Germanwings A320 crashed in France :(

[pushthebutton]

BlackVanDyke said:

Wonder if someone in eg ATC could hold access to a remote opening mechanism? Or emergency response Air Force people like the jet that was scrambled? Not indefinitely terrorist-proof but not bad.

Ultimately I think the "2 humans in cockpit at all times" may be the best practicable one by far.

I see that some airlines already do this, but I'm not sure if it's a function of the type of camera used for flight deck access, incapacitation reasons or to prevent occurrences such as this. If it's the latter only then, in my experience, I'm positive that it wouldn't stop a suicidal pilot. I can't help but think that it's a knee-jerk reaction to change policy based on this. The 2nd person would potentially need to differentiate between TCAS manoeuvres, ATC initiated descents, normal descents, avoiding headings. It's a lot to ask of somebody who isn't a pilot and who may well be jumpy based on this event.

[Legend83]

I am not sure I could be quite so dignified as this couple:

bbc said:

The parents of Robert Oliver, one of three Americans on board the flight, have said they are taking solace from memories of their son.

His father, Robert Oliver Calvo, said he felt no anger towards Andreas Lubitz, adding: "I'm really sad for those parents of that young pilot. I can't imagine what they're going through right now."

[pushthebutton]

LittleEnus said:

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...

I prefer 'regurgitate' and I did apologise

[MartG]

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....

It has a database of airport locations, so 'knows' where it is possible to go lower

[grand cherokee]

RobinOakapple said:

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.

if you want to kill yourself - fine, just do it

but you have got to be a really sick person to kill 150+ people in your game plan?

[LittleEnus]

pushthebutton said:

I prefer 'regurgitate' and I did apologise

In a fur ball styleee. As you were

[Thankyou4calling]

There are some posts here saying the captain used an AXE! to try and gain re entry to the cockpit.

I don't know if this is confirmed, it probably isn't true but surely if there were an axe that were capable of breaking the door down stowed on board it would defeat the purpose of reinforcing the doors.

[BlackVanDyke]

pushthebutton said:

BlackVanDyke said:

Wonder if someone in eg ATC could hold access to a remote opening mechanism? Or emergency response Air Force people like the jet that was scrambled? Not indefinitely terrorist-proof but not bad.

Ultimately I think the "2 humans in cockpit at all times" may be the best practicable one by far.

I see that some airlines already do this, but I'm not sure if it's a function of the type of camera used for flight deck access, incapacitation reasons or to prevent occurrences such as this. If it's the latter only then, in my experience, I'm positive that it wouldn't stop a suicidal pilot. I can't help but think that it's a knee-jerk reaction to change policy based on this. The 2nd person would potentially need to differentiate between TCAS manoeuvres, ATC initiated descents, normal descents, avoiding headings. It's a lot to ask of somebody who isn't a pilot and who may well be jumpy based on this event.

That's a very good point. Easy to end up in a spiral of checks and interventions but you can't design out failure of the human mind somewhere along the line.

I like the idea of giving pilots their own loo though. Not particularly because of this case but just to minimise stress and therefore maximise their wellbeing and therefore everyone else's.

Is it really down to a pilot to 'fess up if s/he has been signed off work? Could airlines or regulators not furnish GPs with a means to make direct contact?

[RobinOakapple]

grand cherokee said:

RobinOakapple said:

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.

if you want to kill yourself - fine, just do it

but you have got to be a really sick person to kill 150+ people in your game plan?

Is that a question for me?

But you have to be sick just to want to kill yourself, let alone anyone else. I should imagine anyone who is actively trying to kill himself isn't thinking about anyone else even if we think he should be.

[grand cherokee]

RobinOakapple said:

grand cherokee said:

RobinOakapple said:

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.

if you want to kill yourself - fine, just do it

but you have got to be a really sick person to kill 150+ people in your game plan?

Is that a question for me?

But you have to be sick just to want to kill yourself, let alone anyone else. I should imagine anyone who is actively trying to kill himself isn't thinking about anyone else even if we think he should be.

not directed at you at all

I've known a few who have killed themselves - BUT all said that their end should not harm anybody else

they used pills/guns etc. - ONLY they died

[LocoCoco]

MartG said:

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....

It has a database of airport locations, so 'knows' where it is possible to go lower

Just fly it straight into the terminal then. Plenty of people to aim for there.

[Timmy40]

Thankyou4calling said:

There are some posts here saying the captain used an AXE! to try and gain re entry to the cockpit.

I don't know if this is confirmed, it probably isn't true but surely if there were an axe that were capable of breaking the door down stowed on board it would defeat the purpose of reinforcing the doors.

they're designed to withstand the blast force of a hand grenade. But I suppose the pilot thought it worth a try.

[Silver993tt]

grand cherokee said:

but you have got to be a really sick person to kill 150+ people in your game plan?

From within your life bubble sure but at any time that bubble can be burst very easily even if you don't think so. When that happens you will view life very, very differently. Society is the cause for pushing people over certain thresholds, no one is immune from this even though people's threshold levels vary. Many people think that this can only happen to others but it can happen to anyone at any time. That's life and it can't be changed.

[loafer123]

Thankyou4calling said:

There are some posts here saying the captain used an AXE! to try and gain re entry to the cockpit.

I don't know if this is confirmed, it probably isn't true but surely if there were an axe that were capable of breaking the door down stowed on board it would defeat the purpose of reinforcing the doors.

Given the outcome, clearly not.

[nyxster]

grand cherokee said:

you make massively incorrect assumptions of special forces operators

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

You find in that post where i suggested SF operators went postal or flew planes into mountains. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

I was holding up SF guys as the zenith of mental resilience, it doesn't matter if they are SAS or SEALs, the bar is set so high that it requires a level of psychological discipline and self-determination so high the vast majority of candidates get nowhere near the grade. And yet even these guys suffer from psychological, nervous and mental health issues sufficient to take their own lives. This was to refute an earlier point that anyone prone to depression isn't fit to do XYZ job. If tier one's are capable of breaking then expecting civvies to be immune is a non-starter.

As it happens I have interviewed many SF guys from different generations and their families as part of my work with length discussions regarding mental health issues and relationship stresses caused by the job. But even 1 hour spent watching an interview with John McAleese will give you the human reality of life as an operator rather than the Call of Duty fanboy version.

In every single case where they had lost former friends and colleagues to suicide there were little outward signs that anything was wrong, and the individuals concerned were outwardly normal with no signs of issues.

At no point did i suggest they were prone to going postal. The only point i was making was these are guys who go through extensive psychological testing, are capable of enduring incredible mental stress and yet still vulnerable to suffering from life-ending depression, drink problems or suffer nervous breakdowns, and it is only recent pressure that has been applied on the MOD that mental health is an important issue not to be brushed under the carpet.

Having a good friend who still suffers the nightmares of cleaning up after suicides in the service i do have some perspective on how this affects people.

[grand cherokee]

nyxster said:

grand cherokee said:

you make massively incorrect assumptions of special forces operators

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

You find in that post where i suggested SF operators went postal or flew planes into mountains. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

I was holding up SF guys as the zenith of mental resilience, it doesn't matter if they are SAS or SEALs, the bar is set so high that it requires a level of psychological discipline and self-determination so high the vast majority of candidates get nowhere near the grade. And yet even these guys suffer from psychological, nervous and mental health issues sufficient to take their own lives. This was to refute an earlier point that anyone prone to depression isn't fit to do XYZ job. If tier one's are capable of breaking then expecting civvies to be immune is a non-starter.

As it happens I have interviewed many SF guys from different generations and their families as part of my work with length discussions regarding mental health issues and relationship stresses caused by the job. But even 1 hour spent watching an interview with John McAleese will give you the human reality of life as an operator rather than the Call of Duty fanboy version.

In every single case where they had lost former friends and colleagues to suicide there were little outward signs that anything was wrong, and the individuals concerned were outwardly normal with no signs of issues.

At no point did i suggest they were prone to going postal. The only point i was making was these are guys who go through extensive psychological testing, are capable of enduring incredible mental stress and yet still vulnerable to suffering from life-ending depression, drink problems or suffer nervous breakdowns, and it is only recent pressure that has been applied on the MOD that mental health is an important issue not to be brushed under the carpet.

Having a good friend who still suffers the nightmares of cleaning up after suicides in the service i do have some perspective on how this affects people.

sorry, but you have never been in the zone!

you have a friend cleaning up - bet you have never taken hostile fire - the AK 47/54 round about to kill you?

end of story

Edited by grand cherokee on Friday 27th March 14:18

[LucreLout]

tvrolet said:

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. .....
In my world everyone would have the briefing 'in an emergency you're expected to help pin down the bad guys...are you happy?'.

The problem, without an absolute ability to secure the cockpit door from the inside, is that you're exposed to hostage risk of the employee with the override code.

You can beat me unconscious and I wouldn't give you the code - if I did we'd all die. Show me a photo of my family held captive and I'll crumble like a stale dog turd in a hurricane. So the door needs to be secured from the inside.

My other issue is that the toffs and suits packing out first and business are unlikely to fight off an attack on behalf of the rest of the passengers. In 911, they attacked people with box cutting knives. I've never met anyone that could take a knife off someone intent on using it without sustaining significant injuries in the process. You'd have to reserve 1st class for ex-forces because the rest of us won't react in time.

[GSE]

The Moose said:

All the low cost airlines are doing is giving the customers what they want. That's why they're so successful.

Would Wayne and Waynetta really pay £350 for their flight from Luton to Tenerife instead of the £49 per person they did pay?!

I keep hearing them rolling this out as an excuse. At the expense of safety (through pilot stress) it seems. Is that what I want? No. I do know that if I could afford it I'd pay £350 NOT to sit next to Wayne and Waynetta

Somebody on this thread said something along the lines of said:

What's needed is more compassion in the workplace

This.

Edited by GSE on Friday 27th March 14:29

[BrabusMog]

LucreLout said:

My other issue is that the toffs and suits packing out first and business are unlikely to fight off an attack on behalf of the rest of the passengers. In 911, they attacked people with box cutting knives. I've never met anyone that could take a knife off someone intent on using it without sustaining significant injuries in the process. You'd have to reserve 1st class for ex-forces because the rest of us won't react in time.

What a sweeping statement

[Steffan]

andy-xr said:

bhstewie 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.

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.

Absolutely spot on.

Regrettably there are a number of subjects which politically are never admitted or mentioned or discussed. Thus the reality that all the deaths, cost and nuisance caused by terrrorist acts is addressed ineffectively by requiring all passengers to undergo security checks at every airport because of the actions of a very small minority acting in a murderous manner has changed air travel to the point where such attrocities are occurring despite the efforts of the airlines.

I would suggest that they only way to address this problem is to identify the specific groups who are committing such acts and ensure that all the would be travellers from the countries where such acts are emanating cannot get access to any sceduled flight? Seems a much simpler approach to me. Give the countries who harbour terrorists the problem. I do think this is a much better approach because the consequences to the population of those coiuntues would soon bring a realisation that hariuring terroiriusts mskies life very very difficult for them, personally?

Question of insisting that no country who allows terrorism within or without its borders can gain access to any scheduled flight or airplane. A targeted approach would surely be more effective and much less cumbersome and frustrating for the other passengers?

Which is a real pity because the way things are currently going Aircraft travel is going to be made more and more expensive as more and more security costs are incurred in the current narrow approach.

I do realise that terrorism itself did not bring down this plane. One evil madman did, apparently on his own and murdered 150 people in perhaps the worst possible way.

But the security concerns of the airlines and their answer to it created the situation where this could actually happen,tragically. Not intentionally but in consequence.

That may not be not their intention but it is one of the consequences of pursuing any policy which fails to address the substance of the problem effectively. For whatever reason. To my mind if targeted actions were introduced that ensured that the countries that harbour terrorism cannot obtain access to scheduled flights then the harbouring of terrorism would rapidly fall away as being unacceptably damaging to the harbouring countries.

I would have thought this ought to be a least discussed. It is not discussed becasuse politicians as a group choose not to discuss this at all. Their choice and our reponsibility. Seems crackers to me but prsumably not to modern politicians?

I would emphasize that I am not seeking to be in anyway racist in this suggestion. It just seems totaly crazy to me that every form of air travel requires every passenger to be examined in detail when in many countries there are no terrorists harboured. The way this is not being managed will ensure more and more disturbance to passengers and increased costs and no greater protection.

What do others think?