German-Wings Copilot "one of us"?

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:19:55 -0700, lloydbanks220921 wrote:

On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 12:56:07 PM UTC-7, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 17:05:44 +0000, Benedict Smith wrote:

At 16:47 30 March 2015, Martin Gregorie wrote:
I've not seen anything to show this is anything but some reporter's
imagination.

Have a look at the flightradar 24 forum,
http://forum.flightradar24.com/threa...lysed-the-raw-
data-from-the-transponder-of-4U9525-and-found-some-more-data They
detail how this was found and have also released the raw data so
anyone can check it.
Ben.

Thanks for that.

I didn't know that Mode S would carry that sort of data: presumably its
there as a way to spot a fat-fingered an altitude change setting.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |

That Airbus had CPDLC and ADS. That gives the European controlers the
ability to "See" exactly what is set in the FMC and I believe the MCP.
And I seriously doubt it was Fat-fingered to descend to that low
altitude. I am fairly certain that the conclusion of the investigators
is what happened.

I didn't mean to suggest that it was, especially as there don't seem to
have been any altitude change requests sent by either pilot or ATC: more
that, with the close stacked enroute clearances currently in use it would
be sensible for ATC to cause the system to read back what was actually
set if they'd asked the pilot to change altitude.

However, Don's reference to MH370 and one of the causes that has been put
forward for that crash does suggest a more benign reason for the A320's
altitude change: if the pilot became anoxic, realised a bit too late and
lost conciousness while he was lowering the cruise altitude, mis-setting
it as a result.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 19:34:25 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:


http://www.ibtimes.com/pilot-suicide...n-who-crashes-
plane-1519756

And what did the official accident report show?

I've previous reported here that this was shown by Mode S data
automatically received and stored (as they do for every flight in the
world within range) by the FlightRadar24.com web site. Are you
suggesting that FlightRadar24 have falsified the data for some reason?

I'd forgotten you mentioned that: the item I found didn't say how the
setting change was known outside the aircraft. The main black boxes still
haven't been found according to anything I've seen heard or read so far.

But that's only one crash: where are the official reports for the other
16 you identify? Newspaper reports don't count.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 1:38:13 AM UTC+13, Martin Gregorie wrote:
However, Don's reference to MH370 and one of the causes that has been put
forward for that crash does suggest a more benign reason for the A320's
altitude change: if the pilot became anoxic, realised a bit too late and
lost conciousness while he was lowering the cruise altitude, mis-setting
it as a result.

It would be a big mystery how the young guy in the cockpit was anoxic (and just happened to misset the autopilot AND lock the door), while the older guy in the passenger cabin was perfectly ok and demanding to be let back in.

As for MH370 .. as I recall it turned back, descended, flew low over the mainland, and then climbed back to a normal cruise altitude, while starting to follow a precise route via 3 or 4 standard navigation points (that had NOTHING to do with their route), until it was out of radar range, when it (supposedly) turned to the southern Indian Ocean and oblivion.

That's a heck of a lot of carefully coordinated seemingly purposeful things for a hypoxic pilot to do accidentally. Boggles the mind, it does.

On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 05:51:52 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:

As for MH370 .. as I recall it turned back, descended, flew low over the
mainland, and then climbed back to a normal cruise altitude, while
starting to follow a precise route via 3 or 4 standard navigation points
(that had NOTHING to do with their route), until it was out of radar
range, when it (supposedly) turned to the southern Indian Ocean and
oblivion.

Not from what I saw and read. It turned left over the South China Sea at
after hand-off from Malaysian ATC and without contacting Vietnamese ATC
and turned off its transponder. Then it flew a course that crossed the
Malaysian peninsular more or less over the Malay-Thai border without, it
seems, maintained its cruising altitude and course until it went out of
military radar range. All the accounts I've seen agree about that much.

That course, if held until it ran out of fuel, would have put it quite a
lot further west than the main search area, which seems to have been
chosen from satellite data without taking a lot of notice of the
military radar plot.

That's a heck of a lot of carefully coordinated seemingly purposeful
things for a hypoxic pilot to do accidentally. Boggles the mind, it
does.

It would if thats what happened. However, its been pointed out that
military radars, especially at or near their max range, are much better
and recording range and direction than they are at height. No transponder
height available, remember, and the military radar trace is the only
trace available at that stage of the flight.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 8:30:13 AM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:

As far as I am aware the investigators in both cases have not
reached any conclusion. The media have, but their priority is increasing
their profits, not ascertaining the truth.

that's a fairly cynical view of the media, and although there's plenty of that going on, responsible media organizations (not their ad businesses) report news, and their priority is scoops, not profits.

--bob

"responsible media organizations" Now there's an oxymoron... Please
name one and be prepared to back up your claim with facts, not opinions.


On 3/31/2015 3:26 PM, Bob Pasker wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 8:30:13 AM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:

As far as I am aware the investigators in both cases have not
reached any conclusion. The media have, but their priority is increasing
their profits, not ascertaining the truth.
that's a fairly cynical view of the media, and although there's plenty of that going on, responsible media organizations (not their ad businesses) report news, and their priority is scoops, not profits.

--bob

--
Dan Marotta

you've already made up your mind, so i won't waste my time or yours

On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 11:21:52 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
"responsible media organizations"* Now there's an oxymoron...* *
Please name one and be prepared to back up your claim with facts,
not opinions.






On 3/31/2015 3:26 PM, Bob Pasker wrote:



On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 8:30:13 AM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:



As far as I am aware the investigators in both cases have not
reached any conclusion. The media have, but their priority is increasing
their profits, not ascertaining the truth.


that's a fairly cynical view of the media, and although there's plenty of that going on, responsible media organizations (not their ad businesses) report news, and their priority is scoops, not profits.

--bob





--

Dan Marotta

At 21:26 31 March 2015, Bob Pasker wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 8:30:13 AM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:

As far as I am aware the investigators in both cases have not
reached any conclusion. The media have, but their priority is
increasing
their profits, not ascertaining the truth.

that's a fairly cynical view of the media, and although there's plenty of
that going on, responsible media organizations (not their ad businesses)
report news, and their priority is scoops, not profits.

--bob

OK if I accept your assertion that their priority is scoops, how does that
increase the veracity of their stories? I would contend that it does
exactly the opposite and in any case the "scoop" is very definitely linked
to their increase in income and therefore profit.
There is no such thing as a completely accurate and factual press report
and honest reporters are as rare as rocking horse turd.

of course there's no such thing as 'completely actual and factual press report' any more than there is a perfect glider pilot.

the question is what happens when things go wrong. Responsible journalists and outlets continue to self-criticize and correct. if you have never seen such a thing, the NY TImes' Public Editor is one example:

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.co...public-editor/



On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 8:30:06 AM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 21:26 31 March 2015, Bob Pasker wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 8:30:13 AM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:

As far as I am aware the investigators in both cases have not
reached any conclusion. The media have, but their priority is
increasing
their profits, not ascertaining the truth.

that's a fairly cynical view of the media, and although there's plenty of
that going on, responsible media organizations (not their ad businesses)
report news, and their priority is scoops, not profits.

--bob

OK if I accept your assertion that their priority is scoops, how does that
increase the veracity of their stories? I would contend that it does
exactly the opposite and in any case the "scoop" is very definitely linked
to their increase in income and therefore profit.
There is no such thing as a completely accurate and factual press report
and honest reporters are as rare as rocking horse turd.

Really? Now there's a cop out if I've ever heard one. I am always open
to the truth and willing to change my mind and I'm rather disappointed
at your response, though not surprised.


On 4/2/2015 5:56 AM, Bob Pasker wrote:
you've already made up your mind, so i won't waste my time or yours

On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 11:21:52 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
"responsible media organizations" Now there's an oxymoron...
Please name one and be prepared to back up your claim with facts,
not opinions.






On 3/31/2015 3:26 PM, Bob Pasker wrote:



On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 8:30:13 AM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:



As far as I am aware the investigators in both cases have not
reached any conclusion. The media have, but their priority is increasing
their profits, not ascertaining the truth.


that's a fairly cynical view of the media, and although there's plenty of that going on, responsible media organizations (not their ad businesses) report news, and their priority is scoops, not profits.

--bob





--

Dan Marotta

--
Dan Marotta