Would it happen here?

[MALT68]

I know it is early days, and that reporting out of Europe is suggesting pilot suicide as a possible cause of the Germanwings crash (hyperbole or just wrong reporting).
How does the travelling public in Australia know that it won't happen here?
Do our carriers always have two up front in high capacity RPT?

[maggot]

Aww gees.



56789

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

• Air NZ changes cockpit policy following Germanwings crash (http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/67527128/air-nz-changes-cockpit-policy-following-germanwings-crash)

(Fairfax NZ | 2:54PM - Friday, 27 March 2015)

[Hempy]

11 events in 40 years..

ASN News » List of aircraft accidents and incidents intentionally caused by pilots (http://news.aviation-safety.net/2015/03/26/list-of-aircraft-accidents-and-incidents-deliberately-caused-by-pilots/)

[Capt Fathom]

By changing the procedures, the company is admitting it doesn't trust its pilots!

A better procedure would be when a toilet break is required, both of you leave the cockpit together! That way, no one can fiddle with the buttons! :ugh:

[Going Nowhere]

Air India pilot 'left hostesses in cockpit while he slept in business class' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/10035990/Air-India-pilot-left-hostesses-in-cockpit-while-he-slept-in-business-class.html)

So by this reasoning, it's safer to have no one up there then to leave the cabin crew in charge... :D:=:E:ugh:

[sleemanj]

When will we be demanding all our land public transport vehicles are dual control, dual driver... just in case one of those drivers decides to do the old untethered vehicular bungy off a mountain or bridge.

Sometimes, bad things happen. That's life. Everybody has to put their trust in somebody, eventually.

[neville_nobody]

Let's rule out a few other medical conditions before we all jump on the suicide bandwagon.

The French Military (ie French Government) seem keen to push the idea that it was a suicide mission without even doing a autopsy or any other sort of investigation.

From what the newspapers say he seems a normal pilot started gliding at 15 learnt to fly overseas, and was pretty fit and normal kinda guy.

Bizarre that he wants to suicide in an instant with no real other motive or indication

11 events in 40 years..

Then divide 11 by the number of RPT flights that have occurred over the last 40 years and it becomes a very small number............................

[Nigel Osborn]

That list doesn't include GA or helicopter deliberate crashes. I remember one in Alice Springs some years ago, flew into the hangar I believe.
A helicopter pilot I knew well was having woman trouble, so he went to the airfield early, started up a Bell 412, climbed up to about 1000 ft & dived vertically into the ground.
Sadly these mentally disturbed people do kill themselves but too many are happy to kill others with them.

This pilot was stood down for several months for depression whilst training a few years ago. He was declared fit to return to flying.

[neville_nobody]

If we include GA that number gets even smaller

[prospector]

without even doing a autopsy

On what are they supposed to do an autopsy?

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

If you are going to crash an aircraft, you're going to do it.
.
.
.
This is just a Public relations exercise, pure and simple. It solves nothing.



Thank you. Exactly.

When you think about it (and hopefully most of us haven't, up to now), if an airline pilot wants to crash the aircraft, they will find a way. Doesn't matter if Tiffany the F/A or Kev the ASO is in the jump seat. Doesn't matter if it's a Boeing or an Airbus. Doesn't even matter if the other pilot is in their seat, it would simply be a matter of picking the right time in the right phase of flight.

So whatever action they take, it won't achieve anything beyond convincing some people that Something Is Being Done. And adding even more pointless frustrations and irritations to the business of operating aircraft.

[chuboy]

Can anyone explain to me what difference having a Flight Attendant enter the flight deck during a pee break would make?

So what I'm hearing is, you believe 4U9525 would have crashed into the mountainside even if the captain had not left his seat the entire flight?

[chuboy]

So whatever action they take, it won't achieve anything beyond convincing some people that Something Is Being Done. And adding even more pointless frustrations and irritations to the business of operating aircraft.

Agreed, there are few things more frustrating than hearing your children were murdered by a mentally ill rogue pilot while they were flying home from a school trip, except perhaps being on board the aircraft when it is flown into the side of the Alps :mad:

Are we really to accept it is simply a case of "**** happens"?

[Kelly Slater]

Common sense says that it is a bad idea to have a single person locked behind a door that can only be opened from the inside. It costs nothing to have a cabin crew member go into the flight deck when one of the flight crew needs to leave and it provides a level of protection should the remaining pilot suffer from some sought of collapse. I find it hard to believe that it is not already common policy by all thinking airlines. It has nothing to do with trusting pilots and would not stop a determined deranged pilot from pointing a plane at the ground but it might just make the deluded person think twice when they are not alone.

[blueloo]

It costs nothing to have a cabin crew member go into the flight deck when one of the flight crew needs to leave and it provides a level of protection should the remaining pilot suffer from some sought of collapse.

Now possibly allowing a deranged flight attendant in on the cockpit when it is most vulnerable.

Where does it end.

[chuboy]

Pilotless airliners of course

[Fluke]

Just so sad!
I think it could happen anywhere.

Really opens a can of worms regarding flight crews
These events seemed scarcer when we had flight engineers in the cockpit. Perhaps another presence does make a difference?
Whatever the answer , I would like the aircrew community ( pilots, cabin crew), to work on a outcome before it gets taken out of our hands by the lawyers and auto flight manufacturers .

[bloated goat]

I wonder how far down the list we'll drop........?

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Agreed, there are few things more frustrating than hearing your children were murdered by a mentally ill rogue pilot while they were flying home from a school trip, except perhaps being on board the aircraft when it is flown into the side of the Alps

Are we really to accept it is simply a case of "**** happens"?

Either you have a meaningful, practical, effective solution, or yes, you accept that "**** happens" (and that while appalling, the incidence of this sort of thing is statistically miniscule). Kneejerk bull**** that just gives the appearance of doing something simply doesn't cut it. As I said, if a pilot really wants the aircraft to crash, then that is what will happen. Any response to this should IMHO be looking at pilots' psychological health, so that these nutters don't find their way onto a flight deck. And that'll open a whole can of worms itself.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Any response to this should IMHO be looking at pilots' psychological health, so that these nutters don't find their way onto a flight deck.
In the ADF it's called 'supervision'.

[Luke SkyToddler]

During my time working for a UK LCC, we had a cabin crew arrested by MI6 on suspicion of being part of a terrorist cell. That person was a male, pretty strongly built chap, looked like a gym rat.

The guy brought me a coffee in the cruise on several occasions, was always friendly enough. Everyone was pretty amazed to hear the news.

Obviously a lot of "holy-****" and "what-if" scenarios were discussed among the pilots in the days after his arrest.

We'll never know but I for one am very glad that there was NO policy requiring hosties to be left alone with one pilot at that time, because that would obviously have been the best time for the bad guys to attack.

What's the answer to that one, have TWO hosties up the front, one to supervise the other? Where does it end?

Bloody insanity, and I can't see an easy fix no matter how hard I look :uhoh:

[neville_nobody]

The other problem is that Pysch testing is beatable. A would be terrorist or suicide candidate can always beat a pysch interview. The other issue is that even if you did pysch evaluation every year your whole world can fall apart two days later and you have 363 days until your next interview whilst dealing with whatever it is that hasn't worked out.

Plenty of Military types and spies have either switched teams or gone AWOL and they are under much higher scrutiny than pilots ever will be. End of the day you can't control all pilots and second guess what they might be feeling or doing. How do you reckon Edward Snowden's pysch evaluation/polygraph testing is looking right now?:}

I think two crew in the flightdeck will probably stop a spur of moment suicide but nothing is going to stop someone who is determine to take out everybody.

[Mahatma Kote]

A number of economical solutions to faulty soggyware come to mind.

- Banning coffee for flight crew for the same periods alcohol is banned
- Shackles and diapers
- Tasers in the seats operated by CC and/or Company maintenance
- A big red button that gasses the pilots and sets up an automatic landing

[Angle of Attack]

So your in cruise get a flight attendant in the jumpseat. Next thing a TCAS RA descend, disconnect follow the commands , flight attendant freaks out next you have a crash axe spike embedded in your head. Of course this is a statistical almost impossibility but at the end of the day you can't regulate everything, there has to be someone where the buck stops.. There are rogue everyone's...

[RATpin]

Wonder how long before CASA mandate carriage of a large Dog on the Flight Deck to prevent the remaining operator touching anything?

[travelator]

These events seemed scarcer when we had flight engineers in the cockpit. Perhaps another presence does make a difference?

Back in the day, it was very difficult to become a successful pilot. Only a small percentage would have had the aptitude and mental fitness required for the job. Now, all you need is cash and with the basic training can be in a control seat of a jet within a year or two.

[t_cas]

Back in the day, it was very difficult to become a successful pilot. Only a small percentage would have had the aptitude and mental fitness required for the job. Now, all you need is cash and with the basic training can be in a control seat of a jet within a year or two.

A seemingly valid observation.
It is a fact that the game has changed. Generation "now" with the added pressure of social media status and the perception of great importance and achievement that must be posted in the now..... Or never.

[Boney]

There is no way it could happen here.

Security Screening ensures pax are safe by making Pilots take off their watches and shoes.

I feel I should add I have full respect for the front line workers manning the security checkpoints. I always show them the respect they rightfully deserve. It is not their fault that DOTARS, their boss is not aware that pilots fly aeroplanes.

This accident is yet another example of what a wank it is to make Pilots go through security. What are they looking for? Are they checking that I don't have something in my pocket I may use to take control of the aircraft? Guess what DOTARS, I already have control of the aircraft.

Tossers!

[Oldmate]

Move the flight deck door back 1 metre and lav 1 becomes a flight deck toilet. Bean counters might not like it though.

[Bug Smasher Smasher]

http://www.theincontinencestore.com/files/999468/uploaded/Depend_for_Men.JPG

[caneworm]

Move the flight deck door back 1 metre and lav 1 becomes a flight deck toilet.


That'll work well with QF's amazing A330 reconfiguration :rolleyes:

[Captain Biggles84]

I wonder if this can highlight the need to get the focus on these paying for your job type schemes that need abolished from the industry worldwide.

The pressure of a cadetship/endo and associated debt, combined with the rigours of being an F/O in a LCC with the realisation that maybe flying isn't all it cracked up to be one can see how this may contribute to the onset of depression. Add to the fact other stressors in ones personal life stress we can easily see how some ill prepared young adults who thought they were walking into the golden life may be struggling with it all.

I stress none of the above reasons justifies any such behaviour that we have seen in France however do we really need added stressors to young adults entering the workforce.

[Capt Claret]

so that these nutters don't find their way onto a flight deck.

And perhaps instead of just labelling the guy a nutter (assuming the current theorising is correct) we could consider that he was unwell, and may not have been rationally responsible for his actions.

[2Plus]

Seriously Biggles?! It's all the cadets' fault? Of course, we knew it all along but now we have proof! Young, inexperienced, indebted pilots are more prone to breakdowns than more experienced ex-GA/Forces pilots who are impervious to finance and other psychological stressors. :rolleyes:
Please tell me I misunderstood you!

"do we really need added stressors to young adults entering the workforce."

Do we really need the added stressors of finance, job security, divorce, family illness, death or other personal issues applied to any of us, even those who are a little older and tough as nails? Fact is, that's life! We all deal with it differently. Some have more of a struggle doing so, which is no fault of theirs. I appreciate older "can" mean wiser but I don't buy the crap that a new-hire who "paid for his/her job" is more susceptible to psychological stressors than the rest of us.

One hundred and fifty souls have just been lost as a result of what appears to be a very lost one. How about we show a bit of tact as a group of professionals!

[Hempy]

Bean counters might not like it though.

Imo you can thank the bean counters for the problem in the first place. Do you think airlines hire 500hr pay to fly F/O's because it costs them more, or less??

p.s 2plus, at least if the condition was with the pilot the whole time there is more chance of it beimg observed before he/she has 100+ souls in his/her care.

[spleener]

Would it happen here?

Those who've been around long enough probably, and sadly, recall the Connellan [Connair] Alice Springs tragedy back in the 70's.....

Connellan air disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connellan_air_disaster)

[2Plus]

p.s 2plus, at least if the condition was with the pilot the whole time there is more chance of it beimg observed before he/she has 100+ souls in his/her care.


Possibly. I think it's also just as possible it may still go unnoticed, which is what appears to have been partly the case in this tragedy. What signs do you look for in someone to check if they're in the right frame of mind to operate? When would you pull them aside for a chat? Briefing? Before leaving the flight deck? Does one need to be suffering from a long-term underlying condition before they one day decide to look for a release, perhaps from the effects of a more recent stressful event?

It's not uncommon for sufferers of mental illnesses such as depression to not give any "tells". If this bloke did indeed have "issues", then from what I've seen of the footage, there were at least some who were close to him yet found it completely out of character for him. I heard he took a break from training. Obviously he was later found fit to continue. Could happen to any of us, new recruit or veteran.

[dr dre]

Could happen to any of us, new recruit or veteran..

Exactly, lets not forget previous examples:
Egyptair -FO was 59yrs old and had 12'000hrs
Silkair - Captain had 20 years experience, former fighter instructor pilot
JAL and LAM Mozambique - both Captain's involved in those incidents

These are so rare they are statically unmeasurable, but is shows it just that it isn't a phenomena of low hour pilots.

[NCD]

FedEx 705 had three on the flight deck.

It was the jumpseat guy that went berserk with hammers and had a speargun as backup....

Where do you start????

[RATpin]

Ok, since nobody has picked up on it- the point of my somewhat sarcastic remark about dogs on the flight deck was that we professional aviators have suffered through many knee jerk reactions by the legislators over time to achieve nothing more than window dressing. Think Howards gun laws after Port Arthur/drug testing after Hamilton Island/Security after 911etc etc.I don't know how we change it but I fear with social media, the pressure on legislators to be seen to act quickly in the 24hr news cycle, we are going to see more of this BS of greasy pole climbing prosecutors jumping the gun ahead of the investigative analysis.
Rant over

[piston broke again]

(Tongue in cheek) I seriously hope he got checked for explosive traces at security...what a difference that makes!!!

Bomb proof doors - result of sep 11. This accident - a result of the reaction to sep 11.

Let's not start knee jerk reactions to an issue not properly investigated. An FA in the cockpit may have prevented it who knows but my wedding ring may also prevent bear attacks. You never know.

[maggot]

Nah, its the bear tax/patrol. Haven't seen a bear yet! :D

[mickjoebill]

If we include GA that number gets even smaller
neville_nobody is offline Report Post Reply


Worldwide how many bus or train drivers?
Number of murder suicides? Comparably tiny.
Are pilots more predisposed than others to kill their passengers?


Mickjoebill

[underfire]

2 weeks ago, flew Emirates from YMML to DXB. Noticed that during breaks and rotations, door was held open with crew member in doorway.

[KRUSTY 34]

Where I work the flight Attendant is required to enter the Flight Deck when one of the pilots leave. Our ballistic doors however do not have any sort of access from outside, so that makes perfect sense.

2Plus, try not to get too precious. I think you'll find Biggles 84 was taking a swipe at the disgusting way many Cadetships are administered rather than the Cadets themselves. He also makes a very good point about expectations and reality. I can recall a number of instances during my time in G/A when the reality of this game became more than an aspiring airline pilot could bear. At least 2 of these ended in smoking holes. Fortunately casualties among the innocent were light. I think it's safe to say that everyone who survived the G/A experience and eventually ended up in the RHS of an airliner would by that time had their eyes well and truly opened.

God knows what sort of deprivation and personal anxiety the failed Jetstar/New Zealand, cadet scam would have bestowed on the naïve candidate until the AFAP stepped in. If the been counters had their way, we would have seen A320 F/O's flying the line for less than $50K P/A. If a debt ridden, overworked, underpaid pilot is something that some airline managements feel is acceptable, then maybe they should take a psych test or two.

It may, or it may not feature as a factor in this case, but I reckon it's something worth looking at.

[Fuel-Off]

Troo, don't be such a bigot. Flippant remarks like that don't help the so called 'professional' image.

Fuel-Off :ok:

[peuce]

What if.....the pilot left in the cockpit is as sane as me, but the FA tasked with watching him/her....is as nutty as squirrel poo?

Do FAs have the same medical and emotional "supervision" as flight crew?

[Ken Borough]

Eminently sensible words here from Nathan Safe. I am sure QF and JQ at least will give him their full support but please look after each other. Fear of retribution and punishment is the last thing an anguised soul needs. :ok:



'Mature approach' to pilot mental health needed after Germanwings crash, union says | afr.com (http://www.afr.com/business/transport/aviation/mature-approach-to-pilot-mental-health-needed-after-germanwings-crash-union-says-20150327-1m8ynh)

[Buttscratcher]

Good point
Hey, remember the Air New Zealand Captain who recently locked the FO out of the flight deck for a while because he was upset at him?
Maybe they should have 'knee-jerked' on that one, given that, right there we had a prelude to this kind of thing turning bad.

Anyways, as if our status needed to be lowered from 'glorified bus driver' to potential mass murderer...... Just lovely!

[Mach E Avelli]

In every profession in every culture there will always be unbalanced individuals who fool all the behavioural experts and their peers - often for years before either snapping in an instant, or executing a long term plan.
Who among us has not met at least one pilot we thought a bit wacko, or simply down in the dumps, but never did anything about it? If a colleague shows for duty reeking of booze, it's easy enough to identify and to not report it would be criminally negligent. But wacko or depressed? If the trick cyclists can so often miss it, what are our chances of recognising an impending problem?
The ultimate solution is the pilotless airliner. We already have the technology to do it.
Assign four or five geeks to control each aircraft to prevent any one geek from playing silly buggers with the remote. Put them in a concrete bunker to keep the bad guys out.
Compared with flying on certain carriers in certain parts of the world, I would feel a lot safer in a properly designed and operated drone. Recent accidents where pilots are implicated can only accelerate development and eventual public acceptance of remotely controlled flight. It will never be 100% foolproof but give it another 25 years and it will be sufficiently safe to make today's safety statistics look fairly ordinary.
In the short term, get rid of that dangerous door lock. El Al and Iran Air were at least two airlines exposed to a terrorist risk long before 9/11 and their preventative measures were extremely effective. It provided gainful employment for large gentlemen wearing bulky suits strategically seated around the cabin.
It would have the added advantage of curbing passenger rage and bogans behaving badly, too.

[Buttscratcher]

Pilotless aircraft controlled from a bunker?
.........are you f'ken-serious?

[Hempy]

The technology is probably there for pilotless aircraft aka drones (up til the point where something breaks), you just wouldn't have any passengers...

[billyt]

And straight through the biggest cb in the sky.

Drone driving a drone.

[Buttscratcher]

No, that's not going to be the answer to current safety concerns, it would simply open other cans of worms we have not thought of yet.
Maybe **** does just happen ....it's just a part of life and you can't wrap everyone in fluffy cottonwool

[bazza stub]

'These men are expected to be beyond human': pilot health warning (http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/these-men-are-expected-to-be-beyond-human-pilot-health-warning-20150327-1m9l8k.html)

CEOs, beancounters and the odd ex PM have worked tirelessly to de-professionalise the industry with the result that most people we slide into a cockpit with would give it up in a heartbeat if they could.

Management types make us all out to be suck cu#ts for expecting a decent salary, some time off with family, and God forbid, a bit of professional courtesy. Look after one another and (secretly) seek help if you need it.

[Boney]

About 2 yrs ago when a Capt was removed from a cockpit In Australia suspected of being under the influence, I posted a comment at about number 10 on the subject.

I made the comment about the denial of mental health issues in this industry and the often link with depression and substance abuse etc. No names, no companies mentioned, and definitely no "I have the answer" opinions made by me in any shape or form, or so I thought?

Over the next few hrs, about 5 comments were made, mostly in support of the denial factor with this issue within our industry.

By mid morning next day - my initial post and the 5 comments all gone, like a fart in a strong wind.

There lies the problem, denial.

Therefore, I believe this post has about as much chance of survival as a snow flake in hell like the last one 2 years ago, by sunset Sunday.

That's life.

Due to the suspected lifetime ban on me now on all my posts, I bid you farewell and will reappear on this site over the next year as . . . huge . . . mongrel . . . . pilot, or something similar!


------------------------------------------------------------------

"Due to the suspected lifetime ban on me now on all my posts,..."

What absolute rubbish!! :mad:

Why do you think you are "special"? A self proclaimed Martyr perhaps?

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/492466-depression-within-profession.html

After being a PPRuNe member for 14 yrs, this is only the 3rd post I have started so I expect this one to disappear like a fart in a strong wind just like the other 2?

http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/492274-suspicion-being-under-influence-6.html

33 posts soft deleted - none by you! Thread finally locked as it had lost it's way and become irrelevant after 102 posts.

No one is singled out for "special attention", not even you!

I suggest a Bex and a long lie down until reality returns!! :=

Tail Wheel
Forum Moderator

[t_cas]

'These men are expected to be beyond human': pilot health warning (http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/these-men-are-expected-to-be-beyond-human-pilot-health-warning-20150327-1m9l8k.html)

Although some valid points........
Sounds like a an aviation induced opinion......

[Spooky 2]

Pretty sure the rule in the US is driven by a potential incapacitation not a fear of some one trying to wipe out the the whole airplane.

[t_cas]

If you are unaware.
Incapacitation is addressed in current procedures.
End.

[Spooky 2]

Well maybe I missed something.

[Ollie Onion]

Of course it could happen here, you have to admit though the Germanwings pilot was the perfect storm:

-Previous psychiatric problems
-concerns about money and the possible end of the Germanwings brand (so says the girlfriend)
-relationship breakup
-other health problems (reported as eyesight, maybe caused by mental issues)
-fear of loss of licence
-Need to be remembered (according to ex-girlfriend)

I find the most worrying aspect to this whole episode is the fact that there has been clear clues along the way that he was not right. His girlfriend knew, some of his friends admit they new he was seeking help for his depression and it was ongoing. Doctors had told him he was not fit to work and had signed him off, despite all of this though it still fell to just the pilot himself to self report. You can't rely on someone suffering from mental illness to self report.

This is a very tricky issue as the impression some people have at the moment is if you self report something like this then that is career over. Check your loss of licence and income protection, most policies specifically exclude mental illness. It is asking a lot of someone who is ill and possibly doesn't know how bad they are to put their whole livelyhood at risk by self reporting. As we have seen that doesn't always work.

[#1AHRS]

25 Years ago when I was hired by a large full service airline, the recruitment process was tough. IQ and Psych tests certainly weeded out a few. The contract had full medical benefits and sick leave clauses for 3 months sick leave if required. You joined, they type rated you with no bond, expected you to perform, looked after you if you did and failed you if you didn't. They continued to develop you as the valuable asset they perceived you to be.
Wind the clock on and now we have the budget airline concept where everything is done on the cheapo and the best qualification that pilots now have is their willingness to pay for their own training and to sign a contract that has little of the above in it. Pilots are just seen as a cost like fuel and tyres, they constantly get told that automatic aeroplanes have reduced them to button pushers and the understanding of the trustworthy position that they hold has become muddied. But hey, you can fly across Europe now days for just a few quid. It's gotta be good, right? Or is it becoming a case of you get what you pay for?

[Kenny]

Pretty sure the rule in the US is driven by a potential incapacitation not a fear of some one trying to wipe out the the whole airplane.

No, it wasn't. It was one of a whole raft of security procedures that were brought in after 9-11.

[bankrunner]

Wonder how long before CASA mandate carriage of a large Dog on the Flight Deck to prevent the remaining operator touching anything?

They'll mandate that there be a CASA FOI in the jump seat on every flight at the company's expense. The FOI will be a no-go item, if he goes U/S you don't go flying today.

This will ensure that no rules are broken, and that the flight is carried out in an idealogically correct manner, just like the "political officers" on Soviet warships.

Great win for safety and even better for expanding some private empires in Canberra. Surprised they hadn't already thought of this :ok:

[Snakecharma]

Bring back the engineer I say!

This will be a dream for people trying to have a crack at others.

A few well placed unnamed "concerned" letters or emails to the company alleging illicit drug use or unreported dark and depressive thoughts/statements, and the poor sod at the receiving end of the allegations is off line under a cloud for no reason other than they have had a relationship break up, cut someone off in the car park, didn't give someone a sector or whatever.

Divorce lawyers will get in on the act too I reckon..

Either way it will be a root for all pilots.

[mrs nomer]

This is a total over reaction, and much like the security checking at airports that sees 80 year olds being wanded for explosives, is not sensible risk profiling.

Nothing on the day will stop a determined individual, even with a flight attendant in the cockpit.

The profiling needs to start before anyone goes near an aircraft, so the risk mitigation is addressed much much earlier.

9/11 cockpit doors have sure minimised terrorist incursions into the flight deck, but they do nothing if the problem lies in one of the pilot seats.

Maybe the locking technology needs to be revisited.

[Capn Bloggs]

No, it wasn't. It was one of a whole raft of security procedures that were brought in after 9-11.
So where's the logic in having a flight attendant in the cockpit to help with "security" when you allow your pilots to be armed with handguns?? :cool:

[capt.cynical]

Flight ATTEMBER

[Miss F]

Who is to say that having an FA in the cockpit will stop a mentally unstable pilot from doing something stupid? Although there are some intelligent FAs out there, I believe most of the younger girls/queens/boys wouldn't have the courage to stop an older/stronger male (or female) physically or verbally. Yes, someone like me would have at least an idea of how the autopilot can be disengaged but, unfortunately for you lot, I, or someone like me, am not on every flight.

[dr dre]

A counter argument

Two-person rule in cockpit fails to address mental health problem in airline industry (http://www.theage.com.au/comment/twoperson-rule-in-cockpit-fails-to-address-mental-health-problem-in-airline-industry-20150328-1m9tk8.html)

[Wally Mk2]

Check post to see if Wmk2 has been released from the clutches of the evil Mod/s:-):ok:

Wmk2

[thorn bird]

mate suggest you go to auntypru.com

[Paragraph377]

I won't name the airline, and I won't say what in what year, but suffice to say I once worked for an airline with 3000 pilots of which 500 were on some sort of mental health medication to treat a vast array of illnesses/issues, at the same time. The amount of pressure that a Pilot endures, such as - relationship issues, health, financial, shift work, away from home travel, a company continually trying to screw you, time pressures, responsibility of caring for thousands of pax per day, etc etc.
The Germanwings co-pilot (and a couple of others over the years) are an extreme case and rarely top themselves in such spectacular fashion. The risk per flight hours globally is very very small. However the risk is there, it will always be there. So we put a flight attendant in the flight deck with us while the F.O takes a slash, fine, I'm good with that, seriously. But what has stopped the Captain bringing a sharpened plastic ruler onboard with him, it is so sharp it cuts better than a steak knife, he leans over and plunges it through the flight attendants throat. End of story, and another aircraft eats a rocky ravene. Get the point? There will always be 'the one who slips through the system', as no system is perfect. The mitigation for 9/11 has directly contributed to the Germanwings crash.
Could it happen here? Of course it could. Let's hope not.

[Stalins ugly Brother]

Who is to say that having an FA in the cockpit will stop a mentally unstable pilot from doing something stupid?

Who's to say that the FA that you are required to allow into the flightdeck isn't the one that is the mentally unstable person about to do something stupid??

If this is to even slightly have any benefit FA's will need to be parfait or at very least be aware with pilots procedures, eg TCAS manoeuvres, stall recovery, engine issues, depress etc etc or there could be potential for interference that could be worse than what this hair brain scheme was thought out to try and avoid.

And who will pay for this additional training and to what competence level do they train the FA to? And do you train every FA? Will the FA's be required to have regular Phyc evals to perform this roll??

So then that would lead to it being Better implementing all 3 pilot crews? At least all will be qualified as pilots and competent with procedures. But again the extra cost just so you can go for a quick piss would be way to excessive.

Massive can of worms.

Maybe we just acknowledge it's happened, it's an extremely rare event, it can never be fully eliminated, we learn from it and move forward in a timely and constructive manner.

No more knee jerk reactions in this industry thanks! :ok:

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Hopefully soon enough people will have thought this 'F/A on the flight deck' thing through properly, and we can stop discussing it.

On any given flight there are considerably more F/As than pilots. Those F/As have undergone less rigorous screening and ongoing examination (no disrespect to F/As, that's just how it is). Therefore, there's a higher chance of getting a psychotic F/A on a flight than a psychotic pilot. So I don't see how we solve the Germanwings scenario by shutting an F/A into the flight deck with crash axes, extinguishers, oxy bottles and an unsuspecting pilot, when statistically it seems more likely for the F/A to be a problem than the pilot.

[Angle of Attack]

Regardless of all this talk, there's no difference with 2 pilots up front anyway, if the other crew member got up to stretch his legs I can guarantee I wouldn't see the Crash axe spike entering my skull anyway as I would be looking the other way......Pretty simple really, and introducing a flight attendant would arguably reduce safety in my opinion...Its like regulating to prevent a bee sting while walking on clover, you can regulate but you can't stop it....

[Lookleft]

The only real solution or mitigator is to build the cockpit so neither pilot has to go beyond the cockpit door. That means making the fwd toilet part of the secure flight deck environment. Unfortunately for the pilots and pax that will cost money so it won't be done.

[AEROMEDIC]

Maybe we just acknowledge it's happened, it's an extremely rare event, it can never be fully eliminated, we learn from it and move forward in a timely and constructive manner.
True, and like any tragic event whether in aviation, rail, sea or on land, you have to be terribly unlucky to be on board at the time.

[Angle of Attack]

Still not a solution as the other pilot can still smash the others skull with the crash axe as they are standing behind them.....There is NO solution, that's the fact, if there are pilots with mental health issues then they need to be addressed, not window dressing like this....I see this as a non issue it has been and will be always possible, albeit infinitly rare......

[Compylot]

Well.... I see at least one Australian airline has been proactive and come out with a solution.... being 'relief bottles' provided 'up front' for those who can't hold on...

And before you get all politically correct, YES they come with the "Lady Teena" adapter...:rolleyes:

[Kenny]

Bloggs,

Unfortunately logic or indeed, even common sense failed to enter into around 90% of the procedures that were introduced after 9-11. As far as having an FA in the flight deck when one of the pilots went to the toilet, it was to mitigate there being only one pilot in the flight deck at any point during a flight.

As far as having armed pilots, don't start me on that topic. It was a stupid f*$€ing idea, brought in to give the travelling US public the warm and fuzzies.

[AerocatS2A]

We already have a requirement for an FA on the flightdeck if a pilot needs a pee, but that is purely because the lock is a simple one that cannot be opened from outside under any circumstances so the FA is there to open the door if the pilot flying has a heart attack or something.

[draregsiavreg]

The only real solution or mitigator is to build the cockpit so neither pilot has to go beyond the cockpit door. That means making the fwd toilet part of the secure flight deck environment. Unfortunately for the pilots and pax that will cost money so it won't be done. That won't be enough, as if the other pilot is out of its seat for a pee, he won't have time to come back quickly enough to avoid the suicide of the other pilot...

Anyway, even with another pilot in his seat, I think it is very easy for the other pilot to crash an airplane.

Moreover, if the rule is to have always two persons in the cockpit at anytime, the certification agencies should forbid immediately operations with only one pilot, as some transportations of the kind are authorized, the risk assumed being that ANY pilot* MAY commit suicide!

The best way would be to give every pilot a pill so as to suicide alone avoiding to crash the airplane, and kill passengers, crew and some innocent other people on the ground.

Another good way would also to stop completely air transportation... No flight, no risk at all.

More seriously, as everything concerning safety for air transportation is based on probability of occurence of a failure -this is true for airfcraft and aircraft part manufactoring and also for medical rules fore the crews-, the only question is to know what is the probability of occurence of such a "failure" and is this probability acceptable in terms of air transportation...

What is that probability?

And also, I think that imposing 2 persons at anytime is totally irrelevant for the case, but even with a very low probability, there should be some medical psychiatric and psychological and neurological thinktanks about a better detecting people -pilots and, why not, attendants*- who could have such behavioural tendencies.

*One could thing of an attendant -why not- who would enter the cockpit, kill both pilots, then lock the door and commit suicide... So, may be 2 or 3 is'nt enough and let suggest... 4 (at least!)?

[propnut]

Quote:
The door can be opened from the outside, just not if the person on the inside decides they don't want it open. If the person inside fails to respond to a door open request (due collapse) then the door will open automatically. Having an FA up there would be like airport security, it looks good to the public but does nothing against a committed attempt


Not anymore. The door has a mechanical latch on the inside.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Another good way would also to stop completely air transportation... No flight, no risk at all.
CASA are onto that.

[Mach E Avelli]

You are all in denial. The pilot less/remote controlled airliner is the future. To the naysayers, who rabbit on about pilots being the required defence against blundering in to Cbs etc,..hello... think about how that can also be avoided by ground control with radar and satellite imagery. Even that could be totally automatic, if need be. Ditto with traffic and terrain avoidance. So what is not to like about removing the weakest and most usual cause of accidents?
If someone had told the crowd watching the bicycle mechanics' efforts at Kittyhawk not that long ago that within 60 or so years we would be orbiting the planet in space and not long after walking on the moon, most would have said that was never likely, either.

[Shark Patrol]

..... aahhh, what about if you've got a deranged 'drone controller' on the ground guiding the aircraft. Or are you proposing a totally automatic pilot-less/controller-less aircraft (which would probably only carry suicidal passengers)?

[Mach E Avelli]

..... aahhh, what about if you've got a deranged 'drone controller' on the ground guiding the aircraft. Or are you proposing a totally automatic pilot-less/controller-less aircraft (which would probably only carry suicidal passengers)?
See earlier post on this subject. The only obstacle to overcome is the potential for hacking. However NASA have so far done a reasonable job of preventing that in their programs.

[chookcooker]

Drones Most Accident-Prone U.S. Air Force Craft: BGOV Barometer - Bloomberg Business (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-06-18/drones-most-accident-prone-u-s-air-force-craft-bgov-barometer)

[Shark Patrol]

Or a deranged computer programmer perhaps? Seriously, until they can invent a computer that NEVER EVER crashes/locks-up, I'm not too worried about the longevity of my job.

[Mach E Avelli]

Agreed that new technology takes a while to de-bug. With anything to do with civil aviation it takes a while longer than in the military, where they can afford higher risks.
When we got the first civilian jets (Comet etc) there was a spike in accidents, but within a few years they became infinitely safer than the old clunkers they replaced. Today we would not accept the risks that were taken with those early jets, so yes, it will take maybe 25 years and so meantime we will need to deal with imperfect humans occasionally having major brain farts.

[dr dre]

If someone had told the crowd watching the bicycle mechanics' efforts at Kittyhawk not that long ago that within 60 or so years we would be orbiting the planet in space and not long after walking on the moon, most would have said that was never likely, either.

If you told the crowd watching the Concorde's first flight in 1969 that less than 20 would be built and by 2003 we would be back to subsonic jetliners they would have told you you were dreaming as well. ;)

[CaptCloudbuster]

Mach E Avelli

Genuine question, without going through your posting history I ask have you ever personally made an approach to land in a modern jet transport in Perth's windshear, or SYD 16R during a southerly change, or Newman on a 40 degree day? Having experienced these "routine" events myself and witnessed the current rate of change in our industry over my 30 year career I can't envisage a pilotless RPT jet in this country in the next 30 years....

What timeframe would you speculate?

[FYSTI]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? is a Latin phrase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases) found in the work of the Roman poet Juvenal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juvenal) from his Satires (Satire VI, lines 347–8). It is literally translated as "Who will guard the guards themselves?"
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F)

This has has evidently been a problem for a long time, as Plato wrote about it. There is no feasible solution to entirely eliminate the problem.

As for full automation, all that will do is move the Human Factors / Terrorism issues to the software engineering cubical & control room.

Before trusting computers, best you read Ken Thompson's 1983 classic paper, "Reflections on Trusting Trust (http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html)". The memorable quote from it is "You can't trust code that you did not totally create yourself."

In it he demonstrates how to embed nefarious code into the compiler itself, and then compile the compiler from that code, thus removing any traces of the nefarious code as the final binary cannot be validated.

A good read on the issue by Poul-Henning Kamp: The Software Industry IS the Problem (http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2030258)

Even if it were possible to work around that problem, It could only be done over an extended period of time as the sheer cost of changing everything over at once would bankrupt the industry many times over.

[Iron Bar]

FFS filthy, opportunistic, hopeless politicians. Making ill considered stupid decisions again. This is horse ****. I wait to see the regulation mandating 2 crew on every train, ferry, bus and tram. Will the RAAF be subject to this regulation? VIP Squadron? No, I didn't think so.

[Iron Bar]

OK, until we can have the appropriate sections added to the Emergency Procedures Manual, the cabin crew trained AND the pilots informed about what they can expect from the cabin crew in the event of an emergency. I will look forward to having three pilots rostered for EVERY sector and all of our employers can bill the government for it.

Also, they can put a ticket levy (lets call it a "don't trust my pilot levy") on all tickets and the panicking public can pay for the imposition.

Perhaps I will start making a reassuring PA every time one of the pilots goes for a slash. Especially in the middle of the night on a BOC PH or DN sector. Don't worry panicking public, rest easy, the no-longer trustworthy pilots are being watched. . . . . .

[CaptainEmad]

Although space flight is inherently more risky and challenging than subsonic flight, NASA might need to work on their reliability. Consider the 30 year shuttle program with 14 fatalities from 2 hull losses after 135 missions. i.e. 1.48%.

For illustration, that equates to more than 1500 fatal hull losses per day at the current daily air transport departure rate.

Mach EA, The only obstacle to overcome is the potential for hacking. However NASA have so far done a reasonable job of preventing that in their programs.

I could have missed something, or taken your post out of context, but to suggest that this is the only obstacle to pilotless air transport is extremely naïve.

It should be remembered by anyone hoping for the premature introduction of completely automatic scheduled passenger flight, that all the hardware and the software, this wonderful place without needy, expensive and now mass-murdering suicidal pilots, is nearly all designed, assembled, maintained and directed by people for a very obvious reason.

You can't take all the people out of the loop.
You are on the wrong planet for that.

You could say that this accident was caused by the captain being locked out the flight compartment.

[noip]

Thankyou politicians for degrading aviation safety .. yet again ...

[DUXNUTZ]

What about freights flights? Not able to go hang a leak?

[Iron Bar]

Regulation will probably be based on pax seats and ignore freighters and ferry flights. Thus no real solution, just rubbish.

You freighter guys are all above suspicion :ok:

[dr dre]

In the plus side it may increase CRM for FA's who dislike pilots and never bother to come to the flight deck??

[OzSync]

Well this new requirement has just provided the simplest way for 911 to be repeated, via the casually employed flight attendant.

Well done!

[manymak]

Well this new requirement has just provided the simplest way for 911 to be repeated, via the casually employed flight attendant.

Well done!

It's not as if Flight Attendant's have been denied access to the cockpit since 9/11.

[OzSync]

It's not as if Flight Attendant's have been denied access to the cockpit since 9/11.

Of course, but now we will have a guaranteed time or two on almost every flight where they are alone in there with just the one belted-in, forward facing pilot.

I cannot recall the above situation happening before in my career.

[clark y]

I remember when these doors first came in there was a requirement for 2 in the flight deck at all times. The requirement faded away over time.


Another solution- fingerprint readers on the doors to allow for immediate access to authorised persons (tech crew only). Just have the crew log their prints prior to departure. Keep other current means. Surely the technology is out there.

[OzSync]

OMG Touch ID!!!1!!!!1!

[Neville Nobody]

Is one pilot still allowed to have a "Catnap" if the other has an oxygen mask on?

[Capn Rex Havoc]

A touch ID is a flawed as a hijacker could place the crew members finger there. Additionally, some aircraft have dead bolts in case the door locking system is unserviceable hence, the only way to gain access to the cockpit is for the door to unbolted from the inside.

What concerns me most, is that essentially, the government is saying - "we don't trust pilots".

Surely cabin crew are just as likely to be depressed or psychologically disturbed, stressed or what ever. This new policy says- "Pilots - Untrustworthy - Cabin crew trustworthy therefore problem solved.(said with sarcasm)

[Renton Field]

Erm.....yes,agree with most of the above re window dressing and appearing to be actively doing something,anything,without actually addressing the real issue.

A lot of this stuff,IMHO,seems to be being driven by legal departments and risk analyses to litigate-proof an organisation in the slim eventuality of a repeat event or similar.
I don't pretend to be knowledgable about the functions or processes of these departments,but it seems to me that if the chances of having a weirdo on the flight deck are "X",surely if you double the number of people in a particular situation,ie a wee break,you also double the risk,or at the very least not mitigate or reduce that risk at all.
You could even argue that the risk would be increased...perhaps?

[chips_with_everything]

Wondering whether there are enough unemployed/LWOP/resting/whatever pilots to make it possible and economic for airlines to have at least one flight attendant on board who is also qualified to be a second pilot whenever the front office is temporarily understaffed.

[Redheeler]

So much speculation; OK he was breathing, did not respond to ATC requests or the door, and made a control input. How does that all add up to the extraordinary speculative and hysterical attempt to find a mental health issue, and what business is it of ours (the public) until a proper investigation has been finished? Just as in the criminal justice system we have to wait until the committal and the trial before a verdict is announced, and to respect the man's and his family's right to this investigation and some privacy until the facts are there.

[Nigel747]

The commercial implications of this knee jerk decision will be significant. Sydney to Melbourne at any time for example (consider breakfast when nature may be a little more likely to call), pilot calls cabin advising need for a visit. Extracting a crew member from the flat out service schedule must have an impact on the inflight product.
Secondly, sole pilot remains, supposedly looking forward at the instruments/windshield at all times whilst cabin crew member grabs crash axe or an oxy bottle to use as a weapon on the guy who still needs to pee.
Or they use one of the self defence techniques taught in their security training to disable the remaining pilot.
Or they use their belt to strangle remaining pilot.
Or they bring a utensil from the..........

Well thought out minister (and airline management).

[assasin8]

Damn! So we're now going to have to bring in the F/As on the whole chemtrails secret....:p

[VH-Cheer Up]

You are all in denial. The pilot less/remote controlled airliner is the future.OMG... Hacking is the least of our problems. What if a programmer deliberately or accidentally writes code that causes every airborne aircraft to promptly descend to 100 feet BGL? The Tesla is a software-enabled vehicle that gets updates overnight like your iPhone or Microsoft products - imagine when the latest bug patch is dowloaded to your Airbus, is in fact, a buggy package? As if some aircraft aren't already a bit buggy and require human intervention to keep them flying straight - iced AoA anyone?

Trust comes from the people in the seats with the best view of the world wanting to go to the same place as everyone else aboard. SLF wants to share in that belief - the Germanwings pilot who got up post this catastrophe and said as much to the entire cabin prior to pushback was selling the punters what they desperately wanted to buy needed to hear. (see here: Germanwings plane crash: Passenger describes captain's emotional speech to passengers day after disaster - Europe - World - The Independent (http://ind.pn/1Ns9R7N))

[Capt_SNAFU]

Love the BS that just came from management. "after risk assessment........ Blah blah blah scra blah blah blah smacko blah blah blah two in cockpit at all times blah blah blah" so WTF was the risk ass department doing last week and for the last how many years on this issue. Last week trusted and this week not. Oxygen thieves!

Window dressing CR@P.

As Pilat said Lets be honest, anyone who flies Aircraft should know (without giving pointless examples), if you really want to crash your Aircraft, you'll do it, even if the guy next to you is strapped into their seat.

Interesting point about controlled rest is also made.

[Ngineer]

Damn! So we're now going to have to bring in the F/As on the whole chemtrails secret....

No need for that on short domestic sectors. Simply ask the crew to go to the toot before they board and keep an Orchy bottle in the flt deck in case of emergency.

[Angle of Attack]

I actually believe this to be a reduction of safety, honestly, there are plenty of cans of worms in this regulation, and I will write to my federal member tonight. It is ludicrous. I know for a fact I won't be concentrating as much on primary flight instruments as I will be half turned around to keep an eye on sometimes is a complete stranger in there with me. On the upside good Cabin managers will make the cutest girls do it, so what the hell, there's always a silver lining!:ok:

[Aim Point]

Wasn't the German Wings F/O previously a F/A :ugh::ugh:

[CaptainInsaneO]

So when the fare paying passenger now safely arrives at their destination, they happily ride in a taxi with....only one driver!

Taxi drivers don't get checked annually for mental illness.

What if the taxi driver.......well you can guess the rest.

A taxi driver is now trusted more than a pilot.

Well done Australia :D

[Capt Basil Brush]

Will the cabin crew "pilot supervisor" stand near the door waiting for the other crew member to return, or take a seat?

If standing near the door waiting, and severe turbulence is encountered, the cabin crew "pilot supervisor" will have to be seated with a seat belt fastened. In some narrow-body types if the jump seat is used, this will physically block the entrance to the flight deck - and the outside crew member will not be able to get back in as they will be physically blocked from entering.

So the outside pilot (could be the captain) will have to sit at a cabin crew station, or a nearby pax seat with a seat belt on waiting for the inside pilot and cabin crew member to handle the severe turbulence event. If it's severe enough, and with an inexperienced pilot stuck inside, it could result in a jet upset - with the captain stuck outside saying Hail Mary's, and thanking Warren Truss (who has no idea, and no experience in anything aviation related) for putting them all in that situation, while the aircraft is spiralling towards the ground with possibly an inexperienced cadet at the controls trying to remember the jet upset recovery procedures while under the pump.

This might sound far-fetched, but it's possible. Did they consider these type of scenarios as part of their knee jerk reaction new procedures??

Probably not :ugh:

This is certainly a degradation in safety.

How many passengers does a peak hour city train have onboard with only 1 driver, who may be pissed off with his whole world??

[thorn bird]

"If it's severe enough, and with an inexperienced pilot stuck inside, it could result in a jet upset"

Back in my day the so called "First Officer" was known as the "Second in Command".
They were required to be "Experienced" and able to fly and make decisions at the same standard as the "Captain" the only difference they sat in the right seat.
I knew the race to the bottom would end in tears....Goddam bean pushers!! A pox on them all!!

I really feel for you guys, having to deal with this Cr.p.

CAsA made us all criminals, now we are homicidal maniacs!!

[twentyyearstoolate]

I started my career in 1987, since then I've gradually seen the shine wear off and the industry (from a Pilots perspective at least) get worse and worse in so many aspects. Particularly since 911.

Now with this event, the press are hammering the "distrust in Pilots" by highlighting all the events with the very few instances of Pilots with Mental Health Issues. All over the Aus news now is the BA Captain that murdered his wife a few years ago and had thoughts of crashing his 747. The Media just want sensationalist propaganda that sells. Look at how many millions of flights there are with no threat whatsoever. Unfortunately, there is risk in life everyday, and as tragic as this event is, there's little needs to be done, and certainly not the Funfair Showground the Polititions and Media are putting forward with FA's needed on the Flight Deck.

The FA rule puts forward a risk greater than the current situation IMO. It's still extremely low, but not lower than the current situation.

I have maybe 15 years left in this career, and I just want to retire earlier and earlier the more the Media, Polititions, Management and General Public keep changing the rules in the way I operate, and change my work environment as a professional when they clearly have no idea of the Job we do.

The industry has changed so much so quick. We get less and less remuneration and respect for the Job we do, but the requirements seem to increase. I know I just grind my teeth when I'm taking my watch off and belt off at security. I had a passenger piss himself laughing when, in full uniform, my Vegemite was confiscated from me in SYD (my mistake as I forgot I packed it)

One London security guard lectured me on how important it was that we are checked so thoroughly, as he said, and I quote "the 911 Hijackers were Pilots too" :ugh::ugh:

[Nigel747]

.....and in the biggest change we've seen in our operation for many years, not a single word from any of our managers, from the CP down to the lowest ranking fleet manager.
Nice one boys.

[Angle of Attack]

Especially on Shorthaul aircraft with all the shuffling and prolonged door opening, plus the incentive for extremists to now become flight attendants, this will without a doubt cause a suicidal hijacker to take over an aircraft somewhere in the world and cause a disaster, not if but when....

[Ollie Onion]

This is laughable, so now we are being supervised by a crew member who more than likely has no idea what is going on in the flight deck and possible only has two weeks training since not being allowed on the flight deck as a general member of the public.

So now I have someone I don't know at all standing or sitting behind me. Apparently only a rostered crew member can carry out this duty aswell, so even if I have a check captain on the jumpseat who is staff travelling I will still need to get a cabin crew member in there aswell when the FO wants to go to the loo.

[chuboy]

Amazing that none of the airlines to date that already used the 2-crew flight deck rule have had a plane hijacked by a flight attendant :rolleyes:

[Ollie Onion]

^^^ yet, the whole point of these pointless rules is that they are not enhancing security. They are yet more layers of pointless procedures that do nothing but introduce new risks into the equation, another person alone with the pilot who has no flight training, this could be a distraction or worse, a way for dubious types to get access to the flight deck with minimal training or checking.

The best way to prevent further incidents like this would be to remove the bloody door altogether and replace it with a locked but breakable door, if someone attacks the door leave it to the crew and pax to defend it, if need be though it can be broken down.

[Christoph1945]

With a number of flights now having gone down under the strangest of circumstances, I can't help wondering if there may be a case of "Manchurian Candidates"!

As for crew members indignation over security matters, they have my full sympathy; I recall reporting for duty on the morning of the liquid explosives plot and having my yoghurt confiscated! :{

[neville_nobody]

If you have a engine fire and or in flight shutdown whilst your offsider is in the toilet how does the cabin crew member know whether you are following the checklist or trying to kill everyone by turning off the engine and starting a descent?

Or worse still a depressurisation with a rapid descent.

And since when has the Australian government rewritten law based on what is essentially rumour and hearsay?

There is no official report published, the CVR hasn't been released.

For all we know the guy could have had a heart attack, or it could have been another QF style Airbus computer failure, nobody knows, yet the Australian government wants to rewrite the law and make cockpit less secure.:ugh:

How about we wait until at the very least somebody releases the CVR publicly so we all know this isn't some massive diversion from some other issue.

Remember these CVR leaks are coming from the French Military

I can't help wondering if there may be a case of "Manchurian Candidates"!

To what end? Stop aviation?

[Mud Skipper]

Engine Master Switches to OFF and see what a FA can do as you get up and deadbolt the door....

Dumb policy Minister.

[neville_nobody]

The government wanted to ban jumpseating because of the security risk a few years ago. But now they want to lock some random FA in the flight deck with a crash axe and one pilot.

[Nigel747]

Further to my post #119 on this subject, would it be advisable to insist on a female F/A come to the deck as opposed to a physically stronger male, in order to lessen their ability to overpower the remaining pilot?
By extension, do you then insist that there is a female working in the front cabin.
On longer sectors then, where they take their crew break, do you also want the other F/A to be female?
This is going to be messy.

[Capn Bloggs]

Will the cabin crew "pilot supervisor" stand near the door waiting for the other crew member to return, or take a seat?

Ordinarily, nada on sitting down as she was just there being social, but now, under CAR 227 2 (b) she could be deemed to be conducting "a check" of the remaining pilot, so she can sit down in the vacant seat? :confused:

[Ned Gerblansky]

Well it worked fine for Impulse Airlines through all their years of operating as themselves and as Qantaslink on B717. It suceeded on a number of levels, not the least of which was team-bonding, mutual respect, and understanding. The policy was introduced because we were trained by the aircraft manufacturers, not by some ego-maniac who thought that Aussies "know everything".

I suggested the policy to a QF captain with whom I trained in the RAAF. He thought it a superb idea, as he had suffered dual pilot incapacitation, which was only resolved when his appendix burst, allowing him to land the aeroplane. He could have been administrated palliative medicine. His suggestion to QF management was met with the same guffaws as I witness here on this site.

The purpose of the F/A in the flight-deck is solely and utterly to manually open the door, letting in 50% of the crew. This policy was totally thrown out with the "Ansettification" when the A320 was introduced, and pilots no longer helped the team straighten the cabin on turnarounds. The cabin crew were deemed by the new management to be replaceable, and not committed to the job anyway, even those with 20 years in various airlines.

This term has got me into so much trouble in my life, but now I'm retired I'll use it with abandon. Wait for it...

If you are such a sky-god that you never need assistance nor recognise other team members abilities, you are FROGSH1T!

If you are such a company person that your security will weed out threats so efficiently that it will never be an issue, FROGSH1T!

If you believe that your company knows more than the decades-old company that built and test flew your aircraft, FROGSH1T!

I go by train and ship these days, because most of you (at least on this thread) are goats, and my shepherding days are over. The times are a'changing, get used to it. The whole world is marching to this beat, and you guys are out of step - but you're NEVER wrong. When you buy your next coffee in the terminal, what's in it? GBH, LSD? You are never invulnerable.

[twentyyearstoolate]

You are never invulnerable.

So why the mandatory change?

Enjoy your retirement though. I'm sure I must have flown with you once, as I think it was you who made me make sure i nailed command training! Bahhh Bahhh

[Buttscratcher]

Ah, who cares, let the FA in .......good for a chat, and prolly smells better than the effo anyway, plus it's good to ask how the passengers are and how the service is going, or how work is in general....all the stuff we used to chat about before the 9/11 door was put in.
I'm more concerned about our new media label as potential 'Rouge'.

[CaptainEmad]

The best way to prevent further incidents like this would be to remove the bloody door altogether and replace it with a locked but breakable door, if someone attacks the door leave it to the crew and pax to defend it, if need be though it can be broken down.

Thank you Ollie Onion.

Leave it to the crew and pax to defend it! Exactly! That is what the security goons and clueless pollies do not understand about a post-911 world.

If ANYBODY now tries to make an unauthorised flight deck entry, thanks to 911, they will be torn to pieces or at least have thier ribs broken by the pax and crew.

There is your defence of the flight deck! Do not make the flight deck impenetrable, it might cause an accident.

[Capt Claret]

Whilst I believe that the reaction of the Government and therefore the regulator is OTT, knee jerk, and any other critical adjective that one can imagine, I don't for one minute believe the intent is that the "safety FA" is there to determine and thus intercede if a lone pilot attempts something sinister.

I suspect the rationale is twofold. If a safety FA is present, then a lone pilot is probably less likely to attempt some thing sinister but more importantly, s/he can open the flight deck door and allow the other pilot in.

Another "we're keeping you safe action" from a federal government near you! :D:hmm::rolleyes:

[Uplinker]

It's only just been mentioned after 8 pages, but the idea of the FA in the cockpit is simply to unlock the door and let the other pilot back in, not to physically prevent the remaining pilot crash the plane. So the FA only needs to know how to operate the lock, and the door handle.

I am amused how many of you are kicking off because you feel you are no longer trusted, but then you also say that you don't want some "unknown FA" or even "queen", (charming - how enlightened), in the cockpit ! Double standards and prejudice? Do you feel the same about a pilot you haven't flown with before?

The point about pilots going through security and yoghurts etc., is to prevent a pilot smuggling something on board which is designed to explode or cause damage after they have got off.

I don't like security or the new FA ruling either - it is more bother and complication for me and my working day/night, but I can understand the intent.

The real answer that has been suggested by myself and others is to keep the cockpit door as it is but move it rearwards so the forward toilet becomes part of the flight deck. A pilot will only be in the loo during the cruise, and so they would have time to come out and take control if the PF started doing something weird.

[nonsense]

Start by understanding that human beings have this interesting failure mode, in which they self destruct, and sometimes seek to destroy other humans in the process. We (because we are all at risk of this failure mode) may also seek to make a statement, make an impression, or even to vanish without a trace (usually achieved by, say, jumping off a ship at sea, rather than attempting to make an entire plane vanish in the Southern Ocean).

Now add in the fact that while self-preservation is impaired, the ability to devise ways to execute this failure mode, so to speak, is not. So for every clever preventative measure we can come up with, one of us who has the misfortune to suffer this failure mode will likely attempt to devise a workaround.

This failure mode happens at a very low incidence (though not as low as you might think) but since there are billions of humans, it is not uncommon.

Now recognise that at present we have a limited ability to recognise this failure mode before it emerges. In some cases it is moderately predictable (terrorism), but in many other cases there are few if any warning signs.

The warning signs that are available are purely behavioural; either the person takes actions appropriate to their objectives, or sometimes they might even discuss their intent at some more or less hypothetical level.

For example, this pilot is quoted as answering instructions to prepare for approach to the destination in an ambiguous manner ("we'll see"), and to have discussed at least hypothetically an action of this sort with his ex girlfriend, clues we recognise with hindsight.

The trouble is that this "failure mode" is so rare that few people ever recognise the warning signs, and that even where there are recognisable warning signs, the failure mode, at least on this scale, usually never eventuates. And many of us desperately want to believe that anyone who could "fail" in this way is fundamentally broken and not like us and our friends and colleagues. So we don't see the warnings.



Now consider that some of us will voluntarily step forward, recognising stress or distress in our lives, and seek help, with a resultant reduction in adverse outcomes, while others will recognise that seeking help will destroy much of our life and so attempt to tough it out on our own, increasing the risk of an adverse outcome, which, if the failure mode comes, will seem perfectly reasonable and logical.

So who do we trust?
The person with insight, who is prepared to ask for help, and to cooperate with treatment, or the person who insists all is well?

The problem is of course that as long as you believe that this failure mode we've been discussing is vanishingly rare, then the person who insists all is well is *almost* certainly fine, while the person who seeks help is seemingly a permanent, career ending, increased risk.

But once you recognise that mental illness is not actually terribly rare, especially if you include people who are at no risk of suicide but who are so preoccupied by their worries that their performance is impaired, you begin to see that identifying and treating mental illness, without making the personal consequences so dire that people will do almost anything to avoid being detected, is vital.



So, taking our hypothetical pilot with a failure mode, who has escaped detection and has resolved to act on his impulses, what can we do at this late stage to prevent disaster?

Suicide bridges are a well known phenomenon; many big cities have them. Often they eventually are equipped with anti-suicide measures such as barriers (West Gate Bridge in Melbourne, for example) and emergency phones (the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco), which reduce suicides at the site in question.

Some people take the entirely logical position that such measures are a waste of money, since people will simply go somewhere else to kill themselves. The Bolte Bridge in Melbourne is just as tall as the Westgate and just a couple of miles away for example. But the person who goes to a suicide bridge to jump is not logical; they have latched onto the concrete idea of jumping from that particular bridge.

It may well be that a cabin crew member in the cockpit, ostensibly only there to let the other pilot back in, may serve to force a suicidal pilot to act in the presence of someone else. Undoubtedly some will do so anyway, but I can well believe that some will be dissuaded, giving us some more time either to detect them or to persuade them to seek help themselves.


One of the difficulties is that this particular failure mode of humans is well beyond the expertise of pilots, engineers and ergonomists; the solutions will lie with psychologists and psychiatrists, and they will not be perfect.

[nonsense]

And after all that, I didn't answer the question.

Yes, it can happen here. Just as it can happen in Africa, in Asia and in Europe. We're all built to the same basic design, with the same potential failure modes.

There are some cultural differences in the incidence of suicide for example, but I don't believe there are any cultures where suicide is unknown. The potential failure mode is built into all of us, and once it occurs, the human is broken and the consequences for family and friends or for a hundred or more passengers simply do not factor in.

[mary meagher]

Is it 02.00 in the morning down there? I've scanned through your 8 pages on "Would it happen here?" and so far you guys are not as obsessed as the R&N mainstream...they have not yet deleted all of my contributions, however! (I am stuck at home with a cold, but flew at the gliding club last week - 2 soaring flights, actually!)

But one idea your Ollie Onion inspired...if a pilot suffers from emotional or mental breakdown, and tells his AME/airline, there goes his job....as Ollie says his insurance policy for losing his license specifically EXCLUDES mental illness!

Great! just the incentive for keeping a very low profile, (he he he!)

My idea is that the government require the INSURANCE COMPANIES that provide license insurance a special very large payment and a substantial payment for life for any pilot who can PROVE mental illness!

What do you think?

[TWT]

If anything,it will probably cause some to avoid a vindaloo the night before and to not think twice about having a whizz before heading to the FD to operate on domestic sectors ;)

[Gate_15L]

The solution to all this is rather simple..


start $hitting and pi$$ing into a bag... on the flight deck. Problem solved.

This industry just gets better everyday.....:*

[bazza stub]

The Government should stop airlines pi$sing and $hitting on its employees, and we may all be happier, simples!

[Servo]

The government and airline management, plus the general public have completely missed the underlying issue, the elephant in the room.

There will be other factors in motion, in regards to the incident being discussed.

Quite possible that friends and family were aware of "issues", yet said nothing.

Quite possible that airline management were aware of "issues", yet swept it under the carpet.

Can it happen here. You bet it can, and has, though not to the same resulting tragedy.

Looking at an individual is not the answer. Truly looking at the industry that has been created where shareholder profit and management bonuses comes first and staff are just a throw away tool, would be a start.

Internal and external reporting or monitoring systems are not effective. Companies are self regulated under the guise of safety. Management and staff prefer to put their head in the sand and hope it will go away.

No one wants to admit that there may be a problem, let alone to try and fix the underlying issues.

The real truth will be hidden, as it is in this industry. Too many $$$$ and ego's take priority.

[Capt Claret]

The government and airline management, plus the general public have completely missed the underlying issue, the elephant in the room.

There will be other factors in motion, in regards to the incident being discussed.

Quite possible that friends and family were aware of "issues", yet said nothing.

Quite possible that airline management were aware of "issues", yet swept it under the carpet.

And just as possibly, those who knew him personally or professionally, might not have connected the dots until after the event.

[Servo]

CC,

I agree. BUT what needs to be done now is to look at ALL the underlying circumstances as tragic as this incident is.

Don't just point the finger at an individual.

The industry has a LOT of problems. I hope management can sleep comfortably at night, knowing they did everything they could legally, morally and compassionately. I doubt it.

[Hempy]

The solution to all this is rather simple..


start $hitting and pi$$ing into a bag... on the flight deck. Problem solved.

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k144/h3mpy/C26EA0CE-0038-4BB4-9864-D18C0D54052F.png_zpsxp6ldmx3.jpeg

[Miss F]

The real answer that has been suggested by myself and others is to keep the cockpit door as it is but move it rearwards so the forward toilet becomes part of the flight deck.

What about those aircraft that don't suit that option? Granted they don't do flights THAT long but sometimes 2 hours is long enough, if not too long, when nature decides to call.

[The name is Porter]

OK, so insurance doesn't cover mental illness and you want it to? Don't piss, you'll get a kidney stone, 3 months off, mental health improves significantly.

[arkmark]

2 years ago I was flying business DPS-PER on Virgin. One of the pilots spent the bulk of the cruise flight chatting up the outrageously hot hostie (who wouldn't), eating snacks in front of PAX from the galley, and basically not doing his job which was to fly the aeroplane. I wrote a letter to VA to draw this to their attention, stating that he was so long doing this that I should have filmed it for them. VA replied that it was ok for the crew to leave the cockpit for any amount of time and that it would be an offense for me to film them doing so. WELL DONE VIRGIN -- I still have your letter in my email. NOW DO YOU GET MY POINT ?????? We have 2 drivers for when the sh it hits the fan and they cant fix it if they aint there !!!
So yes it coulda woulda happened in Australia because the airlines don't really care about safety until they are made to do so.

[Captain Nomad]

Arkmark - you are sure the pilot was crew for that flight hey? No chance of it being a pilot deadheading and occupying a jump seat for the ride? Did you see him sitting in the left or right seat for take off or landing did you? Things may not always be as they seem...

[KRUSTY 34]

Sometimes people just don't know what they don't know!

[Snakecharma]

Arkmark, if you fly in the next week or so you will see a captain spending the whole sector down the back! Because I am paxing to pick up a service an hour after arrival....as captain nomad says, all may not be as it seems.

[Buttscratcher]

.......and I'll drift into our Ops building and note the amount of time a selected Muppet spends at the water-cooler chatting-up Donna, the new HR girl.

Anyway, the issue here ain't poosay, the issue is 'monkey'

[wateroff]

There needs to be a broad spectrum approach/audit. At an Industry and Company level. The catchphrase ' It's legal' has been used for far too long, lip service is paid to things like CRM (sorry NTS because it's all new) - FRMS programs, which plot complete and utter horses%it, to keep you in the safezone and legal. Rubbish rostering/recovery practices, box ticking training programs, a continuous supply of irrelevant Self Learning Modules (which must be done in your own time)............... the list goes on. The general approach to crew/employee welfare / general respect level in the industry has taken a steep dive in recent years and unfortunately we have let it by continuing to accept it. In turn 'some' of the employers have taken this as normal.

1 in a million, maybe. Very sad indeed. Could it be prevented? The door/2 crew rule may not be the answer.

[Luke SkyToddler]

This hostie-to-the-cockpit rule achieves precisely 0.01% of SFA, the only reason they're doing it is because it doesn't cost anything to implement. Same for moving cockpit doors around and installing loos in flight decks and all these other bright ideas.

It just means the next guy won't do it in the cruise, he'll wait until he's on half a mile finals and shove the stick full forward. Or turn the engine masters off during initial climb. Or, if he wants to do it in the cruise, just stand up to get something from the coat rack and then garrot the skipper before continuing. Or one of a hundred other things he could do. A pilot who's determined to suicide will always find a way.

The best cure would be good, free, medical insurance, backed up by a company policy that will allow guys to take time off and get their head straight without fear of repercussions - or pay out a really good loss-of-licence cover in the event that they can't be recertified.

And it needs to be either government funded or legally mandated so that companies can't wriggle out of it.

[Ken Borough]

[QUOTE] pay out a really good loss-of-licence cover in the event that they can't be recertified./QUOTE]

Erm! Considering what's being discussed, that's not a very good turn of phrase.

Seriously, I think the best solution is the implementation of policy that's based on care, understanding and compassion. An anguished soul is, for whatever reason, entitled to no less. The 'onlooker' policy is window-dressing only being forced upon the airlines by a government desperate to be seen to be 'doing something' to protect the masses. It will not, and cannot, prevent a pilot from wanting to take himself, and his passengers, out.

Please look out for each other. Poor buggers are often driven to terrible acts as they think no one cares about them and no one is listening. :ok:

[Josh Cox]

This thread makes an interesting read, this horrible event has changed our industry.

I am surprised how many times the word "suicide" has been used.

"Suicide" is to take ones own life, intentionally taking 150 lives to make a point is mass murder.

To put it another way:

a "Sad" person will take their own life, be it, hot bath, pills, bullet or car into a tree.

A "Mad" person is one that will premeditate and execute unthinkable acts.

This jack ass is no different to someone that straps on a bomb vest or kills hostages in a coffee shop.

There is no fool proof litmus test to identify these people, they are smart, charming and controlled.

I believe the big issue is the narcissistic personality traits,,,,, "I'll show them" or "I'll change this industry".

The realities of the aviation industry, we need Type A behavior on flight decks, people able to act and that will not be crippled by stress or conflict.

There are statistics stating that approximately 1% of the population are psychopathathic / sociopathic personalities, I believe this number is much much higher in workplaces that draws Type A behaviors.

Take the test ( be honest ) : Sociopath Test (http://illnessquiz.com/sociopath-test/)

[Hempy]

I'm with you Josh Cox. Herr Lubitz is a mass-murderer, not 'suicidal'. If he just wanted to top himself he would have jumped off a bridge et al instead of taking 149 other people with him. There is more to this story than 'suicidal tendencies', the man was making a statement. What that statement is is yet to be discovered.

[Ollie Onion]

You assume he was actually mentally fit to be thinking straight at all. He wanted to top himself in such a way he would be remembered, doesn't mean he wanted to commit murder in the process. Would he be convicted in a court of law, I suspect he may have been found incompetent to stand trial, this was one sick individual. Just a shame that despite several instances of people having opportunities to intervene he was able to continue to operate.mthe sad thing is that instead of looking at how mental health in aviation is treated we are wasting our time ensuring we have a cabin crew member supervising to flight crew, true ambulance at the bottom of the cliff stuff.

[Derfred]

Josh,

I agree this is a great thread - unlike the main one on R&N.

I also agree that this person did not suffer from depression. Any connection with mental illness issues with pilots does not or should not include concerns about depression. Depression can be treated and in the case of pilots should be able to be treated without stigma or threat of loss of licence. It is stigma and threat of loss of licence that will prevent pilots from seeking the treatment that will help them.

Depression does not make one a mass murderer.

It is probably more interesting to look at the mental state of those who have committed mass murder/suicides in the past, such as the kids who shot up schools in the USA, or the muslim extremist suicide bombers. The pilot who has just been through a divorce and lost his house and kids is not your target.

Deep seated long term anger or agression is probably the area to be looking at.

However, I disagree with your vague conclusion that pilots are more likely to be sociopaths or psychopaths due to the personality types that are attracted to aviation. Commercial aviation is a "keeping people alive" game. Whilst some assertiveness is essential, it also involves a lot of humility and submission (to rules, SOPs, learning from mistakes and one's superiors), and is essentially quite boring compared to the gigs that usually attracts sociopaths or psychopaths.

This guy hadn't been in the game very long. That may be a factor.

[Aim Point]

Or maybe Narcissism:

Plane Crash in the Alps, Andreas Lubitz ? Narcissism, Not Depression | 360 Degrees of Mindful Living (http://blogs.psychcentral.com/mindful-living/2015/03/plane-crash-in-the-alps-andreas-lubitz-the-other-n-word/)

[Captain Nomad]

This guy hadn't been in the game very long. That may be a factor.

I'm surprised this hasn't come up more. I know it's different in Europe and they probably really don't want to go into this area as it is too uncomfortable and difficult as the ramifications would be considerable. In the USA that guy would simply not be on the flight deck with their 1,500hr rule. I was still flying aircraft with 2-6 seats with Lubitz's hours. I would hazard a guess that a great many of fellow Aussie pilots would be the same.

A disconnect from reality and a complete failure to identify and understand the gravity of consequences seems to be apparent with school shootings and other cold blooded mass murder type events. When the reality of things isn't quite the same as a video game it is no wonder individuals end up pointing the gun at themselves in the end.

One does have to wonder if the road into an airline cockpit had been longer and via a more 'traditional' route whether this would have occurred? There certainly would have been more time for problems to surface and be identified before a person reaches a position of great responsibility.

[Hempy]

Cpt Nomad, I said as much earlier
Do you think airlines hire 500hr pay to fly F/O's because it costs them more, or less??

....at least if the condition was with the pilot the whole time there is more chance of it being observed before he/she has 100+ souls in his/her care.and got shot down.

I agree whole-heartedly with your post.

[Luke SkyToddler]

Nice theory guys but if you look at the other murder-suicides that have occurred over the years, the theory doesn't really match the evidence

Silk Air was a hugely experienced ex military captain, Egypt Air the guy was a 12,000 hour FO, Mozambique a 9,000 hour captain.

[arkmark]

Snakecharma -- I think it's rather obvious if someone is down the back as you say or up the front. Generally crew in transit are not entering and exiting only from the cockpit unless they are on duty. There were plenty of spare seats in the cabin.

If they are on duty they aren't meant to be nibbeling from the galley in full view of PAX.

Now I may well be a dumb old retired LAME, with not much idea of what a pilot on duty should be doing up the front, but I reckon no matter how you blow smoke and mirrors up my arse this was just obviously wrong, and the airline condoned it.

If the airline didnt seek to find out who this crew member was and draw attention to the complaint -- as it didn't -- then it's promoting a poor culture of anything goes, and that's the kind of thing that leads to a 130 hour baby crashing an airliner as we have seen.

Now in a coronial inquiry should god forbid this have happened in Australia my letter of complaint would have been evidence.

Think about that before you discount so easily in the future dismiss such a serious complaint or you too could be sitting responsible for a disaster one day if you ever reach management level.

[donpizmeov]

Arkmark. Did you raise your concern with the pilot during the flight. Or just covertly film him to grass him out later on? If you had a true concern I am sure an ex LAME would have spoken up.

[Jonah Hex]

Arkmark, mind your own business.

[Snakecharma]

Arkmark with respect I think you are missing the point.

I might have a seat down the back but equally I might have a seat in the flight deck. If I am paxing on the jump seat I will spend some time out of the flight deck as boeing have managed to build the worlds most uncomfortable jump seats (well I would have up to last week).

To the casual observer it might look like one of the operating crew has come out and is skiving off chatting up a flight attendant.

As I was trying to say, things may not be as they appear.

[Ngineer]

Maybe they can block a toilet off for crew use only, and add a Joystick and EFIS display in there if required. Can't imagine that would be too hard to do.

[LeadSled]

Captain Nomad, Hempy,
You better steer clear of most European and SE Asian airlines, and increasingly ME carriers, as 250 h F/Os is the norm, and has been now for more than 40 years.
Tootle pip!!

[Servo]

Usually the biggest narcissists in any airline are the executive management. They control the lives of 1000's and will probably never have to do any psych testing.

You really think they give a rats arse about 150 people?? No.

Damage to the brand and bonuses are all they think about. They surround themselves with talkers, greasy pole climbers and individuals that only care about themselves.

Then you get to Flt Ops and it is worse!!

Some of the things I have personally witnessed in an airline would send a chill down your spine.

They dont want to hear it. They go to great lengths to make the problem go away by sweeping it under the table.

As bad as this tragedy was, I hope something good comes out of it. Not just some window dressing, fluffy emails about EAP's and all holding hands and singing kumbaya in NTS. I very much doubt it.

[wateroff]

Emails have been sent - with extra fluff, and lyrics to the song!