Point taken. But then we are all back to posting comments in doublespeak and reading newspaper reports in doublethink. In what way does covering up the political issues of the day help with aviation safety?

How can plugging your ears and shouting: 'la, la, la, I cannot hear you,' help improve any kind of safety, be that personal, corporate or national? As we have all seen, we have had this Nelsonian policy for a decade or more and it has successfully exacerbated the problem not improved it.

"....remain to be convinced" indeed. I should hope you do; it's pure, unfounded, unsubstantiated speculation. As are all the other wild guesses posed so far.

Why do so many people think it's the BEA's job to dance to the tune of the popular press?
They will confirm or deny when they decide the time is right.
They will announce the pilots names, in due course.
The BEA's job is to find the cause of the accident and make recommendations.
Feeding the hungry mob as soon as possible is not their priority.

The New York Times reports information about the cockpit audio analysis disclosed by an anonymous high rank officer participating to the investigation.

Why always the americans? What do they have to do with a German airliner flying from Spain to Germany and crashing in France?

Co-pilot stuck outside
 

Just for clarification, I'm a french writer and journalist, living in Brussels.
As far as we know (Thu. morning, 1136, Paris time), it was the FO who was blocked outside, and the captain inside flight deck.Both were speaking in german prior to the incident. When banging on the door, the FO receives no reply, no reaction apparently.

Source : Le Monde.fr
Crash de la Germanwings : le copilote était coincé à l'extérieur du cockpit avant l'accident

Quote:
My question is, would visual recordings of the cockpit and the cabin help with investigations?
In light of today's information I would be surprised if cabin video recording and streaming to 'the cloud' is not mandatory worldwide within 5 years. There may be requirement for the content to be held 'in escrow' by a third party, perhaps ICAO or the #AA of the airline's home country with only access after an incident/accident, but it will happen.

Perhaps it's because the job of the BEA is to collate what facts they can and come up with an initial findings report ASAP based upon the factual information garnered from the scene of the accident in the event that the accident/incident was caused by a mechanical/systems failure that might have an affect on other aircraft of the same type.

Obviously in this case the accident was on 'home soil' so to speak with a huge media circus surrounding it and extreme pressure on the investigators to produce some form of 'reason' behind what was a quite baffling scenario.

What the BEA or any other organisation should not do is 'leak' tidbits of information without robust investigation behind them.

All IMVHO of course.

According to Dutch press, Lufthansa has replied to the NYT allegations by saying:

"we currently do not have information which confirms the NYT allegation".

German wings has commented to Le Dauphiné Libéré:

"We are leaving no stone unturned to obtain more information and will not speculate".

Red it a couple of days ago but diid not give it any thought.Lufthansa plans to axe germanwings around october. Under the new brand/company pilots will earn 40% less.

What exactly is the work of the press here ? To bother people in grief ? To satisfy a bunch of ...... glued to the TV in need of trivia and drivel ?

If your lines mean they (the press) have an investigative role here, then I say : NO they haven´t. And especially not the sort of media that is in the hands of people and/or corporations such as Rupert Murdoch. Western societies are way past the time were we had independent and investigative journalism. We have allowed single individuals and corporations to "generate opinion" in their favour. And with the internet/twitter/facebook and all that other bollocks everybody can be a semi journalist, with the consequences we see today all over this planet and especially in "our" societies.

No they are not. Not anymore -> see above. And an honest society does not exist. Anywhere. Because humans are humans.

Its the BEAs and BFUs part in this investigation to be THE mechanism of honesty in this case.

The NYT article does not give the nationality of its source.

Edited to add: Or in fact, it says they are French: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/wo...bus-crash.html

Quite a lot, actually.

It's standard practice for the engine manufacturer to be invited to be accredited to an accident investigation.

CFM International, the World's Leading Aircraft Engine Manufacturer

fully agree
 

With unengineer.. If i was working on airline security id be the one reading these, you cant bury your head in the sand and think about if no one talks about it it doesnt exists. And if i.. As non aviator can have some security threatning information regarding aviation safety.. On discussion board.. I rest my case..

@ Eutychus: you are right. I saw a translation of the original NYT article and I was induced to misunderstanding. I have modified my post.

It remains unclear how it possible that the NYT is capable to give these info before the French or the Germans.

Flying Pinguin, since there were two American passengers on board and that Honeywell and CFM are contributing corporations to the A320, what's wrong with a little experience in helping the families find answers to this accident. The more help the better.

@johnnyramjet: correct, anyway I just discovered that NYT reported information from a French officer, not American as I wrongly mentioned in my first post.

athonite - not the poster you addressed, but I also work in the field.

IMO, mental health needs to be treated and addressed in the same way as any other illness. Many sufferers are entirely capable of carrying out their job as if they are well, others may require medication or therapy to do so and some may need to stop work temporarily whilst they recover.

There is still a lot of stigma and ignorance surrounding it in terms of what people think a person with mental ill health is going to act like or how competent they are able to be. I know from speaking to some friends in the aviation industry that some airlines can be very harsh about it and others can be pretty good.

Considering the prevalence of MH problems most of us have probably been piloted by a sufferer. I think when you make it a very taboo thing, it drives it underground and problems may only get worse. Indeed I would encourage a very open and honest MH culture within aviation where a sufferer can be assessed and treated so that if possible they can continue their career with the appropriate support.

Of course it may mean depending on the severity and type of illness that some may be unable to fly again and absolutely this should be the case if there is any risk beyond normal. The truth is though is that many sufferers can be effectively treated and return to 'normal' the same as many physical illnesses.

We are going on one leaked report that banging was heard on the door.
That one of the pilots could not gain access.

If that was true and there is NO official statement to back that up then if the other pilot could not gain access it would mean that the other pilot had locked the door.

If that was the case then I cannot see any possible explanation of pilot incapacitation as it would have taken a conscious decision to lock the other pilot out and the conclusion can only be with bad intentions.

But we are relying on a leaked report which has hit all the tabloid press today.

I am not an A320 Pilot but a corporate jet pilot and we do not have doors to the PAX but lets take another innocent scenario that the door was not locked from the inside?

Reaching a high level like FL380 will make two things more likely firstly a depressurisation and secondly once the climb phase is complete and the aircraft is established in the cruise is the most likely time that a crew member will leave the other crew member at the controls and go back to the toilets.

Even with the banging on the doors IF that is correct and failure for the other pilot to gain access it does not preclude the possibility of depressurisation with one crew member at the controls and the other in the toilet.

The other pilot in the toilet would realise something was seriously wrong and attempt to join his colleague but within seconds would be becoming muddled and probably unable to put in the right code or infact entering the wrong codes in desperation he would hammer on the door before loosing conscious while having a door which is normally functioning

I still find it hard to believe its likely that a crew member (not impossible) would take himself out and 150 PAX on purpose and a more obvious reason even given the door banging could exist
There is no evidence that the door was locked from the inside

Manner of "releasing" information by BEA
 

Does the fact that the head of BEA stonewalled about the contents of the cockpit recorder at a press conference which his organisation had decided to hold, but that this information subsequently came into the public domain within 12 hours by a most circuitous route, reflect well on BEA's press relations judgement?

Whatever the reason for crash -

- in the "old days", most of the time, the road to an airline jet cockpit was long. Prior to landing the big airline job most pilots flew in all manner of organisations over many years. You built up a reputation in the industry/military, people knew you, a trail if you like, a history - Chief Pilots etc could get the "gen" on you pretty quickly. A "good egg", "reliable", "a good pair of hands", etc etc.

Now with £100k plus and a year or two at flight school you, with no work experience anywhere, no history, nobody knows you from a bar of soap, are welcomed into the right seat of an airline jet.

I think there many problems with this but the one that struck me most was security.