"... Marseille prosecutor Brice Robin said Thursday about the Germanwings crash."
The co-pilot of the doomed Germanwings flight “accelerated the descent” of the plane when he was alone in the cockpit, Marseille prosecutor Brice Robin said Thursday. That can only be done deliberately, he said. The co-pilot was alive until impact, Robin said, citing the sound of breathing in the cockpit.
The most plausible explanation of the crash is that the copilot, “through deliberate abstention, refused to open the cabin door … to the chief pilot, and used the button” to cause the plane to lose altitude....
ADDED:
Here's a much more substantial report in the NYT report:
[Brice Robin] said it appeared that the intention of the co-pilot, identified as Andreas Lubitz, had been “to destroy the aircraft.”... He said there was no indication that this was a terrorist attack, and that Mr. Lubitz was not known to law enforcement officials...
The prosecutor said that the authorities had a full transcript of the final 30 minutes of the voice recorder. “During the first 20 minutes, the pilots talk normally,” he said, saying they spoke in a “cheerful” and “courteous” way. “There is nothing abnormal happening,” he said...
“You can hear the commanding pilot ask for access to the cockpit several times,” the prosecutor said. “He identifies himself, but the co-pilot does not provide any answer. You can hear human breathing in the cockpit up until the moment of impact,” he said.
Posts
141 comments:
Why won't they release indentity information on the pilots? Is it because one is Islamic?
"The most plausible explanation of the crash is that the copilot . . ."
was a MUSLIM practicing jihad.
Co-pilot's name is Andreas Lubitz according to CNN.
The poor people aboard.
I am surprised none of the passengers [apparently] made a cell phone call in those 8 minutes.
Guys are thinking that that ruins a perfectly good technical puzzle.
Was the pilot alone trying to break in the door? The others on the plane must have seen the problem and had every reason to try to help him if they could. I'm trying to picture what they could have done.
Why is the plane designed to lock everyone out so effectively? It's not as if the lone-wolf pilot hasn't happened before and couldn't have been imagined.
As if there aren't enough fucking things to worry about while flying.
That seems strange. From what I read, while the descent was faster than a normal descent from cruising altitude, it was not by any means a dive. If the crash was intentional I would have expected a much quicker descent.
Thinking of that cockpit door -
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have."
From the git-go, intentional destruction seemed the most likely scenario; a controlled descent into the ground.
- Hammond; USAF, retired; 5000 flying hrs
AJ Lynch-
I'm wondering if someone did call. The first reports were the plane was returning because of an "unusual situation in the cockpit".
Then it was reported no no no, we didn't have any communication from the plane.
So....it makes me wonder if *someone* hadn't contacted someone, because there was in fact an unusual situation in the cockpit.
That, and they did not report the pilots' names from the get go. Almost as if they knew they needed to investigate them before word got out.
The lock is to keep the bad guys out. I heard that US flights have a protocol that requires two people in the cockpit at all times.
Why is the plane designed to lock everyone out so effectively? It's not as if the lone-wolf pilot hasn't happened before and couldn't have been imagined.
This seems odd to me too. Read about this issue in an Australian news story that claimed that there are emergency codes to open the door from outside, but that a crew member still inside the cockpit would know how to work around the codes to keep the door locked. Evidently the access codes are designed to be used in a situation such as the copilot suddenly becoming unconscious while the other pilot has stepped out, but there's no fix for the crew member who is still inside the cockpit deliberately keeping the other out.
If the crash was intentional I would have expected a much quicker descent.
How do you know what to expect, given that someone has just made the unusual choice to intentionally crash the plane he is in?
"Why is the plane designed to lock everyone out so effectively? It's not as if the lone-wolf pilot hasn't happened before and couldn't have been imagined."
You can protect against suicidal pilots or hijackings but I can't really see a setup where you can prevent both without barring both pilots from leaving the cockpit.
Even if you did that, you'd still have a situation where one pilot could disable the other.
They have revealed the copilot's last name but not the pilots. While headlines say it was the pilot that left the detailed reports say they don't know for sure. I would be checking to see if there was any connection with the Malaysian Air flight crew.
The pilots can override the key pad because a hijacker/terrorist could force the flight crew to use their code.
On American Airlines, my usual ride, when the pilot leaves the cockpit to use the head the flight crew blocks access with a food cart and the door stays open until he returns. I understand on other airlines the practice is for a flight attendant to step into the cockpit as a second.
Both of my kids have flown/are flying this month.
(shudder)
@Mad
But the greater danger is still driving to the airport.
There was another story here about a pilot getting locked out of the cockpit and not being able to get in. The co-pilot made an emergency landing. In the Germanwings tragedy the co-pilot deliberately disabled the code so the pilot could not get in. Maybe the cockpit should be self contained with a restroom, so they don't have to leave it and get locked out.
So the Malaysian airlines flight and this flight were most likely taken down by their pilots.
We don't know about the Asian Air flight yet.
I'm hoping this doesn't start to be the new hot trend.
Tank, yes, I know. I'm the Worrier in the family though. Flying is just one more thing to worry about with more gruesome ways of dying.
I try my best not to turn my kids into worriers too -- I think I have succeeded.
With the technology available today, it's hard to believe that modern passenger aircraft cannot be equipped with systems to prevent them from being intentionally crashed.
MayBee said...
How do you know what to expect, given that someone has just made the unusual choice to intentionally crash the plane he is in?
I would expect that if someone made the decision to crash the plane, he would want that choice to be irrevocable as soon as possible.
( On the other hand, if I had decided to crash the plane, I might have a little fun on the way out. How about a barrel roll? Loop-de-loop? )
I am so confused. If the intent was suicide, why was the plane set to merely descend instead of dive? Granted, it was a pretty quick descent, but from the way it's being described it was far from being an actual dive.
I'm not saying that to second guess the official pronouncements. Rather, I'm illuminating a point of confusion and uncertainty. I just don't get why the co-pilot chose to do things the way he did.
Here is information on both pilots. We can expect to hear a lot more about the co-pilot in the days to come. Or perhaps not, if what they learn isn't politically correct.
I've heard that the plane has a kind of deadbolt inside the cockpit to prevent entry even by someone using the keypad. The idea is that if a terrorist tried to force his way into the cockpit by holding someone hostage, he'd still be locked out.
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...
With the technology available today, it's hard to believe that modern passenger aircraft cannot be equipped with systems to prevent them from being intentionally crashed.
Perhaps, but this plane was 29 years old. There's also the problem that any system can and will fail from time to time, so the pilots need to be able to deactivate it if it's causing problems.
AJ Lynch said...
I am surprised none of the passengers [apparently] made a cell phone call in those 8 minutes.
Given the altitude and the remoteness of the location, there may not have been any cell coverage. While the descent was fairly fast, it might not have been fast enough for most people to realize what was happening for the first few minutes.
re: descent, link shows descent
Doesn't it look like a dive?
It's all so difficult to figure out. If only there was some reason why someone might want to crash a plane. Some, you know, some kind of precedent for it in recent years. I'm scratching my head too.
Full disclosure of the names would seem like the obvious policy to me; my guess is that they aren't disclosing because they don't want people jumping to conclusions, but that's rather silly since people are always going to jump to conclusions, and the question is whether you want those conclusions to be wholly-speculatively or mostly-speculative.
Seems like every time I fly to Australia there's one of these events two week before. Last year it was the Malaysian Air disappearance. I'm beginning to feel like it's my fault.
That seems strange. From what I read, while the descent was faster than a normal descent from cruising altitude, it was not by any means a dive. If the crash was intentional I would have expected a much quicker descent.
I'm not sure about the terrain, maybe he was purposefully aiming at something. Like the mountains. Or maybe that's just what made sense to him. Who knows, who cares.
Well the article DID show descent which has replaced by cockpit diagram.
"Why is the plane designed to lock everyone out so effectively?"
9/11
"I heard that US flights have a protocol that requires two people in the cockpit at all times."
Not sure what the flight attendant's going to be able to do if the pilot is willing to use violence.
Since a child, I have thought the reason flying must be safe was the pilot's self intrest to live was a great motivator against any negligent piloting. Hmmm.
This is a great time to watch the utube of Sullengerger's 127,000 lbs glider flying skills for perfect water landings. He did that trick flying the same plane with without the engines on.
I'm still scratching my head over the statement "pushed a button that made the plane descend". None of the planes I fly (admittedly small) has such a button. Nor do I recall anyone ever talking about such a button. I'm thinking this is a translation from a statement made by someone who doesn't know much about airplanes or flying, but it is still curious. We are, however, still in that crazy period following a disaster when you can discount about 95% of everything you hear or read.
Let the record show that I want all available information about me released immediately to the news media if and when I die in a plane crash.
Maybe the co-pilot deliberately flew the plane into the ground, but another possibility came to me today:
The rate of descent was steady and the same as another Airbus incident where a stall sensor malfunctioned, indicating a stall and the computer put the plane into a nose-down maneuver. Even if a pilot pulls back on the yoke, the plane will not come out of the dive. Maybe the co-pilot was struggling with the controls and did not see the utility in letting the pilot back into the flight deck.
You can protect against suicidal pilots or hijackings
The best way to protect against suicidal pilots is not to hire them in the first place, likely. And to evaluate them carefully periodically to make sure they are still ok. there is no perfect solution.
Apparently lock-outs happen for non-nefarious reasons:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/30/us-usa-jetliner-door-idUSKBN0L307K20150130
(The story doesn't say if this was an A320.)
It does seem strange that the descent from 30,000 feet to impact took ten minutes if this was truly a suicide-murder.
The US has a rule that if one of the flight crew needs to leave the cockpit, then a flight attendant will take their place during the absence.
Keep the door bolted to avoid a 9-11 scenario and keep two people on the flight deck to avoid a suicide scenario.
It is not clear if Europe has this policy.
ATCs need to be able to commandeer a plane's autopilot when they see an anomaly or get a distress signal from the plane (inside or outside the cockpit). There's no technical reason we couldn't have that already, right? Land the plane via autopilot and sort things out on the ground.
"dbp said...
Maybe the co-pilot deliberately flew the plane into the ground, but another possibility came to me today:
The rate of descent was steady and the same as another Airbus incident where a stall sensor malfunctioned, indicating a stall and the computer put the plane into a nose-down maneuver. Even if a pilot pulls back on the yoke, the plane will not come out of the dive. Maybe the co-pilot was struggling with the controls and did not see the utility in letting the pilot back into the flight deck."
Seriously?
Ignorance is Bliss said...
That seems strange. From what I read, while the descent was faster than a normal descent from cruising altitude, it was not by any means a dive. If the crash was intentional I would have expected a much quicker descent.
Why? They were in the Alps. He didn't have to go far to find a stone wall.
Tibore said...
I am so confused. If the intent was suicide, why was the plane set to merely descend instead of dive?
It's my understanding that Airbus flight controls won't let the pilot do that.
It does seem strange that the descent from 30,000 feet to impact took ten minutes if this was truly a suicide-murder
Yeah, I don't really get this argument.
The guy has presumably decided to use an airplane to commit murder-suicide.
What rate of descent do you think such a man would choose? I mean, normal decision making is already out the window.
Perhaps he really wanted to relish this moment.
lemondog said...
re: descent, link shows descent
Doesn't it look like a dive?
It was a dive just not a very steep one. The graph I saw had time on the X axis, not distance. The effect is to make the dive appear steeper than it was. If I have the numbers right, the plane lost about 32,000 feet over 8 minutes, or an average of 4,000 feet per minute. That's a vertical speed of 66.7 MPH which is pretty fast. IIRC, the plane was doing over 400 knots (460 MPH). That's a descent angle of about 8.3 degrees. That's pretty steep for an airliner but not as steep as the graph shows.
traditionalguy said...
Since a child, I have thought the reason flying must be safe was the pilot's self intrest to live was a great motivator against any negligent piloting. Hmmm.
Overall, that's a very safe assumption. There are literally millions of airline flights in the US and other countries each year. Offhand, I can only recall a few instances of an airline pilot deliberately crashing a plane. We don't know about that Malaysian airliner from last year. It might be another instance.
>>I'm still scratching my head over the statement "pushed a button that made the plane descend".
I suspect this is a very poor way of saying he disengaged the autopilot, and took manual control.
Rick Lockridge said...
ATCs need to be able to commandeer a plane's autopilot...
That's fine, as long as you can guarantee that the take-over functionality is hack-proof.
Which you can't
Seriously?
Yes.
"On 5 November 2014, Lufthansa Flight 1829, an Airbus A321 flying from Bilbao to Munich when the aircraft, on autopilot, unexpectedly lowered the nose and entered a descent reaching 4000 fpm rate of descent. The loss of altitude had been caused by two angle of attack sensors having frozen in their positions during climb at an angle, causing the fly by wire protection to assume the aircraft entered a stall while it climbed through FL310. The Alpha Protection activated, forcing the aircraft to pitch down, which could not be corrected even by full back stick input. The crew eventually disconnected the related Air Data Units and was able to recover the aircraft."
It's strange that someone's breathing would be described as normal when he is flying at 700 km per hour and sees the side of a mountain coming towards him. Even if he was suicidal.
dpb- the cockpit voice recorders are said to have the sound of the pilot breathing steadily, not as if he is in a challenging situation.
Contrary to the reporting, I don't believe they would be able to hear his breathing on the flight recorder.
dbp said...
Seriously?
Yes.
"On 5 November 2014, Lufthansa Flight 1829, an Airbus A321 flying from Bilbao to Munich when the aircraft, on autopilot, unexpectedly lowered the nose and entered a descent reaching 4000 fpm rate of descent. The loss of altitude had been caused by two angle of attack sensors having frozen in their positions during climb at an angle, causing the fly by wire protection to assume the aircraft entered a stall while it climbed through FL310. The Alpha Protection activated, forcing the aircraft to pitch down, which could not be corrected even by full back stick input. The crew eventually disconnected the related Air Data Units and was able to recover the aircraft."
You ignore that the co-pilot totally ignored the pilot. For ten minutes.
Still think what you think?
It's strange that someone's breathing would be described as normal when he is flying at 700 km per hour and sees the side of a mountain coming towards him. Even if he was suicidal.
Again. This is a guy who used a plane to commit murder suicide. He's made a very unusual and dangerous choice, perhaps a fate he welcomed. The idea that it is "strange" that his breathing would be normal has little meaning, because this is someone who decided to commit murder suicide which is well beyond strange.
"Rusty said...
It's my understanding that Airbus flight controls won't let the pilot do that."
Yes, you're referring to the flight envelope protection programming. But in the Airbus, there's a mode called "Direct Law" that is supposed to allow direct pilot input and only give warnings when certain criteria (airspeed, hull attitudes/angles, etc.) are exceeded.
Now the question is, how is Direct Law enabled? I'm reading in some places where departures from that mode are only available when equipment fails or extreme aircraft attitudes are sensed, but I'm reading in other places that the "Normal Law" setting can be deviated form intentionally (quote in an Ask The Pilot forum: "In my opinion, I believe it is possible to {describes maneuver normally prohibited by Flight Envelope Protection} provided the “normal law’’ is intentionally removed by switching off some flight control computers."). So you may be correct, but at the same time I'd think that in 10 minutes the copilot could've done the work necessary.
Bottom line: I don't know. You may in fact be correct, and your point is a good one, but I think there's still enough reason to raise the question.
The copilot not only ignored the pilot for 10 minutes, but deliberately had locked him out of the cockpit.
I guess that was just really bad timing? To innocently lock the pilot out and then bang! the plane goes all wonky on him?
"You ignore that the co-pilot totally ignored the pilot. For ten minutes.
Still think what you think?"
I am agnostic, but it is another hypothesis besides suicide.
Maybe he should have let the pilot in but his reasoning was clouded by panic.
Also, it gives a good explanation for the fairly gradual descent. Why not point it straight down if all you want to do is die?
Yes, such people exist, I suppose. But we know he wasn't, for instance, asleep or unconscious?
I think that spontaneous suicide, though rare, does happen, but this is spontaneous suicide combined with mass murder. All explanation scenarios seem wildly unlikely. My best guess is that he had taken some drugs and had a psychotic reaction. We are seeing weird sporadic cases out of Colorado (a new one in last couple days) where people who had never tried pot before go temporarily insane and kill themselves or a loved one.
We need to know more about that co-pilot. That is obvious. He had only 630 hours.
"You can protect against suicidal pilots or hijackings but I can't really see a setup where you can prevent both without barring both pilots from leaving the cockpit."
There is a simple solution to this problem.
"Since a child, I have thought the reason flying must be safe was the pilot's self intrest to live was a great motivator against any negligent piloting."
In my opinion, it still is. For every one of these situations, or the Egypt Air ones, you've got a dozen Bob Pearson's or John Cowards (really!) who bend over backwards to make sure their passengers get home safe, or as safe as a tragedy allows.
And really, what solutions are truly failsafe? We have enough automation in jetliners already, and as one pilot complained on a forum in response to dozens of suggestions: The pilot has to be considered part of the solution, not part of the problem. Because said pilot can always crash the aircraft somewhere, no matter what designs are implemented. And he's got a point.
Pilots self interest is one reason I'm against drone passenger jetliners.
virgli- why assume it was spontaneous suicide and not very well planned?
Locking the cockpit door is SOP and would have happened prior to the malfunction, if there was a malfunction.
dpb- the reports are that the door locks automatically, but it takes a deliberate act to lock the door so that the pilot can't use his code to get back in the cockpit.
Not hiring the nut in the first place is easier in the USA with its supply of pre vetted military pilots that were around many unit commanders and fellow pilots undergoing constant training for distress.
This German dude was a Glider Club hobbiest that had no family and probably had no religion except himself. He was unvetted apart from taking the tests well.
I wonder if these two pilots knew each other or if they were flying together for the first time.
If this was a movie, the real co-pilot would have been murdered before the flight and a terrorist impostor would have tried to crash the plane.
Of course in a movie, Bruce Willis would be there to save the day, but only after crawling around in the baggage hold sweating and wise-cracking for an hour and a half.
'Deliberate attempt'?
I don't think it was just an 'attempt'.
Yea, more info on this pilot.
I prefer not to speculate. (I like Bob Boyd's scenario, but I think the co-Pilot would have to show some ID at some point).
Look, a Queen of Diamonds!
MayBee said...
dpb- the reports are that the door locks automatically, but it takes a deliberate act to lock the door so that the pilot can't use his code to get back in the cockpit.
Yes, I was aware of this: The real question is "what is the SOP"? Was it normal to completely lock the door (so that entering the code from outside does not work) or not? There must be a reason for all of these settings to exist. For example, could a determined terrorist torture the code out of a member of the flight crew? That possibility may be why there is a total lock-out option. Maybe the total lock-out is only used once some kind of attack is detected. If so, that makes its use very suspicious.
Say a co-pilot has a secret heroin addiction. Pilot leaves, co-pilot locks the door for a fix, only what he has is stronger than what he thought or he makes a mistake, passes out, and that's the end of that.
Or something else. Or he's an evil mass murderer.
Still need to recover the 2nd black box.
...where people who had never tried pot before go temporarily insane>>>
Can I assume pre-flight drug tests are given to all flight personnel?
re: panic, even in panic mode shouldn't the flight recorder give some evidence of cockpit distress sounds? Reports indicate there was total silence.
Freeman- I was thinking along similar lines but the report is that the descent happened because of deliberate action. It could not have happened because of incapacitation of the copilot.
Can I assume pre-flight drug tests are given to all flight personnel?
Oh I doubt that very much. A big time-sink.
What strikes me is that there ought to be a way for flight crew to communicate with ATC from the cabin in the event of a situation like this. If another 9/11 situation happened, for instance, it's at least conceivable that jets could be scrambled, if the pilots or crew could contact the ground immediately when they lose control of the cockpit.
Instead, in the aftermath of these crashes we always hear about the period of time when people on the ground are trying to make contact to figure out what is going on. I'm sure there would still be cases where there would be no way to save the plane but every second counts and sometimes the tragedy might be avoidable.
And how was this poor boy's his love life going. It certainly "hit a rocky patch" at the end.
Do we need to cherchez la femme or cherchez L'homme?
The real question is "what is the SOP"?
As I understand it, the SOP is to only use the manual override in an extreme situation.
Which makes sense. Why would the pilots have a code to get into the cockpit if the standard would be to completely lock them out?
Also, it is much safer to allow the pilot access to his own cockpit, except in extreme situations.
This German dude was a Glider Club hobbiest that had no family and probably had no religion except himself.
No family is contrary to what I have heard which is that he lived with his parents.
No religion is something you seem to have made up, unless you have an actual source for that.
The most likely answer is obvious, but he could just be a nutjob too. Let's see what we find out.
"We are seeing weird sporadic cases out of Colorado (a new one in last couple days) where people who had never tried pot before go temporarily insane and kill themselves or a loved one."
What? Sources?
There's some significant stuff missing here. The co-pilot was being recorded until the moment of impact - they heard his breathing. He didn't say anything? And 20-30 minutes prior he was laughing and joking with the pilot?
This makes no sense to me: If he decided to commit suicide in such a fantastical way, he most likely would have spoken at least in his final moments. He may have been raving, may have been apologizing to the captain, whatever....but to make no verbal sounds except breathing?
I'm wondering if they can confirm it was the co-pilot whose breathing they heard.
"BurntOrnge said...
"We are seeing weird sporadic cases out of Colorado (a new one in last couple days) where people who had never tried pot before go temporarily insane and kill themselves or a loved one."
What? Sources?"
My understanding is that they made a movie about that:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0028346/
;)
If the guy was intending to make some sort of statement, it would be on the recorder.
You know, "Death to Infidels", or "You broke my heart 'cause I couldn't dance..."
@Shanna... Comment was based on latest news story, so the truth may surface differently later. The pictures showed the busy pilot lived alone. But of course he was not hatched and likely had parents still living.
There was a deliberate attempt to destroy the aircraft.
Considering that the wreckage consists of tiny pieces of metal and the aircraft has been described as "pulverized," I'd say it wasn't just an attempt.
There have been suicides by pilot before this flight, most notably Silk Air in Indonesia(104 fatalities) and Egypt Air out over the Atlantic (217 fatalities). A pilot for LAM in Africa killed 32 people besides himself less than 18 months ago.
I agree with the Professor's comment at 7:41. Why would someone design a door lock so that a pilot be locked out of the cockpit? What if one leaves and the other becomes incapacitated? Why didn't someone consider that scenario, not to mention the suicide scenario? In all three of the cases I cited above the other pilot was locked out of the cockpit.
Bob Boyd said...
I wonder if these two pilots knew each other or if they were flying together for the first time.
If this was a movie, the real co-pilot would have been murdered before the flight and a terrorist impostor would have tried to crash the plane.
Clancy wrote that one already
I think if this guy had any connection to a Mosque we'd already start hearing some chatter from the usual (non-MSM) channels.
My guess is guy just went nuts. I'm not ready to claim sleeper cell. IF more crap like this keeps happening, then I'll go full conspiracy nut.
"This German dude was a Glider Club hobbiest that had no family and probably had no religion except himself."
Surely only an atheist could have done such a thing. {/sarcasm}
@ BurntOrnge
I'm sure he was talking about this.
There's a lot you can blame for this murder however, and pot candy might not even be the third on the list.
I'll just leave this here.
"Armored cockpit doors were an unnecessary, and in fact counterproductive, post-9/11 change. Now instead of overpowering passengers and crew, a would-be terrorist need only infiltrate a middling profession and subdue one individual (or wait for their bio break).
3/16/14, 3:28 PM"
This makes no sense to me: If he decided to commit suicide in such a fantastical way, he most likely would have spoken at least in his final moments.
Why do you say this?
Committing suicide in such a fantastical way does not make sense. You can't judge his behavior based on what "makes sense".
It's like when people say OJ couldn't have killed two people in a fit of rage because he seemed so normal on his flight afterwards.
So, there was no indication that this was a terrorist attack? Really!
What kind of indication -- besides the fact that the co-pilot intentionally crashed the plane -- would a person have to be shown to convince that this was an act of terror?
@ Big Mike
Isn't EgyptAir now considered by some to be jihad?
He said, “You can hear he is trying to smash the door down.” …
That must have been a very bad 3-4 minutes for the passengers in the front of the plane to watch their death unfold...
"Why would someone design a door lock so that a pilot be locked out of the cockpit?"
To keep terrorists out.
"What if one leaves and the other becomes incapacitated?"
Normally, the pilot can get back in with a code. This can be disabled in the case terrorists have taken the pilot hostage. That's the mode the co-pilot used in this case.
Maybe his death wish was to fly a plane gradually into a mountain in broad daylight so he could see the mountain looming larger and larger and he could hear the passengers scream as they saw their doom approach. IOW, the co-pilot was just another of the world's homicidal maniacs.
"Isn't EgyptAir now considered by some to be jihad?"
While that pilot was recorded to be muttering about trusting himself to God, it looks like a "normal" suicide. He was in the process of being fired by the airlines.
Well the good news is that Lufthansa will reimburse for lost luggage and offer a free flight to the families.
But to get more than that, they will need one of those money grubbing trial lawyers everybody loves to hate.
The Japanese airline transport rating requires a psychological test every six months as well as medical.
But the Japanese are so seriously weird that I don't know what the test could be.
"He was in the process of being fired by the airlines."
Oh, OK Maybe they knew he was a jihadi nut.
Maybe the co-pilot was struggling with the controls and did not see the utility in letting the pilot back into the flight deck.
Right, because when I've just realized I'm staring death in the face my first reaction is NOT to scream HELP!!!! and NOT to get the guy who has many times my experience in to take over. I would sit there silently thinking, "nah don't need my captain who is currently banging on the door accidentally locked out--I'll just ignore that."
Yes, you're referring to the flight envelope protection programming. But in the Airbus, there's a mode called "Direct Law" that is supposed to allow direct pilot input and only give warnings when certain criteria (airspeed, hull attitudes/angles, etc.) are exceeded.
I thought it still would not allow the pilot to overstress the airframe. Which would happen in a dive.
"If this was a movie, the real co-pilot would have been murdered before the flight and a terrorist impostor would have tried to crash the plane.
Clancy wrote that one already"
No, the pilot was a Japanese patriot. He killed the innocent co-pilot.
"Oh, OK Maybe they knew he was a jihadi nut."
He had recently been charged/convicted of exposing himself to a woman. It was to be his last flight for Egypt Air.
Maybe the co-pilot was struggling with the controls and did not see the utility in letting the pilot back into the flight deck.
Right, because when I've just realized I'm staring death in the face my first reaction is NOT to scream HELP!!!! and NOT to get the guy who has many times my experience in to take over. I would sit there silently thinking, "nah don't need my captain who is currently banging on the door accidentally locked out--I'll just ignore that."
The copilot not only ignored the pilot knocking, he had to have flipped the toggle switch to the locked position at that moment (there are explanations and videos showing how the system works- the extra lock is turned on at the time that someone seeks entry, if the crew thinks it is not a legit request- it's not something he could have turned on right after the pilot left.)
So the (already unlikely) theory that the copilot was too absorbed in trying to control the aircraft to let the pilot in, is impossible to reconcile with the facts because he was not too preoccupied to turn ON the lock at that moment.
The dude was in a world of his own. He refused to speak to the Pilot or to the many ground and air communications sent his way.
Was he in a trance being a glider pilot all alone again or was his silence sending a message to someone or some authority that he really hated?
The chances are that he was an atheist. Most Germans do not believe in Religions except for seeking help from occult practitioners.
Obvious answer.
Two need to be in the cabin at all times. If the pilot or co-pilot leave, then a sky marshal or someone capable of resistance needs to be there.
Remember folks, in these PC times they hire people and don't really ask the real questions.
I also wonder if the black boxes do video as well as audio (doubt it.)
Rusty said...
Yes, you're referring to the flight envelope protection programming. But in the Airbus, there's a mode called "Direct Law" that is supposed to allow direct pilot input and only give warnings when certain criteria (airspeed, hull attitudes/angles, etc.) are exceeded.
It might've been even simpler than that. All he had to do is to select the vertical navigation mode on the autopilot and dial in a high rate of descent. The autopilot would fly the plane right into the ground while keeping it perfectly under control.
"If the pilot or co-pilot leave, then a sky marshal or someone capable of resistance needs to be there."
This would be a lot cheaper.
I can tell immediately when the plane starts its descent into the destination. There is no way a plane could be descending for 4 minutes, much less 6, 7, 8 minutes without a large % of people knowing. For that reason, and the scripted, unquestioned, "nobody would have known it was descending", I am calling BS.
This is a cover story.
OR
Maybe a steward or stewardess stepped into the cockpit when the pilot left and incapacitated the co- pilot.
How do they know it was the co-pilot breathing? All the variables are not being accounted for, and the story is coming out too quick to be real.
There may have been a Ninja clinging to the cockpit ceiling.
The pilots didn't notice him, even when he sprinkled a mysterious powder into the pilot's coffee cup which quickly made the pilot have to piss like a Russian race horse.
After the plane reached cruising altitude, the pilot popped his seat belt and rushed to the head.
The Ninja dropped down with characteristic Ninja sneaky silence, sliced the unsuspecting co-pilot's throat, flipped the door lock switch, jumped into the pilots seat and proceeded to crash the plane which, naturally, was also done with Ninja sneakiness.
Of course its just speculation at this point.
Why is the plane designed to lock everyone out so effectively? It's not as if the lone-wolf pilot hasn't happened before and couldn't have been imagined.
Uh...
To prevent hijackers from getting in?
Did you not pay any attention to the endless blather about cockpit security starting around noon Pacific time on September 11, 2001?
^ Big shock. Birther has conspiracy theory; film at eleven. Up next: Dog bites man, shocking details.
"Why is the plane designed to lock everyone out so effectively? It's not as if the lone-wolf pilot hasn't happened before and couldn't have been imagined."
Post-911, the greater threat was thought to be an attack from passengers. Normally, pilots are assumed to non-suicidal. (For various reasons, pilots on major US air carriers are usually given background checks.)
The doors were made more stout, capable of being locked both mechanically and electrically. There is an electronic override for the lock, but that itself can be overridden from inside the cockpit.
In most aircraft, the area adjacent to the cockpit door is very narrow, therefore only one or two persons can get leverage at the door.
No system is perfect. Years ago, the pilot stranded outside might have had access to a crash axe, but that has been moved inside the cockpit. An armed pilot might have been able to disable the lock by shooting it - but people are nervous about armed pilots.
The best way to avoid this type of situation is to keep close tabs on the crews through routine background checks (at increased cost, of course.)
Re my earlier post on Colorado psychotic incidents: see Maureen Down (she didn’t kill anyone); Levy Pongi; Richard Kirk; Luke Goodman. Drug-induced psychosis is to me a more hopeful explanation than that a nice 28 year old guy decided on the spur of the moment to murder 130 innocent people because he felt depressed (or didn't like Tuesdays).
They should start to ask potential airline pilots in interviews -
"So, would you ever murder suicide the plane" while being injected with truth serum.
Really our lives depend on it.
It's possible that we will know that the crash was intentional and never know what caused the suicidal motivation of the pilot. People aren't always what they seem.
Simon said...
"^ Big shock. Birther has conspiracy theory; film at eleven. Up next: Dog bites man, shocking details".
Big shock, .gov troll pushing the scripted story.
If one part is a lie then the whole thing is a lie.
That the passengers would not have known the plane was descending is a lie to cover a hole in the story. They descended 32k ft. yet only started screaming at the end after 1/2 of flight. IMPOSSIBLE.
Charles Lindbergh was such a good family man that he had two. And he kept that secret until his grave. People are not always what they seem, and they get away with it. Bernie Madoff. Bill Cosby.
Underneath it all, the Airline industry is in a transition from the era of high status well paid unionized pilots to a second tier of new guys who are barely paid at all.
That goes double for the spin off economy airline where the young newbies are placed until they build up several years seniority.
That means the Airlines have to take whomever passes the tests and will work such hard a job for such little pay, which is from a smaller group.
>>I'm still scratching my head over the statement "pushed a button that made the plane descend".
I suspect this is a very poor way of saying he disengaged the autopilot, and took manual control.
Autopilots can be set for specified rates of climb and descent. Usually commercial flights are on autopilot completely from just after take-off to just before landing.
Tibore said" "VI am so confused. If the intent was suicide, why was the plane set to merely descend instead of dive? Granted, it was a pretty quick descent, but from the way it's being described it was far from being an actual dive."
Gently reduce power and nose over, picking up speed from altitude loss - like starting a normal descent for landing. Nobody gets alarmed. Hit the side of the hill at 700 mph, everyone dies instantly.
Hard nose over (everyone floats out of seat) or hard bank and let nose drop (also alarms passengers). Vertical dive, aircraft breaks up in mid-air, everyone free-falls the last 15,000 feet.
Some thoughts about the rate of descent:
At high altitude (e.g., FL380), commercial jets fly at a significant percentage of Mach - around .82 to .85M. The high Mach warming goes off around .95M. A normal descent is done by pulling the engines back to near idle and then (if necessary) extending the speed brakes. This keeps the aircraft from exceeding a safe Mach number. As the aircraft descends, so does the Mach the aircraft is experiencing, allowing for a steeper descent, in terms of feet per second. A classic enroute descent might never exceed 2,000 feet per minute. An emergency descent would be much faster - throttles idle, speedbrakes, and keeping the aircraft at a high Mach until Mach no longer becomes much of a factor and indicated airspeed becomes the critical number.
This aircraft descended at an average of 3,500 feet per minute. More than normal, but not an emergency descent. The question is why? Perhaps the copilot did not want to alarm the pilot who was outside the cockpit. Normally, any pilot would notice a change in engine setting, not to mention a steep change in aircraft attitude. You'd feel it as naturally as if it was part of your body. If you are in the aircraft lavatory, with the fan going and doing your business, you might not notice a slight change for a minute or so. But I'll bet the pilot quickly noticed the descent and left the lavatory as soon as he did so. Only to find himself locked out of the cockpit. He would not be initially worried because ATC might have directed an early descent which the copilot initiated. (Unusual, but not unheard of.) He would begin to worry when the copilot would not let him in.
Why the less than maximum descent thereafter? Now we have to speculate. Perhaps he didn't want to listen to screaming passengers all the way down. As a pilot, another reason strikes me. Pilots love flying, especially flying without regard for restrictive rules. What better way to go out then while hand flying into a mountainside? There is precedent. An Air Force A-10 pilot in Alaska left formation, flew through numerous mountain passes and finally killed himself after an extended flight. One famous pilot flew acrobatics in his private aircraft for an extended period within sight of a airfield until he ran out of fuel and pushed to nose over to impact at a 90 degree angle. In any case, there need be no more special reason for the rate of descent than that was what the copilot felt like doing.
Loren said...
>>I'm still scratching my head over the statement "pushed a button that made the plane descend".
All Airbus planes are 'fly-by-wire' The input from the yoke/joystick goes to the computer the computer decides what appropriate action to take. Airbus will not allow the plane to go into a dive, it will allow the plane decend.
J Lynch said...
I am surprised none of the passengers [apparently] made a cell phone call in those 8 minutes.
Not a lot of cell towers in the middle of the Alps.
Mick said:
How do they know it was the co-pilot breathing? All the variables are not being accounted for, and the story is coming out too quick to be real.
That is a good question.
However, it does appear that someone was controlling the flight of the plane, so if it was not the co-pilot breathing, it would have been someone who knew how to fly a plane.
"So the (already unlikely) theory that the copilot was too absorbed in trying to control the aircraft to let the pilot in, is impossible to reconcile with the facts because he was not too preoccupied to turn ON the lock at that moment."
In fact that was the actual scenario of the Air France Flight 447 final moments as the captain, who had left the cockpit to an inexperienced co-pilot, tried to control the stall.
The junior co-pilot had put the plane into a stall and kept trying to raise the nose because flight instruments were frozen.
Underneath it all, the Airline industry is in a transition from the era of high status well paid unionized pilots to a second tier of new guys who are barely paid at all.
That goes double for the spin off economy airline where the young newbies are placed until they build up several years seniority.
That means the Airlines have to take whomever passes the tests and will work such hard a job for such little pay, which is from a smaller group.
I know this is the case in the US from several pilot friends (all retiring military trying to get jobs in the private sector) but does this apply in Europe as well? Honest question-just curious.
@Birches, Original Mike already answered for me. Not everyone who calls out "Allahu Akbar" is committing an act of jihad.
In the AF447 crash, the pitot tubes for the air-speed indicator iced over and read 0. That's why the computer kicked offline. It was a storm and they couldn't see the horizon either.
That crash was due to the co-pilot's inexperience with flying the Airbus A300 without the computer. He was confused by the 'Pull up' audible warning going silent whenever the computer faulted at an extreme AOT (the computer shut up because it decided the sensor inputs were crazy). So he kept pulling up the joystick up and up thinking the stall ended whenever the audible warning stopped. Whenever he eased the stick forward the computer reawakened and starting bitching again about a stall. Rinse and repeat.
Meanwhile the captain (who was sleeping) jumped into the right (co-pilot) seat and yelled WTF to the co-pilot as he pushed the joystick forward to stop the stall, but the captain's joystick on the left overrode him, and he didn't realize it. (Boeing uses wheels that are mechanically linked, so pushing one steering wheel forward always pushes the other.) The official determination in the AF crash was pilot error due to failure to understand how the fly-by-wire A300 behaved whenever the computer kicked off.
The 2008 crash was similarly due to lack of experience in flying without the computer (and likely the Air Indonesia crash too).
I personally won't fly in a foreign A300.
This story is not going to end well. In oh so many ways.
@ I have misplaced my pants....Yes, my thought about entry level pilots at the small Airlines being underpaid is based on Delta Pilots and Delta Connection pilots that commiserated with me.
For all I know young Gunter was a high paid man, but I doubt that.
One story said he went for training to an Arizona school for Airline pilots. I bet he had him a big student loan debt from that.
Willow Viney said...
I personally won't fly in a foreign A300.
AF447 was an A-330, not an A-300. The A-300 is an older design that doesn't use fly-by-wire technology.
Would it not seem like a good idea to have manual instruments in front of the pilots as well as the computerized stuff--at very least an artificial horizon, completely independent of the computer? It's not like modern cockpits are short on real-estate. I realize that you can't duplicate all of that stuff, but it sure would seem useful given the demonstrable possibility of computer failure.
He probably wanted to die instantaneously - so fly into a mountain - so slow descent to reach the Alps.
But didn't want to suffer - so prevent the plane from disintegrating in mid air by slow descent.
Showing he thought it all out - showing he was crazy.
Maybe he resented his slow promotion. Passed pilot school in 2000 and co-pilot 14 years later. Imagine starting off to be a pilot and having to serve drinks on the plane. Get even by crashing a plane and harming Lufthansa which promoted him so slowly. Showing he was crazy.
I meant A3xx (A320, A330, etc). The point is that these Airbus planes tend to have an uncommon number of crashes whenever the computer goes offline. (It admittedly does not appear to be an issue related to the current crash.)
If he was intent on suicide, why didn't he just push the nose all the way over and dive straight into the ground? I'm wondering if maybe he passed out for some reason after the pilot left the cockpit.
Yes, I know this doesn't explain apparent deliberate actions such as deactivating the lock that would have allowed the pilot to enter or the apparent deliberate act to put the plane into a descent. Is there any way those could have happened by accident?
Yes, yes, Dr. Occam calls, but still ...
Tom said...
If he was intent on suicide, why didn't he just push the nose all the way over and dive straight into the ground? I'm wondering if maybe he passed out for some reason after the pilot left the cockpit.
Because from 35,000 feet, the plane passes Mach 1, the wings come off and it breaks up. The last 10,000 would be unpleasant...
A really really inconvenient small stroke.
Looking more like suicide by plane
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/03/26/germanwings-co-pilot-took-training-break-to-deal-with-depression-and-burnout/
traditionalguy said...
The chances are that he was an atheist. Most Germans do not believe in Religions except for seeking help from occult practitioners.
Many Germans believe in the religion of global warming. Perhaps this pilot did too and wanted to slaughter a few lambs to make his point: dare ye fly? OK, die!
". . . .It does seem strange that the descent from 30,000 feet to impact took ten minutes if this was truly a suicide-murder. . . ."
I read earlier that this particular plane was equipped with some sort of override that would have prevented a full dive. In fact, the copilot appears to have taken great pains to keep the decent within a certain envelope to avoid triggering some kind of automatic fail safe. It's one the reasons they suspect a deliberate act.
Turns out the co-pilot was a muslim convert.
Now who would have guessed that?
Post a Comment