89522
Post by: Dropbear Victim
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32030270
Germanwings airliner 4U 9525 crashes in French Alps
An Airbus A320 airliner has crashed in the French Alps between Barcelonnette and Digne, French aviation officials and police have said.
The jet belongs to the German airline Germanwings, a subsidiary of Lufthansa.
The plane, flight 4U 9525, had been en route from Barcelona to Dusseldorf with 142 passengers and six crew on board.
French President Francois Hollande said: "The conditions of the accident, which have not yet been clarified, lead us to think there are no survivors."
Mr Hollande said the crash was a tragedy and called for solidarity with the victims, adding that the area was very difficult to access.
He said he would be speaking shortly with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
The plane issued a distress call at 10:47 (09:47 GMT), according to sources quoted by AFP news agency.
Search-and-rescue teams are headed to the crash site at Meolans-Revels, said regional council head Eric Ciotti.
French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said he had sent Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve to the scene and a ministerial crisis cell to co-ordinate the incident had been set up.
The interior ministry said debris had been located at an altitude of 2,000m (6,500ft).
Interior ministry spokesman Pierre-Henry Brandet told BFM TV that it would be "an extremely long and extremely difficult'' search-and-rescue operation because of the remoteness.
Both Airbus and Germanwings have said they are aware of the crash reports but cannot yet confirm them.
Lufthansa chief executive Carsten Spohr tweeted: "We do not yet know what has happened to flight 4U 9525. My deepest sympathy goes to the families and friends of our passengers and crew.
"If our fears are confirmed, this is a dark day for Lufthansa. We hope to find survivors."
The Airbus A320 is single-aisle passenger jet popular for short- and medium-haul flights.
Not a good year for aviation. Theyll lose the title of 'safest way to travel' at this rate.
4875
Post by: His Master's Voice
Erm, what are the other high profile passenger plane crashes this year?
89522
Post by: Dropbear Victim
Meant over the last 12 months, quite a few of the deadly crashes were high passenger numbers.
Going by the commercial crashes listed on wikipedia since last march 944 have died. 1092 if the reported 148 on this plane are dead.
In this year, the only other 2 listed were TransAsia Airways Flight 235 killing 42 of 58 and Delta Airlines Flight 1086 no fatalities.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Blessings to them and their families
37231
Post by: d-usa
Yet in the US alone 32,000+ people died in car crashes over the past 12 months, so I think the title of "safest way to travel" remains safe.
Hopefully there will be survivors, but I doesn't look likely.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
 d-usa wrote:Yet in the US alone 32,000+ people died in car crashes over the past 12 months, so I think the title of "safest way to travel" remains safe.
Hopefully there will be survivors, but I doesn't look likely.
I don't know. There is a lot more people travelling by car than by airplane, so to find out what is safest, would you not have to divide the number of passengers by the number of fatalities or something like that? (I suck at math)
Also, is travelling by ships not much more safer than travelling by airplane? Accidents with ships seem a lot more rare than airplane crashes.
18698
Post by: kronk
Much higher chance of catching a norovirus, though. That's stuff is the gaks.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Word is mention one survivor so far
37772
Post by: Portugal Jones
 Iron_Captain wrote: d-usa wrote:Yet in the US alone 32,000+ people died in car crashes over the past 12 months, so I think the title of "safest way to travel" remains safe.
Hopefully there will be survivors, but I doesn't look likely.
I don't know. There is a lot more people travelling by car than by airplane, so to find out what is safest, would you not have to divide the number of passengers by the number of fatalities or something like that? (I suck at math)
Given that you have millions of people traveling by air every week, it still orders of magnitude lower.
61618
Post by: Desubot
Man that sucks.
Il take my chances in my car
At least i can afford gas to travel where i want to be
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Stand corrected. No survivors
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
Iron_Captain wrote: d-usa wrote:Yet in the US alone 32,000+ people died in car crashes over the past 12 months, so I think the title of "safest way to travel" remains safe.
Hopefully there will be survivors, but I doesn't look likely.
I don't know. There is a lot more people travelling by car than by airplane, so to find out what is safest, would you not have to divide the number of passengers by the number of fatalities or something like that? (I suck at math)
Unsurprisingly, that has been done and it turns out that air travel is still indeed that safest form of travel and it's still getting better.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
d-usa wrote:
Hopefully there will be survivors, but I doesn't look likely.
If there are survivors, hopefully they are found quickly before they start needing to eat each other, like that rugby club in the 70s-80s did
221
Post by: Frazzled
Any hint this was foul play? News is saying they should have had time to send out a mayday.
37231
Post by: d-usa
 Frazzled wrote:Any hint this was foul play? News is saying they should have had time to send out a mayday.
So far it seems like there are no signs of external foul play at least.
From talking to the folks I know that did some flying in the service the fact that nobody send out a mayday by itself wouldn't be anything that would be that surprising. Talking on the radio is actually the last priority when something is wrong according to them, and they focus on Aviate-Navigate-Communicate to solve the problem: Keep the airplane flying, find out where you are flying to, then talk on the radio.
Also seems like they are focusing on a few possibilities right now:
- There was a similar event late last year where two sensors on a A320 froze over and the plane thought that it was stalling and automatically lowered the nose to recover from the stall. The computer would not let the pilots fix the problem and rudder input did nothing to correct the problem because the stall was still happening according to the sensors. The pilots had to manually disconnect the sensor input to regain control of the plane. This issue was supposently fixed, but it seems pretty similar.
- Decompression and subsequent LOC is always a possibility.
- Somebody could have accidentally pushed a switch and not realized the autopilot was off or something similar, and it wouldn't be unheard of for pilots to be so zoned out that they didn't realize that they were fixing to fly a plane into the ground
- The last scenario people are talking about focuses on the timing of when it all started. The plane had just reached their flight level a few minutes prior to all this starting. If one of the pilots is going to take a quick toilet break, this would be the most likely time to do it. Which of course would only leave one pilot in control of the plane who could lock the other pilot out and manually steer it into the mountains.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
d-usa wrote:Which of course would only leave one pilot in control of the plane who could lock the other pilot out and manually steer it into the mountains.
This doesn't make much sense because they didn't crash as aggressively as possible. They used a high descent rate, but nothing even close to the plane's limits. You'd think that a pilot who wanted to kill everyone would just point the nose straight down and leave no chance of failure. Automatically Appended Next Post: - Somebody could have accidentally pushed a switch and not realized the autopilot was off or something similar, and it wouldn't be unheard of for pilots to be so zoned out that they didn't realize that they were fixing to fly a plane into the ground
And this doesn't seem very plausible. A descent like that isn't some subtle thing you could easily miss, it's going to be very obvious to everyone on the plane. And I don't believe that both pilots could be so distracted that neither of them would notice something so obviously wrong and fix the problem long before the plane crashes.
242
Post by: Bookwrack
I'm expecting that if the cause can be peaced together, we're going to see that it was a cascade of events happening at just the right time to cause disaster. Something that'd probably have a 10 million to one chance of ever happening.
Which, given the number of flights that happen worldwide every day, means it's a series of events that happens every eight years or so, and this time was at just the right time for total disatster, instead of something people laugh about over drinks afterwards.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
37231
Post by: d-usa
 Peregrine wrote: d-usa wrote:Which of course would only leave one pilot in control of the plane who could lock the other pilot out and manually steer it into the mountains.
This doesn't make much sense because they didn't crash as aggressively as possible. They used a high descent rate, but nothing even close to the plane's limits. You'd think that a pilot who wanted to kill everyone would just point the nose straight down and leave no chance of failure.
Possibly, but you also have people killing themselves quickly by blowing their brains out and people killing themselves slowly by taking a bunch of pills.
He could have tried to make sure he reaches the mountains and did a slow decend for that, he might have tried to avoid panicking the passengers, he could have tried to do a bunch of things.
Of course it could have been something completely different as well.
Edit after new info:
Another possibility for the slow decend may have been that the copilot (if so inclined) programmed the auto-pilot to fly towards the ground instead of just pointing the plane to the ground. That way he could leave the controls to physically block the door to keep the pilot from entering which could have still happened after pointing the plane down (even if it wasn't likely). There have been some reports that the plane was on autopilot until the last monent when it would have disengaged due to warnings, but I'm not sure how they came to those speculations since AFAIK the flight data recorder hasn't been analyzed yet.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Now reports that copilot "voluntarily" started the descent.
http://www.jpost.com/International/French-prosecutor-German-co-pilot-appears-to-have-deliberately-crashed-plane-395212
This is starting to not look good. I could see a scenario where the copilot had a heart or something, keeled over and the plane started going down. The pilot, panicks and hits the wrong code to get into the cockpit and it just goes bad from there.
I'm sure they are looking into the co-pilot now.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
Even if the code is correct the pilot can still stop you from gaining entry, apparently.
Murder/Suicide by pilots isn't unheard of.
It's a particularly scumbaggish way to off yourself. Kill yourself in your hotel room ffs.
37969
Post by: Tyr13
Just heard that the copilot was apparently breathing normally, so he didnt just die... and he probably didnt have a heart attack either, since he didnt say anything, didnt groan, anything. The pilot was apparently screaming at the door during the last few seconds though... this does sound like either a terrorist thing (seems unlikely, given that noone has confessed to it yet) or the most... words fail me. Taking so many people with you... I dont believe in god, heaven or hell... but Im feeling tempted. If only to see that melon-fether burn in hell.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Truly depressing that he chose to end so many other lives with his own. More and more, it's sounding like an excessively cruel and disgusting suicide.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Airline pilots are normally exceptionally stable people, with a lot of experience and a lot of psychological profiling before they are allowed to fly passengers.
Andreas Lubitz, aged 28. Was the co pilot. From what we know so far he appeared stable.
I wonder what could have happened to him that caused this. However if he was radically Islamised he would presumably have uttered a prayer in the last few moments. Moslem's especially martyrs are supposed to do so.
Could be just a suicide, those who are despondent don't often show it, and the urges are sudden and unexpected. I knew one guy who threw himself in front of a train, he had thought about it a long time and discussed it with his friends including me. Eventually our group parted ways and moved to different places, but then one day a couple of years later on some urge he jumps, or so I heard afterwards.
a suicidal decision might have been made up on the spot, and been opportunist.
From the point of view of a scumbag on the co pilots seat its a comfortable and controlled way to go.
37969
Post by: Tyr13
Yep. The computer does everything for you, just lean back and die... children screaming behind you...
18698
Post by: kronk
I hope it wasn't suicide by pilot. We'll see when the investigation is done.
Those poor people.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Pretty much confirmed to be suicide. Co-Pilot manually locked the door and was conscious just after manually initiating the crash.
93151
Post by: KiloFiX
That's truely quite disturbing.
I guess they're going to be checking his background / situation next.
73289
Post by: PrehistoricUFO
Suicide with a mass murder attached to it indeed. Imagine how mindbending those last 8 minutes were. The co-pilot just staring into nothingness as the pilot tries to break the door down. Pilot thinking "What in the actual feth,", passengers and crew freaking the feth out. Soooo dark. Here's the transponder data that showed the plane brought down to freakin' 96-feet!
We have analysed the raw data from the transponder of #4U9525 and found some more data apart from the regular position/altitude data.
These are the decoded ModeS (Downlink Format 20) frames which contain replies to interrogating radar requests (Upling Format 20).
09:30:48Z.651 MCP/FMC ALT: 38000 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:30:48Z.936 T,3c6618,43.115341,5.671181,38000,GWI18G
09:30:49Z.496 T,3c6618,43.116028,5.671692,38000,GWI18G
09:30:50Z.076 T,3c6618,43.117381,5.673065,38000,GWI18G
09:30:50Z.111 MCP/FMC ALT: 38000 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:30:50Z.553 MCP/FMC ALT: 38000 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:30:50Z.619 MCP/FMC ALT: 38000 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:30:50Z.626 T,3c6618,43.118408,5.673736,38000,GWI18G
09:30:51Z.127 T,3c6618,43.119095,5.674247,38000,GWI18G
09:30:51Z.636 T,3c6618,43.120453,5.675092,38000,GWI18G
09:30:52Z.386 MCP/FMC ALT: 38000 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:30:52Z.567 T,3c6618,43.122208,5.676482,38000,GWI18G
09:30:53Z.036 T,3c6618,43.122894,5.676993,38000,GWI18G
09:30:53Z.546 T,3c6618,43.124271,5.678166,38000,GWI18G
09:30:54Z.083 MCP/FMC ALT: 13008 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:30:54Z.096 T,3c6618,43.125295,5.678689,38000,GWI18G
09:30:54Z.676 T,3c6618,43.125961,5.679421,38000,GWI18G
09:30:55Z.156 T,3c6618,43.127157,5.680259,38000,GWI18G
09:30:55Z.397 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ----------------------------------------- bye bye
09:30:55Z.453 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:30:55Z.636 T,3c6618,43.128367,5.681109,38025,GWI18G
09:30:56Z.186 T,3c6618,43.129211,5.681656,38025,GWI18G
09:30:56Z.707 T,3c6618,43.129898,5.682167,38000,GWI18G
09:30:57Z.267 T,3c6618,43.131626,5.683201,38000,GWI18G
09:30:57Z.312 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:30:57Z.836 T,3c6618,43.132507,5.684020,38000,GWI18G
09:30:58Z.050 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:30:58Z.296 T,3c6618,43.133011,5.684403,38000,GWI18G
09:30:58Z.767 T,3c6618,43.134559,5.685425,38000,GWI18G
09:30:59Z.216 T,3c6618,43.135397,5.685948,38000,GWI18G
09:30:59Z.746 T,3c6618,43.136261,5.686575,38000,GWI18G
09:30:59Z.988 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:00Z.146 T,3c6618,43.137451,5.687149,38000,GWI18G
09:31:00Z.165 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:00Z.676 T,3c6618,43.137817,5.687660,38000,GWI18G
09:31:01Z.676 T,3c6618,43.139866,5.689022,38000,GWI18G
09:31:02Z.027 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:02Z.238 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:02Z.496 T,3c6618,43.141402,5.690199,38000,GWI18G
09:31:03Z.030 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:03Z.456 T,3c6618,43.143494,5.691429,38000,GWI18G
09:31:04Z.376 T,3c6618,43.145731,5.692945,37975,GWI18G
09:31:04Z.943 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:05Z.346 T,3c6618,43.147430,5.693984,37975,GWI18G
09:31:05Z.558 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:05Z.993 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:06Z.466 T,3c6618,43.149828,5.695365,37975,GWI18G
09:31:07Z.164 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:07Z.346 T,3c6618,43.151367,5.696539,37950,GWI18G
09:31:08Z.256 T,3c6618,43.153427,5.697752,37950,GWI18G
09:31:08Z.776 T,3c6618,43.154111,5.698308,37925,GWI18G
09:31:09Z.276 T,3c6618,43.154995,5.698962,37925,GWI18G
09:31:09Z.712 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:09Z.960 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:10Z.326 T,3c6618,43.157364,5.700307,37925,GWI18G
09:31:11Z.312 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:11Z.467 T,3c6618,43.159607,5.701713,37900,GWI18G
09:31:11Z.876 T,3c6618,43.160660,5.702415,37900,GWI18G
09:31:12Z.102 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:12Z.386 T,3c6618,43.161512,5.702885,37875,GWI18G
09:31:12Z.846 T,3c6618,43.162211,5.703408,37875,GWI18G
09:31:13Z.316 T,3c6618,43.163049,5.704128,37875,GWI18G
09:31:13Z.896 T,3c6618,43.164597,5.704970,37875,GWI18G
09:31:14Z.401 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:14Z.493 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:15Z.536 T,3c6618,43.168030,5.707201,37825,GWI18G
09:31:16Z.416 T,3c6618,43.169380,5.707921,37825,GWI18G
09:31:17Z.028 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:17Z.266 T,3c6618,43.171288,5.709294,37800,GWI18G
09:31:18Z.196 T,3c6618,43.173019,5.710144,37775,GWI18G
09:31:19Z.166 T,3c6618,43.175385,5.711648,37750,GWI18G
09:31:19Z.262 MCP/FMC ALT: 96 ft QNH: 1006.0 hPa
09:31:20Z.176 T,3c6618,43.177277,5.712891,37725,GWI18G
09:31:21Z.216 T,3c6618,43.179202,5.714068,37700,GWI18G
Between 09:30:52 and 09:30:55 we can see that the autopilot was manually changed from 38,000 feet to 100 feet and 9 seconds later the aircraft started to descend, probably with the "open descent" autopilot setting.
The reason why the selected altitude is 96ft is that least significant bit for altitude setting equals 16 ft, and we suspect that you can’t set autopilot to 0000 altitude, so the minimum would be 100ft down rounded to 96ft in binary representation in BDS40h register.
Source: http://forum.flightradar24.com/threads/8650-We-have-analysed-the-raw-data-from-the-transponder-of-4U9525-and-found-some-more-dat?p=64616
93151
Post by: KiloFiX
Thinking about it - Couldn't the co-pilot have just manually flown the plane into the ground though if he really wanted to suicide?
37969
Post by: Tyr13
Why would he? Pushing a button is so much easier. The less effort it takes, the more likely it is that youre going to commit suicide. If youre so disposed, that is.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
 KiloFiX wrote:Thinking about it - Couldn't the co-pilot have just manually flown the plane into the ground though if he really wanted to suicide?
He could have "opted out" this way for any number of reasons.
- Descending rapidly causes pain due to the rapid change in pressure...hitting a mountain causes only a little bit of pain due to the (extremely) rapid change in speed.
- Perhaps he set the plane to descend then tampered with the computer to make it impossible for the pilot to regain control of the aircraft. This would be more reliable and prevent him from chickening out at the last second.
- Nosediving would definitely tip off the pilot and passengers, whereas just slowly descending might make it so that they don't have time to react before they realize that they're going to crash.
- Constraints on flight that would prevent unsafe maneuvers - does the software in a modern passenger jet even allow you to deliberately nosedive the plane? I honestly have no idea.
Who knows...these are just guesses.
73289
Post by: PrehistoricUFO
It isn't that simple to just point the plane down. I'm on some other forums with actual military pilots talking about stuff way beyond my purview of understanding but it seems that
a) pointing a plane down results in it breaking up (at that height/speed/size etc), and therefore no modern computer system allows this.
b) when modern commercial pilots make any decision up there, they're basically asking the computer for permission to do said action and then if it's something okay to do and isn't radically unorthodox, it's allowed.
Not sure if part b is entirely accurate because the extent of my flying knowledge comes from Jane's USAF and my $30.00 joystick.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
I don't know how accurate that is, but it's pretty alarming if it is true. Computers are nice but you really need an option to disconnect the computer and fly the plane manually. Otherwise you can get into incredibly dangerous situations where the computer has a problem and crashes the plane because it won't let the pilots override its decision.
90954
Post by: Torga_DW
Have they released any details on the co-pilot yet? Is it too soon to consider religion?
79243
Post by: Swastakowey
 Torga_DW wrote:Have they released any details on the co-pilot yet? Is it too soon to consider religion?
Jump the gun much. Sheesh.
Yes we know his name, his face, where he grew up and his pilot history.
No motive can be found yet. As far as I have read anyway.
90954
Post by: Torga_DW
That's why i was asking about details. What i've heard on this end has been fairly sparse, but surely there is more information about him to be had. It's been pretty sparse on my end, other than tv stations talking about the high levels of screening and scrutiny that pilots receive.
79243
Post by: Swastakowey
Torga_DW wrote:That's why i was asking about details. What i've heard on this end has been fairly sparse, but surely there is more information about him to be had. It's been pretty sparse on my end, other than tv stations talking about the high levels of screening and scrutiny that pilots receive.
Dont worry I was being a pain 
Yea apparently its shocking because most people only had nice things to say about him. I cant give the details because I cant remember the news link, but the info is out there.
I remember he lived with his parents mostly although he had another home, he was kinda young, had many friends and was a german born citizen. He was deemed fit for flight etc as well.
90954
Post by: Torga_DW
That's what got me interested, i didn't hear them mention religion (to discount it as a factor). The lack of info i've heard on him given that he's now the focus after that audio log sorta raised an alarm with me. But that might just be the crappy news broadcasts i've been watching.
79243
Post by: Swastakowey
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32063587
Thats all the info I have seen. Only one mention of religion. So far no real motive found.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
My initial though was that the copilot had a stroke or something that incapacitated him. But the descent immediately after locking the door behind the captain seems to convenient to be anything but deliberate.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Reports this morning saying it looks like depression/mental issues.
89522
Post by: Dropbear Victim
Having a hard time finding the up to date source but supposedly the reason for his training being interrupted in 2009 was depression.
I wonder if this might see a major policy review of people with a history of depression being qualified to be responsible for the lives of so many passengers.
It also sounds like the whole commercial aviation industry is going to adopt the U.S's 2 people present in the cockpit rule anyway, so a policy review into histories of depression might not be entirely necessary.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Dropbear Victim wrote:I wonder if this might see a major policy review of people with a history of depression being qualified to be responsible for the lives of so many passengers.
I really hope not, for two reasons:
1) Depression is not a permanent condition. For example, if someone is suffering from depression while going through a messy divorce then once the situation is resolved and they're able to move on with their life the depression is probably going to disappear. You obviously don't want them flying a plane at the time, but once they're back to normal there's no reason to be concerned about something that is safely in the past. And even people with long-term depression issues can be treated and reach a stable point where they're not a risk to anyone.
2) Considering someone unqualified to fly as a result of a condition has the side effect of discouraging them from reporting it. Right now the FAA will let you fly again once you have the issue under control (even if requires drugs, as long as you wait long enough to be sure the side effects aren't going to be a problem) so seeking treatment for depression does not mean ending your career. But if you make it a career-ending move then there are going to be a lot of people deciding that they can't afford to lose their job and ignoring the problem. And, unlike physical issues (the cliche of "pilot has a heart attack and dies, kills everyone") that can show up in the standard exam, depression is something you can hide if you've decided to do so. So you've replaced the known risk of a pilot who has a history of depression that is being treated and monitored with the unknown risk of a pilot with untreated depression that may be turning to drugs/alcohol/etc to "fix" the problem.
89522
Post by: Dropbear Victim
Peregrine wrote:Dropbear Victim wrote:I wonder if this might see a major policy review of people with a history of depression being qualified to be responsible for the lives of so many passengers.
I really hope not, for two reasons:
1) Depression is not a permanent condition. For example, if someone is suffering from depression while going through a messy divorce then once the situation is resolved and they're able to move on with their life the depression is probably going to disappear. You obviously don't want them flying a plane at the time, but once they're back to normal there's no reason to be concerned about something that is safely in the past. And even people with long-term depression issues can be treated and reach a stable point where they're not a risk to anyone.
2) Considering someone unqualified to fly as a result of a condition has the side effect of discouraging them from reporting it. Right now the FAA will let you fly again once you have the issue under control (even if requires drugs, as long as you wait long enough to be sure the side effects aren't going to be a problem) so seeking treatment for depression does not mean ending your career. But if you make it a career-ending move then there are going to be a lot of people deciding that they can't afford to lose their job and ignoring the problem. And, unlike physical issues (the cliche of "pilot has a heart attack and dies, kills everyone") that can show up in the standard exam, depression is something you can hide if you've decided to do so. So you've replaced the known risk of a pilot who has a history of depression that is being treated and monitored with the unknown risk of a pilot with untreated depression that may be turning to drugs/alcohol/etc to "fix" the problem.
Your opinion pretty much matches mine. I hope the airlines just adopt the 2 people present policy.
One thing I remember reading somewhere tho, is that people who have suffered depression are more susceptible to suffering depression again. I think thats probably why a couple of people may be trying to portray banning people with a history of depression as a solution.
If they adopt the 2 person present policy tho, it shouldnt matter then even if they are more susceptible.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Dropbear Victim wrote:
One thing I remember reading somewhere tho, is that people who have suffered depression are more susceptible to suffering depression again. I think thats probably why a couple of people may be trying to portray banning people with a history of depression as a solution.
You gotta differentiate between depression and depression episodes. The former can persist for years, or even forever, whereas the latter is a lot more regular and not an actual mental illness on the same level.
18698
Post by: kronk
 reds8n wrote:Reports this morning saying it looks like depression/mental issues.
Well that sucks. Those poor bastards.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Recent news reported that he was on sick leave and was not to show up at work at the day of the crash.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
I think the media frenzy around this crash is pretty disgusting.
There's a General Election in the UK in 40ish days ffs. Please continue to dedicate broadcast time to a news story that has no impact on our lives.
37231
Post by: d-usa
 Medium of Death wrote:I think the media frenzy around this crash is pretty disgusting.
There's a General Election in the UK in 40ish days ffs. Please continue to dedicate broadcast time to a news story that has no impact on our lives.
Shouldn't you be researching policy papers and writing letters to politicians if the elections are that important instead of wasting time on DakkaDakka?
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
d-usa wrote: Medium of Death wrote:I think the media frenzy around this crash is pretty disgusting.
There's a General Election in the UK in 40ish days ffs. Please continue to dedicate broadcast time to a news story that has no impact on our lives.
Shouldn't you be researching policy papers and writing letters to politicians if the elections are that important instead of wasting time on DakkaDakka?
So you think the coverage of the story has been proportional then? Do you not believe the families should be left alone? Are you that desperate that you won't be satiated until you see their grief LIVE!?
37231
Post by: d-usa
Of course that is totally what I am saying.
But please continue to dedicate your time to posting on a wargaming forum that has no impact on your life.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
d-usa wrote:Of course that is totally what I am saying.
But please continue to dedicate your time to posting on a wargaming forum that has no impact on your life.
So I have the same level of responsibility as international broadcasting corporations.
Good to know.
18698
Post by: kronk
Medium of Death wrote: d-usa wrote:Of course that is totally what I am saying.
But please continue to dedicate your time to posting on a wargaming forum that has no impact on your life.
So I have the same level of responsibility as international broadcasting corporations.
Good to know.
Yes. Also, find out what happened to Jimmy Hoffa. Don't post again until you find his body.
37231
Post by: d-usa
I'm sorry for getting entangled into an off-topic discussion.
Back on-topic:
It looks like suicide-by-plane was indeed the cause. They are still looking for the FDR, but other than exact settings I don't think it will reveal anything we don't already know. I have been having mixed feelings about this whole event.
On one hand it is of course a terrible tragedy, and thoughts are will all of those affected. But with the other recent incidents it is also good to know that this was not caused by any mechanical issues.
Lockable cockpit doors will be reevaluated, but I do hope they remain in place. I still think that this was the single most effective change to aviation post-9/11.
I wonder if all airlines will now follow the 2-people in the cockpit at all times rule.
514
Post by: Orlanth
 Tyr13 wrote:Why would he? Pushing a button is so much easier. The less effort it takes, the more likely it is that you're going to commit suicide. If youre so disposed, that is.
I agree with this, the copilot took two actions known, set the cockpit door to lock and the autopilot altimeter to the minimum the computer will handle. Then just sit back and relax.
I suspect for the first few minutes the pilot thought an error had occurred, so much of the eight minutes would have passed relatively calmly.
Also another factor, once both of these actions were done, and recorded by the flight recorder the co-pilots career was totally over, even if he reversed those decisions after a minute or so, or when first asked by the captain as he returned to the door. As a suicidal mentality is a cowards way out, from that point on relaxing in the chair was the least stressful option.
18698
Post by: kronk
 PrehistoricUFO wrote:Suicide with a mass murder attached to it indeed. Imagine how mindbending those last 8 minutes were. The co-pilot just staring into nothingness as the pilot tries to break the door down. Pilot thinking "What in the actual feth,", passengers and crew freaking the feth out.
Soooo dark.
That would be horrific.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Peregrine wrote:I don't know how accurate that is, but it's pretty alarming if it is true. Computers are nice but you really need an option to disconnect the computer and fly the plane manually. Otherwise you can get into incredibly dangerous situations where the computer has a problem and crashes the plane because it won't let the pilots override its decision.
There are manual overrides, all landings are manual. and near miss incident reports have shown occasions when an airliner has had to make a very hard turn.
37231
Post by: d-usa
 Orlanth wrote: Peregrine wrote:I don't know how accurate that is, but it's pretty alarming if it is true. Computers are nice but you really need an option to disconnect the computer and fly the plane manually. Otherwise you can get into incredibly dangerous situations where the computer has a problem and crashes the plane because it won't let the pilots override its decision.
There are manual overrides, all landings are manual. and near miss incident reports have shown occasions when an airliner has had to make a very hard turn.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
 Sigvatr wrote:Recent news reported that he was on sick leave and was not to show up at work at the day of the crash.
If this was in fact the case then this raises some very serious questions.
37231
Post by: d-usa
 Dreadclaw69 wrote: Sigvatr wrote:Recent news reported that he was on sick leave and was not to show up at work at the day of the crash.
If this was in fact the case then this raises some very serious questions.
To clarify from the German media (as far as I have read):
- He was not on any official sick leave as far as his employer was concerned.
- He had a note from his doctor excusing him from work, which was found torn up at his home
- It is not known what the ailment was that the note was covering
Not trying to excuse the behavior and decisions of the pilot, just clarifying that it doesn't appear that there was some sort of procedural error on the side of the airline and that, AFAIK, the airline had no knowledge of the existence of this note.
34390
Post by: whembly
I wonder if there's a practical way to build these airplanes that doesn't have a cockpit door to the rest of the plane.
That is, you can only enter/leave the cockpit from external doors.
<shrugs>
Awfully expensive proposal for sure... but, how else can you enforce the 2 pilots in cockpit at all times?
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
I don't think it's two pilots, but two crew. Any crew member will do. Say the pilot needs a dump one of the cabin crew can be in the cockpit just to ensure that you don't end up with a situation where they can't get back in if they needs to, be that due to an attempt to crash the plane, or illness. Part of the issue seems to have been that the pilot could not get back in because he panicked and couldn't remember the door code.
37231
Post by: d-usa
 Steve steveson wrote:Part of the issue seems to have been that the pilot could not get back in because he panicked and couldn't remember the door code.
The person in the cockpit also has the ability to disable the regular code from inside the cockpit. This function exists to prevent a hijacking scenario where one of the bad guys tries to force the outside crew to open the door for them.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Steve steveson wrote:Part of the issue seems to have been that the pilot could not get back in because he panicked and couldn't remember the door code.
No, the pilot didn't panic, simply even when the correct code is entered any cabin occupant can still prevent the door from opening. This is done so that even if a possible terrorist learned the correct code he wouldn't be able to enter the cockpit. P.S:- Damn, ninja'ed by milliseconds!
18698
Post by: kronk
 CptJake wrote:http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/03/breaking-german-news-germanwings-airbus-co-pilot-was-muslim-convert/
And here we go.....
That doesn't seem like the most trustworthy news source.
4402
Post by: CptJake
 kronk wrote: CptJake wrote:http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/03/breaking-german-news-germanwings-airbus-co-pilot-was-muslim-convert/
And here we go.....
That doesn't seem like the most trustworthy news source.
I concur. Same info is repeated here: http://www.westernjournalism.com/no-official-confirmation-that-killer-co-pilot-of-germanwings-airbus-was-a-muslim-convert/#3ltKOey82vt14BlP.99 but cites the same source.
We'll see. I just thought stirring the pot a bit with a source I cannot confirm to would be fun on a Friday afternoon.
18698
Post by: kronk
I really hope that isn't true.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Neither FoxNews nor Bild are running with the Muslim story, so if they are holding back on it then it should be regarded as highly suspect at this time.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Absolutely. The source as it stands is crap.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
I've seen no mention of religion, just ongoing psychological problems. Apparently he'd recently broken up with his girlfriend. I'm sure she feels great knowing that may have led him to kill 150 others along with himself, but maybe that was the point of him doing it.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
d-usa wrote: Steve steveson wrote:Part of the issue seems to have been that the pilot could not get back in because he panicked and couldn't remember the door code.
The person in the cockpit also has the ability to disable the regular code from inside the cockpit. This function exists to prevent a hijacking scenario where one of the bad guys tries to force the outside crew to open the door for them.
That makes sense. Just goes to show how much crap news outlets make up.
37231
Post by: d-usa
It seems that all the sources claiming ties to Islam relied on another source that made the "discovery" after the news announced finding something "significant" in his apartment. The timing of those articles would place the whole Islam thing after the announcement of "finding something significant" but before the announcement that they found "torn up old and current doctor's notes excusing him from work". So sounds like they just jumped the gun and tried to be sensational.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
d-usa wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote: Sigvatr wrote:Recent news reported that he was on sick leave and was not to show up at work at the day of the crash.
If this was in fact the case then this raises some very serious questions.
To clarify from the German media (as far as I have read):
- He was not on any official sick leave as far as his employer was concerned.
- He had a note from his doctor excusing him from work, which was found torn up at his home
- It is not known what the ailment was that the note was covering
Not trying to excuse the behavior and decisions of the pilot, just clarifying that it doesn't appear that there was some sort of procedural error on the side of the airline and that, AFAIK, the airline had no knowledge of the existence of this note.
Thank you for that clarification. If the airline was unaware of his condition then that resolves many of my concerns
4402
Post by: CptJake
Dreadclaw69 wrote: If the airline was unaware of his condition then that resolves many of my concerns
I'm pretty sure the airline's lawyers and executives are in overdrive to find all kinds of reasons this can't be their fault. There will be a lot they were not aware of, even if they were.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
I'd be sweating if I was his doctor though and knew he was imbalanced enough for a sick note. If he was depressed enough to have said anything suicidal, the doc would have had fair grounds to bring it to the proper people, as its a safety issue for himself, and given his job, others. Well, was, a safety issue.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Medium of Death wrote: d-usa wrote:Of course that is totally what I am saying. But please continue to dedicate your time to posting on a wargaming forum that has no impact on your life.
So I have the same level of responsibility as international broadcasting corporations
The only responsibility international broadcasting corporations have is to make money. Assuming otherwise is silly. The news puts up what people want to see.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
 timetowaste85 wrote:I'd be sweating if I was his doctor though and knew he was imbalanced enough for a sick note. If he was depressed enough to have said anything suicidal, the doc would have had fair grounds to bring it to the proper people, as its a safety issue for himself, and given his job, others. Well, was, a safety issue.
That really depends on exactly what the note was about. Privacy laws put strict limits on what a doctor can disclose without the patient's permission, so unless he actually mentioned suicide then I don't know if mere depression would be enough to legally justify telling his employer. And of course if it was a physical issue instead of a mental one (for example, vision problems that would prevent him from flying safely) then that would certainly have to be kept private.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Poor Germanwings
They had to suddenly pull a large scale advertising campaign in London they had just paid for.
 Automatically Appended Next Post: Steve steveson wrote:I don't think it's two pilots, but two crew. Any crew member will do. Say the pilot needs a dump one of the cabin crew can be in the cockpit just to ensure that you don't end up with a situation where they can't get back in if they needs to, be that due to an attempt to crash the plane, or illness. Part of the issue seems to have been that the pilot could not get back in because he panicked and couldn't remember the door code.
This is likely sufficient, according to pres reports this is not the first time a suicidal pilot has taken a plane load of passengers with him. Its the fifth since 1994. Scary thought really.
Having two crew in the cockpit also helps if there is a door malfunction, sudden illness of the sole pilot or any number of conditions, as the captain will not leave the cockpit for long you could send up the flight engineer or senior cabin staff for overwatch in that time.
73289
Post by: PrehistoricUFO
"The fact there are sick notes saying he was unable to work, among other things, that were found torn up, which were recent and even from the day of the crime, support the assumption based on the preliminary examination that the deceased hid his illness from his employer and his professional colleagues," they said.
Meanwhile Bild, the German newspaper, reported that "Lubitz had a serious relationship crisis with his girlfriend before the disaster and the resulting heartbreak is thought to have led to this.
"Investigators are currently pursuing this line of enquiry with vigour."
A friend of Lubitz said: "His nickname was 'Tomato Andi' - a reference to his past employment as a flight steward," adding that he worked for nearly a year for Lufthansa as a cabin attendant before being accepted for flight training.
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11496066/Andreas-Lubitz-and-Patrick-S-What-do-we-know-about-the-pilots-on-Germanwings-flight-4U9525.html I guess they're going to go with the mental illness exacerbated by relationship troubles and . . . past professional trauma?
37231
Post by: d-usa
Well, the Bild is the German version of the Daily Mail so I always take their reporting with a grain of salt.
514
Post by: Orlanth
d-usa wrote:Well, the Bild is the German version of the Daily Mail so I always take their reporting with a grain of salt.
Supposedly as its just a Daily Mailesque story then, the plane might actually still be up there?
91
Post by: Hordini
That bit of text from Speisa about the co-pilot supposedly converting to Islam is probably the worst translation I've ever read on a news site.
14070
Post by: SagesStone
 Howard A Treesong wrote:I've seen no mention of religion, just ongoing psychological problems. Apparently he'd recently broken up with his girlfriend. I'm sure she feels great knowing that may have led him to kill 150 others along with himself, but maybe that was the point of him doing it.
Yep, depression.
4875
Post by: His Master's Voice
Wonder if Germanwings has a different screening process for the crew compared to Lufthansa.
As in, does the cheap part in "cheap airlines" plays a part in all of this.
37969
Post by: Tyr13
They found the second blackbox.
Edited because source was incorrect.
62229
Post by: Minx
Tyr13 wrote:They found the second blackbox. And a tablet that was still salvageable... Kind of horrible. The owner was researching suicide and how to open the cockpit door. :(
The tablet has been found in the co-pilot's home iirc. And it does seem like this new evidence supports the earlier assumption of a deliberate crash to kill the passengers and himself. Horrible :(
89522
Post by: Dropbear Victim
Im glad they found the blackbox, although the new evidence from the house search is damning.
93151
Post by: KiloFiX
Unfortunately, unless someone was forcefully committed, it may be hard to screen for mental illness.
And on the other hand, there are lots of folks with anxiety, depression, etc. that are otherwise high functioning and not a threat at all, when on their meds, that shouldn't be disenfranchised.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
KiloFiX wrote:Unfortunately, unless someone was forcefully committed, it may be hard to screen for mental illness.
It's not just hard, it's impossible. Most screening for mental illnesses depends on the person cooperating with the screening because they want help, if you can't rely on the person being honest and cooperative then you're only going to catch the extreme cases that are obvious even without formal screening. The closest you can get is make a law requiring doctors to report any patients seeking help for mental illnesses to the FAA (or equivalent in other countries) which is a major violation of doctor-patient confidentiality and has the obvious side effect of discouraging pilots from getting help when they need it because they're afraid of losing their jobs.
And on the other hand, there are lots of folks with anxiety, depression, etc. that are otherwise high functioning and not a threat at all, when on their meds, that shouldn't be disenfranchised.
Actually it's the medications that are a major reason why those issues can get your license suspended. The side effects can hinder your ability to fly safely, so the FAA requires a period of documented stable use of the medication with no side effects before they'll clear a pilot to fly again (and that's a major improvement over the old policy of "if you take this you're grounded"). It might seem kind of unfair, but always erring on the side of safety is the reason why plane crashes are major news instead of a common event.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Looks like I ain't ever flying
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
...he says, as he gets behind the wheel of a car.
4402
Post by: CptJake
The number of passenger planes that go down compared to those that don't is miniscule. The number brought down deliberately (as this one seems to have been) is a tiny fraction of that. Generally it is a maintenance issue or crew error.
Yes, every flight is a roll of the dice, as is every time you get in a motor vehicle on public roads. I think you'll find your odds are better in a plane. If you limit it to planes owned and operated by western airlines you are doing even better (they have better maintenance standards and records).
Don't sweat the things you can't control. When it is your time, it is your time. In my opinion, even 10 minutes or so of knowing you are going down in an airplane would be better than months spent with some aggressive cancer or years spent with something like alzheimer's.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
If you are afraid of flying, then you should never ever leave your home. Travelling by car, train or even on foot is more dangerous.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Sigvatr wrote:
If you are afraid of flying, then you should never ever leave your home. Travelling by car, train or even on foot is more dangerous.
problem with that logic is that, in the US something like nearly 80% of all major accidents happen within or around the home.
To fix that, Im taking the numbers off the front of my house, so that way it's no longer my address/home and I wont have an accident
4875
Post by: His Master's Voice
KiloFiX wrote:Unfortunately, unless someone was forcefully committed, it may be hard to screen for mental illness.
Thing is, his mental state was a secondary issue until the very moment he decided to kill everyone. What I find more worrisome, is that he had serious sight issues related to a previous car accident. Doctors treating him were convinced he is not flying passenger planes, because he told them so, and they didn't contact Lufthansa with the information that would have grounded the man, potentially forever.
The whole system is utterly bizarre, as it put the burden of doing the right thing on the one person that happened to be keenly interested in not doing the right thing. How fething stupid is that? How many pilots out there have health issues that could potentially endanger passengers, and yet keep on flying just because they threw away a piece of paper they got from their doctor?
123
Post by: Alpharius
 Ensis Ferrae wrote: Sigvatr wrote:
If you are afraid of flying, then you should never ever leave your home. Travelling by car, train or even on foot is more dangerous.
problem with that logic is that, in the US something like nearly 80% of all major accidents happen within or around the home.
Because, shockingly enough, that's where you spend most of your time? 
Just like how that thing you're missing is always in the last place you look for it?
On topic here - what solution can there be to the very excellent Anti-Terrorism Locked Cockpit Door Solution?
4402
Post by: CptJake
 Alpharius wrote:
On topic here - what solution can there be to the very excellent Anti-Terrorism Locked Cockpit Door Solution?
Is one needed?
I would argue, No, it is not.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
The solution I've seen touted is that if a pilot leaves the cockpit another crew member (the senior steward for example) enters and remains until the pilot comes back.
Seems like about the best thing you could do- lots of airlines do that already.
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
CptJake wrote: Alpharius wrote:
On topic here - what solution can there be to the very excellent Anti-Terrorism Locked Cockpit Door Solution?
Is one needed?
I would argue, No, it is not.
Well, it would have prevented the events that spawned this thread.
4402
Post by: CptJake
 ScootyPuffJunior wrote: CptJake wrote: Alpharius wrote:
On topic here - what solution can there be to the very excellent Anti-Terrorism Locked Cockpit Door Solution?
Is one needed?
I would argue, No, it is not.
Well, it would have prevented the events that spawned this thread.
Maybe. But locked/un-openable doors would have prevented 9-11 and a slew of of hijackings over the past few decades.
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
It's not really so much of a "maybe" and more of a "definitely."
But locked/un-openable doors would have prevented 9-11 and a slew of of hijackings over the past few decades.
And if a frog had wings it would bump it's ass when it hops.
Regardless, there have been hijackings of commercial airlines since 9/11 so making the cockpit door impenetrable didn't stop them all. I think it's pretty clear that there needs to be a way for the flight crew to enter the cockpit if needed, despite the current system.
37231
Post by: d-usa
There is really nothing stopping a rogue pilot from decking the steward that has taken the other pilots spot, or decking the other pilot even. If a pilot wants to crash a plane he will most likely succeed as long as there is a door that can keep the cockpit isolated even if there is another person present.
A "2-person at all times" rule is still a good thing to make sure there is a second person in case of any other emergency, and doors that lock (and can be disabled from the inside) are going to stay.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Yeah, because there is no way the nut job could have overpowered/knocked out the pilot had he been able to enter the cockpit, nor have damaged enough systems that he made the crash inevitable.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
But locked/un-openable doors would have prevented 9-11 and a slew of of hijackings over the past few decades.
And if a frog had wings it would bump it's ass when it hops.
Regardless, there have been hijackings of commercial airlines since 9/11 so making the cockpit door impenetrable didn't stop them all. I think it's pretty clear that there needs to be a way for the flight crew to enter the cockpit if needed, despite the current system.
Can you give one case where an airline using the locked doors with no cockpit access had a hijacker gain access? I can't find one. All I can find is where the airline did NOT follow that practice, or where the hijacking was done from outside the cockpit and the pilots retained control of the aircraft and landed where they wanted to, or the attempts failed. In short, the policy/practice works.
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
CptJake wrote: Yeah, because there is no way the nut job could have overpowered/knocked out the pilot had he been able to enter the cockpit, nor have damaged enough systems that he made the crash inevitable.
 ScootyPuffJunior wrote: But locked/un-openable doors would have prevented 9-11 and a slew of of hijackings over the past few decades.
And if a frog had wings it would bump it's ass when it hops. Regardless, there have been hijackings of commercial airlines since 9/11 so making the cockpit door impenetrable didn't stop them all. I think it's pretty clear that there needs to be a way for the flight crew to enter the cockpit if needed, despite the current system.
Can you give one case where an airline using the locked doors with no cockpit access had a hijacker gain access? I can't find one. All I can find is where the airline did NOT follow that practice, or where the hijacking was done from outside the cockpit and the pilots retained control of the aircraft and landed where they wanted to, or the attempts failed. In short, the policy/practice works.
As for the first part of your response, see the above picture. The question was never "does it work?" but rather, "should there be a way for the flight crew to reenter the cockpit?" And based on the fact that a copilot used an impenetrable cockpit door to aide him in murdering 149 people, that answer is "yes."
12313
Post by: Ouze
I think there may be a third way.
I'm aware that some aircraft can have the autopilot take over and lock the crew out of controls, and be landed wholly on auto as an anti-terrorism method. Perhaps a hardened communication link on both sides of the door would solve what happened here, although since what happened here is so statistically insignificant it probably doesn't warrant the effort. Also, how long does it take to crash an aircraft if you really want to, and don't care about subtlety? Probably not long enough for a third party to respond.
Although ultimately I think we all know there won't be anyone sitting up front anymore, anyway, on a long enough timeline.
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
Which is what I am trying to get across. However, Jake seems to think that I'm advocating for a complete removal of the current system, which I am not.
It clearly working as intended (which is why we are talking about it this thread), but that doesn't mean it's perfect (also why we are talking about it in this thread).
4042
Post by: Da Boss
There is probably no way to control for all potential eventualities, but having a second person there at all times at least alleviates some of the risk. These events are very rare and the best we can do is make them rarer. Any system will have a flaw, unfortunately.
37231
Post by: d-usa
A good example of a similar situation with two pilots present:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990
63000
Post by: Peregrine
 Ouze wrote:I'm aware that some aircraft can have the autopilot take over and lock the crew out of controls, and be landed wholly on auto as an anti-terrorism method. Perhaps a hardened communication link on both sides of the door would solve what happened here, although since what happened here is so statistically insignificant it probably doesn't warrant the effort.
It would be very difficult to produce a system that is both reliable enough to function despite deliberate attempts to disable it and safe enough to use on civilian passenger aircraft. For example, one important safety feature is the ability to pull the circuit breakers and shut down electrical components if there's a fire. So do you remove the ability to shut down the override feature and just accept that if there's an electrical fire somewhere in the system everyone on the plane will die? Or do you include the ability to shut it down and make the system worthless against anyone who knows how to turn it off (which, for obvious reasons, will include the pilots)?
Also, how long does it take to crash an aircraft if you really want to, and don't care about subtlety? Probably not long enough for a third party to respond.
Very little time. And it takes even less time to put the plane out of control beyond any plausible chance of recovery before hitting the ground or catastrophic structural failure. Automatically Appended Next Post: d-usa wrote:There is really nothing stopping a rogue pilot from decking the steward that has taken the other pilots spot, or decking the other pilot even.
Not if they're really determined to do so. But we've seen that adding seemingly trivial barriers to other suicide methods is enough to make a significant reduction in suicide rates. Would the pilot in this case still crash the plane if, instead of just locking the door, setting the plane on autopilot, and waiting for the end, he had to fight the crew first? Would he have decided that the chance of humiliating failure is too high and found a different method to die? Or would he have given up on suicide entirely? Automatically Appended Next Post:  His Master's Voice wrote:The whole system is utterly bizarre, as it put the burden of doing the right thing on the one person that happened to be keenly interested in not doing the right thing. How fething stupid is that? How many pilots out there have health issues that could potentially endanger passengers, and yet keep on flying just because they threw away a piece of paper they got from their doctor?
Ok, here's how it works. An airline pilot's medical certificate lasts one year, or six months if they're over 40. To renew it they have to be checked by a doctor that has been approved by the FAA, using specific tests to ensure that the pilot is capable of flying safely. So most of the time any potential health issues are going to be caught and the pilot will be grounded before it becomes a safety issue. And even in the case of a sudden issue that happens between renewals most pilots aren't suicidal morons and will ground themselves if they feel that they are not capable of flying safely (which is a lot clearer with physical problems than mental ones).
Also, don't forget that one of the reasons for having two pilots is so that if one of them is unable to fly the plane safely for whatever reason the other can take over and get everyone on the ground. So there's really only a significant risk in the unlikely case where one of the pilots has a hidden medical issue AND something happens to the other pilot that prevents them from taking over or catching the first pilot's mistakes.
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
Peregrine wrote:Not if they're really determined to do so. But we've seen that adding seemingly trivial barriers to other suicide methods is enough to make a significant reduction in suicide rates. Would the pilot in this case still crash the plane if, instead of just locking the door, setting the plane on autopilot, and waiting for the end, he had to fight the crew first? Would he have decided that the chance of humiliating failure is too high and found a different method to die? Or would he have given up on suicide entirely?
I agree with your points.
However, this wasn't "suicide," it was the murder of 149 innocent people.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Put whatever moral judgement you want on the methods, but it was still a suicide and the approach to stopping similar cases in the future should be based on understanding it as a suicide. Based on everything we know so far the pilot's primary motivation pretty clearly seems to have been a desire to end his own life, most likely due to a combination of depression and the news that he was about to lose his career. There was no public statement of why the victims deserved to die, no confrontation with the other pilot, etc. In fact the way he did it seems carefully chosen to avoid confronting the fact that everyone else was about to die and allow him to sit in his own little world until the end. Would he have still done that if his research into suicide methods had told him that he was going to have to fight and kill (or at least knock out) another crew member before crashing the plane instead of just pressing one button to lock the door and another button arrange the crash? Would he have been determined enough to go through with his plan when the moment came instead of taking the coward's way out and giving up until later? Evidence from other suicide methods suggest that there's a good chance that the answer to those questions is "no".
4402
Post by: CptJake
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: CptJake wrote:
Yeah, because there is no way the nut job could have overpowered/knocked out the pilot had he been able to enter the cockpit, nor have damaged enough systems that he made the crash inevitable.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
But locked/un-openable doors would have prevented 9-11 and a slew of of hijackings over the past few decades.
And if a frog had wings it would bump it's ass when it hops.
Regardless, there have been hijackings of commercial airlines since 9/11 so making the cockpit door impenetrable didn't stop them all. I think it's pretty clear that there needs to be a way for the flight crew to enter the cockpit if needed, despite the current system.
Can you give one case where an airline using the locked doors with no cockpit access had a hijacker gain access? I can't find one. All I can find is where the airline did NOT follow that practice, or where the hijacking was done from outside the cockpit and the pilots retained control of the aircraft and landed where they wanted to, or the attempts failed. In short, the policy/practice works.
As for the first part of your response, see the above picture.
The question was never "does it work?" but rather, "should there be a way for the flight crew to reenter the cockpit?"
And based on the fact that a copilot used an impenetrable cockpit door to aide him in murdering 149 people, that answer is "yes."
I'm not sure how pointing out the locked doors has done exactly what it was intended to do is moving the goal. You brought up there were still hijackings and implied the locked doors did not work. I pointed out that I cannot find a single hijacking where the locked doors were present that the hijackers got access and control of the plane, and in fact, all the ones I found the pilots did indeed retain control of the plane. That is not moving the goal, that is asking you to hit the goal you set when you pointed out some hijackings still occurred.
If the crew can re-enter the cockpit, someone can force them to open it and gain access. It defeats the whole purpose of having implemented the measure. That isn't hard to see.
As for if the pilot had been able to re-enter would it have prevented this case, you say Yes Definitely. I say that is an unknown. Neither you nor I know how desperate the copilot was nor what measures he was willing to take. If you think otherwise, you're kidding yourself. Again, I did not move a goal, I pointed out that you're being Definite is wrong. You don't really know.
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
CptJake wrote:I'm not sure how pointing out the locked doors has done exactly what it was intended to do is moving the goal. You brought up there were still hijackings and implied the locked doors did not work. I pointed out that I cannot find a single hijacking where the locked doors were present that the hijackers got access and control of the plane, and in fact, all the ones I found the pilots did indeed retain control of the plane. That is not moving the goal, that is asking you to hit the goal you set when you pointed out some hijackings still occurred.
Hit the goal? Do you even read what you write? You claimed that the current door locking system have "prevented a slew of hijackings in the past few decades." I pointed out that hijackings have indeed occurred since 9/11. You then asked me to name a specific kind of hijacking sine now the others that have happened don't count because of reasons. Also, saying that the current door locking procedure is the reason hijackings have been prevented is bunk by the way... it is but one of the major security overhauls that took place after 9/11. You're using to prove your case solely out of convenience.
If the crew can re-enter the cockpit, someone can force them to open it and gain access. It defeats the whole purpose of having implemented the measure. That isn't hard to see.
And since there is that measure, we're now discussing the deaths of 149 innocent people. That isn't hard to see.
As for if the pilot had been able to re-enter would it have prevented this case, you say Yes Definitely. I say that is an unknown. Neither you nor I know how desperate the copilot was nor what measures he was willing to take. If you think otherwise, you're kidding yourself. Again, I did not move a goal, I pointed out that you're being Definite is wrong. You don't really know.
You don't know how desperate the pilot was or what measures he was willing to take to regain control of the aircraft. If you think otherwise, you're kidding yourself.
The system isn't perfect and in our knee-jerk reaction to 9/11, a pilot intentionally downing an aircraft full of people wasn't on the minds of people who designed what we have today. Expect something to change, it's how airline safety works.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Either the cockpit doors can be secured from inside or not. I don't see many alternatives. The pilot being able to secure the doors and overriding the attempts of staff to open it prevents other crew giving access under coercion or other parties who have access codes. It's not an unsound system, it just means you can't prevent people determined to crash their own plane and take everyone with them. I can't see how to make it easier to prevent that without making it easier to access the cockpit. Overall the odds of a terror attack are greater than a pilot intent on killing everyone. The alternative solution is to intervene before people with mental conditions are allowed to fly.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Howard A Treesong wrote:The alternative solution is to intervene before people with mental conditions are allowed to fly.
You might as well wish for magic crash-proof planes if you're going to ask for impossible things. Automatically Appended Next Post: CptJake wrote:If the crew can re-enter the cockpit, someone can force them to open it and gain access. It defeats the whole purpose of having implemented the measure. That isn't hard to see.
It reduces the effectiveness a bit, but it doesn't make it useless. A big part of why the 9/11 attacks succeeded was that previous hijackings were about getting hostages and making ransom demands, so the conventional wisdom for dealing with them was "do whatever they say, land the plane, and wait for the negotiations". Now passengers and crew know that they might as well fight to the death to stop the hijackers because if they don't there's a pretty good chance they're going to die anyway. So if the locked door lasts long enough for the passengers to subdue the hijackers the hypothetical scenario where the passengers sit peacefully and watch as the hijackers beat the crew into revealing the code doesn't really matter.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Well in this case the pilot hid his current problems and there was a history. Maybe more checks are required to be in place so as to prevent them flying sooner. Lots of people suffer depression and the like but they aren't all in jobs expecting hundreds of people to put their lives in their hands.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Howard A Treesong wrote:Well in this case the pilot hid his current problems and there was a history. Maybe more checks are required to be in place so as to prevent them flying sooner. Lots of people suffer depression and the like but they aren't all in jobs expecting hundreds of people to put their lives in their hands.
The problem with checks is that, unlike physical issues (vision problems, etc) that get in the way of safe flying, you can't identify depression without the depressed person cooperating and seeking help. And if you make it mandatory for doctors to report anyone seeking help with depression to the FAA (or your country's equivalent) then, on top of violating doctor-patient confidentiality, you make it even less likely that the depressed pilot is ever going to risk losing their career to get help. Which is worse, putting hundreds of lives in the hands of someone who is getting treated for depression "off the record" and not reporting it, or putting those lives in the hands of someone who isn't getting treated at all?
(And a lot of other things work this way with pilot medical certificates. The FAA can't monitor every part of a pilot's life, so the process depends on the pilot being honest about things like which medications they're currently taking. Adding more frequent checks adds more cost and bureaucracy but doesn't do much to improve safety.)
|
|
