This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Germanwings Co-Pilot May Have Tried To Crash Previous Flight
Andreas Lubitz, the Germanwings co-pilot who deliberately crashed an Airbus A320 carrying 150 people into the French Alps in March after locking the pilot out of the cockpit, may have rehearsed the tragedy the very same day on the outbound flight from Düsseldorf to Barcelona. The report (embedded below), indicates that Lubitz put the flight into a controlled descent on several occasions, selecting an altitude of 100 ft during times when the audio from the voice recorder suggests the Captain had left the cockpit.
* * *
From the report:
All of the data from the previous flight, from Düsseldorf to Barcelona, was recorded on the FDR. The recordings from the CVR included the last 50 minutes of this flight. Synchronization of these recordings and the radio communications with the Bordeaux en-route control centre with which the crew was in contact, was performed based on the same principle as for the accident flight.
On the previous flight, the following facts can be noted:
- at 7 h 19 min 59, noises like those of the cockpit door opening then closing were recorded and corresponded to when the Captain left the cockpit; the aeroplane was then at cruise speed at flight level FL370 (37,000 ft);
- at 7 h 20 min 29, the flight was transferred to the Bordeaux en-route control centre and the crew was instructed to descend to flight level FL350 (35,000 ft), an instruction read back by the co-pilot;
- at 7 h 20 min 32, the aircraft was put into a descent to flight level FL350 , selected a few seconds earlier;
- at 7 h 20 min 50, the selected altitude decreased to 100 ft for three seconds and then increased to the maximum value of 49,000 ft and stabilized again at 35,000 ft;
- at 7 h 21 min 10, the Bordeaux control centre gave the crew the instruction to continue the descent to flight level FL210;
- at 7 h 21 min 16, the selected altitude was 21,000 ft; from 7 h 22 min 27, the selected altitude was 100 feet most of the time and changed several times until it stabilized at 25,000 ft at 7 h 24 min 13;
- at 7 h 24 min 15, the buzzer to request access to the cockpit was recorded;
- at 7 h 24 min 29 noises like those of the unlocking of the cockpit door then its opening was recorded and corresponded to the Captain’s return to the cockpit.
The following graphic shows the erratic altitude settings corresponding to the Captain's entry and exit from the cockpit:
* * *
As you can infer from the above, it's certainly not out of the question that Lubitz in fact intended to crash the previous flight, as the sequence of events seems to indicate that whenever the Captain wasn't present, the plane was put into an unjustified controlled descent. Whether or not Lubitz's decision to let the Captain back into the cockpit at the 7:24 mark on the voice recorder indicates that the outbound flight was being used a test run or, more chillingly, indicates that at that particular moment, Lubitz simply lost his nerve, is an open question.
»
- 21629 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Lubitzis a role model for Obama as he attempts again and again to start World War III.
Please don't confuse the puppet with the hand inside it.
Be-LIE-ve nothing. Aircraft controlled from the ground, black boxes under wraps, totally unbelievable story of Captain getting locked out...
Certain people are good at telling really bad stories...
And look what happened, German Wings got Clipped.
Merkel got the message.
Has Frau Merkel been in the major news stories since? Do a search on Google trends, Merkel's graph Falls off right about there.
Lies lies lies...
Meanwhile, truth, on skins and flute, Sequence 15.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJU_flXZMuk
under a black saturn sun
I'm a pilot for a well known European low cost airline and I think this story is bullshit. The fact that they find the CVR nad not the FDR when they are positioned next to each other is unbeilevable in the extreme, then they have the audacity, to say they've found several mobile phones but they cant find an FDR made of reinforced titanium! Also if you were going to kill yourself you wouldnt dilly dally around you would take out the autopilot turn off the 3 ADR's and put the aircraft into direct law and shove the nose down, you wouldnt select V/S -3000 and wait and breath normally into the mic! As has been stated before you would not have heard the voices in the cabin on the CVR, nor would you have heard the breathing of the First Officer. I see the mainstream media keep changing the story as now they are saying he had an O2 mask on hence the reason one can hear breathing, why the fuck would he have put an O2 mask on, there was no depressuristion.
Lets just evaluate the bullshit in this following article shall we:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11508250/Video-...
Right were do I start! Start the article from where it says: "Paris Match said the authenticity of the film was bolstered by a fresh transcript of the cockpit voice recorder, which an investigator recounted to the magazine."
1. The Captain asks Lubitz to check if the A/C has switched to descent mode. This is complete horeshit, the plane has just levelled off and would have gone into CRUISE mode.
2. "Alone in the cockpit, Lubitz then locks the door with the “lock” switch, and can be heard reprogramming the autopilot to accelerate the speed of descent to go from 38,000 feet to 100 feet in a few minutes." This is more bullshit, you would not be able to hear any "repogramming of autopilots on the CVR, it barely makes a noise.
3. The article says the aircraft starts its descent at 10:33 at 3000 ft/min and then at 10:34 "sink rate, pull up" can be heard, this is so wrong its unbeilevable, you dont get a sink rate until below 2450 feet above ground level as its a mode of the EGPWS system and at this stage the plane is at 35,000 feet!
4. At 10:37 we are suppsed to believe that "terrain terrian pull up" is spoken again by the EGPWS but at 3000 ft/min for 4 mins the plane is still at 26,000 feet, way above the terrain.
5. "The captain screams: “Open the damn door!” At 10.38am, “despite all the noise all around, one can clearly hear Lubitz’s breathing because he has put an oxygen mask on. He is breathing normally. The plane is at 13,000 feet,” writes Paris Match." Like I said before, there was no reason for the co-pilot to put an Oxygen mask on as there was no depressurisation and I believe the script writers changed this when it was revealed that the CVR would not pick up the breathing sounds. So at 10:38 they say the aircraft was at 13,000 feet, well 5 x 3000 = 15,000 so 38,000 - 15,000 is not 13,000 feet!
6. "At 10.40am, one can hear a “violent sound coming from outside. At the same time, there are screams inside. The Airbus has just hit the mountain with its right wing”." How do they know it struck the right wing first?! Plus again the CVR would not pick up screams from the passenger cabin!
7. "At 10.41, the plane hits the mountain at 5,000 feet flying at 500mph." Two things here at 3000ft/min at 10:41 the aircraft should have been at 14,000 feet some 9000 feet above the mountain tops. Secondly aircraft do not fly 500mph at 5000 feet. the airspeed is proportional to half the dynamic pressurre V squared. So at 5000 feet pressure is greater than at 38,000 feet so naturally you can not achieve high speeds at lower levels as the Indicated airspeed is similar to the True Airspeed, the reverse is true at altitude. As a result the highest speed at sea level is around 330 knots which is about 400mph. At higher speeds the AIrbus normal law protection kicks in which raises the nose of the aircraft to avoid the speed exceeding VMO + 16 or MMO + 0.04. So again this is bullshit, the plane would never hit this speed. Plus they had no way of knowing as they havent found the Flight Data Recorder! Finally at no point have they said that radar data has been available to cororbarate the "findings" off the CVR. So how on earth do they know what the rates of descent are and when the aircarft descended?!
How the fuck can they blame somebody with this kangaroo court of bullshit. There is nothing scientific in their ananylysis at all. To hang someone on dodgy CVR data is negligent and criminal, especially considering that the French BEA has barely even started its investigation. Like I said I highly doubt this is a real CVR recording for all the above reasons.
Bingo Tony. BTW, kind of weird reading a normally worded post from you ;-)
it not me the informarty was earth chunneled via my tesla black ether net connection with south pole of saturnia straight from the eye sauce
my life already
"As covered by 21st Century Wire: The Case of Malaysia's Missing Airliner MH370 -- Part Two
http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/03/16...
Before It's News http://beforeitsnews.com/terrorism/20...
I am a retired Delta pilot. On 10 December, 2006 I informed FAA, FBI and NWA of the Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot. It was used against Adam Air 574 in a manner consistent with the loss yesterday of the B777 enroute Kaula Lampur to China.
Please advise me if Delta ALPA Safety Reps have educated the Delta Pilot Group of the BUAP that I forced Boeing to announce on 3 March, 2007 in response to my lawsuit filed against Boeing and ALPA of 27 February, 2007. That lawsuit was Civil Case 3:07-cv-24 and resulted in Boeing doing the right thing in announcing the deployment of the BUAP to be completed by March, 2009. Here is the article of Boeing's response to my lawsuit:
New autopilot will make another 9/11 impossible
My question to DPA and Delta ALPA Safety is on what date did Delta ensure that all Delta pilots are aware of what Boeing has stated 7 years ago would be installed by March, 2009.
The significance is that if any ALPA pilots are not aware of this 'feature' they cannot comply with FAR 121.533.
In regards to yesterday's B777 hull loss expect to see the attached tax document anchoring a chapter published demonstrating the similarities of yesterday's loss to Adam Air 574 to Sukhoi Superjet lost in May, 2012.
Please note that defattru email address goes to Russian Air Force, Sukhoi and GRU. If you are not aware of who GRU is perhaps you should be.
Field McConnell
715 307 8222 "
Field McConnell does not strike me as credible.
And the Uninterruptible Autopilot makes for some great conspiracy theories; but ultimately, if a pilot decides to do something reckless with his aircraft, he can do so within seconds; whereas if a ground control takeover was contemplated, it would take hours, if not days to set this event up given the current infrastructure. This isn't something that any high-school educated ATC monkey can activate by just clicking a mouse.
Uninterruptable autopilot is a standard feature in Every Boeing Jumbo Jet.
It is designed ostensibly to transfer control from the flight deck to a remote location in the event of a hijacking. As such, when Uninterruptable Autopilot is engaged, the flight crew have zero control over the aircraft.
Hacker claims he can remotely hijack airplanes using an Android app
http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/11/planesploit-aircraft-hijacking-app/
"Hacker claims he can remotely hijack airplanes using an Android app"
Of course he does.
Seconds, maybe, but this took over 8 minutes. Fighter jets were trailing it, according to eyewitnesses.
No they were not.
He had warned this crisis would happen since Boeing quietly installed auto uninterruptible autopilots in every one of its jets, but government officials have repeatedly gagged him.
I work on aircraft. I'm just about 2 seconds short of calling BS on the above links, although almost anything is possible these days. As a disclaimer - I have not worked on 777's.
To start with, almost all modern aircraft are automated....... to a point. Fuel scheduling, pressurization, auto-pilot, auto-throttles, auto-brakes, auto-spoilers, auto-land, etc. All flight parameters are loaded into the Flight Management Systems which interface with all the peripheral systems. Flight crews are "programmers" more than anything. Still though, they're there for a reason. One being runaway or failed systems.
Remote control of an aircraft would have to be accomplished with "out-of-service" crew members. If a system started to screw up (non-scheduled flight path), the crew is going to disengage the auto-pilot and hand fly it. If "that" doesn't work, I'm sure they would be yanking breakers to disable the auto-pilot completely.
Now, if they were given a wrong pre-flight FMS flightplan. Hell yes the aircraft can fly the wrong route, but wouldn't the crew kinda realize that flying west is "not" the correct path when the place you are supposed to be flying to is north????
My opinion, both Malaysian aircraft were shot down. The twin tower aircraft "were" guided into the buildings (flight crews dead or not present in the first place). I would guess this German aircraft was also shot down.
As an avionics software engineer with in depth working knowledge of planes and how they function both from an engineering standpoint, from software logic based on physics and pilot interactions, and from a workload and operational perspective, my question on this setting of the desired altitude to 100 is did any of the times those things were done take the airplane out of the desired flight path? If the flight path envelope was never violated, then it would beg the question, do any other pilots routinely set the desired altitude low as part of their style of control and flying?
He could have feared hypoxia due to a loss of cabin pressure at high altitude, and any time that the plane needed to go down he might have always wanted to make sure that if somehow he passed out that a low altitude would eventually increase cabin pressure to the point where he would wake up.
There is also the possibility of a microstroke affected his normal brain functioning. An interesting case of brain defect recently made news where a woman was found to have her embryonic twin embedded in her brain, and what led to that discovery was that she started behaving differently for some reason.
The flight trail of 370 showed it circling and zigzagging, like the pilot was fighting with something, or someone.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f2/MH370_flight_pa...
It was taken, or taken down, because of this(same goes for MH17 and a couple of others);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lumpur_War_Crimes_Commission
Yea, I like'em with credible names, like Forrest Sawyer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrest_Sawyer
Pardon me, but Tony and Indian are a pair of "blame conspiracy first" loonies .... add Latin Lover to complete the Manage a .... er, the threesome !
monetas
jewish mommy
i hungry
need milk
give me tit
Tony,
I'm an ex-US Navy helicopter pilot; and my experience in the rotary wing business is a bit different from yours; but the similarities outnumber the differences.
I completely disagree with you here.
A few notes. First, we have the severe psychological disorders that this pilot deliberately concealed from his employer. He was known to be suicidal and taking psychotropic drugs. That's motive. And it makes the rest of the narrative believeable, in my opinion. Locking the Aircraft Commander out of the cockpit and setting a 3000 FPM descent to his (and others') certain demise strikes me as exactly the kind of thing a sick fuck like this guy would do. For you and me, that's unconscionable. But not for this whack job.
Forensic data available to a mishap investigation team varies from crash to crash. Whether or not the Airbus was traveling at 500 IAS, it scored a direct hit on a mountain. When these things happen, the metal, fiber, cotton, polyester, and, yes, human material that one instant before was an aircraft full of people becomes a jumbled mash that behaves more like a fluid. The laws of physics do funny things in these situations. I absolutely can believe that in this circumstance the CVR can be recovered but the FDR remains unlocated. This is not some conspiratorial cover-up. This is the way mishaps and mishap investagations go. (A buddy of mine died in a helicopter crash 12 years ago. Aircraft slammed into terrain hard, and then was totally destroyed after fire consumed the wreckage. His wrist-watch was found thrown 100 feet from the crash site, still running. It had to have been ripped off his arm, rocketed through the plexiglass cockpit side window, and hurled to a spot farther away than a discus thrower could throw it deliberately. Freaky shit. But it happened.)
One final note: non-pilots who observe an aviation mishap frequently do not know what the hell they just saw. This applies to journalists reading a mishap report and writing a story for Paris Match. That they get details pertaining to the rates of descent, or when alarms sounded, or when who said what on the CVR, is to be expected. It is also likely that the mishap team provided estimates in their official press releases (eg. "about" 500 knots, "about" 13,000 feet, etc.) Nothing out of the ordinary there.
The simplest explanation is the most correct in this instance. A nut who never should have been allowed in a cockpit exploited a cockpit door lock feature (which was an overreaction to 911) and killed himself and a whole lot of other people.
The FDR was recovered a few days after the CVR - that's where they're getting the autopilot settings from.
And I humbly suggest that you would reconsider your psychiatric assessment of the copilot if you knew how many rotations of the AP altitude setting knob it takes to intentionally set it to 100 ft. when you're changing it from FL350. You would be spinning it down like a monkey on crack - it's not like three-quarters of a rotation gets you there. To have done that extreme setting five times in four minutes on the outbound flight then spin it several rotations all the way back to the proper assigned altitude a few seconds later is preposterous.
That's the actions someone takes when the instruments are not acting as expected, i.e., the display is blanking out or lagging in reflecting your settings changes. The fact that the FDR shows a repeated set altitude drop to exactly 100 ft. which is then corrected looks more like the actions a pilot would take if he was fighting a faulty AP panel display. I would love to have heard the conversation on the CVR when the captain got back to the flight deck after that outbound episode. Like some mention of the AP acting up.
Do you think a cut-rate airline would rather have you think their glitchy AP panel caused the crash OR that some random homicidal pilot flew it into a mountain? You may want to check the terms of their insurance before you answer that.
Conspiratorial nonsense.
I'm pretty confident that the Airbus altitude hold feature involves key entries, rather than the old analog dial we have on the H-53.
"...Conspiratorial nonsense..."
A320 pilot's 'conspirational nonsense', not mine. My car only has 'wife' A/P mode - I prefer to keep it disengaged when possible.
"...I'm pretty confident that the Airbus altitude hold feature involves key entries, rather than the old analog dial we have on the H-53..."
The picture of the A320 FCU panel (Boeing = 'Mode Control') is right in the report - page 19. Outer knob selects 100 or 1000 ft. increments. Inner knob spins with soft (tactile) detents at each unit. When you're above transition and using flight levels, you would generally have it set on 1000 and spin the inner knob clockwise or counterclockwise to change the value. Below transition you use 100's. You could spin all the way up to 29,000 ft. from 100 ft. using the 100's, but it would take dozens of rotations. To actually send the value to the flight control computer, you have to either push or pull the inner knob (which sets the mode).
The pilot would probably be looking at his flight dispaly screen - not the FCU display - when changing altitude. Nobody had a reasonable explanation why anyone would run it down to 100, set it and then run it back up to the assigned altitude and set it again, and certainly not several times in a row.
Thanks for the background on that. Sounds like someone could, if he wanted, select 1000s with the outer knob, spin all the way down to 1K with the inner, rotate outer back to 100s, and take another turn on the inner to drop it the other 900 feet. I can imagine being able to do this in less than a second, can't you?
You're right about it being tough to explain, unless one were a suicidal sociopath.
"Do you think a cut-rate airline would rather have you think their glitchy AP panel caused the crash OR that some random homicidal pilot flew it into a mountain?"
Or, a nation?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/airbus-to-sue-over-us-an...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/business/international/as-prime-russia...
Saturn calling….. One ringy dingy, …two ringy dingys, …three ringy dingys.
We are literally swimming in disinformation these days. The (our) perception managers love chaos, confusion, doubt and diversion. (You may have even noticed this yourself at most locations on the Internet.)
One’s bull crap meter must be on high alert and maximum sensitivity AT ALL TIMES and, sadly, from all parties, …even past very solid ones.
While reading your post mine didn’t sound out so much as a vague peep.
Thanks for the pro explanation of AB 320 operation, capacities and physical environment, TW.
Stay safe and aware up there because, as you probably well know, things can happen these here days that are beyond even an excellent pilot’s control.
~ DC
Tony - I agree with most of what you said, but you're arguing angainst the first fake narrative thrown out to distract people (and produce arguments exactly like yours). That's not a knock on you - it's just part of the pattern to discredit 'conspiracy nuts' when they do decide to toss out a few actual facts. Their response to everything you said would be, "Well, that's not the way it happened - some reporter got it wrong to begin with." They will then point out the 'new' improved narrative in the BEA report.
Here's the biggest glaring hole in the new report: they fail to mention the piercing 15-second warning from the door lock panel when someone from outside the cockpit uses the emergency override code which the pilot would have certainly used. The only warning the 'new' official version has is the normal, initial 1-second request to enter buzzer. They used some open-ended wording to suggest that the emergency override was disabled by the lock position (incorrect). You can mute the override warning and keep the door locked by toggleing the door lock switch, but you have to get the emergency entry request (and buzzer) first. Many cockpit doors have a master override that is unable to be disabled from the cockpit. Kind of for situations exactly like this.
The report is obviously for public consumption, so many of the other pertinent details that other Airbus pilots would naturally have are stripped out. Most of those details are how the aircraft would react given a certain set of inputs in particular flight modes. These are all details captured by the flight data recorder and known right now to the investigators. Details that might either call to question other A320 pilots understanding of the way the aircraft works or point to an insrument error rather then CFIT. Of course, they'll be coy an not release that for years or obfuscate the details.
One thing for sure: they're never going to back away from the initial claims that "The crazy co-pilot did it intentionally." Which falsely equates depression leading to suicide (almost exclusively a lone attempt) to the psychopathic desire to take others with you in a murder/suicide (almost exclusively an act of despiration from loss of contol issues, i.e., a power thing for yourself or a cause). I would believe the entire fake story more if Lubitz was a politician or lawyer before becoming a pilot.
My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do... www.jobs-review.com
Enough of this BS. It's "ALL" a lie, just like everything else the media throws out.
exactly...
I can't recall seeing even one photo of a smoking wreckage site, even from afar. You would think that at least one photo would have been taken immediately after the accident by a person, even if it were from a few miles away at lower elevations. They would still have been able to see the smoke, and would think it very strange, and might even snap off a pic. i didn't see one. Anyone else? All I saw was sccattered debris on a mountainside, and no signs of burning. I could be wrong, but it looks like a fake to me.
Nope.
Looked like a normal mishap under the circumstances.
Had someone been on that remote mountaintop at the moment of the crash, he might have seen a flash as the remaining fuel burned off; but it took hours for SAR helicopters to make it to the site; and that's when the pictures were taken. No smoke, no fire, no surprise.
Nope nope.
okay... so no one heard that plane slam into the mountain and decided to take a photo of a big black plume of smoke rising from the mountain? Highly unlikely. You wouldn't need to be standing on the mountaintop to see the smoke.
In all of the footage I've seen, there is absolutely no evidence of anything being scorched. Send me a link of that if you find some. I'm not saying I'm right, but that I haven't seen any myself.
If a plane slams into a remote mountain and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
Doubt you'd see much evidence of scorched Earth, given the circumstances. Depends on the fuel load.
How remote is it? What's the nearest town?
And maybe you wouldn't see much scorching, but I think you'd see some.
and funny that you should ask if it makes a sound because I recall that the initial news stories quoted witnesses hearing the explosion. But still no photos of a smoking black plume. nothing. I just think that's strange.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/Germanwings-Airbus-A320-...
Eric Mauger, a goat farmer in Prads-Haute-Bleone, the nearest hamlet to the crash scene, said that the plane came down high on the mountains well above the snowline.
A woman living in Verlet three kilometres from the crash said: "I heard a dull noise, like an avalanche starting or like the explosions they use to force avalanches. Then several fighter planes flew over the village, probably looking for the wreckage."
"Around midday I started to see smoke rising ... Some village people climbed up to the Mariaud pass and they could see the wreckage from there."
Then, there's this;
http://www.examiner.com/article/fbi-assisting-germanwings-plane-crash-in...
I thought of all the swings in $$$ on the last play in Super Bowl was crazy. The people on these two flights had much bigger swings in fate.
And how nobody spoke a word about it.
I read somewhere that his real name is Prince Abu Ben Boobie.
http://www3.telus.net/almondx/221%20princes.jpg
(Get Smart: The Man From YENTA)
Plane was remotely crashed. Enough with th Co Pilot already.
well he won't be crashing any more of them. lets hope that SSRI Screening and thorough blood tests are considered. most pilots get paid shit. the industry relies on the "Dream Job" myth. This leads to stress and dissatisfaction. C'mon..make em happy. I'm flying this week.
Happiness leads to drunkin pilots.
Our uncomfortable truth is that our very lives are becoming more and more dependent on others, and when we think about how many of the people we actually know that we would trust with such responsibility, it becomes truly frightening.
Yea because back in the day everyone just flew their own planes.
Planes are young to the world dipshit. Oldwood makes a great point.
Did you read the story of Japanese radiated farm food to Taiwan? See the broken chains of trust involved?
Heard of the FDA?
Douchebaggery making you look dumb,
Unintended consequences of Keynesian Socialism .... "We do everything better, together !" .... Capitalism encourages competence and individual integrity .... FUCK group think "Sociopathalism" !
I've replaced trusting in people with prayer. I just wanted to be honest with myself about the situation, really - nothing material changed.
He was getting himself comfortable with the idea.
More and more are hoping for a crash.
This guy just took it into his own hands.
Just like the Nanex charts.
If it weren't for the captain's swollen prostate, this never would have happened. Scale up those prostate exams!
It's clear that, in addition to safety related fondling and anal probes of the passengers, that the TSA needs to be in the cockpit. Worry not as I can assure you all that most of the dedicated associates at TSA have a US high school education (or equivalent). It's well passed time we gave the pilots and co-pilots the velvet blue-glove treatment.
Negative ghostrider, prostate ca is expensive to treat. One of the treatments is called wait and see. Based on the premise that the person might get hit by a bus or something. Or something like a plane crash. New healthcare rules.. .
Highly skilled jobs are squeezed .... taxes, regulations .... prison guards make way more than pilots .... socialism is here .... but, it's not nearly finished with us yet !
Well, thank goodness he did not succeed or we would be looking at two fatal air crashes...
More than two .... didn't you read the story .... again ? LOL
Please do not belive in the MSM Propaganda.
Have to say, rehearsal is a strange choice of word..BTW if you want to go really really fast in a Boeing you can, it doesn't have the child protections built in to the Airbus....
Remember the Russian pilot .... who let his kid fly the Airbus .... and the kid pushed the yoke full forward .... as kids are inclined to do .... no yoke ?
More unsubstantiated proof of an unsubstantiated suicide in the presence of unsubstantiated french and italian military jets.
Where are the ukraine tower tapes at?
The transcripts will be released in a heavily redacted form in the year 2065.
Well he did what Germans do best: mass murdering innocent people!
If he were an Arab or a Muslim, he'd be called a terrorist.
The reason they DEMONIZE Arabs & Muslims>>> http://wp.me/p4OZ4v-tt