Questions swirl over reports that cell phone video captured doomed Germanwings jets final moments

It would seem that the German Bild paper published their story on the evening of the 31st - link here - dated 31st March 1858Hrs

a reply to: stumason

If you look at the date stamp of the the post where I said that, at the time they did NOT have the FDR, but had recovered cellular phone footage from a phone. The FDR was found a few days afterwards.

Whatever cell phone the footage was found on, I'd like to know...if that phone can protect the SD/memory card so well (considering what the casing for the FDR looked like), I'd order one. My phones always break.

a reply to: stumason

Yeah, I'm so sorry I'm not completely read in on a system that's only been in use for a short period of time. Especially since I don't work a ramp anymore, and its primarily a civilian system right now with limited military use, and I worked military aircraft.

Show me ONE investigation EVER that announced the probable cause within 24 hours, based SOLELY on the CVR. The French investigations can't be impartial because of the prosecutor determining who did it. If he says the copilot did it, then it's on the investigators to show he did it. Even the European pilots Union had problems with this investigation.

You're seriously going to sit here now and nitpick the definition of "several days". OK, just for you, it was found a COUPLE days before the FDR was found. Is that better?

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: stumason

If you look at the date stamp of the the post where I said that, at the time they did NOT have the FDR, but had recovered cellular phone footage from a phone. The FDR was found a few days afterwards.

Hmmm - another one with a squiffy view of time and space... Your post was dated the 2nd April - they found the FDR on the 2nd April. While I am willing to believe you did not know this on that day, it certainly was not found "a few days after" you posted it...

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Whatever cell phone the footage was found on, I'd like to know...if that phone can protect the SD/memory card so well (considering what the casing for the FDR looked like), I'd order one. My phones always break.

It is not that unbelievable that the SD card could survive the impact. The phone (and other objects around it) could well have lessened the impact quite substantially. The phone - to quote a technical expert from the Bild article I linked above - could shatter into a thousand pieces but if the SD card is in any way intact, data can be recovered.

They are quite survivable - Panasonic released some SD cards in 2012 that can survive excessive heat, g-forces, submersion in water and even x-rays. Some even had a feature which automatically seal the card in the event of a fire.

Let's assume for a minute that during the crash, the phone was shattered and as a result, the SD card flew clear. Given it's relative weight, even at high G-impact the forces exerted on the card would not actually be that great and that is assuming it was not cushioned by anything or taking into account the phone shattering would absorb much of the impact energy of the initial crash.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: stumason

Yeah, I'm so sorry I'm not completely read in on a system that's only been in use for a short period of time. Especially since I don't work a ramp anymore, and its primarily a civilian system right now with limited military use, and I worked military aircraft.

It's not that you didn't know that is the problem, Zaph - it's the fact you argued the toss against it despite the evidence. I know you know your stuff, but sometimes I think you let it go to your head, especially when you see so many members deferring to your wisdom all over ATS.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Show me ONE investigation EVER that announced the probable cause within 24 hours, based SOLELY on the CVR.

Hmm, talk about restrictive parameters!

So not only have I got to find a crash who's investigation determined probable cause within 24hrs, it has to based solely on the CVR? Why is that, because these investigators did not base their probable cause based "solely on the CVR" either.

I smell a rat, Zaph and I think you know full well that the French investigators did not base their probable cause based on the CVR alone. In fact, as discussed above, they had transponder information to go with it which indicated that the autopilot was manually changed to crash.

At any rate, they didn't announce probable cause within 24hrs either, but rather in 48 hours. The plane crashed on the 24th and the first reports of "probable cause" were on the 26th.

Just one link here, describing how it was on Thursday 26th March that french investigators announced their theory

originally posted by: Zaphod58
The French investigations can't be impartial because of the prosecutor determining who did it. If he says the copilot did it, then it's on the investigators to show he did it. Even the European pilots Union had problems with this investigation.

The Prosecutor didn't determine who did it - investigators from the BEA and BFU did. In France, it is usual practice to involve a "prosecutor" in investigations of a possible criminal nature or to rule it out. In fact, this is stated on the BEA website:

In the case of an accident with fatal consequences and involving French authorities, two investigations are undertaken in parallel: the judicial investigation is directed by a prosecutor or undertaken under his control, the safety investigation is undertaken by the BEA. These two investigations have different objectives: the judicial investigation is aimed at determining fault that may result in liability being established and thus on convictions and payments to aggrieved parties. The BEA investigation is aimed exclusively at improving aviation safety for the benefit of passengers and crews: contrary to the judicial investigation, it does not presuppose the existence of a misdemeanour.

BEA

So, the Prosecutor has made his theory public - the BEA have not and won't until the investigation is complete. However, the Prosecutor, charged with determining and following up on any potential Criminal activity, must act faster to preserve evidence and move his own investigation along.

So what we have is the French Judiciary pursuing the theory of him crashing the plane on purpose with all the activity that must go into that, such as collecting personal items from his home, following up on communications etc which are all time sensitive.

The BEA investigation is also ongoing and is charged solely with investigating the crash from a safety perspective.

I think you have got confused and assumed there was one investigation - there is not.

originally posted by: [post=19280450]Zaphod58[/post
You're seriously going to sit here now and nitpick the definition of "several days". OK, just for you, it was found a COUPLE days before the FDR was found. Is that better?

Yes, I am. And yes, that is better, thankyou! That said, I've seen you nitpick others many times Zaph....

a reply to: Vasa Croe

the only thing i could see that would differ from the official story is that (even that i KNOW different) that there are weapons avable to the captain or the hidden crow bar was more effective in oping the ballistic rated door then they want you to know, security theater and all that.

honestly i think it was just a sick man who snapped and wanted to make him self a house hold name. it's not un heard of for crazy people to try and make a name for them selfs by killing allot of people. Even his Ex-GF said that he wanted to make a name for him self, to be remembered.

Over all i dint think its a stretch of the imagination to think that a micro SD card inside a phone could survive the crash. there isn't allot to them.