Co-Pilot 'intentionally' Destroyed Plane, Prosecutor says

a reply to: Zaphod58

Why, though? France, Germany or in fact any EU country have excellent flight safety systems and very reputable Agencies for investigating them. Why risk it all and for what?

It's all very well saying you think it is too quick and you suspect a "witch hunt", but what would be the reasoning for it? In the same vein as you're saying they were too quick to declare a leading theory - and it is just a theory at the moment, no one has declared anything to be the cause - you've been very quick to shoot it down (pardon the pun) but with nothing to back it up.

EDIT: They have the CVR of the Pilot being heard trying to get in. We have transponder data showing the AP was manually changed. Yet you want to believe it is a sensor malfunction that caused the aircraft to go into a gradual descent into a mountain (not a dive in the slightest)?

a reply to: stumason

So is the NTSB, but without knowing for certain everything was perfect with the aircraft, which requires the FDR to be 100% sure, there's no way ro say absolutely it was a suicide.

Not declaring it a cause? The statements I've seen have been pretty definitive about cause.

There's conflicting information, as well as information that doesn't make sense that has been released.

I think it's really suspicious. It just all seems a little too quick. The police usually spend more time investigating a single homicide than this. Something isn't right here.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Much of the information is not coming out of the Air crash investigators (the BEA and the BFU), but ancillary agencies involved, such as the German prosecutor investigating the co-pilot.

I have yet to see or hear anything that could be construed as any sort of "official report" from the Air crash investigators themselves, but it isn't unusual to have a working theory based on evidence gathered thus far and to follow that up.

Now, considering that you think this is all a bit "iffy", think about this. What would there be to gain from blaming the pilot? The airline would then be 100% liable for each and every passenger to the tune of up to 30 million euro's in total. If it was a sensor malfunction, then the airline could point to Airbus as being liable, getting them off the hook for the worst of the compensation.

Now, you could argue that the BEA and BFU are keen to prove the Airbus is airworthy, but what would be the point in that over the long term as it will only be found out, causing much embarrassment to them and loss of confidence in the aircraft. They haven't covered up previous sensor faults on Airbus crashes before, so why start now?

a reply to: BrianFlanders

No, they don't. It entirely depends on available evidence, witnesses etc. Many people are arrested for murders they have committed within hours - sometimes even minutes!

If the Police got called to a murder and there was a recording of the murder taking place, along with other evidence to further tie the murderer to the scene, then they would be around to arrest him/her in short order.

a reply to: stumason

They also haven't previously had sensor problems that they didn't tell crews about, sent out fixes for, and had the problem persist years later.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I am still struggling to understand how a sensor problem would cause the autopilot to set itself to 96ft, Zaph. Or why it would cause a gradual (if faster than usual) descent into the side of a mountain while locking the Captain out of the Cockpit.

That's one hell of a sensor, if it can do that.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: Zaphod58

I am still struggling to understand how a sensor problem would cause the autopilot to set itself to 96ft, Zaph. Or why it would cause a gradual (if faster than usual) descent into the side of a mountain while locking the Captain out of the Cockpit.

That's one hell of a sensor, if it can do that.

How do they know what it was set to what altitude though (or did I miss something recently)? I still can't believe they've actually worked out every detail just from the CVR.

a reply to: AgentSmith

The transponder broadcasts a wide variety of information - see previous page of this thread where I linked to it.

a reply to: stumason

Oh! I fiddle around receiving ADS-B data with an RTL stick, I never noticed that. Time to plug it back in and have a look, great spot!

*delete*

I want to thank Zaph for his postings, he expresses my whole gutfeeling about this rather well.
Normally, I'm the last one to say that there is a coverup/conspiracy going on, but this wohle "Investigation" concluded too fast and too neatly after 24hrs. And I want to point out:
"We" still don't know whats really on that CVR. I'm all against going public with the tape, but we haven't heard from the experts (BEA and BFU) either. Just the french prosecutor did a brief summary on what is on the CVR and that's it, that is all we know about it and the whole story is spinning around.

Airbus has some financial problems atm with their A380 program, they just can't afford a (maybe) major fault in one of their most popular planes, the A320 that leads to crashes and computer problems in certain situations.
Long story short:
We don't know the real reason for the crash. But this modern witch-hunt for blaming the co-pilot is just sickening digusting.

a reply to: Talliostro

How is the investigation "concluded"? Nothing is "concluded" - they are just following up leads generated by the rather substantial evidence they have thus far.

a reply to: stumason

What kind of sensor malfunction or most any malfunction prevent the Co pilot from recovering the aircraft or opening the door or saying anything with the pilot banging on it and yelling?

You think there was a malfunction AND the copilot had a medical problem? No just no.

a reply to: Xeven

The AoA sensors required both pilots to resolve. One pilot had to mess with the computer to set it to alternate law, while the other was trying to recover from the nose low position.

a reply to: stumason

And if the sensor froze, maybe he set it to a lower altitude to try to recover.

That's why the FDR is needed before you even throw out the idea of suicide.

originally posted by: Xeven
a reply to: stumason

What kind of sensor malfunction or most any malfunction prevent the Co pilot from recovering the aircraft or opening the door or saying anything with the pilot banging on it and yelling?

You think there was a malfunction AND the copilot had a medical problem? No just no.

I think you're quoting the wrong person there fella - go back and have a read, I said none of those things.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I can understand dropping height to try and melt any ice, but setting it too 100ft? That's a bit drastic and then to do nothing to recover, even when a mountain was in sight, is extraordinarily bad flying.

a reply to: stumason

If the AoA sensor was frozen, and the Primary Law mode was still active, he COULDN'T recover the plane. That's why this has been a big issue. It was happening EXACTLY when this flight started to descend, but pilots weren't being told how to recover from it. If you didn't switch to alternate law on the computer, it wouldn't allow you to recover, because of the envelope protection systems.

a reply to: stumason

I know, I know... it just irks me how fast and decisive the whole case was presented to the public, that's all.