Originally Posted by
Frequent_Flyer
Crash A320: Les trois éléments qui ne collent pas avec la version officielle - DH.be
Not sure if this has been posted here already, but IMHO raises a few interesting questions:
1. THe complete explication (and accusation) was issued after only 48hours.
2. Other experts claim "normal breathing" would NOT be picked up by recorder.
3. No specific place of impact on ground.
4. The prosecutor said that one could hear the Co-Pilot change altitude settings whereas other experts claim this makes no sound whatsoever. The change of settings would be picked up by the other flight data recorder which - well - have they even found it or mentioned it?
5. At no point has there been any reference to the sound of deadbolting the door (now this makes a sgnificant sound) after the PIC tried to re-access the cockpit.
A Swiss newsaper writes along the same lines mentioning that the release of this cockpit data is against all laws and regulations and
a lawsuit will be filed by several unions agains the prosecutor. Let me know if you'd like me to fully translate either article!
Die seltsam schnelle Festlegung auf eine Wahrheit - News Panorama: Vermischtes - tagesanzeiger.ch
These unions may be in for a real surprise. The prosecutor will say he was acting in a case apparently of mass murder, had to tell other airlines of the weakness of their system and as part of that would need to supply sufficient evidence to make them understand what happened.
Imagine if the prosecutor had warned aircraft operators and regulators that he believed that they had a weakness with their cockpit door procedures - but NOT provided CVR evidence. He would not have been believed. Even in light of the CVR and mode-S evidence there are people here who do not believe what happened. He had to release the information for his warnings and subsequent taking legal action to be understood.
If the prosecutor wins that case with the unions and I believe he will, then the CVR recordings could cease to have the degree of legal protection that these unions
believe they have. The legal protections are in my view only there to prevent management using them, or for morbid tabloid media; they are not there to inhibit criminal inquiries or actions taken to prevent potential further loss of life. That view could be set in stone by a court case especially if obdurate unions insist on taking it to appeal to the highest levels.