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 2nd Apr 2015, 10:16
  #2901 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 6,000
sn't there an argument that in this case, The FO commited suicide he didn't actually murder the PAX. His actions may have led to the death of 150 people but he would have disassociated himself from that.

After all he waited until the captain was out of the FD. He didn't grab the AXE and kill him personally.
If the voice recordings are accurate and the girlfriend statements too this would appear to be a pre meditated murder, thought out and coldly planned awaiting the right time which would mean also thought out over the loss of life his actions would cause.
very different to an on the spur of the moment action by an individual flipping and not considering the outcome on others in his care
Pace is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 10:44
  #2902 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: jersey
Age: 70
Posts: 1,147
GXER

The decision to impose a "2 in the cockpit at all times" policy is, though understandable, a thoroughly "knee jerk" reaction by authorities etc. who "have to be seen doing something" - no matter that it only complicates the situation & does not, necessarily , do anything to increase cockpit security.
It is, for the reason that it does not guarantee anything effective to avoid or overcome the problem, & for the fact that it was hastily (& unthinkingly) set up," Kneejerk".
It is unthinking because 1) it introduces another person to the cockpit (who might, in fact, be the perpetrator of this kind of action), 2)that person may be physically unable to overcome the remaining pilot, 3) that person is totally unqualified to recognise a problem caused by the remaining pilot's actions 4) &, unable to take corrective action, 5) make matters worse, 6) far from your simple explanation of being able to open the door for the returning pilot- be totally incapable of doing even that.
Indeed, I should imagine that such a person's presence & influence would be limited to a very slight deterrent to a pilot with such intent.
What do you really expect a lady stewardess, or a weakly built steward, or a lady pilot to physically be able to do to stop a more powerful (& technically capable) pilot from doing what he is suicidally bent on doing !?
The only way a third person in the cockpit would be reliably capable of stopping such actions would be if HE was a type rated, physically superior, pilot ( & then preferably if there were 2 of them - one to overcome the "suicidal pilot" & the other to correct his actions & fly the a/c).
Otherwise, forget it !
These sort of problems need calm, careful, reflective & exhaustive examination & problem solving to overcome. The whole history of the reaction to this terrible disaster & the piecemeal release of information by the investigators have complicated the very investigation that is taking place. It may even have jeopardised an eventual objective outcome ! (By releasing facts & info. ehich should not be in the public domain.
Certainly, I prefer the DLH Chief Executive's more measured approach & reaction - even if he may have appeared a little insensitive at times !
kcockayne is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 11:08
  #2903 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Swansea
Posts: 61
the ONLY reason (repeat ONLY) for the presence of a 'replacement' person during any brief absence by one of the two pilots would be to over-ride the authority of the pilot-in-command at the time regarding door operation.

Is that what all these folk intend? Making a member of cabin crew 'Captain' seems a strange, illogical solution.
Not least because it requires that CC member to make a quick, accurate, on-the-fly diagnosis of the difference between a calm co-pilot intent on crashing the aircraft while the captain hammers on the door overcome by desperation (GermanWings, apparently) and a calm co-pilot intent on saving the aircraft while the captain hammers on the door overcome by delusion (JetBlue, as I understand).

How? Why would someone with those skills be CC, not printing money in Harley Street?
DespairingTraveller is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 11:36
  #2904 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,425
What if there had been a cabin crew in with Lubitz and he told her the captain was being weird and not to let him back in....
Interesting point! He then tells her/him that he's going to divert and commences a descent. By the time she/he realises what is really happening it's too late!
Hotel Tango is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 11:43
  #2905 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Cohoes, NY
Posts: 23
@BOING

We can question that logic but to the designers of the system it probably seemed eminently sensible.
Of course the assumption on which that logic was totally based, now shown to be incorrect, is that "hijackers" always start out outside the door. Obvious in retrospect (and not impossible to imagine prospectively) is that mental illness, post-hypnotic suggestion, the deception of a sleeper, and other such non-physical (mental) methods of incursion are impervious to a physical lockout.

That realization is also why the 2-person rule is at best a half-measure of address -- once a mental danger enters the cockpit by any means, all bets are off.
jientho is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 12:14
  #2906 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Europe
Posts: 5
More idiotic responses

Unless we all get together, pilots, crew, unions, and passengers, our rights will be only a faint twinkle of the freedom they once held.

Now the German Interior Minister wants to require passports of all passengers flying in the Schengen Zone. Of course. Because this has absolutely nothing to do with the Germanwings flight. I'm sure if we put small cages over the seats and only allow people to move about when connected to a random stranger, the skies will be safe once again.

*Facepalm*



Nach Germanwings-Unglück - De Maizière erwägt Ausweispflicht bei Schengen-Flügen - Politik - Süddeutsche.de
Isotope Toast is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 12:29
  #2907 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,629
Having read most of the posts on here over the last few days, I cant remember seeing anywhere an idea which, although another knee-jerk reaction, just may be useful in the future.

At the moment, in the UK for example, I can go to my GP and be deemed quite unwell and be signed off from work. Now, if I don't tell my employer, and have a valid, recent Class 1 medical, then I can continue to fly as long as I am able to do so (valid class 1 medical) until either I die, or i'm caught out somehow.
Now I may be able to pass the Class 1 medical because they arent necessarily looking for things which may not flag up on the Class 1. So, as professioanl pilots, why cant we have something akin to taxing a car in the UK. To tax your car you need to have valid insurance and a valid MOT (roadworthy condition report). Without them you cant get the road tax.
So, why not have a stipulation added. Say at a cost of approximately £20 per letter, whereby a professional pilot has to go to his GP and request a letter stating that for the previous 12 months he has had no visits to the doctors for what could be a set of issues ie mental/serious physical. This letter can be emailed by the gp, using the pilot ref number, to the CAA medical branch and entered onto the file of the pilot in question.
Then when going to have the Class 1 medical, (nowadays the AME has access to the CAA information) they can issue that Class 1 medical after checking the letter is all satisfactory and there have been no issues which may preclude you from being deemed fit enough to fly.
If it transpires that there may be something which needs further clarification, then the Class 1 could be witheld for say 14 days until the facts are found or if it warrants further investigation.


I know it isnt a fix for the issue if someone really wants to take out an airliner, but as a professional pilot, i'd quite happily sign up to this, I have nothing to hide, and it just adds another layer of assurance to the system at minimal cost.
helimutt is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 12:37
  #2908 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 6,000
Another poster saw no difference between this flight crew member and a terrorist
in many ways he is correct, both through their actions one a badly disturbed mind the other radical religious beliefs have carried out evil deeds with similar consequences.
The door designed and placed there to protect the flight crew from intrusion by a terrorist has worked in the opposite direction by allowing a flight crew (terrorist) to refuse entry to the Captain who could have saved this situation had it not been for the door.
There was probably little perceived threat that the terrorist would be within and the door systems were designed around the fact that the terrorist would be outside the flight deck in the cabin.
This act has highlighted a demonstrated threat and as with all demonstrated threat the authorities have to minimise that risk.
that demonstrated threat has shown that terrorism can and has worked both ways so the system has to be redesigned to take into account a threat from both directions and this is probably the biggest lesson to learn from this awful crash not so much the nature of the terrorist whether radical religious or disturbed flight crew. We are talking about the same thing! A terrorist on an aircraft.
Pace is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 12:40
  #2909 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 54
Another Hypothesis

I was just remembering that the Captain of AirAsia 8501 had deactivated the flight computer before crashing, possible as a response to AF 447 where the interaction of pilot and computer made the aircraft difficult to comprehend.

Perhaps Lubitz is responding to MH 370 (theory of high altitude decompression), by putting the oxygen mask on after something happened up there. And then it all went wrong.

Is there confirmation that Lubitz is actively locking the door with the switch every time there is an entry code? Or is there no such confirmation?

With all the high visibility reporting and hypothesising of these events, perhaps pilots are trying to learn and respond differently.
rideforever is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 12:43
  #2910 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,045
So, why not have a stipulation added. Say at a cost of approximately £20 per letter, whereby a professional pilot has to go to his GP and request a letter stating that for the previous 12 months he has had no visits to the doctors for what could be a set of issues ie mental/serious physical. This letter can be emailed by the gp, using the pilot ref number, to the CAA medical branch and entered onto the file of the pilot in question.
But the pilot will just go private (as used to happen in, say, the military) for "concerns" he wishes to keep off the radar?
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 12:43
  #2911 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,341
I have been watching the hamster wheel for the last few pages, only Pace seems to have alluded to the one thing that really matters and that is 'Perception' by the SLF that pay the airline's operating costs including front and rear crew wages.

Whether the aviation industry likes it or not ( and "not" seems to be the flavor here) the traveling public is starting to mistrust the industry. It is unfair but TSA and security worldwide is lumped into 'the industry' too. Now they have seen that one of the skygods has feet of clay and has apparently killed a planeful of people around the 1st anniversary of MH370 which seems to be a similar event. They are scared by all this whether you think that is unreasonable or not and you can quote statistics and Bayesian priors at them as much as you like they will just become more scared.

Something else that is with that feeling of unease is a creeping loss of trust in the flight crew. Repeated arguments against video recording or streaming recording data (regardless of the merits of the arguments as this is perception) add to the loss of trust. This is the same illogical loss of trust that some people here are exhibiting against flight attendants in the cockpit who also make your coffee and bring you water which you happily drink.

The problem with trust is you cannot 'take someone's trust' they have to give trust to you. Once the industry loses the trust of the public it will be extremely difficult to get it back. So some of the positions taken here such as only 6 aircraft have crashed killing pax in the last few years because of pilot action this is a minute number compared to the number of flights - are unassailable logically but do not regain trust because the passengers are thinking about sitting in a seat knowing they are going to die in the next few seconds and being unable to do anything about it. They put this in the group of hazards that may be very low risk but which are totally unacceptable. As alluded to further up-thread, the GW event also means that had he wanted to he could have flown on and chosen a town to crash into - so the locked door actually allows another 9/11.

The point of this post is that glib - its the SLF/management/politicians/regulators not understanding or making knee jerk reactions and it's not a problem ... miss the point entirely. I think that this crash is going to have a big effect on the industry. So, it is essential that sensible decisions are made but the professionals will not be there to help that decision making process if they abstain from it because they don't realize how far reaching it could be and that they cannot stop that decision process happening that will affect everyone in aviation especially front and rear crew.

I think that Lubitz was right when he said his actions will change aviation. Think about perception and trust and be there to make sure the changes are sensible from that viewpoint too.
Ian W is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 13:00
  #2912 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 54
one thing that really matters and that is 'Perception
It's not just an air travel thing, the internet has changed everything. Society goes from scandal to scandal. And there are many alternative views of events; for instance a cargo of highly flammable Lithium Batteries on MH 370.

Recently even mainstream media have been gently probing the flight computers of Airbus. It is important for Airbus to wrap up any crash investigations quickly before the media's interest snowballs.
rideforever is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 13:01
  #2913 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 3,979
Can we completly discount the benifit of the deterrent effect on an unstable mind of a second person in the cockpit?
No, we can't. In this singular case. The next case will be different.

So, it is essential that sensible decisions are made but the professionals will not be there to help that decision making process if they abstain from it because they don't realize how far reaching it could be and that they cannot stop that decision process happening that will affect everyone in aviation especially front and rear crew.
I do agree. And yes, of course the professionals will be in that process, or at least try to be heard. Interestingly enough the relevant minister in germany is already talking about removing that dreaded door altogether. That of course will never be possible in the US and probably the UK neither. As always, the decision process will take a lot longer than the limelight of the public will on it and there is a chance that cooler heads will prevail once the politicians and the press have something juicier to talk about.
Denti is online now  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 13:03
  #2914 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,045
Can we completely discount the benefit of the deterrent effect on an unstable mind of a second person in the cockpit?
I would say no - it cannot be completely discounted, but nor should it be over-emphasised. It is but one factor to add to the "mix" that a complete risk-assessment requires, and would need expert opinion.

I agree with Ian W that the ramifications of this will be felt and perception will play a part. The press are publishing some more balanced articles, including that "2 on Flt Deck" is not necessarily a good thing. Both the BEA, and now Germany, have announced "reviews" of the main factors.

What I am awaiting is the realisation that the basis for this Co-Pilot being on the aircraft was the regulator, not the airline Eventually LH will get bored of being blamed, and state who is responsible for, and issued a certificate for, his medical "fitness".
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 13:34
  #2915 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 6,000
So, why not have a stipulation added. Say at a cost of approximately £20 per letter, whereby a professional pilot has to go to his GP and request a letter stating that for the previous 12 months he has had no visits to the doctors for what could be a set of issues ie mental/serious physical. This letter can be emailed by the gp, using the pilot ref number, to the CAA medical branch and entered onto the file of the pilot in question.
Helimut

Do you not think that where a persons livelihood career could be at stake that making such moves would not drive these pilots away from the GP?
Surely such highlighting would create a situation where a pilot dealing with a divorce or financial problems will go through it on his/her own by being forced into alternative medicine, Hypnosis or other secret treatments so as to keep their GP records clean when the system should be encouraging the opposite a witch hunt against pilots using a broad brush is NOT the answer. We do not even know what specific mental issue the FO had which would allow him to premeditate a suicide and murder of [ 150 ] people? I would think that was unusual
I am not medically qualified but imagine you need to identify the personality trait that can commit mass murder,identify and target that specific condition and yes remove those people who can harm others from the pilot bank

Last edited by Pace; 2nd Apr 2015 at 15:30.
Pace is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 14:16
  #2916 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,131
Originally Posted by xollob View Post
There are lots and lots of possible outcomes other than the FO.

Decompression incapacitation (is a320 O2 generators in cabin, perhaps wreckage can establish if they had activated). Perhaps forgot to put mask on before initiating descent, planning to not open door till MSA or 10k as per SOP (if that is SOP) captain banking on door to come in might not be SOP to come in in a decomp. If more genuine footage does materialise then state of cabin can help asses if rubber jungle was down.
Medical incapacitation of FO
Door mechanism not working - why haven't they released CVR of door alert opening tone ?
Captain not knowing correct code for re-entry ?
Aircraft doing an uncommanded descent as per other recent A320 ?
Perhaps an electrical situation which reset the MCP modes and altitudes (I dont know what MCP default alt is on airbus when powered up)
A/P disconnect
Defect Situation that threw a/p out
Coffin corner
Window blow out
Another technical defect
Highly stressed FO due to a distraction, not hearing door re-entry (hearing goes first under stress)
Even though there are relatively few undisputed facts known so far, they are already sufficient to cast doubt on at least some, if not most, of those scenarios.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 14:21
  #2917 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: England
Posts: 8
For all those putting up theoretical reasons not to make any changes to the "one person in the cockpit" situation, two facts:

1. All 6 of the most recent pilot killing / suicides took place while one person was alone in the cockpit.

2. In the same time period not a single pilot killing / suicide has taken place on a US airline where "one person in the cockpit" is not permitted at any time.

Adopting a policy that has clearly worked is a sensible, measured and appropriate response to this, the sixth mass pilot killing since 1994 and the third in three years.
McRotor96 is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 14:51
  #2918 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: NUTTER IN VECC
Age: 55
Posts: 24
@IanW

I think that this crash is going to have a big effect on the industry.
I wonder if it will. It will have, and already has had, a big effect on the psyche of SLF and crew alike. From a crew perspective, people will be thinking about those they have flown with in the past and those they do fly with now (I always had misgivings about X...., etc). And from a pax perspective, people will imagine themselves in the situation of those unfortunate GW passengers and think, there but for grace of God go I. As you say, it's all to do with perceptions.

The way news is consumed these days means that it won't be long before such fears are subsumed and softened by the next major story of relevance to its audience. And the severity of those perceptions - although they won't disappear entirely - will reduce and be filed, mentally and emotionally, with all the other flotsam and jetsam that litter the horizon of daily life. Which leaves a clear field for mature, considered examination of what, if any, changes can and should be made in response to the GW crash. This thread suggests that few would argue against no changes being made to SOP (with the possible exception of four eyes versus two in the FD), while the spotlight may ultimately turn its attention as much on the medical profession as on pilots.

Separately, regarding Lubitz's reported prediction that his actions will change aviation -- what changes might he have thought necessary, and what changes would he have envisaged or wanted?

Last edited by Tom Bangla; 2nd Apr 2015 at 14:56. Reason: added 4 eyes vs 2
Tom Bangla is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 15:20
  #2919 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 36
@Chronus

Delta flight1651 of 01/02/2015, Minneapolis to LA. The Captain was locked out of the cockpit and the F/O landed the plane. Less than two months later we have another lock out, but with disasterous results. Did the incident of Flight 1651 not prompt the need to consider emergency access to cockpit.
I'm confused. It's been stated that in the US there is a two-person in the cockpit rule already in place, in which case if this happened, it must be an ineffective policy, at least in this instance.
Seat 32F is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2015, 15:22
  #2920 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Germany
Age: 59
Posts: 6
There is no limit to safety

The safety record of the airline industry is indeed impressive. However, one should not get too carried away with it. The fact that once airborne, miles are quickly flown makes any statistics that counts fatalities versus distance traveled look very good. It seems to me more honest to compare numbers of "transport cases". Meaning that a trip to the supermarket by car counts the same as a non-stop intercontinental flight. These numbers are hard to find, but the ones I saw show that car and plane transport are about equal in safety. This means that it does not harm to work towards even safer air travel and not give up on that subject even when faced with "impossible" cases like this one.
Sublogic is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

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