Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

 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.

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.

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.

Have they released any details on the co-pilot yet? Is it too soon to consider religion?

 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.

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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

Reports this morning saying it looks like depression/mental issues.

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.

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.

 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.

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.

 reds8n wrote:
Reports this morning saying it looks like depression/mental issues.

Well that sucks. Those poor bastards.

Recent news reported that he was on sick leave and was not to show up at work at the day of the crash.

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.

 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?

 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!?

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.

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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

 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.