Normally you wouldn't get anything official either, in the days after the crash.
You'd certainly get a press conference detailing what is going to be done, asking for calm and the time to let the investigators do their work without any ridiculous speculation.
These investigations usually takes weeks-months, sometimes even years before the official report comes out.
Yer, I think you need to re-read back what you've written there, comprehend what it means and then have a look at the conclusions the prosecutor has come to before such an investigation has been completed.
Of course, if they had kept quiet for months, and then came out with the voice recorder tapes, people like you would have cried conspiracy because it took so long.
No. I don't know where you get that idea nor why you're winding yourself up in the word 'conspiracy'. Certainly, in the absence of some or all of the data it is essential the plane is reconstructed as much as possible, and given the state of it and the wide area of wreckage that will take some considerable time - as it always does. Without matching up the state of the aircraft, what has happened to it and retrieving any data possible any voice data useless.
It's always amusing to me that anyone who questions anything is somehow a 'conspiracy theorist', and then anti-conspiracy theorists then ironically become the biggest conspiracy nuts of all. They start throwing stories about aliens and other stuff into the mix to try and make it seem all so unbelievable.
If the voice recorder clearly tells you that the pilot was locked out of the cockpit
A voice recorder most certainly does not tell you that at all, and it certainly does not tell you how or why. After that, whatever you extrapolate is null and void.
and at the same time the plane enters a steep but controlled descent, that is not "ridiculous speculation". At best, there's a small chance of an alternative explanation, but it's certainly not ridiculous to start with the most logical one.
Again, you're leading yourself into ridiculous explanations. There can be a plane electrical failure, cockpit fire, release of noxious fumes.......anything is possible before you start sending the heavies around to a pilot's house to dig about in his personal belongings from which you can extrapolate *anything*. Point is, in an air CRASH investigation you eliminate those things first.
You're just continually shooting around in the dark with nothing to say.
You mean that the pilot rendered the co-pilot unconscious, re-set the height on the autopilot, then theatrically knocked on the door to make it sound like he was locked out?
Oh right.
And somehow flipped the door control to the override lock mode, which has to happen from inside the cockpit during the 30 second buzzer period after the door code has been entered from the outside? Oh right.
I'm afraid all that serves to highlight how speculating from a bunch of audio noises before you've corroborated it with other data and evidence (like data recordings which are apparently gone) is utterly idiotic. Any number of things could have happened here. However, from all of that we now have a pilot (pick one at random, it doesn't matter) who was on a suicide death mission even before takeoff. It's not like pilots haven't simply been blamed before in the absence of evidence, but this one takes the biscuit.
Yer, the problem about questioning anything of any description whatsoever is it's because you've obviously been infected by that alien black oil........
When you've run out of counterarguments it's always the 'goto' explanation. Along with the sharks and laser beams. That's a given.
Not that I believe he's the only one who's heard this recording, whatever it is. That's a strawman I neversaid. He's the only one making conclusions from it though.
How do you even know there was a plane crash at all? Maybe the whole thing was made up? Maybe there was a crash but there were survivors but they were taken hostage. Maybe it was blown up by an American drone?
That's some real speculative bullshit by yet another Anonymous Coward in order to try and muddy the waters, but it's as good as anything we've had. Maybe the pilot was a loner or something? We all know people who aren't social are at risk of blowing people away any second of the day. The things you'd find out about a lot of pilots would shock you, but they don't start flying planes into mountain sides. Complete supposition.
If you have something to back that up then be my guest. It would certainly make a great film or a TV series. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with how this plane crashed, and we won't know until it is pieced together and/or data recording acquired and retrieved and put together with any audio recordings. That's a bit of a slight problem considering the plane is currently spread over a few mountain sides.
Yes, yes it is. *rolls eyes and hopes segedunum will get a clue*.
That's a great argument Mr Anonymous Coward. Pity it has nothing to do with what I've argued nor is there anything there to back it up.
You realize every time you post, it becomes clearer how little you know about any of this stuff, right?
I realise every time I post the logical fallacies in response start increasing and the comments get shorter. Speaking of which:
I'm sorry if the pilot was your friend or something, but let's let the investigation close out before you continue trying to discredit everyone else except him.
Eh? No, the pilot wasn't my personal friend nor any other relation to me, so......you're now reduced to ad hominems.
Oh, and yes, let's let an investigation close out before.........I don't know, we start character assassinating a pilot and his personal background through the media without establishing how the plane crashed first - a process which can take months, or years in terms of piecing together the wreckage of this aircraft.
Hint: It's called Air CRASH investigation, not air people investigation. The crash and the plane gets investigated first. Without that anything else is ridiculous speculation and simply leading. I would hazard a guess you'd find all sorts of things about many the personal lives of many pilots but it doesn't mean a thing. Once you've looked at the actual crash and looked at the plane and ruled everything else out then you might be able to look at the human factor once you've established what happened to the plane.
There are any number of reasons why ground control might not be able to contact the plane, we don't know what the flight control system was actually doing because......there's no data recorded (it 'appears' doesn't cut it) and radar tracking just tells you the plane descended out of the sky, not the hows or the whys. You're simply speculating out of your arse.
Whatever way you look at it this is one totally incompetently run investigation - at best.
Exactly the problem in this case. Without corroborating evidence then audio-only recordings are a huge problem, but we already have that in the shape of data recorders. Video recording is sensitive to pilots simply because they would guess, probably correctly, that it would be used against them by their employers.
Brilliant. So nothing from the official 'investigation' then?
...and there is plenty of corroborating external information, like the observations given by air traffic control
So lots of hearsay through third-parties then? There is a crash investigation here, yes? Presumably someone is in charge?
....or the fact that the copilot was known to have psychological issues and it has been discovered that he tried to hide from his employer that he was going blind.
Ahhhh, yes, the pilot with psychological issues and the shit you read in the papers. The problem is that you have to investigate the crash before you start looking elsewhere. That has not yet happened.
Why do you believe the prosecutor was the first and only person to have listened to the recordings ?
1. He has already made firm conclusions about what caused this crash and he's the *only* person talking to the media who has allowed this ridiculous charade to have got out of hand.
2. Despite assumptions about an air crash investigation going on there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone has looked at it. There's been no press conference, nothing official to detail what's happening as you would normally get.....just hearsay.
Wow. A team of investigators have had full access to the black box since it was retrieved.
Have they? Wow. Well, whoever has had access to it might want to keep it a little longer before opening their mouths because it won't make the 'evidence' that they have any better, nor will it justify the ridiculous character assassination of a pilot who can obviously no longer give his side of the story. In the absence of data recording, which stretches belief frankly, piecing together the plane might be a good idea.
This is standard protocol in Europe, where they have mandatory flight safety programs in place for all commercial aviation and very clear protocols in the case of a catastrophic incident (yes, that's an actual class of incident, not emotive language).
That's what should be happening, you would think. Alas, it isn't, nor are any protocols being followed here whatsoever.
The prosecutor is parroting back what has been written in reports and given to him. He won't even have access to the original recording without supervision.
No, I'm afraid you're simply assuming that's what is happening here. It isn't. The prosecutor has made an utterly baseless interpretation of an audio recording that has never been released and has no corroborating evidence, and in the absence of data recording that means piecing together the plane which can take months or years. A disgraceful media witch hunt of a pilot and total speculation about his background ensued with absolutely nothing to back it up. That is NOT air crash investigation. It's not a group of air crash investigators talking to the media nor would anyone competent have allowed this ridiculous speculation to spread.
Your grounds for being skeptical should come from the fact that the investigation is ongoing, not this kind of straw man.
It's ongoing is it? One would not think so because conclusions have already been reached. The 'investigation', such that it is, is utterly baseless in placing full blame for this on one pilot on the basis of an interpretation of an audio recording with no other corroborating evidence, such as that from the data recorder or without having at least pieced together the plane to an extent - which IS standard practice.
You mean the guy who has no background at all in air crash investigation who has interpreted what he think he heard on a recording no one else has ever heard (apparently you can hear calm breathing in amongst all that banging) and hasn't investigated or ruled anything else out?
Let's just say there might be grounds for being a tiny bit sceptical and waiting for more evidence and information before character assassinating someone who obviously can't defend himself. But hey, he's a prosecutor and someone in authority and we all know they can't be questioned, right? I mean, you automatically turn into Fox Mulder or something.
What I 'believe' caused a crash means nothing. The evidence for what happened, is.
Plenty of evidence has been shown.
There is no evidence whatsoever. A French prosecutor who isn't an air crash investigator has given us a version of events that he believes happened on a recording we have never heard. What's followed is a character assassination of a pilot and a ransacking of his home rather than what happened leading up to the crash. That's all. You have a funny idea as to what constitutes evidence, but that doesn't seem to be unusual these days.
You choose not to believe it.
Again, when you start using that word there is a problem.
The purpose of the black boxes is not to convince people who don't want to believe. The purpose is mainly to increase future safety. That can be done whether you believe or not.
The purpose is to find out what happened and concentrate on that, as opposed to character assassinating a pilot with no evidence whatsoever. Major revelation to grasp that, I know.
Slashdot Mirror
Normally you wouldn't get anything official either, in the days after the crash.
You'd certainly get a press conference detailing what is going to be done, asking for calm and the time to let the investigators do their work without any ridiculous speculation.
These investigations usually takes weeks-months, sometimes even years before the official report comes out.
Yer, I think you need to re-read back what you've written there, comprehend what it means and then have a look at the conclusions the prosecutor has come to before such an investigation has been completed.
Of course, if they had kept quiet for months, and then came out with the voice recorder tapes, people like you would have cried conspiracy because it took so long.
No. I don't know where you get that idea nor why you're winding yourself up in the word 'conspiracy'. Certainly, in the absence of some or all of the data it is essential the plane is reconstructed as much as possible, and given the state of it and the wide area of wreckage that will take some considerable time - as it always does. Without matching up the state of the aircraft, what has happened to it and retrieving any data possible any voice data useless.
It's always amusing to me that anyone who questions anything is somehow a 'conspiracy theorist', and then anti-conspiracy theorists then ironically become the biggest conspiracy nuts of all. They start throwing stories about aliens and other stuff into the mix to try and make it seem all so unbelievable.
There was absolutely no spoken word.....
Bit of a problem that when all you have is the voice recording data.
If the voice recorder clearly tells you that the pilot was locked out of the cockpit
A voice recorder most certainly does not tell you that at all, and it certainly does not tell you how or why. After that, whatever you extrapolate is null and void.
and at the same time the plane enters a steep but controlled descent, that is not "ridiculous speculation". At best, there's a small chance of an alternative explanation, but it's certainly not ridiculous to start with the most logical one.
Again, you're leading yourself into ridiculous explanations. There can be a plane electrical failure, cockpit fire, release of noxious fumes.......anything is possible before you start sending the heavies around to a pilot's house to dig about in his personal belongings from which you can extrapolate *anything*. Point is, in an air CRASH investigation you eliminate those things first.
You're just continually shooting around in the dark with nothing to say.
That would tell you quite a bit about the cause.
No, it wouldn't.
For one, you have no idea who really has left the cockpit, who has come back in or what they're actually doing.....hence this whole 'video' thing.
You mean that the pilot rendered the co-pilot unconscious, re-set the height on the autopilot, then theatrically knocked on the door to make it sound like he was locked out?
Oh right.
And somehow flipped the door control to the override lock mode, which has to happen from inside the cockpit during the 30 second buzzer period after the door code has been entered from the outside? Oh right.
I'm afraid all that serves to highlight how speculating from a bunch of audio noises before you've corroborated it with other data and evidence (like data recordings which are apparently gone) is utterly idiotic. Any number of things could have happened here. However, from all of that we now have a pilot (pick one at random, it doesn't matter) who was on a suicide death mission even before takeoff. It's not like pilots haven't simply been blamed before in the absence of evidence, but this one takes the biscuit.
Anyone seeing how stupid this is yet?
Indeed, but the problem here is that we don't have the data recorder.
My god, you are thick.
Again, completely convincing AC material.
Are people who post as AC part of the Lone Gunmen or something?
Yer, the problem about questioning anything of any description whatsoever is it's because you've obviously been infected by that alien black oil........
When you've run out of counterarguments it's always the 'goto' explanation. Along with the sharks and laser beams. That's a given.
Not that I believe he's the only one who's heard this recording, whatever it is. That's a strawman I neversaid. He's the only one making conclusions from it though.
How do you even know there was a plane crash at all? Maybe the whole thing was made up? Maybe there was a crash but there were survivors but they were taken hostage. Maybe it was blown up by an American drone?
That's some real speculative bullshit by yet another Anonymous Coward in order to try and muddy the waters, but it's as good as anything we've had. Maybe the pilot was a loner or something? We all know people who aren't social are at risk of blowing people away any second of the day. The things you'd find out about a lot of pilots would shock you, but they don't start flying planes into mountain sides. Complete supposition.
If you have something to back that up then be my guest. It would certainly make a great film or a TV series. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with how this plane crashed, and we won't know until it is pieced together and/or data recording acquired and retrieved and put together with any audio recordings. That's a bit of a slight problem considering the plane is currently spread over a few mountain sides.
Yes, yes it is. *rolls eyes and hopes segedunum will get a clue*.
That's a great argument Mr Anonymous Coward. Pity it has nothing to do with what I've argued nor is there anything there to back it up.
You realize every time you post, it becomes clearer how little you know about any of this stuff, right?
I realise every time I post the logical fallacies in response start increasing and the comments get shorter. Speaking of which:
I'm sorry if the pilot was your friend or something, but let's let the investigation close out before you continue trying to discredit everyone else except him.
Eh? No, the pilot wasn't my personal friend nor any other relation to me, so......you're now reduced to ad hominems.
Oh, and yes, let's let an investigation close out before.........I don't know, we start character assassinating a pilot and his personal background through the media without establishing how the plane crashed first - a process which can take months, or years in terms of piecing together the wreckage of this aircraft.
Hint: It's called Air CRASH investigation, not air people investigation. The crash and the plane gets investigated first. Without that anything else is ridiculous speculation and simply leading. I would hazard a guess you'd find all sorts of things about many the personal lives of many pilots but it doesn't mean a thing. Once you've looked at the actual crash and looked at the plane and ruled everything else out then you might be able to look at the human factor once you've established what happened to the plane.
There are any number of reasons why ground control might not be able to contact the plane, we don't know what the flight control system was actually doing because......there's no data recorded (it 'appears' doesn't cut it) and radar tracking just tells you the plane descended out of the sky, not the hows or the whys. You're simply speculating out of your arse.
Whatever way you look at it this is one totally incompetently run investigation - at best.
Exactly the problem in this case. Without corroborating evidence then audio-only recordings are a huge problem, but we already have that in the shape of data recorders. Video recording is sensitive to pilots simply because they would guess, probably correctly, that it would be used against them by their employers.
We know everything beyond reasonable doubt.
Wow. I love how everything can be distilled down into one sentence that explains everything. I've seen the light now.
Part of the recording is available on-line....
Brilliant. So nothing from the official 'investigation' then?
...and there is plenty of corroborating external information, like the observations given by air traffic control
So lots of hearsay through third-parties then? There is a crash investigation here, yes? Presumably someone is in charge?
....or the fact that the copilot was known to have psychological issues and it has been discovered that he tried to hide from his employer that he was going blind.
Ahhhh, yes, the pilot with psychological issues and the shit you read in the papers. The problem is that you have to investigate the crash before you start looking elsewhere. That has not yet happened.
Depends on the nature of the recordings they have, considering this was also damaged, but we don't know that either.
Why do you believe the prosecutor was the first and only person to have listened to the recordings ?
1. He has already made firm conclusions about what caused this crash and he's the *only* person talking to the media who has allowed this ridiculous charade to have got out of hand.
2. Despite assumptions about an air crash investigation going on there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone has looked at it. There's been no press conference, nothing official to detail what's happening as you would normally get.....just hearsay.
Like I said, belief has nothing to do with this.
Wow. A team of investigators have had full access to the black box since it was retrieved.
Have they? Wow. Well, whoever has had access to it might want to keep it a little longer before opening their mouths because it won't make the 'evidence' that they have any better, nor will it justify the ridiculous character assassination of a pilot who can obviously no longer give his side of the story. In the absence of data recording, which stretches belief frankly, piecing together the plane might be a good idea.
This is standard protocol in Europe, where they have mandatory flight safety programs in place for all commercial aviation and very clear protocols in the case of a catastrophic incident (yes, that's an actual class of incident, not emotive language).
That's what should be happening, you would think. Alas, it isn't, nor are any protocols being followed here whatsoever.
The prosecutor is parroting back what has been written in reports and given to him. He won't even have access to the original recording without supervision.
No, I'm afraid you're simply assuming that's what is happening here. It isn't. The prosecutor has made an utterly baseless interpretation of an audio recording that has never been released and has no corroborating evidence, and in the absence of data recording that means piecing together the plane which can take months or years. A disgraceful media witch hunt of a pilot and total speculation about his background ensued with absolutely nothing to back it up. That is NOT air crash investigation. It's not a group of air crash investigators talking to the media nor would anyone competent have allowed this ridiculous speculation to spread.
Your grounds for being skeptical should come from the fact that the investigation is ongoing, not this kind of straw man.
It's ongoing is it? One would not think so because conclusions have already been reached. The 'investigation', such that it is, is utterly baseless in placing full blame for this on one pilot on the basis of an interpretation of an audio recording with no other corroborating evidence, such as that from the data recorder or without having at least pieced together the plane to an extent - which IS standard practice.
It's amazing what people will swallow these days.
So you don't believe the prosecutor ?
You mean the guy who has no background at all in air crash investigation who has interpreted what he think he heard on a recording no one else has ever heard (apparently you can hear calm breathing in amongst all that banging) and hasn't investigated or ruled anything else out?
Let's just say there might be grounds for being a tiny bit sceptical and waiting for more evidence and information before character assassinating someone who obviously can't defend himself. But hey, he's a prosecutor and someone in authority and we all know they can't be questioned, right? I mean, you automatically turn into Fox Mulder or something.
Sure it has.
What I 'believe' caused a crash means nothing. The evidence for what happened, is.
Plenty of evidence has been shown.
There is no evidence whatsoever. A French prosecutor who isn't an air crash investigator has given us a version of events that he believes happened on a recording we have never heard. What's followed is a character assassination of a pilot and a ransacking of his home rather than what happened leading up to the crash. That's all. You have a funny idea as to what constitutes evidence, but that doesn't seem to be unusual these days.
You choose not to believe it.
Again, when you start using that word there is a problem.
This isn't retail.
....and belief has absolutely nothing to do with it.
The purpose of the black boxes is not to convince people who don't want to believe. The purpose is mainly to increase future safety. That can be done whether you believe or not.
The purpose is to find out what happened and concentrate on that, as opposed to character assassinating a pilot with no evidence whatsoever. Major revelation to grasp that, I know.
Apparently the pilot is a master at voices.
Really? Wow.