Just breaking now.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32030270 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32030270)
An Airbus A320 with 148 people on board. I hope there are survivors but fear the worst.
I don't know how I feel about this sort of stuff, but you can track the flight here by pressing <play>: http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/d-aipx/#5d42675 (http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/d-aipx/#5d42675)
10 minutes from 38,000' to 6,800' is just over 3,000' fpm on average. That is not excessive by any stretch of the imagination. Hopefully there are survivors, but even if there are, it could be difficult to find and help them quickly.
Oh no, this is terrible news. A lot of the terrain is still covered in snow around there, and pretty inaccessible I'd imagine.
Quote from: muppet on March 24, 2015, 10:59:10 AM
I don't know how I feel about this sort of stuff, but you can track the flight here by pressing <play>: http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/d-aipx/#5d42675 (http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/d-aipx/#5d42675)
10 minutes from 38,000' to 6,800' is just over 3,000' fpm on average. That is not excessive by any stretch of the imagination. Hopefully there are survivors, but even if there are, it could be difficult to find and help them quickly.
Debris spotted according to reports and SAR teams deployed, wouldn't take a rocket scientist to imagine it being a mountainous terrain, even with a steady decent I can only fear the worst.
Doesn't mean sense really that there was no significant deviations from the flight path with the slow and steady decent. Will be interesting to hear if and what communication was made to the control tower.
Would a slow and steady descent indicate a pilot trying to crash land, as opposed to some catastrophic event?
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 24, 2015, 11:20:17 AM
Would a slow and steady descent indicate a pilot trying to crash land, as opposed to some catastrophic event?
It could, but even without engines you could safely glide at a slower descent rate than that. And you would most likely turn away from the Alps if you had any control at all.
I don't know if that site is accurate enough to determine that the rate was steady either. It could have varied wildly and not shown up on that radar.
It's been a bad few years for aviation.
I'm starting to think the boat is a better bet!
It's very strange, weather doesn't appear to be a factor in this crash, apparently there was contact with the control tower before the plane disappeared off radar but that's to be confirmed. All the data point towards a gradual descent at 3,000 ft a min, whilst it isn't normal it certainly isn't a rapid dangerous descent.
Quote from: muppet on March 24, 2015, 10:59:10 AM
I don't know how I feel about this sort of stuff, but you can track the flight here by pressing <play>: http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/d-aipx/#5d42675 (http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/d-aipx/#5d42675)
10 minutes from 38,000' to 6,800' is just over 3,000' fpm on average. That is not excessive by any stretch of the imagination. Hopefully there are survivors, but even if there are, it could be difficult to find and help them quickly.
On that link the time starts at 8.55am and finishes at 9.41am.
BBC now have on their website:
"According to sources quoted by AFP news agency. plane had issued a distress call at 10:47 (09:47 GMT)."
Is 9.41am the time it disappeared off radar or the time of the crash?
Quote from: take_yer_points on March 24, 2015, 11:36:36 AM
Quote from: muppet on March 24, 2015, 10:59:10 AM
I don't know how I feel about this sort of stuff, but you can track the flight here by pressing <play>: http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/d-aipx/#5d42675 (http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/d-aipx/#5d42675)
10 minutes from 38,000' to 6,800' is just over 3,000' fpm on average. That is not excessive by any stretch of the imagination. Hopefully there are survivors, but even if there are, it could be difficult to find and help them quickly.
On that link the time starts at 8.55am and finishes at 9.41am.
BBC now have on their website:
"According to sources quoted by AFP news agency. plane had issued a distress call at 10:47 (09:47 GMT)."
Is 9.41am the time it disappeared off radar or the time of the crash?
All commercial aviation is recorded in GMT. It could have still been flying below the radar, but early information is notoriously unreliable so I wouldn't put too much stock in it.
Sky reporting;
sarahcollerton 7 minutes ago
In 10 minutes the plane plummeted from 40,000ft to 6,200ft - a catastrophic loss of altitude, says Sky's Enda Brady
Quote from: lfdown2 on March 24, 2015, 11:53:53 AM
Sky reporting;
sarahcollerton 7 minutes ago
In 10 minutes the plane plummeted from 40,000ft to 6,200ft - a catastrophic loss of altitude, says Sky's Enda Brady
It really isn't catastrophic at all.
It's catastrophic when it means you ram into a mountain!
Quote from: DennistheMenace on March 24, 2015, 11:55:28 AM
Quote from: lfdown2 on March 24, 2015, 11:53:53 AM
Sky reporting;
sarahcollerton 7 minutes ago
In 10 minutes the plane plummeted from 40,000ft to 6,200ft - a catastrophic loss of altitude, says Sky's Enda Brady
It really isn't catastrophic at all.
Slightly quicker than normal but nothing particularly excessive. It normally takes an aircraft 20-25 mins to go form top of descent to landing but that includes a shallow approach angle/rate for the last 4 or 5 mins.
If you want to get down quickly, for say a loss of pressurisation, you will descent at least at 6,000 fpm but would normally level off around 10,000' (or higher if there is high ground).
Quote from: muppet on March 24, 2015, 12:00:35 PM
If you want to get down quickly, for say a loss of pressurisation, you will descent at least at 6,000 fpm but would normally level off around 10,000' (or higher if there is high ground).
This happened me flying to Oz in December. Plane "plunged" from 40k to 10k feet but we didn't really notice it too much (apart from the captain saying "crew, this is an emergency descent" - nothing like that to put the fear in you!). We didn't nose dive as the pilot was in full control.
We travelled at 10k ft until we reached land about 3 hrs later - serious cold sweats until we got down safely as we were over the Indian Ocean at the time of the descent).
Update from Sky;
sarahcollerton 5 minutes ago
Anthony Davis, aviation journalist, told Sky News: "The log suggests (the plane) went straight down at a significant rate, up to 5,000 feet per minute at one point, which suggests it happened in a matter of seconds.
"It is unlikely the passengers on board would have known anything about this.
"As far as I am aware that the pilots did not send a typical distress call, a squawk of 770.
"They simply said emergency, emergency."
Quote from: Rois on March 24, 2015, 12:11:14 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 24, 2015, 12:00:35 PM
If you want to get down quickly, for say a loss of pressurisation, you will descent at least at 6,000 fpm but would normally level off around 10,000' (or higher if there is high ground).
This happened me flying to Oz in December. Plane "plunged" from 40k to 10k feet but we didn't really notice it too much (apart from the captain saying "crew, this is an emergency descent" - nothing like that to put the fear in you!). We didn't nose dive as the pilot was in full control.
We travelled at 10k ft until we reached land about 3 hrs later - serious cold sweats until we got down safely as we were over the Indian Ocean at the time of the descent).
I assume the oxygen masks came down?
I know nothing about planes but is it normal to have a 24 year old plane carrying passengers? It's obviously above average as I've read the average age of their fleet is 9 years but wondering is it possibly a danger at that age?
Quote from: oakleaflad on March 24, 2015, 12:37:51 PM
I know nothing about planes but is it normal to have a 24 year old plane carrying passengers? It's obviously above average as I've read the average age of their fleet is 9 years but wondering is it possibly a danger at that age?
That would make it one of the earliest A320s. They do serious maintenance every 4/5 years where they are stripped down, assessed and basically rebuilt.
Here is a time lapse of a British Airways A319 in a D-check: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxV4YpMNAsg&spfreload=10 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxV4YpMNAsg&spfreload=10)
Quote from: muppet on March 24, 2015, 12:21:51 PM
I assume the oxygen masks came down?
In fact they didn't - I think it was precaution to descend in case cabin pressure was affected by the failed aircon unit but there was no failure in the oxygen supply. I'm not sure if that even makes sense, but that's what I think I remember.
Quote from: Rois on March 24, 2015, 01:19:02 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 24, 2015, 12:21:51 PM
I assume the oxygen masks came down?
In fact they didn't - I think it was precaution to descend in case cabin pressure was affected by the failed aircon unit but there was no failure in the oxygen supply. I'm not sure if that even makes sense, but that's what I think I remember.
The masks come down automatically if the cabin altitude gets too high (depends on aircraft but certainly by 14,000'), so it was a precautionary descent. They would normally go down to 10,000' (unless there are mountains) which is a safe altitude to breath the ambient air for an extended period.
If the problem is more serious you get a rapid decompression. The cabin altitude climbs very quickly up towards the actual aircraft altitude. You have something like 25-30 seconds of useful consciousness at 40,000' so hence an emergency descent if there is a hint of a problem. There are probably a couple of these every week somewhere in the world, but they are well managed, like yours obviously was.
Here is one that wasn't well handled: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522)
I put this up recently to show the effect of altitude sickness (hypoxia): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTNX6mr753w&spfreload=10 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTNX6mr753w&spfreload=10)
I always wonder why 150 people were flying from Barcelona to Dusseldorf on a Tuesday morning. Just shows how popular flying is I guess.
I know statistically speaking it is a very safe way of travelling. However... :-\
Quote from: muppet on March 24, 2015, 11:39:39 AM
Quote from: take_yer_points on March 24, 2015, 11:36:36 AM
Quote from: muppet on March 24, 2015, 10:59:10 AM
I don't know how I feel about this sort of stuff, but you can track the flight here by pressing <play>: http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/d-aipx/#5d42675 (http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/d-aipx/#5d42675)
10 minutes from 38,000' to 6,800' is just over 3,000' fpm on average. That is not excessive by any stretch of the imagination. Hopefully there are survivors, but even if there are, it could be difficult to find and help them quickly.
On that link the time starts at 8.55am and finishes at 9.41am.
BBC now have on their website:
"According to sources quoted by AFP news agency. plane had issued a distress call at 10:47 (09:47 GMT)."
Is 9.41am the time it disappeared off radar or the time of the crash?
All commercial aviation is recorded in GMT. It could have still been flying below the radar, but early information is notoriously unreliable so I wouldn't put too much stock in it.
Apparently it was French ATC that issued the emergency call, not the crew. It looks as if that call came after the time of the crash.
I know communication is the last in the 3 priorities of the pilot, but surely in a 10 minute descent he or she would issue some brief mayday to the control tower.
EDIT: That is assuming the aircraft was pressurised.
Quote from: DennistheMenace on March 24, 2015, 02:22:23 PM
I know communication is the last in the 3 priorities of the pilot, but surely in a 10 minute descent he or she would issue some brief mayday to the control tower.
You would think so, but it depends on what condition you are in (hypoxia?) and what you think your priorities are. AF447 never transmitted a Mayday either and there were 3 of them in the cockpit at the end. They wouldn't have seen it as a priority.
Quote from: muppet on March 24, 2015, 02:24:18 PM
Quote from: DennistheMenace on March 24, 2015, 02:22:23 PM
I know communication is the last in the 3 priorities of the pilot, but surely in a 10 minute descent he or she would issue some brief mayday to the control tower.
You would think so, but it depends on what condition you are in (hypoxia?) and what you think your priorities are. AF447 never transmitted a Mayday either and there were 3 of them in the cockpit at the end. They wouldn't have seen it as a priority.
Yeah I put the assumption in that they were all thinking clearly and aircaft wasn't depressurised. But IIRC in the final descent AF447 was rapidly falling at a rate of 10,000 per minute, on first reports (quite possibly unreliable) this was a much slower descent.
Quote from: DennistheMenace on March 24, 2015, 02:37:14 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 24, 2015, 02:24:18 PM
Quote from: DennistheMenace on March 24, 2015, 02:22:23 PM
I know communication is the last in the 3 priorities of the pilot, but surely in a 10 minute descent he or she would issue some brief mayday to the control tower.
You would think so, but it depends on what condition you are in (hypoxia?) and what you think your priorities are. AF447 never transmitted a Mayday either and there were 3 of them in the cockpit at the end. They wouldn't have seen it as a priority.
Yeah I put the assumption in that they were all thinking clearly and aircaft wasn't depressurised. But IIRC in the final descent AF447 was rapidly falling at a rate of 10,000 per minute, on first reports (quite possibly unreliable) this was a much slower descent.
What I meant by priorities was, for example, Sullenberger had far less time, but he got out his distress call and even gave important info such as his intention to put it on the water. The obvious reason he saw this as a top priority was to get the rescuers on their way to the aircraft as quickly as possible.
AF447 had no idea what was happening, they were still trying to regain control so were probably not thinking about anything else. We don't know anything about today's flight, so anything is possible there.
If it was a sudden loss of pressure, how long would the pilots have to react? I'm guessing a very short window of opportunity before they lose consciousness. Would not suprise me if this is what happened in this case. No survivors according to BBC. Very sad.
Quote from: DennistheMenace on March 24, 2015, 03:13:50 PM
If it was a sudden loss of pressure, how long would the pilots have to react? I'm guessing a very short window of opportunity before they lose consciousness. Would not suprise me if this is what happened in this case. No survivors according to BBC. Very sad.
They each have an oxygen mask right beside them, called a 'quick donning' mask. As long as they correctly identified the problem, they should be able to get on oxygen very quickly, say 2-3 seconds. The pilots' oxygen supply is separate from the cabin supply.
The Helios crash I mentioned earlier saw the pilots distracted by the warning horn, but they failed to recognise it was for high cabin altitude and they never put on the masks. But that was a gradual depressurisation which happened during the climb. This aircraft was already at 38,000' with presumably no problems, until whatever triggered the events leading to the crash.
An very sudden decompression would be noticed by everyone on broad instantly, even without instruments. Your ears would pop like nothing you had ever experienced, possible causing a lot of distress for some (especially anyone with a cold, blocked ears or sinus problems), the temperate on board would drop rapidly probably causing misting in the cabin. The masks would drop down over every row of seats.
A group of 16 school kids on board with 2 teachers.
Very sad.
The black boxes have been found so we should know what happened in the coming days. Terrible tragedy.
Right on the side of the mountain, not in any sense under positive control .
I said to a German chap in work that it was bad news about the plane today. He hadn't heard about it and when I him it was from Barcelona to Dusseldorf he says his sister is in Barcelona and due to fly home this week. :-\ He texted her straight away and luckily got a positive response! The colour eventually went back into his cheeks.
(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CA47nE2WYAE70Yj.png:large)
CVR (Cockpit voice recorder) recovered.
Damaged but readable:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CA8Q-yvVIAEKXSj.png:large)
This was a big impact at high speed apparently.
These are on the excellent AvHerald site:
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2762016/thumbs/o-GERMANWINGS-CVR-570.jpg?7)
I wish some elements of the media would check such a site before solving the riddle. I have seen one anonymous poster on a site suggest a theory of: window failure, followed by initiation of descent by the pilots, who then succumbed to hypoxia. This theory is now on the Daily Mail.
The theory is just about plausible, but it would need some facts to support it. E.G the CVR would need to show a load bang followed by continuous noise to support the window failure theory. Also this hasn't happened in an Airbus before afaik. It did happen in a BAC111 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_5390 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_5390) but everyone lived. And that with the Captain unconscious, half hanging out the window.
Another problem with the above theory is that, if either of the pilots was a non-smoker and reasonable fit, they would have regained useful consciousness a couple of minutes, at least, before they hit the ground.
Hopefully it provides some reliable information as to what was happening in the final descent but I suspect there wasn't much to record.
Have they found the FDR yet?
Quote from: DennistheMenace on March 25, 2015, 02:56:26 PM
Have they found the FDR yet?
Haven't heard.
It doesn't help that the media doesn't know the difference and always calls both 'The Black Box', despite the obvious irony when you see the picture above.
This is very good from the BBC, sticking to the facts as released by the authorities.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32035121 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32035121)
And the ...eh...'Black Box' explained:
(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/625/media/images/81896000/png/_81896357_flight_data_voice_recorder_624in.png)
http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0325/689528-germanwings-crash/
Pilot headed out of cockpit and couldn't get back in!
WTF?!
1st officer suicide?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 26, 2015, 12:18:57 AM
WTF?!
1st officer suicide?
If this is the case then you would have to look at it as a multiple murder and not a suicide. You would have hoped that the passengers would not have been aware of what was going on, it now looks like their last moments would have been filled with terror.
Note the BBC and DW, AFP are not running with this story at present.
Perhaps the voice at the door was not a pilot, but someone else?
I think this is precisely what Muppet means about media reports and their reliability.
All news agencies running with this story now.
It certainly makes sense and is what I feared in that all the passangers would have been well aware what was going. It was in the news last year about a hijacking when a co-pliot locked out the pilot on Ethipioan flight 702, so clearly it's possible.
Quote from: DennistheMenace on March 26, 2015, 09:01:31 AM
It certainly makes sense and is what I feared in that all the passangers would have been well aware what was going. It was in the news last year about a hijacking when a co-pliot locked out the pilot on Ethipioan flight 702, so clearly it's possible.
Would it be possible that he had a heart attack? Or would the plane have remained on auto?
They'll have to build in a security override on the cabin door. I'm surprised they don't have that already to be honest, in case the head steward or something needs to come into the cockpit in an emergency.
Quote from: macdanger2 on March 26, 2015, 09:03:34 AM
Quote from: DennistheMenace on March 26, 2015, 09:01:31 AM
It certainly makes sense and is what I feared in that all the passangers would have been well aware what was going. It was in the news last year about a hijacking when a co-pliot locked out the pilot on Ethipioan flight 702, so clearly it's possible.
Would it be possible that he had a heart attack? Or would the plane have remained on auto?
I'm sure it's possible but doesn't seem plausible in this case with the slow descent over 8-10 minutes. The pilot or whoever is outside would have a code to get into the cockpit (this can be overrided by whoeever is in the cockpit)
In any case this theory is just a speculation and hasn't been confirmed yet.
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 26, 2015, 09:04:31 AM
They'll have to build in a security override on the cabin door. I'm surprised they don't have that already to be honest, in case the head steward or something needs to come into the cockpit in an emergency.
They do and can gain access to the cockpit by punching in a code but as above this can overrided by someone in the cockpit continually hitting the door-lock switch afaik.
I mean an override to stop it being locked from inside. Like a second PIN.
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 26, 2015, 09:14:14 AM
I mean an override to stop it being locked from inside. Like a second PIN.
Terrorist proofing the planes after 9/11.
Not sure why if he was a suicide then why a controlled descent but then I can't think of another theory for a pilot being locked out of the cockpit. I'm sure we'll hear soon enough but I really hope foul play wasn't involved.
I think the French/Garmans are rightly a bit pissed that the American leaked this to the media before a more complete picture could be built. If this guy was in the US military then it doesn't say much for discipline in that organisation.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 26, 2015, 10:56:32 AM
I think the French/Garmans are rightly a bit pissed that the American leaked this to the media before a more complete picture could be built. If this guy was in the US military then it doesn't say much for discipline in that organisation.
The FDR will be able to confirm or rule out the suicide theory, the flying pilot either set it to descend or he didn't, the FDR will be able to confirm how the inputs were keyed for the descent.
Live press conference from Marsaille now saying that only logical explanation is that the co-pilot took the plane down.
Horrible news, unthinkable how someone could do that. Sends a shiver down my spine and can only imagine the frantic scenes in the final few minutes.
This from Reuters on this very dramatic press conference.
The co-pilot of a Germanwings jet that went down in the French Alps, killing 150 people, appears to have crashed the plane deliberately, a Marseille prosecutor said on Thursday.
The German citizen, left in sole control of the Airbus A320 after the captain left the cockpit, refused to re-open the door and pressed a button that sent the jet into its fatal descent, the prosecutor told a news conference carried on live television.
How necessary is it to have a pilot in a plane these days?
Would you get on board a plane without a pilot? Actually without 2 pilots?
I'm not sure. It obviously depends on the reliability of the technology. I would get in a driverless car. And as i understand it, the challenges that are holding back driverless cars do not seem as relevant to planes (predicting the behaviour of other non-driverless vehicles).
But i was more wondering about the balance of control between pilot, computer systems and ground staff and whether there is a case for altering this in favour of the latter 2?
No because then you open yourself up to the unimaginable possibility of the flight system being hacked by terrorists.
On the whole I'd rather depend on the skill and experience of two well trained pilots if anything unexpected happened in flight, as opposed to any auto pilot type software.
Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'
16 minutes ago
From the section Europe
Andreas LubitzCo-pilot Andreas Lubitz - pictured here on his social media profile - is not known to have any links to terrorism
Alps plane crash
Alps plane crash: Search Day Two
Germanwings: What are the main lines of inquiry?
Alps plane crash: What we know
The victims of the Germanwings plane crash
The co-pilot of the Germanwings flight that crashed in the French Alps, named as Andreas Lubitz, appeared to want to "destroy the plane", officials said.
Marseille prosecutor Brice Robin, citing information from the "black box" voice recorder, said the co-pilot was alone in the cockpit.
He intentionally started a descent while the pilot was locked out.
Mr Robin said there was "absolute silence in the cockpit" as the pilot fought to re-enter it.
Meanwhile, the head of Lufthansa, the German carrier that owns Germanwings, said the pilot had undergone intensive training and "was 100% fit to fly without any caveats".
"We have no findings at all about what motivated the pilot to do this terrible deed," Carsten Spohr said.
Mr Spohr said Mr Lubitz's training had been interrupted briefly six years ago but was resumed after "the suitability of the candidate was re-established".
Follow the latest developments on our live page
Mr Robin said air traffic controllers made repeated attempts to contact the aircraft, but to no avail.
Passengers could be heard screaming just before the crash, he added.
Graphic
Mr Lubitz, 28, was alive until the final impact, the prosecutor said.
The Airbus 320 from Barcelona to Duesseldorf hit a mountain, killing all 144 passengers and six crew, after an eight-minute descent.
"We hear the pilot ask the co-pilot to take control of the plane and we hear at the same time the sound of a seat moving backwards and the sound of a door closing," Mr Robin told reporters.
Jump media player
Media player help
Out of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue.
Media caption LIVE: Officials give Alps plane crash briefing
He said the pilot had probably gone to the toilet.
"At that moment, the co-pilot is controlling the plane by himself. While he is alone, the co-pilot presses the buttons of the flight monitoring system to put into action the descent of the aeroplane.
"This action on the altitude controls can only be deliberate."
He added: "The most plausible interpretation is that the co-pilot through a voluntary act had refused to open the cabin door to let the captain in. He pushed the button to trigger the aircraft to lose altitude. He operated this button for a reason we don't know yet, but it appears that the reason was to destroy this plane."
He said the co-pilot was "not known by us" to have any links to extremism or terrorism.
But he said German authorities were expected to give further information on his background and private life later.
Passengers were not aware of the impending crash "until the very last moment" when screams could be heard, Mr Robin said, adding that they died instantly.
Meanwhile, relatives and friends of the victims are due to visit the area of the crash.
Lufthansa, which owns Germanwings, arranged two special flights for families and friends on Thursday - one from Barcelona and one from Duesseldorf - to Marseille, and both groups will travel on by road. Separately, some relatives who did not want to fly are travelling by bus from Barcelona.
The second "black box" - that records flight data - has still not been found.
Grey line
Other incidents thought to be caused by deliberate pilot action
◾29 November 2013: A flight between Mozambique and Angola crashed in Namibia, killing 33 people. Initial investigation results suggested the accident was deliberately carried out by the captain shortly after the first officer (also known as the co-pilot) had left the flight deck.
◾31 October 1999: An EgyptAir Boeing 767 went into a rapid descent 30 minutes after taking off from New York, killing 217 people. An investigation suggested that the crash was caused deliberately by the relief first officer but the evidence was not conclusive.
◾19 December 1997: More than 100 people were killed when a Boeing 737 travelling from Indonesia to Singapore crashed. The pilot - suffering from "multiple work-related difficulties" - was suspected of switching off the flight recorders and intentionally putting the plane into a dive.
Source: Aviation Safety Network
RIP to all the crew and passengers on this.
I'm not one for conspiracy theories normally but something about this doesn't add up.
Are we supposed to believe that during the 10 mins descent that not one passenger on board phoned or texted a relative to say there appeared to something going wrong on the flight? I'd imagine once they got to say 15k feet someone would have had a phone signal.
Also if the pilot was trying to get into the cockpit then I'd imagine, he, at some stage during those 10 mins caused some noise and aggro which would also alert passengers to something going amiss.
Can the cabin crew contact ATC also from outside the cockpit? If so did this happen?
blows the mind. No links to terrorist organisations apparently. Why would someone want to take himself out a plane full of people?
Quote from: JoG2 on March 26, 2015, 02:32:22 PM
blows the mind. No links to terrorist organisations apparently. Why would someone want to take himself out a plane full of people?
How do we know that car 'accidents' deaths are not suicides?
Quote from: theticklemister on March 26, 2015, 02:34:49 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on March 26, 2015, 02:32:22 PM
blows the mind. No links to terrorist organisations apparently. Why would someone want to take himself out & a plane full of people?
How do we know that car 'accidents' deaths are not suicides?
id say a portion are alright. If the co-pilot needed off this mortal coil, why the need to take 150 odd other people with him inc a reck of school children?
Quote from: highorlow on March 26, 2015, 02:31:02 PM
RIP to all the crew and passengers on this.
I'm not one for conspiracy theories normally but something about this doesn't add up.
Are we supposed to believe that during the 10 mins descent that not one passenger on board phoned or texted a relative to say there appeared to something going wrong on the flight? I'd imagine once they got to say 15k feet someone would have had a phone signal.
Also if the pilot was trying to get into the cockpit then I'd imagine, he, at some stage during those 10 mins caused some noise and aggro which would also alert passengers to something going amiss.
Can the cabin crew contact ATC also from outside the cockpit? If so did this happen?
What exactly is the 'conspiracy theory'?
The passangers probably only knew for a few minutes that something was wrong, at that stage they were over the alps. Their phones would have been off and who knows if they even would get any sort of network coverage even if that was their last thought.
QuoteWhat exactly is the 'conspiracy theory'?
Good one, that's almost the same as the question once asked to Albert Reynolds when asked about the secrets of Fatima.
It's implausible that none of the crew or those on board made contact with the ground during the last 5 minutes.
If I were on board and was wondering why the f**k are those mountains getting closer I'd be asking the crew questions.
Also it seems bizarre that he decided to descend into a mountain and take a plane load of people with him.
Quote from: highorlow on March 26, 2015, 02:47:18 PM
QuoteWhat exactly is the 'conspiracy theory'?
Good one, that's almost the same as the question once asked to Albert Reynolds when asked about the secrets of Fatima.
It's implausible that none of the crew or those on board made contact with the ground during the last 5 minutes.
If I were on board and was wondering why the f**k are those mountains getting closer I'd be asking the crew questions.
Also it seems bizarre that he decided to descend into a mountain and take a plane load of people with him.
How many planes have you been in where you can get a signal on your phone??
Quote from: screenexile on March 26, 2015, 02:52:33 PM
Quote from: highorlow on March 26, 2015, 02:47:18 PM
QuoteWhat exactly is the 'conspiracy theory'?
Good one, that's almost the same as the question once asked to Albert Reynolds when asked about the secrets of Fatima.
It's implausible that none of the crew or those on board made contact with the ground during the last 5 minutes.
If I were on board and was wondering why the f**k are those mountains getting closer I'd be asking the crew questions.
Also it seems bizarre that he decided to descend into a mountain and take a plane load of people with him.
How many planes have you been in where you can get a signal on your phone??
You mean the phone you switched off and stashed before take off?
Quote from: LeoMc on March 26, 2015, 02:54:14 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 26, 2015, 02:52:33 PM
Quote from: highorlow on March 26, 2015, 02:47:18 PM
QuoteWhat exactly is the 'conspiracy theory'?
Good one, that's almost the same as the question once asked to Albert Reynolds when asked about the secrets of Fatima.
It's implausible that none of the crew or those on board made contact with the ground during the last 5 minutes.
If I were on board and was wondering why the f**k are those mountains getting closer I'd be asking the crew questions.
Also it seems bizarre that he decided to descend into a mountain and take a plane load of people with him.
How many planes have you been in where you can get a signal on your phone??
You mean the phone you switched off and stashed before take off?
And who's to say that they didn't ask questions of the crew?
The passengers are heard screaming in the minute before impact, so it seems likely that's when they realised something was very very wrong. What an awful way to go.
Quote from: JoG2 on March 26, 2015, 02:38:48 PM
Quote from: theticklemister on March 26, 2015, 02:34:49 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on March 26, 2015, 02:32:22 PM
blows the mind. No links to terrorist organisations apparently. Why would someone want to take himself out & a plane full of people?
How do we know that car 'accidents' deaths are not suicides?
id say a portion are alright. If the co-pilot needed off this mortal coil, why the need to take 150 odd other people with him inc a reck of school children?
Why do crazies go in a shoot a classroom of kids and then take their lives? Same for going into a Mall and shooting at people you don't know before topping themselves?
Understanding what goes through people's heads that want to kill themselves is a big question.
Very sorry for all the families of the people on board. The last few mins must have been crazy. I'm sure the sight of the Captian trying to kick the door down arose questions and then the sight of the Alps.
I do a lot of traveling on planes and will be thinking of those people next time I step on a plane
Quote from: screenexile on March 26, 2015, 02:52:33 PM
Quote from: highorlow on March 26, 2015, 02:47:18 PM
QuoteWhat exactly is the 'conspiracy theory'?
Good one, that's almost the same as the question once asked to Albert Reynolds when asked about the secrets of Fatima.
It's implausible that none of the crew or those on board made contact with the ground during the last 5 minutes.
If I were on board and was wondering why the f**k are those mountains getting closer I'd be asking the crew questions.
Also it seems bizarre that he decided to descend into a mountain and take a plane load of people with him.
How many planes have you been in where you can get a signal on your phone??
I didn't fly for 10 years, for only second time i stepped on a plane I was 27. I seen a fella called Michael Comyn in Dublin who runs 'Fear Flyless'. He did a great job on me and worth every penny I paid.
He said the only reason they ask you to turn off yur mobile phone is because of the constant mobile phone carriers looking to contact you and said it is a mere nuisance. He said it is balderdash that it interferes with the aeroplanes telecommunication.
By the way; I 'm going on my first ever transatlantic flight, the only flight i have been on is across the Irish Sea.
What should I expect on long haul flight, turbulence, free drink, cosy journey?????????
Why do people always go looking for a conspiracy?
Quote from: Bingo on March 26, 2015, 03:15:00 PM
Why do people always go looking for a conspiracy?
Because shit like this shouldn't happen. People can't believe it. There has to be some other, more sinister explanation that makes sense.*
*not my view, but I think that's where a lot of this comes from.
Not even worthy of a response really.
Unbelievable that the co pilot would deliberately crash the plane. How to explain that to the relatives of the dead?
Quote from: seafoid on March 26, 2015, 03:53:14 PM
Unbelievable that the co pilot would deliberately crash the plane. How to explain that to the relatives of the dead?
Also, how would you deal with it if you are the co-pilot's brother, sister, mother, father, wife, son or daughter?
I feel sorry for the co pilots friends and family. Harrowing ordeal finding out a loved one has died in such a tragedy. Incomprehensible to imagine what it would be like to find out that your loved one was some sort of monster responsible for the whole thing. Extremely sad. If I was a journalist my first question to ask Mr Sophr would be will Lufthansa adopt the "rule of 2" going forward.
I've been known to get a signal on my phone when at cruising altitude. I sometimes send a text from the jacks. (Don't tell the FAA.)
Quote from: theticklemister on March 26, 2015, 03:08:00 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 26, 2015, 02:52:33 PM
Quote from: highorlow on March 26, 2015, 02:47:18 PM
QuoteWhat exactly is the 'conspiracy theory'?
Good one, that's almost the same as the question once asked to Albert Reynolds when asked about the secrets of Fatima.
It's implausible that none of the crew or those on board made contact with the ground during the last 5 minutes.
If I were on board and was wondering why the f**k are those mountains getting closer I'd be asking the crew questions.
Also it seems bizarre that he decided to descend into a mountain and take a plane load of people with him.
How many planes have you been in where you can get a signal on your phone??
I didn't fly for 10 years, for only second time i stepped on a plane I was 27. I seen a fella called Michael Comyn in Dublin who runs 'Fear Flyless'. He did a great job on me and worth every penny I paid.
He said the only reason they ask you to turn off yur mobile phone is because of the constant mobile phone carriers looking to contact you and said it is a mere nuisance. He said it is balderdash that it interferes with the aeroplanes telecommunication.
By the way; I 'm going on my first ever transatlantic flight, the only flight i have been on is across the Irish Sea.
What should I expect on long haul flight, turbulence, free drink, cosy journey?????????
fair play Tickle
Might experience some turbulence. Free drink with the likes of BA and Virgin, not sure about AA and the likes. Go easy on the soup though as you get very dehydrated. There should be plenty of in-house entertainment but bring a tablet with films and shows and a book. Cosy? Maybe in 1st or business class, but not down with the unwashed. 5/6 hours to the east coast is no problem, a non-stop to Vegas or LAX, you can get a bit jittery, but don't turn to the drink to pass a few hours. Arrive fresh I always say!
(Edit: apologies, this should really be in a different thread)
Quote from: HiMucker on March 26, 2015, 04:19:32 PM
I feel sorry for the co pilots friends and family. Harrowing ordeal finding out a loved one has died in such a tragedy. Incomprehensible to imagine what it would be like to find out that your loved one was some sort of monster responsible for the whole thing. Extremely sad. If I was a journalist my first question to ask Mr Sophr would be will Lufthansa adopt the "rule of 2" going forward.
+1 on all of that
Should this not be a rule anyway? This incident will only highlight the fact that not all Airlines adopt the rule.
Good man JoG.
The course I took got me on the actual and again and have me findings. I had a hairy one going to Glasgow when I was 18 b
Correct if I'm wrong here guys but has anyone ever seen a pilot leave the cockpit. I can't remember ever seeing it!
Yes. I have seen it. I've seen them come out and go to the jacks.
Quote from: Walter Cronc on March 26, 2015, 06:06:07 PM
Correct if I'm wrong here guys but has anyone ever seen a pilot leave the cockpit. I can't remember ever seeing it!
Yes I've seen it happen. Not regularly but it does happen.
A tragic story made even more horrendous by these revelations.
Some airlines have the bogs behind a secondary door from the cockpit, and using it wouldn't "bar"you from getting back in. Dunno if it is airline policy or depending on the size of the aircraft.
Should a captain/pilot really have to leave the cockpit 20 mins or whatever after takeoff ? Fair enough 3 or 4 hours into a flight but you would think you would have your business done before takeoff.
Quote from: orangeman on March 26, 2015, 06:28:04 PM
Quote from: Walter Cronc on March 26, 2015, 06:06:07 PM
Correct if I'm wrong here guys but has anyone ever seen a pilot leave the cockpit. I can't remember ever seeing it!
Yes I've seen it happen. Not regularly but it does happen.
A tragic story made even more horrendous by these revelations.
Yes,I've seen them go for a jimmie.
Yup. Pilot suicide is mercifully rare. I wonder if we'll end up with cameras in the cockpit? If we could stop this quaint practice of local data storage and beam it into the cloud instead then that'd help too. Formula 1 race cars have been beaming telemetry back to the pits for years, so it's not exactly a new technology. When something goes wrong then alarm bells could start to ring on the ground. I wonder if we could even make it possible for ATC to directly intervene and take control of the plane, but as the man said the cyber security implications would be staggering.
Shocking development.
And sadly not the first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990)
I agree with anyone who refused to call this a simple suicide. It is mass murder.
But it is very odd on a short flight, because he could have had no guarantee that the Captain would go to the toilet. It was a flight of about 1 hour. Therefore if he wasn't sure, was it an opportunistic action? Had he planned to do it whenever the opportunity arose?
Some of the low cost carriers do a flight of flights in quick succession. The workload at the turnaround can be very high, trying to get the next flight out on time. A pilot could easily decide to delay a trip to the toilet until after 'top of climb'.
On of the problems here is that the locked cockpit was a knee-jerk reaction to 911, imposed on airlines everywhere. While it looks reasonable, normally safety decisions are taken with all stakeholders involved, preferably with consensus. That avoids unintended consequences, which is far better than one agency, in this case national security, imposing a remedy to solve their particular problem, but without giving any though to undesirable side affects.
This may turn out to be a sort of copycat of the missing Malaysian or of the Egyptair I mentioned above. If so I am dreading the potential next knee-jerk reaction.
This is easily remedied by putting the cockpit, toilet and rest area (if needed) all together, separate from the cabin. But the airlines won't pay for that.
Whatever they end up doing, flying is still a whole lot safer than driving.
Two of the co pilots properties are currently being searched by German authorities. Hopefully this can provide some answers.
If it is the case this guy took the plane down deliberately (the evidence is stacking up this was certainly the case) was it just an opportunistic moment of madness or had he been plotting this for sometime and was just waiting for the right opportunity to present itself. As someone else mentioned before he had no guarantee the captain was going to need the loo and leave him on his own.
Surely in this day and age there has to be a better way to deal with regaining access to the cockpit or control of the plane. Taking remote control of the plane would be an ideal solution but obviously hacking this is a major security threat. A work around might be that this remote control is physically disabled until it's manually activated from one or more locations inside the plane. Only then could someone on the ground be able to step in and take control.
Some articles mentioning that the copilot's original flight training was postponed for a number of months. Will be interesting to see if that had any relation to this tragic turn of events.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on March 26, 2015, 09:19:30 PM
Yup. Pilot suicide is mercifully rare. I wonder if we'll end up with cameras in the cockpit? If we could stop this quaint practice of local data storage and beam it into the cloud instead then that'd help too. Formula 1 race cars have been beaming telemetry back to the pits for years, so it's not exactly a new technology. When something goes wrong then alarm bells could start to ring on the ground. I wonder if we could even make it possible for ATC to directly intervene and take control of the plane, but as the man said the cyber security implications would be staggering.
Won't happen I'm afraid, the technology is there but it would be too expensive.
This tradgey I'd say was probably opportunistic, in that he had in set in his head but was waiting for the opportunity of being in the c**k-pit alone, which on a 2 hour flight schedule this would have been rare.
There will definitely be a procedural overhaul (easyjet already have confirmed 2 crew at all times in CP) and possibly a redesign of the cockpit doors.
The irony of it all is that this tradegy likely wouldn't have occured pre 9/11.
Other than going to use the toilet is there any good reason for a member of the flight crew to leave the flight deck during flight (under normal circumstances)?
Put a bog in the cockpit....
Quote from: GJL on March 27, 2015, 11:05:41 AM
Other than going to use the toilet is there any good reason for a member of the flight crew to leave the flight deck during flight (under normal circumstances)?
Put a bog in the cockpit....
Almost always...no.
However there are exceptions to everything. For example on the ground while taxiing a pilot might want to visually inspect the wings for snow or maybe a passenger says they see something broken or open on an engine (this does happen). But that stuff would be done on the ground.
As an aside, I am not comfortable with the way every piece of info is immediately released to the press. It is hard to see at the moment, but there could still be undiscovered evidence that would change everything. As a wild example, imagine if they now found the co-pilot had been deliberately drugged in some way.
If the investigators were being remotely professional, they would wait until they had gathered and analysed as much evidence as possible, before allocating all of the blame onto one dead person. That is not to say they are wrong, just that they can't be sure they are right yet.
Quote from: muppet on March 28, 2015, 05:30:48 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 27, 2015, 11:05:41 AM
Other than going to use the toilet is there any good reason for a member of the flight crew to leave the flight deck during flight (under normal circumstances)?
Put a bog in the cockpit....
Almost always...no.
However there are exceptions to everything. For example on the ground while taxiing a pilot might want to visually inspect the wings for snow or maybe a passenger says they see something broken or open on an engine (this does happen). But that stuff would be done on the ground.
As an aside, I am not comfortable with the way every piece of info is immediately released to the press. It is hard to see at the moment, but there could still be undiscovered evidence that would change everything. As a wild example, imagine if they now found the co-pilot had been deliberately drugged in some way.
If the investigators were being remotely professional, they would wait until they had gathered and analysed as much evidence as possible, before allocating all of the blame onto one dead person. That is not to say they are wrong, just that they can't be sure they are right yet.
I'd say the pressure was on to take the blame away from the aircraft. I been flying frequently for years and couldn't tell you what the planes were I flew on. On Thursday (before this news broke) I noticed for the first time the aircraft I was flying on was an A320 (or maybe I just thought it was) but I momentarily uncomfortable about flying where usually I wouldn't give it a second thought. Have to say my humour wasn't helped when it had to abort landing at the last second because another plane was on the runway!
I flew back on Friday morning oddly more comfortable that the cause of the crash wasn't equipment failure.
I don't know what you'd think about this, Muppet, but I heard somebody on the radio on Thursday - former air accident investigator, I think - who said this was a highly irregular and unprofessional act on the part of some U.S. military character who was somehow involved in or had access to the cockpit voice recorder analysis. Apparently this gobshite leaked the information to the N.Y. Times, an action unheard of among accident investigators, it would seem.
Yer man on the radio was suggesting that, even if it was clear that it was pilot error or deliberate pilot action, it would be unusual to release this information in the immediate aftermath of the event, while families are grieving, emotions are raw, etc. Due process would be observed and nothing would be said officially until the full report was issued some months later, at the earliest.
I don't understand why the authorities decided to confirm the leak. I'd have thought all they had to say was that this was speculation and the report would be issued when the thing had been fully investigated. In particular, I can't understand why the Marseille prosecutor jumped into the picture with his press conference. Why the need, at this early stage, for his allocation of blame and his detailed description (including the outrageous and gratuitous stuff about the passengers screaming) unless it was self-promotion, political grandstanding or something.
More on this. Googling around, the only reference I can find to the identity of the leaker mentions a senior FRENCH military official, which makes more sense. I did hear more than one reference to a U.S. military official during the week.
The IALPA has condemned the leak (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/blogs/ain-blog-response-germanwings-tragedy-does-not-inspire-confidence):
"The International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations (IFALPA) deplores and condemns yesterday's leaking of certain elements of the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) of the Germanwings flight 4U9525," the association said in a statement. "Not only do these leaks contravene the internationally agreed principles of accident investigation confidentiality set out in ICAO Annex 13, they are also a breach of trust to all those involved in the investigation and to the families of the victims. Furthermore, leaks of this nature greatly harm flight safety since they invite ill-informed speculation from the media and the general public and discourage cooperation with investigators in future accidents."
Quote from: Hardy on March 28, 2015, 06:35:51 PM
More on this. Googling around, the only reference I can find to the identity of the leaker mentions a senior FRENCH military official, which makes more sense. I did hear more than one reference to a U.S. military official during the week.
Armaghiac referred to it earlier on in this thread. Perhaps he knows ?.
Quote from: Hardy on March 28, 2015, 06:27:25 PM
I don't know what you'd think about this, Muppet, but I heard somebody on the radio on Thursday - former air accident investigator, I think - who said this was a highly irregular and unprofessional act on the part of some U.S. military character who was somehow involved in or had access to the cockpit voice recorder analysis. Apparently this gobshite leaked the information to the N.Y. Times, an action unheard of among accident investigators, it would seem.
Yer man on the radio was suggesting that, even if it was clear that it was pilot error or deliberate pilot action, it would be unusual to release this information in the immediate aftermath of the event, while families are grieving, emotions are raw, etc. Due process would be observed and nothing would be said officially until the full report was issued some months later, at the earliest.
I don't understand why the authorities decided to confirm the leak. I'd have thought all they had to say was that this was speculation and the report would be issued when the thing had been fully investigated. In particular, I can't understand why the Marseille prosecutor jumped into the picture with his press conference. Why the need, at this early stage, for his allocation of blame and his detailed description (including the outrageous and gratuitous stuff about the passengers screaming) unless it was self-promotion, political grandstanding or something.
I hadn't realised it was a leak. In fairness that changes things and I withdraw my criticism of the investigators, except obviously the person who leaked the info.
Normally it takes ages for info to come out, but there are good reasons for that.
Leaking is deplorable but is it not the protocol to bring out preliminary findings within days if they have a safety aspect to the them? In this case the rule of 2 is not standard for the majority of European airlines, as I understand, but now, in the aftermath of this information being released, this has changed.
Not condoning the prosecutor from Marseilles by the way.
The original leak was in the NY Times, French agencies didn't carry the story at first, and the suggestion was that this came from an American on the investigation. But the rest of the data came quickly afterwards, not from Americans.
Quote from: easytiger95 on March 29, 2015, 11:20:45 AM
Leaking is deplorable but is it not the protocol to bring out preliminary findings within days if they have a safety aspect to the them? In this case the rule of 2 is not standard for the majority of European airlines, as I understand, but now, in the aftermath of this information being released, this has changed.
Not condoning the prosecutor from Marseilles by the way.
My understanding is that there should be a preliminary report within 30 days. That is usually just a statement of facts that have been gathered and confirmed. It rarely has conclusions or findings.
Quote from: Hardy on March 28, 2015, 06:27:25 PM
In particular, I can't understand why the Marseille prosecutor jumped into the picture with his press conference. Why the need, at this early stage, for his allocation of blame and his detailed description (including the outrageous and gratuitous stuff about the passengers screaming) unless it was self-promotion, political grandstanding or something.
I think you do understand so. Alot of shite like this in the world today unfortunately and worse still a plethora of once reputable media agencies who are only delighted to encourage such behavior.
Quote from: muppet on March 28, 2015, 05:30:48 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 27, 2015, 11:05:41 AM
Other than going to use the toilet is there any good reason for a member of the flight crew to leave the flight deck during flight (under normal circumstances)?
Put a bog in the cockpit....
Almost always...no.
However there are exceptions to everything. For example on the ground while taxiing a pilot might want to visually inspect the wings for snow or maybe a passenger says they see something broken or open on an engine (this does happen). But that stuff would be done on the ground.
As an aside, I am not comfortable with the way every piece of info is immediately released to the press. It is hard to see at the moment, but there could still be undiscovered evidence that would change everything. As a wild example, imagine if they now found the co-pilot had been deliberately drugged in some way.
If the investigators were being remotely professional, they would wait until they had gathered and analysed as much evidence as possible, before allocating all of the blame onto one dead person. That is not to say they are wrong, just that they can't be sure they are right yet.
That is very much the way with modern media.
Rubbernecking is another problem.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/air-canada-ac624-touched-down-335-metres-short-of-runway-tsb-says-1.3013979 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/air-canada-ac624-touched-down-335-metres-short-of-runway-tsb-says-1.3013979)
A bad week for aviation got even worse. Thankfully everyone survived.
(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/photo%20stuff/photo16/001_1.jpg~original)
Flying this Friday lol!! Tenerife....
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/03/31/crash-germanwings-video-final-seconds/70726960/
That's grim, how long will it take for it to be on the Internet...
Not sure I'd want to watch that, quite peverse.
I haven't read the full thread so apologies if something similar has been put up.
http://russia-insider.com/en/germanwings-crash-not-full-story/5140
Quote from: Esmarelda on April 01, 2015, 03:53:23 PM
I haven't read the full thread so apologies if something similar has been put up.
http://russia-insider.com/en/germanwings-crash-not-full-story/5140
If the gist of that is criticism of the investigation I would tend to agree.
However some of it is complete nonsense.
The Air France Captain must be deaf if he needs to use headset to speak to his colleague in an A320. They are not noisy at all. My guess is the Air France Captain flies a different aircraft and assumes it is as noisy as that one.
He is correct about the 'knob' not making a beeb. It is silent.
His third point is half right. They should have heard the alarm for someone trying to get in to the cockpit. But then he blows it by suggesting they couldn't hear anything because of the 'ambient noise'. As I said, it is not noisy.
I think it would be possible to hear someone breathing heavily in the cockpit, depending on how heavily. However the only way to be convinced would be to release the recording. But at this stage the French have screwed up the investigation so badly, many people wouldn't believe them anyway.