Originally Posted by
misd-agin
Where does it say 'incapacitated'? Let's stick with accurate descriptions of what is reported to have occurred. Not responding to questions isn't necessarily the same as medically unresponsive.
As the FO was operating in the 'capacity' of performing the expected functions of a First Officer - which incidentally includes responding to questions in a reasonably timely manner - any failure to respond in the expected manner would be a strong indication of incapacitation. SOPs and all that.
From the sound of it, if the FO was not responding to questions, so that very neatly ticks the 'incapacitated' box for me.
If you are a commercial pilot in 2 crew operation (I don't know if you are), you'll be aware of SOPs, and the required challenge and expected response during for example, the take-off roll, around 80kts, in order for both pilots to establish very quickly whether they are both operating as expected in their capacity(ies), or whether there appears to be an incapacitation of whatever description; in which case there is one and only one sensible next step. Therefore, any doubt about both pilots' capacity to operate effectively needs to be established at that time, very quickly, and comfortably before V1. Any unresponsiveness is deemed incapacitation, as seems to be reported in this case. Discussion of medical definitions of unresponsiveness is irrelevant; if you're not responding to me per SOPs, you're a passenger, not part of the crew, and I'll respond accordingly. Simple.