5445
5446

Co-pilot has voluntarily crashed the plane, says investigation (bbc.co.uk)

canoned が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]mateusz87 2576 ポイント2577 ポイント  (121子コメント)

If you want to kill yourself, PLEASE, don't take 149 people with you. Fucking asshole.

[–]roboribbit 273 ポイント274 ポイント  (120子コメント)

I wonder if this was beyond just a selfish suicide? Could it be a terrorist act?

[–]notablack 338 ポイント339 ポイント  (119子コメント)

Terrorism would require a religious, political, or ideological goal. It is however an interesting use of an anti terror device. Without it 150 people would still be alive, with it how many have been "saved" it's hard to guesstimate.

[–]radagast60 126 ポイント127 ポイント  (48子コメント)

Would be strange if it was. Usually they like to make a big hulabaloo about their goals etc. Not just included with radical Islam, even Brevik wrote a manifesto.

[–]suddensavior 39 ポイント40 ポイント  (37子コメント)

Yeah there was another instance of this years back that happened nearly the same exact way, but the co-pilot yelled a prayer to allah before actually crashing the plane.. this dude was silent. That's even scarier to me.

[–]anguishsustainsme 59 ポイント60 ポイント  (31子コメント)

just praying =/= terrorist

[–]The_Other_Manning [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

praying before killing many people uuuuusssuually means the guys a terrorist

[–]anguishsustainsme [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

except he was going to lose his job because he had a history of fraternizing with american women... not very terrorist like of him.

I am just saying if he was saying his last rites or something, people wouldn't be making the jump to terrorism but because he was muslim, you get responses saying 'accept the facts!' from people who know next to nothing about it.

[–]LePlaisantin_ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The 9/11 hijackers went to strip clubs and got hookers in the lead up to the attack. I suppose they weren't terrorists either?

Newsflash: terrorists can be hypocritical pieces of shit.

[–]suddensavior 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (22子コメント)

Well.. he did manually trigger the descent of the aircraft...

[–]MaxFreedomMoussa 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (21子コメント)

I think what he's saying is praying before death doesn't necessarily mean he decided to murder sucide because of his religion.

[–]suddensavior -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (20子コメント)

Well I'm not a proponent for denial, so here is the data as it came off the CVR.

The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) recorded the captain excusing himself to go to the lavatory, followed thirty seconds later by the first officer saying in Egyptian Arabic "Tawkalt ala Allah," which translates to "I rely on God." A minute later, the autopilot was disengaged, immediately followed by the first officer again saying, "I rely on God." Three seconds later, the throttles for both engines were reduced to idle, and both elevators were moved three degrees nose down. The first officer repeated "I rely on God" seven more times before the captain suddenly asked repeatedly, "What's happening, what's happening?" The flight data recorder reflected that the elevators then moved into a split condition, with the left elevator up and the right elevator down, a condition which is expected to result when the two control columns are subjected to at least 50 pounds (23 kgf) of opposing force.[1] At this point, both engines were shut down by moving the start levers from run to cutoff. The captain asked, "What is this? What is this? Did you shut the engines?" The captain is then recorded as saying "get away in the engines" (this is the literal translation that appears in the NTSB transcript), followed by "shut the engines". The first officer replies "It's shut". The final recorded words are the captain repeatedly stating, "Pull with me" but the FDR data indicated that the elevator surfaces remained in a split condition (with the left surface commanding nose up and the right surface commanding nose down) until the FDR and CVR stopped recording. There were no other aircraft in the area. There was no indication that an explosion occurred on board. The engines operated normally for the entire flight until they were shut down. From the presence of a western debris field about 1,200 feet (370 m) from the eastern debris field, the NTSB concluded that the left engine and some small pieces of wreckage separated from the aircraft at some point before water impact.[1]

[–]MaxFreedomMoussa 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (19子コメント)

I'm just not seeing it as a terrorist attack, wheres the manifesto, where's the speech about why he's doing it, where's the threat, just saying "Oh God" or whatever the arab equivelent is over and over doesn't make this Islamic terrorism.

[–]Herpeederp88 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Could also just be an emotionally unstable person who decided then and there was the point to end it all. Whether for money to be paid to his family, to escape depression, or no reason at all we may never know. Rip to the passengers

[–]zdk2013 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

praying to Allah while crashing a plane = terrorist

[–]kegrz [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Ehhhh. But praying to Allah, in consideration of the nature of some recent terrorist attacks?

[–]Casper_the_Cracker [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Praying while purposefully crashing plane? Probably terrorism.

[–]frame_of_mind [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

praying + crashing a plane = terrorist

[–]standbyforskyfall 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I thought that guy was praying for forgiveness?

[–]suddensavior -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Forgiveness for manually triggering a descent of the aircraft, maybe?

[–]Shinobus_Smile_Work 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yep, Egypt Air 990

[–]DocOcular 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

He could have been sitting in silent prayer if it was religious

[–]hrkristian 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well it's early still, who knows maybe we'll find out his family has been held captive by people...

[–]ShepPawnch 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Which is why unless a statement comes out from the pilot posthumously or a group claims him as a member it won't be considered an act of terror. Still a horrible tragedy, but just the actions of a crazy fucker.

[–]BostonRich 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This was my thought. What if it was an extreme organization that did not take credit lest they give away more sleeper pilots for use in the future?? What if Malaysia flight was the first and this was the second?? That is a scary thought.

[–]outcastded 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

The co-pilot could just be mad. Schizophrenic or something.. Perhaps voices in his head told him to do it. We will probably never know.

[–]IeIgHtNiNe 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I seriously doubt a schizophrenic could have passed all the psych tests you need to in order to become a pilot in the first place.

[–]outcastded 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Can't people develop such thing, or similar mental disorders? Maybe something triggered it..

[–]Deliziosa [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

According to the article he briefly stopped a few years ago because of something but then "re-engaged and deemed fit" again apparently... I wonder what happened.

[–]Wang_Dong 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Never know? I doubt that. Anyone that crazy is bound to have left some evidence of it, if only the testimony of relatives.

[–]mutt1917 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Maybe a terrorist organisation will claim responsability in the next few days.

[–]jerryFrankson 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, but wouldn't he leave a suicide message or something? Especially if he had beef with the airline company or something. Terror attacks seem unlikely, but I'm sure there could be other explanations.

[–]Scudstock 46 ポイント47 ポイント  (35子コメント)

Well, I think the "2 people in the cockpit" rule, which is meant to make the anti-terror door lock not able to do this, is necessary at all times.

[–]Dustin- 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (15子コメント)

But how hard would it be for someone to overpower the other person in the cockpit?

[–]Wildelocke 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (11子コメント)

Realistically, not that hard. The security is designed on the assumption that the pilots are not themselves wanting to bring the plane down.

[–]ironzerg 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (3子コメント)

So we need a "three people in the cockpit" rule.

Or make the pilots start wearing diapers. Before the flight, the stewardess straps them into their car seat, and they can't get out until the flight is over. :)

[–]Redtyuw 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Bring back the flight engineer!

[–]S133py 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just make the cockpit seats toilets. Toilets that flush directly out of the plane below them. How could you want to crash a plane when you can dive bomb people with poop?!

[–]metaobject 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

We could investigate catheters ...

[–]NiceMeetingYou 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Drones is the answer. Much safer

[–]Genetics 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Can't they be hacked? I remember Iran claiming it took over a predator drone and landed it a few years ago.

[–]ceilte [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incident

[–]ihminen [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

No, you confused the movie Interstellar with real life.

[–]Yavin1v [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

so you are saying drones cannot be hacked ever ?

[–]Jack_M 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm sure we have the tech for someone to remotely control the aircraft. That combined with a distress button on the outside to alert flight control. Would also prevent terrorists from flying into things.

[–]420__points [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Then someone hacks it

[–]aykcak 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

About the same as any situation where 2 people are fighting in a cramped space. One thing is for certain: The plane cannot land without a pilot fully in control. So, if neither of the pilots are completely subdued, you are headed for a crash.

[–]chokemo_girls 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is why I believe the control tower should be able to override the controls and turn the airplane into a temporary 'drone'.

If they see something odd is happening, such as a steep descent or altered course, then a well trained air traffic controller can take control of the aircraft.

Of course, then you would have to tighten security around the control tower and worry about hacking. Additional systems could be implemented to override commands that, mathematically, made no sense in regard to safety. Accidents would still occur for technical reasons, but sadly at lower frequency than the combination of human error and human I'll intent.

[–]in_situ_ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That just puts the key in another guy's hands.

[–]OverkillTASF 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Rules that are necessary at all times are going to fail when they have proven unnecessary the last 1000 times. These are humans not robots.

[–]Scudstock 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is a pretty big rule, man. Rules that are under the responsibility of multiple people (both pilots and flight attendants) usually don't go ignored. This airline chooses not to go by the 2 person rule, but every single airline that does have that policy doesn't just half ass it because "they're not robots." It is a rule at work, and it is expected to be followed....kinda like showing up on time.

[–]tobiasvl [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Sure, this airline has chosen not to implement this rule themselves, but it's not something that's imposed on European airlines (unlike American). Few airlines outside the US have this rule. That might change now though.

[–]sweetgene05 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

how about Air Traffic Control having the ability to take over the plane from the ground and over-ride.

why is this not already possible?

[–]Scudstock [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Maybe because if terrorists took over Air Traffic Control, then they could crash like 40 planes?

[–]little0lost 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

It should be a rule across the board. Even without this type of malicious situation, loss of consciousness, seizures, etc do happen!

[–]tobiasvl [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If the sole person in the cockpit has a seizure, the pilot can enter using a code. In this case the co-pilot blocked that attempt (as they must be able to, in case a hijacker gets the code).

[–]personalcheesecake 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, maybe we rethink this now..

[–]Saucemanthegreat [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Well man, sometimes you gotta piss.

[–]tobiasvl [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Then someone from the cabin crew replaces you. Still doesn't prevent the co-pilot from overpowering them, but that will always be a possibility.

[–]Nikon_Nut [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Betcha they install compact toilets in the cockpits so there's always two pilots in control of the plane.

[–]danibear90 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

The '2 in the cockpit' rule is true for most airlines. Lufthasna (owner of germanwings) are one of the only who dont enforce it.

[–]ornamental_conifer [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I'm willing to bet that'll change right now.

[–]tobiasvl [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

A Norwegian airline just implemented the rule effective immediately. It should still be enforced on a European level though, like in the US.

[–]tobiasvl [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Not in Europe, is it? At the press conference Germanwings stated that few airlines in Europe have that rule.

[–]in_situ_ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Not true. No major airline outside the US has this rule.

[–]orthopod -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Or pilot have the key, or combination. There are disadvantages to that as well- pilot out on break gets captured by terrorists, and tortured to give up combo, etc.

Edit probably a remote unlock , or even override to auto pilot from the aircraft company might make this a better solution. Maybe have a hidden air Marshall or webcam to verify usage

[–]Scudstock 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The pilot in the cockpit can lock people out of the cockpit that are trying to enter via code, I thought. Maybe they can't lock out the "pilot" code, but I know they can lock out the "secondary emergency" code if they look on the camera and there is a threat out there.

[–]ceilte [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

According to AP, that's what happened here: There were three positions on the door lock, "unlocked", "normal" which is locked but unlockable via code, and "locked" which prevents the code to be used.

The co-pilot set the lock to the "locked" position.

[–]CVI07 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You can just use "estimate". Or "guess", really.

[–]SomeoneCutCarlsHair 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's terrible.

Who is to say this guy couldnt have done this 20 years ago?

Hell, he could kill the other pilot first and then crash the plane.

[–]bobsp 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

He may just have been a shitty terrorist--you know, had a goal but forgot to articulate it.

[–]CompuFart 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Thank god (whichever one) there's no religious, political, or ideological goal. Whew!! I was terrorized for a second there.

[–]Lick_a_Butt -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I hear you. I don't know how you could not call this terrorism. I never associated the term specifically with an ideological goal. The point is that terrorists terrorize, which this guy did extremely well.

After all, even if this guy's goal was childish and not well thought out, it still completely counts as an ideology. Even if he was just thinking the world is mean to him and he wants everyone else to suffer, that's a terrorist act. It doesn't have to be a Muslim or a right-winger.

[–]scandinaviantech 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

All mass murderers are terrorists? What about serial killers?

[–]LivingSaladDays 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

well its not terrorism because hes likely a white guy

[–]WeaverOne -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

150 people killed by a suicidal? what an asshole, RIP them

Radical Islam Terrorist attack? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? ISN'T ISIS ENOUGH? WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO STOP? ERADICATE ISLAM! ISLAM THE CAUSE OF ALL PROBLEMS!!

imho, although knowing who did it and what his goals were is the number 1 responsibility, but it doesn't make it any different if it was a terrorist attack, a mistake, or someone who had a death wish!

[–]Kabloski 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

-Steven Weinberg

It's not the best quote, and I have objections to it myself (how do you define a good person?), but I think it is applicable with respect to your comment.

[–]Dwelven 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (6子コメント)

What is it called if it's done for a monetary goal?

[–]michaelnoir 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Being a gangster.

[–]aykcak 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Fraud? As in insurance fraud?

[–]tobiasvl [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Express_Flight_705

[–]NicePerson69 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Also insurance fraud: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Airlines_Flight_11

AND the first in-flight bombing of a jet airliner. It happened just on the west shore of Lake Thunderhead in MO, where my parents lived until recently.

[–]tobiasvl [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Fraud: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Express_Flight_705

[–]Mrs_Brisby [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

He would have known that that wouldn't have worked.

[–]trulyniceguy 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Selfishness is the greatest curse of the human race."

-William E. Gladstone

[–]displaced_tarheel 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The passengers were screaming on the tape. I would say they were in terror.

[–]ladygnome 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The news isn't saying his religion(as far as I read on BBC) but Facebook already has a French community claiming he's part of the Islamic State.

I'm not saying he is Islamic, just that folks already seem to be assuming that he is and that his religion is relevant to what that monster did.

He could have just been insane and delusional, as opposed to being a religious zealot of a terrorist.

[–]5_sec_rule 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I wish this didn't happen

[–]NomNomMeatballBanned 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

No, it was them not following the rules that made this happened. Someone else had to have been in the cockpit which they blatantly disregarded.

[–]Acheron13 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

That's protocol for US carriers, but is it the same for flights in Europe?

[–]NomNomMeatballBanned 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I saw in the original thread that Germanwings has the same policy.

[–]tobiasvl [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

No, they don't. Source: The press conference they just held.

[–]dungdigger 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

If they systematically start taking down random planes in strange ways it is going to put a big dent in air travel. Probably Allah Akbars I would say. This is happening a bunch.

[–]selflessGene 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

What makes you think there wasn't? It took a few days before Al Qaeda came out admitting 9/11.

Let's wait and see.

[–]RameezTheElite 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Terrorism is not associated with religion, politics or ideologies. Terrorism is used to strike terror into different regions and countries. Sometimes a personal goal is involved. Don't use the modern definition of terrorism.

[–]poop-chalupa [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Pretty sure if he was brown or Muslim, he wouldn't be given the benefit of being mentally ill. But since he's white, and not Muslim, we cab talk about him like he's a human. We don't know his motives, but the act itself is an undeniable act of terror.

[–]jvardrake [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Without it 150 people would still be alive

You don't know that.

Let's say there was no door at all. If the guy still wants to kill everyone, all he still has to do is wait for the other pilot to go use the restroom, and then put the plane into some crazy dive that would basically make it near impossible for the pilot to walk normally back to the cockpit.

At some point, there really isn't much we can do/design, other than trust that the pilots aren't crazy/homicidal.

[–]dannyr_wwe [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

This is what I'm talking about. A rock is the most secure cell phone not on the market as a cell phone... because you can't use it to talk to anybody. You can be damn sure that the NSA isn't listening through the rock, but it's secure. Same thing here -- security necessarily means a loss of functionality or time. In this case maybe the answer is better security so that the pilot couldn't be locked out, but I think the old model worked fine. It's just every now and again some wacko will take over the controls and we simply can't prevent every tragedy. So let's stop implementing things willy-nilly without knowing the implications and knowing what's really at stake.

[–]Nochek [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Terrorism is strictly political, and solely an act of the State.

[–]Fuckthepooplice 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

In the US you can have terrorism charges brought up against you for much less. If this took place in the US and he somehow survived while everyone else died (say he jumped out with a parachute and survived) and he did it because he had a bad relationship with his employer they would charge him with terrorism.

[–]404-FuckNotFound -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Terrorism would require a religious, political, or ideological goal.

Yes, thank you.