With respect, Avherald isn't remotely qualified to make that judgement.

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.

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.

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?

Where does this information come from?
Not from the final report, though.

Is it just a rumor?
CNN archive

Sorry, my bad. Maybe it was in the preliminary report, anyhow I have to correct myself.

Thanks:D

Hopefully I did not cut your quote out of the context.

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.

Very much agree.

I'm sorry but what are AVHerald trying to insinuate with their latest article? It looks like a load of hogwash and I don't have the patience to try and read it..

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.

Of course AvHerald isn't perfect, but do you know any better?

The assertion that Lubitz was on oxyen during his time alone in the cockpit was made first (I think) in this Paris Match article published on 31st March 2015 (7 days after the crash)

Inside the A320 - Exclusive: The final moments before the crash

and, unsurprisingly, picked up subsequently by many of the mainstream media.

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?

I think that is what he is saying. (If you read the report their are some "straws" he can grasp"

IMHO the father is only a victim of the PAID journo (self called expert) sitting on the far right.

https://youtu.be/RaJOTaPK0sc

I think the BEA checked with Airbus and Germanwings about how the cockpit door for this aircraft was programmed, apparently the normal access code generates a buzzer for only 980ms and they ruled out completely that a 'clacking' noise heard during the 980ms buzzer was the switch being set to LOCK. The noise probably was Lubitz doing something at that point in the process of locking the door and preparing himself for what he was about to do.

Alright, so here is one father who says that he does not refuse to believe that his son did this, but that he would like to be offered more convincing evidence. And then he goes on to present the building blocks for a story (he doesn't really spell it out like that) that the co-pilot just liked to play with the altitude selector whenever the captain was away, just so he could watch the associated marker move on the ND, but on the accident flight he was unfortunately knocked unconscious by turbulence during one of these exercises. And the captain was not prevented to return to the flight deck by someone flipping the door control switch to LOCK, but because one digit on the :mad: keypad didn't work.

Btw., the reasoning offered for that specific last item is the one thing that makes the AVHerald article worth reading, more precisely the section titled "Keypad, normal and emergency entry".

But make no mistake, I have little doubt whether or not Lubitz did all this intentionally. From the BFU statement in the final report, appendix 3 (emphasis is mine):

Is it enough to slect a lower altitude to see the banana? If my memory serves me right the alt knob has also to be pulled, e.g. starting a descent.

Stand to be corrected.

Didn't they find web searches on his tablet computer in the days leading up to the crash which included "ways to commit suicide" and "cockpit doors and their security provisions"?

See the quote two posts prior to yours.

This is really strange (flight to BCN)

On page 28 of the final report you can find the corresponding graph, scary.

https://www.bea.aero/uploads/tx_elyd...0125.en-LR.pdf