True, but what can happen (and does happen with some operators) is that whenever a crew member leaves the cockpit for a toilet break, a flight attendant then comes in to the cockpit to accompany the remaining crew member. Although the flight attendant wouldn't be expected to take control at any stage, he/she can at least be there to unlock the door to allow the other fight deck crew back in to the cockpit. IMHO, this should be standard procedure to prevent something like this from happening again.

This overlooks the way things are done in Africa. It is for a reason that LAM (and I believe TAAG and many other African airlines) are banned from EU airspace.

In all fairness, I think there is very little that can be done in the cramped cockpit environment to prevent a crash if the mind of one pilot at the controls is set on it. Egypt Air 990 is a good example. Prevention should be outside the cockpit, making sure that someone unfit for flight never gets the opportunity to be at the controls.

Not new
 

190Warrior One of the earliest examples in living memory was Egypt Air Flight 990


EgyptAir Flight 990 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agree entirely. My point was that even less can be done once airborne and said individual is sitting strapped in at either of the front seats. Even from the jump seat there are several things one can do to cause unrecoverable out-of control at a critical phase of flight.

You have to be realistic and not dreaming of impossible scenarios has to counteract this kind of action
There are people who commit suicide properly (they kill themself only) and others by example open the gas committing suicide and kill all the other inhabitants of the building
When a person mentally disturbed wants to kill herself she will at all times and eliminate those that would prevent her action
The second pilot shall be on the flightdeck and been neutralized by the other crazy pilot (stabbing is easy)
It was just an exeptional event ... and no rules will change because that

The Namibian police this week identified nine bodies, after examining 609 human remains recovered from the site of the Mozambique plane crash.

- See more at: The Namibian - Pilot to blame for Mozambican plane crash (News | Namibia)

I agree.
You would have to have quite a few people in the cockpit who would actually have to overpower the suicidal pilot to prevent such accidents. Another pilot is not enough.

Agreed that a pilot determined to crash can likely accomplish it with somebody in the adjacent seat; however, there's certain psychological barriers when there's somebody you know sitting next to you and putting up a racket -- and likely taking a whack at you with whatever comes to hand.

So according to that portuguese "rumor" which was mostly ignored here, the pilot's son committed suicide, he tried the same, and his wife left him, then he crashed the plane. As the rumor apparently got the latter part mostly right, maybe they are right about the preconditions: This sounds like dumb HR, a management issue and not a cabin lock issue.

Egypt Air 990 happened in 1999. An earlier example I can think of was a Japan Airlines DC8 in 1982 which was deliberately crashed by the Captain who put two of the 4 engines into reverse thrust on approach.

Seiji Katagiri | Murderpedia, the encyclopedia of murderers

What kind of a degenerate has to take another 32 innocent lives with him to commit suicide.

I dunno ...
it is that which appears in the means of transport .. this kind of suicide causing innocent victims happens more often in civil aviation ..than in road transport (coach) or railroad !!

jcjeant:


Has it happened on a European, U.S., or Oz/NZ scheduled air carrier?

You are forgeting the most famous "suicide one"...RAM ATR in Atlas.

I do not think suicidal pilots would do this if they could do this without passengers. Even As crazy as they are they would rather do a solo flight.

What kind of a degenerate?
 

Well, what kind of degenerate shoots up an elementary school (or high school or college) before committing suicide? (e.g., Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech)

Or plants a bomb aboard a plane, on which his mother is a passenger, to collect insurance money? (UAL 629)

Attacks the flight crew with a hammer (FedEx 705) -- or shoots the pilots (PAL 773) -- hoping to crash the plane and make it look like an accident so his family will collect life insurance?

Or suicidal and seeking revenge on his former supervisor and employer, shoots that supervisor and the pilots, crashing the plane? (PSA 1771)

No shortage of such degenerates here in the good old USA.

Call it what it is: murder.
 

In defence of the locked flight deck door, it contributed to the safe return of QF1737 when a delusional passenger attempted a mass murder/suicide.

Passenger 389
Well said !

Now the Helios crash in Greece was suicide? Are you people ok?

Read, comprehend, write.
In that sequence.

Sorry for being a bit rude but since you started to flame others I couldn't resist.
Nowhere was it stated that it was a suicide. But the locked cabin door potentially prevented the Captain (who apparently was not in the cokpit while the Co became unconscious) or any still conscious cabin crew to (re-) enter cockpit and take action or assist the Co- pilot.

3rd person as a suicide safety measure is meaningless
 

Question: What could a Cabin Crew person perched on a jump seat do to prevent a suicidal Pilot closing the thrust levers, stuffing the nose down and shutting down the engines as the a/c starts a high speed dive?

Or preventing matey from shutting off the fire valves in an action that takes less than 3 seconds?

Answer: nothing.

In the Egyptair 990 case, the Captain was unable to prevent the demented FO from killing all on board despite returning to the controls. Ditto Moroccan, ditto Silkair, ditto JAL crash.

Sadly a determined and qualified suicidee can achieve their goal despite attempted intervention. The most publicised case was United 93, where the Arab hijack team crashed the aircraft despite eventually being overpowered.

Hmm, aside from a successful landing, what would the consequences be if the say the Captain gets back into the flight deck in a situation such as the SilkAir or Egypt Air flights, but cannot wrestle the controls from his demented Co-Pilot, so uses the fire axe or extinguisher for percussive encouragement to cease and desist?

With respect, I would suggest that perhaps there is room for some other language to be used when describing his actions.

:ok:I'll remember that...
On a serious note, pulling the CVR fuse after the encouragement session might be the prudent thing to do, I'm sure there would be some verbal exchange before resorting to the more persuasive solutions. Interestingly, judging from the statistics Captains are more prone to such a mental state than co-pilots.

And what if the guy going looney in the flight deck is bigger and stronger than the other.
There can be no end to this discussion.

Human Factors
 

Assuming it was suicide, assuming terrorists, hijackers, and post-9/11 world continues like this, the most logical conclusion to take is that the industry will eliminate the human factor.

Planes automation technology will simply refuse to crash.

Like for some decades is being repeated, the piloting days will be extinguished. The copilot position will be extinguished or severely downplayed, and the captain will be like a marine captain. Will not be required to stay on controls, will just be required to be on board for the legal responsibility, and will simply monitor the already-monitored computerized systems.

Just look at the history, we had more than 5 airmen needed for proper flight: navigator, radio operator, flight mechanic, flight engineer... Now we have only 2 left, and the obvious logical conclusion is that the copilot position will be extinguished.

We pilots find that an aberration, in that we were born in a time where copilots were the norm, flight engineers were the norm.

The industry will always twist in their favor, with the best cost-effective solution: Eliminate the human factor completely.

To me, it's not a matter of if, but when.

There will be new type of accidents which will be still a human factor but this time we talk about programmers mistakes, inability to predict situations by software analysts, etc.
The question is if the machine would offer some overriding procedure and let's say 2 human inputs will be required (sort of famous 2 keys needed to arm nuclear missiles at a submarine).

Security check
 

This is the reason that I always was irritated when we went through security control and you had to "undress" as pilots. We are in command of a lethal weapon, the airplane. But the commotion if you forgot your small penknife.. They better only check your licence that you are indeed a pilot.

These tragic events with mentally ill pilots can only be stopped when their mental problems are recognised by collegues, doctors, company before they reach the state that they become lost souls.... It is not easy and maybe not possible in some cultures to express your concerns about a colleague but it can save lives.

Well, if the reports are correct, than this captain recognized his problem and self-reported it! And was then ordered to fly.... :ugh:

How sad this whole story is :(

henra
I suggest you read up on the Helios Flight 522 crash before posting, preferably by "Read, comprehend, write.In that sequence" :ugh:
Both pilots & the steward ware in the cockpit before it crashed!

Well, if the reports are correct, than this captain recognized his problem and self-reported it! And was then ordered to fly....

Welcome to Africa ... from the writing on the side of parts of the wreckage they were affiliated to or approved by IATA.
ORG ? not compliant.

Problem is and ever will be cultural. Paper over the cracks as much as you will but there will always be an end result. People in key positions hold power, usually they understand their role in remaining objective and professional, and passing safety related matters on for further investigation, but sometimes they don't, and ego's rule the roost. That is a huge challenge in developing nations like it or not, and one which IATA is striving to bring into line by 2015 through it's multinational agreement with African states for every carrier within the scope of IOSA to be compliant.
But, it is the organisation, and their commitment to safety, together with the systematic safeguards put in place as a matter of culture that underpin this process.
There is at least one West African airline that I know of, that is pushing ahead for IOSA whilst brushing extremely serious incidents under the carpet, simply because the means justifies the ends, and commitment translates to lip service.

Before people get too upset, I use the cultural term in it's corporate sense and to balance the argument look at the heavy landing at Rome a few years back, where the captain had lost his son a few days previously, but according to press reports, was too afraid to report the fact for fear of getting sacked. I don't recall the name of the airline but it was an Irish registered B737-800 apparently ......

No amount of blarney, whitewash, or wallpaper will prevent the holes in the cheese lining up, and from the interim report, there is clearly far more to this terrible accident than meets the eye.

As you all rush to unfounded conclusions, please keep in mind that in the case of the Silk Air accident it was never conclusively proved that the captain deliberately caused the aircraft to crash in a suicidal act. That conclusion was and remains an assumption on the part of some of the investigators, not all.

On the other hand it was proved, in a court of law, that the aircraft's rudder PCU (which had previously caused two fatal accident it the same aircraft type, pluse several incidents) was manufactured with defects that could have caused the accident and it was also shown, in the same court, that the aircraft's FDR had been replaced, prior to the accident, by an older and inferior model that had frequent occurences of gaps in the recordings and not recording the data at all.

The bottom line is we do not really know what caused the Silk Air accident. Suspicion and conjecture, no matter how educated, is not sufficient reason to forever blacken a man's good name.

What has become of the world? What has become of piloting?

surplus,

The evidence in the Silkair crash was insurmountable. The only conjecture going on here is being done by you.

It was a deliberate act.

henra

you might want to do a bit of reading yourself.

in the helios crash both pilots were in the cockpit but had succumbed to hypoxia. it was the door that prevented the cabin crew member (who was using a portable oxygen tank) from entering the cockpit. had he managed to get in earlier he may have been able to do something about the crash, as he was a CPL himself.

Sorry sir but that just isn't true. I suggest you re-check the complete case history of this accident, the conflicting opinions of the investigating agencies, and the court cases associated.

I have no idea what happened on that day but neither do the investigating authorities and, by the way, neither do either of you.

They have lots of opinions but none are based on hard evidence. On the other hand there are at least 5 different accidents/incidents in the 737 where rudder hardovers resulted in total or temporary loss of control of the aircraft. THe outcome was quite similar in at least three of them; fatal. The FAA has since issued ADs that have resulted in the complete modification of the rudder control system of the 737.

There is also a lot of evidence of a certain corporation doing a great deal to avoid naming the uncommanded rudder hardover as the probable cause in all of the associaterd accidents/incidents. No surprise there; a great deal of money involved.

I'm afraid the jury is still out on this one and most probably will always be.

SilkAir has been conclusively proven by NTSB which to me is the final authority on the subject, whether somebody on this forum still considers it an open case doesn't bother me a bit, let them dream of conspiracies and nasty corporations. By the way, there are no 'proofs' in the so called 'court of law', just verdicts which are even further subject to overturns, etc, when you have jurors facing technical data in aircraft accidents all kinds of weird things can happen - like with the Cirrus aircraft crash in Minnesota.

Once your mind is made up, which is obviously the case, there is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.

I cannot give you any direct evidence that there was a rudder hardover on SilkAir 185 simply because there is none. Likewise, you cannot give me any direct evidence that the pilots intentionally crashed the aircraft committing both suicide and mass murder.

There were essentially 3 different investigations dealing with all aspects of the flight. All three of them come to different conclusions. A 4th investigation dealing only with the captain's psychological profile and personal life, could find no evidence indicating the likelihood of suicide.

So, where are we? The NTSC says it cannot determine the cause of the accident. The NTSB believes that it was suicide on the part of the Captain (apparently the F/O just sat there and allowed himself to be killed). Attorneys and experts investigating for the families conclude that the PCU of the accident aircraft had manufacturing defects that could have caused a rudder hardover. The also allege that a later release of the full FDR data indicates that it was recordidng and it shows the rudder hard-over. The same kind of suspected rudder hard-overs that occured in UAL 585, USAIR 427, Eastwind (CAL) 517, CAL over Honduras, Copa 201, March 8, 1994 - Sahara India Airlines (training accident). Just too many similar incidents to be ignored or dismissed.

Here's and interesting summary of incidents/accidents: The Seattle Times: Safety at issue: the 737

Here's the final "fix" that should preclude further incidents:

[url=http://www1.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/2a37f5faba444a8086256c4b005a2884/$FILE/022007.pdf [/url]

"Air crash investigations sometimes become highly politicized, with airlines, airplane manufacturers, pilots and governments pointing fingers at each other. The U.S. analysis deflects responsibility away from the U.S.-made plane; the Indonesian report tends to defend the pilot."

You are correct, "saying it happened before on other aircraft" is not evidence. Assuming that the Captain commited suicide is also not evidence.

The NTSB is very good at what it does but it is not flawless. Will it strive to protect US interests (especially with "foreign" accidents)? Just as much as the British board, the French board or the Indonesian board.

It's OK for you to be convinced that SilkAir 185 was pilot suicide. I am equally convinced that it was not suicide and we just don't know the answer with any acceptable degree (to me) of certainty. I think that a lot more points to a rudder hard-over than a suicide.

We're all entitled to our own opinions; we are not entitled to our own facts. In the case of SilkAir185 there are only two facts: 1) the aircraft crashed, 2) we don't know why.

Silkair really has no relevance here, other than meaning its 3 instead of 4 confirmed suicides. Back to the subject please.

Wall Street Journal surprise
 

I am not sure if any folks have related this yet but the Wall Street Journal is describing what may be a suicide related cause of this puzzling crash. I apologize for not linking but it appears to be behind a pay wall. This scenario certainly could explain many things.....:{