Co-Pilot 'intentionally' Destroyed Plane, Prosecutor says

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: bullcat

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

That is no excuse for not at least citing some of the article or linking the information and letting us decide to pursue the information further.

It would help many people if everybody at least cited and linked the information they are using to back up their claims, it would save a lot of posts requesting it.

a reply to: bullcat

I post the way I post. If you don't like it fine. But this is dragging the thread off topic, so will be my last response.

Well thanks Zaphod for the info, that at least answers my question why this investigation seems to be different. France has other procedures and protocols in place when investigating plane crashes than other countries.

And I do wonder about the mention of the Oxygen-Mask too. Why would anyone put that thing on, when there is no emergency in the cockpit?

long time lurker here..

I can't find any mention of 9525 on ATC from LEBL 0830-0930UTC, wrong frequency or time? this video circulating today, could it have been cut down? or is it another fake like the so called CVR leak.

a reply to: WalterBishop

Are you checking liveatc logs or something? I'll have a proper look later when at my laptop. Ref the video I don't believe it's circulating (can't find it) I think it's just the reports about the french an led german papers that saw and described it.

originally posted by: WalterBishop
long time lurker here..

I can't find any mention of 9525 on ATC from LEBL 0830-0930UTC, wrong frequency or time? this video circulating today, could it have been cut down? or is it another fake like the so called CVR leak.

OK found this, haven't checked:

On the LEBL TWR 0900-0930Z at approx 1:40 you hear them change frequency as GWI18G.

www.liveatc.net...

Failed sensors don't twiddle knobs.
Incapacitated pilots don't twiddle knobs.

forum.flightradar24.com...

"The aircraft had a modern ADSB transmitter which also transmits the target altitude selected on the autopilot panel"

a reply to: bullcat

Pilots committing suicide isn't the only explanation either.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: bullcat

Pilots committing suicide isn't the only explanation either.

I prefer to call it murder, suicide is a lone act, killing 150 people is mass murder. Can we at least try to get the terminology right?

Right, it is not the only explanation however, it is looking the most likely, given the information we have to date.

I don't believe in coincidences, this all began to happen once he was alone in the flight deck? Why on earth would somebody set the target altitude to under 100ft in the ALPS? The rapid decompression does not mean you set it to 100ft (he actually set this target TWICE, not once), in a mountainous area. Brings up another question, why on earth would NORMAL LAW on an Airbus permit such a setting? Given the Airbus has terrain sensors, radar, maps most likely and GPS. Surely this is for one of the other three laws (ALTERNATE, DIRECT, MECHANICAL).

I honestly think they need to review their 1) control laws, 2) pilot flight door procedures to prevent a pilot locking himself inside and preventing outside access via codes (I think this is too much security as shown in this case locking the other pilot out even with the correct entry codes).

a reply to: bullcat

Commercial aircraft don't have ground collision avoidance. It doesn't matter who makes the aircraft. It can sense the terrain, but it won't avoid it.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: bullcat

Commercial aircraft don't have ground collision avoidance. It doesn't matter who makes the aircraft. It can sense the terrain, but it won't avoid it.

Perhaps it should

Since Airbus have these laws, for protection, perhaps they should have a layer of safety like this in the highest protected law mode. And setting inputs like these should require perhaps changing laws to one that does permit it?

uhm and how do you want to implement such a system without making emergency landings (or landings...) impossible?
You would have to implement a code or switch so set this system to "off" and both the Pilot and Co-Pilot (in case one of them is incapacitated) would need to know the code...
so this system would make "normal" flight procedures more complicated without preventing such a crash.

But yes, there needs to be an override system for the cockpit doors. Maybe a thumbpad for the captain to authenticate or something like this.

and I'm still wondering why the Co-Pilot was wearing the oxygen mask, that doesn't make any sense.

originally posted by: Talliostro
uhm and how do you want to implement such a system without making emergency landings (or landings...) impossible?
You would have to implement a code or switch so set this system to "off" and both the Pilot and Co-Pilot (in case one of them is incapacitated) would need to know the code...
so this system would make "normal" flight procedures more complicated without preventing such a crash.

But yes, there needs to be an override system for the cockpit doors. Maybe a thumbpad for the captain to authenticate or something like this.

and I'm still wondering why the Co-Pilot was wearing the oxygen mask, that doesn't make any sense.

That is why they have alternate laws (Airbus has 4 laws I believe - NORMAL, ALTERNATE, DIRECT and MECHANICAL) to provide different layers of safety. I do agree with this kind of architecture in their onboard voting system. It makes perfect sense and has saved lives in the past.

I did read something on flight 24 that a left turn was made at the same time indicating the possibility of a emergency procedure however, this all happened after the pilot left the flight deck? That is a huge coincidence. Why would he lock the door in that case? Obviously it would not have been an terrorism act with a hijacker trying to enter, the co-pilot would have wanted all the help he could get from the pilot, he would know his voice. Deliberately locking the door to prevent the entry code working, sorry that is deliberate. Deliberately setting the target altitude in the Alps to below 100ft (twice this was reduced if I remember correctly, once prior to 13800 ft or something similar).

Sorry but I don't at this point in time with the information presented, believe that this was not a deliberate act. If somebody can show something substantial that he was not doing this intentionally, then show it.

One other possible theory, was since they say he wanted his name to be "remembered", what if, he was creating a situation that he would save every bodies lives from and be a hero, however, it went wrong? The information shown however, recorded on the sensors, and telemetry would have shown this to be deliberate anyway. Just one other throwing it out there theory for a motive.

a reply to: AgentSmith

Personally can't hear it but thanks for the information I was listening for the wrong ID so I'm going to do another run through, did someone attempt contact during the descent.. if so what ATC would that have been passed over to at that time

originally posted by: WalterBishop
long time lurker here..

I can't find any mention of 9525 on ATC from LEBL 0830-0930UTC, wrong frequency or time? this video circulating today, could it have been cut down? or is it another fake like the so called CVR leak.

Not sure about takeoff, but I was searching for the Marseille feed a few days ago, apparently LFMM does not have a feed (so no archives) on the site. Marseille was the atc attempting to contact the flight as it was descending.

www.liveatc.net...

a reply to: bullcat

you know on the day of the crash there were some reports coming in which weren't repeated later. I know that's normal because the news and media are reporting anything in a developing story that they get hold of. But there were 2 pieces in the german newstickers I remember...

1) A french mirage fighterjet, which was sent to the plane because it wasn't responding. It was reported the fighter encountered the airbus in rapid descent but couldn't establish contact and stayed with the plane until it crashed in the Alpes.

2) A report coming in, the reason for the crash was, that the airbus had lost more than one cockpitwindow in high altitude, which incapacitated the crew. The pilot of the fighterjet reported these missing windows to the authorities.

So there is another possible scenario AND an explanation for the oxygen mask.
Pilot leaves the cockpit for the toilet.
Cockpit window breaks down shortly afterwards, when they reached maximum altitude. Co-Pilot dons the oxygen mask, locks the cockpit door to prevent depressurization of the passengercabin and sets the autopilot to descent to 13800 feet were pressure and oxygen is barely enough to survive without oxygen support so he can open the cockpit door whithout endangering everyone else.
Second descent to 100 feet is programmed after he feels that his own oxygen supply is broken and doesn't function. He passes out after the setting, hoping that he either wakes up or the plane crashes at least in the sea near the coast, where chances to survive would have been much better than on land.
French Authorities sent the Mirage Fighter after the Airbus isn't reporting to the ATC. Meanwhile the Captain tries frantically to get into the cockpit. The Fighter can't make a contact with the Cockpitcrew and reports the missing windows. Co-Pilot sadly doesn't wake up and hadn't estimated the descent quite right, so the Airbus crashes in the mountains.

That's just another theory like the "Co-Pilot commits mass murder without reason and out of the blue".

Then the coverup happens (sound of the breaking window and wind are filtered out before the media get's hold of the tape), because Airbus (and France+Germany, which are both major shareholder of Airbus) can't afford another big problem on the A320 (after faulty temperature sensors and gasses in the cockpits and cabins). A false story is given to the media which blames the Co-Pilot and doesn't point at a technical problem on the plane (which would need money from Airbus to get fixed).

Oh my.. that's my first conspiracy theory posted here

originally posted by: Talliostro
a reply to: bullcat

you know on the day of the crash there were some reports coming in which weren't repeated later. I know that's normal because the news and media are reporting anything in a developing story that they get hold of. But there were 2 pieces in the german newstickers I remember...

1) A french mirage fighterjet, which was sent to the plane because it wasn't responding. It was reported the fighter encountered the airbus in rapid descent but couldn't establish contact and stayed with the plane until it crashed in the Alpes.

2) A report coming in, the reason for the crash was, that the airbus had lost more than one cockpitwindow in high altitude, which incapacitated the crew. The pilot of the fighterjet reported these missing windows to the authorities.

So there is another possible scenario AND an explanation for the oxygen mask.
Pilot leaves the cockpit for the toilet.
Cockpit window breaks down shortly afterwards, when they reached maximum altitude. Co-Pilot dons the oxygen mask, locks the cockpit door to prevent depressurization of the passengercabin and sets the autopilot to descent to 13800 feet were pressure and oxygen is barely enough to survive without oxygen support so he can open the cockpit door whithout endangering everyone else.
Second descent to 100 feet is programmed after he feels that his own oxygen supply is broken and doesn't function. He passes out after the setting, hoping that he either wakes up or the plane crashes at least in the sea near the coast, where chances to survive would have been much better than on land.
French Authorities sent the Mirage Fighter after the Airbus isn't reporting to the ATC. Meanwhile the Captain tries frantically to get into the cockpit. The Fighter can't make a contact with the Cockpitcrew and reports the missing windows. Co-Pilot sadly doesn't wake up and hadn't estimated the descent quite right, so the Airbus crashes in the mountains.

That's just another theory like the "Co-Pilot commits mass murder without reason and out of the blue".

Then the coverup happens (sound of the breaking window and wind are filtered out before the media get's hold of the tape), because Airbus (and France+Germany, which are both major shareholder of Airbus) can't afford another big problem on the A320 (after faulty temperature sensors and gasses in the cockpits and cabins). A false story is given to the media which blames the Co-Pilot and doesn't point at a technical problem on the plane (which would need money from Airbus to get fixed).

Oh my.. that's my first conspiracy theory posted here

1) I heard about the fighter jet story also. However that does not explain the target altitude knob being twiddled on the flight deck to under 100 ft (96ft?). This was after it was set to 13800 ft (I forget the exact number). Was the fighter launched in response to this, or just happened to be nearby? What about other nearby flights, Europe is a very busy airspace between major hubs.

2) The flight deck is pressurised differently from the main passenger cabin? That's new to me, because cabin crew just walk in and out of them without any kind of pressurisation changes.

originally posted by: bullcat
1) I heard about the fighter jet story also. However that does not explain the target altitude knob being twiddled on the flight deck to under 100 ft (96ft?). This was after it was set to 13800 ft (I forget the exact number). Was the fighter launched in response to this, or just happened to be nearby? What about other nearby flights, Europe is a very busy airspace between major hubs.

I think the fighter was sent when the plane didn't respond to ATC and other planes nearby which tried to contact the Airbus. At least that is what makes most sense to me and if I remember correctly that is what happened whith that flight over Greece which had a rapid depressurization.

originally posted by: bullcat
2) The flight deck is pressurised differently from the main passenger cabin? That's new to me, because cabin crew just walk in and out of them without any kind of pressurisation changes.

That's one for Zaphod, I'm not a flight engineer. Maybe they are pressurized independently and the Cockpit can be sealed off (and vice versa) when something happens? Two independant system in a plane doesn't mean that they are running on different pressures, just that they could.

originally posted by: Talliostro

originally posted by: bullcat
1) I heard about the fighter jet story also. However that does not explain the target altitude knob being twiddled on the flight deck to under 100 ft (96ft?). This was after it was set to 13800 ft (I forget the exact number). Was the fighter launched in response to this, or just happened to be nearby? What about other nearby flights, Europe is a very busy airspace between major hubs.

I think the fighter was sent when the plane didn't respond to ATC and other planes nearby which tried to contact the Airbus. At least that is what makes most sense to me and if I remember correctly that is what happened whith that flight over Greece which had a rapid depressurization.

originally posted by: bullcat
2) The flight deck is pressurised differently from the main passenger cabin? That's new to me, because cabin crew just walk in and out of them without any kind of pressurisation changes.

That's one for Zaphod, I'm not a flight engineer. Maybe they are pressurized independently and the Cockpit can be sealed off (and vice versa) when something happens? Two independant system in a plane doesn't mean that they are running on different pressures, just that they could.

Regarding point 2), I don't believe they are separate systems. The door certainly does not look pressurised capable.

Here is the Airbus flight operations safety notes on decompression

www.airbus.com...

Like I said, I'm not a flight engineer. But there is a wall and a reinforced door between cockpit and cabin, which should theoretically prevent decompression of either side when the door is locked.
So another stupid question
The manual adresses only the cabin crew but not the pilots (referred to as "Flight Crew"). So my best guess is, that there should be another manual which deals with decrompression in the Cockpit?

I better wait for Zaphod to clear that one up, I'm just an amateur guessing around