German Tabloid 'Bild' Claims to Have Transcript of Germanwings Voice Recorder (Flight Data Recorder 'Remains Missing'); French Air Accident Investigation Agency Calls Their Report 'Voyeurism'
"What bothers me here is that this was leaked or presented to the press and public before the investigation is even remotely complete. Granted, this appears to be common practice in the age of instant information demand. How convenient it is to always blame two dead pilots, or in this case, one dead pilot. Can't we wait for the official report to be released from the investigative authorities before the world lynches this poor guy!? Think of what his family must be going through now. In addition, based on what I know of Lufthansa's selection criteria for pilots, which can easily be said to be one of the toughest in the world, I'm just not buying this. Not until all the facts are out." - Reluctant Bus Driver,
PPRuNe.org
What happened to
ICAO Annex 13? Without data from the Flight Data Recorder (FDR), how do they know the First Officer started the descent? Many critical questions to be asked. Speculation is not good for the official investigation. The First Officer has been accused, charged, tried and convicted, and we don't yet have the FDR to be sure of the sequence of events or exactly
what happened and why! Surely there is a LOT more to this than what the French Prosecutor has decided based on what he "heard."
The French Prosecutor is not following ICAO Annex 13 and, as a result, the IFALPA issued a
press release on March 26 (excerpt follows):
The International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations (IFALPA) deplores and condemns yesterday's leaking of certain elements of the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) of the Germanwings flight 4U9525. Not only do these leaks contravene the internationally agreed principles of accident investigation confidentiality set out in ICAO Annex 13, they are also a breach of trust to all those involved in the investigation and to the families of the victims. Furthermore, leaks of this nature greatly harm flight safety since they invite ill-informed speculation from the media and the general public and discourage cooperation with investigators in future accidents. Leaking premature, unanalyzed, and partial CVR recordings, which lack
the context of the entire body of factual investigative data, severely
interferes with the investigative process, and can only lead to early
conclusions on what exactly occurred during the time leading up to the
accident. Any other use of CVR data is not only invalid, but is an
unacceptable invasion of privacy best described as a search for sensationalism and voyeurism of the worst kind.
March 29, 2015
CNN - The
sounds recorded on one of the "black boxes" recovered from downed
Germanwings Flight 9525 firms up investigators' theory that the co-pilot
locked the captain out of the cockpit and then crashed the plane.
"For
God's sake, open the door!" Capt. Patrick Sondenheimer screamed as he
banged on the cockpit door, pleading with the co-pilot.
Thirteen minutes later, the plane slammed into the French Alps.
The
audio from the plane's cockpit voice recorder has not been released,
but the German newspaper Bild published Sunday what it claims is a
summary of the transcript from the recording.
CNN translated Bild's report
-- which the newspaper says is based on the 1.5 hours of audio that
was on the cockpit voice recorder -- but cannot independently verify
the information.
France's accident investigation agency, BEA, told CNN that the agency is "dismayed" by the voice recording leak to Bild.
Martine Del Bono, a spokeswoman for the agency, said the leak could not have come from a BEA agent. She said the agency considers the report mere "voyeurism."
According
to Bild's report, Sondenheimer told co-pilot Andreas Lubitz that he
didn't manage to go to the bathroom before takeoff. Lubitz tells him he
can go anytime.
Lubitz is believed to
have locked the pilot of Flight 9525 out of the cockpit before putting
the plane on a rapid descent into the mountains, French authorities have
said.
The flight took off 20 minutes late. After reaching cruising altitude, Sondenheimer asked Lubitz to prepare the landing.
Once that's finished, Lubitz again tells the captain he "can go anytime."
There is the sound of a seat being pushed backward after which the captain says,
"You can take over."
At 10:29 a.m., air traffic radar detects that the plane is starting to descend.
Three
minutes later, air traffic controllers try to contact the plane and
receive no answer -- shortly after which an alarm goes off in the
cockpit, warning of the "sink rate," Bild reported.
Next comes the banging.
Sondenheimer begs Lubitz to let him in. Passengers then begin to scream, according to the transcript obtained by Bild.
Another three minutes pass. A loud metallic bang is heard at 7,000 meters (almost 23,000 feet).
A minute and half later and 2,000 meters (about 6,500 feet) lower to the ground, an alarm says "Terrain -- pull up!"
"Open the damn door!" the pilot says.
It's
10:38, and the plane is at 4,000 meters (about 13,000 feet). Lubitz's
breathing can still be heard on the voice recorder, according to Bild's
report.
Two minutes later, investigators think they hear the plane's right wing scrape a mountaintop.
Screams can be heard one final time.
'Unbelievable' leak [by unidentified military official]
Cockpit
recordings are some of the most sensitive and closely held parts of
aviation crash investigations. They're never officially released,
according to CNN aviation reporter Richard Quest.
Quest called it "unbelievable" that the black box audio would be leaked in this manner.
Communications
between air traffic control and a plane's cockpit can be downloaded
privately, but that's less common in Europe than it is in the United
States.
An edited and redacted version of the transcript is usually published in part of a final report on an incident.
Although
search teams have recovered the cockpit voice recorder, the flight data
recorder remains missing. That device could reveal crucial details
about what happened during the final moments of the flight.
What authorities know
Jean
Pierre Michel, lead investigator for the French inquiry, said on
Saturday that investigators are not ruling out any scenario with respect
to the crash out at this point.
But
French authorities have said that Lubitz appeared to have crashed
Germanwings Flight 9525 deliberately into the Alps on Tuesday as it flew
from Barcelona, Spain, toward Dusseldorf, Germany, with 150 people on
board.
Much attention has focused on Lubitz's state of mind since then, with suggestions that he may have had mental health issues.
Lubitz, 27, passed his annual pilot recertification medical examination in summer 2014, a German aviation source told CNN.
An official with Lufthansa, which owns Germanwings, said that the exam only tests physical health, not psychological health.
The
official also said that the company was never given any indication
Lubitz was depressed, and that if he went to a doctor on his own, he
would have been required to self-report if deemed unfit to fly.
A
Dusseldorf clinic said he'd gone there twice, most recently on March
10, "concerning a diagnosis." But the University Clinic said it had not
treated Lubitz for depression.
The speculation about Lubitz' mental state is based on a letter found in a waste bin in his Dusseldorf apartment.
The note, which was "slashed," said Lubitz was not able to do his job, city prosecutor Christoph Kumpa said Friday.
The
fact that investigators found "ripped, recent medical leave notes,
including for the day of the offense, leads to the preliminary
conclusion that the deceased kept his illness secret from his employer
and his professional environment," prosecutors said.
Germanwings corroborated that assertion, saying it had never received a sick note from Lubitz.
Anxiety, burnout and depression
A handful of publications, citing unnamed sources, have reported that Lubitz suffered from various psychological maladies.
CNN has not been able to confirm these reports.
Lubitz
suffered from "generalized anxiety disorder," and from severe
depression in the past, Le Parisien newspaper reported Sunday, citing
sources close to the investigation. In 2010, Lubitz received injections
of antipsychotic medication, the paper said.
He
was also prescribed a medication that influences neurotransmitters, but
it's unclear when that happened, according to Le Parisien.
The
newspaper said investigators found a handful of pills in his apartment
in addition to two sick notes, which forbade him from working from March
16 to March 29.
The New York Times and
The Wall Street Journal, citing unnamed sources, reported Friday that
Lubitz suffered from mental illness and kept his diagnosis concealed
from his employer.
A subsequent report
from the Times on Saturday, citing two officials with knowledge of the
investigation, said Lubitz sought treatment before the crash for vision
problems that might have put his career at risk. However,
an official with Lufthansa, said that if Lubitz had vision problems,
they would have been discovered during his pilot recertification medical
examination.
Authorities have not ruled out the vision problems could have been psychosomatic, according to the Times.
Citing
an unidentified senior investigator, German newspaper Die Welt said
that Lubitz suffered from a severe "psychosomatic illness" and that
German police seized prescription drugs that treat the condition. Lubitz
suffered from a "severe subjective burnout syndrome" and from severe
depression, the source told the newspaper.
News reports also stated that antidepressants were found during the search of his apartment.
Investigators
are expected to question his relatives, friends and co-workers as they
try to pin down what could have prompted the co-pilot to steer a
jetliner full of people into a mountainside.
Lubitz had a girlfriend, a teacher at a school in Dusseldorf not far from his apartment, according to German media.
'This is a man whose life is totally broken'
Dozens
of people attended a remembrance ceremony Saturday for the victims of
the crash at a church in a nearby town, Digne-les-Bains, France. Most of
the people on the plane were from Germany and Spain.
Relatives
of the victims and local residents also gathered Saturday afternoon by a
simple stone memorial set up near the crash site, in the village of Le
Vernet. Flowers have been laid there, in the shadow of the snow-covered
peaks of the French Alps.
The mayor of
one local community said he had seen Lubitz's father on Thursday
evening, describing him as "a man in deep distress."
"We
get the impression that that man is bearing the whole weight of the
disaster on his shoulders," Bernard Bartolini, the mayor of
Prads-Haute-Bleone, said Saturday.
"I can tell that this is a man whose life is totally broken," Bartolini said. "He had so much emotion in him."
Please bear in mind that the "exclusive interview" with Lubitz' alleged
ex-girlfriend, who supposedly dated him very casually last year over a five-month period, and who spoke under the assumed name of Maria W., was conducted by German tabloid "Bild," a sensationalist
publication, comparable with Daily Mail and such, or even worse. It's also well known that they pay good amounts of money for "exclusive interviews." Lubitz had a long-term girlfriend/fiance, a teacher at a school in Dusseldorf not far from his apartment, who identifies herself using her full name, Kathrin Goldbach. They had not recently broken up and she is not pregnant, as has been widely reported by the tabloids and bloggers.
March 28, 2015
IBT - Andreas Lubitz, the Germanwings co-pilot that authorities believe
deliberately crashed a commercial airliner this week, killing himself
and 149 others, told a former girlfriend that he wanted to do something
spectacular that would “change the system” and make everyone remember
him, according to an interview the woman gave to German media.
A report from German newspaper Bild,
citied by the Guardian,
said that Lubitz's 26-year old ex-girlfriend, whom the paper identified only as
Maria W, a flight attendant whom he had dated for five months, said he told her last year: “One day I will do something that
will change the whole system, and then all will know my name and
remember it.” She added: “I never knew what he meant, but now it makes sense.” Maria also told the paper that Lubitz suffered from nightmares: “At
night, he woke up and screamed: ‘We’re going down!’, because he had
nightmares. He knew how to hide from other people what was really going
on inside.”
German prosecutor Ralf Herrenbrueck said Friday that Lubitz had
hidden an “existing illness," from
the airline, and that police had found torn-up sick notes from a doctor
that excused him from work on the day the crash took place. A Germanwings representative later stipulated that the airline had
not been presented with any medical note for Lubitz covering the day of
the crash. Authorities have not disclosed the nature of the illness that Lubitz
is alleged to have concealed.
German media reports alleged
that Lubtiz' flight training was interrupted for six months in 2009
because he was suffering from "psychological problems." Some psychological conditions, including depression, do not exclude
people from working as pilots. In 2010, the FAA lifted its blanket ban
on
pilots taking antidepressants,
with a view toward trying to reduce any stigma surrounding mental
health issues, and to ensure that pilots who needed help got it, rather
than hid any condition.
Other motives raised as a possible explanation of Lubitz's actions
include the fact that he had recently split from his girlfriend. He
attempted to win her back by purchasing her an expensive car, which she
did not accept, the
Telegraph reported.
German newspaper Welt am Sonntag said police found evidence at his flat which suggested he was suffering from 'severe burnout syndrome' - a serious psychosomatic illness.A source in the police investigation team told the newspaper that Lubitz was treated by several neurologists and psychiatrists, before adding: 'This is clear from personal notes stored and collected by the pilot.'
The
Mirror reported: Former colleagues told how Lubitz was mercilessly taunted over his cabin
crew past.
He was nicknamed “Tomato Andy” because they believed he didn’t know if
he was a “fruit or veg” – a reference to his sexuality.
One ex-workmate said it was slang term for a “straight who was really
gay”.
Another added: “Everyone thought it strange that he kept on going back
home to his mum and dad at weekends.
"He had a nice car, a good job, and good prospects, but he seemed to
spend all his time by himself.”
Lubitz bought two top-of-the-range Audi cars earlier this month. One was
said to be a present for himself and the other for his girlfriend.
Habibalah Hassani, 53, who runs a pizza restaurant near the killer
pilot’s Dusseldorf home, said he had often seen him with his lover.
But neighbours in Montabaur claimed she had not been seen there
recently.
The
Daily Mail reported on a story by the German tabloid
Bild, which interviewed Maria W, a flight attendant who dated Lubris for five months. 'We
spoke a lot about work and then he became another person. He became
agitated about the circumstances in which he had to work, too little
money, anxiety about his contract and too much pressure,' she said.
'During
conversations he'd suddenly throw a tantrum and scream at me. I was afraid. He even once locked me in the bathroom for a long
time." Maria said previous conversations with him
suddenly 'made sense' when she heard about the crash.
She
said: ‘When I heard about the crash, there was just a tape playing in
my head of what he said: “One day I will do something that will change
the system and everyone will then know my name and remember me”.
‘I did not know what he meant by that at the time, but now it’s clear.’ She
added: 'The torn up sick notes make sense now to me and were a clear
sign that he did not want to admit that his big dream of flying as a
captain was over.'
The
Daily Mail also reported: "Police will want to interview the air stewardess in detail about the pilot’s state of mind, as well as his most recent girlfriend who he is said to have lived with in a smart flat on the outskirts of Dusseldorf. One report claimed they had been together on and off for seven years and were engaged and planned to marry next year. Lubitz had reportedly ordered two new Audis for them just before the tragedy in an apparent desperate last attempt to win her back. But she appeared to have rejected his offer, as only one car was ever delivered. It is not known why they split but it has been claimed their relationship broke down because he was secretly gay and was suffering torment over hiding his homosexuality.
The
Daily Mail also reported: Described as a man whose life-long obsession had been to become a pilot, it has been suggested he may have feared his flying license might not be renewed on medical grounds. One friend said he 'would have died' if he had not passed his flying exams. It also emerged that Lubitz was familiar with the area of the French Alps where he brought down the Airbus A320, having previously completed a gliding course there. He frequented a gliding club just 30 miles from the crash site with his parents as a child before later flying over the province himself as a teenager. Members of his former flying club said he was ‘passionate and obsessed’ with the Alps and would have been well-acquainted with the area of the crash.
The
Daily Mail also reported: A passenger on the outbound flight from Dusseldorf to Barcelona, which is believed to have had Lubitz on board, also questioned today why he didn't down that flight instead. Michael, 45, said he saw the pilot leave the cockpit during the 6.45am flight for a toilet break. He told Bild: 'I sat in the fifth row. I could see the front of the plane. The toilet behind the cockpit was apparently out of order, I could see the red light flashing throughout the flight. 'A man over 40, probably the pilot, in a grey V neck sweater came through the curtain. He went through the plane probably to the rear toilet. 'After an estimated three to five minutes he came back and again opened the cockpit door.' He said he didn't see the co-pilot during the flight but described the journey as 'unobtrusive and 'normal'.
The
Daily Mail also reported: A pilot who once flew with Lubitz last night told how he left him alone in a cockpit to use the toilet. ‘I remember him well,’ said Frank Woiton, 48, ‘and I left my seat from time to time in the air to use the toilet. ‘When I flew with him he told me of his training and how happy he was. ‘He said that he wanted to fly long-haul routes and become a captain. ‘He had mastered the plane very well, he had everything under control. That’s why I left him alone in the cockpit, to go to the toilet.’
The
Daily Mail also reported: His relationship with blonde maths teacher, named by German media as Kathrin Goldbach, was said to be in trouble, with local reports suggesting she may have been pregnant. Maths teacher Kathrin Goldbach – who had planned to marry Lubitz next year – reportedly told pupils that she was ‘going to be a mum.’ Miss Goldbach, 26, told the pupils at the Gesamtschule in Krefeld, near Dusseldorf, she was pregnant, German newspaper Bild reported. The pair met as teenagers while working together at a Burger King in his home town of Montabaur. They moved together to Dusseldorf and shared a flat after he qualified as a pilot around four years ago. They intended to marry but his constant demands and desire to be ‘in control’ meant that by the time of the crash she was looking to end their relationship. Reports emerged that police searching his flat had found a ‘small mountain of pills’ and he had apparently been refusing to take his antidepressant medication. An excerpt from his school yearbook said he would ‘become a professional pilot so as to sell his cocktails around the world’. Yesterday a British air safety expert said Lubitz was able to hide his medical problems because of a ‘gaping hole’ in the system for monitoring pilot health. Under confidentiality laws rules, which also operate in the UK, patients do not have to tell GPs where they work and doctors are not able to tell employers about any health issues because of patient confidentiality. The onus of reporting any health issues rests solely on employees. Tony Newton, a British pilot and Civil Aviation Authority examiner, said: ‘It’s a gaping hole. It would happen in the UK as well.’
The French prosecutor said: "I
think the victims were only aware at the very last moment. The screams
are heard only in the last instants before the impact." However,
according to Bild's account of the voice recorder, there were "loud
metallic blows" against the cockpit door and the pilot was screaming
"open the damn door" five minutes before the plane crashed:
"At 10.35, Bild said 'loud metallic blows' against the cockpit door
can be heard, with another alarm sounding about 90 seconds later. At
around 5,000 metres altitude, the pilot is heard screaming 'open the
damn door'. Around 10.40, the plane hits a mountain and
passengers' screams are heard -- the last sounds on the recording,
according to Bild.
According to unofficial data from a flight-tracking service,
flightradar24, the aircraft took about 20 minutes to climb a cruise
height of 38,000 feet, where it leveled out for just 3 to 4 minutes, and
then entered a steady descent profile without altering its ground speed
to any significant extent from the 420-450kt (780-830km/h) adopted in
the cruise. It was not a dramatic descent, but was very steady all the
way to impact. It also appears to have crashed quite close to its
flight-planned track, so there was no sudden veer off course.
Radar logs of the Barcelona to Dusselfdorf flight show that at 10.29am,
it was at its cruising height of 28.524 feet over the Mediterranean. At
10.30am it had dropped to 26,453 feet. One minute later, it was at
24,380 feet. For the next 17 minutes, it shed around 1,000 feet of
height a minute – a gradual glide downwards rather than a dive. The
plane vanished from radar contact soon after 10.48am and is believed to
have crashed a few minutes later. Ms Royal confirmed this morning that,
soon after 10.30am, when the pilots had stopped responding by radio, the
French military scrambled a Mirage jet fighter to investigate. This
aircraft was seen by eye-witnesses following the doomed airliner as it
skimmed the Alpine ridges before crashing into a sheer mountain-side.
The pilot of the Mirage could, therefore, also possess crucial
information on the Germanwings aircraft's behaviour. [
Source]
March 31, 2015
AFP - The Germanwings flight started like any other, the conversation in the cockpit normal, with co-pilot Andreas Lubitz offering no indication of the horror he would allegedly inflict.
This is how Flight 4U 9525, which investigators believe Lubitz deliberately steered into a French mountainside, unfolded according to French prosecutors and Germany's Bild newspaper.
Both accounts are based on information from the cockpit voice recorder captured by one of the black boxes discovered among debris of the Airbus A320 that crashed in the Alps Tuesday.
- Captain Patrick S. apologises to passengers for a 26-minute delay in take-off and says they will try to catch up the time during the flight from Barcelona to Duesseldorf, Sunday's Bild said.
- The plane took off at around 10am local time and for the first 20 minutes the pilots "spoke in a normal fashion, courteous, like normal pilots. There was nothing abnormal," French prosecutor Brice Robin told reporters on Thursday.
- According to excerpts published by Bild on Sunday, during the conversation the captain said he didn't have time to go to the toilet before leaving Barcelona and Lubitz offered to take over at any time.
- At 10.27 am local time (0827 GMT), the plane reaches its cruising altitude of 11,600 metres (38,000 feet) and the captain asks Lubitz to begin preparations for landing, according to Bild.
- The responses from Lubitz remained normal, but "very short... not a real dialogue," Robin said.
- According to Bild, the co-pilot is heard saying, among other things, "hopefully" and "let's see". After checks for the landing, he is heard telling the pilot he can go now. Two minutes pass and the pilot then says to Lubitz "you can take over".
- Bild and Robin said the sound of a seat being moved back is heard and a door closing. "We can assume he left to answer nature's call," Robin told reporters.
- At 10.29, the plane begins to descend, Bild noted.
- The French prosecutor believes that, once left alone, Lubitz turned a button on the flight monitoring system that began the plane's descent.
"This action can only be deliberate," Robin said. "It would be impossible to turn the button by mistake. If you passed out and leaned over on it, it would only go a quarter-way and do nothing."
- The Airbus A320 jet descended rapidly for eight minutes, according to the low-cost carrier Germanwings.
- At 10.32, air traffic controllers try to make contact with the plane but receive no reply and an automatic alarm is heard going off at almost the same time, according to Bild.
- The newspaper said that shortly afterwards there was a loud bang, like someone trying to open the door and re-enter the cockpit. The captain can be heard shouting "For God's sake, open the door", as passengers' screams begin to be heard in the background.
- Robin had indicated last week that the black box recorded increasingly frantic attempts by the pilot to break down the heavily reinforced door as per international standards, to which Lubitz made no response.
- At 10.35, Bild said "loud metallic blows" against the cockpit door can be heard, with another alarm sounding about 90 seconds later. At around 5,000 metres altitude, the pilot is heard screaming "open the damn door".
- At 10.38, Bild's account indicates the sound of Lubitz's breathing but him saying nothing. "He does not say a single word. Total silence," Robin said of the co-pilot during the descent.
- Around 10.40, the plane hits a mountain and passengers' screams are heard -- the last sounds on the recording, according to Bild.
- The plane dropped gradually from around 10-12,000 metres to 2,000 slowly enough, Robin said, that passengers would have been unaware anything was wrong.
"I think the victims were only aware at the very last moment. The screams are heard only in the last instants before the impact," said Robin.
x
ReplyDeleteMarch 28, 2015
And don’t forget the “NEW” hilarious hoax story (LOL)…The co pilot had a short relationship (“ex girlfriend”) with a stewardess. He told her that he was depressive (WHO WOULD TELL THIS IF YOU KNOW SOMEBODY FOR THAT SHORT?!?!?),h e had eye problems, was afraid of losing his job, AND that he would DO something that would the world SHOCK and that everybody would know who he is and his name for the rest of their life… So the co pilot tells this to a STEWARDESS (hahahahhihihaha) at great RISK, you would say, because she can tell this to all of her colleague’s or one of them, and that colleague(s) would tell it to others etc. AND they had only a short relationship…they couldn’t see each other a lot because she is a stewardess and he’s a co pilot…for example she is in AFRICA and he is in ICELAND, so maybe they saw each other (in this hoax story!!) 10 times or…because it was a short relationship and with the jobs they have….IF HE WANTED THAT NOBODY WOULD KNOW WHAT PROBLEMS HE HAS, WHY TELL IT TO A PERSON WHO YOU HAVE A SHORT RELATIONSHIP WITH (he couldn’t know that their relationship would be FOREVER) AND IS A STEWARDESS (it would be the LAST person on EARTH to tell this!!) AND the hoax story goes on. Did you know that the co pilot did go with his parents when he was a kid on VACATION at the same place where he did “crash” the plane in FRANCE? (the hoax news story tells this). So the logical question is: he wanted to “crash” the plane on the same location where he did go on vacation with his parents (the hoax news story tells this) but HOW could the co pilot know that the other pilot would go to the TOILET at that location? Because in a AIRPLANE you FLY in SECONDS over that spot/location…only in hoax stories this is “LOGIC”… A don’t forget that the SPANISH KING was on the same day (3-24-2015) in FRANCE for a “STATE VISIT” (a year has 365 days and just on that day the king of Spain is with PRESIDENT HOLLANDE). YEAH RIGHT…
http://nodisinfo.com/hard-proof-germanwings-crash-is-a-hoax-orchestrated-by-zionists/
offa
ReplyDeleteWe are very quick to sacrifice anyone in pursuit of a quick and convenient “answer” before moving on to the next big event.
The “evidence” so far leaked certainly points towards the right seat but this is only day 3 and the “investigation” already has the aura of a lynch mob.
We should remind ourselves how the family and friends of the MH370 captain were hounded after he was accused of having a flight simulator at home, marriage breakup, etc. when he was likely a totally devoted pilot trying to save his aircraft and passengers under impossible circumstances. The captain’s reputation was instantly ruined and I cannot imagine what his poor family was put though. Any apologies?
Far more important to get a quick answer and keep bums on seats than draw attention to something commercially damaging like having to ban carriage of cheapo Lithium batteries on aircraft?
There is a lot more to this investigation and airlines and authorities might spend time better looking into the relationship between GP and Company Doctor and themselves.
The initial training and 6-monthly SIM checks and line checks would normally reveal clues but they tend to remain hidden in our PC world and we just keep ticking the boxes and refrain from comment.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/558654-airbus-a320-crashed-southern-france-94.html#post8920864
FlyingTinCans
ReplyDeleteConfirmation Bias or Confirmatory Bias, is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.
It is human condition that pilots are trained to avoid, it is safer to DISCOUNT a theory/problem by proving it isn't there rather than looking for things that prove your theory, Air Accident Investigators also use the same ethos.
Can we discount Hypoxia yet? No we can't
Can we discount Pilot Suicide yet? No we can't
Can we discount onboard equipment failure? No we can't
Can we discount aircraft structural failure? Yes we can
Can we discount a bomb on board? Yes we can
Those who have already come to the conclusion that pilot suicide is the only probable cause are suffering from Confirmation Bias.
It may or may not transpire that this was a pilot induced accident, all we and many others are saying is it's too early to come to any kind of informed conclusion about what happened.
If pilots were as rash as sky news, the daily mail, all their readers and the majority of posters in 'Rumours & News' aircraft would be crashing on a daily basis.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/558654-airbus-a320-crashed-southern-france-95.html#post8920896
MrSnuggles
ReplyDeleteJoin Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 38
Posts: 217
This looks like a lynch mob.
Until we know more, please give the FO the benefit of a doubt.
Based on facts from Mr BEA and a prosecutor we know that
- FO changed his demeanor towards Capt during landing brief.
- Capt left the cockpit for some reason after that.
- Cockpit door was locked from inside.
- Breathing sounds are heard in the cockpit but no attempt to comms with ATC and no reactions/improper reactions to the immediate surroundings.
This could all be indicative of so called subtle incapacitation. It may have started with the change in attitude during the briefing. If Capt didn't notice this and went to the loo instead, it could have gotten worse until FO was unconcious or incapable of coherent thoughts - a hypoxia like state of mind.
Such things has happened before. Hypoxic pilots knows to descend if they recognise hypoxia. If there are other problems not related to hypoxia this won't help. Brain aneurysm? Heart infection (TWAR)? Blood clot/deep vein thrombosis?
Subtle incapacitation was one of the reasonings behind the Staines crash.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/558654-airbus-a320-crashed-southern-france-96.html#post8920985
Quote:
ReplyDeleteApologies in advance if I have missed any vital pieces of information; I have tried to check the published information thoroughly before posting.
Some things are simply not adding up for me, particularly the 'evidence' supporting the theory that this was a malicious act by the FO. It seems that the FO has as good as been found guilty of murder without full evidence or any trial, however...
1. We are assured that the sound of the FO breathing (note: 'normally', not hyperventilating or panicked) is heard through to the end. Similarly, we're told that the Alt select can be heard being wound down, a seat being moved, and the door being opened and/or closed. Yet I haven't heard of any reports of the FD door being positively locked in the 'Lock' position, yet this should be clearly audible if these other faint sounds have been picked up. I cannot help feeling that this would be of sufficient importance to have been explicitly stated in the very detailed account offered by the French authorities of what they have heard. Some have questioned how breathing, described as gentle can be heard. I can assure readers that with digital signal processing techniques, including correlation and autocorrelation, signals significantly below the noise floor (ie completely drowned out by noise to the human ear) can be measured and heard, making the CVR a very rich source of audio clues that we wouldn't normally be able to hear. Few are aware that GPS operates by receiving signals sometimes 30dB or even 40dB below ambient noise levels (ie when massively swamped by noise which is many orders of magnitudes stronger than the actual GPS signal) by using this very technique.
2. Is the reported 'normal' breathing consistent with the alleged actions the FO is apparently guilty of doing? It gives the impression of being indicative of a relaxed, possibly incapacitated or even semi-conscious or unconscious person rather than someone knowing they are pointing at a mountain and about to die.
3. It has been assumed that the FO was conscious, if for no other reason than because he HAD to repeatedly re-lock the door after the 5 minute time-out. Have we had this explicitly stated by the authorities who know the facts or heard the CVR audio? If so, wouldn't this positive re-locking be clearly audible on the CVR as per my point above? However, the FO did not NEED to re-lock the door. If the Captain was preoccupied with banging on the door, as has been reported, it is entirely possible, even likely that he never made a (further) attempt to activate the access code as by this time his desperation to re-enter the FD would very likely be closing down options in his mind, to simply trying to smash his way in, just as we have been told. And wouldn't any attempt to re-enter the entry code be reported on as significant? A brief break in the door banging while a code is re-entered would be quite obvious on the CVR.
4. We are informed that the passengers were apparently unaware of the problem until the final seconds. By all accounts, the Captain made significant efforts to either gain the FO's attention, or indeed to break the door down. Are we really to believe that this all went completely unnoticed by the passengers?
Given these anomalies, I don't believe we have been told significant facts that have been revealed by the CVR. And it also seems very premature to judge the FO as totally guilty, as many have done so on this very forum, until the full facts are known. Maybe the media reports forced their hand, but I believe this partial revelation of CVR evidence combined with strong suggestion that the FO deliberately did this is not the way to handle such an important investigation as this.
pilotmike
ReplyDeletepuzzling aspects
From a previous post of mine:
Also, why would a landing briefing be given during the initial climb? This is a time to be on the lookout for any pressurisation problems etc, closely monitoring leveling off etc, certainly not distracting attention away from these essential monitoring roles with a landing briefing.
How could they have listened to the destination ATIS to determine runway in use and expected approach, specific local WX etc to be able to give a detailed and full brief by this stage of flight?
This reported 'landing briefing' doesn't make much sense - I think there was more to this specific briefing than has been mentioned by those who know, along with the actual discussion that gave rise to the reported change of mood of the FO.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/558654-airbus-a320-crashed-southern-france-116.html#post8922623
@SLFplatine
ReplyDeleteQuote:
A lot of discussion on the post 9/11 door that kept the pilot out of the flight deck but really none the discussion on the German medical confidentiality regime with the severe legal consequences for the breach that failed to keep the FO off of the flight deck in the first place. Just an observation.
nsmith
So your thesis is that had the German medical system not kept the pilot's confidentiality then he would have been prevented from flying. You may be right, but you must also accept that this might have prevented him from presenting his problems to the doctor in the first place, or going to an independent doctor instead.
I am concerned with the future, which means accepting that a) there will be a set of positive and negative aspects to every policy decision, and b) one has to talk in terms of the average result rather than focusing on any one specific incident.
We will never know if FO would have presented his problems if the German system had been different, I just think it is highly probable he would not have done so if he knew it would not have been kept confidential.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/558654-airbus-a320-crashed-southern-france-114.html#post8922386
StuntPilot
Any news about the FDR?
Trying to look past the current media frenzy, is there any news about the FDR? The CVR was found damaged but the container holding the memory modules was intact, it just had a couple of scratches. Given the proximity of CVR and FDR in the plane one would expect something similar for the FDR. There was at some point news about a recovered FDR but the 'memory modules were missing'. Then, investigators were 'optimistic' and it seems that they had 'spotted something'. I have not heard any more news along that line.
Is it known what was exactly recovered and what is still missing? Did the crash proof container separate or was the crash proof container found and was its integrity breached so badly that the memory modules themselves are missing or damaged?
londonman
ReplyDeleteI'm taking the comments made by his allegedly 'ex' girlfriend with a very large pinch of salt. Methinks she is enjoying her 15 minutes of fame a tad too much.
@rantanplane. No, I disagree with the use of the word 'deliberate'. That implies intent. We do not know (nor does anyone else, for that matter, at this moment in time) whether he did this with intent and full knowledge of his actions OR if he did it while affected by (a) drug side-effects (b) some physical illness, mini-stroke whatever etc.
@pukindog and blondie2005
You make fair points in that, no, I do not know her personally. However, I do have 35 years as a clinical psychologist plus I speak fluent German and so watching her interviews I do come to this opinion. I admit it is no more than that and were I to spend more time with her away from the media spotlight then I freely admit I might change my mind.
Perhaps my judgement is coloured by the incessant media babble that want to latch onto any comment - often taken out of context - with which to further hang the co-pilot out to dry when we simply don't know. It is fast becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Or a witch-hunt, if you like.
And so posts like ciderman's disappear as they are based on reading the tabloids.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/558654-airbus-a320-crashed-southern-france-127.html#post8924142
Claybird
Master codes , Doctors for every pilot, a guy said passengers should be given complimentary hidden weapons to tackle off terrorists etc, 1001 various door ideas, grounding the planes, remote-controlled planes (I'd love to have seen how an operator from afar would have controlled a badly-damaged plane like QF32 which required pristine coordination from THREE pilots at the same time - in case you're wondering how STUPID pilotless planes are), ummmm, what else is there... ?
I can't even begin to recount the dozens of ideas being thrown around here just because a single pilot in a single flight appears to have gone crazy in one out of the thousands of flights taking off every day. Like, it's out of the realm of possibility that this could happen.
I can't wait for enlightened ideas about every other situation this might happen in (crazy drivers, crazy office workers, crazy hot dog vendors). Come on, let's hear your suggestions on these, there's plenty of potential loonies out there and surely you guys have many, many ideas on how to control them.
737er
ReplyDeleteHow about mandating that the press and government educate and warn the public IN PROPORTION to the real dangers of the things that are killing them and if they don't...
Air Snoop
Release of CVR Data
A bad week for Air Safety has been made even worse by the irresponsible, premature and unnecessary release of CVR data. The need for this disclosure does not outweigh "the adverse domestic and international impact such action may have on that or any future investigations" (Annex 13)
I hope the BEA publicly distances itself from this debacle.
then hold them responsible for KILLING the public by scaring the the living bejesus out of them over safe things and praying on their latent fears to sell advertising and for political grandstanding?!
If we are really talking about safety then nothing else would even come close to saving as many lives.
Now there's a truth pill.
Rushed Approach
M. Robin may well have a public duty to report the facts but the above is subjective speculation on his part. It is not for him to comment on what may or may not be the "most plausible" explanation - at this stage this can only be based on what little evidence he knows now. He says the action of reducing the altitude can be "analysed" as an intention to destroy the aircraft - but it could equally well be "analysed" as an intention to get the aircraft down quickly (e.g. cockpit fire and many other scenarios that could leave no CVR trace). It's possible he wound the altitude down to 100 ft (the lowest it will go) initially when initiating an emergency descent thinking he would adjust it later, and for whatever reason he got distracted or was unable to adjust it because of subsequent events such as choking on smoke/heart attack/stroke.
The point is that there is no such thing as "reasonable doubt" when you are talking about a one in several million flights possibility. If he did indeed kill 149 people deliberately, then that would be an incredibly rare event in aviation history. If you are considering it as such, then you have to consider other very unlikely scenarios as possibilities if you are doing your job properly as an investigator, otherwise there can be no credibility to the process.
eezeegeebee
ReplyDeleteI haven't challenged the evidence that Mode S data recorded 100 ft from the MCP. But when QRH says ALT KNOB - TURN/PULL it doesn't say what altitude to select, does it? If I was stressed and kept winding it all the way, it would eventually read 100, even if the 100/1000 ring wasn't moved.
Before writing my post I carefully scoured NYT and other sources to find out what hard evidence is out there. Unless I missed something, no other assertions are possible exept what the three witnesses have said.
Before you can add anything, you've got to say what your source is, just like I have done. So...
How, precisely, has hypoxia been ruled out?
How, precisely, has incapacitation been ruled out?
Precisely which actions have been established?
Who took them?
FDR may or may not add anything. We must wait and see.
Rushed Approach
Well it's a ridiculous system then as in effect the French prosecutor is passing a subjective judgment as to whether a crime has been committed not even a week after the crash, and whether a crime has or not been committed cannot be determined until the full "proper" aircraft investigation has been completed. So his subjective "gut feeling" will either be right or wrong and so many hares may have been set running unnecessarily. How can such a daft system be justified when in many cases the prosecutor will be wrong?
FlightDetent
Quote:
... deliberate actions required by the F/O to keep the FD door locked out after the 5 mins are up ...
I was looking whether this is an established fact or just media derivative of whad had actually been released. No luck so far, can anyone help?
Rushed Approach
Quote:
How, precisely, has hypoxia been ruled out?
Noises of shouting, banging on the door, screaming from pax, clearly audible captain's voice from outside the FD - multiple sources show, IMHO, that Hypoxia can be ruled out BRD.
Doesn't mean the aircraft wasn't depressurised or slowly depressurising or filling with smoke - those banging on the door could have had either toilet masks or portable oxygen masks on between shouts and they could have been wearing PBE.
Rushed Approach
Quote:
How, precisely, has incapacitation been ruled out?
Deliberate selection of an ALT below MSA and deliberate actions required by the F/O to keep the FD door locked out after the 5 mins are up - rules out his incapacitation BRD.
So an Airbus has never done something that isn't in the manual? Yeah right. So it's completely impossible that an FMA glitch changed the altitude? Or that the remaining pilot wound it down for some other reason?
Incidentally who that flies the A320 knows the time periods that your airline has programmed into the door system. What's the time delay after you enter the emergency code? I bet most of you have no idea. If you enter it again before the time delay has completed, does the time start again ... ? How familiar was the Captain/crew with the way the door system works?
It's perfectly possible that the aircraft had a different code programmed to the one the crew were trying. How often is this tested in your airline?
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/558654-airbus-a320-crashed-southern-france-132.html#post8925149
ccrvic
ReplyDeleteQuote:
Deliberate selection of an ALT below MSA and deliberate actions required by the F/O to keep the FD door locked out after the 5 mins are up - rules out his incapacitation BRD.
Do we know that anyone *tried* to unlock the door after the initial 5 minutes?
If things were getting as hectic as we've heard, I can imagine them stopping trying that and just trying to beat the door down. It *could be* that the door would have unlocked if only they'd tried the code towards the end.
We'll only know for sure when the investigation is complete. Claiming "facts" now is almost certainly premature.
MikeNovember
Quote:
Doesn't mean the aircraft wasn't depressurised or slowly depressurising or filling with smoke - those banging on the door could have had either toilet masks or portable oxygen masks on between shouts and they could have been wearing PBE.
If FD gets depressurised the door gets unlocked automatically.
Seat 32F
What worries me most about this whole sorry affair is the knee-jerk reaction that seems to be arising, both from the airline industry itself, and some of the folks on this thread. I speak only as one of your lowly revenue-creating customers, so of course my opinion counts for nowt, I guess. But, I'll press on ...
I know that there are probably thousands things more likely to go wrong with a flight than having a suicidal pilot finding the perfect opportunity to drive into the ground; but us pax kinda rely on the fact that aviation is highly regulated and has a risk management regime that is probably second to none as far as transport safety and security is concerned.
So knee-jerk reactions are not what is to be expected; measured and appropriate responses are. Suddenly requiring two people on the flight deck at all times as a response to an incident that hasn't even had its proper investigation completed - what sort of signal does this send out to the general public? I'll tell you: it says that the industry considers this to be a problem that is potentially so serious that it needs to be urgently addressed. And then we have people here on the forum saying that Flight Attendants should not be allowed on the flight deck. Are we to believe that FA's are not subject to the same screening and security measures as those in control of the flight? Are we saying that potentially all crew are not to be trusted with our collective safety?
Perspective is needed here: despite all of the screening and safeguards, this guy got through the net, although it remains to be seen as to what exactly happened; nevertheless this was an extremely rare incident and from a risk perspective I'd have more of an issue with there only being two motors keeping me aloft instead of a comfortable four.
I would much rather see the airline industry say: we don't need to mess about with the way that the flights are operated, it's fine as it is. And let's face it, it probably is. Probably being the operative word.
Over and out.
Rushed Approach
ReplyDeleteJoin Date: Jun 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 161
The problem is that the very opening of "proceedings" means that "guilt" of a person or persons is a possibility. In this case all the witnesses to the crash itself are unfortunately no longer with us, and so cannot defend themselves, and meanwhile the tabloid press look to dig up every morsel that might back up the sensational potential outcome, whilst no doubt ignoring any mitigating evidence that might get in the way of a good story. If the co-pilot had survived the accident (let's imagine he's in a coma, one of several survivors) then what chance would he now have of a fair trial? None.
Let's not forget that a single "rogue" pilot is actually about the best outcome for the aircraft manufacturer and the airline in terms of the money each will have to spend to be seen to "correct" the situation. I'm not saying that there is any kind of cover-up here - I have great respect for Lufthansa and the French authorities and in many ways they are doing outstanding work. However, once you start such a cannon ball of a conclusion rolling it is almost impossible to stop it, even if significant doubts later arise.
This is the danger of the early "obvious" conclusion. Presumably the French prosecutor is aware of the implications on future flight safety and the unions' concerns, yet it has chosen to ignore them in favour of getting the "truth" out there after only a few days. Let's hope future lives will not be lost because of the lack of trust and thus lack of honesty engendered in what might be perceived as a "flawed" investigation system that could result in a pilot being a suspect in deliberately causing the injury of his/her passengers because of mental health issues years ago.
The "gains" in eliminating such incredibly rare events may well be swamped by the loss of life resulting from the loss of confidence of pilots in the integrity of the system that thay will be given a fair trial and hence their subsequent lack of co-operation with any investigation ...
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/558654-airbus-a320-crashed-southern-france-139.html#post8926655
Rushed Approach
ReplyDeleteQuote:
Unlike your "I suspect the Germanwings aircraft did not have a physical "deadbolt" fitted, so that's another red herring.
Pure supposition on your behalf.
No, not pure supposition - based on 20+ years' experience of flying Airbuses around Europe - how about you? It's clear that nobody on here is going to reveal whether the aircraft had this security feature (fair enough - I wouldn't if I knew the answer) but that's the point - we don't even know what security features were fitted and what emergency options were used/available, yet somehow within a few days of the crash it's done and dusted by some on here. There are a lot of options, with multiple airline selectable options, and I'll bet if you asked all of that crew what they were you'd get 6 different answers, as pretty much any European A320 Captain would if you ask that in the security brief when you next go flying. Try it ...
Rushed Approach
Quote:
As soon as this becomes apparent, it ceases to become an 'accident' investigation and becomes a criminal one
Apparent to who? The point you are missing is that it can't be "apparent" until the investigation is complete. If the result is prejudged as "apparent" after only a few days then the whole investigation is potentially flawed as the evidence can be selected to fit the "crime" and evidence that doesn't fit is ignored or given little credibility.
To say that as soon as any crime is suspected means that any accident investigation then goes out of the window is to completely miss the point of protecting pilots from consequences if they "fess up". If you ever get the chance to visit the AAIB down in Farnborough please take it up - perhaps then you will understand the point I'm making.