The Wiki Man

Why plane crashes are getting weirder – and if we’re lucky, other problems will too

As the obvious fixes are found, we discover less and less likely ways that things can go wrong

11 April 2015

9:00 AM

11 April 2015

9:00 AM

In the late 1980s, the parks service in the United States were concerned about the deterioration of the stonework on the Lincoln Memorial. So they asked the maintenance staff why the stone was decaying.

The crew explained that they used high-power sprays every fortnight to clean the masonry. The water penetrated cracks and joins, weakening the stone. But they needed to spray to get rid of the large volume of bird droppings. So they erected bird nets. These scarcely worked, and were unpopular with tourists, so the parks service called in the maintenance workers again and asked, ‘Why are there so many birds?’

‘The birds come to feed on the spiders,’ they said. ‘And the spiders are there to eat the midges.’ After dark, midges covered the memorial. The spiders came to eat the midges, and the birds came to eat the spiders. So the executives tried insecticides. But this also proved ineffective: the bugs came back. So the committee finally asked one more question. Why are there so many midges in the first place?

Because the building is floodlit, they were told.

In the end they tested turning the lights on later in the evening — after sunset, not before — and also turned them off earlier, following a suggestion from Donald Messersmith, an entomologist. On evenings when they tested this approach, midge numbers fell by 85 per cent; everything worked as predicted. Once you had implemented this idea, not only would midges from the Potomac stop splatting against the white stone, but the spiders, birds and bird droppings would be reduced.

It is a wonderful story, and has entered folklore in a philosophy called ‘the five whys’. The idea is that you should always go on asking ‘why’ in order to get to the root cause of a problem rather than the proximate cause. If you do this, what at first appears to be a masonry problem may turn out to be a problem about lighting design and insect behaviour.

The story resurfaced this week in connection with the Germanwings crash. The standard causes of plane crashes, as Steve Coast explained, have been largely eliminated by the imposition of sensible rules or engineering fixes. Windows no longer crack at the corners. Doors no longer blow out. What remains are the oblique, non-obvious problems. ‘As we find more rules to fix more things we are encountering tail events. We fixed all the main reasons aircraft crash a long time ago… So, we are left with the less and less probable events.’ The world’s problems will, in short, get weirder. The seemingly sensible fixes we now add to the rule book will now increasingly run into unintended consequences: you can install impenetrable cockpit doors on the assumption that they will protect pilots from terrorists, only to find that they also prevent the captain (and passengers) from regaining the cockpit.

The solution to this problem is far from obvious. It may be that the perfect approach is oblique, not direct: perhaps you should reinforce half of cockpit doors, and make it impossible for anyone to tell whether or not the door is reinforced? Uncertainty may be a better way to deter wrongdoing than unvarying rules (a lesson bank regulators have just begun to learn).

In any case I suspect the solution to the problem won’t be found in a direct, logical solution, as earlier safety solutions were. It probably doesn’t lie in having cabin crew sit in the vacant seat while the pilot takes a pee (quis custodiet ipsos custodes?). Instead it may be found in a different dimension altogether, as the US parks service discovered. Not that it did them much good: after a few months photographers complained, and they went back to the old regime.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

Rory Sutherland is vice-chairman of Ogilvy Group UK.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments
  • Aldo

    I’m not sure how much of an unintended consequence the murder/suicide scenario was when making the flight cabin door impenetrable to forcible occupation as I recall it being risk assessed as lower than a terrorism event…it may not be prudent to revisit this?

    The reductive reasoning of the 5 Why’s should already be coming back to Germanwings HR policy and applications, this pilot should’ve been nowhere near the plane and seems to have had trouble adjusting to any perturbation in his life.

    • rorysutherland

      This gets difficult. If any doctor has the power to ground a pilot, no pilot will ever risk visiting a doctor unless on the brink of death.

      This kind of suicide may be more common that we think – between 1-5% of sole vehicle car crashes by some estimates may be suicide actual or attempted.

      Highly recommend the Steve Coast blog:

      • Steve O

        Rory, I think we have witnessed the only time this type of suicide has ever happened (specific to planes; I bet bus drivers or ship captains have killed dozens along with themselves before).

        Keeping people out of the cockpit must be a higher priority than letting people in, just from a probability standpoint. I don’t think any policy changes are in order. Sometimes we just have to admit that we can’t control everything.

        • rorysutherland

          There are five previous instances according to Robert Trivers (who is my personal aviation guru), EgyptAir 990 being the most well known, though this is disputed by some, including the airline itself. Others include Mozambique Airlines 470, SilkAir 185 and Royal Air Maroc 630. Then there is the Malaysian 777 disappearance. What some of these have in common is that one pilot seems to have left the cockpit shortly prior to the incident – suggestive but not conclusive. There are also one or two instances – Botswana, Oregon – of planes being downed by disgruntled employees, which could the the case here.

          The Moorgate Tube disaster is a possible, though I’m not sure; one of the more common forms of suicide with collateral death would be people who park themselves on level crossings – Ufton Nervet, etc.

          • Steve O

            Wow, that’s quite a bit more than I thought! Thanks for enlightening me.

            To me, it still seems clear that letting/forcing more people into the cockpit (or forcing pilots to pee in a bucket at the controls) is more dangerous than focusing on keeping people out. The Steve Coast blog post suggests that having potentially deranged flight attendants babysit potentially deranged copilots might not be a net win, and I agree.

          • rorysutherland

            Having a Jamaican woman on every plane as a proxy pilot would be good – I think Jamaicans have the world’s lowest suicide rate, and women would be less likely than men to do anything silly.

            About 2 years after 9/11, by which time I thought all doors had been strengthened, I was on a 747 when it braked hard on landing at Heathrow and a breakfast trolley at the back of the top deck broke loose and ploughed through the door into the cockpit. I suspect the door was not fully deadlocked, but not sure. But I did get to see what a 747-400 flight deck looks like with all the dials covered in yoghurt, which was pretty cool!

          • Timothy Blake

            At a practical level, and on the basis of chipping away at risk rather than imagining that any one change will cure everything, we should surely analyse why pilots might need to leave the flight deck and make that less necessary. If they need a loo, give them one. There is often a toilet right up near the flight deck and in many cases it might just be a matter of rearranging where the flight deck area actually starts. It won’t eliminate other risks, but a system which only works if a key person disappears completely for a while can’t be sensible.

          • Or: a system that fails to work if a key person disappears to have a widdle: Hear royal hear triple hear!

          • Timothy Blake

            Whoops yes sorry. It seemed to make sense at the time… Like armoured doors, I suppose.

          • It was an excellent point. Come here often? :^0

          • Timothy Blake

            Only to meet you

          • Oh, nice! The last stranger that spoke to me here wanted to hand me to Vlad the Impaler for some sort of special treatment, unspecified….

          • Timothy Blake

            Ah perhaps he didn’t like your views of D Milliband, or UKIP…

          • Well so you would imagine. But his moniker is FlipperKipper or something suggestive of UKIP.

          • I think Jamaicans have the world’s lowest suicide rate Anything to do with the fact that they have the 6th highest *murder* rate?

          • rorysutherland


            This writer is very good on aviation accidents. What is fascinating about this crash – where both planes were assigned 37000 ft – was that it probably wouldn’t have happened 30 years ago. Back then altimeters were a bit vague and 37000 ft meant in effect 37000ft +/-200ft. The navigation systems are now accurate to altitudes of about 5ft, which bizarrely increases the odds of collision.

          • Thirty years ago. You mean when I was 17. Flying as if it were fun, with no thought of terrorism, or of anything going wrong. The placid innocence of youth can be a booby-trap, but sometimes I miss it.

          • Mmm. Someone needs to correct the rubric capital-O for a sentence that clearly begins with ‘it’ not ‘ot’.

          • Dodgy Geezer

            Committing suicide by crashing a plane is quite a well-known way of going. Most common amongst light plane owners – could be compared to gassing yourself in the garage with your favourite sports car. Such suicides usually occur away from population, and do not involve anyone but the pilot.

            There are also the ‘criminal’ suicide types – those who might steal a plane to crash into a target – a company office or an ex-wife’s apartment, perhaps. There have been a few of those. These, obviously, may include murdering a few people on the ground, but the death rate is not typically high – apart from the Twin Towers…

            Pilot suicides in a commercial airliner carrying passengers were very rare – practically impossible in the days when cockpits were easy to enter and two people were needed to fly the plane anyway.Japan Airlines Flight 350 is a good example – the pilot tried to crash and was restrained – 24 dead when it could have been 170 odd. But that was in 1982, when cockpits were less defended.

            Since that time there were two passenger attempts to murder the pilots (1987 and 1994) which encouraged a more defensible cockpit. That seems to have been a contributory factor to the 1997 SilkAir and 1999 EgyptAir incidents where pilots were not able to be restrained, and destroyed complete airliners full of people.

            And then there was the World Trade Centre in 2001. As a result, during the 2000s impregnable cockpits were mandated. And recently there have been Mozambique Airlines 370 pilot lockin and suicide in 2013, the (presumed) Malaysian Airlines 470 pilot lockin and suicide in 2014, and now the GermanWings pilot lockin and suicide in 2015. Doing this has now been made much easier….

          • and do not involve anyone but the pilot
            And whatever animals happen to be on the ground.

            Suicides are notably careless of other beings*, which is one major reason why I don’t approve of it.

            *There are exceptions: Brad Delp of the band Boston was careful of his cat or cats, and Sylvia Plath left nourishment for her young children while she gassed herself. But surely the greatest care and nourishment would have been for the suicidal to stay alive. Then again, none of us creates the rules of life, and it’s a wonder at times that most of us can cope with it.

          • Dodgy Geezer

            ..And whatever animals happen to be on the ground.
            Suicides are notably careless of other beings*….

            I’ve never come across that assertion before and suspect that it was made up purely for this answer. Have you any references for it? Someone in a suicidal frame of mind is likely to be careless of many ongoing aspects of everyday life, of course, but I do not see how being ‘notably careless of other beings’ could even be measured….

            Incidentally, single-pilot suicides of this kind tend to avoid populated areas by flying into the desert or into the rock-face of a cliff. I suppose that they might kill some insects and moss when hitting a cliff, though probably less than they might were they to continue the flight and land…

          • They’re careless because, apart from anything else, care requires judgement, and they don’t have good judgement. I knew a man who was not right in the head, was not responsible with his dogs (leading to a very scary episode involving my own dog) and then shot himself dead. We learned after that that he had been seriously depressed and taking drugs for it and suddenly his inexplicable callousness became clear.

          • Also your assumption that a crashing plane of any size kills merely ‘some insects and moss’ is wilfully naive at best.

          • Aldo

            I’d forgotten all about Moorgate disaster, it’s genuinely eerie down there after traffic has stopped.

        • Robbydot1

          Don’t forget the missing Malaysian plane, we don’t know what happened there?

      • no pilot will ever risk visiting a doctor
        If his employment is contingent on such a visit — as it should be — he/she will just have to do it. For the benefit of us all.

        • rorysutherland

          There are obviously mandatory medicals: however depression is complicated here. I would guess a significant proportion of the world’s pilots suffer some form of depression in their working lives (something possibly not improved by being stuck behind a locked door for long periods of time and having irregular working hours – I know night-shift workers are vulnerable here). If doctors were to become hyper cautious, it might be disastrously unfair.

    • Tom M

      Always strikes me as odd that nobody seems to consider why anybody has to leave the flight deck at all. Why not design the flight deck with all that everybody needs whilst staying where they are?

  • rorysutherland

    I have been rightly castigated by the twitter at in for failing to link to the Steve Coast blog at – happy to correct this. Note that the Spectator online is an exact replica of the printed magazine, and so it is difficult to use hypertext as widely as I would like.

    I should add that I did know the five why’s story before, told to me in a talk by two people at Liverpool City Council in the 90s. I have lost any record of their names, but in the unlikely event they are reading this, theirs remains one of the best presentations I have ever seen.

    • Why only five though, Rory? What if the root cause requires six or seven? How do you know that you’re reached the root? And once you’ve reached it, how then do you reconcile competing goods (in this case, the desire to display the monument grandly and on the other hand the need to protect its integrity)? I suppose they could have changed the type of lighting: one that was easy on the human eye and friendly to photography, yet unattractive to midges. If there isn’t such a light in existence — well then, we’re stuck. Also we’re not told why the guano was considered a problem in the first place. Was it the chemical reaction on the stone or were the droppings merely thought untidy?

      Knowing Americans as I do, I can say that a) they obsess far too much, like Dutch women scrubbing the steps in the 18th century; b) they have large budgets and large crews of people that I call ‘janitors of the landscape’, who have to justify their jobs and so contantly, noisily, and sometimes destructively find ways to do it. I will never again have an American ‘landscaper’ (the word gardener seems unknown) prune a shrub I like. They can’t do anything by halves and by god I wish they would.

      • rorysutherland

        Actually I agree here. Adding a sixth why would have raised exactly this question: why are insects attracted to lights? There are two separate answers to this: some are actually attracted to light, others navigate by using lights and assume they are a fixed point rather like the moon – so it is a form of confusion.

        Insect vision seems skewed to the violet end of the spectrum, so lighting the Lincoln Memorial in red might be effective: I have just looked on Amazon, and there are lights for sale less attractive to bugs, but these seem to be yellow-orange in colour, possibly because people don’t want their homes to be mistaken for brothels….

        • Interesting, thanks.
          And the lemon-curd colour is quite attractive in its own right, but a lemony Lincoln might not be ideal.

        • NickG

          Even yellow. A trick I learned in Southern Africa doing 4×4 trips in some of the wilder places. The back of my Land Cruiser at night when the tail gate was open to prepare dinner, would get inundated with insects, they got into everything, attracted by the white light.

          Switching to yellow light – first with filters over the white light now by getting coloured LEDs – solves the problem immediately. Insects are no longer attracted. This is likely an evolutionary adoption of the insects, selected for over millions of years to avoid flying into bush fires started by lightning.

          In the cooler months when there are no insects one can use white light. So these days sensible travellers fit two sets of LEDs on a safari vehicle – yellow and white.

  • Dodgy Geezer

    ..The solution to this problem is far from obvious. It may be that the perfect approach is oblique, not direct….

    Indeed. It probably lies in the area of altering your foreign policy so that less people around the world loath America and would be willing to kill themselves as part of an attack on the hated West.

    Good luck with making that kind of alteration…

    • rorysutherland

      Edward de Bono believed (and may still believe) that the answer to the Middle East was Marmite. Something to do with a Zinc deficiency in the diet (unleavened bread) being linked to violence. In his defence, it must be said noone has seen fit to test this theory. There are certainly cases where the presence or absence of chemicals may have had large effects:

      A case where the override code on the outside of the cockpit worked 60% of the time, and neither pilot would know whether it was programmed to work or not, might work quite well. I strongly suspect though that a crafty enough pilot could screw with some of the controls enough to create a crash even when accompanied. Just pull a few plugs fuses and there and then create conditions for a stall.

      The poor young Eldar unintentionally managed this here (see below) – even though the blame seems to me to lie as much with bad interface design – no audible warning of a disengaged autopilot, really? – as with the people themselves.

      The pilot on the Air France plane effectively countermanded the inputs of his companion. The two sticks cancelled each other out…… again, does it really require sole control of the cockpit to cause a plane crash?

      • Dodgy Geezer

        … does it really require sole control of the cockpit to cause a plane crash?…

        Well, no – as JAL flight 350 shows. That plane crashed while the pilot was being restrained. And, of course, Air France 447 was crashed by a pilot simply holding a stick back and not telling anyone (though he was probably not trying to cause the crash).

        The point of the original piece is that all kinds of design, including safety design, are balances. When you first address an issue, there are some obvious simple steps you can take to make things safer without causing too much downside. After you have done this, succeeding steps add less safety, while causing more problems. Eventually, you end up at a position where your actions cause as many problems as they solve, which is about where we are with cabin door issues.

        Simplistic analyses do not recognise this, and just call for more and more safety.

        Incidentally, this effect is augmented by the fact that you are employing ‘safety engineers’, whose job is to think up new safety features. They are not going to stop and resign just because they have reached this point. That is actually an important insight into life – people do a job because they are paid to do it, and they do not stop when that job becomes less useful – or even counter-productive. Our Military and Intelligence functions, so useful during WW2 and the Cold War, are good examples of this – they are now causing destabilisation and wars in order to have continuing employment…

        • rorysutherland

          And of course such safety specialists are held responsible for deaths caused in the air but not elsewhere; if they make the security regime too onerous or expensive, it will drive people to travel more on the roads, where the death toll per pile travelled will be significantly higher.

          Rail travel, like air travel, suffers an additional problem where even a simple incident – a derailment, say – with no fatalities is reported on the national news. Road fatalities have to be multiple pile-ups before they make it beyond the local paper.

          • Yes, but surely road fatalities are overwhelmingly the result of driver error, inattentiveness, or recklessness, rather than mechanical fault or failure in a roadworthy vehicle.

        • I agree with everything up to your last para, which is demonstrably untrue.

          • rorysutherland

            My argument is that extreme safety measures add to the costs (financial and other costs) of taking aeroplanes, leading people to adapt other forms of travel which will cause more deaths net. So, if you make trains travel further apart or at slower speeds, or add to ticket prices to ensure perfect levels of safety, the road trip becomes comparatively more attractive.

            One of the best things that has happened in the UK is that some rail companies sell 1st class tickets on off peak trains at high discounts – if you book in advance. The reason I think this is important is that 1st Class rail is often unambiguously better than driving yourself, even in quite a nice car. The same can’t be said for 2nd class rail.

            As to the difference in reporting, a plane overshooting the runway at LHR – or even at a minor airport – with no injuries is much more newsworthy than a single fatality in a road vehicle.

            Certain things in life are grossly misrepresented by the media. The single worst category I can think of must be the underground carpark: I cannot remember any depiction of an underground carpark in any film or TV programme where something ghastly does not happen.

          • Hi Rory, good point: though I would rather pay a bit more for a plane trip that I can’t make by either rail or car feasibly — and get there — than get a cheaper price and wind up dead. I do not take unnecessary risks.

            Train travel can be lovely. But how lovely is it? In Britain these days, not so much, perhaps — especially considering the cost of it. I’ve travelled on Amtrak here in the States, and my husband on a business trip had a dreamy journey on an art-deco train in Germany that put all of the above to shame. You get what you pay for. But the thing to remember in all of this is that when I drive my car, I am in charge (and I’m an excellent driver: confident but extremely aware of road and weather conditions, the comfort of my passengers, appropriate speeds, flow of traffic, visual limitations that might affect me, etc.). I am the captain of my car, and I trust me, and that means also that I trust me not to make the same mistake again, if I make one.

            But on a plane and in a train (to a lesser extent), your life is in someone else’s hands, and there is no getting around this. It seems from the articles you have linked to that the captain of the Air France plane was not where he was urgently needed because he was probably shagging his lady-love, and that is a sin if not a crime. Not only did he leave an obviously anxious and under-experienced junior pilot at the controls, right before the worst stretch of weather they would face on the entire flight — which would last for no more than approximately 15 minutes! — but the second pilot who was more experienced could not summon him from his ‘rest’ despite trying repeatedly, at a crucial period of mismanagement of the plane. One has to wonder at the panicked behaviour of the junior pilot — he acts like a flying nervous nelly, not a trained man with knowledge of his field — but above all the captain was clearly AWOL and it is ultimately he that caused 228 people to die.

          • Sorry: mine was a very long response, as it turned out. The synoptic version: as a car driver I deal with real-world inputs while modern pilots usually don’t; I can trust myself to save my life but I don’t trust others who may not be as rational or as devoted to living as I am; systems fail and if they do you must ask what would happen if you are a) in the air or b) underground. At least on a roadside I have a good chance of getting out and being helped.

            Fab article: good on ya!

          • Dodgy Geezer

            ..I cannot remember any depiction of an underground carpark in any film or TV programme where something ghastly does not happen…..

            Small villages are also pretty dangerous. St Mary Mead is notorious, as are most of the hamlets of Midsomer. I understand that Cabot Cove in the US (Murder, She Wrote) has had 274 killings, despite it having a population of just 3,500, which gives it an annual murder rate of 1,490 per million — more than 50 per cent higher than Honduras, where it is 910 per million.

          • Don Simon

            The new Nivea Liverpool FC advert is set partially in a car park – depending on your footballing persuasion this isn’t particularly ghastly.

          • Dodgy Geezer

            Then demonstrate it…

          • Oh come on. Next you’ll be telling me that 9/11 was an inside job….

          • Dodgy Geezer

            Given that you are unable to demonstrate what you claim, may I recommend that you do not use that term in future when you simply mean that you do not believe something.

            Since you are obviously not well informed about the administrative infighting over budget re-allocations at the end of the Cold War, I suggest you start your education by researching the attempts by Security Service in the UK to take over drug intelligence from HMRC (as it then was) and organised crime responsibilities from NCIS, culminating in the establishment of SOCA. The proposals were reported in the national press during the late 1990s, and ceased abruptly around 2002. When they found a new job.

            No one is saying that the military caused 9/11 in any way. What I am claiming is that the period 1990-2001 was characterised by major internal revision of responsibilities by the military and associated organisations, as their primary justification for existence disappeared. Remember the ‘peace dividend’? And when a new justification arrived they seized it with both hands, determined that it would serve their purpose for a ‘long time’. How often have you heard spokesmen stating that ‘the battle against terrorism will be a long one’?

            Perhaps you hold the view that the appalling mishandling of the Iraq war and the subsequent ‘peace’ was entirely due to incompetence? There certainly was some, and much corruption, but you will note that every decision also seems to have been tailor-made to ensure that there would continue to be a demand for military services.

            Perhaps the fact that the military industry is second in size only to oil has some relevance here? Would you be surprised to find the oil companies making decisions which might not be good for the world, but which ensured their own survival? The same processes occur in all big industries…

          • Sorry, you’re just full of assumptions and a ‘blame the West’ attitude and I’m not discussing this further with you.

        • carl jacobs

          this effect is augmented by the fact that you are employing ‘safety engineers’, whose job is to think up new safety features.

          There is this agency in Europe – EASA. Perhaps you have heard of it? If you want to build a box and put it on a commercial airliner flying in Europe, you must certify that box for flight with EASA. That particular agency is going to levy safety requirements on your box depending upon its criticality to safety of flight. An autopilot can kill people if it fails. There are going to be lots of safety requirements levied on an autopilot. EASA cares about autopilots. The in-flight entertainment system will annoy passengers if it fails. Otherwise, the passengers will live. EASA doesn’t care very much about in-flight entertainment systems. To install your box on an aircraft (i.e to sell it and make money), you must first prove to EASA that the box meets the required level of safety.

          So aviation companies hire safety engineers to insure the design of the box will meet the safety requirements imposed by EASA. They analyze the design and levy safety requirements on the design team. They review the design for safety concerns the design team might have overlooked. They tell the design team how to meet that required failure probability of 1×10-9 for a DAL A product. Yes, that’s a real number. This is all required by EASA. It’s all done for safety of flight, and it has made airline travel the safest means of travel in the world. It also keeps the lawyers happy. If you happen to kill a lot of people in an airliner because of a defective product, your company is going to get sued. Bad for business.

          Now, if you don’t know what DAL A means without resorting to Google, then you don’t know enough to have an opinion on this subject.

      • Well, Marmite is also famously full of B vitamins, and they are essential, as well. We should be grateful that they don’t drink, as a zinc deficiency has more serious consequences in that case.

        • Dodgy Geezer

          Ah…what gives you the idea that they don’t drink?

          • rorysutherland

            Just for those of you interested in human behaviour and accidents, the behaviour of the conductor and passenger here have always struck me as odd: I like to think I would have pulled the communication-cord immediately. Would I have done so? I don’t know.

    • greencoat

      Judging by experience, the demise of people who loathe America is no loss to the world.

  • “What remains are the oblique, non-obvious problems.”

    Yeah, called false flag operations…

    “It has not been confirmed whether or not the crew issued an emergency call. Germanwings chief pilot Stefan Kenan-Scheib says the airline has been given conflicting reports by French radar stations about an emergency call from the aircraft. The conflict had not been resolved by the time of the press conference.”

    Conflicting reports? And still no clarification for the existence of an emergency call nearly three weeks after the false flag operation! A call that would have been made if the Germanwings 9525 incident were genuine and not the obvious charade it is. The reason Marxists couldn’t get this part of the Germanwings 9525 narrative locked down on the day of the crash (March 24) is because there are many within the aviation industry who want no part in facilitating the false flag operation, hence the existence of conflicting reports on the day of the false flag operation. If an airliner had made an emergency call, naturally there would be no conflicting reports.

    Then we have the missing cell phone calls Germanwings passengers would have made as Flight 9525 flew just over (or in between when the aircraft reached the Alps) the hundreds of cell towers below. Missing too are the emergency satellite phone calls not made by the pilot/flight crew! Then we have the French authorities telling us that the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) picked up the screams of the passengers? Really? The CVR can’t pick up noises from the passenger cabin(!), only if the cockpit door is open can the CVR pick up such noises as screams.

    Purpose for this false flag operation, you ask? To assist in bringing into existence National Mental Health [sic] Programs.

    Then we have the pictures of the fake relatives arriving at the airport, all feigning crying, but not one tear coming out of their eyes!

    • pedestrianblogger

      Cut to the chase: who are you accusing of the false flag operation? The Jews (riding high at Number One in the Conspiracy Hit Parade), the Freemasons, George Bush (either of ’em), the Lizard People, Vladimir Putin, the Industrial-Military Complex, the Bankters (the Jews again, in code) or Mary Poppins? The World awaits your answer, breathlessly.

      • “Cut to the chase: who are you accusing of the false flag operation? The Jews…”

        The Jews? Where have you been the last century? Marxists, of course, as the following new discovery by me proves…

        When Soviet citizens were liberated from 74 years of Marxist oppression on December 26, 1991 there were ZERO celebrations throughout the USSR, proving (1) the “collapse” of the USSR was a strategic ruse; and (2) the political parties of the West were already co-opted by Marxists,* otherwise the USSR (and East Bloc nations) couldn’t have gotten away with the ruse.

        ZERO celebrations, as the The Atlantic article inadvertently informs us…

        Google: the atlantic 20 years since the fall of the soviet union

        For more on this blockbuster “discovery” see my blog…

        Google: dnotice org


        The West will form new political parties where candidates are vetted for Marxist ideology, the use of the polygraph to be an important tool for such vetting. Then the West can finally liberate the globe of vanguard Communism.


        *The failed socialist inspired and controlled pan-European revolutions that swept the continent in 1848 thought Marxists and socialists a powerful lesson, that lesson being they couldn’t win overtly, so they adopted the tactic of infiltration of the West’s political parties/institutions.

        • pedestrianblogger

          I was going to congratulate you on your fast typing but I suspect that this is a cut ‘n’ paste. Get your book published and I will buy it, and read it. What is your position on Chemtrails?

          • “What is your position on Chemtrails?”

            Marxist psy-op. What else…

            The fraudulent “collapse” of the USSR (and East Bloc) couldn’t have been pulled off until both political parties in the United States (and political parties elsewhere in the West) were co-opted by Marxists, which explains why verification of the “collapse” was never undertaken by the West, such verification being (1) a natural administrative procedure (since the USSR wasn’t occupied by Western military forces); and (2) necessary for the survival of the West. Recall President Reagan’s favorite phrase, “Trust, but verify”.

            Notice that not one political party in the West requested verification of the collapse of the USSR, and the media failed to alert your attention to this fact, including the “alternative” media. When determining whether the “former” USSR is complying with arms control treaties, what does the United States do to confirm compliance? Right, the United States sends into the “former” USSR investigative teams to VERIFY compliance, yet when it’s the fate of the West that’s at stake should the collapse of the USSR be a ruse, what does the United States do to confirm the collapse? Nothing!

            It gets worse–the “freed” Soviets and West also never (1) de-Communized the Soviet Armed Forces of its Communist Party officer corps, which was 90% officered by Communist Party members; and (2) arrested/de-mobilized the 6-million vigilantes that assisted the Soviet Union’s Ministry of the Interior and police control the populations of the larger cities during the period of “Perestroika” (1986-1991)!

            There can be no collapse of the USSR (or East Bloc nations) without…

            Verification, De-Communization and De-mobilization.

            The West never verified the collapse of the USSR because no collapse occurred, since if a real collapse had occurred the West would have verified it, since the survival of the West depends on verification. Conversely, this proves that the political parties of the West were co-opted by Marxists long before the fraudulent collapse of the USSR, since the survival of the West depends on verification.

            The above means that the so-called “War on Terror” is an operation being carried out by the Marxist co-opted governments of the West in alliance with the USSR and other Communist nations, the purpose being to (1) destroy the prominence of the West in the eyes of the world, where the West is seen (i) invading nations without cause; (ii) causing chaos around the globe; and (iii) killing over one-million civilians and boasting of torture; (2) close off non-Russian supplies of oil for export, thereby increasing the price of oil, the higher price allowing oil exporting Russia to maintain economic stability while she modernizes and increases her military forces; (3) destroy the United States Armed Forces via the never-ending “War on Terror”; the ultimate purpose of the aforementioned to (4) bring about the demise of the United States in the world, opening up a political void to be filled by a new pan-national entity composed of Europe and Russia (replacing the European Union), a union “From the Atlantic to Vladivostok”; which will (5) see the end of NATO.

            Now you know how Bolshevik Russia survived in 1917; how the West “lost” China to the Communists in 1949; why the Eisenhower administration turned a deaf ear to the anti-Communist Hungarian uprising in 1956; why the Eisenhower administration in 1959 was indifferent to the Castro brothers’ Communist fidelity, actually used the CIA to overthrow the Batista government; why the Nixon administration abandoned Taiwan for Communist China, and signed treaties/provided economic aid to the USSR; why the Nixon administration refused to tell the American People that over 50% of North Vietnamese NVA regiments were actually Chinese People’s Liberation Army soldiers (attired in NVA uniforms, and proving that the Sino/Soviet Split was a ruse, as KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn told the West back in 1962), thereby (1) ensuring the Vietnam War would be lost; (2) destroying the prominence of the United States abroad and at home; (3) breeding distrust between the American people and their government; and (4) securing Communist victories in Southeast Asia. Working in the background within the political parties of the United States and Great Britain were Marxist agents doing their best to (1) ensure the survival of Communist nations when they popped up; and (2) sabotage any policies that would bring down a Communist nation. That’s why after the fake collapses of the East Bloc nations and USSR there was no mandatory Western verification process to ensure the Communists weren’t still in control.

          • pedestrianblogger

            Oh, my sweet Jesus. Wish I’d never asked. Won’t again.

          • “Oh, my sweet Jesus.”

            LOL! Jesus? Who do you think you’re fooling, Comrade?

            And now to rub the succinct proof in your face one more time, Comrade…

            ‘The West never verified the collapse of the USSR because no collapse occurred, since if a real collapse had occurred the West would have verified it, since the survival of the West depends on verification. Conversely, this proves that the political parties of the West were co-opted by Marxists long before the fraudulent collapse of the USSR, since the survival of the West depends on verification.’

  • JSC

    It seems obvious to me that if the cockpit’s door is locked and the internal manual override lock is also engaged and the secrete key code is being entered from outside the cockpit door then the planes computers should automatically report this to ground control as an emergency as this state of affairs should never ever normally happen. It could only happen by:

    1) Terrorists forcing a crew member to give over the code while a pilot has locked themselves in the cockpit
    2) Someone has deliberately locked the pilot out of the cockpit.

    Either way both situations are emergencies and although there’s little that ground control could do in the Germanwings case, it could give them time to scramble some interceptors should the terrorists be planning a 9/11 style suicide attack on a more distant target.