Germanwings flight 4U9525 crash in Southern France

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

Posted by Wind (here)
I do wonder how many commercial airplanes these days have the same kind of remote controls as the United Airlines Flight 175 (Boeing 767–222) and American Airlines Flight 11 (Boeing 767-223ER) had? It certainly wasn't a good day for those pilots.

Too many commercial airplanes have fallen down during the past year and at least two of them were certainly brought down by explosives, the other one by missiles. I'm not saying that this one was, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that something unusual is going on. Of course there are always genuine accidents too, but what is it with these planes? Statistically speaking, I would avoid using Boeings, better to be safe than sorry.

List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft

• March 8 – Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, a Boeing 777 en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 227 passengers and 12 crew on board, disappears from radar over the Gulf of Thailand. Has still not been found.
  
  
• July 17 – Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, a Boeing 777 en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, is shot down over eastern Ukraine, killing all 283 passengers and 15 crew on board in the deadliest civilian airliner shootdown incident
  
  
• July 23 – TransAsia Airways Flight 222, an ATR-72 en route from Kaohsiung to Penghu, Taiwan, crashes during go-around, killing 48 of the 58 people on board.
  
  
• December 28 – Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501, an Airbus A320 en route from Surabaya, Indonesia to Singapore, crashes into waters off Borneo, killing all 155 passengers and 7 crew on board.
  
  
• February 4 – TransAsia Airways Flight 235, an ATR-72, crashes into the Keelung River in Taiwan. 42 of the 58 passengers and crew on board are killed.
  
  
• March 24 - Germanwings Flight 9525, an Airbus A320, crashes in southern France en route from Barcelona, Spain to Düsseldorf, Germany. All 144 passengers and 6 crew on board the aircraft died in the crash.

Once is chance, twice is Coincidence, third time is a pattern.

a little bird told me, they want to sell more planes just like a car company wants to sell cars...
crash = $$$

p.s. also follow some money in regards to, who invested recently in competing airlines OR modes of travel i.e. rail
if a canadian oil pig could fly
what i'm saying is, it's kind of happening w/ the train lines in canada,
these inexplicable crashes always blamed on maintenance etc pilot error etc...
when there's big money big big money changing hands,
like the insider trading before 9/11 --
someone ought to check

[Taurean]

For the crew to be unable to get a mayday out in the 8 minutes it took to descend suggests something catastrophic has occurred in or around the cockpit.

[Rocky_Shorz]

word from before its news is the location of CERN to this flight might have been the cause...

"Germanwings Plane Crash Near “CERN” 150 Dead | Flight 9525"

"Yet another “repercussion from that dangerous CERN power up yesterday! When will mankind LEARN to stop fooling around with nature!



An Airbus A320 with 144 passengers and 6 crewmembers has crashed in Digne region, southern France. The jet, which belonged to Germanwings low-cost airline, was flying from Barcelona to Düsseldorf.

The jet took off from Barcelona airport at 08:55 GMT, according to Spanish Airport operator AENA.

The plane crash in the French Alps was confirmed by General Directorate of Civil Aviation (DGCA). The jet crashed in the Upper Bléone Valley, Le Provence wrote. “There are no survivors” in the crash of Germanwings flight 4U9525 in the French Alps, said Alain Vidal, secretary of state for transport on Europe.“There was a distress call…. This distress signal showed that the aircraft was at 1524 meters, in an abnormal situation,” he said. Source


CERN short circits at same time as plane crash! Additional PROOF CERN was the cause of this tragedy. link

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Y1XDf3bacfw

[araucaria]

Posted by Rocky_Shorz (here)
CERN short circits at same time as plane crash! Additional PROOF CERN was the cause of this tragedy. link

This site is all doom-and-gloom religious propaganda.
Below is a screenshot of early morning traffic (c. 7.30 local time) showing just how many planes are much closer to Cern, notably around Geneva, Lyon and Grenoble. Why would none of these planes be hit but one 200 miles away? It makes no sense.

[Sophocles]

Germanwings flight 4U9525 crash: One black box 'damaged', says source close to inquiry

ROISSY-CHARLES DE GAULLE AIRPORT, France (AFP) - The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) recovered from the wreckage of the Germanwings Airbus that crashed, killing all 150 aboard, has been found damaged and has being taken to Paris for analysis, a source close to the inquiry said on Wednesday.

"The black box that was found is the CVR," the source told AFP on condition of anonymity.

The CVR "was damaged. It has been transferred to Paris this morning".

A second so-called black box, in this case recording flight data, has yet to be found on the mountain in the French Alps where the Airbus A320 went down on Tuesday.

Link: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/wor...rce-close-inqu

[SKIBADABOMSKI]

The pilot blacked out, He was too high and as he lowered the plane he somehow blacked out and the plane went nose down. Both engines seemed to be fine.

There's also a large hole in the plane that will be explained later. Very sad really. This could be pilot error, I can't imagine the shock of being at the end of this news having a loved one on board.

[araucaria]

Posted by MorningSong (here)
http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/pl...ps-march-2015/

That BBC graphic, purportedly a computer-generated graph, looks very precise, but a funny thing happens when you take a closer look: for one thing, the horizontal axis seems to operate on a sliding scale.

I printed it out in 20x25 cm format to fit comfortably on A4 paper. Taking at this scale the crossover point at 09:24:29 to the end point at 09:40:36, those 16 minutes and 7 seconds cover 9.2 cm, i.e. a scale of 1.75 min/cm. However, applying the same calculation to the previous 25.32 minutes, covering 11.3 cm, we get a scale of 2.26 min/cm.

Another thing: the flight took off at 9.01 GMT, the first 4 mm on the graph cover roughly 12 minutes in time. If we discount this anomaly on the basis that it might be a sloppy cutoff point on the graph, we still have approx. 24:30 of time in the air within the space of 10.9 cm of paper, hence a scale of 2.25 min/cm. However, since it is unlikely that the aircraft was taxiing for all of 12 minutes, one suspects that for 08:48:57 we should read 08:58:57. Oh dear.

Either way, ignoring the anomaly at the beginning, we still have two rather different scales. Which one is more accurate? Well, let’s take the final period from the point when the plane starts losing height and the altitude graph dips under the ground speed line. At the scale at which it is drawn, the 3.4 cm descent corresponds to 6.11 minutes in time. But at the other scale, it corresponds to 7.48 minutes, which is close to the eight minutes mentioned in media reports.

However, there is the additional problem that the ground speed curve does not fully match the data from the source, given as flightradar24. Here are minute-by-minute data I collected from that site http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/4u9525/
Time Altitude Ground speed
09:23 35475 464
09:24 36775 448
09:25 37550 442
09:26 37875 445
09:27 38000 452
09:28 38000 463
09:29 38000 463
09:30 38000 476
09:31 37975 477
09:32 35675 473
09:33 32625 473
09:34 28875 480
09:35 24650 487
09:36 20300 476
09:37 17050 450
09:38 13300 431
09:39 10475 411
09:40:00 8250 384
09:40:36 6800 378

First note how the data point 09:24:29 is totally insignificant: the ground speed has not quite bottomed out (it does so at 9:25) and the altitude is still rising. All that has happened is a visual effect of the two scales on the graph: change either of the scales and the crossover point will be somewhere else. If this time were in any way significant, then one would have to also draw attention to the time at which a second crossover took place, which was the highly significant moment when the plane started losing height (seconds after 9:35). Why is this time not indicated?

Looking at the end of the ground speed curve as it starts becoming irregular, we see an overall rise with one sudden drop, then a twin peak before dropping off steeply to the end. These top speeds begin no more than two minutes from the end of the graph, so the sudden loss of speed allegedly first occurs at around 9:39, although the loss of altitude started at around 9:34:25.

Compare that with the above times. A small blip (-4 kts) occurs at 9:32-33, then a top speed of 487 is reached at 9:35, before dropping off at a steadily increasing rate: 9 ft in the first minute, then 26, 19, 20, 27 – that’s five full minutes. Then something strange happens: only 6 ft lost in the last 36 seconds, which is 10 ft per minute, barely faster than at the start of the incident.

I was thinking this is merely shoddy work by an employee of the best-in-the-world BBC. Recently I saw a historical map drawn by a professional cartographer working for a university: the indicated scale was completely wrong, countries and borders were anachronistic and the locations featured were hopelessly out of position. But shoddiness doesn’t explain why this graph is more like an artist’s impression than the real thing. The anomalies are harder to produce than obtaining a correct graph by punching in the figures.

Then we have to deal with the cutoff point at 6800 feet – and 384 kts. It it a little unfortunate that we cannot extrapolate beyond this point. Sure, the plane was still slowing down, but the deceleration was possibly almost under control. What happened next would be anyone’s guess but for what we know happened when this Barcelona flight was ‘canceled’ nearing Barcelonnette (the fates or whatever sure have a weird sense of humour).

For any suspicious minds out there, this was clearly an accident. It can’t have been otherwise, because, you see, it would have to be very sloppy work from whoever left us those last 36 seconds of data. That is highly unlikely.

Edit: as exepcted, the flightradar24 graph is rather different:
https://twitter.com/flightradar24/st...818176/photo/1

[Roberta]

The crash of a Germanwings Airbus plane in a remote area of the French Alps on Tuesday does not appear to have been caused by a terror attack, White House said, adding that U.S. officials stand ready to help investigate.

Well, that's what makes me think the opposite, actually!

[syrwong]

What it meant was "We didn't do it, no."

Posted by Roberta (here)
The crash of a Germanwings Airbus plane in a remote area of the French Alps on Tuesday does not appear to have been caused by a terror attack, White House said, adding that U.S. officials stand ready to help investigate.

Well, that's what makes me think the opposite, actually!

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

Please check out this story from 1999, where a Lear Jet crashed due to lack of oxygen:

1999 South Dakota Learjet crash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This is a good article. Click here for more information.
1999 South Dakota Learjet crash

NTSB-N47BA-slide0013 background.jpg
N47BA before its final flight.
Accident summary
Date October 25, 1999


Summary Crew incapacitation,
fuel starvation
Site Edmunds County,
South Dakota
(near Aberdeen)
45°25′00″N 98°45′00″WCoordinates: 45°25′00″N 98°45′00″W


Passengers 4
Crew 2
Fatalities 6 (all)
Survivors 0
Aircraft type Learjet 35
Operator SunJet Aviation
Registration N47BA
Flight origin: Orlando, Florida
Destination Dallas Love Field, Texas


On October 25, 1999, a chartered Learjet 35 was scheduled to fly from Orlando, Florida, to Dallas, Texas. Early in the flight, the aircraft, which was cruising at altitude on autopilot, quickly lost cabin pressure and all on board were incapacitated due to hypoxia — a lack of oxygen. The aircraft failed to make the westward turn toward Dallas over north Florida and continued on its northwestern course, flying over the southern and midwestern United States for almost four hours and 1,500 miles (2,400 km). The plane ran out of fuel over South Dakota and crashed into a field near Aberdeen after an uncontrolled descent.[1] The four passengers on board were golf star Payne Stewart, his agents, Van Ardan and Robert Fraley, and Bruce Borland, a highly regarded golf architect with the Jack Nicklaus golf course design company.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/25/europe...ain/index.html

Germanwings crash: The search for data recorder -- and answers
By Josh Levs, Holly Yan and Laura Smith-Spark, CNN
Updated 3:27 PM ET, Wed March 25, 2015


Bizarre crash
The crash is bizarre for several reasons: There was no distress call. The aircraft crashed midflight, rather than at takeoff or landing, as with many crashes. And the plane dropped from an altitude of 38,000 feet for eight minutes, the airline said.

...
The Germanwings pilot "was definitely aviating and navigating from what we can tell," Soucie said. The pilot was conceivably looking for a place to try to land, he said.

The plane reached its cruising altitude of 38,000 feet, and then dropped for about eight minutes, according to Germanwings. The plane lost contact with French radar at a height of about 6,000 feet. Then it crashed.

[Truglivartna]

As an ex-Commercial Pilot, I find Jimstone's analysis (link to his Forum below) to be the most probable scenario....deeply disturbing though it is!

http://82.221.129.208/

[Bob]

GermanWings Pilots saying hell no we won't go (and fly).. (because we are upset you see..)

Distraught Germanwings pilots refuse to fly

Dozens of Germanwings pilots and cabin crew refused to fly on Wednesday because of "deep emotional distress" over the airline's Flight 9525 crash that killed 150 people.

Pilots and crew booked on around 40 of the airline's flights were "unfit to fly" Lufthansa's spokesman Florian Grenzdorfer said.

The spokesperson said the crews balked at flying because they were in "deep emotional distress after the accident."

"Some had friends on the flight and had personal reasons for their decision," Grenzdorfer said.

"Unfit to fly" is a technical term used by aviation industry to describe any physical or psychological condition that prevents crew from working.

Most airlines have rules that allow pilots to temporarily withdraw from service.

"Our passengers and companies want us to be 100% fit before we get into the cockpit. This is one way which the pilot associations and the airlines work together to achieve this," James Phillips, a pilot and the international affairs director of the German pilots association, said.

he airline dismissed media reports that safety concerns were behind the pilots' decision. "They are certainly not too afraid to fly," Grenzdorfer said.

Phillips said the pilots association was in touch with several of the crew and said there were no safety concerns behind their decision not to fly.

Thomas Winkelmann, Germanwings CEO said the whole company is in shock over the crash. "The Germanwings Family is close, everyone knows everyone. There is a feeling of mourning and shock," he said.

Most of the affected flights were departing from Dusseldorf and Stuttgart. Germanwings has a fleet of 78 aircraft flying to 130 destinations in Europe. It operates around 600 flights a day.

The disaster comes amid a long-standing labor dispute between Lufthansa and the German pilots trade union over retirement policies.

The pilots have repeatedly walked out in protest at Lufthansa's cost-cutting plans -- most recently last week, when their strike grounded around 1,600 flights carrying over 220,000 passengers.

The union's officials said the strikes will not continue for the time being, due to the fatal crash.

So.. are they really distraught - Indonesian pilots continued to fly after the crashes there.. What's going on here? Shot down, really? Controlled by the ground, really? How about a fatal flaw in a part critical for the plane to fly safely, that could have been sabotaged..

ref: http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/25/news...-crash-pilots/

[Redstar Kachina]

..........

[araucaria]

Here is an explanation I haven't seen before:
http://www.look-up.org.uk/airbus-southern-fance/

[Matisse]

I just found out this mid day that i had a friend on that flight...... it is a very sad loss.... and i,m still digesting it.... and having a drink to her memory....To Karin.....

[Bob]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=rxPa9A-k2xY

This is what a jack-screw looks like, for a 737 but the principle is the same..

Notice how it get's stuck and what it sounds like when that happens.. notice how long it takes to go thru the cycle.. about a minute.. about the time it took for "all ok" to something very wrong.

Here is a damaged jack screw from Alaska Air. Alaska Airlines Flight 261..

The probable cause was stated to be "a loss of airplane pitch control resulting from the in-flight failure of the horizontal stabilizer trim system jackscrew assembly's acme nut threads. The thread failure was caused by excessive wear resulting from Alaska Airlines' insufficient lubrication of the jackscrew assembly."

If that nut on the top is removed, it can possibly go off.. numerous potential issues where the pilots can do nothing when this happens.

Crash details, with the stuck jackscrew in Alaska Air..

At 4:09 p.m., the flight crew unjammed the horizontal stabilizer with the primary trim system, however, upon being freed, it quickly moved to an extreme "nose-down" position, forcing the aircraft into an almost vertical nosedive.

The plane dropped from about 31,500 feet to between 23,000 and 24,000 feet in around 80 seconds.

Both pilots struggled together to regain control of the aircraft, and only by pulling with 130 to 140 pounds-force (580 to 620 N) on the controls did the flight crew arrest the 6,000 foot-per minute descent of the aircraft and stabilize themselves at approximately 24,400 feet.

Then the problem was not over..

NOSE DOWN, and high speed, unable to recover.. when the jack screw fails..

Beginning at 4:19 p.m., the CVR recorded the sounds of at least four distinct "thumps" followed 17 seconds later by an "extremely loud noise" as the jackscrew failed and completely separated from the nut holding it in place. The aircraft rapidly pitched over into a dive.

The crippled aircraft had been given a block altitude, and several aircraft in the vicinity had been alerted by ATC to maintain visual contact with the stricken jet and they immediately contacted the controller.

One pilot radioed "that plane has just started to do a big huge plunge"; another reported, "Yes sir, ah, I concur he is, uh, definitely in a nose down, uh, position descending quite rapidly."

ATC then tried to contact the plane. The crew of a Skywest airliner reported "He's, uh, definitely out of control."

Although the CVR captured the co-pilot saying "Mayday," no radio communications were received from the flight crew during the final event.

The CVR transcript reveals the pilots' continuous attempts for the duration of the dive to regain control of the aircraft.

At one point, unable to raise the nose, they attempted to fly the aircraft "upside-down".

However, the aircraft was beyond recovery; it descended inverted and nose-down about 18,000 feet in 81 seconds, a descent rate exceeding 13,300 feet per minute (approx. 151.1 mph), before hitting the ocean at high speed.

This jack screw ISSUE is a potential sabotage point, OR a maintenance point where something could have happened with disgruntled employees, and/or a "maintenance person" having access to that part of the plane.. In light of the global terror, is that out of the realm of possibility?

[Redstar Kachina]

..........

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

The role of Oxygen in crashes

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...en-regulations

Study: Pilots Ignore Oxygen Regulations
by Matt Thurber
- January 26, 2010, 5:06 AM
More than 60 percent of business jet pilots do not use oxygen masks when required to by FAA regulations, according to a survey conducted by corporate pilot Chris Shaver for his master’s thesis at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.

Shaver needed a safety-related project for his thesis and he didn’t want to rehash existing research on subjects that have been studied exhaustively. “The question came up in hangar talk with some friends,” he recalled. One pilot questioned whether oxygen masks are certified above a certain altitude, then the discussion moved into whether pilots typically wear the mask as required by FAA regulations. Shaver posed that question as a basis for his research.

The FAA requires pilots to wear an oxygen mask under certain circumstances, and Shaver’s research showed that most pilots do not comply with the rules. For Part 91 operators, no one may fly a pressurized aircraft above 35,000 feet without one pilot donning a mask. If quick-donning masks are available, the threshold altitude rises to 41,000 feet. Above 41,000 feet or if one pilot leaves the controls above 35,000 feet, one pilot “must always be using supplemental oxygen.”

Part 135 pilots must use supplemental oxygen above 25,000 feet when one pilot is at the controls. When both are flying, one must be on oxygen above 35,000 feet. Part 121 pilots have a 35,000-feet threshold when one pilot is at the controls or when flying above 35,000 feet in an aircraft with fewer than 30 seats or above 41,000 feet with more than 30 seats.

wikipedia talks about FAA exception to flight ceilings and regs:

Before 1996, approximately 6,000 large commercial transport airplanes were type-certificated to fly up to 45,000 ft (14,000 m) without having to meet high-altitude special conditions.[11]

In 1996, the FAA adopted Amendment 25-87, which imposed additional high-altitude cabin pressure specifications for new-type aircraft designs. For aircraft certified to operate above 25,000 ft (7,600 m), it "must be designed so that occupants will not be exposed to cabin pressure altitudes in excess of 15,000 ft (4,600 m) after any probable failure condition in the pressurization system".[12]

In the event of a decompression which results from "any failure condition not shown to be extremely improbable", the plane must be designed so that occupants will not be exposed to a cabin altitude exceeding 25,000 ft (7,600 m) for more than 2 minutes, nor exceeding an altitude of 40,000 ft (12,000 m) at any time.[12] In practice, that new Federal Aviation Regulations amendment imposes an operational ceiling of 40,000 ft (12,000 m) on the majority of newly designed commercial aircraft.[13][14]

Aircraft manufacturers can apply for a relaxation of this rule if the circumstances warrant it. In 2004, Airbus acquired an FAA exemption to allow the cabin altitude of the A380 to reach 43,000 ft (13,000 m) in the event of a decompression incident and to exceed 40,000 ft (12,000 m) for one minute.

This allows the A380 to operate at a higher altitude than other newly designed civilian aircraft.[13]

"hypoxia the best theory for malaysia airlines flight 370"

http://www.askthepilot.com/malaysia-...es-flight-370/

Meanwhile, the latest reports are saying that hypoxia — that is, the crew falling unconscious due to lack of oxygen — appears to be the “best fit” for the MH 370 mystery. How this may have happened, if it did, remains unknown, but possibilities include a cabin breach caused by a bomb or structural failure, or a major pressurization malfunction. Pilots are trained to deal with such things, and even a total loss of cabin pressure is seldom dangerous. But, they have to respond quickly and appropriately.

I just don't understand the fixation with the jackscrew thing when the oxygen thing is a huge story, recent, and people have been messing about with the regs.


something isn't right and it's not maintenance's fault it's the design.
i'm sick of the big guy blaming the little one.
i would be highly surprised that german commerical airline maintenance would let this happen when others dont



the jim stone thing isn't much, it just says,
it looked like a controlled dive.

Posted by Truglivartna (here)
As an ex-Commercial Pilot, I find Jimstone's analysis (link to his Forum below) to be the most probable scenario....deeply disturbing though it is!

http://82.221.129.208/

New info on Germanwings crash

It has now been determined that the descent was a perfectly controlled full throttle dive of a perfectly working aircraft straight into the side of a mountain. And I know how it happened, details below.

please tell me what it would look like if a full grown man or two passed out onto the control columns and the plane went into a dive.
it takes about 45 lbs to break autopilot on most planes, some could be more sensitive.

in the event that one of the men leaned over then passed out while reading instruments the plane would have gone into a dive when his belly ran into the column.

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

Posted by Matisse (here)
I just found out this mid day that i had a friend on that flight...... it is a very sad loss.... and i,m still digesting it.... and having a drink to her memory....To Karin.....

i am so sorry for your loss and that i didn't see your post until after mine went thru.

[Truglivartna]

[/QUOTE] the jim stone thing isn't much, it just says,
it looked like a controlled dive.

It has now been determined that the descent was a perfectly controlled full throttle dive of a perfectly working aircraft straight into the side of a mountain. And I know how it happened, details below.[/QUOTE]


I think you missed the point Jimstone was making. It was an UNCONTROLLED DIVE brought on via "Uninterruptible Autopilot"....sabotage, in other words, perhaps helped along by the two French fighters that were seen within seconds after the aircraft's explosion. It's called "Uninterruptible" because that's exactly what it is. It was originally designed to be totally uninterruptible by an aircraft hijacker so that the aircraft was left being entirely remotely controlled.