It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Co-Pilot 'intentionally' Destroyed Plane, Prosecutor says

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: soficrow
Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? How much?


I suppose you're now going to tell me you



  1. Never leave the house
  2. Don't drive or get driven
  3. Use a horse


Whichever you want to choose - or even add your own - you can bet that it is statistically far, far more dangerous than flying.


originally posted by: soficrow
For the record, I bet you a tenner, because I do not believe in any shape or form that you do not use a car or other road vehicle.

Re: The Air Canada Airbus that just crashed in Halifax. How much ya wanna bet it's one of the oldest ones? [The nose, wing and engines were ripped off - but they're calling it a "hard landing." The investigation has just started.]


Quite a bit actually - let's say a tenner again? It actually hit a power line on the way in, so the aircraft's age had sod all to do with the crash and was entirely pilot error. The fact the aircraft still remained intact with no fatalities shows that, despite it's age (whatever that may be) it was still of solid construction.









posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Are you arguing against the "suicide" theory, Zaph? It isn't clear.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason

Yes. This is tied up WAY too neatly, and WAY too quickly.

They claimed they heard him breathing normally. The CVR mic is in the overhead at the back of the overhead panel. There's no way it heard him breathing.

They said he set the autopilot to 100 feet, but as far as I've heard the still don't have the FDR, so how'd they figure that out?

They keep pushing depression, but the hospital he went to said he was NOT being treated for it.

It's entirely too convenient.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

What do you feel is the cause in your opinion?



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

What do you think happened then?

It is the transponder data, apparently, that alerted them to the change in the autopilot settings.

As for the mental illness - maybe it wasn't depression specifically, but there are many types of similar mental illness and doctors can be a funny sort when it comes to getting the correct term.

Also, how do you explain the Captain being locked out of the cockpit? That can only happen if he was locked out from the inside. Neither France or Germany has any record of covering up crashes before, have they?



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

... A crew error accident has nothing to do with the age of the aircraft.


Why do you assume crew error accident? The investigation won't be complete for months. The findings could show weather to blame or ground instrument problems instead of pilot error.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: stumason

Yes. This is tied up WAY too neatly, and WAY too quickly.

They claimed they heard him breathing normally. The CVR mic is in the overhead at the back of the overhead panel. There's no way it heard him breathing.

They said he set the autopilot to 100 feet, but as far as I've heard the still don't have the FDR, so how'd they figure that out?

They keep pushing depression, but the hospital he went to said he was NOT being treated for it.

It's entirely too convenient.


Agreed.

Seems tptb are quick to blame terrorists or human error - to discourage discussion - and prevent panic or disruption of profits.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: Zaphod58

... A crew error accident has nothing to do with the age of the aircraft.


Why do you assume crew error accident? The investigation won't be complete for months. The findings could show weather to blame or ground instrument problems instead of pilot error.


Well, the pylon hadn't moved anywhere and presumably had been there for some time, so it wasn't the pylons fault, then add into the bad weather (there is never one cause to an accident) and they just fudged the landing. Just like the one at LAX a few years ago when they hit the tail against the sea wall.










posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason

I certainly hope y'all are gonna get right up there and save Canada the cost of a full investigation. Why waste the money when you already have the answers?



PS. You said, "...I bet you happily get into your car every day." I do not. You owe me.





edit on 30/3/15 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

Bah, splitting hairs. You know full well I didn't literally mean "every day" - there are some days I don't drive - but every time you do, you are millions of times more likely to die in it than in a plane.

Basically, I was making the point that you are over blowing the risk compared to day to day activity. You know this is the point I was making and, upon discovering you didn't actually have any kind of valid argument against it, you now decide to go the pedantic route.

PS - It is a bit bloody obvious what happened and the investigating people have said as much already. I'm not saying anything that isn't already being thought about.
edit on 30/3/15 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

The crew chose to land in poor weather. There were no reports of ILS or glideslope problems prior. Almost all landing accidents of this type, where equipment was working end up being crew error.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: soficrow

Bah, splitting hairs. You know full well I didn't literally mean "every day" - there are some days I don't drive - but every time you do, you are millions of times more likely to die in it than in a plane.

Basically, I was making the point that you are over blowing the risk compared to day to day activity. You know this is the point I was making and, upon discovering you didn't actually have any kind of valid argument against it, you now decide to go the pedantic route.

PS - It is a bit bloody obvious what happened and the investigating people have said as much already. I'm not saying anything that isn't already being thought about.


Has there ever been a study done with actual percentages of flights compared to cars? Being there are billions of cars, of course the percentage is higher to be in a car accident compared to a flight...Just wondering, not saying one way or the other...



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason

The transponder doesn't send out autopilot chanhes in any system I've seen.

We haven't heard the tapes. How do we kniw he WAS? AAlthough a Delta pilot was locked out when a string jammed the door in January.

Airbus has had a problem with AoA sensors freezing and the aircraft going into a dive, because the computer thinks that the plane is stalling. It happened to a Lufthansa A321 a few days prior.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

There have been plenty of statistical studies about the risks associated with everything, not just death while in a car - it's how they go about calculating insurance costs.

In the UK, the odds of being involved in a fatal car crash over the course of your life is 1 in 229. For air travel, I've seen odds depending on the best and worst airlines - from a 1 in 4.7 million chance down to a 1 in 2 million for the worst airlines.

Obviously, these statistical studies look at the total populations, the amount of people that use the mode of transport, the amount of people who die as a result etc.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

So you're going with the pitot tube idea, even though the plane DID NOT go into a dive?

And I would have to disagree with you on what transponders can do, Zaph. I know you know you're stuff, but in this case, I think you are wrong.



We have analysed the raw data from the transponder of #4U9525 and found some more data apart from the regular position/altitude data.
These are the decoded ModeS (Downlink Format 20) frames which contain replies to interrogating radar requests (Upling Format 20).

09:30:48Z.651 MCP/FMC ALT: 38000 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:30:48Z.936 T,3c6618,43.115341,5.671181,38000,GWI18G
09:30:49Z.496 T,3c6618,43.116028,5.671692,38000,GWI18G
09:30:50Z.076 T,3c6618,43.117381,5.673065,38000,GWI18G
09:30:50Z.111 MCP/FMC ALT: 38000 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:30:50Z.553 MCP/FMC ALT: 38000 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:30:50Z.619 MCP/FMC ALT: 38000 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:30:50Z.626 T,3c6618,43.118408,5.673736,38000,GWI18G
09:30:51Z.127 T,3c6618,43.119095,5.674247,38000,GWI18G
09:30:51Z.636 T,3c6618,43.120453,5.675092,38000,GWI18G
09:30:52Z.386 MCP/FMC ALT: 38000 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:30:52Z.567 T,3c6618,43.122208,5.676482,38000,GWI18G
09:30:53Z.036 T,3c6618,43.122894,5.676993,38000,GWI18G
09:30:53Z.546 T,3c6618,43.124271,5.678166,38000,GWI18G
09:30:54Z.083 MCP/FMC ALT: 13008 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:30:54Z.096 T,3c6618,43.125295,5.678689,38000,GWI18G
09:30:54Z.676 T,3c6618,43.125961,5.679421,38000,GWI18G
09:30:55Z.156 T,3c6618,43.127157,5.680259,38000,GWI18G
09:30:55Z.397 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:30:55Z.453 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:30:55Z.636 T,3c6618,43.128367,5.681109,38025,GWI18G
09:30:56Z.186 T,3c6618,43.129211,5.681656,38025,GWI18G
09:30:56Z.707 T,3c6618,43.129898,5.682167,38000,GWI18G
09:30:57Z.267 T,3c6618,43.131626,5.683201,38000,GWI18G
09:30:57Z.312 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:30:57Z.836 T,3c6618,43.132507,5.684020,38000,GWI18G
09:30:58Z.050 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:30:58Z.296 T,3c6618,43.133011,5.684403,38000,GWI18G
09:30:58Z.767 T,3c6618,43.134559,5.685425,38000,GWI18G
09:30:59Z.216 T,3c6618,43.135397,5.685948,38000,GWI18G
09:30:59Z.746 T,3c6618,43.136261,5.686575,38000,GWI18G
09:30:59Z.988 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:00Z.146 T,3c6618,43.137451,5.687149,38000,GWI18G
09:31:00Z.165 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:00Z.676 T,3c6618,43.137817,5.687660,38000,GWI18G
09:31:01Z.676 T,3c6618,43.139866,5.689022,38000,GWI18G
09:31:02Z.027 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:02Z.238 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:02Z.496 T,3c6618,43.141402,5.690199,38000,GWI18G
09:31:03Z.030 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:03Z.456 T,3c6618,43.143494,5.691429,38000,GWI18G
09:31:04Z.376 T,3c6618,43.145731,5.692945,37975,GWI18G
09:31:04Z.943 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:05Z.346 T,3c6618,43.147430,5.693984,37975,GWI18G
09:31:05Z.558 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:05Z.993 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:06Z.466 T,3c6618,43.149828,5.695365,37975,GWI18G
09:31:07Z.164 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:07Z.346 T,3c6618,43.151367,5.696539,37950,GWI18G
09:31:08Z.256 T,3c6618,43.153427,5.697752,37950,GWI18G
09:31:08Z.776 T,3c6618,43.154111,5.698308,37925,GWI18G
09:31:09Z.276 T,3c6618,43.154995,5.698962,37925,GWI18G
09:31:09Z.712 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:09Z.960 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:10Z.326 T,3c6618,43.157364,5.700307,37925,GWI18G
09:31:11Z.312 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:11Z.467 T,3c6618,43.159607,5.701713,37900,GWI18G
09:31:11Z.876 T,3c6618,43.160660,5.702415,37900,GWI18G
09:31:12Z.102 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:12Z.386 T,3c6618,43.161512,5.702885,37875,GWI18G
09:31:12Z.846 T,3c6618,43.162211,5.703408,37875,GWI18G
09:31:13Z.316 T,3c6618,43.163049,5.704128,37875,GWI18G
09:31:13Z.896 T,3c6618,43.164597,5.704970,37875,GWI18G
09:31:14Z.401 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:14Z.493 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:15Z.536 T,3c6618,43.168030,5.707201,37825,GWI18G
09:31:16Z.416 T,3c6618,43.169380,5.707921,37825,GWI18G
09:31:17Z.028 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:17Z.266 T,3c6618,43.171288,5.709294,37800,GWI18G
09:31:18Z.196 T,3c6618,43.173019,5.710144,37775,GWI18G
09:31:19Z.166 T,3c6618,43.175385,5.711648,37750,GWI18G
09:31:19Z.262 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:20Z.176 T,3c6618,43.177277,5.712891,37725,GWI18G
09:31:21Z.216 T,3c6618,43.179202,5.714068,37700,GWI18G

Between 09:30:52 and 09:30:55 we can see that 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 reason why the selected altitude is 96ft is that least significant bit for altitude setting equals 16 ft, and we suspect that you can’t set autopilot to 0000 altitude, so the minimum would be 100ft down rounded to 96ft in binary representation in BDS40h register.
Any comments or thoughts about this?

Playback: www.flightradar24.com...

This data has also been handled over to BEA 2 days ago.

Flightradar24[/u rl]


[url=http://www.rtl-sdr.com/adsb-aircraft-radar-with-rtl-sdr/]Link explaining how the transponder broadcasts autopilot data

Another

More info to be found on that thread I linked
edit on 30/3/15 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   
I think many of us who have respected Zaphod from afar are paying close attention to this. When Zap says he doesn't buy something, I normally listen. Will be paying attention as this investigation progresses.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: mzinga

I respect him also for his knowledge, but you can't know everything - ironically, it is unquestioned respect for Captains that has caused many an air disaster, because the First Officer dare not question him!

I work in a technical field and there are guys who know a lot about some stuff and others about other stuff. Apparently, in this case, it is perfectly possible to obtain the necessary data from the transponder via an interrogating radar to determine the autopilot setting.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason

Not pitot tubes, AoA sensors.

The fastest investigation I've seen was the ATR crash last year. They had radio calls from the crew, and both recorders within hours. It took something like 72 hours to say they shut the wrong engine down.

I may be wrong on the transponder, but when an investigation is wrapped up in a bow as neatly as this one was, the day after, with nothing but the CVR, the FDR memory module is conveniently missing, etc, I don't buy it.

The couple of pilot suicides I've seen investigated took weeks to even put the theory forward, and months to confirm it. This investigation was done in less than 48 hours.

edit on 3/30/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/30/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

To be fair, there has been precious little from the investigators until there was a leak of some kind and they were seen rummaging through the co-pilots house. I'd imagine that in your example, they probably had a good idea what caused the crash early on too, but kept a lid on it long enough to be sure. This time round, not so lucky.

As for the transponder - it seems perfectly feasible actually to obtain the necessary data and a lot of other useful stuff. I work in comms, so it makes sense to me, there are different types of information represented in different bits of the broadcasting frame. You'd be surprised what sort of info you can stuff into little bits
- It seems they are talking about a system called ADS-B which allows point to point (air to air) and air to ground data transmission.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason

Even with a leak there was no reason to announce that they were certain of the cause that fast.

This entire investigation has been a witch hunt from the beginning. The information released even has pilots and people familiar with the A320 scratching their heads, and saying this was way too fast and neat.

They should have spent at least a couple of days going over the CVR and data before they even had a working theory. Instead they seem to be fitting data to the theory.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join