Germanwings A320 Crash

Mountainsandh

Nesta99 wrote: »

Whats in med files would probably be enough not to need toxicology tbh

Yeah, the steady breathing tells a lot. Having said that, the other pilot may have noticed weird behaviour that we'll never know about, and a toxicology report can't do any harm. The med files won't tell about alcohol consumed, inappropriate cocktails or overdosing.

kona

keith16 wrote: »

Not exactly doing much to support this argument by posting the below, are you?



You're extremely naive if you think a career in aviation is the same thing as a cashier - a job to pay the bills.

Clearly it's much more than this. It's a passion.

You clearly have not understood what I am saying at all.

The captain demonstrated why he's a captain and put people at ease when they were obviously scared. Nothing to do with a fella obsessing about being a pilot.

I compared a pilot to a cashier because they are two extremes, yet both people at the end of the day go to work to pay the bills.
Obviously they are nothing like each other other than that.

sjb25

keith16 wrote: »

Not exactly doing much to support this argument by posting the below, are you?



You're extremely naive if you think a career in aviation is the same thing as a cashier - a job to pay the bills.

Clearly it's much more than this. It's a passion.

I think any job is to pay the bills yes it may be a job you love (which would not only be in aviation by the way I work in emergency services and I love my job some would say it's a passion) but at the end of the day it pays the bills just some people are lucky enough to be able to pay the bills in a job they love doing and in fairness I'm sure some cashiers love doing there job aswell

Carry

weldoninhio wrote: »

From reading posts on other forums/threads, it wasn't a mental problem that the CP was being treated for, or signed off work for.

The sick note was from a psychiatrist, as quoted in German media. You don't go to a psychiatrist when you have, say, a stomach bug.

Oryx

Does/did the flight radar info show the flight up to the point of impact? (Im not sure if they pull this kind of data after such an incident)

weldoninhio

Carry wrote: »

The sick note was from a psychiatrist, as quoted in German media. You don't go to a psychiatrist when you have, say, a stomach bug.

I think I'll wait for an official statement, rather than a media quote.

PropJoe10

cppilot98 wrote: »

So what was it? The point is that whatever it was, he killed himself and everyone else on board because of it.

The latest theory being peddled in the media is that he had some sort of other physical illness that would've made continuing with his career impossible. So hence he put into action his plan to "change the industry" and "be remembered". What an absolute nut job.

1123heavy

According to reports I read this morning his girlfriend was aware of his plans to "go down in history" and he once locked her in a bathroom while he had random mood swings. I don't know about anyone here but if my other half did any of that and was an airline pilot I would be straight onto the relevant people to stop him flying for the time being at least. She claimed that when the plane crashed she then realised what he meant by "go down in history", what on earth did she think he meant by it beforehand !?

SpaceTime

People aren't forensic psychiatrists and tend to take benign meanings from things or think that someone is just being over dramatic etc

I doubt his gf had any idea it was this serious.
It's easy to see these things with the benefit of hindsight. Or, when you're not directly connected to the person.

You'll tend to want to see the best in your bf/gf. Partners, parents and siblings, best friends etc aren't always very objective.

The bigger issue here was that it shouldn't have been possible for him to lock himself into a cockpit during a flight.

I'm not sure that having a member of cabin crew there would necessarily prevent this either. A normal strength pilot or crew member, male or female could be over powered or attacked.
The people flying and crewing planes are normal people like you or me, not security guards.

Think about yourself or, more likely a very normal, not super fit, middle aged woman or man trying to deal with a deranged individual intent on crashing a plane ...that's what your average crew is like.

That's why thrse door systems worry me. I'd trust that a whole aircraft of people could have got him out of the seat.
Terrorism is a risk, but I think we need perspective. (not the Fox News perspective)

FalconGirl

antodeco wrote: »

Especially coupled with the hatred the general populous have towards them, for something they didn't know. Angry mob against you, as well as losing your son.

I find it hard to believe that any rationally thinking person would hate his parents for this.

kona

weldoninhio wrote: »

I think I'll wait for an official statement, rather than a media quote.

Or some random statement from another forum, you know, what ever suits your agenda.

SpaceTime

FalconGirl wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that any rationally thinking person would hate his parents for this.

Most of the comments feel very sorry for his parents.
I can't imagine what they must be going through. It's nothing to do with them.

Nesta99

Gael23 wrote: »

One must really feel for the pilots parents. They will have to live with the knowledge of what their son did for eternity which is an impossible cross to bear.

The father of one of the American victims said exactly this adding that the Lubitz family too had lost a son and a loved one! Very very forgiving and compasionate from him - it was impressive!!

smurfjed

A JetBlue Airways Corp. pilot whose erratic behavior diverted a U.S. flight three years ago sued the airline on Friday for permitting him to fly despite what he claims was evidence of his mental-health problems.

This is a case where the FO locked the Captain out of the Cockpit and diverted the aircraft, the Captain was found non-guilty of endangering the aircraft on the grounds of insanity. Now he is suing the airline for $14m.....

SpaceTime

Nobody knows what was going on inside his head and we probably never will.

The guy may have had anything wrong with him, could have developed any number of serious illnesses causing dilutions - these things can be caused by physical brain illnesses and even tumours that can cause dramatic and devastating personality changes, delusions, paranoia etc etc

This guy could have been 100% sound and a very normal pilot a few months ago. Brains are complex, organic computers actually the most complex device in the known universe. They can go wrong and breakdown with sometimes very horrible consequences.

Part of the issue is that there shouldn't be any more stigma about mental illness than a heart condition or diabetes or cancer. People mask and cover up mental problems.

I still think the biggest issue is the door - no single individual should be able to commandeer an aircraft like that.

smurfjed

Part of the issue is that there shouldn't be any more stigma about mental illness than a heart condition or diabetes or cancer.

So you believe that people should be allowed to continue to fly once diagnosed with a mental illness?

Bob24

SpaceTime wrote: »

Part of the issue is that there shouldn't be any more stigma about mental illness than a heart condition or diabetes or cancer. People mask and cover up mental problems.

But would someone who is diagnosed with a heart condition that is to some degree unpredictable and could make them faint at some point be allowed to fly an commercial aircraft?

I would suspect as long the the condition is not clearly diagnosed and considered fully under control there will be pretty strict restrictions.

Would should it be different for mental illness?

1123heavy

smurfjed wrote: »

So you believe that people should be allowed to continue to fly once diagnosed with a mental illness?

Upon making a full recovery, yes. It makes an awful lot more sense because pilots are inevitably gonna suffer depression or some mental illness at some point, if they know they'll get their license taken off them if they report themselves then we end up with many pilots flying who may very well be in a state very close to what Lubitz was in. Whereas if the fear of never being allowed to fly again is removed, then pilots may be more likely to turn themselves in during tough times safe in the knowledge they will be able to return if they make a full recovery and not put on the cuckoo list for life.

weldoninhio

kona wrote: »

Or some random statement from another forum, you know, what ever suits your agenda.

I never stated it as fact, I put it up to counter the tsunami of mental health experts on this and other threads, who have psycho-analysed the CP and decided what happened before all the details have been released.

Bob24

SpaceTime wrote: »

Most of the comments feel very sorry for his parents.
I can't imagine what they must be going through. It's nothing to do with them.

To be honest at this stage we don't know either way. Hating them would not be rational as there is not indication they have any responsibility at this stage, and I definitely feel sorry for them. But who can say with 100% confidence his issues had nothing to do with them?

fits

He would have been 13 when September 11 happened. Probably the first live television disaster. I wonder was seeing this at such a young age something to do with it. Such easy access to awful things online now too.

sjb25

fits wrote: »

He would have been 13 when September 11 happened. Probably the first live television disaster. I wonder was seeing this at such a young age something to do with it. Such easy access to awful things online now too.

No

SpaceTime

fits wrote: »

He would have been 13 when September 11 happened. Probably the first live television disaster. I wonder was seeing this at such a young age something to do with it. Such easy access to awful things online now too.

Not much point in speculation to that level.

fits

True. but I read an article about how the extensive coverage of a gruesome court case dehumanises us, and it brought that to mind.

irishgeo

smurfjed wrote: »

This is a case where the FO locked the Captain out of the Cockpit and diverted the aircraft, the Captain was found non-guilty of endangering the aircraft on the grounds of insanity. Now he is suing the airline for $14m.....

thats just america for you.people would sue their own mother over there if they thought they could win.

are we going to go down the road of a shrink in the cockpit as well just to be sure. you cant stop something like this happening if the person is determined to do it.

kona

Bob24 wrote: »

But would someone who is diagnosed with a heart condition that is to some degree unpredictable and could make them faint at some point be allowed to fly an commercial aircraft?

I would suspect as long the the condition is not clearly diagnosed and considered fully under control there will be pretty strict restrictions.

Would should it be different for mental illness?

I think the difference between somebody with a heart condition and mental health issues is:

Say a pilot has a heart attack mid flight, there's another pilot to land the aircraft.

We all now know the capability of the other sickness.

smurfjed

are we going to go down the road of a shrink in the cockpit as well just to be sure. you cant stop something like this happening if the person is determined to do it.

It also shows that there are faults with the DLR testing method!

kona

weldoninhio wrote: »

I never stated it as fact, I put it up to counter the tsunami of mental health experts on this and other threads, who have psycho-analysed the CP and decided what happened before all the details have been released.

So your attacking other people who are in your opinion not posting facts.

But it's okay for you to do so to "counter" a argument?

Reads to me like your just arguing for the sake of it.

Amirani

New York Times reporting that the pilot had previously sought treatment for vision problems. He may not have had an ongoing mental illness.

1123heavy

Just posted to the Germanwings facebook page ...

"Relatives and friends of the victims of flight 4U9525 ask for restraint of the media

Families and friends of the injured passengers and crew members of the Germanwings flight 4U9525 have turned with the request to Lufthansa and Germanwings, to relieve them of any media inquiries. It was her wish to commemorate undisturbed and in rest of the deceased.

Lufthansa and Germanwings ask therefore the representatives of the media to refrain from active contact with grieving relatives.

The immense interest of the public and media on the circumstances of the tragic accident is of course understandable. The press offices of the company are therefore around the clock and on weekends available for media inquiries. Lufthansa and Germanwings will all requests with maximum transparency and quickness to respond in a timely manner.

Media representatives can use following contact options:

Lufthansa Press Office: Tel. + 49 69 696 2999
Germanwings Press Office: Tel. + 49 2203 1027310"

It's very sad when people cannot even grieve without being badgered by the media looking for the next sensationalist headline.

As an aside, I heard the Daily Mail even report that he may have been battling "homosexual desires" that he previously hid from his girlfriend. They are trying to turn this into some Hollywood film and I think it's disgusting.

Irish Steve

OK, I've had time to put some direction on to the thoughts that have been going around in my head over the last couple of days,

The first is to comment that it's become clearer now why the French investigators were prepared to be so categoric about their interpretation of the scenario, they had received very clear and damning information that came from an unexpected source, the Flightradar24 team forwarded some very clear and unequivocal data that they had collected and analysed, which indicated beyond reasonable doubt that the autopilot had been commanded to descend to 100 Ft. It's only on reading the specifics of what is possible now that I became aware that it IS possible to get information from the aircraft about it's intentions as well as it's present position and status. In some respects, while that data is not as all embracing as the FDR, it has provided a very specific and damning confirmation that the events on the flight deck were very deliberate.

The "HOW" and "WHY". What's become clear is that the co-pilot had a very deep seated desire for a long period of time to become involved with aviation as a pilot. Nothing wrong with that, I can identify 100% with that feeling, I too had it, and spent a lot of time and money in trying to achieve it, the only thing that stopped me from getting there was the Gulf War, which totally stopped airline pilot recruitment overnight, and by the time things looked up again, age was against me, even with 700 Hrs total time and over 300 of that on multi engine aircraft. Still hurts to this day, but nothing I could do then or now to change it.


What's perhaps worth taking time to think about, and give some serious thought to is the way in which aviation has changed over the last 20 or so years.

Historically, pilots were either ex military, or self improvers, who spent the time and money to achieve a commercial license. Over time, the supply of military pilots reduced, and the airlines, faced with a short fall in numbers, introduced cadet schemes, where they paid the (significant) cost of training, and for many years, that has been the way things worked.

In addition, pilots were seen as the pinnacle of aviation, and were highly paid for their skills, regardless of how many actual hours they flew each year.

Times have significantly changed, in so many ways. Depending on who you talk to, Pilots are now seen by some as glorified bus drivers, and their position in the industry is no longer the pinnacle position that it was, and the pay structures and scales have also dramatically changed, it's no longer the case that a pilot earns a substantial sum regardless of the actual number of hours flown, and many other aspects of remuneration have been changed significantly, none of the changes being good from the pilot's point of view.

In addition, the manner in which people get into the industry has also changed, many pilots now have to self fund not only their basic training, but also the essential type ratings in order to be able to fly professionally. The money they then earn is totally dependent on the flying they do, and this is a massive pressure on pilots, as if they are not earning through being unable to fly, not only is their life style affected, and their dream affected, they are also then in massive problems with meeting the significant repayments on the loans they have taken out in order to get into the job in the first place.

It used to be the case that pilots had insurance that would provide them with income in the event of their being unable to fly because their medical was either suspended or lost, but I don't hear about that sort of insurance these days, I don't know if that's because it's no longer offered, or because the cost of such insurance is out of the reach of the new generation of pilots.

So, while I am not making ANY excuses for the actions that have been taken, in some respects, I can understand the possible motivation, if a lifelong dream has been shattered by circumstances that are completely outside of the direct control of the individual, AND he's faced with the loss of his ability to continue with that dream, and has to also cope with the nightmare of finding an alternative job and meet the repayments of the massive loans that are still there, it's understandable that his mental state may well have been fundamentally compromised, and be considerably less than acceptable, and I suspect that more than a few people would admit to similar feelings if they were able to express those feelings with a certainty that they would never be attributed to them.

The race to the bottom in terms of "cost control" that has been the mantra of the "low cost" carriers has certainly been a major contributor to the pressures on pilots, as has the significantly increased workload in terms of hours flown per year, as well as roster pressures, shorter turn round times, and many other related issues. Do we blame the airlines, or the traveling public who are always looking for lower and lower flight costs. Deliberate CFIT has not been a significant statistic in the overall list of accident and incidents, but there has to be significance in the fact that there have been more such events in recent years compared to previous periods of time

I'm not sure I have the answers to some of these questions, but I think they need to be asked, and reviewed.

In the same way, the whole "door" issue has been put under the spotlight of media attention and focus. The harsh reality is that there is no easy way to having a flight deck that is secure from the potential acts of a terrorist who is determined to do harm, and that can be accessed by someone else without a problem.

It seems that the only real solution is to ensure that there is never a situation where only one person remains on the flight deck, but some of the solutions being proposed, like a permanent third crew member, are just not going to be acceptable. One possible option would be to have a situation where there have to be 2 people on the flight deck at all times, and that BOTH people on the flight deck would have to act together to activate the lock out that prevented the captain from getting back in, as was the case on this flight.

If both people have to activate a switch at the same time to activate the flight deck lock out over ride, and the switches are placed in such a way that one person cannot operate both of them together, then maybe that solves the problem of the inaccessible flight deck going forward, and still allows for the door to be impenetrable if the (unthinkable) need arises due to events outside the door. Nothing in aviation is ever cheap, but this would be a relatively cheap change to make, and would help prevent a repeat of this awful scenario.

SpaceTime

1123heavy wrote: »

Just posted to the Germanwings facebook page ...





It's very sad when people cannot even grieve without being badgered by the media looking for the next sensationalist headline.

As an aside, I heard the Daily Mail even report that he may have been battling "homosexual desires" that he previously hid from his girlfriend. They are trying to turn this into some Hollywood film and I think it's disgusting.

That doesn't make sense ...

Germany in 2015 ... Hardly a homophobic society!
It's far from the Middle East or the American Bible Belt!!

Speculation is getting way out of hand!

PropJoe10

http://news.sky.com/story/1454565/crash-victims-father-pilot-motive-irrelevant

Poor man. So many people that will never get over this.

1123heavy

=Irish Steve;94867980

What's perhaps worth taking time to think about, and give some serious thought to is the way in which aviation has changed over the last 20 or so years.

Historically, pilots were either ex military, or self improvers, who spent the time and money to achieve a commercial license. Over time, the supply of military pilots reduced, and the airlines, faced with a short fall in numbers, introduced cadet schemes, where they paid the (significant) cost of training, and for many years, that has been the way things worked.

In addition, pilots were seen as the pinnacle of aviation, and were highly paid for their skills, regardless of how many actual hours they flew each year.

Times have significantly changed, in so many ways. Depending on who you talk to, Pilots are now seen by some as glorified bus drivers, and their position in the industry is no longer the pinnacle position that it was, and the pay structures and scales have also dramatically changed, it's no longer the case that a pilot earns a substantial sum regardless of the actual number of hours flown, and many other aspects of remuneration have been changed significantly, none of the changes being good from the pilot's point of view.

In addition, the manner in which people get into the industry has also changed, many pilots now have to self fund not only their basic training, but also the essential type ratings in order to be able to fly professionally. The money they then earn is totally dependent on the flying they do, and this is a massive pressure on pilots, as if they are not earning through being unable to fly, not only is their life style affected, and their dream affected, they are also then in massive problems with meeting the significant repayments on the loans they have taken out in order to get into the job in the first place.

It used to be the case that pilots had insurance that would provide them with income in the event of their being unable to fly because their medical was either suspended or lost, but I don't hear about that sort of insurance these days, I don't know if that's because it's no longer offered, or because the cost of such insurance is out of the reach of the new generation of pilots.

So, while I am not making ANY excuses for the actions that have been taken, in some respects, I can understand the possible motivation, if a lifelong dream has been shattered by circumstances that are completely outside of the direct control of the individual, AND he's faced with the loss of his ability to continue with that dream, and has to also cope with the nightmare of finding an alternative job and meet the repayments of the massive loans that are still there, it's understandable that his mental state may well have been fundamentally compromised, and be considerably less than acceptable, and I suspect that more than a few people would admit to similar feelings if they were able to express those feelings with a certainty that they would never be attributed to them.

The race to the bottom in terms of "cost control" that has been the mantra of the "low cost" carriers has certainly been a major contributor to the pressures on pilots, as has the significantly increased workload in terms of hours flown per year, as well as roster pressures, shorter turn round times, and many other related issues. Do we blame the airlines, or the traveling public who are always looking for lower and lower flight costs. Deliberate CFIT has not been a significant statistic in the overall list of accident and incidents, but there has to be significance in the fact that there have been more such events in recent years compared to previous periods of time

From what I've read, Lubitz trained at the Lufthansa Flight Training academy in Bremen and Phoenix. His entire training was pre - financed by Lufthansa and he would have monthly salary deductions to supplement his training (still leaving him with more than enough to live). Lufthansa fully fund the type rating for employment too. This only adds to the mystery as he lived dream as far as flight training goes. In comparison a significant number of others have loans of £120,000 + to fund as well as being on seasonal contracts on awful terms with their carriers.

smurfjed

they had received very clear and damning information that came from an unexpected source, the Flightradar24 team forwarded some very clear and unequivocal data that they had collected and analysed, which indicated beyond reasonable doubt that the autopilot had been commanded to descend to 100 Ft. It's only on reading the specifics of what is possible now that I became aware that it IS possible to get information from the aircraft about it's intentions as well as it's present position and status

Actually that information would be available to the air traffic centre that was controlling them.

I don't know if that's because it's no longer offered, or because the cost of such insurance is out of the reach of the new generation of pilots.

It's still available to individuals http://www.traffords-insurance.co.uk/flying-insurance/4582039581

The race to the bottom in terms of "cost control" that has been the mantra of the "low cost" carriers has certainly been a major contributor to the pressures on pilots, as has the significantly increased workload in terms of hours flown per year, as well as roster pressures, shorter turn round times, and many other related issues.

Considering how long he was flying, he didn't have a lot of hours in the 320, so can you really bring increased workload into the discussion ?

So who is the 2nd person? A Flight Attendant? Are they also going to visit a shrink before employment?

JuliusCaesar

Irish Steve wrote: »

What's perhaps worth taking time to think about, and give some serious thought to is the way in which aviation has changed over the last 20 or so years.

Thanks for that Irish Steve, it makes a lot of sense. I was reading in the Guardian today:

Last December the European Cockpit Association called on Europe’s transport ministers to take action against what it labelled unfair labour practices, including zero-hours contracts and “bogus self-employment” – where pilots are contracted to work via their own limited liability company but prevented from working for other airlines.

If you mention the word slavery to a group of airline pilots, they’ll laugh and one company will always appear at the top of everyone’s list. Frequently that’s the only route, much like 19th-century indentured servitude, to a successful, less stressful and perhaps well-rewarded, tax-free flying career in one of the larger airlines

These kinds of conditions set people up for stress; and they keep people coming to work when they shouldn't.

As for kona and his:

I think the difference between somebody with a heart condition and mental health issues is:
Say a pilot has a heart attack mid flight, there's another pilot to land the aircraft.
We all now know the capability of the other sickness.

What on earth are you talking about? You continue to stigmatise people with "mental health issues" without defining what you mean AND in the absense of any evidence. You, me, everybody has "mental health issues": people who are bereaved, for example. People who are angry due to being bullied, or treated unfairly.

Stigma like kona's means that people will not admit to having real and evident psychological problems which will impact on their work. They will keep on trucking until it's too late. We cannot ban people with "mental health issues" (i.e. all of us) from being pilots, or neurosurgeons, or psychologists, or binmen. All we can do is ensure that we provide a working environment which does not ADD stress to people's lives, and support them (rather than stigmatise them) when they need time off.

(Anecdote: a young psychologist was denied 3 days bereavement leave, because the person who died was her boyfriend, and not a relative/spouse. How did the health service expect her to work effectively at that time?)

Irish Steve

Yes. Lubitz was indeed one of the lucky few that got in without having to sell his soul financially, so in theory, he should have had it made, but it's becoming clearer that there were dark shadows that were not completely picked up by "the system". He destroyed a sign off that would have allowed him to not fly on that day, we don't yet know for sure from reliable sources what the underlying reason for that sick note are, and we don't yet know if to have admitted to the existence of that note would have ended his flying career, short term or permanently, and that will for sure be a significant factor in the appalling events that followed.

My main interest and aim to to try and put some positive direction on to the discussions and ideas that come out of this awful day. In some respects, it's every bit as significant as 9/11, in some respects, it should be, as the changes that followed 9/11 are directly responsible for the inability of the captain to get back on to the flight deck. That sequence of events must never be possible again, and hopefully, the idea I've suggested will get people thinking, and the end result will be a means to ensure that deliberate CFIT never happens again.

The issues with respect to the manner in which the industry is developing is to try and raise awareness of the issues that are becoming apparent, in the hope that they will not cause even more stress in the place where there is already enough stress when things go bad, the traveling public have to have 100% confidence that the people at the sharp end of the aircraft they are traveling in can be absolutely relied on to be on the top of their game. In so many respects, the job of a pilot is a job just like any other job, but in some respects, it's unlike any other job, in that the implications if the pilot gets it wrong are so devastating for large numbers of people all at the same time. Getting it "wrong" deliberately is not an acceptable option, so whatever steps are appropriate to making sure it doesn't happen again are the only alternative.

imurdaddy

Irish Steve wrote: »

The "HOW" and "WHY". What's become clear is that the co-pilot had a very deep seated desire for a long period of time to become involved with aviation as a pilot. Nothing wrong with that, I can identify 100% with that feeling, I too had it, and spent a lot of time and money in trying to achieve it, the only thing that stopped me from getting there was the Gulf War, which totally stopped airline pilot recruitment overnight, and by the time things looked up again, age was against me, even with 700 Hrs total time and over 300 of that on multi engine aircraft. Still hurts to this day, but nothing I could do then or now to change .

I found myself in pretty much the same situation as yourself! I managed to to work around aviation but not in the job I wanted so badly, pilot. At my age now ill never be a commercial pilot but at least I still can fly and do as much as possible.

I can understand how having your dreams taken could cause depression but not to the extent of mass murder, sometimes life conspires against you but what can you do? For me it was to just enjoy flying at the level I can and try building a career that allows that, not to fly into a mountain.

Like you say it hurts still today but I look at the enjoyment I get from avation on the other hand!

smurfjed

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I'm not going to sit here and explain how the Fly by wire system corrects pilot input.

Maybe instead of just saying "Your wrong" maybe actually give a reason, If there was actually one. if people want more of an expert explination of the control systems and surfaces on this plane. Maybe head over to the Aviation forum where there can be found many many wannabe pilots who can explain it more eloquently.

The plane was crashed via auto pilot, Safety systems on this plan auto correct any dangerous maneuvers imputed via the stick.

As darkpagandeath suggested in After Hours, this level of discussion is more suited to the aviation forum.

Unfortunately, I believe that the statements that he is making about the capabilities of the A320 FBW and EGPWS are wrong. The FBW will protect the aircraft against many "dangerous manoeuvres" but it won't protect the aircraft against flying into a mountain and neither will the EGPWS take over control of the aircraft to fly away from danger, it will shout at you, but the expectation is that the crew will react to the warnings, the aircraft will not.

Irish Steve

smurfjed wrote: »

Actually that information would be available to the air traffic centre that was controlling them.

Came as a surprise to me to see just how much information can be sent via mode S, I'd be surprised if the normal operational displays would be showing that much information, if for no other reason than that to have more than one flight level shown could cause possibly dangerous confusion.

It's still available to individuals http://www.traffords-insurance.co.uk/flying-insurance/4582039581

Thanks for the link, I'm going to live dangerously and say that I suspect that the premiums these days are astronomic.

Considering how long he was flying, he didn't have a lot of hours in the 320, so can you really bring increased workload into the discussion ?

In as much as the changes in the way that airlines are operating is putting pressure on crews, his total time at this stage is not as such an issue. If I were to split hairs, the captain in former times would have had time for a "pressure break" during turnround, but with short turn rounds now (25 for some carriers, ) there's not really time to do anything other than wait for the pax to clear the door, go for a quick walk round, get back on board, and start the departure work.

So who is the 2nd person? A Flight Attendant? Are they also going to visit a shrink before employment?

Maybe, maybe not, given the grief that they have to put up with at times from some of the SLF, it might help, but the main thrust of what I'm suggesting is that it would require the specific and coordinated actions of both occupants of the flight deck to activate the "lock out" mode on the door, which would prevent the scenario that allowed this event to happen. The critical change is not the second person, it's the second person being actively in the loop of blocking access that is the significant change.

With the media feeding frenzy that's still surrounding this event, it's hard to know what's truth and what's media hype or invention. What's becoming clear is that there were some very dark clouds surrounding this individual, and his decision to fly even though he was supposedly medically unfit in some manner (not yet absolutely clear here) is very telling. Knee jerk reactions to this won't help, if we're not careful, a huge number of pilots could be inappropriately grounded, which would cause massive problems to the operators, but at the same time, the concept of a "psych" evaluation on the initial issue of a Class 1, with no real check on an ongoing basis is equally inappropriate. A doctor that does not know the occupation of the individual is in a complete nightmare scenario if he forms the opinion that the individual is unfit to work. It's even worse if the doctor does know, but is unable to do anything because of the doctor patient confidentiality scenario.

That said, the thought that a mentally unbalanced pilot could be in the position to fly a fully loaded A380 into a stadium full of 80,000 sports fans is equally appalling, so somehow, the aviation and medical professions have to find a way to square this circle in a way that protects the traveling public in an acceptable manner.

I don't pretend to have the definitive answer to that problem, but people better qualified than me are going to have to wrestle with it and come up with an acceptable solution.

smurfjed

the thought that a mentally unbalanced pilot could be in the position to fly a fully loaded A380 into a stadium full of 80,000 sports fans is equally appalling, so somehow, the aviation and medical professions have to find a way to square this circle in a way that protects the traveling public in an acceptable manner.

Change the word mentally to religiously and we open a new and possibly even bigger problem. How do you stop two perfectly same individuals from doing exactly the same thing?

say that I suspect that the premiums these days are astronomic

I don't know.

Spanish Eyes

@ Irish Steve,

Your suggestion of having two in the cockpit at all times, and each having to independently activate the "lock" switch on the door is one of the best I've heard during all this.

Easily implemented aswell I would suggest.

Wibbs

smurfjed wrote: »

So who is the 2nd person? A Flight Attendant? Are they also going to visit a shrink before employment?

I've been thinking that myself. To become a pilot takes a long time, with many checks along the way. To become a flight attendant by comparison does not. EG if a hypothetical terrorist/nutcase wanted to take control or crash a plane becoming a flight attendant would be a much faster track to get access to a flight deck. Indeed the individual responsible for this very tragedy was an attendant long before he had access to the controls.

I think Irish Steve's double switch to lockout the doors is a good one and cheaply implemented. Similar to the way the two "buttons" to launch ICBM's in the old days was set up. One guy couldn't go nuts, kill the other guy and start world war three on his own.

Actually if I can bother you, could the actual pilots out there give me an answer to this question? Even with two pilots on the flight deck, could not one of them cause a catastrophic loss of control anyway. I dunno, say by flicking off the auto pilot in the cruise and making crazy inputs to the controls? Or will modern systems stop that happening? I'm thinking of that crash that happened in NY a few weeks after 911 where just after takeoff in the climb the pilot made too many, too vigourous rudder pedal inputs(over compensated for wake turbulence IIRC?) and the tailplane failed and snapped off. Could a nutcase not do similar in other parts of the flight?

Though no matter how many checks and balances are in play, someone, something, unexpected will always happen someday. However of all major industries the airline world has to be about the top of the stats as far as safety is concerned and taking as many precautions against the unexpected and pilots are the top of their game with it.

Irish Steve

smurfjed wrote: »

Change the word mentally to religiously and we open a new and possibly even bigger problem. How do you stop two perfectly sane individuals from doing exactly the same thing?

And that is a whole extra can of worms that I don't want to even go near in this thread, it's an even more scary scenario than the existing nightmare that's having to be dealt with now. Valid, but scary.

Spanish Eyes

@Wibbs,

It is all down to risk assessment IMV.

Every risk cannot be catered for, otherwise everything would come to a halt.

There is a balance between keeping terrorists or whatever OUT, and allowing FD re enter after the door is locked.

When you think about the billions of flights that happen every year all around the world safely, then we have to balance it out.

Otherwise flying will become so troublesome that it will become impossible, if the Risk Analysts get their hands on it!

My biggest concern is copycat actions. But what can anyone do now? And statistically it is probably negligible anyway. I reckon Pilots all over the world will prove that they are fine. Just listen to the Germanwings pilot who reassured his passengers on an internal flight after the atrocity. Good move, and it is as painful to the pilots as it is to the passengers.

Pilots also need to be top of the walk. All this low cost this and that, and contract hours is not helping.

TBH, I would be happy to pay a little extra for my flight if I thought the pilots were not being exploited. I can get to my destination, but not without their skill. There is a difference.

Irish Steve

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually if I can bother you, could the actual pilots out there give me an answer to this question? Even with two pilots on the flight deck, could not one of them cause a catastrophic loss of control anyway. I dunno, say by flicking off the auto pilot in the cruise and making crazy inputs to the controls? Or will modern systems stop that happening? I'm thinking of that crash that happened in NY a few weeks after 911 where just after takeoff in the climb the pilot made too many, too vigourous rudder pedal inputs(over compensated for wake turbulence IIRC?) and the tailplane failed and snapped off. Could a nutcase not do similar in other parts of the flight?

Though no matter how many checks and balances are in play, someone, something, unexpected will always happen someday. However of all major industries the airline world has to be about the top of the stats as far as safety is concerned and taking as many precautions against the unexpected and pilots are the top of their game with it.

The modern Fly by wire aircraft has a number of protections to prevent the aircraft from being put into unstable or inappropriate positions by mis operation of the flight controls, and even something like turning off the autopilot won't do anything dramatic, the aircraft will continue to fly in a stable manner, and even if a dramatic and inappropriate control input is made, it won't go beyond some clearly pre defined and unchangeable parameters. There are other protections, but the bottom line is that the crew are expected to be the ones working to prevent mishaps, not cause them, and at some stage, the "system" has to be based on not having psychopaths at the controls, and to be fair, the system does usually work.

That said, your comments about the cabin crew are valid, but how the "system" finds and excludes people with malicious intent is going to be a subject of much discussion.

The perfect solution is to have a flight deck that has everything in it that could be needed in flight, so that not even cabin crew have to have access, but that would mean a separate toilet and catering/galley services in the flight deck, and a different system to cope with long haul where there are multiple crew members operating the aircraft, and the cost to have such a "hard" separation would be massive, both financially and operationally, and it still wouldn't solve all the issues, as so graphically pointed out by Smurfjed just now, but I don't want to go there in this thread.

JuliusCaesar

Irish Steve wrote: »

the concept of a "psych" evaluation on the initial issue of a Class 1, with no real check on an ongoing basis is equally inappropriate. A doctor that does not know the occupation of the individual is in a complete nightmare scenario if he forms the opinion that the individual is unfit to work. It's even worse if the doctor does know, but is unable to do anything because of the doctor patient confidentiality scenario.

As I'm regularly involved in fitness-to-work assessments, I can tell you that it is imperative to know the job you are assessing fitness for! Responsibility for lives ups the ante considerably. I would set the standard far higher for a job in which safety is critical, than a desk-based job, say, as an insurance clerk in an office. You have to know quite a bit about the job requirements that you are assessing for.

The next thing to know is that we are mental health professionals, not mind-readers. We are not infallible, all we can do is make educated guesses based on knowledge and experience. Do any of you remember the psych evaluations of prospective astronauts as detailled in The Right Stuff?

As for confidentiality, that goes out the window if I believe the patient is a danger to themselves or others. The greater good is the ethical principle.

smurfjed

The modern AIRBUS Fly by wire aircraft has a number of protections to prevent the aircraft from being put into unstable or inappropriate positions by mis operation of the flight controls, and even something like turning off the autopilot won't do anything dramatic

The Boeing FBW isn't that complex. With two people in the cockpit it would come down to brute force and thats before we start talking about the crash axe!

The perfect solution is to have a flight deck that has everything in it that could be needed in flight, so that not even cabin crew have to have access, but that would mean a separate toilet and catering/galley services in the flight deck, and a different system to cope with long haul where there are multiple crew members operating the aircraft, and the cost to have such a "hard" separation would be massive, both financially and operationally

Our B744's are fitted like that, the cockpit has a toilet and complete bedroom, total queen of the skies! The 777-200 can be similar if the crew desire.

ProfessorPlum

Irish Steve wrote: »

The modern Fly by wire aircraft has a number of protections to prevent the aircraft from being put into unstable or inappropriate positions by mis operation of the flight controls, and even something like turning off the autopilot won't do anything dramatic, the aircraft will continue to fly in a stable manner, and even if a dramatic and inappropriate control input is made, it won't go beyond some clearly pre defined and unchangeable parameters. There are other protections, but the bottom line is that the crew are expected to be the ones working to prevent mishaps, not cause them, and at some stage, the "system" has to be based on not having psychopaths at the controls, and to be fair, the system does usually work.

Any self respecting airbus pilot will know how to instantly remove all of these protections and turn the aircraft into a very difficult machine to fly.

The perfect solution is to have a flight deck that has everything in it that could be needed in flight, so that not even cabin crew have to have access, but that would mean a separate toilet and catering/galley services in the flight deck, and a different system to cope with long haul where there are multiple crew members operating the aircraft, and the cost to have such a "hard" separation would be massive, both financially and operationally, and it still wouldn't solve all the issues, as so graphically pointed out by Smurfjed just now, but I don't want to go there in this thread.

El Al have such a set up. - ie toilet on the flight deck, not sure about a galley. But sure they can bring sandwiches.

Irish Steve

smurfjed wrote: »

The Boeing FBW isn't that complex. With two people in the cockpit it would come down to brute force and thats before we start talking about the crash axe!

Indeed, one of the fundamental reasons why the selection route to the flight deck has to be so complex

Our B744's are fitted like that, the cockpit has a toilet and complete bedroom, total queen of the skies! The 777-200 can be similar if the crew desire.

The absolute advantage of the double deck concept of the 74 family, it makes it so much easier to manage, but even then, the downside from the beancounter aspect is the loss of revenue earning space. Having such a concept on the A330 (for example) would be a nightmare, as it would have implications for the jetways and the entire forward area, a bean counter nightmare. Interested to see that it's an option for the 777, you learn something new every day.