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

Airbus A320 crashed in Southern France

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

Airbus A320 crashed in Southern France

Old 28th Mar 2015, 06:05
  #2241 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Montreal
Age: 48
Posts: 71
Then the REAL problem here is the HEALTH of pilots.
Exactly. The most vulnerable part of the plane now is the mind and the mindset and the ideology of the pilot.
Now, just a supposition.
Unmanned ideology is even worse.
_Phoenix_ is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2015, 06:13
  #2242 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 7,641


Exactly. The most vulnerable part of the plane now is the mind and the mindset and the ideology of the pilot.
Nothing statistically supports that claim as being true.
737er is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2015, 06:16
  #2243 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 3,912
We heard so much on this thread that two crews on the flightdeck at any time was the standard in the USA and certain other carriers. However, it seems that was not completely right as United announced yesterday that they only now move to this policy on certain types (777/787). And even on Ryanair flights the reason is not to have two crews on the flightdeck, the airline is simply too cheap to install a video system.

I work for one of those carriers that had no two crew policy. However, in case of a video system malfunction or an electrical lock malfunction of course we had to use a two crew policy to keep at least one pilot in his seat at all times. Standard backup procedure. We move now to a full time two crew policy and i really feel much safer with that 19 year old non-background checked, zero hour contract part time FA behind me...

@Smokie: no, it isn't. That report bases on some right wing extremist blog in germany.
Denti is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2015, 06:17
  #2244 (permalink)  
ddd
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Paradise
Age: 56
Posts: 87
Thanks Doc.

So should there not be more emphases placed on pilot's medicals, maybe yearly psychological tests with their licence renewals?

Seeing that a A380 pilot now has the lives of more than 500 people in his hands?
ddd is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2015, 06:17
  #2245 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Doctor patient confidentiality laws

Client confidentiality laws usually have a let out clause if the doctor has reason to believe the patient might be a danger to themselves and/or others.
Nutwood is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2015, 06:22
  #2246 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 3,912
Why are some posters insistent on telling the world how the CDLS works? If you are in this game proffesionaly, you keep it to yourself.
That information is in the public domain anyway. You can download the full FCOM on smartcockpit or watch the airbus training videos on youtube.
Denti is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2015, 06:33
  #2247 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 7,641

I work for one of those carriers that had no two crew policy. However, in case of a video system malfunction or an electrical lock malfunction of course we had to use a two crew policy to keep at least one pilot in his seat at all times. Standard backup procedure. We move now to a full time two crew policy and i really feel much safer with that 19 year old non-background checked, zero hour contract part time FA behind me...
The real fallacy comes from the idea that 2 pilots on the flight deck can even prevent a determined nutcase at the controls from crashing the plane. There are many instances during any flight when the reaction of the sane pilot wouldnt come even close to being quick enough to save the plane.

We read stories about passengers going berserk on a monthly basis and trying to storm the cockpit. United had one last week.

Luftansa has one of the most extensive mental evaluations screening in the world, if not THE most extensive.

These are extremely rare and isolated occurences. Until we come up with a mind reading device, they will continue to be unpredictable and unpreventable.

Flying is safe. Pilots do a remarkable job. The mental weakness is mainly a societal collective one which is fear based and illogically reactive.

Here is the real issue:

Anxieties.com | How safe is commercial flight?
737er is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2015, 06:43
  #2248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 3,912
Denti: I'm not sure what you mean by 'background checked'. Was Lubitz 'background checked' and, if so, did it all impinge on his admittance to the cockpit? Obviously not. I'm a firm believer in the psycho-social factor of eyes...as in, you're less likely to act like a deviant if there are others watching you. Not foolproof, but there you go. In security, there's really no such thing as perfect. You just look for improvements. In my opinion 2 on FD is better than 1 on FD, even with imperfections.
Although that might be true, it now becomes extremely easy to reenact 9/11. Simply apply for a part time FA position, and you will be invited into the flightdeck with just one pilot there and a sharp axe right beside your jumpseat. Time will tell which is more likely, both are extremely remote possibilites.
Denti is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2015, 06:46
  #2249 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 7,641



Would it be possible for the other pilot to prevent a crash, keeping in mind that the suicidal pilot will fight the other pilot and try and prevent him from recovering the plane?
In the flight regime you discussed (as well as others) the answer is absolutely no.

Automation which can handle the dynamics of airline flight safer than pilots are a few decades out despite the diatribe sometimes asserted. Right now the automation as a tool to the pilot interface is the best we have and the best we will have for a long time to come. If folks realized the extent and frequency to which automation performs inadequately and has to be switched off, they would change their tune on the subject quickly.
737er is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2015, 07:00
  #2250 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 55
Posts: 356
I don't understand how you can claim that the health of the pilots is the 'real' problem, and at the same time claim that discussion of 2 on FD is a waste of time.


I have never said it is a waste of time. It is a reasonable measure as it will instil some public confidence and may have a small deterrent value.

I doubt it will thwart someone who is determined to crash the plane and who has a premeditated plan.

But it may prevent the sudden impulsive act. However I think impulsive act is incredibly rare, and all pilot "suicides" to date are premeditated.

The fact a struggle in the cockpit (subduing or removing the FA) will be captured on the CVR may be a deterrent - but only if trying to make it look accidental is important.

Last edited by slats11; 28th Mar 2015 at 07:19.
slats11 is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2015, 07:01
  #2251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 6
CokeZero: There are many, many possible scenarios of suicidal or psychopathic individuals breathing calmly while engaging in an act most would consider only possible in a 'heightened state'. His regular breathing is not at all inconsistent with his actions. Also, I don't think the hypoxia thesis holds much weight now. Set to FL 100 and no comm while capt banging on cockpit door...pretty damning. But yes, in the interests of objectivity, we should wait for full report.
Doc on board is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2015, 07:03
  #2252 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 7,641
Dualinput

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: 30k
Posts: 55
I don't think full automation (removing both pilots) is going to work. There would be various instances where human intervention will still be required. i.e diversions. If this is done remotely (from ground), imagine the risks we will expose ourselves to! Technologically and security wise. Imagine some radical group hacks all the airplanes in the sky as we speak! Scary!


Not to mention a myriad of other circumstances it simply can't handle and... hate to break it to everyone...but it's very unreliable in a relative sense. It needs constant monitoring much the same way as humans hand flying do and in many ways more.

It's a great tool in many situations. But thats all it is. That thing people say about "those things fly themselves" is pure malarkey.
737er is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2015, 07:10
  #2253 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Chissay en Touraine, France.
Posts: 36
Increasingly, it appears that the only salient detail of this mass murder is the mental state of one man, apparently hidden from his employer. And how he was able to execute this dreadful act, so easily, after biding his time, and waiting for his opportunity, which he knew would one day come.
Little thought seems to have been given on this thread to the friends and relations of 150 or so murdered innocents, who will have to live with the consequences of this dreadful act, for ever.
Wrong place, wrong time for them? Or is there a deep issue within aviation that allowed this to happen?
I'd gladly pay more for my air ticket, if it gave me demonstrable reassurance that the FD team were better scrutinised, and absolutely on top of their game, on the day that I take my seat.
ChissayLuke is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2015, 07:27
  #2254 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 15
@slats11: How are we calling AirAsia crash poor decision making? The complete facts are not even out yet.

Someone people have suggested that the cockpit door can remain open as long as the pilot is in the lav and a cart placed in the way of the aisle and the cockpit with a flight attendant guarding it. Wouldn't this be better than the 2 person rule?
mcdunav is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2015, 07:27
  #2255 (permalink)  
kwh
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Carmarthen
Posts: 60
I /imagine/ that one flight crew member having some kind of brain fart has been a problem in commercial cockpits for as long as there have _been_ commercial cockpits. The post war years into the 1960s when perhaps the majority of commercial aircrew in Europe were potential PTSD victims vulnerable to flashbacks from their last combat mission would seem to be a time when if this was ever going to be a problem, it would have been particularly acute... and yet we don't read about Constellations and DC6's being deliberately flown into mountains very often back in the day so what is different now?

Could it be the breach in the rule of three bought in by two person cockpits? As with flight management systems, two is plenty when both are working properly but you need three so that when one breaks down the other two find it easier to spot that there is a problem and can override the malfunctioning unit. Never mind the practical problem of only having one person on the flight deck when the other pilot goes to the toilet, if the guy was not firing on all cylinders prior to the point where he was left alone to do his worst, two people in the cockpit not in the midst of a mental breakdown might have been better placed to spot it than one on his own and instigate precautions that 99999 times out of 100000 would be completely unnecessary paranoia but once in a blue moon would prevent a tragedy...
kwh is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2015, 07:32
  #2256 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 7,641

Doc on board

Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 14
737er: Agree, we are a long, long way from fully automated. But, wouldn't that only support more eyes? Also, you really think it's impossible to correct massive input for CFIT from cruise? If it's at least possible, isn't it worth it?

Doc,

Not sure I understand what you mean by "more eyes". Please explain and I will give you my take.

As far as CFIT from cruise recovery, sure it's possible. But if a nutjob is bent on crashing the plane, then all we would be doing is changing the timing in which he accomplishes that.
737er is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2015, 07:33
  #2257 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 20
Originally Posted by Doc on board
737er: Agree, we are a long, long way from fully automated. But, wouldn't that only support more eyes? Also, you really think it's impossible to correct massive input for CFIT from cruise? If it's at least possible, isn't it worth it?
I hope the datalink to control the planes full of paying passengers are more reliable than the comms that go silent in certain parts of the country even when someone is not downstairs hacking at the cables.

I liked flying with three in the crew. It made things easier during emergencies and non-normals. Someone to fly, someone to read the procedure and someone to perform the procedure. Even in a two pilot aircraft using an augmented crew with an IRO in the seat during critical phases of flight. Still the sensible division of duties. We are concerned with safety, right?

That attempted hijacking that was thwarted by a three man crew had a better outcome than the four successful attempts that followed.
noalign is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2015, 07:43
  #2258 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 6
737er: Just meant that in an age when full automation was still considered too buggy for commercial flight, it would argue for a human failsafe, in this case an extra crew member on FD. And that includes the possibility of using physical force to deal with a rogue pilot. One good example is JAL 350, where the FO and FE overpowered the capt, and more survived (150) than would have had there been only one crew member on the FD.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. Have a great night all!
Doc on board is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2015, 07:45
  #2259 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The Wild West (UK)
Age: 40
Posts: 1,143
and yet we don't read about Constellations and DC6's being deliberately flown into mountains very often back in the day so what is different now?
Aircraft were being flown into mountains all the time though - far more than now. Black boxes were less sophisticated, or non-existent, so it would be harder to tell after the event what the cause of the accident actually was. And because there were so many more accidents from all the 'classical' pilot error and mechanical causes, as a proportion of the accidents they may have made up a smaller percentage and therefore been easier to dismiss.
abgd is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2015, 07:45
  #2260 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: GLCY
Posts: 6
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
TessCoe is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.