Second black box 'confirms French Alps crash co-pilot Andreas Lubitz acted deliberately'

[Bosonic]

Source: Telegraph

The second black box found after the Germanwings plane crashed into the French Alps last month has confirmed that co-pilot Andreas Lubitz deliberately caused the disaster, French investigators said.

According to the investigators, he repeatedly accelerated the airline as he crashed into a mountain in the French Alps killing 150 people.

The French BEA crash invesigators said in a statement that the pilot changed the settings to increase the plane's speed.

"A first reading shows that the pilot in the cockpit used the automatic pilot to descend the plane towards an altitude of 100 feet (30 metres). Then, several times during the descent, the pilot changed the automatic pilot settings to increase the aircraft's speed," BEA said.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/germanwings-plane-crash/11513967/Second-black-box-confirms-French-Alps-crash-co-pilot-Andreas-Lubitz-acted-deliberately.html

[irisblue]

1. those poor people

[Surya Gayatri]

2. After all of the other damning evidence that's come out

re. Andreas Lubitz, this is no surprise, sadly.

[jtuck004]

3. That headline ain't what the BEA said. In that article they said the pilot "changed the

settings" to increase speed, but the reporter apparently made up the headline with no facts to back it up.

Everything BEA has released has said it is too early to determine the cause.

The rest of this is coming from Fox news types, eager in their witch hunt.

Fyi: The captain is reported to have told the co-pilot to set it up for landing b4 he left the cockpit, and since it was at 38K feet that would require it to descend.

So this completely computer-controlled aircraft, (in which another of the same plane had to have the computer turned off to avoid the plane flying itself into the ground), was piloted by a person with only 100 hours at its controls, told to descend into mountainous terrain, then left alone in the cockpit.

Still no evidence to prove anything, all conjecture and circumstantial evidence.

This...

several times during the descent, the pilot changed the automatic pilot settings to increase the aircraft's speed," BEA said.

would indicate that he was trying to bring the plane speed and altitude up, not crash it. More like he was trying to compensate for the jet descending too rapidly.

[Demeter]

4. that's an interesting theory

however, given the amount of evidence left by the co-pilot, plus his total lack of emotional response on record during descent, you are going to hurt yourself, straining like that.

[Surya Gayatri]

5. Thanks for taking up the cudgels against even more

excuses for the 'poor hard-working man' Mr. Lubitz, Demeter.

Some fancy dancing by certain elements on this topic.

[Demeter]

6. OH, there's not any fighting involved

fighting would be...inappropriate. The battle has been lost. It's the cleanup.

[Surya Gayatri]

7. Sadly...it would seem so.

[jtuck004]

14. Remember the last plane crash, still gone? That was terrorism, evidence was the lack of response, I

was told. Terrorism with no terrorizing seems unlikely, but that's what some still believe.
.
I think the straining is being done by all the good pitchfork wielding folk who want so badly to find this guy guilty under the most flimsy of evidence, and that circumstantial

Nothing but conjecture, and the agency that is charged with investigation - BEA - says it will be a long time before they have an answer.

We will see...but if it had to do with the plane, there may be another before anyone looks at it, which would be too bad.

[Demeter]

17. The main reason I feel it's not terrorism is the "finding" of the black boxes

Last edited Fri Apr 3, 2015, 05:59 PM - Edit history (1)

When it's terrorism, they can't even find the plane...or any debris...

if they don't summarily lock it all up and withhold it from public view.

[jmowreader]

35. I don't think it's terrorism either, but for a different reason

Any self-respecting terrorist would have crashed the plane in a populated area and tried to take out as many people on the ground as possible. This plane crashed in the most remote place in all Europe.

[Surya Gayatri]

8. Sorry to hobble your high-horse, but...France 24, BBC, you name the outlet,

they're all adopting the same take on the report.

Was the BEA unclear in their statement?

Hum?

[Yo_Mama]

9. That's a bizarre take.

The plane was due to fly at that altitude for a while, and the copilot knew that; the lockout of the pilot was manual and could not have been accidental, and the pilot had not told the copilot to start taking it down and then left the cockpit.

Sadly, this is a suicide/mass murder, and that is not in doubt.

Also the copilot had 630 hours, nor would he have overridden the descent safety limitations to try to make the plane go up. He would have changed the altitude setting on the autopilot instead.

The reason he accelerated the descent is probably because he was afraid the pilot would manage to break through the door.

He may have had a psychotic break - that can't be known. But the research done showed that this was planned to some extent.

[jtuck004]

12. You have no direct evidence, just the rantings of a prosecutor who wants votes. On the othe

hand, the BEA leaked (unfortunately) a recording...

"The flight took off 20 minutes late. After reaching cruising altitude, Sondenheimer asked Lubitz to prepare the landing.

Once that's finished, Lubitz again tells the captain he "can go anytime.""

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/29/europe/france-germanwings-plane-crash-main/

And according to the article above, he didn't accelerate the descent. He accelerated the plane. That would have increased the altitude, unless he took other steps which aren't in evidence.

So many people want to blame the pilot here, just like they did for the missing one in the Indian Ocean. Always someone ready to look down their long, judgmental nose at others. Makes them feel better about themselves, perhaps.

It might have been the pilot, but no one has much but conjecture right now, and the BEA says it will be a long time before there is an opinion worth reading, so until then it is just the rantings of amateurs.

I can wait.

[Thor_MN]

23. Accelerating the plane would not necessarily increase altitude.

If the autopilot is programmed to descend, it is going to continue to do so.

I would believe that a programmed descent would also involve a reduction in air speed, as the plane gets into thicker air. Speculation on my pat, I'm not a pilot. To me, it sounds like he altered settings to avoid that air speed reduction, leaving the plane at about the same speed, as it descended at a steady rate.

[Surya Gayatri]

27. '...just the rantings of a prosecutor who wants VOTES'...

Just what votes would those be, pray tell?

FYI, the State Prosecutor is a high-level civil service post in France, to which one can only be appointed after years of experience and a CV a mile long.

[treestar]

32. Maybe it is what the prosecutor really thinks though

why do you have to reach for his making it up to get votes?

[Yo_Mama]

33. If you are set to descend, accelerating the plane accelerates the descent!

The autopilot was first set to descend. Then it was twice manually set to accelerate.

The French prosecutor isn't elected.

[jtuck004]

37. Rofl. Your posts are now on the wall at the flight station. And I must grab air,

your humor notwithstanding.

Bye.

[Blue_Tires]

34. Perhaps you should sit out this thread while grown folks are talking...

[jtuck004]

36. Thank you for proving 15th century thinking isn't dead. Our conversations, are, tho. n/t

[Blue_Tires]

43. ok...we'll see what's what when BEA publishes their prelim report next month, genius

of course your ass won't be within a hundred miles of that thread when it comes...

[uppityperson]

39. I have read that the plane did descend faster than normal. Are you saying that information is not

right?

And according to the article above, he didn't accelerate the descent. He accelerated the plane. That would have increased the altitude, unless he took other steps which aren't in evidence.

Simply accelerating does not automatically increase altitude. A plane can go faster and still be decreasing altitude.

In this case accelerating the plane did NOT increase altitude. It was descending faster than typical, and he accelerated the speed also.

[BeyondGeography]

10. Interesting hobby ya got there

[Surya Gayatri]

11. Sans blague...! (no kidding)

[RobinA]

13. The Headline

is problematic, even if the "done on purpose" scenario is correct. A flight data recording cannot "confirm" that a pilot acted deliberately to attain an outcome. The data shows what the pilot did, not his state of mind. It would show data that would be consistent with what a pilot would do if he intended to fly into the mountain.

It's sloppy language resulting from sloppy logic, the criticism of which may seem pedantic, but all too often sloppy logic like this leads public opinion. It also gets people in the habit of thinking illogically. Reporting should model logical thinking. I know....

[Surya Gayatri]

25. They're saying in updates on French TV that

selon les donnés récupérés du FDR, les manoeuvres effectués par le co-pilote ne peuvent être qualifié que de délibérés.'

(According to data retrieved from the FDR, the maneuvers carried out by the co-pilot can only be qualified as deliberate.)

This from the special prosecutor's office.

Monsieur Brise Robin does not deal in idle speculation.

[MrModerate]

15. What are you going to do with . . .

all the gnats you're straining after? Is it a hobby?

It's not just sensationalist journalists. The local prosecutor has weighed in. The preponderance of evidence is that the crash is deliberate. BEA is being cautious, as they should be.

And what's with the 100 hours business? So what?

[jtuck004]

19. "The local prosecutor has weighed in" > And Ted Cruz has a plan for America. So?

There is a bunch of disconnected, circumstantial data that only points that way if one starts with a pre-determined outcome. No direct evidence. Not one piece.

It was reported that the co-pilot only had 100 or so logged hours on that aircraft, vs the couple thousand of the pilot. Combine inexperience with a plane that has at least one incident for that type where the crew had to turn off the computer to avoid having the computer drive the ship into the ground, and there is a real possibility that he didn't realize he was in danger.

The pilot is trying to get in the door, but there are recorded incidents of crews not hearing alarms blaring in their ears and faces, and then the aircraft crashing, so if the person at the controls had a headset on and was trying to figure out why the computer was doing what it was doing, he may not have heard it. There are recorded instances of commercial crashes which occurred despite alarms screaming in the cockpit, alarms that were ignored.

I am becoming extremely skeptical of the info being released, as part of it appear to be falsified. The BEA is the agency charged with releasing authorized info, and unless it comes from them, it has a high likelihood of being derived from politics, rather than facts.

It's kind of fun to read the stories people make up, so I don't mean to squash them, but it does seem that people are ready to believe almost anything with these crashes.

[MrModerate]

31. I'd say you're the one making up stories.

The preponderance of evidence as reported so far -- from many sources -- leads very strongly to a conclusion that the co-pilot deliberately crashed the plane.

This is not a rush to judgement.

Your explanation may be possible. The final answers aren't in, and I personally am no expert. But your explanation seems extremely unlikely and based almost entirely on evidence-free speculation on your part.

And now you seem to be fanning the embers of a conspiracy theory. Surely you have to understand that doesn't add to your credibility.

We'll just see. But I don't think you've got it anywhere close to right.

[jtuck004]

38. Feel free to link to any "evidence" that existed prior to your post. There is a witch hunt

going on, with people pointing at "evidence" that is largely manufactured by people who wish to deflect blame from their European airplane.

One way to do that is to come up with a predetermined conclusion that he must have gone crazy and crashed the plane -

-nearly the same excuse given for the downing of the airliner which has still not been found in the Indian Ocean -

because otherwise there is a technology failing.

Neither you nor any one else has a fucking mind probe - you do not know what the co-pilot was thinking, so all this crap without evidence is pure speculation, and gathered to support the conclusion of a prosecutor with an axe to grind.

Ever seen someone convicted of circumstantial evidence who was innocent? Happens ALL the time.


But this is a waste of time - so no more.

[MrModerate]

42. We'll know with a pretty high degree of certainty . . .

Within a few weeks (IMO). Let's see whose assessment is closer to the truth.

But in parting, I have to say that this case isn't at all similar to MH370, for which no credible explanation has yet been made.

[sendero]

40. He couldn't remember..

... how to let the pilot into the cockpit.

Really, you are out of touch with reality. If even MOST of what has been reported is true, Lubitz took the plane down. On what grounds you think otherwise I couldn't guess but they've got everything but a note.

Believe me, the airline would rather it be ANYTHING other that their pilot who they KNEW had a history of mental issues. For that reason alone, I believe the official story on this one.

[jtuck004]

41. "He couldn't remember.." < How do you know what he was thinking? No one else does.

Please provide a link to "the" official story. The BEA is charged with finding out why, and they have stated it will be some time before they have anything official to say.

The rest of it is mostly hysterics, "facts" gathered to support a predetermined conclusion, and more akin to a lynching than an investigation.

On edit> "Please provide a link to "the" official story" < On further reflection, don't bother. I don't think you really care, and I have better things to do.

[elehhhhna]

20. quite the imagination there

Anyone with one hour of flight time knows which way to pull the stick and get the nose up. CT fail.

[Major Nikon]

24. Speed and altitude have an inverse relationship

If you adjust the elevators to point the nose down and leave the power settings alone, speed increases.

If you increase the power settings and leave the elevator unchanged, speed stays the same and the aircraft climbs. If you decrease power settings and leave the elevator unchanged, speed stays the same and the aircraft descends.

With modern autopilots you usually set the rate of descent deliberately. Increasing the rate of descent will increase the speed unless the throttles are pulled back manually or automatically.

[pangaia]

26. With all due respect,

I don't think you have any idea about aviation, commercial pilots, aircraft, A320, procedures.

[Blue_Tires]

28. Either that's a piss take, or you haven't been following the story, mate

Feel free to edit your post once you get up to speed...

[jeff47]

29. :facepalm:

In that article they said the pilot "changed the settings" to increase speed, but the reporter apparently made up the headline with no facts to back it up.

So how, specifically, does one not act deliberately to increase the speed? It's literally a knob he turned. The knob is located between the two pilots. He had to reach over, grab it, and turn it. How did he do that accidentally?

The captain is reported to have told the co-pilot to set it up for landing b4 he left the cockpit

Which you backed up with a link to said reporting, right? Oops.

They still had a long time to go before starting their descent. Why would the pilot tell him to start landing an hour early, and then leave the cockpit? Why would the copilot mindlessly do so?

Also, why didn't the copilot notice the mountains in front of him and stop the descent?

So this completely computer-controlled aircraft

Not in the way you are claiming. The pilots say "I want to descend to this altitude at this rate" instead of pushing forward on the yoke. That doesn't mean the computers on plane make all the decisions. Instead, they literally do what the pilot tells them to do.

was piloted by a person with only 100 hours at its controls

So it takes 101 hours to notice there are mountains in front of the plane?

Also, you're only off by 550 hours of experience.

would indicate that he was trying to bring the plane speed and altitude up, not crash it. More like he was trying to compensate for the jet descending too rapidly.

Except you just claimed it was a completely computer controlled aircraft.

Also, increasing thrust only brings up the altitude if you do nothing else to the plane. He left the autopilot in a descent. Which means the autopilot used the elevators to point the plane down to compensate for the increased speed.

If he really wanted to slow the descent, why would he not turn down the descent? Operating through the speed control when he already operated through altitude control to start and then stepen the descent makes utterly no sense whatsoever.

And why manually lock out the pilot during all this? He could use the same damn controls to unlock the door if he accidentally hit "lock".

[moondust]

30. If he manually accelerated then he was awake, right?

And to some degree alert, breathing normally.

So why didn't he pay any attention to the pilot yelling at him to open the locked door, banging on it and finally trying to break it down in desperation?

[IDemo]

16. -

Germanwings co-pilot Andreas Lubitz researched suicide methods and the technology behind cockpit doors days before he allegedly slammed an airliner into the French Alps, the German prosecutor in charge of the case said Thursday, indicating some preparation possibly went into the crash.

The findings appear to back what French prosecutors have said was Mr. Lubitz’s apparently deliberate decision on March 24 to lock Flight 9525’s more experienced pilot out of the cockpit and fly the airliner into an Alpine ridge at 400 miles an hour.

A computer tablet that investigators say was found among the co-pilot’s belongings contains a series of Internet browser searches, conducted from March 16 to March 23, into medical treatments for suicidal tendencies as well as methods for committing suicide, according to prosecutors. These searches took place a week before the plane crashed, killing 150 people.

Mr. Lubitz also searched for cockpit doors and their security measures, the Düsseldorf-based German prosecutors said.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/andreas-lubitz-searched-internet-for-suicide-methods-prosecutor-says-1427986155

But we can't possibly know whether he may have simply been curious about the marvels of cockpit door technology or gearing up to launch a suicide prevention hotline.....

[Surya Gayatri]

21. Bwaahaaaaa! Funny!

'But we can't possibly know whether he may have simply been curious about the marvels of cockpit door technology or gearing up to launch a suicide prevention hotline.....'

And the doohicky wasn't even necessary!

[SCVDem]

18. Setting up is NOT engaging

As a training check, the co-pilot enters all relevent inputs for descent and landing which the pilot would double check for accuracy.

Who would think of engaging the autoland function at cruise?

[Surya Gayatri]

22. And, programmed for 100 feet? Riiiight!