Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Germanwings airliner crashes in French Alps


Moon Gazer

Recommended Posts

From the discussion of the landing, I'd imagine, and extrapolated from there.

(My bolding)

I can see where you're coming from. But Docy has been asked twice and hasn't elaborated thus far where she got the information from. It was stated like fact, twice.

Perhaps, in the near future

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't wait till you finally present your theory.

Ah well, you see, that's the difference, I prefer not to present any theories until there's solid and irrefutable evidence to hand, rather than assuming that "the co-pilot must have done it because he was mad and suicidal, and the proof we have of this is noises that might perhaps be the pilot desperately hammering on the door while the deranged co-pilot steers into a mountain with a deranged grin on his face", and the most damning evidence of all, that he was breathing normally :unsure2: , which shows that he must have done it. Regrettably however, any proper scientific crash investigation takes months of painstaking investigation and reconstruction, and that's nowhere near good enough to satisfy people these days, who want a villain and a scapegoat (preferably, of course, a "convert to Islam") presented to them on a plate within half an hour of anything happening. Edited by Norbert Dentressangle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didn't see what he was doing, after all that's the reason the eye Doctor excuse him that day for his eye problem.

It is unknown for what reason he was cerified unfit for that day. The reason therefor is subject to medical confidentiality and

isnt mentioned on the sick certificate (that has been found).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(My bolding)

I can see where you're coming from. But Docy has been asked twice and hasn't elaborated thus far where she got the information from. It was stated like fact, twice.

Perhaps, in the near future

I gave two links saying the captain told the co pilot instructions to prepare for the landing and that he had eye problem of not seeing by a doctor, go back in my posts

I just saying the co pilot perhaps had a episode of not seeing very well, confused and was pretending to see, pushing the wrong instructions buttons. There nothing in the records stating he was suicidal that day.

http://www.cnn.com/2...main/index.html

Lubitz had visited an eye doctor because of vision problems, a European government official familiar with the investigation told CNN.

The pilot complained he was not seeing as he should, but the doctor told him the cause was psychosomatic, the official said. In part because of this, the doctor deemed Lubitz unfit for flying.

Edited by docyabut2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe he saw a UFO. That might explain his anger over the whole vision issue.

We've all heard that in the past the U.S. government threatened to remove the licenses of pilots who publicly reported these objects. Hence, why they are so hesitant to report UFO sightings.

Maybe he saw something, reported it, and the physician decided he was unfit to fly as a result.

Perhaps this is what he meant by "changing the system?" Assuming, of course, you believe his exgirlfriend.

I've never been a big UFO conspiracy fan, but there does seem to be the issue of public fear, versus the truth in cases of pilot sightings.

Edited by Raptor Witness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe he saw a UFO. That might explain his anger over the whole vision issue.We've all heard that in the past the U.S. government

threatened to remove the licenses of pilots who publicly reported these objects. Hence, why they are so hesitant to report UFO sightings.

Maybe he saw something, reported it, and the physician decided he was unfit to fly as a result.

This statement does not make sense because:

a.) if you mean he has been judged unfit to fly during his training in 2009, why was he rated fit to fly some month later?

b.) if not a.), he wasnt rated unfit to fly at his last examination in 2014, so his pilot licence was valid at the time of the accident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never been a big UFO conspiracy fan

But that's not going to stop you inventing a rather silly one anyway.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
typo.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gave two links saying the captain told the co pilot instructions to prepare for the landing and that he had eye problem of not seeing by a doctor, go back in my posts

The mid-flight briefing to discuss the landing happens mid-flight.

In terms of his eye condition - he reportedly had a detached retina.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah well, you see, that's the difference, I prefer not to present any theories until there's solid and irrefutable evidence to hand, rather than assuming that "the co-pilot must have done it because he was mad and suicidal, and the proof we have of this is noises that might perhaps be the pilot desperately hammering on the door while the deranged co-pilot steers into a mountain with a deranged grin on his face", and the most damning evidence of all, that he was breathing normally :unsure2: , which shows that he must have done it. Regrettably however, any proper scientific crash investigation takes months of painstaking investigation and reconstruction, and that's nowhere near good enough to satisfy people these days, who want a villain and a scapegoat (preferably, of course, a "convert to Islam") presented to them on a plate within half an hour of anything happening.

The actual evidence that we have is that the co-Pilot locked the Cockpit door, he then took the aircraft OFF of autopilot, he then selected a RoD (Rate of Descent) to 3500ft per minute - and instructed the computer that the destination Height above Ground was 100ft (the lowest you can command on manual descent), at least an hour before the aircraft was due to enter its Landing Phase.

This has nothing to do with "poor" eyesight - depth perception at cruising altitude has little relevance to the inquiry because at cruising altitude the horizon is so distant as to give no visual references.

The "Convert to Islam" is just a Red Herring - irrelevant, if he was on some Jihad then someone would have claimed this - but no-one has.

There is no reason to believe that the co-Pilot was incapacitated, all systems (including emergency oxygen supply) were fully functional, the proximity sensors (I am certain) would have sounded in the cockpit (no evidence yet that they were compromised), and VFL (Visual Flight Rules) were applied due to the extremely clear skies.

The evidence is overwhelming at the moment, that the co - Pilot took all of these very specific actions with just one intent - to destroy the aircraft, himself, and all of the innocents aboard.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah well, you see, that's the difference, I prefer not to present any theories until there's solid and irrefutable evidence to hand, rather than assuming that "the co-pilot must have done it because he was mad and suicidal, and the proof we have of this is noises that might perhaps be the pilot desperately hammering on the door while the deranged co-pilot steers into a mountain with a deranged grin on his face", and the most damning evidence of all, that he was breathing normally :unsure2: , which shows that he must have done it. Regrettably however, any proper scientific crash investigation takes months of painstaking investigation and reconstruction, and that's nowhere near good enough to satisfy people these days, who want a villain and a scapegoat (preferably, of course, a "convert to Islam") presented to them on a plate within half an hour of anything happening.

No you are in complete denial of all evidence produced to date so you must have some pet theory you are nursing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a pet theory, yes. it's called how about analysing the evidence thoroughly, including careful study of the debris and all other factors, something which is normally done in any crash investigation, rather than posthumously lynching the co-pilot because they're so anxious to find someone they can blame it on.

I'd have thought with your background in aviation you'd appreciate the importance of a thorough and proper investigation, without having already arrived at your conclusions before you start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a pet theory, yes. it's called how about analysing the evidence thoroughly, including careful study of the debris and all other factors, something which is normally done in any crash investigation, rather than posthumously lynching the co-pilot because they're so anxious to find someone they can blame it on.

I'd have thought with your background in aviation you'd appreciate the importance of a thorough and proper investigation, without having already arrived at your conclusions before you start.

I actually attended the Navy's Aviation Mishap Investigation school in Monterey and agree, any aircraft mishap needs to be thoroughly investigated before any causal factors can be assigned and I haven't made any claims about a primary causal factors in this thread. The problem here is that all indications are this crash site is also a crime scene and if this was part of some grand plan then that needs to be found out quickly as well. What do we know so far:

1. We know he purposely locked the captain out of the cockpit and set the door so that it could not be opened from the cabin.

2. We know he manually reset the altitude and attitude controls for a controlled descent as based on how the 320 works and radar data showing the controlled descent into the ground.

3. How Bild got transcript of the cockpit voice recorder is beyond me but it hasn't been denied so one assumes it is legit and backs up the above factors that this was an intentional act.

4. Weather wasn't a factor as per PIREPS and EWS

I don't pretend to know why the copilot locked the first pilot out and sent the aircraft on a descent profile to land well short of any airfield and won't jump to any conclusions. They haven't found the other black box which will detail any mechanical failures but based on controlled descent with no emergency declaration the above four facts it beggars belief that this was something mechanical and anything other than a purposeful act.

EASA needs to do a full aviation mishap investigation but as I said, this also appears to be crime scene and criminal evidence needs to be gathered while it is fresh and not wait until EASA comes out with their report in a year or two. Pretending this is not a criminal act of some kind, as you are trying to do isn't realistic given the things we know so far and denying these things in the name of fairness would be the irresponsible act here, not the opposite.

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

3. How Bild got transcript of the cockpit voice recorder is beyond me but it hasn't been denied so one assumes it is legit and backs up the above factors that this was an intentional act.

With a cheque book, how else?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a pet theory, yes. it's called how about analysing the evidence thoroughly, including careful study of the debris and all other factors, something which is normally done in any crash investigation, rather than posthumously lynching the co-pilot because they're so anxious to find someone they can blame it on.

I'd have thought with your background in aviation you'd appreciate the importance of a thorough and proper investigation, without having already arrived at your conclusions before you start.

Yes and No. It is extremely important to determine as quickly as possible whether this was a Functional Design failure because you would need to ground ALL the A320 Fleet if the evidence available at the time points to some catastrophic failure in either the airframe or the components. There has been absolutely no evidence that this is the case and local witnesses confirm that the aircraft was showing no signs of distress (confirmed by ATC also).

The actions of the co - Pilot are known, and they are extremely indicative of Pilot Suicide. This appears to be established without any doubt and Lufthansa and Germanwings have just published an apology for their lack of oversights of the co - Pilot.

Now the intensive investigation begins - it is led by France with Germany and the rest of the EASA nations on standby to offer assistance.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With a cheque book, how else?

BILD has tons of cheque books, at least one for each day of the month.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's not going to stop you inventing a rather silly one anyway.

A good percentage of pilots have seen UFO's so it's not a crazy or silly idea, at all.

I'm just trying to explain the "psychosomatic vision" issue being touted by the media, as it relates to the copilots anger.

He clearly was MAJOR p***ed off about something, but what we don't know. Depression alone doesn't usually generate true hate like this.

A torn up doctor's note about him seeing something that's not "supposedly there," could invite a wide array of speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mid-flight briefing to discuss the landing happens mid-flight.

In terms of his eye condition - he reportedly had a detached retina.

Right a detached retina can cause severe nearsightness .He might have known where the plane was but in the programing was all confused. Thats way its important to have two pilots in the cockpit at all times. Three on board or pee bottles.

Edited by docyabut2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right a detached retina can cause severe nearsightness .He might have known where the plane was but in the programing was all confused.

In one eye.

There are several issues with your confused landing theory. Let me give you just two to think about:

1. Before changing altitude, the pilot should communicate with Air Traffic Control in order to get approval. He didn't. Why?

2. The pilot ignored all attempts at communication from French Air Traffic Control after they noticed the change in the plane's altitude on radar. Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In one eye.

There are several issues with your confused landing theory. Let me give you just two to think about:

1. Before changing altitude, the pilot should communicate with Air Traffic Control in order to get approval. He didn't. Why?

2. The pilot ignored all attempts at communication from French Air Traffic Control after they noticed the change in the plane's altitude on radar. Why?

A detached retina could also cause a sudden attack of blurriness, and he could just been confused on what to do. I don`nt know twiggs but some thing is telling me he didn't intend to commit suicide.

Edited by docyabut2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A detached retina could also cause a sudden attack of blurriness, and he could just been confused on what to do. I don`nt know twiggs but some thing is telling me he didn't intend to commit suicide.

Why not just let the pilot back in then?

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah well, you see, that's the difference, I prefer not to present any theories until there's solid and irrefutable evidence to hand, rather than assuming that "the co-pilot must have done it because he was mad and suicidal, and the proof we have of this is noises that might perhaps be the pilot desperately hammering on the door while the deranged co-pilot steers into a mountain with a deranged grin on his face", and the most damning evidence of all, that he was breathing normally :unsure2: , which shows that he must have done it. Regrettably however, any proper scientific crash investigation takes months of painstaking investigation and reconstruction, and that's nowhere near good enough to satisfy people these days, who want a villain and a scapegoat (preferably, of course, a "convert to Islam") presented to them on a plate within half an hour of anything happening.

There's a difference in not knowing what that animal you hear outside in the night is, and looking right at that striped horse in broad daylight. You don't always need a DNA test to know a zebra is a zebra.

Just the information that's been presented so far to the Public, much less what is known and kept secret so far, tells us that there is a Very High likelihood this fellow crashed the plane on purpose.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A detached retina could also cause a sudden attack of blurriness, and he could just been confused on what to do. I don`nt know twiggs but some thing is telling me he didn't intend to commit suicide.

You qouted Tiggs but didn't address a single issue that he raised. It's seems that your pat response is, "but some thing is telling me"... Which you've offered no proof, links or otherwise to support your 'feelings'.

NO! He went through a definite preconceived series of events to crash that plane.

To add: Christ on a Cracker, I'm having disussions on another part of the forum that because of some numerology, aliens induced him to bring the plane down. This is supposed to be the 'sane' part of the discussion of this topic.

Edited by Likely Guy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not just let the pilot back in then?

Yes this. Why if it was a sudden case of eye problem which caused confusion, then why would he not open the door, or at least answer the pilot banging on the door? Or at least answer air traffic control when they questioned why he had changed altitude?

From the evidence so far, it's pretty safe to assume he did this deliberately. Suicide is looking likely, but I think the "why" is still the question to be asking.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone here want to read my post Flight 9525 I'd appreciate any input and opinion. I posted it some days ago in conspiracies and cover ups. Personally I believe Flight 9525 was accidentally shot down. NO CONSPIRACY. Which led to a massive on going cover up. After finding out that Boeing had been providing jumbo jets to the US for military defence scenarios to fire from or at is it not conceivable that this could happen? Mistaken identity? And I don't trust the authorities story. Have we yet been allowed to hear any of the recording from the black box? In the past like with MH 370 the authorities nearly immediately released the recording. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FDR has been found, details pending.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.