Germanwings A320 Crash

devnull

Roquentin wrote: »

would it not be beneficial to have a camera in teh cockpit that beams across images of whats happening in the cockpit to the airport it left and the airport it will arrive.

What's the point, what could the airport do about it?

Absloutely nothing.

Roquentin

devnull wrote: »

What's the point, what could the airport do about it?

Absloutely nothing.

we know for sure what happened. same with the flight that went missing.

devnull

pfurey101 wrote: »

Another post liftted from the same Pilots Forum

Everyone is missing the point of having two in the cockpit. In the US it is required to visually confirm who is entering the cockpit and control the door at all times. The second person is there to visually check the person entering and immediately close the door if open and someone moves near the door. The lessons of 911 never really hit home in the rest if the world. It's a smart policy.

Nobody asked the crew to over-rule a possible suicidal pilot and fly the plane in a safe way, it's just not possible but by having control over the door, as the person outlines the crew member would have, it allows the second pilot to have at least a small chance of getting back in.

If we have these systems and require a second person, then the second person can only be there to "baby" the remaining pilot.

I know that some pilots don't like cabin crew being in there when the other pilot is out since they see it as babying or nannying, but unfortunately like with many things in life, many rules exist because of the fact that whilst 99.999% of people would never try and do such things, there will always be the odd exception, and this is why many safety procedures in many industries are there, to prevent a rare rogue person from being able to cause awful situations.

If that means a pilot has to feel nannied to make the chance of an incident like this occuring even by a small amount and only 1 life is saved, I think it's worthwhile. Thing is that I'm sure some pilots simply think that a FA shouldn't be in there because they're not a pilot, and perhaps that is why some of the airlines didn't have such policy in the first place, due to pilot pressure?

rubberdiddies

I find it a bit strange that so much has been leaked already. I'd personally rather wait until the investigators have done their job and reached their conclusion.

But I suppose a delay may adversely impact Airbus, a French company, right??

swampgas

eviltimeban wrote: »

Either that, or an air marshall either in the cockpit or with exclusive override access for the cockpit, in all flights, everywhere. That's 100,000 air marshalls a day, at a guess... not saying it's doable btw!

And what happens when one of these thousands of air marshalls has a really bad day and decides to crash the plane? It's unworkable.

Ultimately you have to trust somebody with the safety of the aircraft, and the best candidates are the pilots.

devnull

swampgas wrote: »

And what happens when one of these thousands of air marshalls has a really bad day and decides to crash the plane? It's unworkable.

Ultimately you have to trust somebody with the safety of the aircraft, and the best candidates are the pilots.

But it's always better to have two people in there rather than a single point of failure.

Sheldons Brain

rubberdiddies wrote: »

I find it a bit strange that so much has been leaked already. I'd personally rather wait until the investigators have done their job and reached their conclusion.

But I suppose a delay may adversely impact Airbus, a French company, right??

The original leak was by an American to the NY Times! But don't let facts interfere with conspiracy theories.

rubberdiddies

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The original leak was by an American to the NY Times! But don't let facts interfere with conspiracy theories.

I'm far from a conspiracy theorist but I do have an opinion, which this forum allows me to express.

Contrary to popular belief I don't have enough time in the day to read every single piece of information ever released.

So I didn't already know what you have since told me.

No need to be so sarky

fits

pfurey101 wrote: »

Lifted from a Pilots Forum


There was always something not quite right about this since (the French) leaked to the NYT. I hope that this is not a 24hr media feed trend.

The last line in the quote above "The sole purpose of a CVR is to aid investigators… not to apportion blame " could still be in fact, be the main aid in determining the findings/recommendations in the final Crash Report.

I think if it is pretty bloody obvious what happened, and it seems to be, why keep 149 +1 families in the dark about the truth of what happened their loved ones any longer than necessary.

rubberdiddies wrote: »

I find it a bit strange that so much has been leaked already. I'd personally rather wait until the investigators have done their job and reached their conclusion.

But I suppose a delay may adversely impact Airbus, a French company, right??

Do you think they should keep the families waiting a couple of years until the investigation has concluded? Announcing their current definite line of enquire surely does not scupper the investigation.

smurfjed

I know that some pilots don't like cabin crew being in there when the other pilot is out since they see it as babying or nannying, but unfortunately like with many things in life,

What do you expect the untrained flight attendant to do??

When it does, if auto-pilot is engaged- it disconnects.

Are you sure of this? Out autopilot wont disconnect in this situation.

Or just let machine fly plane. No pilots? WIll happen at some stage/

It will come, but they will need to ensure that hacking is impossible.

Best option now to unlock cockpit door completely and either way if there's a terrorist or rogue pilot the majority of the passengers / crew deal with them by force? Not perfect by any stretch, but I guess we're running out of options here.

Fr336 considering the number of flights that you watch, dont you think that this is a knee jerk reaction?

Sky Marshals, firearms, this is the harsh real world, not Hollywood fantasy. The potential for massive damage, or worse, as a result of discharging a firearm at 38,000 Ft doesn't bear thinking about. Make a hole in a aircraft at FL380, and there is a very real chance that a small hole becomes a large hole very rapidly. Not exactly the outcome that was wanted.

Think outside the box and think about what else will happen in this case!

apparently if the other pilot had of followed the protocol of the industry there would have been a way to open that door

Its not legally required, otherwise Easyjet wouldnt have announced that they were changing their procedures.

Why there isn't a jacks in the cockpit is beyond me. The captain having to leave it to take a whizz is a bit silly. I know it's tight in there, but surely they could squeeze a WC in.

No problem but the space is going to be the same as 3 passenger seats so your fares are going to increase.

he only had a 3rd Class Medical cert which should only allow the exercise of a private pilot license and not a Passenger license which requires a 1st class certificate

I have a 3rd class medical for flying microlights, but i also have 3 Class 1 medicals, so that record is meaningless. He needed a class one/two to fly (depending on the German laws)

Considering where i fly, i had always considered that the door would be the cause of a pilot induced crash, but i seriously thought that it would be due to religious reasons.

Irish Steve

The comments from IFALPA are interesting, in as much as they reflect the "official" position about CVR's. Given the almost unique set of circumstances that have been revealed, and the leak of information to the NYT, I don't think the investigators had much choice other than to be very pro active in revealing the desperate circumstances of this event, if for no other reasons than to give the families some closure and certainty, especially given that the painful truth was going to come out in the fullness of time. To leave relatives in the dark, probably believing that their loved ones died without knowing what had happened, and then to reveal that they knew EXACTLY what was happening would have been the cruellest of blows on top of all the other issues of dealing with their loss. At least now, however hard it it, they cannot be hit by the pain of discovering the truth of the final minutes.

What's not been talked about in any length so far is the pressure that would have been put on the investigators to clear the A320, in that until the investigators had a viable alternative scenario, the most credible scenario was an explosive decompression that disabled the crew, which from an Airbus marketing point of view was an absolute nightmare.

So, while they won't EVER admit to having said anything to the investigators about their view of the accident, you may be very sure that they will have said in code speak, "if you discover something that clears the airframe from any involvement, please make it clear as rapidly as possible".

You can call me cynical if you like, but I am pretty confident that there will have been a massive corporate exhale of breath around the Airbus organisation when the French prosecutor made the very definitive statement that he did this morning.

The CVR has clearly given a lot more detail than the inspectors are prepared to go public about, the very large group of people who were analysing the data will be the most experienced in their field, and their experience will cover a huge range of specialities, so we can be uncomfortably confident that their findings may be far from complete at the moment, but they will stand up to intense scrutiny, and if the FDR is found, and is still capable of being read, it will only serve to confirm the situation that has already been outlined so graphically.

ProfessorPlum

Do you think the dead pilot deserves to be unequivocally named as guilty on the basis of a sound recording, that maybe incomplete and maybe of dubious quality?
Do you not think every individual deserves the benefit of a thorough investigation before being found guilty?
Do you not think that every aspect of the flight, the pilots circumstances, fatigue issues etc etc etc should be looked at before we saddle an individual with such a horrendous amount if blame?
That is the basis of the justice system in the civilised world, and it is also best practice in crash investigation.

devnull

smurfjed wrote: »

What do you expect the untrained flight attendant to do??[/qupte]

I don't expect them to be able to fly the plane.

But they do have the chance to open the door or to try and reason with the pilot or attempt to do something. I'm not saying it will work but there is some hope.

If the suicidal pilot is the only one left in there, then the moment he decides he wants to kill everyone, nothing at all can be done to stop him. The chance of stopping him is zero.

With a crew member in there, there is at least some hope, even if it's small.

Saying the 9/11 regulations about doors is to blame is completely stupid. Any way that allows a crew member to get access to the door and over-ride anything from within the cockpit leaves a chance that it could be used by anyone on board to hijack the plane by forcing said crew member to do open it via the same method or do it themselves.

That is not withstanding that any measure that makes it impossible for a passenger in the cabin to get access to the cockpit, makes the chance of hijack virtually zero, which will have saved many lives around the world, much more overall than are lost by this incident.

smurfjed

With a crew member in there, there is at least some hope, even if it's small.

If offers protection against the remaining pilot collapsing, it doesn't offer protection against "intent".

rubberdiddies

fits wrote: »

I think if it is pretty bloody obvious what happened, and it seems to be, why keep 149 +1 families in the dark about the truth of what happened their loved ones any longer than necessary.



Do you think they should keep the families waiting a couple of years until the investigation has concluded? Announcing their current definite line of enquire surely does not scupper the investigation.

No but already it had been announced that the pilot downed the plane on purpose. Now if they have come to that conclusion after examining all the evidence then fine.

But now this mans family will undoubtedly be hounded by the press and others, despite the fact that the investigators may reach another conclusion.

Maybe I'm missing something

VG31

Aer Lingus and Ryanair have said two people are required in the cockpit at all times on their flights.

http://www.thejournal.ie/aer-lingus-ryainair-cockpit-2015732-Mar2015/

Icepick

ThisRegard wrote: »

You obviously weren't listening to Joe Duffy. Short term contracts and lack of holidays is what drove this guy to suicide is what you could take from his show, and of course Ryanair got a mention.

For some people, the concept of personal responsibility just doesn't exist.
They often call Joe.

devnull

smurfjed wrote: »

If offers protection against the remaining pilot collapsing, it doesn't offer protection against "intent".

It doesn't protect in all circumstances, but it does offer more protection than nobody and the chance to open the door.

Without doubt, a one man cockpit is always going to be less safe than a two man cockpit, even if the second man or woman is cabin crew.

I'm not saying a second person solves everything and prevents every situation but it does help to some degree.

ProfessorPlum

devnull wrote: »

It doesn't protect in all circumstances, but it does offer more protection than nobody and the chance to open the door.

Without doubt, a one man cockpit is always going to be less safe than a two man cockpit, even if the second man or woman is cabin crew.

I'm not saying a second person solves everything and prevents every situation but it does help to some degree.

I guarantee you that within 3 seconds I can degrade my aircraft and set it spiralling towards the ground, and there is no way anybody in the cockpit, no matter who they are will be able to recover it.
There's an amount of hysteria and knee jerk reactions - exactly what we don't need here. Particularly since this investigation has only barely begun.

smurfjed

I found this posted on another forum.....

Putting a cabin crew member in the cockpit will appear as if something is being done. But, if the engines were shut down by the only remaining pilot, or the flight controls "disconnected" or any other such fatal action taken, then the action of a cabin crew member being present will have no change to the eventual outcome. The only way to possibly prevent this happening is to have a third pilot, making it a 2 pilot in the cockpit at anytime scenario.

Unfortunately the days of 3 pilots in the cockpit are gone..

JCX BXC

Is there any fool proof way of preventing this accident? If there was a cabin crew in the cockpit, the copilot could have easily knocked them unconscious with a heavy object, especially if its a weaker individual.

devnull

Indeed, but that doesn't mean that it will be 3 seconds in all occasions, sometimes for whatever reason it may take a pilot longer, in this case there is hope.

No matter how slim that hope is, 1 in a million is better than no hope like in this case.

A Dub in Glasgo

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I guarantee you that within 3 seconds I can degrade my aircraft and set it spiralling towards the ground, and there is no way anybody in the cockpit, no matter who they are will be able to recover it.
There's an amount of hysteria and knee jerk reactions - exactly what we don't need here. Particularly since this investigation has only barely begun.

It is not hysteria and knee jerk to have 2 in the cockpit. If it was, can you explain why a lot of airlines already have this policy?

devnull

smurfjed wrote: »

I found this posted on another forum.....

A lot of these assumptions seem to be on basis that the cabin crew membe could not fly a plane and only the other pilot can.

My argument is that if a cabin crew can have control over doors, they can in theory let the other pilot back in, to do the actions, not the cabin crew itself.

Icepick

KungPao wrote: »

Why there isn't a jacks in the cockpit is beyond me. The captain having to leave it to take a whizz is a bit silly. I know it's tight in there, but surely they could squeeze a WC in.

punisher5112 wrote: »

Increase size of cockpit or create a second secure door to toilet. Then no safety concern.

fr336 wrote: »

How about an external computer override from the ground in situations like this, that can only be actioned by the CEO of the airline? If it looks like things are going all rogue or terrorist like, this override switches the autopilot on to do what the CEO (and their technical team) wishes and we go from there? It sounds silly but this is where we're at after these events.

And no, I don't care how much money or effort it costs. Small beer compared to some profits being made on this planet.

Roquentin wrote: »

would it not be beneficial to have a camera in teh cockpit that beams across images of whats happening in the cockpit to the airport it left and the airport it will arrive.

smurfjed

I guarantee you that within 3 seconds I can degrade my aircraft and set it spiralling towards the ground, and there is no way anybody in the cockpit, no matter who they are will be able to recover it.

As professor plum has pointed out, it will only take 3 seconds!

Tenger

rubberdiddies wrote: »

I find it a bit strange that so much has been leaked already. I'd personally rather wait until the investigators have done their job and reached their conclusion.

But I suppose a delay may adversely impact Airbus, a French company, right??

Actually the info was leaked by the French military, which wrong footed the BEA investigation.
Airbus would not want a quick result just for PR porposes.

murphaph

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Exactly, though even if someone else was present inside, the same result might have unfolded. If someone doesn't mind dying, they're going to be extremely difficult to restrain for someone who does.

Hmmm, it's possible but the CC would just have to get to the door and open it to the other pilot. A cockpit is a very small space...the disturbed pilot would be doing very well to prevent the CC from making a lunge for the door handle, but in principle I agree that guarding against a determined crazy pilot is more or less impossible, though requiring CC to replace absent pilots seems a "cheap" fix that could prevent the "guy on the edge" from being able to act out his intentions.

Any reaction beyond that by way of "technical fixes" would be silly IMO, as would the idea of removing the safeguards added post 9/11. I have no doubt that there are a lot more would be hijackers out there than mentally ill pilots and overall I believe these safeguards have made flying safer. We shouldn't lose the run of ourselves in this. The chances of this happening to you are miniscule, though that is cold comfort for the relatives of the poor feckers who died this time.

ProfessorPlum

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

It is not hysteria and knee jerk to have 2 in the cockpit. If it was, can you explain why a lot of airlines already have this policy?

The reason for the second person in the cockpit is I case the remaining pilot becomes incapacitated - the second person can then alert the pilot who has left the cockpit and he can return immediately.
It really has nothing to so with making sure the other pilot doesn't crash whe he's out, but there'll be a lot of hand wringing and jumping on band wagons over this. If a pilot wants to crash a plane, he will crash it. We should be focusing on protecting the mental health of flight crew, not having a useless symbolic measure of having another person in the cockpit.

sjb25

Carnacalla wrote: »

Is there any fool proof way of preventing this accident? If there was a cabin crew in the cockpit, the copilot could have easily knocked them unconscious with a heavy object, especially if its a weaker individual.

I think as professor plum and smufjed say 3 seconds and any pilot could have there aircraft out of control and what would a cabin crew member do in that case while yes it may make somebody think twice it won't stop any pilot who really wants to do it

Tenger

smurfjed wrote: »

If offers protection against the remaining pilot collapsing, it doesn't offer protection against "intent".

While I would have an issue with the term "untrained fight attendant" I would agree with this point. A trained and experienced pilot could mess up a commercial airliner in under a minute. A cabin crew member will not be able to prevent this.

The 2nd body in the cockpit is to cover a sudden incapacitation and assist in controlling the entry to the cockpit.

The previously unthinkable issue of deliberate downing of an aircraft was not a factor in making the recommendation regarding CC being present in the cockpit with a single flight crew.

smurfjed

Also taken from another site.... but it should finish the questions about the door lock...

COCKPIT DOOR toggle switch

UNLOCK position : This position is used to enable the cabin crewmember to open the door. The switch must be pulled and maintained in the unlock position until the door is pushed open.

NORM position : All latches are locked, and EMERGENCY access is possible for the cabin crew.

LOCK position : Once the button has been moved to this position, the door is locked ; emergency access, the buzzer, and the keypad are inhibited for a preselected time (5 to 20 min).

Peppa Pig

Strange statement tonight from the Air Line Pilots Association in the US. (strange to me)

ALPA Statement on Germanwings Flight 4U 9525

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Air Line Pilots Association, Int'l, today issued the following statement regarding Germanwings Flight 4U 9525.

"The members of the Air Line Pilots Association, Int'l, remain deeply saddened by the tragic loss of life on Germanwings Flight 4U 9525. Our thoughts are with all those affected.

"The North American air transportation system is the safest in the world because of a dedicated commitment by government, industry, and labor to work together to advance proven policies and procedures focused on achieving the highest standards.

"All airlines in the United States follow similar procedures when opening the cockpit door, which is the most effective tool to safeguard the flight controls and crew and to prevent unauthorized entry to the flight deck. In the United States, at least two crewmembers are required to be present in the cockpit at all times.

"Airline pilots in the United States and Canada are subject to rigorous screening and evaluation prior to being hired, including an assessment of the pilot's mental and emotional state. Once hired, pilots are evaluated continuously throughout their careers through training, medical exams, and programs such as the Line Operations Safety Audit, as well as by the airline and during random flight checks by the Federal Aviation Administration and Transport Canada. In addition, all flight and cabin crewmembers monitor and evaluate each other while on duty, and procedures, processes, and programs exist to respond should a concern arise.

"Many factors may have contributed to the Flight 4U 9525 tragedy. We urge the public to refrain from speculating about what may have transpired and allow a thorough investigation to be undertaken."

Founded in 1931, ALPA is the world's largest pilot union, representing more than 51,000 pilots at 30 airlines in the United States and Canada. Visit the ALPA website at www.alpa.org or follow us on Twitter @WeAreALPA.

Statement

Reeks of "we're ok, those Europeans don't know what they are doing. They talk all about cockpit entrance procedures and pilot medical monitoring and then ask people not to speculate about what happened until the investigation is complete. :rolleyes:

I presume it's being released to give some comfort to the US and Canadian flying public, but it looks very poorly worded to me.

A Dub in Glasgo

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

The reason for the second person in the cockpit is I case the remaining pilot becomes incapacitated - the second person can then alert the pilot who has left the cockpit and he can return immediately.
It really has nothing to so with making sure the other pilot doesn't crash whe he's out, but there'll be a lot of hand wringing and jumping on band wagons over this. If a pilot wants to crash a plane, he will crash it. We should be focusing on protecting the mental health of flight crew, not having a useless symbolic measure of having another person in the cockpit.

Of course not but it is not hysteria or knee jerk for airlines to now move to 2 in the cockpit

smurfjed

While I would have an issue with the term "untrained fight attendant"

I would never use this term in relation to their actual job as I have nothing but the highest amount of respect for their skills, but their skill sets do not extend to understanding how to fly.

Happyman42

devnull wrote: »

But it's always better to have two people in there rather than a single point of failure.

devnull wrote: »

It doesn't protect in all circumstances, but it does offer more protection than nobody and the chance to open the door.

Without doubt, a one man cockpit is always going to be less safe than a two man cockpit, even if the second man or woman is cabin crew.

I'm not saying a second person solves everything and prevents every situation but it does help to some degree.

What if the crew member is waiting their chance to do something drastic?

I can't see away to make it 100% foolproof against somebody in control abusing the trust we place in them.

Tenger

Happyman42 wrote: »

....
I can't see away to make it 100% foolproof against somebody in control abusing the trust we place in them.

You could extend this statement to pretty much all ways of life. Look at the idiot train driver in Spain 2 years ago.

ProfessorPlum

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Of course not but it is not hysteria or knee jerk for airlines to now move to 2 in the cockpit

What would your definition of knee jerk be??

FWIW, I have no issue with a CCM replacing a pilot on the flight deck - that's the policy my company work under, but I have a huge problem pretending it's something it's not, and letting the public think that it's the solution to the issue under discussion. It's not. It's just burying the real issues. Makes it easier for everyone though, doesn't it?

sunnysoutheast

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Do you think the dead pilot deserves to be unequivocally named as guilty on the basis of a sound recording, that maybe incomplete and maybe of dubious quality?
Do you not think every individual deserves the benefit of a thorough investigation before being found guilty?
Do you not think that every aspect of the flight, the pilots circumstances, fatigue issues etc etc etc should be looked at before we saddle an individual with such a horrendous amount if blame?
That is the basis of the justice system in the civilised world, and it is also best practice in crash investigation.

I was only saying that today.

Whilst the narrative on the sequence of events is clear people have publicly convicted a guy of mass murder on partial information.

Appreciate that there will be information not yet in the public domain but unless that includes suicide notes, motive etc. then the unlikely is still possible.

What I find strange is why put the plane into a relatively normal descent when it could be placed into an unrecoverable situation within seconds.

A Dub in Glasgo

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

What would your definition of knee jerk be??

FWIW, I have no issue with a CCM replacing a pilot on the flight deck - that's the policy my company work under, but I have a huge problem pretending it's something it's not, and letting the public think that it's the solution to the issue under discussion. It's not. It's just burying the real issues. Makes it easier for everyone though, doesn't it?

To act without thinking

The real issue is the human mind and nothing will eradicate that

devnull

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

What I find strange is why put the plane into a relatively normal descent when it could be placed into an unrecoverable situation within seconds.

Watching Air Crash investigation where a similar suicide was attempted.

It was made clear that the reason it was, was because of the fact that the pilot had some grudge against somebody who was on-board, which is why he decided to pick that particular flight to carry out his actions.

What we need to see over the coming days and weeks, is exactly why the pilot did what he did, and what drove him to commit suicide in this way killing all on board rather than just himself.

Perhaps he wanted to make the death more drawn out so that person suffered more rather than it all being over in a flash. Who knows.

mikeymouse

If it was premeditated then the policy of a second person in the cockpit may well have made him look for another way out when he was contemplating suicide.
If it was a spur of the moment thing the second person with him may have been able to do something, 8 minutes is a long time

defrule

Is it possible that something happened to the co-pilot and the pilot simply didn't know the code to the door?

EDIT: Nevermind, just heard the report.

JCX BXC

defrule wrote: »

Is it possible that something happened to the co-pilot and the pilot simply didn't know the code to the door?

No. Pilot was frantically kicking the door and Identifing himself to the Co-pilot.

The copilot put the plane heading downwards on purpose. He was breathing until the crash ended.

ProfessorPlum

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

To act without thinking

My point exactly. There is no rational though process between the 'problem' and the 'solution'

tayto lover

tayto lover wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest and on the point of the pilots possibly being slow to put on their oxygen masks. Does anyone know if the pilots are allowed to leave the cockpit either one at a time or both at the same time if the plane is on auto-pilot?
Just as a matter of interest.

I had a feeling there was something wrong with the pilots because if there was no decompression then it was human error or deliberate.

ProfessorPlum

defrule wrote: »

Is it possible that something happened to the co-pilot and the pilot simply didn't know the code to the door?

EDIT: Nevermind, just heard the report.

The point is we don't know.

Maybe he had a petit mal seizure, preformed an autonomous action (setting a lower altitude) and was unable to respond to open the door.

Maybe it turns out that family and friends had noticed him having 'blanks' in recent weeks or months - maybe they just though he was daydreaming.

Maybe when there's a proper and full investigation we might find some answers.

Do I think this is what happened? No, probably not. But we deserve a proper investigation before fingers of blame are pointed so surely in one direction.

murphaph

defrule wrote: »

Is it possible that something happened to the co-pilot and the pilot simply didn't know the code to the door?

I speak German and watched the whole press conference there an hour or so ago and they all agreed that they all know that code and it would be unthinkable that the captain did not know it.

Happyman42

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

The point is we don't know.

Maybe he had a petit mal seizure, preformed an autonomous action (setting a lower altitude) and was unable to respond to open the door.

I agree with you here.
Do we know how long the Captain was outside? He may simply not have had 5 minutes to wait until he could open the door with the code.

Spanish Eyes

Can someone please tell me how the Prosecutor knows definitively just from CVR -

- that the CP manually entered the flight level
- that the CP locked the door, and then relocked it within the override time frame.
- that the override on the door was five minutes
- that the CP was conscious if he wasn't communicating with anyone.

I'm curious, and I'm sure someone will be able to fill me in.

Also, this may be rumour, but I thought I read somewhere that a Mirage Jet was sent to have a look. If that happened, surely the pilot of that jet would have seen what the CP looked like, i.e. either awake or out of it. Of course I don't know if this happened at all. Does anyone know?

And furthermore, how could the investigation be so certain of all the facts just from CVR? The other black box is missing, which I think would show far more about this tragedy.

But anyway, that's just what I'm thinking. Thanks.