so was YOUR missing the part of my post deliberate or accidental?
Germanwings Tragedy - Is it now all about the money?
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
- Status
Exploring the possibility the planes computerized flight system were hacked.
Found this so far:
24/03/2015
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-guest-speculates-downed-germanwings-jet-was-hacking-incident/
“But something else comes to my mind that no one else has mentioned. This aircraft is highly computerized, and this was the same aircraft that was involved with the AirAsia situation,” he mused in the clip first spotted by TPM. “There’s one possibility that no one has brought up, and I wonder, could this be a hacking incident?”
One remembers the plane had just recently been serviced and the opportunity to insert a virus into the Computers software was most likely available to the ground crew.
"Well, this is the brave new world that we’re entering as we use more and more computerization in an age when people are hacking and otherwise following with the system. The older aircraft, the Boeing aircraft in general use hydraulics. So even though you may have an auto pilot, if it malfunctions, you can disengage that auto pilot and regain manual control. But in a fully computerized setup like what you see in the Airbus and also the Boeing 787, these are are aircraft that are controlled by computers. so when the pilot puts in any sort of change for the aircraft flight controls, it first goes through the computer that mediates it, and then tells the controllers what to do. I find it problematic, actually."
Published 24/03/2015
Prior to finding the audio Black box
Suggests that an emergency code 777 was sent to control tower.
credibility 6/10 (due to interviewee not knowing if the airbus could be flown independently of the computer.)
Found this so far:
24/03/2015
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-guest-speculates-downed-germanwings-jet-was-hacking-incident/
“But something else comes to my mind that no one else has mentioned. This aircraft is highly computerized, and this was the same aircraft that was involved with the AirAsia situation,” he mused in the clip first spotted by TPM. “There’s one possibility that no one has brought up, and I wonder, could this be a hacking incident?”
One remembers the plane had just recently been serviced and the opportunity to insert a virus into the Computers software was most likely available to the ground crew.
"Well, this is the brave new world that we’re entering as we use more and more computerization in an age when people are hacking and otherwise following with the system. The older aircraft, the Boeing aircraft in general use hydraulics. So even though you may have an auto pilot, if it malfunctions, you can disengage that auto pilot and regain manual control. But in a fully computerized setup like what you see in the Airbus and also the Boeing 787, these are are aircraft that are controlled by computers. so when the pilot puts in any sort of change for the aircraft flight controls, it first goes through the computer that mediates it, and then tells the controllers what to do. I find it problematic, actually."
Prior to finding the audio Black box
Suggests that an emergency code 777 was sent to control tower.
credibility 6/10 (due to interviewee not knowing if the airbus could be flown independently of the computer.)
Last edited:
If we ignore the possibility of hacking the following video indicates the standard procedure of the door lock.
However audio BB recordings suggest that the captain did not attempt to contact the co-pilot by phone and instead immediately knocked "gently".
If he had attempted to contact the co-pilot by phone or used the emergency code a buzzer would have sounded for 3 seconds and thus recorded on the BB recording.
There for one can conclude almost with certainty that the door was fully locked (keypad showing red thus phone and key pad are fully inhibited) prior to the captain returning to the door.
Subsequently the co-pilot apparently refused entry after the captain knocked. (According to the French Prosecutor... all though not offering anything other than circumstantial evidence to support the claim)
However audio BB recordings suggest that the captain did not attempt to contact the co-pilot by phone and instead immediately knocked "gently".
If he had attempted to contact the co-pilot by phone or used the emergency code a buzzer would have sounded for 3 seconds and thus recorded on the BB recording.
There for one can conclude almost with certainty that the door was fully locked (keypad showing red thus phone and key pad are fully inhibited) prior to the captain returning to the door.
Subsequently the co-pilot apparently refused entry after the captain knocked. (According to the French Prosecutor... all though not offering anything other than circumstantial evidence to support the claim)
Last edited:
No, one cannot. That switch is supposed to be in "normal" position. Thus the captain's easiest way to return to the cockpit would be to knock on the door, if the switch was in the position he expected it to be.
Perhaps you have experienced this same issue. Let's say you arrive at someone's home, and you know they usually lock their door. Do you:
1) try to gain entry through a window or some other unconventional means?
2) rattle the doorknob hoping it is unlocked?
3) examine the striker plate carefully to determine if the deadbolt had been thrown?
4) pound on the door and shout?
5) call them on their cellphone and tell them "hey, let me in?"
6) knock gently, hoping they will open the door?
Operating procedure is to use the phone... (voice recognition via phone - as any one could be knocking - including a terrorist)
If you are suggesting that they were not using operational procedure then why would you not extend it to include the possibility that the door was fully locked as an extra security precaution immediately after the captain left the cockpit?
Are you suggesting that they were not using standard operational procedure?
If you are suggesting that they were not using operational procedure then why would you not extend it to include the possibility that the door was fully locked as an extra security precaution immediately after the captain left the cockpit?
Are you suggesting that they were not using standard operational procedure?
Last edited:
Yes.
Now, about the question I asked you - what would you do upon arriving at your friend's house? I had assumed you would politely knock on the door, but perhaps that was a poor assumption. Would you try to break in?
A home door is not the same as a high security anti hijack door...perhaps choose another more relevant example....
If I knew the occupants of the house were "home invasion paranoid" it would be folly to attempt to break in as I would most likely get shot.
I will answer your question if you answer mine. Deal?
bah!
I see no point...( I answered any way) , by all means refuse to deal with the obvious.. your call.
maybe someone else would like a go at it..?
Ah, so you can't even answer a simple question. (I suspect because you realize that it exposes the fallacy in your thinking.) In that case I feel under no compunction to answer yours.
If at some point you decide to answer simple questions I will be happy to respond in kind.
did you miss the "I answered any way" bit deliberately or accidentally?
Maybe the French Prosecutor need to be asked this question:
If the standard operating procedure was to use the phone and you, as the only person in the cockpit, heard someone knocking (potential hijacker) instead, would you:
Open the door or fully lock the door?
In fact I might send it off as a tip to local media... could be fun watching the outcome...
If the standard operating procedure was to use the phone and you, as the only person in the cockpit, heard someone knocking (potential hijacker) instead, would you:
Open the door or fully lock the door?
In fact I might send it off as a tip to local media... could be fun watching the outcome...
Yes, you said that. However, you were lying, since you did not actually answer the question, as anyone who reviews the thread will discover.
So - want to answer it?
Bells
Staff member
That isn't what he asked.A home door is not the same as a high security anti hijack door...perhaps choose another more relevant example....
If I knew the occupants of the house were "home invasion paranoid" it would be folly to attempt to break in as I would most likely get shot.
The co-pilot knew who he was and refused to answer his request to open the door.
Are you suggesting that the co-pilot did not respond because he didn't use the phone? Really? You're going to nitpick about using an intercom? We know he would not have answered that either.
Why?
The co-pilot also refused to and failed to respond to flight controllers on the ground who desperately tried to contact the cockpit to find out why the plane was descending.
And once again, you are blaming the victim (the captain) while refusing to acknowledge the fact that the co-pilot changed the plane's flight path and set the auto-pilot to have it descend so that it hit a mountain.
Which would make you a troll.
Not to mention the fact that you would be causing more trauma to the families of the victims because you are literally clutching at straws to defend a mass murderer.. Or is that the fun part for you?
Media tip:
Regarding high security access to the cockpit door.
Explained in the form of a question.
If the standard operating procedure was to use the phone and you, as the only person in the cockpit, heard someone knocking (potential hijacker) instead, would you:
Open the door or fully lock the door?
The French Prosecutor needs to ask this question.
sent: 11:15 am 01/04/2015
Regarding high security access to the cockpit door.
Explained in the form of a question.
If the standard operating procedure was to use the phone and you, as the only person in the cockpit, heard someone knocking (potential hijacker) instead, would you:
Open the door or fully lock the door?
The French Prosecutor needs to ask this question.
sent: 11:15 am 01/04/2015
Last edited:
What you and others fail to understand is that I am not trying to find blame. I am trying to find the truth free of hubris and irrational paranoid knee jerk reactions.
How did the co-pilot know who was knocking gently?
Bells
Staff member
Are you suggesting that the co-pilot thought the pilot he had just recently nagged into going to the toilet, was a terrorist?
Really?
This is the stupid angle you are going with here?
And once again, you are still ignoring the fact that the co-pilot deliberately flew the plane into a mountain.
The only person with an irrational paranoid knee jerk reaction here is you.
You deliberately and willfully ignore the fact that the co-pilot ignored all requests from the controllers on the ground, did not answer them, he also refused to allow the captain back into the cockpit, and that he deliberately flew the plane into a mountain.
It wasn't accidental. It was a deliberate act that resulted in that plane hitting a mountain.
Because he identified himself by name, he knew the captain's voice. I could go on and on.
And you are still ignoring the fact that the co-pilot deliberately flew that plane into a mountain. And he also deliberately denied the captain the ability to use the keypad to gain emergency entry to the cockpit. He also refused to respond or explain why the plane had suddenly started to descend to the ground control who made numerous and repeated attempts to contact the cockpit.
- Status