Germanwings Tragedy - Is it now all about the money?

Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by Quantum Quack, Mar 29, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,542
    I am concerned that Lufthansa, with the assistance of the aviation industry, may seek to force the world to accept that the tragedy of this flight was a criminal act or that it was an act that it, as an organization, could not have prevented.

    The reason for finding as such, could come down to the amount in dollars that the airline may have to pay in compensation to the victims families and the damage done to the airline industries credibility in the eyes of the consumer.

    Proposition:
    If the co-pilot was found to have (1) deliberately ( culpably ) locked the pilot out and destroyed the plane and (2) could be claimed to have been "legally sane" at the time, then a criminal act has been carried out. The compensation paid out would then possibly be subject to "victims of crime" type provisions and not negligence to a duty of care by the airline.

    I would imagine that "Victims of Crime" compensation would be considerably less than the compensation that would be granted if the airline was found to be negligent. Or that the aircraft design had an inherent flaw that revealed itself in extraordinary circumstances.

    One of the factors that makes me suspicious is that I feel that a testimony of a stewardess that apparently had been dating the co-pilot has emerged indicating that the co-pilot may have planned in some way what was to eventually occur.

    Reasons for doubt:
    1. I have doubts about the veracity of this rather convenient stewardess revelation and wait for evidence that may support that the co-pilot has indeed actually had a relationship with this stewardess.
    2. That the airlines investigation team has refused to release details of the medical reports supposedly in it's possession. Citing privacy regulations.
    3. That this young pilot has by all accounts been given a vote of confidence by all those who he has had contact with. ( family, friends and associates) except a stewardess who, by her own admission was or may have been negligent in not informing her employer of a potential threat therefore admitting to pseudo complicity in the actions he took.
    4. Eye witness testimony indicated strong and severe strange sounds emitted from the plane as it flew towards it's ultimate destruction
    5. The wreckage of the plane appears to be extraordinary. (Entirely with few exceptions, shredded/disintegrated.)
    6. That the crucial voice recorder back box was "reportedly" seriously damaged and its recordings are critical in forming an opinion. I would assume that these boxes are typically designed to be virtually destruction proof.

    Suffice to say that I am not at all convinced at this stage that the co-pilot was culpable.
    • That normal practice may have been to keep the cabin door locked at all times. (possibly an individual agreement between the pilot and co-pilot and not formally industry policy)
    • That the co-pilot may have suffered an incapacitation due to the hidden medical condition that rendered him unable to open the door,
    • That the co-pilot may have reacted badly to surreptitiously taking medication for his hidden condition at high altitude, immediately after the Pilot left the cabin
    • That the co-pilot either accidentally or because of his deterioration towards incapacitation may have over reacted and started an emergency decent process whilst forgetting that the pilot could not get back in to the cabin, due to the policy of locking the door, to take control and render assistance to the co-pilot. (The ultimate nightmare if the co-pilot was actually incapacitated but conscious.)
    • Suicide in otherwise "normal" individuals is usually a "lonely act" and does not involve others directly.

    The C0-pilot MUST be presumed innocent until proven other wise and if relying only on circumstantial evidence, the benefit of the doubt needs to be considered.

    Care to discuss?
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2015
    Twelve likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,440
    A few years ago, while boarding a rather small plane for a trip from Texas to Iowa, half in jest, I greeted the pilot by asking after his health--including asking "no thoughts of suicide"-----------My beloved spouse was aghast---- fortunately, the pilot enjoyed the humor embodied within the query and the flight attendant thought it so funny that she went to the other flight attendant to share the "joke". (Just the response that I had desired.)
    Every time you choose mass transit, your life is in the hands of someone who is essentially a stranger to you.

    Was the co-pilot suicidal? Did he have a stroke, or a heart attack? We will likely never know.
    Anything new on his doctor's assessment?
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,542
    Not that I am aware of at this stage.. Not that we can fully trust anything said or reported any how. ( now, due to the time available to organize info release - The PR team is, no doubt, in full swing)
    BTW I edited the OP to include suicide at the bottom.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,542
    Following the notion that the co-pilot may have suffered a stroke in the locked cabin:

    "DÜSSELDORF, Germany — Andreas Lubitz, who was flying the Germanwings jetliner that slammed into a mountain in the French Alps on Tuesday, sought treatment for vision problems (recently*?) that may have jeopardized his ability to continue working as a pilot, two officials with knowledge of the investigation said Saturday."

    src: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/w...before-germanwings-crash-authorities-say.html

    Eye problems can be and often are associated with Stroke.

    "About one third of people who suffer a stroke experience loss of visual field which is called hemianopia."
    src: http://www.healthtalk.org/peoples-experiences/nerves-brain/stroke/changes-vision

    "Homonymous hemianopsia can be congenital, but is usually caused by brain injury such as from stroke, trauma,[1] tumors, infection, or following surgery."
    src: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonymous_hemianopsia
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,528
    None of the above makes sense. The pilot had the code to the door, and thus could have opened it from outside - unless someone was actively refusing to let them in. That's how the system works. If he had just passed out, or became disoriented, then he would not have known to override the door code and the pilot could have re-entered.
     
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,542
    I believe the code can be locked to avoid the threat of a hostage being used to force the use of the unlocked code.
    The locking of the door code may have been an arrangement between Pilot and Co-pilot to avoid a hostage situation capitalizing on a Normally locked closed door. ( key pad code used to open door)
    It is possible that the door may have been fully locked as a matter of flight policy between Captain and copilot.

    Heightened security level due to Middle East conflict perhaps.

    The reason why I feel this is likely, is that according to sound recording reports the initial knocking on the door by the captain was light and unstressed.

    To me this indicates the Captain fully expected that the door would to be "fully" locked and was waiting for the copilot to unlock the fully locked door.

    If the captain had found the door inappropriately locked after entering his code to gain access ( normal) his knocking would have been much more urgent and stressed. ( because he would know that he has been deliberately locked out immediately)
    Apparently it took some time for the captain to realize he could not gain access to the flight cabin thus suggesting he expected the door to be fully locked.

    Clarifying question:
    Why would the Captain gently knock on the door when all he had to do was enter his code?
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2015
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,528
    The code is entered; a buzzer then sounds, and the person in the cockpit has the option to push an override button to keep the door locked. If he does not push it, the door opens after a short delay.
    The door does not unlock immediately.
    Because he expected the copilot to unlock it.
     
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,542
    Another one of your "ironic " posts Billvon?
    Let me ask you,
    "What would your reaction be if you found yourself, deliberately being refused entry to the cockpit by your co-pilot?"
     
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,542
    Another thing:
    8 minutes of silence ( apparently normal breathing from co-pilot )
    If the co-pilot had a grand nihilistic agenda and wanted to make some sort of statement by crashing this plane why did he not use the communications system and make that statement verbally as well?
    Why go down silently ?

    If you were facing your ultimate death and staring at an approaching mountain would you be breathing "normally"?
     
  13. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    He didnt want to make a verbal statement, he made his statement via his actions.

    My speculation:
    With the pieces of info coming out, he sought help from his doctor. Apparently that resulted in his doctor taking away his job (ripped up notes supposedly declaring him unfit to fly). His seeking help from his doctor resulted in his suspension from flying (based on the trickle of info).

    If he would have kept his mouth shut.... so he did. One last time.
     
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,542
    What if the "normal" breathing was an unconscious co-pilot alone, inside a locked cabin?
     
  15. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    In a capitalist civilization, if it can be about the money, it always, always will be.
     
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,823
    If he was unconscious, he would not have been able to manually change the planes altitude on the auto-pilot to bring it down to 100 feet.

    She was engaged to him and it was reported they had recently separated.

    What they have found at his house were torn up medical certificates which would have meant he was not meant to be working. So in effect, he was seeking medical care and the doctors deemed him unfit for work. Gave him a certificate for him to pass on to his employers and he tore those up and went to work anyway. Providing employees with medical certificates for them to give to their employers is common practice and normal. I don't think anyone would have thought that he would have done what he did. The reports also indicate that he may have had an eye problem, which could have resulted in his being grounded and depression was an issue. That coupled with recently separating from his fiance.. It was not a good mix for someone who appears to have been quite unstable.

    Also the medical reports from the hospital he was allegedly seeking treatment from appear to have been withheld by the hospital itself, because of patient confidentiality. No one knows what treatment he was getting from there. They assume it was for his eyes, since those who were close to him have indicated he may have had an issue with his eyes, which could have affected his ability to fly.

    Why is she negligent? At no time did he indicate that he intended to kill his passengers.

    German prosecutors believe Lubitz hid an illness from his airline but have not specified the ailment, and said he had apparently been written off sick on the day the Airbus crashed.

    The Sunday edition of Germany’s Bild tabloid and the New York Times, which cited two officials with knowledge of the investigation, said Lubitz had sought treatment for problems with his sight.

    The 27-year-old had been hospitalised as late as a fortnight ago with authorities not ruling out his eyes issue were psychosomatic.

    Revelations by his ex-lover, a flight attendant identified under the assumed name Maria W, that he was a tormented man and increasingly becoming erratic was prompted by his fear his mental and eye health for which he was receiving psychiatric and neurological treatment may deem him unfit to fly.

    The problem is thought to be a retinal detachment, Bild said.

    It also reported that Lubitz’s girlfriend with whom he lived in the western city of Dusseldorf was believed to be pregnant.

    It gave no sources but said the teacher, who taught maths and English, had told pupils a few weeks ago she was expecting a baby.

    It came as new claims suggest Andreas Lubitz was obsessed with the Alps and specifically the southern region which he would later crash his Germanwings flight into, having flown gliders over the area years earlier.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------

    Maria W. dated Lubitz for five months last year but broke it off because she felt he was not right, was volatile and had a temper. He had been in a previous long-term relationship of several years with a woman he met at Burger King where they both worked in 2008 in Montabaur in Germany and since Maria had been dating another flight attendant.

    ‘During conversations he’d suddenly throw a tantrum and scream at me,” Maria said. “I was afraid. He even once locked me in the bathroom for a long time.”

    She said after she had heard about the crash she recalled a conversation Lubitz had with her.

    “When I heard about the crash, there was just a tape playing in my head of what he said: ‘One day I will do something that will change the system and everyone will then know my name and remember me’,” she recalled

    “I did not know what he meant by that at the time, but now it’s clear.” Authorities have found several torn up sick notes in his Dusseldorf apartment that excused him from work but apparently were never given to his bosses.

    “The torn up sick notes make sense now to me and were a clear sign that he did not want to admit that his big dream of flying as a captain was over,” Maria said.


    It is easy to say that she was negligent for not having told his employers that he had declared his name would be known one day. But no one would have assumed this was what he meant.

    Planes tend to sound really loud and sound strange when they are flying that low, especially in areas where they are not expected to be flying that low. So in a valley, with mountains all around, the sound of the plane would probably be distorted as well as really loud. If you go and stand outside near where large planes come in to land, it sounds strange.

    How so?

    It didn't glide into a landing and crashed. It smashed into the side of a mountain.

    I don't see its wreckage as being extraordinary. I see it as devastating for the families involved, because of what it did to the passengers in that plane.

    The casing was damaged, but they were able to extract the recording from it.

    Sometimes the damage can be so severe, that nothing can be extracted from it. At least they were able to extract the sounds on that flight, which allowed them to determine what happened.
     
  17. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    I'd like to hear for myself the recording that the "black box" had on it. Why don't they allow the media access to that box yet since they have studied it over a week now shouldn't it be released to the public?

    strange too that the other "black box" wasn't located for it should be "pinging"away and they say they didn't find it.
     
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,823
    For one thing, the families. At some point, the morbid interest of the public has to be outweighed by the interests of the families of those on that plane. Secondly, this is probably still an ongoing investigation.

    From what I heard in the media, the second black box was found, but the casing was badly damaged and the memory card and device inside is missing in the wreckage, presumably, it may be somewhere on that mountain in that wreckage, if it has not been destroyed.
     
  19. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,918
    Probably because he already had entered his access code and the door didn't unlock.

    The cockpit switch that controls the cockpit door has three settings: unlock, normal and lock.

    As the name suggests, 'normal' is what it's normally set at. When it's set this way, the door will lock whenever it's closed, but can be unlocked from outside by use of a keypad next to the door.

    When it's 'unlocked' it can be pushed open. When it's 'locked' the keypad is disabled and there's nothing that anyone outside the cockpit can do to get in.

    The captain probably keyed the keypad and the door didn't unlock. He would have assumed that the switch had been inadvertantly toggled to 'lock' instead of 'normal', so he would have knocked to signal the copilot to unlock it.

    Which the homicidal copilot refused to do.
     
  20. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,918
    Shouldn't this thread be moved down to 'Conspiracy Theories'?

    The Germanwings crash is obviously a current event that deserves discussion in this forum, but this particular thread spins the crash so violently that it's more a vehicle for Quantum Quack's peculiar speculations.

    The suggestion that Lufthansa is somehow managing the entire crash investigation, including not only what the German police do but the French crash investigators as well, isn't even remotely credible to me.

    If Lufthansa really wanted to blame an innocent party in order to reduce their own civil liability, attributing the crash to a criminal act by one of their own employees wouldn't be a very effective way of doing it. It would make more sense to try to blame a design flaw in the aircraft and to blame Airbus.
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,528
    If his goal was to just kill himself - no reason to talk to anyone.
    No. But then again I would be trying to do everything I could to avoid that. If I had resigned myself to death I'd likely be a lot calmer.
     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,528
    Then the captain could have gained entry.
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,528
    I would be annoyed that a feature installed on the aircraft against my will, intended to prevent hijackings, was being used to enable one.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page