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 5th Apr 2015, 08:49
  #3101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 7,679

737er

May I suggest you stop reading the Daily Mail, which thrives on appeals to lower common denominators. There's much better out there to choose from.
Tom,

Good suggestion. It was probably a poor choice in media to frame my point but that story with all the same hype is running all over the place.

The media exploits our collective risk illiteracy and the result is less overall public safety than if they were to cover real risk, even if it were just in approximate proportion.

It's making the public neurotic about things they should have confidence in and that detracts from addressing more deadly risks.
737er is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2015, 12:39
  #3102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,314
Originally Posted by 2dPilot View Post
How are pilot candidates tested today?

Around 40 years ago I applied to BOAC to become a pilot, along with 1,000s of other applicants. I passed two selection stages down at Eastleigh.

Besides the math & English tests, I will always recall the day we had 1000 yes/no questions to do in - IIRC - a couple of hours. Simple yes/no questions on the face of it, one I especially recall "Do you like tall women?"

On the face of it this test seemed simple until you realised that batches of questions were being repeated, in slightly different order, or with new questions interlaced. And, one couldn't recall with any certainty what had been answered 10 paged back, or even if I would agree with my previous answer in the light of new questions! The time limit precluded any possibility of looking back through the questions/answers.

I can only assume this was a mixture of 'Psych' test and a stress test.
It was a psychological test, also - at the time - known as a 'speed test'. In the long distance past it was one of my 'majors' specialist subjects.

There is a lot of work put into designing those tests. Asking questions twice with different semantics that 'beg' a particular but different response will flag up those who are trying to 'look good' in their answers. Others will ask questions that cannot be true such as: True or False - I am always early for meetings. Again shows up someone wanting to answer what they believe is wanted. These questions are added to what Eysenck called a 'lie scale' once the value on the lie scale goes above a certain level then the subject fails the test.

There are 'spot the odd one out' questions where every one of the 5 examples could be the odd one out dependent on how your brain works. (imagine a list of animals - each odd one out: only single syllable word, only word that is more than 7 characters, only bird, only domesticated, only carnivorous etc etc) These are very very hard to create.

The 'subject' is then given say 120 seconds to answer 100 mixed questions and told that the number answered is one of the test criteria. Just reading the test may take 3 minutes, so you know that the subject cannot finish but the point is to not have them give considered answers.

These days the tests are more likely to be flashed up or scrolled on a computer screen at a particular rate which provides a similar metric.

These tests will not identify empathy, sociopathic tendencies etc. There are tests that can do that as there are brain scans that can show potential sociopaths. But these tests are not very effective. For example not all sociopaths will be picked up by the tests and scans and some that are picked up are demonstrably not sociopathic. So there are many false positives and false negatives.

Anyone putting their faith in tests of emotions and mental states of subjects will be sorely disappointed. They are far more likely to be counter productive by alienating the flight crew community.
Ian W is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2015, 15:26
  #3103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 329
Thank you, 737er, for posting that piece from The New Yorker by psychiatrist Gary Greenberg. I'm no psychiatrist or psychologist but there's no mistaking good common sense, of which you can never get enough. Kudos to Mr Greenberg!
I hope Lufthansa and Germanwings will not be pilloried to kingdom come.
Rockhound is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2015, 15:40
  #3104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Originally Posted by Ian W View Post
I am constantly surprised by the low opinion 'front crew' have of the 'rear crew'.

Most of the cabin crew are very very aware of the progress of the flight as they have a set number of tasks to carry out in sometimes very brief periods. Starting descent just after level off when the flight attendant is aware that there is an hour to go would be extremely suspicious. All the flight attendant does then is open the door. This becomes extremely likely when the aircraft is in high rate descent approaching mountains.

You also need to take into account that the 'alone in the cockpit' part was needed as most suicides are solitary events.
Don't put words into my mouth. I do not have a low opinion of cabin crew.

How many crew have you spoken to about this recently? I've asked four if they'd know what I was doing and how to stop me and ALL of them admitted they wouldn't have a clue. They wouldn't open the door if I asked them not to. The two person in the FD rule will not stop a recurrence of Lubitz.

And I'm speaking as someone who has flown for two airlines who have had the two person rule since 9/11 and I don't have a problem with it.
Lord Spandex Masher is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2015, 16:02
  #3105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,314
I expect we will have to agree to disagree, I would have thought with the captain outside asking to be let in, screaming/panicking flight attendants and passengers (probably visible to the cockpit flight attendant) and the aircraft in rapid descent toward mountains, most flight attendants in the cockpit would take a little more reassurance than you telling them not to let the captain in. Indeed, I would think it would be extremely unlikely now that they would not let the captain in after Lubitz flew the GermanWings A320 into the ground. That's what happens when you have lost people's trust.
Ian W is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2015, 16:17
  #3106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Off the map
Posts: 1,002
who pays the pilots salaries on a commercial airliner? So with all respect the guests on board have a right to have a sane brain sitting in the cockpit.
Yes, absolutely.
But ridiculous expectations like pilots trained for any possible scenario and no risk at all? Please.
DirtyProp is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2015, 17:21
  #3107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Close to EBOS
Age: 62
Posts: 14
According to the German newspaper "Welt Am Sonntag". http://www.welt.de/vermischtes/artic...erungsnot.html

Laut EU-Verordnung 1178/2011, die seit April 2013 auch in Deutschland umgesetzt ist, müssen Fliegerärzte das Amt von einer Depression informieren und den Fall ans LBA verweisen. Nun können die Lufthansa-Fliegerärzte zwar behaupten, L. sei geheilt gewesen, so dass es keinen Grund mehr für eine Verweisung gegeben habe. Aber es gab ja immer noch den SIC-Eintrag in der Lizenz. Ganz gleich, wie man es wendet: Es sieht nicht gut aus für die Lufthansa und ihre Ärzte.

Translation

According to the EU Regulation 1178/2011, which is implemented in Germany since April 2013 Aeromedical Examiners must inform the Office of a depression and refer the case to the LBA. Now the Lufthansa Flyer doctors can indeed say that L. had been healed, so that there was no reason for referral. But there was still the SIC entry in the license. No matter how you turn it: It does not look good for Lufthansa and their physicians.
timmermc is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2015, 17:31
  #3108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Chissay en Touraine, France.
Posts: 36
'ridiculous expectations'?
Hardly.
Seems an entry-level requirement to me.
Would any genuine commercial pilot beg to differ?
ChissayLuke is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2015, 17:48
  #3109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 3,968
According to the EU Regulation 1178/2011, which is implemented in Germany since April 2013 Aeromedical Examiners must inform the Office of a depression and refer the case to the LBA. Now the Lufthansa Flyer doctors can indeed say that L. had been healed, so that there was no reason for referral. But there was still the SIC entry in the license. No matter how you turn it: It does not look good for Lufthansa and their physicians.
The physicians actually have nothing to do with it. They do not see the license and don't need to. They do see the medical which is the only place that should carry the SIC entry, which it didn't in Lübitz' case. The german LBA is sometimes not working to its rules, in my first EASA license they had my medical restrictions entered as well, in the next one i got issued half a year later they were gone and remain solely in the medical where they belong.

An SIC entry in the license is just an "for information only" and not binding, the only place where it is binding is in the medical. The EASA license doesn't have an expiration date whereas the medical has.
Denti is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2015, 18:16
  #3110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 42
Questions:

a) in the beginning, there was a reference that an oxygen-mask was worn by the copilot.
>>> has that been confirmed, or not ?

b) in some german news, it was stated he wanted to marry soon.
>>> confirmed, true, or rumor ?

Thanks.
Klauss is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2015, 18:19
  #3111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,045
Would any genuine commercial pilot beg to differ?
Yes... if someone who has just done 6+hrs LHS A320 today satisfies your criteria?

I refer back to my previous post (which you described as 'mediocrity') to give, IMO, an accurate response to your points.

Since you either did not like or understand my response, please could you expand on your post's questions:
A: Are they mentally fit for purpose?
B: Are they physically fit for purpose?
C: Are they trained, and current, to meet any scenario that faces them on any particular flight?
D: To the point where there is zero risk of 'pilot error', whatever?
E: It would appear that those who control (who?) and enforce (who?) such matters are still falling short of their responsibilities (which are?).
e.g. by saying how you think they either are, or should be conducted?

The genuine passengers I met today expressed their thanks for their flights today, and getting them to their destinations safely and comfortably. I saw no sign of the lack of trust expressed by "passengers who pay our wages" on here
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2015, 19:00
  #3112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bournemouth UK
Age: 44
Posts: 808
The genuine passengers I met today expressed their thanks for their flights today, and getting them to their destinations safely and comfortably. I saw no sign of the lack of trust expressed by "passengers who pay our wages" on here
Absolutely. I also believe that this very sad event has made our passengers appreciate us more. On the few flights that I've operated since the event far more passengers than usual are expressing their thanks and coming out with statements like "Thank You for getting us home safely"
Sky Wave is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2015, 19:37
  #3113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 265
Originally Posted by NigelOnDraft View Post
Yes... if someone who has just done 6+hrs LHS A320 today satisfies your criteria?

The genuine passengers I met today expressed their thanks for their flights today, and getting them to their destinations safely and comfortably. I saw no sign of the lack of trust expressed by "passengers who pay our wages" on here

I consider myself to be one of those genuine pax you're speaking of, and this crash hasn't altered my opinion of pilots and safety one bit. I know I have more to fear from the average idiot on the highway.

The FA stepping in for a pilot leaving the flight deck seems to be working fine in the US, and it might provide a small deterrent in some cases.

Better screening might help as well.

After all, every little bit helps - and as someone up-thread mentioned, air safety is a work in progress.
rottenray is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2015, 02:35
  #3114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Near Puget Sound
Age: 81
Posts: 89
Mental health screenings for pilots

I have been asked many times in the past week about why don't we screen you pilots to avoid this kind of problem. I simply report what the Aerospace Medical Association says. (This is the professional society for flight surgeons.)

Following a March 27, 2012, incident in which a pilot of a major commercial airline experienced a serious disturbance in his mental health, the Aerospace Medical Association formed an Ad Hoc Working Group on Pilot Mental Health. The working group met several times and analyzed current medical standards for evaluating pilot mental health. The result of the working group was a letter sent to the FAA and other organizations worldwide interested in mental standards. The Committee found that it is neither productive nor cost effective to perform extensive psychiatric evaluations as part of the routine pilot aeromedical assessment. However it did recommend greater attention be given to mental health issues be aeromedical examiners, especially to the more common and detectable mental health conditions and life stressors than can affect pilots and flight performance. They encouraged this through increased education and global recognition of the importance of mental health in aviation safety.
published in Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine: 83, 2012, pp 1185-1186
goldfish85 is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2015, 07:28
  #3115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Age: 49
Posts: 250
Everyone keeps referring to the U.S. In regards to it works there, so why not use it elsewhere. As has been posted on here at least twice, there is a study of US pilots where it is shown that only about 25% of US pilots actually following the rule about having 2 person on the flight deck at any given time.
highflyer40 is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2015, 07:50
  #3116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 21
If only 25% of US pilots obey the 2 in the cockpit rule..... it still seems to work!

Last edited by Bill G Kerr; 6th Apr 2015 at 07:52. Reason: Spelling
Bill G Kerr is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2015, 08:53
  #3117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Peterborough
Age: 65
Posts: 212
It seems that some non US airlines have it as SOP. We came back from Goa in a A320 before the GW incident and a CC member went into the FD and a pilot came out and used the toilet. She came out of the FD as he went back in.
uffington sb is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2015, 12:04
  #3118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 52
Posts: 2,767
most flight attendants in the cockpit would take a little more reassurance than you telling them not to let the captain in.
I've asked three flight attendants to open the door when the F/O was ready to come back in. Not one of them could do it. 100% fail rate of the new system. I'll keep asking but I don't think the stats will improve until the new procedure requires training of the flight attendants.
This says quite a lot about the implementation of the new procedure, and the motivation for it's existence.
framer is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2015, 12:09
  #3119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 1,969
So what you are saying it that your cabin crews so far were unable to turn a door knob and open it??
de facto is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2015, 12:27
  #3120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 52
Posts: 2,767
Yip.
All I said was , you let him in, it's good practice. To a person they all started looking for a switch in the center consol, one couldn't find it, the other two found it but could not operate it even when aware of which way it needed to be moved. Not one of them thought about the door knob.
I then talked them through it and everyone was happy. Isn't it interesting though that there is no requirement to give them any instruction in how to carry out their new role? That is my main point, the whole thing is window dressing. If management thought there was any real risk of losing an aircraft and that the new procedure might mitigate the risk, there would be training.
framer 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.