deranger

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 with your character”. If I said that because you’re a Finn, you’re wrong about filial responsibility, that’s an ad hominem. I haven’t done anything of the sort. Your points are incorrect because they’re incorrect, not because of an issue with your character or other personal characteristic not related to the argument.

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.

I’d like to see a single source for anything you’re claiming that isn’t a Wikipedia or other -pedia.

You’re correct I’m not qualified to speak on inheritance law because I’m not a lawyer. Neither are you.

The reason I brought up Finland is because you’re making ridiculous claims that don’t happen here in the United States. Just like how you say the article doesn’t mention child support, that article doesn’t mention Finland. I don’t have any clue what the laws are there, much like you don’t have any clue what the laws are here.

Who said anything about ad hominem? I’m not claiming that you say my argument is wrong for some personal flaw of mine. That’s an ad hominem. You’re just insulting me because you have no argument here, no supporting evidence for the frankly ridiculous claim that child support debt falls under filial responsibility.

Once again, you resort to insults, because you have no grounds for your claims.