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.

 

Mozambique E190 crashed deliberately

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   
On the 29th of November 2013, a Mozambique Airlines E190 with six crew and 27 passengers impacted the ground in the Bwabwata National Park , killing everyone on board. Investigators have released the report on the accident that states the aircraft was deliberately crashed.

Almost two hours into the flight from Maputo to Angola the First Officer left the cockpit to use the lavatory. After he left the cockpit door was locked and the autopilot set to an altitude below ground level.

There were no weather problems or communications issues found at the time.

clubofmozambique.com...




posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
the autopilot set to an altitude below ground level.

This seems like a big bug that should have never existed. Auto-pilot should have safety walls built into it, like not setting a negative altitude.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Looks mighty suspiciousy like the second officer had an epiphany don't it ?
Allah Akbar....or just suicidal and lonely for company...



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

The autopilot goes to 0 altitude. It would have to be programmed for every single area the aircraft flies through to recognize that they were over mountains and what the ground level was at that point. It was actually set to 488 feet, but due to the peaks in the area, that was below the physical ground level for there.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: bandersnatch

Sounds more like just suicidal. There was nothing recorded on the CVR after the door was locked.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: bandersnatch

Sounds more like just suicidal. There was nothing recorded on the CVR after the door was locked.


Except, he also murdered his colleagues and passengers.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Vector99

The autopilot goes to 0 altitude. It would have to be programmed for every single area the aircraft flies through to recognize that they were over mountains and what the ground level was at that point. It was actually set to 488 feet, but due to the peaks in the area, that was below the physical ground level for there.

Well I get that it won't go below 0 ft sea level, but active radars should be able to see the terrain for miles ahead and it should imo set the minimum altitude to at least a few hundred feet above the nearest high peak. I didn't realize planes have that kind of flaw in them. Scary to say the least.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Yes he did, but there is zero evidence this was anything but a pilot that decided to kill himself and took others with him.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

No aircraft has an automatic terrain avoidance system. They have warning systems that will tell you about the terrain but it won't fly up on its own. The AF has an auto-GCAS system it's just deploying in fighters, but honestly it's not really a major necessity on commercial aircraft.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

My point was, that it wasn't just a suicide, regardless of motivation.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

But it IS a simple upgrade in aviation tech. Active radar to determine highest peak in next 20 miles of terrain, auto-pilot cannot be set to less than 300 ft above that, the tech for that is actually pretty simple. I'm more shocked than anything that something like this isn't already in place.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Yes he did, but there is zero evidence this was anything but a pilot that decided to kill himself and took others with him.


So...no co-pilot? No navigator?

Or did he murder them before leaving the cockpit i wonder?



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Because it would be expensive as hell, a well as time consuming, to retrofit every aircraft flying for something that has happened five or six times in the last 30 years.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

I stated in the OP the First Officer went to the lavatory. There hasn't been a third crew member required on short haul flights in over 30 years.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Ok.

Thanks.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

It actually wouldn't. It is a tech upgrade that only takes 1x to make it. tech systems are CONSTANTLY upgraded, throwing an upgrade as such wouldn't be expensive. It's a tech upgrade, not a manual one. The system itself would now know to look for the highest peak. Programmers around the world could make such an upgrade for literal pennies compared to the cost of making it.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Except that it requires a modification to the aircraft, which requires taking it out of service, and jumping through about 30 pages of FAA regulations on modification of aircraft, on top of having to go through the certification process to begin with. The ability to do it may be simple, it's the doing that is expensive and time consuming.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

That does make sense, but the upgrade process being a tech one and not a physical one should be a faster process I would assume. It isn't actual physical modifications to the plane itself, just upgrades to the system running it. I also assume the FAA isn't friendly on new things, so I can see the hiccup on this kind of upgrade, but in reality it is an easy one, and should be mandated.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Vector99

No aircraft has an automatic terrain avoidance system. They have warning systems that will tell you about the terrain but it won't fly up on its own. The AF has an auto-GCAS system it's just deploying in fighters, but honestly it's not really a major necessity on commercial aircraft.


Hey Zaph, why no love for TFR?


Terrain-following radar (TFR) is an aerospace technology that allows a very-low-flying aircraft to automatically maintain a relatively constant altitude above ground level. It is sometimes referred-to as ground hugging or terrain hugging flight.

The term nap-of-the-earth flight may also apply but is more commonly used in relation to low-flying military helicopters, which typically do not use terrain-following radar. The technology was originally developed by Ferranti for use with the TSR-2 aircraft....

...The system works by transmitting a radar signal towards the ground area in front of the aircraft. The radar returns can then be analysed to see how the terrain ahead varies, which can then be used by the aircraft's autopilot to maintain a reasonably constant height above the earth.


Terrain following radar?

edit on 16-4-2016 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Drunkenparrot

Even with TFR you can fly into the ground. But TFR is different from what I was talking about though. I was talking about AGCAS.



new topics




 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join