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 30th Mar 2015, 18:54
  #2701 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 9,610
Originally Posted by topoftheloop View Post
There are some incorrect technical statements, obviously the author is not an aviation specialist.
He seems also to have a problem with the English language, being under the impression that "accusation" and "evidence" are synonymous.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2015, 19:35
  #2702 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: lisboa
Age: 43
Posts: 22
Slats 11

Maybe screening at airports is now good enough the bomb proof doors are no longer necessary. 9/11 was a game changer, weakly armed hijackers probably can't get control of a plane again, and there have been several incidents thwarted by passengers. So maybe we need to revisit the issue of cockpit security.
I agree. But it will never happen. The US would rather see 100 full loaded planes go down than one hit the White House.
marie paire is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2015, 20:03
  #2703 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 185
It is the prosecutor's job to launch an accusation if he thinks there is some data making this possible ! It is a lawyer's job to argue that this data isn't convincing. A trial will decide. Saying such a process is ridiculous seems to me... rather strange (I wouldn't like to say ridiculous, because I suppose things are working differently in other countries ; please do not fall in this US tendency saying that "if you don't do things like we do, it means you haven't still found the right way").
It's ridiculous (to me being UK based) because the whole point about aircraft investigations is that witness testimony is protected from being passed on to law enforcement agencies in the UK - i.e. aviation safety is placed above criminal proceedings. Clearly it's different in France. The reason for this is simple - if you screw up and are going to be prosecuted for it, then you are going to cover it up if there is a danger you will be locked up, hence every pilot would stay silent in any investigation in case they might be accused of a "crime".

So yes the French system does indeed appear to be different, but not for the better as far as flight safety is concerned some would argue.
Rushed Approach is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2015, 20:12
  #2704 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 23
Min. of two on flight deck.

If I had a pound or dollar for every mention of "knee-jerk" in this context I'd be much better-off.I truly believe that this reaction is not so.The argument has been most probably finely balanced and this event was the tipping-point in Europe.
When the .38/45 and mega-Joule-proof doors came in,it fell to the lot of some of us to come up with a satisfactory procedure.The reason some airlines went for a minimum of two might have been the same as mine:I could not accept the idea of one pilot,on their own,behind something notionally impenetrable.I was coming from the standpoint of overall safety for all on board by having another pair of hands and eyes available-no algorithms,no statistics.Cabin crew are well trained and resourcful.
Cantiflas is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2015, 20:19
  #2705 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 185
You display no clue about French legal process, yet choose to be critical of it.

The question of a "crime" or not is not relevant. I explained earlier that when a life has been lost, the "Procureur" for the relevant district opens an "instruction" I explained this in an earlier post ( Iwould quote the post number, but because of deletions, the number keeps changing)

Here 150 lives were lost.

The Procureur (please note the different vocabulary; "Procureur" is not the same thing as "prosecutor"), is obliged to open a case and be open with the public and with all concerned parties.

The Procureur is not investigating the technical aspects; BEA do that. They brief him, and he applies his required public duty to what follows.

He does not have "gut feelings" and as such they are neither subjective nor not so.

Just to be clear, because you seem not to have grasped it. When a death has occurred, the Procureur opens a case. It does not ergo facto mean that there is a suspicion of a crime having been committed.

The, in due course, BEA investigations and reports become part of the "instruction"

Got it now?
Thanks for the patronising reply.

In which case he doesn't need to pass subjective judgments as to what is "likely" to have happened does he? Thought not. Got it?
Rushed Approach is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2015, 20:19
  #2706 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Durham
Age: 57
Posts: 182
You cannot treat anyone until a diagnosis is made, or at least symptom control or empirical treatment. Its quite possible to attend a clinic or hospital for investigations and not be treated. I understand that in this instance, there is an attendance at a clinic for an eye problem.

It is not unusual for someone to present with a physical set of symptoms which either consciously or unconsciously cause the person to go to a doctor.

Conscious or deliberate attendance? Perhaps the person wanted to speak to a doctor but his employment would put him in some kind of jeopardy if he reported mental difficulties. Best go to the doctor with en eye problem?
mercurydancer is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2015, 20:24
  #2707 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 809
The fact that this guy has put a whole plane into a mountain suggests that there is much more than depression at play here.
Exactly right, it seems to be along the same lines as those wanting to go out in some sort of twisted glory logic that they will know my name. I would suggest it gets group in the mass shootings type of thing.

There are possible reasons for this phenomena but this thread is not the place to discuss.
rh200 is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2015, 20:27
  #2708 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,189
Originally Posted by Rushed Approach View Post
It's ridiculous (to me being UK based) because the whole point about aircraft investigations is that witness testimony is protected from being passed on to law enforcement agencies in the UK - i.e. aviation safety is placed above criminal proceedings. Clearly it's different in France. The reason for this is simple - if you screw up and are going to be prosecuted for it, then you are going to cover it up if there is a danger you will be locked up, hence every pilot would stay silent in any investigation in case they might be accused of a "crime".

So yes the French system does indeed appear to be different, but not for the better as far as flight safety is concerned some would argue.
I actually doubt that very much, do you seriously think that if you deliberately caused the death of 149 people in UK, and the evidence is plain on the CVR that you did it and you are still flying happily with the airline that the AAIB would not pass that evidence to the police? Of course they would pass all the evidence to the police or they would be criminally liable themselves.
There is a huge difference between an accident due to human error and a deliberate crash.
Ian W is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2015, 20:29
  #2709 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 6
You cannot treat anyone until a diagnosis is made, or at least symptom control or empirical treatment. Its quite possible to attend a clinic or hospital for investigations and not be treated. I understand that in this instance, there is an attendance at a clinic for an eye problem.

It is not unusual for someone to present with a physical set of symptoms which either consciously or unconsciously cause the person to go to a doctor.

Conscious or deliberate attendance? Perhaps the person wanted to speak to a doctor but his employment would put him in some kind of jeopardy if he reported mental difficulties. Best go to the doctor with en eye problem?

Classic is the diabetics in the UK - plenty of type 2 DM HGV drivers who are fine so long as they are aware of the potential problems of one or two of the drugs. However some Type 2's end up up on insulin and that is a no no for the HGV licence - hence some reluctance to attend for monitoring of the condition.
montague is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2015, 20:29
  #2710 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,752
I'm a little bemused by the regular references to US cockpits and the strength of their 1500hr rule. That rule isn't exactly something that has been kicking around for too long and, if the jungle drums are to be believed, was implemented as a (knee jerk) reaction to the Colgan crash.

Sooooo, I'm not sure the example is mature enough to be quoted as why things are better over the western side of the Atlantic.
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2015, 20:35
  #2711 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: France
Posts: 29
@Rushed Approach
It's ridiculous (to me being UK based) because the whole point about aircraft investigations is that witness testimony is protected from being passed on to law enforcement agencies in the UK - i.e. aviation safety is placed above criminal proceedings. Clearly it's different in France. The reason for this is simple - if you screw up and are going to be prosecuted for it, then you are going to cover it up if there is a danger you will be locked up, hence every pilot would stay silent in any investigation in case they might be accused of a "crime".

So yes the French system does indeed appear to be different, but not for the better as far as flight safety is concerned some would argue.
Ok, systems are different. Yours (UK) might also have problems IMHO :
take the case of a serious medical error, or suppose an innocent is put in jail, do you think that in order to improve the efficiency of these jobs in the future, one should also stay silent ? We all tend to ask truth about faults made by others, and aren't very prompt to tell it when the problem is on our side.
Alain67 is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2015, 20:40
  #2712 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Back in the NorthWest
Age: 72
Posts: 111
CGB

Requirements change with time and demand but at my airline selection interview, about 30 years ago, ALL of the applicants had 4-jet time (some of 'em 8 jets ). This was far above the airlines published basic requirements but I guess that if you pay the wages you get to select the employees.
BOING is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2015, 20:49
  #2713 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 185
I would point out that we do not know that IF a pilot was in the cabin he ever entered the emergency code. As far as I know, it is not possible for the airline to disable the emergency code option (the FCOM doesn't indicate so), so the assertion by the quoted individual from Germanwings does not make sense in saying that this option was not available. If a pilot was out of the flight deck, he and the rest of the crew could have forgotten the code (or have been told a different one to that which was programmed) which might explain why it was never entered.

I suspect the Germanwings aircraft did not have a physical "deadbolt" fitted, so that's another red herring.

Bilt mentions a GPWS "Sink Rate" warning on the CVR supposedly shortly after a pilot left the flight deck, yet this is an approach/go-around mode that you would not expect to be triggered at all in the scenarios discussed on here thus far.
Rushed Approach is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2015, 20:55
  #2714 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 185
I actually doubt that very much, do you seriously think that if you deliberately caused the death of 149 people in UK, and the evidence is plain on the CVR that you did it and you are still flying happily with the airline that the AAIB would not pass that evidence to the police? Of course they would pass all the evidence to the police or they would be criminally liable themselves. There is a huge difference between an accident due to human error and a deliberate crash
The point that you seem to be having extreme difficulty in grasping, is that what is "deliberate" cannot be determined until a proper investigation has concluded. Therefore if you want the best flight safety system, the quid pro quo is that you must assume those involved are innocent until proven guilty.

Otherwise you compromise the whole reporting system.
Rushed Approach is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2015, 20:56
  #2715 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,340
Denti said

"Isn't video surveillance standard? In europe, with the exception of ryanair, it certainly is. Without video surveillance there was always a second person required on the flightdeck anyway."

It appears that "exemptions" are/were available from certain national aviation authorities that have not (until this event ) mandated a 2nd Bod in the cockpit.
captplaystation is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2015, 21:12
  #2716 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 66
Posts: 172
Determining "deliberate"; compromising reporting system?

But Rushed Approach, a number of well-informed and experienced posters have pointed out, that the law enforcement authorities must, in the appropriate case, take steps to preserve evidence, and in the French system, to open a proceeding in the nature of an enquiry into the circumstances of the fatalities (if I understand what has been said about France's system). But - as I read your objection - this tends to undercut, or even guts, the premise of the reporting system (a system which has served the overall civil aviation enterprise so well for so long, it must be noted). Is there not a hybrid, a combination, an integrative and accommodative principle here, which mitigates to a great extent against the harms to the reporting system you have invoked? I think there is: the vast, vast majority, if not literally all, of licensed Air Transport aviators will understand that in this matter, the Germanwings disaster, the law enforcement authorities had a duty to preserve evidence and open an enquiry - because this is so totally different than the types of mishaps, incidents, and even crashes which the confidentiality system for reporting is designed both to motivate, and protect. I am not arguing here, from the primacy of the criminal or quasi-criminal laws applicable in France (though they do trump even the reporting system, in my understanding). I am, however, arguing that the reporting system remains intact, because aviators with ATP licenses - having completed so much training and having such high standards of professionalism - know intuitively as well as logically that the actions of the law enforcement authorities were triggered by the highly unique situation confronting world civil aviation on the slopes of the Alps, sadly.
WillowRun 6-3 is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2015, 21:17
  #2717 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: uk
Age: 69
Posts: 72
Screening for Malicious Intent

Armoured doors, door codes, cameras, video surveillance, live telemetry, 2 persons in the flight deck, 200ml of yoghurt, toothpaste, soup etc etc.

I believe all are missing the point. If one of the people at the controls of a conventionally controlled aircraft (e.g. B737, B757 etc ) has malicious intent, he/she could have the wings off before the other pilot could do anything to stop it. I don't know whether the flight envelope protection on an Airbus would prevent the above.

So, truly the only way to prevent a recurrence is more rigorous psychiatric screening of flight deck personnel.

Brace yourselves folks!
36050100 is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2015, 21:33
  #2718 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Istanbul
Posts: 9
The point that you seem to be having extreme difficulty in grasping, is that what is "deliberate" cannot be determined until a proper investigation has concluded. Therefore if you want the best flight safety system, the quid pro quo is that you must assume those involved are innocent until proven guilty.

Otherwise you compromise the whole reporting system.
Hence why its always noted that the purpose of an aircraft accident investigation is to find the root causes and not to dish out blame. Once you start blaming people the system turns against you next time you are doing an investigation, as those involved refrain from sharing information due to the fear that they will be assigned blame for the loss of life/craft.

So, truly the only way to prevent a recurrence is more rigorous psychiatric screening of flight deck personnel.
To what extent and how often? The thing with psychiatric issues is that it is too random to catch. A 45 year old pilot with no history of any such issues can snap and take his aircraft down with all souls on board as a result. Not very likely? Well consider how many pilots fly daily around the world on how many flights. How likely is it that GW or any other airline was going to go down due to the alleged suicide attempt? A very low likelihood in terms of probability. Maybe not as good as for someone with a history of mental issues but never-the-less too damn good odds to not inconvenience the 99.9% of pilots that fly just as frequently as the F/O did, break up with their girlfriends or get a divorce, etc. and don't feel the need to dive for the mountains with the plane they're commandeering with monthly sanity/stability tests for airline pilots.

As mentioned earlier, where does it stop? Psych evals before each flight?
turker339 is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2015, 21:34
  #2719 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Thanks for the patronising reply.
Patronising if you wish, Factual, though.

Unlike your "I suspect the Germanwings aircraft did not have a physical "deadbolt" fitted, so that's another red herring.

Pure supposition on your behalf.
wings folded is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2015, 21:52
  #2720 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 70
Posts: 557
There has been much discussion of the roles of the French Prosecutor and the French Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la sécurité de l'aviation civile and whether it was competent for the Prosecutor to pre-empt the air accident investigation. Comment has been made that things are different in the UK.

If this link is correct, there has only ever been one criminal prosecution in the UK of a professional pilot as a result of their actions whilst in command of an aircraft being used for the purposes of commercial air transport and that was in 1991. The incident giving rise to the prosecution was in fact never investigated by the AAIB, but instead by the pilot's employer, British Airways, and the Civil Aviation Authority.

B741, British Airways, London Heathrow UK, 1989 (Legal Process - Flight Crew) - SKYbrary Aviation Safety
roving 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.