It is cause for a speedy descent and to pull out the qrh. Once the qrh is complete and the plane is at an altitude where you can breathe, then you evaluate what the best course of action is. Divert or continue.

 

 

Not sure what airline or operator you work for but every QRC I've had to memorize classified a complete loss of pressurization as an emergency requiring immediate landing at the nearest suitable alternate. 

 

Ever heard of cascading failures?

 

ECS is not just pressurization, a lot of other stuff immediately becomes a concern. Most importantly bleed air and primary equipment cooling.

 

Infact I have the PC for my equipment in front of me now and it classifies a loss of pressurization as the same as smoke/fumes/odor in the cockpit.

 

Its an emergency, you declare it and land immediately.   

 

And another thing if you are in an emergency decent profile staying on airway while diving from FL340 to 10,000 ft is insane. What about air traffic below you on the same airway?

 

Especially in RVSM airspace.

 

You may be confusing drift down procedures for an engine out profile with loss of cabin pressurization. I dunno. 

Not sure what operator you work for either, but none of the qrh's I have used use the phrase 'nearest suitable alternate'. They only use the phrase 'nearest suitable airport'. Nearest suitable airport may very well be straight ahead towards your original destination and does not have to be an airport other than what you originally are headed towards.

 

The traffic below me were out of the way since I declared the emergency and was cleared to descend by atc. RVSM had nothing to do with any of this. Where it matters to turn away is if you are over oceanic airspace away from direct atc control. Descending into IAH when it happened to me does not require a self initiated 90 degree turn since you are in direct communication with atc who can clear you to descend in an emergency.

 

Drift down alternates are not just for engine failures. If you lose pressurisation and need to descend to 10,000 quickly while over the rocky mountains, you need to be just as aware of the terrain around you and have an escape route out of the mountains to lower terrain. In fact, it is even worse to lose pressurisation since you have to descend quickly instead of milking a long shallow descent if you've merely lost an engine but still have pressurisation capability.

He is not a pilot at all. He has done this before. It is a shame because 150 people lost their lives and he will use a tragedy for his own personal agenda, including pretending to be a pilot. Just ignore him

Lol. Go get yourself another alcoholic beverage. You got your rear end handed back to you that time for spouting off about how you enjoyed disobeying crewmember instructions. Let it go.

I don't remember ever seeing an aircraft so "shredded" as that poor A320 that crashed in the French Alps this morning.

That's what happens when you cfit straight into a mountain at 300kts.

He is not a pilot at all. He has done this before. It is a shame because 150 people lost their lives and he will use a tragedy for his own personal agenda, including pretending to be a pilot. Just ignore him

 

 

Wow! That is indeed sad. 

 

And yes you are correct 150 people are no longer with us, will never see family and friends again. 

Not sure what operator you work for either, but none of the qrh's I have used use the phrase 'nearest suitable alternate'. They only use the phrase 'nearest suitable airport'. Nearest suitable airport may very well be straight ahead towards your original destination and does not have to be an airport other than what you originally are headed towards.

 

 

If you've never heard the term "Nearest Suitable Alternate" then yes yztpilot is right, you're not a pilot associated with any 121 operation. 

 

If FAA designates all suitable alternates in any 121 carriers operations manual. You can just drop a A320/737/757/777/747 into any airfield.