*NEW TRANSCIPT AND AUDIO FILES OF FINAL MINUTES OF GERMANWINGS CRASH CONTRADICTS FIRST VERSION OF FRENCH PROSECUTORS
*CO PILOT S NOW BREATHING CANNOT BE HEARD
*PASSENGERS START SCREAMING IN THE TRANSCRIPT AND AUDIO FILES SHORTLY AFTER THE PLUNGE BEGINS, NOT AT THE END AS BEFORE
*OFFICIAL SCENARIO IS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THE PILOT WOULD HAVE BELIEVED THAT HE WAS LOCKED OUT OF THE COCKPIT AS A RESULT OF A DELIBERATE ACT. BUT THIS IS THE LEAST LIKELY CONCLUSION THE PILOT WOULD HAVE JUMPED TOO. RATHER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RESPONSE, THE PILOT WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED A HEART ATTACK OR EVENT SUCH AS DEPRESSURIZATION HAD KNOCKED THE CO PILOT OUT.
*CONTRADICTIONS AND INCONSISTENCIES WILL SERVE TO HEIGHTEN SUSPCIONS OF A COVER UP
The French prosecutors seem to be aware of the wave of disbelief with which their first official version of the contents of the Germanwings voice recorder were greeeted in the internet, and to have changed the content to accomodate the criticisms. But the changes contradict the first official version and are inconsistent.
The frequesnt changes in the official story and many the inconsistences in the transcript and audio files leaked over the weekend to the media will only serve to create ever more suspicions about the events.
The black box audio file is the main proof presented by French prosecutors that co pilot Andreas Lubitz locked the pilot out of the cockpit and deliberately crashed the Germanwings plane into a mountainside in the French Alps, and have become the focus of analysis.
As this blog, and other blogs have noted, there is not a shred of evidence to back up this claim in the contents of the voice recorder as described by French prosecutor Brice Robin.
For example, Robin claimed on Thursday, 26th March, that Andreas Lubitz was breathing steadily and calmly in the final moments of Germanwings Flight 9525 and his breathing was the only sound from within the cockpit that the voice recorder detected as the copilot sent the plane into its descent.
But many have noted, including retired Lufthansa pilot Peter Haisenko, that breathing in a calm and steady way in such a dramatic and deadly situation, indicates rather that the co pilot was unconscious.
Also, Robin said that the passengers screams can be heard in the final moments before the plane slammed into the mountainside.
“I think tha the victims didn t become aware of the situation until the last moment, the very last moment. On the tape, their cries intervene at the very last instant,” Robin said.
“Their cries can t be heard until the very last moments,” he said in a video posted on Le Figaro.
Just how improbable this is can be seen when we consider that the plane began a steep descent lasting ten minutes according to the official version.
The rapid rate and steep angle of the descent would have pushed passengers forward in their seats and sent unsecured trolleys rolling down the aisle.
It is, therefore, simply not possible the passengers were not aware that something was seriously wrong almost immediately.
Perhaps after reading comments on the internet pointing out how improbable the official version was, given the speed and duration and steepness of the descent, the newly released transcript has been tampered with to take into account the panic of the passengers.
Now, the transcript of the voice cockpit recorder reveals the passengers to have screamed at least six minutes before the impact, not moments before it happened. The Daily Mail translated the BIld transcript. It says shortly after 10 30 am, the pilot bangs on the door and yells. “For God s sake, open the door!”
“In the background passengers can be heard screaming,” says the Mail on Sunday.
In addition, two intriguing audio files have appeared in the media which were allegedly leaked.
The problem is the audio files also contradicts the first version of Robin.
First, no breathing can be heard on the audio files. A key claim of Brice Robin is that the regular, calm breathing that can be heard from within the cockpit proves that the co pilot was conscious to the end, and through a deliberate act, refused to open the door of the cockpit, and activated the button that resulting in a loss of altitude, destroying the plane.
In fact, calm breathing in such a dire situation suggests the opposite, namely, that the co pilot was unconscous.
Also, Alles Schall und Rauch blog points out that the noise level in a cockpit is about 72 decibels, which is the noise of street traffic at ten metres distance. So the claim that the pilot s breathing could be heard was never credible.
Screams of passengers can be heard at the beginning of the audio together with knocking, diverse bleeps and a Pull up warning just 50 seconds before impact ( a bit late?). But these sounds could be taken from anywhere.
The motivation for portraying the pilot as silent is obvious. If his voice were to be heard on the voice recorder, relatives could immediately recognize it as a fake or not. But the problem with not having any voice at all is that there is no evidence that the co pilot was conscious.
The transcript of the final minutes also raises big questions, because the information revealed in it again contradicts the official version first offered by Robin.
Furthermore, none of the alleged actions ascribed to Lubitz and the pilot such as pushing buttons to reduce altitude or identifying themselves to cameras can be proved from a voice recording. Only the flight data recorder could show which buttons were pushed in the cockpit, but this recorder is suddenly missing altogether.
In the transcript the passengers start to scream shortly after the descent starts, although prosecutor Brice Robin said, as noted, that the passengers could only be heard screaming just before impact and that they probably weren t aware of what was happening until the last moments.
The motive for not having the passengers scream until the final moments before the impact is obvious. It would explain why none of them used their mobile phones to message their parents. Now, the transcript portrays the passengers as screaming very early on in the descent, that very question has to be asked again.
There is, in fact, no explanation for why 149 panic stricken passengers and crew would not seek to use the board, satellite, mobile phones to raise the alarm unless the signals were jammed when they tried.
Another problem with not having a voice of the co pilot is that there is no reason that the pilot should have assumed that the co pilot was conscious when he returned to the cockpit after the plane began its plunge.
It is much more probable that the pilot s first assumption when he found the cockpit door locked would have been that the co pilot had had a heart attack or that the cockpit had undergone a sudden depressurization, knocking out the pilot, or some other event which occassionally does occur in real life.
In fact, the last thing, he would assume is a deliberate act.
The official scenarios is, in fact, based on the least likey explanation of them all. The transcript is based on the fact that the pilot immediately jumps to the most unlikely conclusion, namely that he has been locked out deliberately when he has no evidence for it.
To realize just how improbable that is we just have to put ourselves in the shoes of the pilot, a man well trained, knowledgeable about the plane, and selected, presumably, for a calm and pragmatc character.
Imagine you leave for the toilet. While you are there, the plane starts a steep descent which pushes you against the wall. You get out of the cabin to find people pushed forward in their seats, unsecured trolleys rolling down the aisle and the crew already at the cockpit door, ringing the bell and looking for you.
“What s up?” you ask.
“I don t know. Andreas isn t opening the door. He s not responding,” says a member of the crew.
“Something s happened to him,” says a crew member.
“He could have had a heart attack.”
“We have to get into the cockpit. Where s the code?”
“Let me try.”
So, the pilot, crew and passengers first assumption is going to be that the co pilot has had a heart attack or there has been a depressurization event in the cockpit. Pilots train for such incidents. There was nothing in the pilots coversation with the co pilot to suggest he was suicidal, as the prosecutor also admits. Otherwise, the pilot would never have left the cockpit in the first place for a two hour flight without calling a member of the crew.
The pilot would likely check for himself if he could get in to the cockpit. He would go to the cockpit door and ring the bell, the usual way of signalling the desire to enter. In case of no response, the pilot would then likely speak on the interphone, according to retired Lufthansa pilot, Peter Haisenko. Next, the pilot would enter the code to access the door. All these actions would be accompanied by sounds, which would be registered on the voice recorder. Apparently, there is also a code to override any blocking device as well as an emergency door panel.
In short, there are other ways to get into the cockpit. It is improbable that pilot would have spent ten minutes standing outside the cockpit, hammering on the door, shouting at the co pilot to open it, because he had absolutely no reason to believe the co pilot was conscious and able to hear him.
He is more likely to have said something like: “Andreas, can you hear me? Try and press the auto pilot switchback on. We re dropping fast. Just hang in there, Andreas. We ll get you out.”
Also, the pilot and crew would have made it priority to contact air traffic control using the board, satellite or mobile telephone.
Since there is no evidence that the co pilot crashed the plane deliberately from the voice recorder, the media have gone into overdrive, inflating the co pilots alleged depression, hyping an alleged vision problem using doubtful sources.