Germanwings A320 crashed in France :(

[RobinOakapple]

nyxster said:

Good stuff

[KTF]

RobinOakapple said:

Then all the terrorist has to do is hold a gun to the head ( or some much valued part) of the authorised crew member, and he's in.

Indeed.

If the person(s) in the cockpit is incapacitated then you can get in - enter the emergency code and wait for the time delay to trip..

If the persons(s) in the cockpit doesnt want to let you in then you are not getting in - they set the switch to lock and/or throw the deadbolt.

Its as simple as that.

[Munter]

RobinOakapple said:

nyxster said:

Good stuff

I agree. The only stumbling block is putting in place the correct support and monitoring costs money. It makes pilots less efficient in terms of the time they can be flying, and requires people and space to do it. So prices will need to go up to cover the costs. No company wants to put prices up, so unless it forced on airlines, it's not happening.

[Steffan]

Moonhawk said:

Stevanos said:

2. Re-design of the door so it can be opened no matter what by the authorised crew in an emergency.

I guess it's catch 22.

The ability for the flight crew to lock the door from inside the cabin was presumably to prevent a hijacker compromising "authorised" personnel on the passenger side and forcing the door open.

For example - if the captain had come out and been taken hostage - should he have the ability to open the door from the outside overriding the person inside the cockpit?

There is no idea solution to this.

I agree.

As I suggested earlier on here this tragedy will have major repercussions and there will need to be a complete rethink on cabin security and the enitire selection process used currently in licensing and employing airline pilots. Clearly both matters required fundamental revision. It would seem this copilot should have been recognised as potentially unsafe given the psychiatric treatment that he was apparently receiving, supposedly with the knowledge of his employer. Begs the question about the extent of the effectiveness of the selection process in use and the effectivess of the monitoring of the crew.

The conundrum of how to secure the plane without risking incidents of ths nature is one that will require a great deal of consideration. Certainly all the airlines in the workd will need to radically alter their current approach to both these matters. Desperately sad for all the grieving relatives, and quite indescribable for the poor victims who clearly did realise in the last few moments that their destruction was imminent. Awful business and we must never forget the human cost that ths tragedy has created.

[4v6]

Im wondering why theres no video recordings taken of cockpit activities?
Surely such evidence would help fill in the voids we are dealing with now?

Im also of the opinion that there needs to be some kind of remote take control option by atc/authorities in the case of a plane being hijacked to circumvent these kinds of occurences.

Technically challenging Im sure but its an option (as with the video surveillence of the cockpit) that really needs to be investigated and employed.

[RobinOakapple]

Munter said:

RobinOakapple said:

nyxster said:

Good stuff

I agree. The only stumbling block is putting in place the correct support and monitoring costs money. It makes pilots less efficient in terms of the time they can be flying, and requires people and space to do it. So prices will need to go up to cover the costs. No company wants to put prices up, so unless it forced on airlines, it's not happening.

Very true.

[SpeckledJim]

SilverSixer said:

Moonhawk said:

Stevanos said:

2. Re-design of the door so it can be opened no matter what by the authorised crew in an emergency.

I guess it's catch 22.

The ability for the flight crew to lock the door from inside the cabin was presumably to prevent a hijacker compromising "authorised" personnel on the passenger side and forcing the door open.

For example - if the captain had come out and been taken hostage - should he have the ability to open the door from the outside overriding the person inside the cockpit?

There is no idea solution to this.

Someone else said it already. Pissbottles. Pilot/co-pilot not to leave cockpit.

That doesn't solve anything, but just introduces a new set of problems.

The requirement of a suicidal/murderous co-pilot just shifts from locking his pilot outside to sticking a biro in his neck.

Ban biros?

[JohneeBoy]

The other thing to consider here is, if a pilot really wanted to kill himself and everyone on board, couldn't he or she do so upon take off and landing, regardless of who is in the cockpit with them? I'm not a pilot but I would imagine it's not too difficult to throw the plan into an unrecoverable position during critical moments. Some things simply cannot be prevented but, thankfully, are very rare occurrences.

[anonymous-user]

nyxster said:

Clearly if the airline was aware he was suffering long term issues, then there has been a clear failure in duty of care to him and the passengers to put him in a position where he can do harm. He should have been confined to ground duties and no doubt hard questions need to be asked by all airlines of what they can do to manage the risk. A simple call to his bosses from the fiance suggesting all wasn't well might have prevented this.

Great post

As I said earlier, my airline have had suicides from pilots in the past, I also know of it happening with others.

We certainly have a few pilots off with depression and stress at any one time.

Unfortunately, the kind of backwards comments in the press about MH illness will no doubt make people feeling like they might have an issue much less likely to speak up.

[anonymous-user]

Munter said:

I agree. The only stumbling block is putting in place the correct support and monitoring costs money. It makes pilots less efficient in terms of the time they can be flying, and requires people and space to do it. So prices will need to go up to cover the costs. No company wants to put prices up, so unless it forced on airlines, it's not happening.

Correct. Airlines operate with tiny margins, Ryanair flourish because they have the lowest cost base and passengers book based on price.

[KTF]

4v6 said:

Im wondering why theres no video recordings taken of cockpit activities?
Surely such evidence would help fill in the voids we are dealing with now?

Apparently it has been suggested before but the unions were against it as they could have been used by the management to 'spy' on their staff.

[nyxster]

Munter said:

I agree. The only stumbling block is putting in place the correct support and monitoring costs money. It makes pilots less efficient in terms of the time they can be flying, and requires people and space to do it. So prices will need to go up to cover the costs. No company wants to put prices up, so unless it forced on airlines, it's not happening.

Sadly you are right. You only have to look at how much the MOD have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century to acknowledge the problem of MH issues in the services. The problem with jobs that are the preserve of alpha males is the standard MTFU attitude that prevails. A good family friend was an RAF police officer in the 70's, and the incident rates of suicides especially in Germany was horrific, and there was literally no mechanism in place to deal with it. If you self-reported you were discharged out of a job and homeless.

Cost obsessed companies aren't interested in spending money on these things, a trawl across PPRUNE will show that Emirates will spend billions on shiny planes and bottles of bollinger for the first class cabins and treat their staff terribly.

There needs to be a huge culture shift, and with the likes of Willy Walsh and Ryan Air dtermined to break the unions and go to war with their own staff over pay and conditions, and the resentment that fuels, i fear our obsession with expecting to fly to florida for less than the cost of a train ticket london to glasgow is not ideal for improving a drive for safe aviation.

[Oakey]

Thinking about peoples comments about how his entire plan hinged on whether or not the pilot would leave the cabin has got me wondering if his original plan was to stuff the plane on landing, hence why he got the hump after the discussion on the landing plan. Then the Captain left to go to the toilet giving him another opportunity.

[trashbat]

Guam said:

Well myself and another poster have first hand experience of these issues (PTSD AND Clinical depression in my background).
At the depth of my clinical depression I should not have been placed in any situation that could have resulted in "collateral damage" to those around me, and although this was a long time ago now, I remember how I felt as if it was yesterday.

I see nothing wrong with a regular Psych review of flight crew (MOT as I put it earlier) and I feel it would be just sound management practice, whilst it may not preclude this type of outcome completely (nothing will,) it has to be better than nothing (which is as I understand it largely the situation now), indeed given the stresses these guys are being put under and which are widely reported, one would think it mitigates towards doing this even more!

I agree & sympathise, but as well as restricting people from such situations, as another poster eloquently points out, it also requires fostering a work environment & wider culture where you can put your hand up and say 'I have a problem' without bringing your life crashing down around you. Otherwise MH sufferers are likely to just shut up & dig in and you will find out about it in incidents like this.

As you probably know well, identification & treatment of stuff like PTSD requires patient buy-in, for you to turn up & say 'this is happening to me and I want to do something about it'. If you think that means you're going to be sacked and actually never be able to work again, that won't happen, and you'll probably be able to mask it from all but the most intensive observation.

Slightly O/T but lots of interesting things are happening around PTSD, both in treatment - look up EMDR - and how various parties (e.g. the military) actually recognise it with increasing seriousness. Plenty further to go though.

[Munter]

Guam said:

Munter said:

I agree. The only stumbling block is putting in place the correct support and monitoring costs money. It makes pilots less efficient in terms of the time they can be flying, and requires people and space to do it. So prices will need to go up to cover the costs. No company wants to put prices up, so unless it forced on airlines, it's not happening.

Well we already pay the cost of extra security for the terrorism prevention, call me silly if you must, but I feel that investment in the health of the guys chauffeuring me around at 35k feet is worth paying for as a passenger!

I agree but given a choice between BA, Virgin and American, I'm not reviewing how they select, train and treat their pilots or what their "pilot with full bladder procedure" is. I'm assuming they are all doing reasonable things to ensure my safety to a similar level (or they'd be banned from operating), then picking the cheapest option.

All the company sees is "customers pick the cheapest option".

[nyxster]

el stovey said:

Correct. Airlines operate with tiny margins, Ryanair flourish because they have the lowest cost base and passengers book based on price.

Madness really. Reminds me of that car advert where the guy asks him if he wants the half price parachute with a few holes in it.

50 percent off? SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!

[LittleEnus]

el stovey said:

Perhaps you ought to go and "add perspective" somewhere else?

Your contribution to this thread has been minimal to say the least.

Ok no more on this. If I offended you I'm sorry. Let's be friends ok? But my point does stand, we will agree to disagree.

Back on topic. Why do the press keep saying the passengers would have had no idea until the last moments? Surely this is to try and make people feel better? I would imagine that it was 8 mins of absolute terror on board that stricken jet.

Still can't quite get over it.

[FrankAbagnale]

SilverSixer said:

Someone else said it already. Pissbottles. Pilot/co-pilot not to leave cockpit.

What if you need a sh*t?!

[WinstonWolf]

RobinOakapple said:

WinstonWolf said:

I wonder what he does

Having done a wide range of jobs, some at a professional level, and had several businesses, some of them quite surprising, I've learned not to set too much store by what people do at any one time

You'll understand when you've been here a while longer

[Oakey]

FrankAbagnale said:

What if you need a sh*t?!

You st in a newspaper, wrap it up like a parcel and throw it out of the window.