According to the preliminary report by French authorities, Germanwings co-pilot Andreas Lubitz is said to have ‘rehearsed’ a controlled descent on the flight prior to the French Alps crash several times while alone in the cockpit.
While this new detail might be alarming to some – to those familiar with airliner protocol, any major alteration to the altitude settings would be noticed by the flight crew...
‘Valley of Debris ‘ – The remains of Germanwings flight 9525 Airbus A320. (Photo link nydailynews.com)
On Wednesday May 6th, the Bureau of Enquiry and Analysis (BEA), a civilian agency of the French government released a preliminary report appearing to show that Germanwings co-pilot Lubitz ‘repeatedly’ changed the plane’s altitude dial during its outbound flight to Barcelona, Spain, from Düsseldorf, Germany, this past March 24th.
While the Germanwings Captain, Patrick Sondheimer was out of the cockpit, Lubitz allegedly set the aircraft descent settings five times in a four-and-a-half minute period. On April 3rd, French investigators stated that flight 9525’s black box data revealed that ‘autopilot’ settings had been adjusted to speed up its descent.
This begs the question: If flight 9525 was sped up upon its initial descent – why wouldn’t the flight crew notice deviations allegedly made during the outbound Barcelona descent rehearsal?
Here’s a compelling interview conducted by German journalist, Ralph T. Niemeyer with flight veteran Field McConnell discussing the many anomalies associated with flight 9525’s catastrophic end…
In the video interview above, McConnell outlines how Andreas Lubitz would most likely not have the ability to control flight 9525’s high-speed descent based on his limited flying time (630 hours)as it would have required a much more proficient pilot.
Over the past week, 21WIRE reached out to pilot McConnell to discuss the awareness of the flight crew regarding the abrupt altitude changes allegedly made by Lubitz on the outbound flight from outbound flight to Barcelona from Düsseldorf. Here’s what he had to say:
“The captain and crew would have noticed (altitude changes) and said something and he (Lubitz) then would have been removed from flight status for deviating from an assigned altitude.”
In a recent Germanwings report from CNN, Flightradar24 seems to be playing an important role in the establishment of the ‘official’ French Alps crash narrative:
“Transponder data shows that the autopilot was reprogrammed during the flight by someone inside the cockpit to change the plane’s altitude from 38,000 feet to 100 feet, according to Flightradar24, a website that tracks aviation data.”
If you remember last July, here 21WIRE, in a lengthy investigation about the downing of Malaysian Airlines MH17, we clearly demonstrated how both FlightRadar and FlightAware changed previous flight path data on their websites between July 24-25th. The data originally published on their website, was altered in favor of a series of new ‘old’ flight paths directed over the Donetsk People’s Republic.
Given CNN’s loathsome reporting about the MH370 disaster and Flightradar24’s data alterations in the aftermath of MH17’s downing in addition to other false reports by other media outlets – how is the public to believe these latest claims about allegedly deliberate altitude changes on the Germanwings flight?
‘Speaking Out’ – Gerard Arnoux, an 18-year Air France captain and spokesperson aviation safety. (Photo link pbs.twimg.com)
Along with 21WIRE, many have questioned the validity of this seemingly biased investigation…
On March 29th, the alternative media site Sign of the Times, discussed the commentary of longtime Air France captain Gerard Arnoux regarding the Germanwings disaster. Here’s the following portion from Sott.net, with Arnoux questioning the official narrative:
“One of the major pieces of data used to justify the “suicide pilot” story comes from the alleged CVR recording where, we are told, Lubitz’s ‘breath’ can be heard. This claim has been directly contested by Gerard Arnoux, an 18-year Air France captain and spokesperson for the national monitoring committee on aviation safety, who appeared on ‘Le Grande Journal’ two days after the crash. Arnoux stated that there were three errors in the official story:
1) It is not possible to hear a pilot’s breath on the CVR. Arnoux states that the cockpit of 1st generation A320s are very noisy, so much so that, in flight, pilots had to use headsets to speak to each other. The idea that the CVR could pick up Lubitz’s breath with so much ambient noise is not possible, according to Arnoux.
2) The official story claims that investigators heard the ‘beep’ of the knob that Lubitz used to start the plane on its descent. Arnoux states categorically that this knob makes no sound.
3) Arnoux also wonders why no mention was made by investigators of hearing the loud strident beeping made by the cockpit door console when the emergency access code is entered to open the cockpit door. Arnoux recognizes that the emergency unlock code could have been overridden by someone in the cockpit manually holding the lock button down, but this would not have prevented the beeping once the code was entered outside. This would have been the clearest confirmation that one of the pilots had been locked out. Yet no mention was made of it. Instead, we are asked to accept the word of those privy to the CVR that someone was “banging on the door” and shouting “open the damn door.” And with all that ambient noise in the cockpit too. They must have very good hearing.”
Questions about the Germanwings disaster continue to persist, just as there are many questions and anomalies surrounding both MH370 and MH17 – many of those questions continue to point back to the Boeing Honeywell ‘Uninterruptible’ Autopilot System a rarely discussed breakthrough in avionics.
You have to wonder if the families of those lost will receive any credible answers from investigators in this highly suspect Germanwings case…
