Shocking Development In Germanwings Crash - Pilot Locked Out

[New_Earth_Mud]

 

 

Do you think someone who is intentionally bringing down a plane would give a s**t if the camera was covered?  Are they secretly hoping they survive crashing into the side of a mountain & need to cover their tracks?  I'm lost as to what you think the point of covering the camera would be.

 

Will cameras prevent this?  No but neither do voice & data recorders.  It would be another tool to potentially aid in the investigation, no more no less.

I'm all for giving investigators tools, but maybe it would be a better idea to have them tell us what they think would be useful and I don't think I've read or heard of the FAA or any other agency saying that they need to be put into place ASAP.  If they decide to use armchair investigators, then clearly, it's got to be cameras, lots and lots of cameras, and backup cameras for the main cameras, oh and body cameras too, one for each person.  Can never have enough video...

 

Yes, because that is exactly what is being suggested.  Tons of cameras & we want them installed yesterday.  

 

Oh by the way, the FAA recommended cameras 10 years ago as a post crash tool for investigators.  Some pilots objected due to privacy concerns.

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/surveillance/2005-09-20-faa-cameras-wireless_x.htm

 

 

 

Well.....   This has nothing at all to do with a camera in the cockpit.

 

Other then this.other then this....  -Federal safety officials have recommended installing cameras in the cockpit as a way for accident investigators to review pilots' performance after a crash. Pilots have strongly objected to that use for cameras because of privacy concerns.-

 

This whole thing talks cameras to watch the cabin and passengers.

[The Unknown Poster]

Privacy concerns is a very weak argument for Several obviously reasons.

They ready have their voices and control commands recorded for such reasons.

They are at work, not home.

They are not alone in private.

The video would only be used to accident investigation.

[New_Earth_Mud]

(CNN)Latest developments:

• 5:32 p.m. ET: Transponder data shows that the autopilot on Germanwings Flight 9525 was reprogrammed by someone in the cockpit to change the plane's altitude from 38,000 feet to 100 feet, according to Flightradar24, a website that tracks aviation data.

• 5:14 p.m. ET: Police searched Germanwings Flight 9525 co-pilot Andreas Lubitz's apartment in Dusseldorf, Germany, on Thursday, the city's police spokesman said in televised comments. A team of five investigators went "through the apartment looking for clues as to what the co-pilot's motivation might have been, if he did indeed bring the plane down," police spokesman Markus Niesczery said.

 

And from what they been saying that 100 feet from the actual altitude of the plane was 98 feet below ground level..... So thats why its being said he wanted to destroy the plane and it cant even be said he might have wanted to land it.

 

The course or ark he set it to was 98 feet bellow the ground...  even on flat ground the plane would have been destroyed.

[New_Earth_Mud]

Privacy concerns is a very weak argument for Several obviously reasons.

They ready have their voices and control commands recorded for such reasons.

They are at work, not home.

They are not alone in private.

The video would only be used to accident investigation.

 

Well you should be on CNN as an expert to this then.

 

Im not arguing with you ... im only saying what the experts in the field seem to be saying... ive been watching this crap all day.. Its not just my opinion its what the people that do this **** for a job are saying.

[New_Earth_Mud]

Again ill ask you.

 

If your boss came to you and said im putting a camera on your desk pointed at you all day...  he can watch it anytime he wants. Would you be ok with that?

[The Unknown Poster]

Again ill ask you.

If your boss came to you and said im putting a camera on your desk pointed at you all day... he can watch it anytime he wants. Would you be ok with that?

That's not even remotely what we are talking about though. Compare apples with apples not oranges.

[New_Earth_Mud]

 

Again ill ask you.

If your boss came to you and said im putting a camera on your desk pointed at you all day... he can watch it anytime he wants. Would you be ok with that?

That's not even remotely what we are talking about though. Compare apples with apples not oranges.

 

 

You didnt just say privacy is a very weak argument?  

[WBBFanWest]

 

 

 

Do you think someone who is intentionally bringing down a plane would give a s**t if the camera was covered?  Are they secretly hoping they survive crashing into the side of a mountain & need to cover their tracks?  I'm lost as to what you think the point of covering the camera would be.

 

Will cameras prevent this?  No but neither do voice & data recorders.  It would be another tool to potentially aid in the investigation, no more no less.

I'm all for giving investigators tools, but maybe it would be a better idea to have them tell us what they think would be useful and I don't think I've read or heard of the FAA or any other agency saying that they need to be put into place ASAP.  If they decide to use armchair investigators, then clearly, it's got to be cameras, lots and lots of cameras, and backup cameras for the main cameras, oh and body cameras too, one for each person.  Can never have enough video...

 

Yes, because that is exactly what is being suggested.  Tons of cameras & we want them installed yesterday.  

 

Oh by the way, the FAA recommended cameras 10 years ago as a post crash tool for investigators.  Some pilots objected due to privacy concerns.

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/surveillance/2005-09-20-faa-cameras-wireless_x.htm

 

[New_Earth_Mud]

 

 

 

 

Do you think someone who is intentionally bringing down a plane would give a s**t if the camera was covered?  Are they secretly hoping they survive crashing into the side of a mountain & need to cover their tracks?  I'm lost as to what you think the point of covering the camera would be.

 

Will cameras prevent this?  No but neither do voice & data recorders.  It would be another tool to potentially aid in the investigation, no more no less.

I'm all for giving investigators tools, but maybe it would be a better idea to have them tell us what they think would be useful and I don't think I've read or heard of the FAA or any other agency saying that they need to be put into place ASAP.  If they decide to use armchair investigators, then clearly, it's got to be cameras, lots and lots of cameras, and backup cameras for the main cameras, oh and body cameras too, one for each person.  Can never have enough video...

 

Yes, because that is exactly what is being suggested.  Tons of cameras & we want them installed yesterday.  

 

Oh by the way, the FAA recommended cameras 10 years ago as a post crash tool for investigators.  Some pilots objected due to privacy concerns.

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/surveillance/2005-09-20-faa-cameras-wireless_x.htm

 

 

 

Well.....   This has nothing at all to do with a camera in the cockpit.

 

Other then this.other then this....  -Federal safety officials have recommended installing cameras in the cockpit as a way for accident investigators to review pilots' performance after a crash. Pilots have strongly objected to that use for cameras because of privacy concerns.-

 

This whole thing talks cameras to watch the cabin and passengers.

 

Speaking of weak arguments,, let me point something out that you don't seem to be aware of.  The agency referred in the article is the Federal Aviation Administration.  They have regulatory authority for any aircraft in the US.  Therefore, if they really felt that there was a pressing need for cameras, if they really felt that cameras are integral to passenger safety and accident investigation, guess what?  Cameras would be mandated, period.  They are not though.  This tells me that the FAA is not too concerned with having them because they can already, through the avenues already available, do their jobs.   

 

You, and a few others want them, but it would seem that the real experts are managing just fine.  But hey, what do they know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

th

 

 Me?  lol  

[WBBFanWest]

 

 

 Me?  lol  

 

Sorry, clicked the wrong one...

[New_Earth_Mud]

Off topic a bit maybe....  But news seems to more focus on the bad. CNN is always bad news....  breaking news as they call it it pretty well

something bad. There never ever seems to be breaking news thats good. 

 

Good news becomes a special that they put together and promote the **** out of it. Its on for an hr and then its gone and we go bk to the bad stuff.

 

Just a thought but why cant they pump ump the good **** that goes on and end it with the bad?

[WBBFanWest]

News Axiom:  If it bleeds, it leads.

[New_Earth_Mud]

News Axiom:  If it bleeds, it leads.

 Tis Sad

[Goalie]

Soon planes will be flown remotely by people on the ground or computers. It's coming soon.

[The Unknown Poster]

Again ill ask you.

If your boss came to you and said im putting a camera on your desk pointed at you all day... he can watch it anytime he wants. Would you be ok with that?

That's not even remotely what we are talking about though. Compare apples with apples not oranges.

You didnt just say privacy is a very weak argument?

. Yes and then specified why. Because their concerns have nothing to do with privacy.

[New_Earth_Mud]

 

 

 

Again ill ask you.

If your boss came to you and said im putting a camera on your desk pointed at you all day... he can watch it anytime he wants. Would you be ok with that?

That's not even remotely what we are talking about though. Compare apples with apples not oranges.

You didnt just say privacy is a very weak argument?

. Yes and then specified why. Because their concerns have nothing to do with privacy.

 

 

You seem to keep going away from the question i ask.

 

I dont care about your comp and what they see you look at.

 

If your boss said hes putting a camera right in your desk pointed at you every day all day would u be ok with it? Not just the general area but right on you. All day every day. 

[The Unknown Poster]

 

 

 

 

Again ill ask you.

If your boss came to you and said im putting a camera on your desk pointed at you all day... he can watch it anytime he wants. Would you be ok with that?

That's not even remotely what we are talking about though. Compare apples with apples not oranges.

You didnt just say privacy is a very weak argument?

. Yes and then specified why. Because their concerns have nothing to do with privacy.

 

[The Unknown Poster]

CNN

 

• 9:23 a.m.: Lufthansa, together with other German airlines, has announced the immediate introduction of new rules for the cockpit. It will now be a requirement for there to be two authorized people in the cockpit at all times.

 

• 8:45 a.m.: Medical notes were found in a waste bin in Germanwings Flight 9525 co-pilot Andreas Lubitz's apartment in Dusseldorf, Germany, said Dusseldorf prosecutor Christoph Kumpa.

 

• 8:01 a.m.: The medical leave notes issued by a doctor for Lubitz included the day of the crash, the Dusseldorf public prosecutor's office said.

 

• 8:01 a.m.: The prosecutor's office did not say if the medical leave note related to a physical or a mental health issue but said Lubitz appeared to have been under treatment by a doctor for some time.

 

• 8:01 a.m.: The fact that Lubitz appears to have ripped up recent medical leave notes "leads to the preliminary conclusion that the deceased kept his illness secret from his employer and his professional environment."

 

Full story:

 

The Germanwings co-pilot accused of intentionally setting a plane on a fatal descent in the French Alps had an illness that he kept secret from his employer, German prosecutors said Friday.

 

A statement from the Dusseldorf public prosecutor's office did not say what the illness was, nor whether it was a physical or mental health issue.

But documents found in a search of Andreas Lubitz's home and that of his parents "indicate an existing illness as well as adequate medical treatment thereof," the prosecutor's office said.

 

 

The fact that investigators found "ripped, recent medical leave notes, including for the day of the offense (crash), leads to the preliminary conclusion that the deceased kept his illness secret from his employer and his professional environment."

 

Dusseldorf prosecutor Christoph Kumpa said the notes were found in a waste bin in Lubitz's Dusseldorf apartment.

 

The crash of Germanwings Flight 9525, headed from Barcelona, Spain, to Dusseldorf left 150 people dead.

 

Asked earlier Friday about news reports citing unnamed sources that queried Lubitz's mental health, a Germanwings representative told CNN the company could not go into specifics about his medical record for reasons of confidentiality.

 

"The pilots had a clean bill of health, and all medical data is subject to medical confidentiality," a representative said. "We can't confirm or deny this report due to medical confidentiality."

Police search

During their search of the Lubitz family home in Montabaur and Lubitz's Dusseldorf apartment, authorities took away several objects and papers, German police said.

Objects taken will be examined, "which might lead to more information," Marcel Siebig, of Dusseldorf police, said Friday.

 

Marseille prosecutor Brice Robin, who is overseeing the criminal investigation into the crash in France, said the documents would be handed to French authorities. Two French police officers are on their way to collect the evidence, he said.

[The Unknown Poster]

If it turns out this coward didnt want to be "sick" and decided the easiest way to kill himself was to also kill 149 other people...that's just crushing.

 

Interesting decision about the cockpit rules given our discussion about cameras.  Because having two people in the cockpit at all times seems like a knee-jerk reaction.  Personally, I think there should have been two people in there moreso in case of medical emergency or malfunction.  But one would likely argue that these planes practically fly themselves, especially at cruising altitude.

 

EgyptAir shows us that two people in the cockpit wont prevent one of them from crashing the plane.  But I suppose in a case like this one, you wonder if depression combined with opportunity caused his actions and taking away the opportunity might have caused him to simply not do it.

 

There really is no reason why flight decks cannot be designed to have whatever they might need locked behind a secure door.  Bathroom, sleeping quarters, galley etc.

[17to85]

 

There really is no reason why flight decks cannot be designed to have whatever they might need locked behind a secure door.  Bathroom, sleeping quarters, galley etc.

There is one reason: space. You put that stuff in the cockpit and you lose room for seats and paying customers. 

[The Unknown Poster]

 

 

 

 

Do you think someone who is intentionally bringing down a plane would give a s**t if the camera was covered?  Are they secretly hoping they survive crashing into the side of a mountain & need to cover their tracks?  I'm lost as to what you think the point of covering the camera would be.

 

Will cameras prevent this?  No but neither do voice & data recorders.  It would be another tool to potentially aid in the investigation, no more no less.

I'm all for giving investigators tools, but maybe it would be a better idea to have them tell us what they think would be useful and I don't think I've read or heard of the FAA or any other agency saying that they need to be put into place ASAP.  If they decide to use armchair investigators, then clearly, it's got to be cameras, lots and lots of cameras, and backup cameras for the main cameras, oh and body cameras too, one for each person.  Can never have enough video...

 

Yes, because that is exactly what is being suggested.  Tons of cameras & we want them installed yesterday.  

 

Oh by the way, the FAA recommended cameras 10 years ago as a post crash tool for investigators.  Some pilots objected due to privacy concerns.

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/surveillance/2005-09-20-faa-cameras-wireless_x.htm

 

 

 

Well.....   This has nothing at all to do with a camera in the cockpit.

 

Other then this.other then this....  -Federal safety officials have recommended installing cameras in the cockpit as a way for accident investigators to review pilots' performance after a crash. Pilots have strongly objected to that use for cameras because of privacy concerns.-

 

This whole thing talks cameras to watch the cabin and passengers.

 

Speaking of weak arguments,, let me point something out that you don't seem to be aware of.  The agency referred in the article is the Federal Aviation Administration.  They have regulatory authority for any aircraft in the US.  Therefore, if they really felt that there was a pressing need for cameras, if they really felt that cameras are integral to passenger safety and accident investigation, guess what?  Cameras would be mandated, period.  They are not though.  This tells me that the FAA is not too concerned with having them because they can already, through the avenues already available, do their jobs.   

 

You, and a few others want them, but it would seem that the real experts are managing just fine.  But hey, what do they know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

th

 

Unless the FAA goes on record we cant really be sure what they want.  They might be content with the tools they have.  Then again, there have been air disasters where the limitations of the flight recorders was an issue and suggestions have been made to either increase recording time to 2 hours or have the information beamed off the plane in real time.  Remember that technology is always ahead of it's real-world use and because there is an expense involved in making changes, it takes a major incident and public pressure to generally make changes that would normally seem like common sense.

 

For example, after 9/11 when they decided that cockpit doors should be more secure than dry-wall, who argued that "gee they dont need that" and who thought "you mean they arent already?"

 

In 1955 a passenger placed a bomb in a suitcase, blowing up a plane in Denver.  This led to changes including armed guards being placed on aircraft when requested by airlines or the FBI

 

In 1969, several planes were hijacked to Cuba resulting in the FAA developing profiling to be used with metal detection at airports.

 

In 1970, the official Sky Marshals program was created.  FAA reports that airport screening detected a "horde" of weapons.

 

1972 after many violent hijackings, the FAA requires all passengers and carry-on bags to be screened and that armed guards are to be posted at airport check points.

 

The point being that improvements to security often seemed unneeded until disasters or incidents prompted changes.

 

As it related to flight recorders:

 

- The first coupled FDR / CVR prototype designed with civilian aircraft in mind, for explicit post-crash examination purposes, was produced in 1958.^[5][6] However, aviation authorities from around the world were largely uninterested.

 

- A "Cockpit Sound Recorder" (CSR) was independently invented and patented by Edmund A. Boniface, Jr., an aeronautical engineer at Lockheed Aircraft Corporation and originally filed with the US Patent Office on February 2, 1961 as an "Aircraft Cockpit Sound Recorder"; the 1961 invention was viewed by some as an "invasion of privacy".

[bigg jay]

I'll also add that yes the FAA creates the regulations but they do not investigate crashes.  The NTSB has that job and they want cameras in the cockpit (and have for 15 years). 

 

http://time.com/3760716/germanwings-plane-crash-pilot-cockpit/

[The Unknown Poster]

I'll also add that yes the FAA creates the regulations but they do not investigate crashes.  The NTSB has that job and they want cameras in the cockpit (and have for 15 years). 

 

http://time.com/3760716/germanwings-plane-crash-pilot-cockpit/

Thank you.

 

From the article:

 

Currently, the cockpit voice recorder allows investigators to listen to the cockpit. But without video, they cannot fully understand the actions of the pilots or make safety enhancements to prevent similar events from occurring in the future.

[kelownabomberfan]

If your boss said hes putting a camera right in your desk pointed at you every day all day would u be ok with it? Not just the general area but right on you. All day every day.

If in my job I had the power to kill 150 people just by pressing a button, my concerns about whether a camera is being pointed at me really shouldn't matter.

[WBBFanWest]

 

I'll also add that yes the FAA creates the regulations but they do not investigate crashes.  The NTSB has that job and they want cameras in the cockpit (and have for 15 years). 

 

http://time.com/3760716/germanwings-plane-crash-pilot-cockpit/

Thank you.

 

From the article:

 

Currently, the cockpit voice recorder allows investigators to listen to the cockpit. But without video, they cannot fully understand the actions of the pilots or make safety enhancements to prevent similar events from occurring in the future.

 

They can, through the flight data recorder and voice recorders, "see" exactly what the pilot is doing or not doing as the case may be.  Do you honestly think that looking at the pilot's face as he's doing something is going to provide that "aha" moment?  "See that sardonic smile he has when he turns off the autopilot?  Clearly he has murder on his mind..."  or "Hey, the video shows that he really did forget to lower the wheels.  I know that we had no voice confirmation that the wheels were down and that the flight data recorder shows that they were never lowered but with this video, now we know!" or  "Oh hey, look, he picked his nose right before it happened.  We'll need the FAA to immediately ban nose picking in the cockpit."

 

Honestly, if some in the NTSB want them, if seems that they can't really justify them or they would already be there.  The FAA doesn't fool around with safety stuff.