Germanwings A320 crashed in France :(
Discussion
wc98 said:
Oakey said:
Challo said:
egor110 said:
Sky News stating severe depression and mental health not Islam.
t now. Get with the program.After all, they're so reputable their clickbait link has killed their server
All we know for certain is he had a history of mental illness, we have no idea why he snapped on the day he did.
nyxster said:
A simple solution is the US Air Marshal system. A security cleared trusted individual not known to the crew or passengers, trained to fly the aircraft with a key to the cockpit door.
In the event if a hijacking, the terrorists would be unaware he had the key (most likely the pin code override) and would be trained not to be compromised in that situation, but could at least gain access to the cockpit give him a non lethal tazer.
Until it is the security officer that is suffering mental issues; opens the door, tazers the crew and crashes the plane.In the event if a hijacking, the terrorists would be unaware he had the key (most likely the pin code override) and would be trained not to be compromised in that situation, but could at least gain access to the cockpit give him a non lethal tazer.
egor110 said:
wc98 said:
Oakey said:
Challo said:
egor110 said:
Sky News stating severe depression and mental health not Islam.t now. Get with the program.After all, they're so reputable their clickbait link has killed their server
All we know for certain is he had a history of mental illness, we have no idea why he snapped on the day he did.
nyxster said:
A simple solution is the US Air Marshal system. A security cleared trusted individual not known to the crew or passengers, trained to fly the aircraft with a key to the cockpit door.
In the event if a hijacking, the terrorists would be unaware he had the key (most likely the pin code override) and would be trained not to be compromised in that situation, but could at least gain access to the cockpit give him a non lethal tazer.
You have pilots on this thread, people who know "the system" inside and out who understandably won't go into masses of detail but who are saying "You can't stop this kind of thing if someone wants to do it".In the event if a hijacking, the terrorists would be unaware he had the key (most likely the pin code override) and would be trained not to be compromised in that situation, but could at least gain access to the cockpit give him a non lethal tazer.
It's unpleasant but I think the simple reality is you can't stop it if someone wants to do it, any more than when you drive home tonight you can stop the driver of the car coming the other way from simply going "Ah f
k it" and slinging the wheel to the right.Puggit said:
BBC have announced police found a torn up sick note in the co-pilot's house. It signed him off on the day of the crash...
Which raises a question: when does privacy stop in front of general interest (or security)?I don't know how the system works in Germany, but here in Italy -which is generally not known for über-efficency- if the Doctor gives me a day-off, the relevant certificate is sent by email both to to the healthcare service and to my company.
And the most damage I could do in my job is rolling with the chair down from the stair -or shoot a condenser out of the window
-It seems incredible that with a job that puts in someone's hand the lives of many people, such information is not immediately given to the employer.
nyxster said:
A simple solution is the US Air Marshal system. A security cleared trusted individual not known to the crew or passengers, trained to fly the aircraft with a key to the cockpit door.
....as long as he isn't Liam Neeson suffering a drink problem and bring blackmailed over his missing daughter.
Well you've rather exposed the hole in your own theory there. Pilots are trusted individuals but that failed in this case. If you get a similar failure with your marshal you've got a nutter with a gun loose on the aircraft.....as long as he isn't Liam Neeson suffering a drink problem and bring blackmailed over his missing daughter.
Oldred_V8S said:
Until it is the security officer that is suffering mental issues; opens the door, tazers the crew and crashes the plane.
Then we need a second security guy to keep qn eye on the third.We keep going adding more guys to watch the next guy until all the seats are full of security guys with cockpit access and tazers, then there's no more passengers to worry about.
pushthebutton said:
Mermaid's point was that driving a bus was also a responsible job but that the risks/skills/attributes of being a commercial pilot are rather different. Nobody disagreed with him because it was a reasonable statement; yours was not.
I think it was. Well done for bring this back up again...nyxster said:
Oakey said:
I don't have evidence that it isn't true you like to wear womens underwear either, what's your point?
I'm amazed that a grown adult with the capacity to think for yourself would look at a questionable website linking to a right wing Anti-Islamic blog and conclude "seems legit".
At least nobody has blamed Jimmy Saville or the BBC yet, so maybe PH is making some forward progress.I'm amazed that a grown adult with the capacity to think for yourself would look at a questionable website linking to a right wing Anti-Islamic blog and conclude "seems legit".
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: It's unpleasant but I think the simple reality is you can't stop it if someone wants to do it, any more than when you drive home tonight you can stop the driver of the car coming the other way from simply going "Ah fk it" and slinging the wheel to the right.
I'm reasonably certain I would never actually do that, but I can understand how it could happen.k it" and slinging the wheel to the right.bhstewie said:
hstewie said: You have pilots on this thread, people who know "the system" inside and out who understandably won't go into masses of detail but who are saying "You can't stop this kind of thing if someone wants to do it".
It's unpleasant but I think the simple reality is you can't stop it if someone wants to do it, any more than when you drive home tonight you can stop the driver of the car coming the other way from simply going "Ah fk it" and slinging the wheel to the right.
The only thing you can do to protect yourself is remove yourself from the problem, but that's not always practical. It's unpleasant but I think the simple reality is you can't stop it if someone wants to do it, any more than when you drive home tonight you can stop the driver of the car coming the other way from simply going "Ah f
k it" and slinging the wheel to the right.I took 4 flights over the last 3 days, and was considering driving back up through Europe at one point rather than flying. Others did drive but I flew, nervously for probably the second time in my life. Perhaps a kneejerk reaction, probably OTT and I'm sure we'll all take flights again when we're a lot calmer and reassured by actions of airlines that things will change.
I think the outcome of this will likely be more testing, more support and more investigation. But I think really it's not something you can go to the nth degree on, running stress tests on people to test their limits, you're hoping that you're demonstrating the cope-ability of the situation, and to take out those that dont make it, but if the level is set too high then it pushes everyone closer to the limit where no-one can do it.
nyxster said:
Few people would argue that members of the SAS aren't some of the most mentally resilient individuals on the planet, they have to be to pass Selection. Yet suicide rates amongst former SAS guys is appallingly high.
If you take someone who is completely mentally fit and apply enough stress to them, many will break. Pilots and ATC staff are known to suffer from depression caused by work place stress.
It's not just about the stress of flying the plane. The rush to get to the airport on time, pressure to make up delays caused by tech issues or congestion, the constant threat of terrorism. Irregular shift patterns, night work, effects of timezone changes, vitamin b deficiencies from extended night flying. Irregular meal times.
I spent several months doing long haul travel and it was enough to trigger depressive bouts. modern air travel is stressful. And the constant turn and burn of low cost short haul is even worse.
Throw in a relationship break up, death of a family member, personal debt problems or insecurity over job prospects in a competitive industry and you are looking at the trigger conditions for a mental/nervous breakdown.
This isn't the first case; the investigation into the jet blue pilot who went berserk mid flight highlighted how much stress low cost carrier pilots are put under.
The correct course of action isn't to lock them up as CG suggested, its to accept this could happen to anyone of them and put in place proper support services like monitoring, counselling and mental wellbeing clinics to ensure they don't feel the need to hide it for fear of losing their jobs.
The very attitudes displayed here by the alpha male sorts suggesting mental breakdown is something to be dealt with like a crime, no doubt contributes to a culture where men feel unable to seek professional help.
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.
you make massively incorrect assumptions of special forces operatorsIf you take someone who is completely mentally fit and apply enough stress to them, many will break. Pilots and ATC staff are known to suffer from depression caused by work place stress.
It's not just about the stress of flying the plane. The rush to get to the airport on time, pressure to make up delays caused by tech issues or congestion, the constant threat of terrorism. Irregular shift patterns, night work, effects of timezone changes, vitamin b deficiencies from extended night flying. Irregular meal times.
I spent several months doing long haul travel and it was enough to trigger depressive bouts. modern air travel is stressful. And the constant turn and burn of low cost short haul is even worse.
Throw in a relationship break up, death of a family member, personal debt problems or insecurity over job prospects in a competitive industry and you are looking at the trigger conditions for a mental/nervous breakdown.
This isn't the first case; the investigation into the jet blue pilot who went berserk mid flight highlighted how much stress low cost carrier pilots are put under.
The correct course of action isn't to lock them up as CG suggested, its to accept this could happen to anyone of them and put in place proper support services like monitoring, counselling and mental wellbeing clinics to ensure they don't feel the need to hide it for fear of losing their jobs.
The very attitudes displayed here by the alpha male sorts suggesting mental breakdown is something to be dealt with like a crime, no doubt contributes to a culture where men feel unable to seek professional help.
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.
do you know any special operators or are you talking from internet 'tattle'?
yes, there have been suicides, but they are purely personal - no killing sprees or flying planes into a mountain
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.
Ultimately I think the "2 humans in cockpit at all times" may be the best practicable one by far.
Dreadfully sad; what more can be said. Sheer terror for the poor victims; and also thinking about the folks waiting on loved ones to arrive, or call home that they've got their safe.
But on to the 'solution'; clearly the immediate reaction is to have 2 folks in the cabin and keep the door locked with the current 'logic'. And if I'm being honest that's as far as I see any changes going on the aircraft itself, although no doubt some better mental health screening might happen.
But from my perspective I just think this is going the wrong way. I'm a frequent flyer (50+ flights per year) and I think the flight crew (not just the cabin crew) need to better engage with the passengers for a start. I know we're mockingly called SLF - self loading freight - but we're not freight. We're people; with families and loved ones, hopes and aspirations. I want to know the flight crew appreciate who we are and engage with us. At least some flight crew bid welcome or goodbye at the cockpit door on embarkation or departure...but they should all do it. Sure I know they want to make sure their butts get there safe...but I want to know they're concerned about our butts too, and our well-being. Would this bloke have done it with his mother on board? What about if his best friend was there. What if he'd looked in to the eyes of the kids getting on? Who knows - but it sure isn't going to make things worse.
Then on to the locked door itself. I remember being in the cockpit quite a few times before locked doors - transatlantic on a 707 (yup, a 707), 747, and I even sat on the jump seat of the LHR-EDI shuttle from push-back at LHR through take-off and up to cruise. I'm accepting these days in the cockpit are gone, but I don't want to see a door that can be disabled from the inside at all! I'm happy for a delay on it, but no permanent lock-out.
So what about the bad guys getting in? My view is just as the crew have to engage with the Pax better, so the Pax have to support the crew. We already support the crew by taking on responsibilities to sit by exit rows and open the emergency exits when called for. Sit in that row and you get the standard 'in an emergency the door is your responsibility etc...are you happy?'. In my world everyone would have the briefing 'in an emergency you're expected to help pin down the bad guys...are you happy?'. So in my world regular crew get in to the cockpit as present with the code. But rather than a hard-lock from the cockpit, if whoever's in there thinks its the bag guys trying to get in, then there's a one-off short time delay while they put an announcement out - 'folks, we have some bad guys trying to enter the cockpit, could we have some help up here'.
I think a special part of self preservation has to kick-in; certainly amongst the younger/fitter Pax...I don't expect granny to have to sit on a bad guy. Years ago I remember 'air terrorism' was typically hi-jacking, and the message of the time was to sit tight, do what you're told, and you'll probably be OK (unless you've got an Israeli passport!), albeit you might end up where you don't want to be. Now I think folks have woken up to the fact 'site tight' probably means you won't be OK. The Pax just need to be empowered to take on the bad guys...and of course this gets a lot more practical if security is such that there really are no weapons on board...but I'm not convinced we're there yet! But I'd feel a whole lot better if the cockpit door could not be locked from the inside but only had a delay timer on it to get the brawnier pax on the case.
But on to the 'solution'; clearly the immediate reaction is to have 2 folks in the cabin and keep the door locked with the current 'logic'. And if I'm being honest that's as far as I see any changes going on the aircraft itself, although no doubt some better mental health screening might happen.
But from my perspective I just think this is going the wrong way. I'm a frequent flyer (50+ flights per year) and I think the flight crew (not just the cabin crew) need to better engage with the passengers for a start. I know we're mockingly called SLF - self loading freight - but we're not freight. We're people; with families and loved ones, hopes and aspirations. I want to know the flight crew appreciate who we are and engage with us. At least some flight crew bid welcome or goodbye at the cockpit door on embarkation or departure...but they should all do it. Sure I know they want to make sure their butts get there safe...but I want to know they're concerned about our butts too, and our well-being. Would this bloke have done it with his mother on board? What about if his best friend was there. What if he'd looked in to the eyes of the kids getting on? Who knows - but it sure isn't going to make things worse.
Then on to the locked door itself. I remember being in the cockpit quite a few times before locked doors - transatlantic on a 707 (yup, a 707), 747, and I even sat on the jump seat of the LHR-EDI shuttle from push-back at LHR through take-off and up to cruise. I'm accepting these days in the cockpit are gone, but I don't want to see a door that can be disabled from the inside at all! I'm happy for a delay on it, but no permanent lock-out.
So what about the bad guys getting in? My view is just as the crew have to engage with the Pax better, so the Pax have to support the crew. We already support the crew by taking on responsibilities to sit by exit rows and open the emergency exits when called for. Sit in that row and you get the standard 'in an emergency the door is your responsibility etc...are you happy?'. In my world everyone would have the briefing 'in an emergency you're expected to help pin down the bad guys...are you happy?'. So in my world regular crew get in to the cockpit as present with the code. But rather than a hard-lock from the cockpit, if whoever's in there thinks its the bag guys trying to get in, then there's a one-off short time delay while they put an announcement out - 'folks, we have some bad guys trying to enter the cockpit, could we have some help up here'.
I think a special part of self preservation has to kick-in; certainly amongst the younger/fitter Pax...I don't expect granny to have to sit on a bad guy. Years ago I remember 'air terrorism' was typically hi-jacking, and the message of the time was to sit tight, do what you're told, and you'll probably be OK (unless you've got an Israeli passport!), albeit you might end up where you don't want to be. Now I think folks have woken up to the fact 'site tight' probably means you won't be OK. The Pax just need to be empowered to take on the bad guys...and of course this gets a lot more practical if security is such that there really are no weapons on board...but I'm not convinced we're there yet! But I'd feel a whole lot better if the cockpit door could not be locked from the inside but only had a delay timer on it to get the brawnier pax on the case.
grand cherokee said:
and I'm sure those who lost friends and family will quite rightly demand answers why a mentally unstable person was allowed to fly an aircraft
Then let's hope they can cope with not getting them. Or if they do get them, they will be answers they don't want to hear.LucreLout said:
Is it not possible to fit a GPS, Altimeter, and some control software that prevent a plane crashing into the ground by having the autopilot override the controls?
"Sorry Dave, I can't let you fly any lower, there's a mountain in the way."
I get that while planes only usually land at specific places, emergency landings are required from time to time so some team based override should be possible. Or the program would relinquish control once it could no longer make height.
Feasible or just dumb?
At the risk of sounding stupid, such a device would have to be disabled at some stage to land. Therefore the pilot/co-pilot will know how to override it and crash if that was their aim...."Sorry Dave, I can't let you fly any lower, there's a mountain in the way."
I get that while planes only usually land at specific places, emergency landings are required from time to time so some team based override should be possible. Or the program would relinquish control once it could no longer make height.
Feasible or just dumb?
Jasandjules said:
LucreLout said:
Is it not possible to fit a GPS, Altimeter, and some control software that prevent a plane crashing into the ground by having the autopilot override the controls?
"Sorry Dave, I can't let you fly any lower, there's a mountain in the way."
I get that while planes only usually land at specific places, emergency landings are required from time to time so some team based override should be possible. Or the program would relinquish control once it could no longer make height.
Feasible or just dumb?
At the risk of sounding stupid, such a device would have to be disabled at some stage to land. Therefore the pilot/co-pilot will know how to override it and crash if that was their aim...."Sorry Dave, I can't let you fly any lower, there's a mountain in the way."
I get that while planes only usually land at specific places, emergency landings are required from time to time so some team based override should be possible. Or the program would relinquish control once it could no longer make height.
Feasible or just dumb?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff