DC Tom Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 This is what there is. The plane was on autopilot when the pilot left the cabin. The pilot comes back and the door is locked, refused to open the door and there are recordings of him screaming to open the door, pilot trying to kick down the door etc. Autopilot is turned off and there is a manual descend when the pilot is locked out. The only sound of the co-pilot is him breathing "normally". There is no speculation that this was deliberate act to take the plane down. It's facts. That's not a fact, that's a speculation from the French prosecutor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobu Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 That's not a fact, that's a speculation from the French prosecutor. It is a fact. I have read several Airbus pilot's take on this and the path of descent is not possible any other way. It is not an autopilot descent and it is impossible for it to fly in this controlled manner any other way. If the autopilot was not on, the bird would have literally fallen out of the sky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) It is a fact. I have read several Airbus pilot's take on this and the path of descent is not possible any other way. It is not an autopilot descent and it is impossible for it to fly in this controlled manner any other way. If the autopilot was not on, the bird would have literally fallen out of the sky. Yup. There is no other scenerio, other than a deliberate action for that dive. Take into context the other evidence on the cockpit recorder and it's case shut. The only answers we need now is why would he do it? Edited March 26, 2015 by BuffaloBillsForever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 It is a fact. I have read several Airbus pilot's take on this and the path of descent is not possible any other way. It is not an autopilot descent and it is impossible for it to fly in this controlled manner any other way. If the autopilot was not on, the bird would have literally fallen out of the sky. No, it's not. If only because complex systems can break in unexpected ways. The evidence for manual intervention is entirely circumstantial (i.e. the circumstances - the nature of the plane's controls, the nature of the voice recording, the nature of the loss of altitude). As such, it is entirely speculation, what happened in the cockpit. And there's nothing wrong with that - speculation in the face of unknowns is necessary, and this speculation is particularly well-founded. But it is speculation, and recognizing that is the difference between knowing what you know and what you don't know, and they still don't know what went on in the cockpit or with the controls, because they don't have the data. The real problem isn't that it's speculation. It's that you people aren't smart enough to admit you don't know what you don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 No, it's not. If only because complex systems can break in unexpected ways. The evidence for manual intervention is entirely circumstantial (i.e. the circumstances - the nature of the plane's controls, the nature of the voice recording, the nature of the loss of altitude). As such, it is entirely speculation, what happened in the cockpit. And there's nothing wrong with that - speculation in the face of unknowns is necessary, and this speculation is particularly well-founded. But it is speculation, and recognizing that is the difference between knowing what you know and what you don't know, and they still don't know what went on in the cockpit or with the controls, because they don't have the data. The real problem isn't that it's speculation. It's that you people aren't smart enough to admit you don't know what you don't know. But they do know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobu Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 No, it's not. If only because complex systems can break in unexpected ways. The evidence for manual intervention is entirely circumstantial (i.e. the circumstances - the nature of the plane's controls, the nature of the voice recording, the nature of the loss of altitude). As such, it is entirely speculation, what happened in the cockpit. And there's nothing wrong with that - speculation in the face of unknowns is necessary, and this speculation is particularly well-founded. But it is speculation, and recognizing that is the difference between knowing what you know and what you don't know, and they still don't know what went on in the cockpit or with the controls, because they don't have the data. The real problem isn't that it's speculation. It's that you people aren't smart enough to admit you don't know what you don't know. Okay Tom, should I take the word of an Airbus pilot with 12,000 hours of experience and an Airbus engineer with 12 years of experience, or some crazy ass pot stirrer name DC Tom on a message board. Hmmm. Decisions, decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) Lets AGREE to wait for the Official report and not rely on some "report" from a Prosecutor who is getting ready to collect Millions in settlements. Also said pilot with 12,000 hours of experience --- was not on said plane. Edited March 26, 2015 by BillsFan-4-Ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 I think I missed one piece in this explanation. If a plane is set to fly at 18000', does that mean it is 18000' feet above the ground or above sea level? In other words, if a plane over Buffalo is set at 18000' and a plane over Denver is also set at 18000', are they flying at the same level or is the Denver one higher (relative to sea level)? I'm just curious about if a plane has a programmed in descent if it would be approaching the ground faster if it was flying towards a mountainous area or if it was flying towards the ocean. As MN explained it's 18000ft above sea level [MSL-Mean Sea Level] indicated on the altimeter. Both the Denver plane and the Buffalo plane are the same height in relation to each other at 18000 MSL but the Denver plane, flying above 5000ft terrain is 13000ft AGL [Above Ground level.] The reason both altimeters are set at 29.92 baro is because all flights at that level are IFR [instrument flight rules] and every planes altimeter must read the same MSL. A altimeter is just a pressure gauge with a scale reading in MSL. The higher you go the lower the barometric pressure. The ground has nothing to do with it-a plane resting on top of mt McKinley would read 20000ft on the altimeter. There is a special altimeter setting procedure if your departure baro is above 31.00" but it's been 10+ years since I took my written pilots test and that escapes me. Rate of descent is measured in MSL. Trim for a 1000 ft per minute descent and you will maintain that till you hit the ground. It is a fact. I have read several Airbus pilot's take on this and the path of descent is not possible any other way. It is not an autopilot descent and it is impossible for it to fly in this controlled manner any other way. If the autopilot was not on, the bird would have literally fallen out of the sky. Planes only "fall out of the sky" if a wing is knocked off or airspeed is insufficient to provide wing lift[stall.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobu Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Lets AGREE to wait for the Official report and not rely on some "report" from a Prosecutor who is getting ready to collect Millions in settlements. Also said pilot with 12,000 hours of experience --- was not on said plane. Lets not. How does a prosecutor collect settlements? The audio recording is clear, concise evidence. Which clearly revealed that the audible tones of the captain attempting to override the door lock were heard. The only thing that can prevent the door from opening in that case is the manual lock override. The audio recording also picked up the sound of the captain attempting to break the door down. Additionally 6 different radar units tracked the controlled descent of the plane. A descent not possible with auto-pilot on. Not sure what you are waiting for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanM.D. Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Now saying the autopilot was switched to 100ft and the plane began to descend... http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/03/26/more-questions-than-answers-after-report-that-germanwings-pilot-locked-out/ "FlightRadar said its review of data showed the autopilot was manually changed from 38,000 feet to 100 feet and 9 seconds later the aircraft started to descend, probably with the “open descent” autopilot setting, the firm’s CEO Fredrik Lindahl said. The plane slammed into a mountain at 6,000 feet, killing 150 people." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Why not just eliminate the pilots. How many would get on a remote controlled plane (drone)... :-O You know it is coming. I mean, Google's got the car. What a brave new leap that would be. @ the very least, make it like The Simpsons epsiode where Homer is a truck driver: "Shhhh, don't tell anybody these things drive themselves!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Sweet Jesus. I'm flying to Europe in July. Now I've got to be concerned about whack-jobs like this pice of trash. RIP you innocent travelers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) Lets not. How does a prosecutor collect settlements? The audio recording is clear, concise evidence. Which clearly revealed that the audible tones of the captain attempting to override the door lock were heard. The only thing that can prevent the door from opening in that case is the manual lock override. The audio recording also picked up the sound of the captain attempting to break the door down. Additionally 6 different radar units tracked the controlled descent of the plane. A descent not possible with auto-pilot on. Not sure what you are waiting for. All you need in this case is a dose of common sense. The evidence that the prosecutor put forth goes beyond that though. It's clear cut what happened. What I find interesting now is the info that comes out from family, friends, phones, finances, home computer etc. That will be the bigger investigation than the investigation to the plane data prior and up to the crash. This situation is so tragic. Edited March 26, 2015 by BuffaloBillsForever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Sweet Jesus. I'm flying to Europe in July. Now I've got to be concerned about whack-jobs like this pice of trash. RIP you innocent travelers. My son flies on to Amsterdam in under a week... Then a trip through "Roman Germany." I just have to block it out as best I can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 I think it was pretty premature of the prosecutor to make such a proclamation when it appears that there will be more to the investigation -- even if the initial evidence paints a pretty clear picture. Of course, it seems to me that a French prosecutor is going to lean toward indicating human error or malfeasance over explaining that the French made airplane malfunctioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 I think it was pretty premature of the prosecutor to make such a proclamation when it appears that there will be more to the investigation -- even if the initial evidence paints a pretty clear picture. Of course, it seems to me that a French prosecutor is going to lean toward indicating human error or malfeasance over explaining that the French made airplane malfunctioned. Because there is 0, ZERO evidence to the airplane malfunctioning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Because there is 0, ZERO evidence to the airplane malfunctioning. That we know of... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 That we know of... You would be a prime example of someone who gets on a jury. No common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jobu Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 I think it was pretty premature of the prosecutor to make such a proclamation when it appears that there will be more to the investigation -- even if the initial evidence paints a pretty clear picture. Of course, it seems to me that a French prosecutor is going to lean toward indicating human error or malfeasance over explaining that the French made airplane malfunctioned. Airbus is a European multinational aerospace and defence corporation registered in the Netherlands and headquartered in Toulouse, France. The group consists of the three business divisions Airbus, Airbus Defence and Space, and Airbus Helicopters. The company was originally formed as the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) on 10 July 2000 by the merger of Aérospatiale-Matra, DaimlerChrysler Aerospace AG (DASA), and Construcciones Aeronáuticas SA (CASA). In January 2014, EADS was reorganised as Airbus Group combining the divisions for development and marketing of civil and military aircraft, as well as communications systems, missiles, space rockets, helicopters, satellites, and related systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 You would be a prime example of someone who gets on a jury. No common sense. Yeah, because I didn't take about four or five "clues" and draw the came conclusion as you. That as opposed to waiting for any number of other possible explanations that actual investigators with investigative experience will learn after investigating a crash site on a remote mountainside. Frankly, I'd rather have me on a jury than you. I'm not saying that your speculation and early conclusion are incorrect. I'm just not ready to make a conclusion as soon as you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts