A320 German-wings accident in Southern France

[straitman]

There are two separate issues here, and you are addressing only one of those.

There is the physical act of crashing the plane... input to controls to cause the event. I agree another person in the coughpit may have little ability to counter that. On a long haul one pilot could do it while the other is sleeping.

Correct

The second aspect is psychological. The person has the ability to crash the plane, but doesn't because there is someone else there... perhaps the presence of another human makes the situation more real. The pilot is not cut-off from reality behind a fortress door.

The fact that pilot murder/suicides tend to take place when the pilot is alone, despite the fact they don't need to be if they really wanted to crash the plane, gives some reason to explore the psychological aspect. As an immediate measure, a two-person rule seems to make sense.

In the events you are talking about, however with some research you will find there are others where this does not apply.

Of course I'm not going to elaborate upon this. But pretty well every solution I've heard bandied around so far is nothing short of a totally pointless exercise, which has no intent other than giving an appearance of doing something.

I agree entirely with this comment.

 

[CaptJCool]

Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot told ex-girlfriend 'everyone will know my name', report says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

ah my earlier posting yesterday #178 hit the nail ....disappointingly. It's a line from Dilbert having gone to Utopia and I really pray no other pilots have this delusion of grandeur .....

 

[anat0l]

One crew member was inside the coughpit with the other pilot. Another crew member was just by the closed door. Just as I posted originally.

Sorry, my misread. When it said "one crew member moved in" I didn't click with "into the coughpit"... I think I was just thinking into the area where the coughpit / front was in general.

It also wasn't clear from your original post whether the door was shut.

Interesting how you describe it. That means it takes two members of the crew to ensure execution of this action properly. On a long haul aircraft this is not a big deal as there are easily enough crew (let alone more than two pilots), but on short haul operations this could get interesting.

<redacted content>

 

[amaroo]

Gee I remember a time when the captain or co-pilot would leave to use the restrooms and that made two left(me being one) in the coughpit.....I ain't no pilot... So what bottle up pilots now? Squat female pilots in the jump seat????

I remember when the Captain would tour the First cabin. I suppose those days are gone just like taking your kids on the flight deck.

 

[anat0l]

I remember when the Captain would tour the First cabin. I suppose those days are gone just like taking your kids on the flight deck.

In some jurisdictions at least, you can still go to the flight deck, but the plane would need to be on the ground, possibly inactive.

Captains still occasionally go out into the cabins, too.

 

[samh004]

I suppose those days are gone just like taking your kids on the flight deck.

I regularly visited the flight deck last year after flights, though always on the ground on arrival.

 

[amaroo]

Yes we seem to have many of them here. We should give them a job at CASA or the like, because it seems the experts in the relevant cohorts are quite insufficient...

problem is you have people here who seem to be content to the degree that it is a panacea. There is vilification of those who don't believe in immediate implementation and very little overall recognition of the problems.

... I assumed you'd like a little return banter ...

 

[anat0l]

... I assumed you'd like a little return banter ...

Touche, I'll concede that one. But I stand by my quoted comments - they were not flippantly made and is a serious judgement of your lambasting, plus at least one other member.

 

[amaroo]

In some jurisdictions at least, you can still go to the flight deck, but the plane would need to be on the ground, possibly inactive.

Captains still occasionally go out into the cabins, too.

I regularly visited the flight deck last year after flights, though always on the ground on arrival.

Yes. I've shaken many a pilots hand >30,000ft. When you're travelling F they like to come to your seat and ensure you're contented. Touring a coughpit at these heights is a terrific experience. Doing them at ground level = meh

 

[amaroo]

Touche, I'll concede that one. But I stand by my quoted comments - they were not flippantly made and is a serious judgement of your lambasting, plus at least one other member.

LOL that's your funniest joke yet! Lambasting = criticize (someone or something) harshly.

Funny how an opinion that falls inline with many airlines and the EASA could be considered as lambasting

 

[anat0l]

LOL that's your funniest joke yet! Lambasting = criticize (someone or something) harshly.

Funny how an opinion that falls inline with many airlines and the EASA could be considered as lambasting

Those airlines and the EASA made that recommendation without necessarily vilifying or slandering an entire profession. Big difference.

 

[amaroo]

Those airlines and the EASA made that recommendation without necessarily vilifying an entire profession. Big difference.

Remember Port Arthur? Every gun owner was viewed as a weapon of destruction after that terrible event. What makes airlines/pilots different?

I've never been a gun owner or a pilot. However, I like to visit tourist locations and fly airlines with a feeling of safety ... I see both examples exactly the same.

 

[Alanslegal]

Given that this is a cadet pilot and a LCC we're talking about here let me throw out a crazy wild idea. Instead of wasting money on a third person, try paying your pilots a decent salary. While you're at it don't treat their training as a profit centre.

I read that some airlines make their pilots pay to fly, so those ones must be wishing the three man rule is implemented - means more $$ coming in.

Yes you'll never make life completely safe, yes 2 people on the flight deck at any time sounds like a decent idea, and for Pete's sake, if your only flying a 2-3 hour flight like many domestics in the US and short European flights, go to the toilet before you board so as a pilot you don't ever have to be out of the coughpit leaving everyone's lives in the other pilot's hands!!

And make them wear adult nappies too, just in case. just kidding really.

How many people would be willing to pay higher fares to fly on an airline that has a 3-crew policy? I suspect very few people would actually be willing to pay if given the choice between paying say $10 more per sector or taking an airline with a minimum cost policy.

Probably not many would be willing to pay $10 more, I know I wouldn't. Assuming this incident was a deliberate act, the probability of it happening again is very very very unlikely. And in a few months time when this incident does not get front page coverage anymore, the bulk of flyers would be basing their choice primarily on carriers/timing/pricing .... not whether there is two/three/four or xx_ many pilots on board.

Would it now be reasonable to override privacy issues if you're a pilot ?

E.g. all Medicare episodes and/or (anti depressant) medications be automatically sent to the Chief Pilot / Medical Officer of the employing airlines.

It would only push the issue underground if this eventuated given the serious potential ramifications if someone appears unfit to pilot/fly - like maybe losing their career. Going underground means a pilot may be unwilling to seek professional help, they would believe they are fit to fly and not seek help either, they could self medicate with legal and illegal means which is not uncommon for people with mental illness. They could go to another country to seek help which may or may not be as effective. And then there is privacy arguments too.

 

[trixydoza]

Remember Port Arthur?

All too well.

I've never been a gun owner or a pilot.

<redacted>

 

[legroom]

....

It would only push the issue underground if this eventuated given the serious potential ramifications if someone appears unfit to pilot/fly - like maybe losing their career. Going underground means a pilot may be unwilling to seek professional help, they would believe they are fit to fly and not seek help either, they could self medicate with legal and illegal means which is not uncommon for people with mental illness. They could go to another country to seek help which may or may not be as effective. And then there is privacy arguments too.

You may have missed my later post (#245) where I suggested that the approach should be on a blame-free basis with zero risk to flying careers.

I could see where you're coming from and accept that punitive approach would be counter-productive.

 

[raleyoz]

Am I missing something, and I have read most of the reaction (overreaction) here.
Why are the coughpit doors not PIN
access, so captain and all flight deck crew, can get in, always.
If the doors have the ability to be locked manually then remove that ability
Seems a simple equation to me

 

[milehighclub]

Am I missing something, and I have read most of the reaction (overreaction) here.
Why are the coughpit doors not PIN
access, so captain and all flight deck crew, can get in, always.
If the doors have the ability to be locked manually then remove that ability
Seems a simple equation to me

The flight deck access is PIN. All pilots and crew know the code. But say a terrorist grabs me, takes me to the door and says enter the code and it opens it straight away then the terrorist has access to the flight deck. (I would never give it away even if the outcome was not favourable to me).

The idea behind the code is to gain entry if the pilots are incapacitated. In my example, the pilots have 30 seconds to deny entry. If they see through the cameras an unauthorized person trying to gain entry, they are of course going to deny it.

This pilot had no reason to deny his captain entry. The odds of a terrorist vs another pilot crashing a plane are certainly much higher so there will always be the ability for pilots to deny entry.

Isn't there enough flight crew on an A380 to always have 2 up front?

The A380 always has two pilots up front but the other pilots would be sleeping. It would be cabin crew still that need to come up. I would rather have a rested pilot than one who has to get up every so often cause someone has to pee.

The A380 has a toilet behind the coughpit door as it was built post Sept 11...this seems the best solution moving forwards but won't be realistcally possible on existing planes...

This doesn't prevent anything. As an aircraft designed post 9/11, it should have been in the flight deck like on the 747. As long as your behind the flight deck door, you can be locked out.

 

[juddles]

..... the probability of it happening again is very very very unlikely....

I completely disagree. The probability of it happening again is almost certain. Over the past few decades we have averaged one every few years. I suspect that number will continue, as there is a rise in flights (and thus pilots) to counterbalance improved safety.

 

[JohnK]

Maybe he didn't have the guts to do it with someone else there. Maybe having someone else there made the human element too great for him to go through with it. Maybe if the pilot hadn't gone for a toilet break on this flight the plane would have made it safely.

Perhaps investigators will turn up evidence to say for certain 'this was the flight' he was going to crash. But if they don't, then no one will be able to say for certain that having someone else there wouldn't have prevented this incident.

It would appear this person was determined to go out this way. If not this flight then perhaps the next one or the one after. And if he was never alone perhaps he would have found the courage to do the same type of thing even with someone else in the coughpit at all times.

We did say irrational thinking.

 

[drron]

You may have missed my later post (#245) where I suggested that the approach should be on a blame-free basis with zero risk to flying careers.

I could see where you're coming from and accept that punitive approach would be counter-productive.

In fact LH have such a blame free policy.
In this case the treating doctor thought the FO should not fly.So different to reporting that a patient has depression but otherwise OK.