Germanwings A320 crashed in France :(
Discussion
Maxf said:
The issue here seems to be about mental health and stopping someone like this being in the situation where he is in control of 150 lives, rather than xyz door system. Whether this is by tougher rules, or more sypmathetic employers, I genuinely dont know.
Exactly.A new door or having more people in the flight deck does nothing.
Guam said:
Well we are inching closer to the poster I mentioned earlier warranting an apology from some on here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3021179/Ge...
I wasn't even involved in any of that discussion but why would anyone apologise for questioning someones else's guess? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3021179/Ge...
Cheese Mechanic said:
Guam said:
Well we are inching closer to the poster I mentioned earlier warranting an apology from some on here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3021179/Ge...
I was just about to post exactly the same link. Getting very close to what was speculated.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3021179/Ge...
As well as taking their lives, this guy has taken their bodies. Their relatives don't even have the 'comfort' of a body to cremate or put in a grave in a tranquil place, to scatter somewhere special or commemorate with a stone and to go to visit to pay respect and to 'talk' to those they have lost.
b
d.
b
d.I haven't read the whole thread. It's 23 big boy pages, and I simply haven't got time...
But.
All the talk of 2 people in the flight cabin at all times makes me wonder, if a co-pilot wanted to crash the plane, could he simply just kick the panel a few times? Break a few instruments, cause a short or five, kill a display screen that shows something important like position or height or something, and everyone else is buggered - even if they can get to the controls?
But.
All the talk of 2 people in the flight cabin at all times makes me wonder, if a co-pilot wanted to crash the plane, could he simply just kick the panel a few times? Break a few instruments, cause a short or five, kill a display screen that shows something important like position or height or something, and everyone else is buggered - even if they can get to the controls?
Hainey said:
Back to the 'hostie in the flight deck would prevent it point.' Well, say your in clag. No vis. Or it's night and hardly any visual clues. Would they notice if you bugged for a gradual descent? No, and they wouldn't worry if they did. It's a level change, yeah? Buy the time they did, too late..
JuniorD was pointing out to you that a hostile might break the suicidal behaviour simply by her presence. His example is that the bloke waited until the captain had left. As he pointed out, perhaps having another person there (who can't do anything) might modify the behaviour of someone. Hainey said:
el stovey said:
Hainey said:
Back to the 'hostie in the flight deck would prevent it point.' Well, say your in clag. No vis. Or it's night and hardly any visual clues. Would they notice if you bugged for a gradual descent? No, and they wouldn't worry if they did. It's a level change, yeah? Buy the time they did, too late..
JuniorD was pointing out to you that a hostile might break the suicidal behaviour simply by her presence. His example is that the bloke waited until the captain had left. As he pointed out, perhaps having another person there (who can't do anything) might modify the behaviour of someone. He had an easy route to his goal so he took it. Maybe he would have managed to complete a more difficult option as well
JuniorD said:
But, if he required to be alone before he could do it, then breaking that chain with someone up there would have interrupted the plan.
I remember reading about a supermarket that had experienced lots of theft, they decided to put life-sized cardboard cutouts of policemen on the end of each aisle and it was enough to make shoplifters think twice and moderate their behaviour. I think this is the kind of phenomenon where the presence ( or even the perceived presence) of someone else might reduce the chance of people doing this. As pointed out by others, the suicidal pilot often waits until the other pilot leaves, even suicidal people want the path of least resistance. That's not because they can't physically do it when the other pilot is in there, they opt to do it when they are alone.
Most suicides appear to involve someone being alone and topping themselves, perhaps the presence of another is enough to sometimes break the cycle. Perhaps people are simply much less likely to kill themselves when someone else is there watching.
For that possible reason and the reasons of passenger comfort, I think it's worth having a 2 crew in the flight deck policy but it doesn't physically make it less likely someone can crash the aircraft.
Edited by el stovey on Thursday 2nd April 13:40
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: The thing is I think it happens so infrequently that statistically you could probably stick a small cat in the jumpseat for company and come out "proving" it made a difference.
I think it would make a difference. Like having a hostile there, just being watched, might be enough to moderate your behaviour.
I was surprised how soon the French released the statement about the F/O. Since it was based on the assumption that he directed the descent and the door was deadlocked. They said they could hear him breathing which seems odd over the air conditioning in the flightdeck.
I think that there is now enough information to suggest they were right though.
I think that there is now enough information to suggest they were right though.
Ayahuasca said:
I knew someone would say that. Not too difficult to program the system to know the difference between a runway and a mountain...
if you have a fire on board you might only have 20mins to get it on the ground/water or a bird strike on take off like the Hudson river event. What about an all engine failure or if it runs out of fuel? There are plenty of reasons that make your plan less safe than the rare event of pilots trying to crash on purpose.There are plenty of other controls levers and switches that could result in the aircraft crashing regardless of your computer that won't let it be intentionally flown into the Alps.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Apparently the FDR supports the the evidence so far - pilot commanded the descent and accelerated it several times.
The BBC article also mentions 40 mobile phones recovered though no mention of their state - if that goes the way I think it might I don't envy the investigation team.
I just read that as well.The BBC article also mentions 40 mobile phones recovered though no mention of their state - if that goes the way I think it might I don't envy the investigation team.
He used the autopilot to dial in a decent to ground, then also increased speed a couple of times also using the autopilot.
I find that a bit odd really. You would have thought someone bent on suicide would have just rammed the stick forward and mashed the throttle levers up rather than calmly twiddling a couple of little knobs and just sitting there waiting.
MitchT said:
I read elsewhere that increasing the thrust would have caused overspeed protections to kick in. Although the mainstream media are using woolley phrases like 'he accelerated the plane' it's more likely that he was adjusting the speed to ensure that it remained within ordinary operating tolerances so as to accelerate it's descent without protections noticing an anomaly and intervening.
He's simply increasing the rate of descent a bit.
Perhaps he was aiming for that mountain for some reason.
Crafty_ said:
Its not anywhere near as simple as you suggest unfortunately.
Even if such a system that you describe was put in place there are many ways to make an aircraft crash if you are determined enough, which this guy obviously was.
And been explained numerous times over the last few pages already. Even if such a system that you describe was put in place there are many ways to make an aircraft crash if you are determined enough, which this guy obviously was.
TTmonkey said:
. His name should be erased from the history of the planet. As should all people that seek this kind of notoriety. They should know before death that their deeds whilst recorded will not be attributed to them. Their name will not live on. They should be erased.
that wouldn't work, names are there to understand and make sure it doesn't happen again.
Mojocvh said:
Really? I must have missed the CVR transcript and data from the FDR confirming just what happened.
"Really" any need for the laughing smilie on this thread?
What are you talking about? I'm pointing out that it's been explained numerous times why systems to stop a crash wouldn't stop an aircraft being intentionally crashed. It's not a comment on why it crashed in any way at all. Stop being a dick. "Really" any need for the laughing smilie on this thread?
Mojocvh said:
Really? you make light of this whole horrible incident.
You, sir, are the dick, not I.
I'm making light of the fact that every few pages someone comes on and makes the same suggestion (an automated system to stop pilots crashing intentionally) , which is then repeatedly explained to be unworkable. Not making light of the crash. You, sir, are the dick, not I.
You need to put some kind of breathalyser on your internet.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff