Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

In flight Pilot suicide

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

In flight Pilot suicide

Old 25th Jun 2008, 09:48
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Just to clarify a point regarding the FedEx attempted air piracy case:

In the FedEx flight 705 case, the perpetrator was an off-duty jumpseater who knew he was probably going to soon be the subject of a disciplinary termination. He planned it out in advance to fly as a crewmember with a different crew who he probably could have overcome more easily, but his flight day ran long the previous day and he was removed from the assignment. So he booked on as a jumpseater with every intention of commandeering the airplane by killing the crew, then taking over and crashing it into the company world headquarters. Fortunately for allot of people, flight crew David Sanders, Jim Tucker and Andy Peterson displayed amazing fortitude and airmanship in foiling his twisted plan and living tell about it.

As to the cameras, I feel that the negative effects noted in previous posts certainly outweigh any post accident investigative value which they might or might not have. The money would be better spent on hiring more high quality pilots in sufficient number to reduce the negative safety effects of crew fatigue.

I fly bizjets in the US and we have no labor organization to protect us against improper or unethical use of recorded flight data by company management. This is something which should always be remembered while flying, taxiing or talking. It's happened before that CVR downloads have been used improperly by company management as a means of eavesdropping on crewmembers for other than safety reasons. I have no doubt that video data would be too.

It's not simply a question of whether one is paranoid, but is one paranoid enough?

If the unions win at keeping them out of airliners, perhaps all of us will benefit.


Best regards,

Westhawk
westhawk is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2008, 10:58
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sixandthreeland
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What is the point of taking 20 million videos to try to catch and document one suicide attempt?

What do they expect to learn? It seems to me such a video has no useful purpose.

We all know it can possibly happen, we all know it is extremely rare, and we all know that it will or will not succeed and there is nothing the video can do about it. You spend money to solve safety problems that pose sufficient risk to warrant the expense. Of course, the real reason for the push isn't really crazy suicidal pilots. Its simply increased documentation of every accident that occurs.
Jaxon is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2008, 11:34
  #43 (permalink)  
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
At last- some pragmatic and common sense opinions from people in the industry who know the problems and what we are talking about!
Quite right- better use of cameras in:
cabins- terrorism is a problem. All areas to be covered please
outside use- studying aircraft structure
galleys- camera vital for keeping tabs on smoke incidents. Can anyone tell me why we do not have them installed in all galleys now to monitor hijack situations?
toilets-......blanch at that one a bit do we? Why not?- smoking in toilets KILLS. Hundreds have died because of that- I immediately remember a Varig 707 at Paris. I have had many instances of passengers smoking in toilets. IF it is such a safety feature having a camera in my private space on the FD, a camera in the john is FAR MORE beneficial! After all, if it's of proven safety benefit, who could POSSIBLY object? So get rid of that shyness- for safety reasons, I'm afraid we HAVE to have a vid in the bog to make sure nobody smokes!

Of course, we could be sensible and admit that as cameras on the FD don't prevent any accidents AT ALL, we would do better to spend that budget where it counts. I noticed there is a 800 metre long stretch of the A3 towards London that doesn't have a video camera on it at all! Perhaps that is because it is coned contraflow at the moment, like half the country.

Last edited by Rainboe; 25th Jun 2008 at 11:52.
Rainboe is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2008, 15:21
  #44 (permalink)  
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
While I am not saying your opinion is wrong, I find it interesting more the reaction and trying to work out the rationale behind the objection. I assume that every industry that went through the introduction of cameras into the workplace went through similar reactions, however they are now all using them and I guess doing so with little fuss.
Come out, come out wherever you are! So......cameras in the washrooms WILL prevent deaths. Let's not be shy.....why not install them? Cameras on the FD will not prevent deaths. Is there any case not to install vid in washrooms?
Rainboe is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2008, 19:06
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Москва/Ташкент
Age: 54
Posts: 922
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
As far as I recall hull losses from an uncontained fire originating from a washroom has been a total of... 2? A Varig 707 back in the 70's. Even then the cause was shown not to be a smoking passenger, and recall in those days passengers could smoke (so I believe).

The AC DC-9 I believe was a similar situation (electrical issues).
flash8 is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2008, 20:13
  #46 (permalink)  
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
People smoke there frequently. There have been many incidences of bin fires when butts have been disposed of there instead of down the john. Cameras in the washroom will still save more lives than on the flight deck. So where is the logic?
Rainboe is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2008, 20:41
  #47 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 76
Posts: 2,483
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Rainboe;
I don't think you'd get cameras in washrooms past the passenger groups, not to mention the FA's etc.

I'm assuming you've considered and dismissed the effectiveness of smoke detectors?

At least in the 320/340 series, the warning sets off the Master Warning and brings up a red ECAM warning -I assume the same level of warning is on all transport aircraft flying in Europe, NA, Australia NZ etc - (iow, excludes Africa and some parts of Asia) - there is no doubt about the warning, and the FA's inspect immediately as an SOP.
PJ2 is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2008, 21:28
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Gatwick
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
my best friend is BA LHR WW cabin crew--one of her main fears is that one day there WILL be a fire in the loo-she has checked the loos out many a time and found butts(the ciggie type!!) in the bin and the alarms covered over-THIS IS FRIGHTENING.
Charley B is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2008, 21:57
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Switzerland
Age: 70
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool

Hi,

Hmmm .. nailscutters not allowed aboard for safety reasons..... so ..will be difficult to not allow also any lighters ..matches or any tobacco aboard...?
This at least will put a end of the great danger of the fire started by smokers in toilets or any other places.

Regards.
NotPilotAtALL is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2008, 22:45
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Ireland
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think airline people are getting their jockeys in a twist over something which may never affect them. I don't know if they have changed their policy since but when I spent a forthnight with the NTSB in 2001 the only suggestion they had ever made about video cameras related to GA and other light aircraft which did not have FDRs and CVRs and, given the cost of installing them, would never have them. A relatively cheap Videa cam, on the other hand, could be aimed at the main instruments and dials to show what the aircraft was doing. GA crash investigators said this would solve a lot of problems for them and solve crashes more quickly and it became an official recommendation to the FAA somewhere along the line. Didn't see the Sky programme but it would be interesting to know in what context the NTSB guy was asked about video cameras. It could have been in a GA context but perhaps it was edited to make it look as though it were a blanket recommendation for all aircraft.
talent is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2008, 23:23
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Esher, Surrey
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Air Botswana incident from Wikipedia

On 11 October 1999, an Air Botswana captain, Chris Phatswe, boarded a parked ATR 42 aircraft (tail number: A2-ABB) at Khama International Airport in the early morning and took off. Once in the air, he asked by radio to speak to President Festus Mogae, Air Botswana's general manager, the station commander, the central Gaborone Police station and his girlfriend, among others. Because the president was out of the country, he was allowed to speak to Vice President Seretse Ian Khama. In spite of all attempts to persuade him to land and discuss his grievances, he stated he was going to commit suicide by crashing into some planes on the apron. After a total flying time of about two hours, mostly circling the airport, he did two loops and then crashed at 200 knots (230 mph) into Air Botswana's two other ATR 42s that were parked on the apron. Phatswe was killed but there were no other casualties. Airline sources say the pilot had been grounded on medical reasons, refused reinstatement and regrounded until February 2000. Air Botswana operations were crippled, as the airline temporarily had only a single aircraft left, a BAe-146, which was grounded at the time with technical problems
beamender99 is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2008, 01:36
  #52 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,089
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PJ2 - smokers can be a bit like alcholics, very crafty, very devious when it comes to flouting regulations in order to get a smoke. As CharleyB has said, they cover the smoke detectors and prevent them from working, a device that can detect this kind of interference would be a help.
parabellum is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2008, 04:25
  #53 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 76
Posts: 2,483
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
parabellum, copy Rainboe;
I can't disagree with your comment re craftiness and smoking on board - seen it, had the warnings in the cockpit. I do know that along with smoke detectors, lav waste bins do have automatic fire extinguishing equipment in the waste bin, (no cockpit indications of discharge).

Unless proof for prosecution is the intent, I can't say that I see the effectivenes of lav video cameras however, and if crafty addicts can cover smoke detectors, they can vaseline lenses too.

Someone hit on the key item - security is a PITA for most and most complain of its ineffectiveness, (not saying it's actually ineffective - we don't know...), so let's make it seen to be meaningful as it levels the playing field - smoking materials are far more dangerous than 99.99% of all items now taken away at security. You can't take bottled water onto an airplane but you can take a lighter. And why stop there?,.... Confiscate all smoking materials - The TSA don't care about the huge losses incurred by passengers from tossing all those fancy over-100ml perfume/cologne bottles and the expensive wines you didn't want to pack for fear of breakage...so just take away the cigarettes, lighters and other smokable materials at the same time. It's a smoke-free society, so the sympathy is there to deal with smokers in the same tough way that security deals with smugglers of bottled water. I think passenger advocacy groups would support that before they'd support lav cameras...
PJ2 is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2008, 05:20
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 1°21'10.20"N - 103°56'36.21"E
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
smoke detectors..

Idle thoughts ..

in my previous jaunts, I did apprentice work for a company doing fire alarms onboard ships..... and our alarm systems had a mechansim that if the Infra Red flame detector is blocked or the wiring gets disconnected, it triggers a "nearly fire" alarm, the difference being the alarm goes 'woop, woop' instead of regular alarm of non-stop alarm. And new people on board will crap not knowing if to evacuate or wait for further instruction ...

Same for smoke detectors ...

Well, maybe a 2 cent suggestion - wouldnt infra red flame detectors work better on board aircraft, coupled with a cheap line of site sensor to detect obstruction of the sensor ?

From the trainings I attended I remember the rule - if the smoke alarm goes off, don float coats, and jump ship, cos by the time the smoke reaches the ceiling and triggers the alarm, it is too late to be a hero and use a fire extinguisher

If you have seen safety videos, the time for a bin to catch fire and set the whole house ablaze can be fast in ideal circumstances. ... scary

If the infra red detector is available, and detects, in conjunction with the smoke detector, there is wee bit hope for a possible action to save the ship.
ecureilx is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.