Co-Pilot 'intentionally' Destroyed Plane, Prosecutor says

originally posted by: stumason
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!

Maybe so but what gets published the next day? The person who was arrested is called a suspect or a person of interest or something. Basically, it means they believe they have the right man but they don't like to state these things as sure thing facts right away. IMO, you pretty much never see that unless something's fishy.

Something's fishy.

a reply to: stumason
Sorry must have hit reply on wrong post. It's early!

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ok. possible I suppose. Doesn't explain copilot silence... or not releasing door?

a reply to: BrianFlanders
I think it was quick cause they did not want to repeat mistakes of the Malaysian incident but maybe the over compensated...

a reply to: Xeven

And at this point we only have their word. Although if he was trying to solve a problem I doubt he would have been chattering away.

Doors have jammed in the past. Many times. January of this year a Delta pilot got locked out.

Wether or not it was the co-pilot intentionally crashing the plane or some other cause of the crash, I find it interesting that this tragic incident may be used to justify government snooping laws in Germany. I didn't think anything fishy of the official story (except maybe how quickly they came to the conclusion it was intentional by the co-pilot) until I saw this article today in the daily mail. www.dailymail.co.uk...

originally posted by: Zaphod58


Doors have jammed in the past. Many times.

Yeah.

Couple of years ago we both got locked out of the flight deck during turnaround.
Took the tech guys 3 hours to get in.

Dunno why i closed the door behind me, probably lack of situational awareness since i was on the phone with somebody.
So yes that kind of thing happens.

a reply to: Ivar_Karlsen

Murphy's Law would suggest that it will occur in flight someday.

There's a story now they have recovered mobile phone video footage of the final moments from the passenger cabin (presumably from a recovered SD card). However in the Paris Match account this part is of particular interest, I don't know how then can know this if true - and if it is true then why would he be wearing the mask unless following an emergency procedure as Zaphod has been saying:

Despite the deafening noises, Lubitz’s breathing can cleary be heard through an oxygen mask he put on. He is breathing normally.

www.parismatch.com...

a reply to: AgentSmith

ubitz’s breathing can cleary be heard through an oxygen mask he put on.

UHM. he puts his oxygen mask on before committing murder/suicide? The smell is getting stronger?

a reply to: interupt42

Definitely if this is true, I don't know how they could know unless it was that distinctive and loud enough a sound for the CVR? If it is why the hell are they going down the suicide route?

They just released that cell phone video released shows final moments inside cabin before deadly germanwings crash

A number of European airlines and agencies are not pleased about this investigation. It violates at least one of the standards in the Chicago Accords.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Do you think the report I posted a few back that he was wearing the oxygen mask could be true? Would they tell from the sound?

Looks like 'lone nut' theory is the easiest one to pull off these days, and with the attention span the people have these days, they will just buy it and move on. But people who lost their relatives should know the truth .

Since they concluded the investigation within hours is telling me that, there is more to the story than the lone nut theory.

a reply to: AgentSmith

Yes, their breathing would sound more muffled, and harsher in the mask.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
A number of European airlines and agencies are not pleased about this investigation. It violates at least one of the standards in the Chicago Accords.

Citation required please.

If you are going to post something like that, you could at least back it up with

1) The names of airlines and why they are not pleased, or the source you are referring to, and,
2) The item in the "Chicago Accord" they are violating

You are stating this as fact, without anything substantive to back it up.

Sorry but I cannot take what you say seriously until you at least start to back up your claims.

a reply to: bullcat

Because it IS fact. And you can take it seriously or ignore it, it makes no difference to me.

Feel free to sign up to read the full article.

The European Cockpit Association (ECA) says it accepts that the information released suggests the co-pilot probably acted deliberately to destroy the aircraft, but maintains that the failure to respect agreed accident investigation protocols is damaging the process of investigation itself and endangering aviation safety.

In France, a judicial prosecutor always works in parallel with air accident investigators to assess evidence at a crash site. The expert accident investigator – in this case the French BEA – is the junior partner in the early stages of the task, and must await the judiciary’s assessment and securing of the evidence. Lacking aviation expertise, the prosecutor’s sole task is to determine who is to blame and whether criminal prosecution is appropriate, while the BEA’s sole task is to determine the cause of the crash so as to prevent a recurrence.

However, this mixing of roles is contrary to the International Civil Aviation Organisation’s standards and recommended practices for accident investigation set down in Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention.

www.flightglobal.com...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: bullcat

Because it IS fact.

Feel free to sign up to read the full article.

The European Cockpit Association (ECA) says it accepts that the information released suggests the co-pilot probably acted deliberately to destroy the aircraft, but maintains that the failure to respect agreed accident investigation protocols is damaging the process of investigation itself and endangering aviation safety.

In France, a judicial prosecutor always works in parallel with air accident investigators to assess evidence at a crash site. The expert accident investigator – in this case the French BEA – is the junior partner in the early stages of the task, and must await the judiciary’s assessment and securing of the evidence. Lacking aviation expertise, the prosecutor’s sole task is to determine who is to blame and whether criminal prosecution is appropriate, while the BEA’s sole task is to determine the cause of the crash so as to prevent a recurrence.

However, this mixing of roles is contrary to the International Civil Aviation Organisation’s standards and recommended practices for accident investigation set down in Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention.

www.flightglobal.com...

So why didn't you post your source of information in the post you made the claim? That would have saved some time.

a reply to: bullcat

Because you have to sign up to read it. And many people here choose not to.