Airbus A320 crashed in Southern France
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They're not all that. I can think of a couple of incidents I've witnessed/heard and nothing has appeared. And these were incidents which were a lot more serious than smoky ovens or strange smell incidents which seem a staple of AvHerald these days.
Then you've got the idiotic comments that accompany each post.
Simon did good when it came to the Wideroe near catastrophe which was brushed off by the crew and operator but it seems this Germanwings incident is not going to have the same outcome.
The facts are fairly solid. That is Andreas Lubitz took the plane down. As sad and as uncomfortable as it is to believe that one of us could do that, all of the evidence points to that being the chain of events.
Then you've got the idiotic comments that accompany each post.
Simon did good when it came to the Wideroe near catastrophe which was brushed off by the crew and operator but it seems this Germanwings incident is not going to have the same outcome.
The facts are fairly solid. That is Andreas Lubitz took the plane down. As sad and as uncomfortable as it is to believe that one of us could do that, all of the evidence points to that being the chain of events.
We don't know how much pressure is put on sites like that to stay quiet, withdraw stories and such. It's big business lawyers you might interfere with all the time.
Under these conditions AVherald does quite a good job.
Under these conditions AVherald does quite a good job.
Maybe those who are critical of the AVH in this subject should ask a different question.
I don't think what triggered that article was the question of guilt, but the question whether there were things in this investigation which deserve scrutiny because they are either wrong or at least do not live up to the standards of a normal accident investigation.
I remember when the accident happened that I was taken very much aback when the French held a press conference before even the FDR was found and declared they knew what happened. That is just not how ANY accident investigation is done, nor are the police or state lawyers the people to communicate this.
Think about it. This fact alone put a undue and uncalled for bias on the whole thing and probably some of the questions asked in the AVH article are more than justified. AVH are not the only ones asking that either.
My own take of this whole thing is that I would want to know if this investigation went wrong and if it did why and for what purpose. And I am quite certain that this is the purpose why AVH decided to publish this article. I think they are well aware of the risk of voicing their concerns but they have not been known to shut up when they thought something needed to be investigated. The Windroe incident proves that I think.
Whether the final outcome is the same or not is not the issue at all. The issue is, that there appear to be quite a bit of questions which need answering as to the nature and content of the final report.
I don't think what triggered that article was the question of guilt, but the question whether there were things in this investigation which deserve scrutiny because they are either wrong or at least do not live up to the standards of a normal accident investigation.
I remember when the accident happened that I was taken very much aback when the French held a press conference before even the FDR was found and declared they knew what happened. That is just not how ANY accident investigation is done, nor are the police or state lawyers the people to communicate this.
Think about it. This fact alone put a undue and uncalled for bias on the whole thing and probably some of the questions asked in the AVH article are more than justified. AVH are not the only ones asking that either.
My own take of this whole thing is that I would want to know if this investigation went wrong and if it did why and for what purpose. And I am quite certain that this is the purpose why AVH decided to publish this article. I think they are well aware of the risk of voicing their concerns but they have not been known to shut up when they thought something needed to be investigated. The Windroe incident proves that I think.
Whether the final outcome is the same or not is not the issue at all. The issue is, that there appear to be quite a bit of questions which need answering as to the nature and content of the final report.
The french state prosecutors went public early with some precise factual information. No complaint about that. There was a huge public interest given the unique circumstances that couldn't wait years for some proper investigation to finish everything.
I clearly prefer this over unofficial leaks bit by bit where you never know where they come from.
I clearly prefer this over unofficial leaks bit by bit where you never know where they come from.
I was taken very much aback when the French held a press conference before even the FDR was found and declared they knew what happened. That is just not how ANY accident investigation is done, nor are the police or state lawyers the people to communicate this.
I saw the said press conference and whilst you are right, the some of the comments were surprising and yes, the FDR hadn't been found or read at that stage the conclusions that had already been drawn at that stage from ADS data seem to have stood the test of the subsequent investigation by the technical teams involved in the investigation over the next several months.
Last edited by wiggy; 3rd Apr 2017 at 21:32.
While it's easy to understand the reluctance of a grieving father to accept that his son was, in all probability, guilty of causing the pointless deaths of of 150 people, that reaction has no relevance whatsoever to the BEA investigation. Few now doubt that the "what" and the "how" has been established beyond reasonable doubt; the "why" is not for the investigation to determine.
There sadly seems to be a trend nowadays among otherwise competent aviation journalists to stray outside of their area of competency, and Avherald is fast becoming one of the worst offenders. Stick to facts, Simon, and leave the analysis to the professionals.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the beginning I had some doubts. The results came too quick and were too wild. Yes, they are probable and can be correct. But before you charge somebody for murder of 150 souls, you should have more solid evidences. Not so many speculations and list of unanswered questions.
From my point of view, people like Simon are reasonable opposition, forcing investigators not to draw unfounded conclusions. Media are hungry for "strong" scenarios and Simon is a kind of counterbalance. Regardless he is true or wrong now.
From my point of view, people like Simon are reasonable opposition, forcing investigators not to draw unfounded conclusions. Media are hungry for "strong" scenarios and Simon is a kind of counterbalance. Regardless he is true or wrong now.
You're missing the point.
The BEA investigation was released on 16th March last year, nearly a year after the crash.
That's why investigations use the term "probable cause". Any conclusions reached can be subsequently reviewed should any new evidence emerge that wasn't available to the investigators. I'm not aware of that having happened in this instance.
Are you suggesing that Simon's hubris extends to claiming that he is capable of influencing the conduct or findings of a safety investigation?
The BEA investigation was released on 16th March last year, nearly a year after the crash.
Yes, they are probable and can be correct.
From my point of view, people like Simon are reasonable opposition, forcing investigators not to draw unfounded conclusions.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Near St Lawrence River
Age: 53
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still don't understand why Lubitz used his oxy mask....
Not from the final report, though.
Is it just a rumor?
CNN archive
Only half a speed-brake
I had listened twice to the prosecutors speeches, in the immediate aftermath there were actually only very few of them. To what he did say.
Not to how media explained his statements, or to what PPRuNe has shared about his alleged position. I found the official speeches / press releases fair and worded with extreme precision and proffesionalism. The press were much different, of course, and PPRuNe in trail of the latter.
What I mean to say now is that any theories suggesting foul play in the investigation - based on "pilot suspiciously accused early before the facts had been researched" - hold no water, specifically because the French Authorites exactly did NOT do that.
Last edited by FlightDetent; 4th Apr 2017 at 11:57.
I had listened twice to the prosecutors speeches, in the immediate aftermath there were actually only very few of them. To what he did say.
....... I found the official speeches / press releases fair and worded with extreme precision and proffesionalism.
....... I found the official speeches / press releases fair and worded with extreme precision and proffesionalism.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avherald's a weird site. First off, because DavidReidUK is the Anti-Avherald: mention the site, and he's guaranteed to make an appearance, taking every opportunity to mock it.
Second, yes, it's just one guy, and he has some rather odd standards of journalism. For example, he doesn't report "unofficial" sources: as near as I can tell, he uses recordings from LiveATC and ADS-B sites, but he doesn't always credit them. In fact, he sometimes even claims it's his policy not to credit them.
Third, his coverage is spotty. Of course it is. He's aggregating a number of official and unofficial sources, and he won't tell you what they are. Every day, there are a variety of events -- IFSDs, In-flight emergencies, even evacuations -- that don't make it to his pages. We all know this.
Yet, if you want somewhere on the internet that brings together concrete (and not-so-concrete) information on aviation events, what else are you going to do? Read through 175 pages of some thread on PPrune, where the same facts are repeated every five pages in between moral indignation, idiotic speculation, and wild-ass pontification?
It's no wonder that Avherald has been the point-of-origin for a variety of aviation-oriented stories that hit the news.
This is also what's rather disappointing about Simon's weighing in on this issue after meeting with the parents. Reading his account, each piece of evidence in favor of the "suicide theory" might be suspect for a different reason. If you chain these improbabilities together, then it might be the case that something other than a suicide happened, provided there was an autopilot failure, door lock failure, FDR failure, and the poor FO suddenly passed out while maintaining a regular breathing pattern through the mouth. Oh, and someone falsified the record of his depression. That's considerably more improbable than case made.
The BEA, however, is interested in Probable Cause, not the preponderance of evidence or certitude beyond reasonable doubt.
Second, yes, it's just one guy, and he has some rather odd standards of journalism. For example, he doesn't report "unofficial" sources: as near as I can tell, he uses recordings from LiveATC and ADS-B sites, but he doesn't always credit them. In fact, he sometimes even claims it's his policy not to credit them.
Third, his coverage is spotty. Of course it is. He's aggregating a number of official and unofficial sources, and he won't tell you what they are. Every day, there are a variety of events -- IFSDs, In-flight emergencies, even evacuations -- that don't make it to his pages. We all know this.
Yet, if you want somewhere on the internet that brings together concrete (and not-so-concrete) information on aviation events, what else are you going to do? Read through 175 pages of some thread on PPrune, where the same facts are repeated every five pages in between moral indignation, idiotic speculation, and wild-ass pontification?
It's no wonder that Avherald has been the point-of-origin for a variety of aviation-oriented stories that hit the news.
This is also what's rather disappointing about Simon's weighing in on this issue after meeting with the parents. Reading his account, each piece of evidence in favor of the "suicide theory" might be suspect for a different reason. If you chain these improbabilities together, then it might be the case that something other than a suicide happened, provided there was an autopilot failure, door lock failure, FDR failure, and the poor FO suddenly passed out while maintaining a regular breathing pattern through the mouth. Oh, and someone falsified the record of his depression. That's considerably more improbable than case made.
The BEA, however, is interested in Probable Cause, not the preponderance of evidence or certitude beyond reasonable doubt.
Inside the A320 - Exclusive: The final moments before the crash
and, unsurprisingly, picked up subsequently by many of the mainstream media.
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Ontario
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So is the father trying to claim that his son never crashed the a/c on purpose?
What does he suggest happened then? The A320's autopilot set the altitude to 0 and then engaged OPEN DES mode all by itself?
What does he suggest happened then? The A320's autopilot set the altitude to 0 and then engaged OPEN DES mode all by itself?
