There has NOT been any leak which has said this. This idea of "dual inputs" has come purely from media speculation. That media speculation would be entirely due to these words, leaked from the CVR:

Most of us here realise that these words were most likely directed at the aircraft, rather than the other pilot, but that did not stop the media speculation, which began with a simple "pilots disagreeing" turning into "pilots fighting".

We must understand that the media are under pressure to keep up the daily reporting, despite the absence of any new material.

For us here to spend so much time on this "dual inputs" speculation not only makes us as bad as them, it also encourages them.

Can we please drop the "dual inputs" stuff and stop encouraging the media flights of fancy?

May we have discussion about facts, and not speculation about "leaks"....

A 'leak' is a deliberate dissemination of confidential information into the public domain.This alleged leak is from where exactly and from whom?

The Federal Law N 198-FZ of December 14, 1995, adopted by the State Duma on November 24, 1995 and approved by the Federal Assembly for the establishment of the IAC will have within it drastic penalties for breach of security and confidentialty.

I'm sure the delights of an unscheduled residency in the Lubyanka would seem sufficient deterrent for any unauthorised release of information.

If RT has a copy of the transcript, then publish the part that has the notation, IAC ref number and timings.

if RT wont publish verification, then the press can fabricate anything, provide no justification for the source other than 'from someone close to the investigation', and then watch as the various comments and uninformed speculative theories ricochet about this forum. This unsubstantiated 'leak' has been republished all over the globe.

so far all we know is what was in the IAC press release issued yesterday, ie, the plane was airworthy. Everything else is just media driven speculation.

We can only make assumptions here with the data we've got so far.
GA made quite early in 2nd approach.Other aircraft(Russian locals-they dont divert readily) have been diverting so we can assume wshr and turbulence on approach was a genuine problem.Now if they got a windshear warning,either predictive or reactive,they have to follow their recovery procedure which is to disengage AP AT and fly out of it with no config change.The report of GA was matter of fact so perhaps it was not w/shr but mod to severe turbulence with speed excursions(flap overspeed etx).When they pull up,the PF follows the extreme ANU FD command,they get the unusual attitude and possible speed decay and try to recorrect but overcompensate esp with that very powerful THS.
FD fixation is a known problem with new generation pilots who are trained to fly/use/trust/depend almost exclusively on automation.
Its a funny thing actually.Because automation is a great tool.It is of great help to a pilot.But know when to use it,when not to,when to see through a FD command and ignore it and when not to.That is NOT being trained.
Problem lies in the training department(political correctness-emphasis on procedure-use AFDS dont fly the plane etc),not with these pilots.If you fix one you can fix the other.
A conference to collate/disseminate data on this known problem(pilots cant fly anymore) would be advantageous to aviation safety.Those airlines who remain a beacon of hope for this industry should call it and changes should be mandated for the good of all.Not easy to accomplish.Southwest,Qantas and Lufthansa could lead the way.All 3 emphasize stick and rudder and airmanship.Have flown with one.2 of them never crashed.Training excellent.Other airlines have much to offer.Belgians traditionally value manual flt skills and "fly the plane" .Americans too.BA has much to input.
Conference could address other abnormals like fatigue,rostering(esp am to pm consec changes),SICK/UNFIT never ever questioned,qualities desired in CP and Flt OPs post holders,pilots back at board level(absolute must).When I saw the gentleman on the right at FlyDub conference,I instinctively knew this airline had major problems and they were all coming from top down.
Start at the top,and the problems down through the ranks will start to disappear.You have to get the right people at the top first.

The point the previous poster made about pilots on the board is an important and sobering question. Whether anyone likes it or not the pilot group in an airline-followed closely by Engineering?maintenance have the most impact on safety.Errors there can mean a crash with loss of possibly hundreds of lives and enormous costs for the airline. But on how many major airlines is anyone from either fraternity (apologies ladies nothing meant by it) actually on the board.

A few years ago-slightly tongue in cheek I e-mailed Easyjet and said I might fly on them now they had introduced booked seats but were they really as safety conscious as they were cost conscious . Needless to say I got a great corporate speak reply, safety is our first and overirding priority , highest standards etc etc . To which i replied that was reassuring upto a point but if it was really so important why did their corporate profile of board members not actually ahve anyone whose repsonsibility was safety of flight -they were all accountants, marketers and lawyers.

How many others are like that-its not a dig at Ez but it does illustrate the current corporate mindset that as regards running the company flight operations are not seen that important when the outside mind would think those functions were the most important. Time to get a voice from the flight deck back at the boardroom table i think

pax britanica

MX is #1 cost cutting target by management. You will see aviation analysts don't like airlines trying to keep MX/MRO in-house. Emirates Group relatively spends very little on MX and every pundit loves them. Avg age of fleet and extensive outsourcing (other than the bits shown on Ultimate Dubai) are contributing factors. Outsourced MRO vendors charge very little and turn around very fast. Both targets are not achievable with in-house MRO, particularly for heavy checks.

But can you guarantee your outsourced MRO provider has the expertise and really performed required maintenance? No way of knowing it because statistically aircraft reliability increased (sans B787) in recent years and bean counters has the numbers in their favor than engineering chief who want to keep it in-house.

So even av engineering giants like LH and DL are looking for cheap MRO options.

Sorry for the rant

If I was talking to the plane I would say to an adverse situation developing that seemed life threatening.."please dont do this"...not "dont do THAT"...the latter would imply I am commanding the kther crew..and as a FO I would be in a asking mode.."why are you doing that?"
How did these "final crew conversation" even leak considering the investigation team and analyses medium is under tight control?

From the video originally posted by Scadi I reckon the second a/c image emerged at a point in space behind the first.Could it gave looped on its back as Shaggy sheep suggested somewhere on page 25?Upset recovery gone wrong with not enough altitude to recover coupled with disorientaion due to the rapud g force transitions and somatography? perhaps aa a desperate measure to bring the nose down fast the Capt. might have put in a steep bank angle(naturally he would turn toward Port side (as the last video captured a steep left bank) not Starboard...and could this have been the action behind the "dont worry..dont worry..dont worry"(i know what am doing...in case FO quizzed it?)? Assuming the leaked conversation wasnt mambo jambo to quench the tabloids and shut up the public...And why would they reveal only the last few words and not everything from the time the approach was commenced???

I doubt if there was a jammed stab..there was just not enough warning and crew might have shouted something..and if jammed it mighy likely have jammed nose up as that was their previous normal flight condition on initiating the go around.Structural failure though possible was not pointed out in the mini statement following initial FDR analyses as aircraft was pronounced as mechanically sound.Severe Icing?Again unlikely as has been mentioned in earlier threads.

Multiple go arounds at night at those times in inclement weather have shown in the past accident stats to result in a high probability of an incident or accident.

But you weren't flying this plane. I've used these exact words many times talking to an aeroplane (and sometimes to myself). It's generally in minor annoyance/frustration. Just because YOU wouldn't talk this way doesn't mean no one else would.

Possibilities:

1. The words were directed at the aeroplane.
2. They were directed at another pilot.
3. They were directed at themselves.
4. They were never spoken and this leaked CVR is all bollocks.
5. Other.

Or you could wait.

Exactly. I think we have exhausted the data that we have. Time to lock the thread until new evidence comes to light, and then maybe one of our amateur investigators will be able to say..."I told you so in post #152!!!"

Upto this point we are ALL "armchair investigators" (aka rumour mongers) in this thread...including yourself.If the kitchen is too hot....what do you do?

Speculation and leaks fuel further speculation and it might stimulate more insights or add to more nonesense.It is the reader's responsibility to filter what they think is relevant and what is ignorable. Patronizing others about speculation or other egocentric implications amounts to the same arrogance if not ignorance that leads to topic tangency and ego mania.Let us be mindful.

Let everyone have their say and contributions but less us not be too critical of others opinions untill we know facts from reliable sources to be able to form more solid arguments and conclusions please.

AerocatS2A. Your points duly taken but as you noticed that was just my opinion and hypothesis "If I was"but you managed to misinterpret as a definitive statement.No I wasnt the obe flying and neither were you We are both lucky to be here to hold a postmortem discussion on their behalf God rest their souls in peace I might add.Your views just because YOU offer them doesnt make trash of others.It is a free thinking forum is it not?At least we agree that the leaked CVR might very well be nonesense!But thank you for your expanded view on the same.

Thanks for your above post Toshirozero.

Do you believe that KGB will chase leakers, then firing squad will shoot them, play balalaika and feed remnants to bears at Red Square? o.O

There is a lot of people involved into this investigation. Also aviation community is quite close and rumors circulated inside amplifying with each circle. I think that this "second" leak about "pilots disagreement" based on "transcript" published by 1tv after preliminary reading of CVR.

BTW MAK published short report on accident (in Russian).

Kulverstukas what an excellent find.
While curious ones are mastering Google Russian, from humanity consideration - I do an amateur translation of the significant bit. The PRELIMINARY survey of the accident (as it's named) states that from the height of 220m they went to the go around. On reaching 900 m height - ? it went wrong. say. (Translate it better, please, the technical name, from the report, about what took place at the 900 m height.) At that time they were in manual . mode.
When AP was disengaged - the report doesn't mention at all. Neither when it was ever switched on. Of other interesting things I spotted that the crew told the tower about two weather things observed by them - of the "wind shear on the straight line" - when they were about to start the first landing (exact time or plane location during that wind shear are not listed), and, next, about "slight icing" of the plane - when they were completing the first go-round and were at the height 2450 - and that the crew asked the tower for the permission to increase their height to 4550 m because of that "slight icing". Which was granted, and from that height, it appears, they began the second landing. The report states that both landing attempts were done with the landing course 218 degrees.

well Kulverstukas, it is April Fools day. Do they have Bears in Red Square?

The point was the the veracity of these so called leaks. The information if valid can only come from a Federal govt employee connected to the investigation. I seriously doubt anyone in that process has 'leaked' anything. So, how does RT substantiate these 'CVR leak' claims? Furthermore, why does anyone with any professional aviation background not question how the news cycle works and how it is specifically geared to generate contentious and or spurious information which is then self perpetuating ad nauseam.

A B738, performing a weather related GA, stopped climbing and descended rapidly until impact with the runway. Understanding the aircraft performance related possibilities for the sudden change in attitude is not the same as wild speculation as to the cockpit conversations and possible contributing causes.

as for the Balalaikas and Bears, surely some Vodka would seem appropriate?

The full CVR transcript is unlikely to be released to the public domain, I don't think its worth speculating about arguments between pilots at this stage as the " official report" will condense the facts on a " need to know" basis..of course there are those outer playing the devils advocate, always will be :=

Toshirozero, there is a lot of people involved, as I wrote. Including experts working on temporary basis, different technical and assistance staff etc.

BTW, MAK isn't government organization.

This

Just "on reaching 900m there was recorded HS travel to the nosedive position, as a result a/c from about 1000m begin descent and hit runway etc..."

-Kulverstukas

whatever Russian Federal entity the MAK/IAC is governed by, it is the entity resposnible for ICAO Annex 13/Accident Investigation as Russia is a signatory to the Chicago convention: i.e., the MAK will publish the final report.

As for investigation confidentiality, refer back up to the previous reply. Balalaikas and dancing Bears notwithstanding, anyone who knowly released information concerning secure investigation data given the requirements of all participating States would be ill advised at best.

The MAK short report has enough info even with the limitations of internet transalation to discern that there was (quote)'900 m there is the movement of the stabilizer on the dive'

So we can discern from this that the stabilser moved..but how? There are only three ways that can happen.

What do you mean by "need to know basis"?
Every important factor must be included in the final report.
And conversation between crew members in crucial moments is conclusive even if they say absolutely nothing.
So I promise you in this case we will see something similar to: PIC.AL - Image Hosting Made Simple As always
But before that happens, we don't really need CVR. We need the truth.
Three days after GermanWings crash in Alps french prosecutor said to the public, without publishing any documents: yes, we strongly suspect that it was F/O deliberate action. That's how it should be done.
Families deserve to know why their loved ones died.
Publicity need to know what happened to keep an eye on reactions from people and institutions responsible for safety. (Reactions aimed on prevent reoccurence ofc)