Germanwings Flight 9525 crashes in French Alps

520 posts in this topic

 

Let's hope that any new policies that might come out of this have their basis in risk analysis and not knee jerk reaction.

 

Unlikely I fear - esp if the media gets a bee in their bonnet.

There are a number of examples of negative improvement in aviation!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read some news that the pilot allegedly had several torn up sick notes at home, including one for this week. Am I right in saying that sick notes don't state the reason for sickness like they do in the UK and that employers are not obliged to know any details? I can't imagine the average GP here going a step beyond the necessary even if mental illness is diagnosed. According to my doc, mental health care in Germany is woefully lacking. As for the pilot's break in training, it was such a long time ago making him around 20 years old.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Am I right in saying that sick notes don't state the reason for sickness like they do in the UK and that employers are not obliged to know any details?

 

Correct - you will see that stated numerous times on threads within TT.

 

Although change "obliged" to "allowed".

 

The airlines do have their own doctors - I vaguely know one who is a Dr. for LH at HAM. Another glider pilot.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In the Air France crash the junior pilot effectively crashed the plane as he had the stick BACK, and his colleage had the stick FORWARD...the fly-by-wire averaged out the 2 inputs and they crashed.

 

Indeed, This story about the french A330 crash explains it in detail .. quite horrifying

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh Air France is truly scary because there was NOTHING basically wrong with the plane - just dodgy sensors. The pilots effectively flew it into a stall and then down into the sea. The plane was 100% airworthy. If they had just put the stick forwards...it would have flown happily along.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another scenario-

 

If and that's a big if, the pilot could have locked himself out of the cockpit or was pretending to be locked out, he could have disabled the co-pilot with something like chloroform, left him slumped over in his seat still breathing, set the plane to crash and left the cockpit. Thereby preserving his own good name for posterity.

 

When I got the opportunity to sit in the cockpit of a Quantas plane landing in Singapore, there were 3 other people in the cockpit - pilot, co-pilot and I think the other guy was some kind of navigator.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AF447 disaster was mainly due to a total lack of situation awareness on the part of the crew.

 

When a group of 20 members of my club visited the BFU in Braunschweig a few years ago (dreadful rainy week) we had a presentation by an ex-member of our club who is a BFU investigator (I assume hes in france now).

 

AFter explaining how the BFU is organised as an authority & the really short communication ways they have to authorities both within Germany & other countries he talked about AF447. He had been on one of the ships searching for the wreck (didn't find it; the next trip did).

 

He then gave us a run-down of what went on in the cockpit. It was only in the last few seconds that one of the crew looked at the altimeter & saw that they were down to 1000' whilst they still thought they were up at FL300+. That was too late.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When I got the opportunity to sit in the cockpit of a Quantas plane landing in Singapore, there were 3 other people in the cockpit - pilot, co-pilot and I think the other guy was some kind of navigator.

 

For really long-range there are 3 (at least the case with LH). When the captain rests a SFO deputises for the captain.

 

It must have been around year 2000 when I was fortunate to be allowed to sit for takeoff on the jumpseat of an A340-300 from Munich to Chicago. That was just a 2-man crew. Anything further (they explained) had 3.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How did he then make all the subsequent control inputs whilst locked out on the other side?

 

maybe he hypnotised the other pilot and then...

 

Ok seriously, it all looks like suicide and one of the pilots is getting the blame for the moment. Maybe thats right, maybe it isnt, but honestly we should wait for the anaylsis by the experts.

 

And that goes double for all the chicken little rule changers sticking their oar in. We dont know, and we should make decisions once the facts are in. You are still safer, by any metric, sitting on an a320 at 30k feet than you are on your bike on the roads of berlin even if the pilot has a history of depression.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Common sense in Lufthansa is still used, not emotions:

 

Among the companies that did not announce such a policy change was Germanwings parent Lufthansa (LHAG.DE), whose CEO Carsten Spohr said he believed it was unnecessary.

"I don't see any need to change our procedures here," Spohr told journalists. "It was a one-off case. But we will look at it with the various experts at Lufthansa and the authorities. We shouldn't lose ourselves in short-term measures."

His comments drew criticism on Twitter, with some people demanding the airline introduce the two person-rule.

 

People, please stop! It has already happened. Do you understand? It has happened.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is very simple, all the aircrew have a code to open the secure door from either side. No aircrew (nut job or no nut job) will be alowed the facility/function to lock themselves in the cockpit alone. The aircrew will have another code (their code plus one for example) that when they input this code this will delay the opening of the door by say 10 seconds and also giving the pilots an alert (audible alarm for example) warning them that an aircrew member is being forced to open the door thus allowing the pilots time to pick up their tasers (for example) and neutralize the threat. Even johnny english may be able to understand the advantages of something like this over the present system.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummmmmm . so both pilots have tasers then?

 

Whats to stop pilot 1 tasering pilot 2 ?

 

*Edit * Ah.. I see it`s friday today ..

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that there should be a secret battering ram known only to flight crew and air marshals. It can be concealed in the overhead bins and used if/when needed.

 

Alternatively, take the fricking locks off the cockpit doors so that the passengers can duke it out if necessary. De-stigmatize mental illness and provide better treatment. Accept that we can not regulate to achieve 0% risk...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do people really believe it is possible to screen people for mental illness in a 30 minute interview, and thus ensure psychos can't fly planes or buy guns?

 

Rule 1 for psychos trying to be accepted as sane. Don't act psycho!

 

I regret to admit BattalionBoy's proposal has merit.

 

However there have been a few plane hijackings since 911. But they've all been ended by passengers/crew taking out the wanna be hijacker. 911 changed the dynamic. Before 911 you stood a very high chance of survival if you cooperated with the hijacker. Now most people feel it's guaranteed death and would rather take their chances fighting the hijackers.

 

So the reinforced doors are solving a problem that no longer exists, and creating a brand new problem.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think that there should be a secret battering ram known only to flight crew and air marshals. It can be concealed in the overhead bins and used if/when needed.

 

Even a battering ram cannot open the cockpit door. They showed an experiment once.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if you trust someone to fly the plane you are flying in then surely it's a gimmee you trust them to have tasers. Let the pilots battle it out with the tasers in the cockpit if one goes apeshit. At least you will have a chance because at the moment you have no chance. Also the pilots do keep watch on each other and they would know more than anyone that the other pilot has gone mental and something isn't right. The taser deployement would have a 5 second delay allowing the other pilot to be aware and ask why.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ill take my approx 1 in 4 million chance of being killed on a flight and allow patient confidentiality thanks.

 

There are several exceptions where patient confidentiality may be breached:

 

http://supp.apa.org/books/Essential-Ethics-for-Psychologists/exceptions.pdf

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2922345/

 

http://ww1.cpa-apc.org:8080/publications/position_papers/records.asp

 

A person’s right to privacy is not absolute. There are particular situations in which confidentiality may justifiably be breached. These include situations in which the patient has a specific incapacity, the patient has become a danger to him- or herself or others, the public good is at stake, or a serious injustice might occur were relevant, significant information to be withheld (17).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is very simple, all the aircrew have a code to open the secure door from either side. No aircrew (nut job or no nut job) will be alowed the facility/function to lock themselves in the cockpit alone. The aircrew will have another code (their code plus one for example) that when they input this code this will delay the opening of the door by say 10 seconds and also giving the pilots an alert (audible alarm for example) warning them that an aircrew member is being forced to open the door thus allowing the pilots time to pick up their tasers (for example) and neutralize the threat. Even johnny english may be able to understand the advantages of something like this over the present system.

 

What if we make the door to the cockpit a giant rubicks cube and then the pilots can simply turn it some more making it harder to open, and then not only are the skies safer, but we get to challenge the minds of the pilots keeping them sharp and concentration high! And in case someone gets past the defenses we can put a second secret cockpit at the back of the plane where another pair of pilots sit who can override the controls in case the main cockpit is compromised.

 

But I like the tazers. What passenger transport needs is more guns. An armed society is a civil society and all that. Maybe frequent fliers can also have a grenade?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now