deranger @ deranger @sh.itjust.works

Posts

11

Comments

1,293

Joined

2 yr. ago

There's more evidence indicating it was a deliberate or accidental action by one of the pilots than evidence pointing to a mechanical issue, and that's what I'm going with. There's not "a million other explanations". You seem emotionally invested in the outcome, calling various real life pilots making videos "rags", calling me racist when I made absolutely no claims of the sort, claiming I'd feel different about various nations...

Guess we'll see in that final report. I know what I'd be putting my money on, if I gambled. The preponderance of evidence at this point suggest an accidental or deliberate manipulation of the switches by one of the pilots.

Well specifically related to this:

If it’s spring based, and one side failed, it’s possible that next to no force will flip it to one side, but it takes the expected amount of force to move it in the other direction.

It’s the same direction for the supposed accidental move to CUTOFF you propose and the move to CUTOFF that didn’t happen when the plane didn’t hit the ground. The switches were placed in RUN and stayed that way until they were recovered. I have a very hard time believing they went to CUTOFF from some relatively light force during climb out, yet did not move at all when experiencing high forces during the crash.

See, there you go again. Don’t assume how I would judge American pilots either, I have no dog in this fight, and if an American pilot made a grave mistake or committed suicide that’s just as bad. The issue I see clouding your vision, as well as many other Indians, is nationalism. You need to let go of your national pride and take an objective look at this, I would say the exact same thing if it was a pilot from the United States. I don’t care what their motives are or how it reflects on a certain carrier from any country, it’s just what seems most plausible given all available evidence.

You’re the only one bringing race and nationality into this conversation.

It doesn’t seem like you’re familiar with the sequence of events in the crash.

The switches moved from run to cut off - who knows why. I believe the pilots did it, you believe it’s the detents.

The pilots then moved them from cutoff to run.

The switches stayed in run throughout the entire crash sequence. If the detents were bad before, why would they not be bad again here?

If the detent failed when they moved from run to cutoff during climb out, it would have also failed during the crash sequence, when significantly higher forces were experienced.

I’ll keep speculating until the final report is out.

So a mechanical failure let the switches go from RUN to CUTOFF during flight, but they remained in RUN during the entire crash sequence? I don't buy that. The forces experienced by the plane would be magnitudes greater during impact with the ground than any kind of turbulence or other bumps.

So the detent was not strong enough to hold the two cutoff switches through some bumps, but it was strong enough to hold them during the crash? That makes absolutely no sense to me. The forces experienced during the crash are significantly more severe than any kind of turbulence they'd experience during climb out.

Sorry dude, I don't buy it. This is either one of the worst aviation mistakes ever made or a deliberate action. Race has absolutely nothing to do with it, nor did I ever imply that. Also, both pilots had 0 hours of flying in the previous 24 hours, so I don't think fatigue of the mechanical or physiological kind, are at play here.

It was a rhetorical question, but it does make me wonder what the ratio of little white girls to black people is in terms of eliciting a response from the federal government. Shit is despicable.

Wonder why they didn’t think of something like this after Katrina? 1833 fatalities in that shit show of a disaster response vs 129 in these latest Texas floods.

You’re right, I can’t say the motive. The evidence points to an intentional cutoff by one of the pilots, however. Maybe it’s an accident, maybe it’s deliberate.

It has nothing to do with their race so fuck off with the racism accusation. I never said a single thing regarding their race or culture, so don’t accuse me of such things.

The far more plausible scenario is someone toggled them both, especially since there was a 1s delay. That’s not something jostling the plane or falling and hitting the switches.

That bulletin says they were potentially installed without the locking feature but to my knowledge these weren’t new switches on the AI flight, nor were there any issues reported on earlier flights.

The probability of both failing would be the probability of one failing squared. I find this scenario to be far less plausible than someone toggling them, regardless of motive.

What killed them was a deliberate action by one of the pilots. The motive we may never know, but it doesn't look good either way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525

There’s no communication between the two pilots before the switches were moved to cutoff to suggest they encountered any problems prior to fuel cutoff.

All evidence points to a deliberate toggling of the fuel cutoff switches, and whoever did it then denied they did anything on CVR. It’s not an issue with the plane itself, this is either someone deliberately crashing the plane or someone absentmindedly crashing the plane.

Skilled yes, but apparently concealing a mental health issue. This is a huge cultural issue in aviation. Nobody wants to lose their job, so you just bury it.

Mentour Pilot did a livestream today, he's also one of the major commercial aviation YouTubers.

And before all that, you were saying that “filial responsibility laws have NOTHING to do with debt”. Are you gonna ignore that?

Even after I pointed out you misquoted me here, you’re still doing it. You’re leaving out a key piece of the quote which is extremely relevant to your frankly ridiculous claim about being responsible for your parent’s child support debt, or other debts to the state.

Dog, you’re the one spewing personal bullshit. You just can’t make a reply without a half dozen personal digs.

Medical debt can be dissolved in probate, just potentially not the kind related to say, nursing homes, assuming you’re in one of those states, and you’re in a rare scenario when they actually enforce it. I’m not responsible for my parents medical debt; I am responsible for their care and medical debt can be a part of that, but not necessarily, as in the pacemaker example I used earlier. That pacemaker example would fall into the same category as other debtors seeing payment from the estate.

There’s no ad hominem in my comments. Quote me, and don’t paraphrase and put quotes around it. Implications are neither here nor there, either. I’m saying you’re wrong because the facts don’t support your points, not because of any personal characteristics you have. A prime example is you mistakenly equating any medical debt to what would be covered under filial responsibility.

”filial responsibility laws have NOTHING to do with debt”

It is remarkable how you selectively quote what I said. You left out “…to the state”, which is a key part of the point I was making about how a child would never be responsible for their parents child support debt.

Once again, you demonstrate your ignorance of the laws here in the United States, something which you have no experience with, nor any sort of legal expertise. You may want to work on that reading comprehension rather than spending time formatting your text just so.

Medical debt is dismissed in probate insolvency, except in rare cases.

Why are you talking about medical debt? We've already established that it's an exception to this. […] Why is medical debt not dissolved in probate, despite insolvency? Because of filial laws Are you gonna ignore that?

Dude you contradict yourself in the same paragraph here, lol. Is it an exception or not? For the record, it is dissolved unless it’s debt directly related to care, and only in rare cases is that actually enforced.

Still waiting on you to cite multitude of legitimate stories that you mentioned earlier. I reckon they don’t actually exist.

Shit man, you’re failing to comprehend the things you said I wouldn’t comprehend. You don’t even know what ad hominem constitutes. Ad hominem is “your argument is wrong because of

<issue>

Medical debt is dismissed in probate insolvency, except in rare cases. If my mother had a pacemaker implanted, owed $250k, died the next day in a car crash, that’s not subject to filial responsibility. Once again, you’re wrong. Classic case of someone reading a Wikipedia article and thinking they understand the laws of a foreign country.

Are you gonna ignore that?

Probably, yeah. The opinion of a Finn on US estate law matters little to me. I have a lawyer to deal with the facts.