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 6th Apr 2015, 11:34
  #3121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 1,969
Oh boy..
In the scenario of one pilot in his/her seat and a cabin crew standing behind,if the CA hand starts to wander around the center pedestal it would be a direct slap on the hand.
There is no need for them to manipulate that switch really,unless you let them seat on either pilot seat which is a big no no.
Ill get my coat...
de facto is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2015, 11:38
  #3122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,346
Originally Posted by framer View Post
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.
Then it is up to you to provide that training - a few seconds in your preflight brief would be all that is needed. If, or perhaps when, there is another Lubitz the airline involved will go the way of PanAm and TWA and politicians will get involved and then everyone will lose.
Ian W is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2015, 11:51
  #3123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Off the map
Posts: 1,009
'ridiculous expectations'?
Hardly.
Seems an entry-level requirement to me.
Would any genuine commercial pilot beg to differ?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but your expectations are unrealistic and, frankly, ridiculous.
Life is unpredictable, and so is air travel.
No 2 flights are exactly alike, and even if they are similar to each other for 99.9%, there will always be something unusual or unexpected.
And that's exactly the reason why we have humans in the cockpit and not computers. With so many variables playing in every flight, it is downright impossible to predict every possible scenario like you suggest.
If we could do that, pilots would be replaced by computers already. That might happen, but not anytime soon.
I suggest you review your expectations.
DirtyProp is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2015, 23:06
  #3124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,712
Originally Posted by framer View Post
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?
So you set up fellow workers? To what end? To belittle them?
You and your airline put cc in a position they were locked in without training to carryout their duties.
mickjoebill is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 00:12
  #3125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 169
Procedures and Training are Essential

That's unbelievable. This is serious business, but not rocket science. People who are trained and trusted to manage the evacuation of a burning aircraft should also be trained and trusted to handle "two in the cockpit" duties. Those should be thought out by experts, just as the emergency evacuation procedures are.
PrivtPilotRadarTech is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 01:07
  #3126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 53
Posts: 2,767
Then it is up to you to provide that training - a few seconds in your preflight brief would be all that is needed.
Thanks for the tip. Strangely enough that's exactly what I have been doing lately. I'm 99% sure that not all crew are getting this 'training' though. My point remains, management don't believe in this policy, if they did it would be trained like all other procedures.

So you set up fellow workers? To what end? To belittle them?
Calm down Mick, everything is ok. I am actually one of those Flight crew who really does care about c/c and I have more than once gone in to bat for them against managers who use bullying tactics against them. The sole purpose of them being there is to open the door, I gave them a shot at practicing it and then talked them through it, nobody felt belittled so you'l have to find another topic to wring your hands over.
framer is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 02:30
  #3127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,240
Grievance a driver in mass killings

What’s become clear over the past 30 years of research is that there’s virtually always a personal grievance that will start a person on a pathway to mass murder
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/07...hemselves.html
RatherBeFlying is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 07:37
  #3128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 6,000
That's unbelievable. This is serious business, but not rocket science. People who are trained and trusted to manage the evacuation of a burning aircraft should also be trained and trusted to handle "two in the cockpit" duties. Those should be thought out by experts, just as the emergency evacuation procedures are.
i agree 100% with that comment but would add that only CC who have worked for the airline for 3 plus years should be eligable for flight deck duties that will help close another potential threat from relatively unknown CC
Pace is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 07:45
  #3129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 879
I don't think it is mean to question the crew. I asked a Cabin Manager a couple of days ago what the purpose of being in the flight deck was. She thought it was to keep an eye on me, she wasn't sure what she was watching out for . The point is that the Cabin Crew have NOT received any guidance on what they are actually doing in the flight deck. I then went on to ask what she would do if I told her that I was going to lock the FO out as I wasn't happy with his behaviour, she said that she guessed that would be o.k., she changed her mind when I asked if she would then be happy if I started descending to divert the aircraft. It was a very valuable conversation because it has caused her to have a good think about the potential situations she could find herself and it showed me that the current policy is a total joke and there for public comfort only. At that time she is now authorised to be the most important person on the aircraft as the company expects that she should over rule the CAPTAIN and open the door if she thinks it is not right.
Ollie Onion is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 07:45
  #3130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 6,000
Yet mental health experts who study mass murder-suicides said that depression and thoughts of suicide, which are commonplace, fall far short of explaining such drastic and statistically rare acts.


Timothy J. McVeigh was spurred by anger at the government to blow up a federal building in 1995.

“People want an easily graspable handle to help understand this, to blame something or scapegoat,” said Dr. James L. Knoll, the director of forensic psychiatry at the State University of New York Upstate Medical University.

But to zero in on depression is “a low-yield dead end,” he said, adding, “There’s something fundamentally different here, aside and apart from the depression, and that’s where we need to look.”

Serious mental illness, studies of mass killers suggest, is a prime driver in a minority of cases — about 20 percent, according to estimates by several experts. Far more common are distortions of personality — excesses of rage, paranoia, grandiosity, thirst for vengeance or pathological narcissism and callousness.

“The typical personality attribute in mass murderers is one of paranoid traits plus massive disgruntlement,” said Dr. Michael Stone, a forensic psychiatrist in New York who recently completed a study of 228 mass killers, many of whom also killed themselves.
At last some sense and why knee jerk reactions and mass examination and intrusion into pilots personal lives is a waste of time AND AN INFRINGEMENT OF PILOTS HUMAN RIGHTS without identifying the particular personality trait that can murder and plan the murder of 150 people! Depressed people don't do that. As stated above serious mental illness only accounts for 20% of mass murderers indicating that 80% will have no sign of serious mental illness. So where do you go from there filtering out suspect pilots ?

Last edited by Pace; 7th Apr 2015 at 08:02.
Pace is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 07:59
  #3131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 857
I am pretty certain that cabin Crew recurrent training from now on will include some form of training on this subject.

It will possibly form part of the CRM section that pilots and cabin crew attend together, at least in BA they do.
vctenderness is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 15:57
  #3132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,346
Despite its extremely low probability the GermanWings crash was the instantiation of the greatest fear of many pax. Knowing that you are about to die for several minutes and not being able to do anything about it.

Out of the woodwork come the geeks and avionics manufacturers seeing a large market open up

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/07/sc...lots.html?_r=0

These ideas will be proceeded with if the industry does not have a defined and non-cosmetic response.
Ian W is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 16:09
  #3133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 913
Unhappy

Certainly advise that a long term career in aviation may not materialise if NY article comes to fruition
IcePack is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 16:20
  #3134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Timbukthree
Posts: 1
There are plenty of 19 pax airliners operating with NO cockpit door, and NO Flight Attendant. What do you propose to do about that? Plus many biz-jet terminals have NO passenger screening, allowing all manner of psychopaths, socio-paths, and manic depressive types to fly all over the world. Personally, I don't think ANYTHING should been done about it, but I'm sure this will keep several (many) pundits awake at night worrying that the sky is about to fall.
evansb is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 17:44
  #3135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: va
Posts: 3
First post - and undoubtedly not as helpful as I imagine, but as a passenger this incident has not reduced my trust in the skills of professional pilots, and their ability to get me safely to my destination - this despite the certain knowledge that with the right circumstances, something similar will happen again.

Which in a way is the whole point, because with due respect to posters who have made a range of thought provoking contributions to the question of the second person on the flight deck, perhaps the pertinent issue here is that of circumstance.

There’s very little credible doubt that Lubitz deliberately crashed the aircraft, but despite lots of conjecture, no clear motive as to why. Without that motive, the root cause of his actions, it isn’t possible to target future preventative actions aimed at weeding out the potentially dangerous entrants to the profession, or in identifying them and mitigating the threat once they are already qualified and flying. What you can do however is change the circumstances in-flight which may contribute to not just a decision to deliberately crash a plane, but also help facilitate it happening.

It is not true that all acts of extreme behavior are conducted in private, but it is true that most perpetrators of such acts have waited for the right circumstances to fit their needs and intents. In this instance, nothing could have served Lubitz’s needs and intents better than an empty flight deck, and his actions as we know them appear to demonstrate that he needed or wanted to be isolated and alone to do what he did.

Would he have seen a member of the cabin crew present as a deterrent? We can’t know for sure, but we can know that it would not have allowed him to act in isolation, nor with certainty that he was going to succeed, when that crew member could have opened the door at any time for the aircraft commander to re-enter the flight deck. A crew member on the flight deck with him would have changed the circumstance, and thus dynamic of the situation, to something certain to be less constructive to his intent, and that may have been enough to save 149 innocent lives on this occasion, either by deterring Lubitz from his planned (or unplanned) actions or by letting the commander back on the flight deck in time.

What seems certain is that if another Lubitz in the same frame of mind were to be left alone on the flight deck again, the result would be more loss of life. If another crew member present were to save even only one in ten of those flights, it would be hard to argue against the policy.

Of course, that raises the question of how competent cabin crew members may be to identify and resolve such difficult circumstances, and I can only speak as a passenger with far more experience of cabin crew than of pilots, but I find them remarkably capable of handling problematic and stressful situations and difficult people with speed and efficiency. For sure they wouldn’t know how to operate controls on the flight deck, and it wouldn’t be reasonable to expect that capability, but from having to deal with the traveling public in such numbers and confined spaces, they seem very capable of sizing up people when they need to. I would trust (most, at least) to grasp what is happening on the flight deck in the kind of situation we have seen happen here.
za9ra22 is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 18:00
  #3136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 91
Speaking as a passenger, I'm more reassured by the two-person cockpit idea than the professionals on here seem to be.

I think most situations where a single individual is given private, unmonitored power over the lives of other humans is inherently dangerous. There will always be a small proportion of people for whom the temptation to abuse that power may become irresistible at certain times - look at doctors, nurses, and the police. Almost all of the biggest scandals happened because the person concerned was handed a high degree of trust on account of their profession, and could operate in privacy.

Another human being in the cockpit does not guarantee that a rogue pilot won't smilingly put the plane into a calculated descent. However, it reduces the opportunity. The rogue pilot is likely to have to make conversation with the crew member - thus reducing the time to do something naughty - or will have some concern that the CC has flying skills and can see the naughtiness being done, or will find it necessary to maintain the mask that covers the psychosis.

Of course, the presence of CC does not guarantee that the rogue pilot won't smash his colleague's head with an iPad and do bad things. But it certainly doesn't increase the chances, and that's the best that can be hoped for.

Edited to add: I see I'm in agreement with fellow passenger ZA9RA22.
AirScotia is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 18:21
  #3137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 6
separating the suicidal from the mass murderer

As a non-pilot I would be interested to know from those at the front end how isolated from the pax you feel? There you are, stuck right at the front, in a very confined space, your office - right on the top floor. You have no rear-view mirror, just windows looking forward (OK some side windows too). Do you sometimes forget about the pax - particularly on long-haul - fast asleep in the back?

I ask this as I wonder whether Lubitz was aware of anyone else but himself (and the pilot)? Do you think he might have just sat there thinking: 'this is it'. He was all alone, in his own little world. Then he locked the door, shut out the rest of the world, set the controls and maybe took something to relax or render himself unconscious?

I'm trying here to separate the suicidal from the mass murderer.

But then, if he did feel like that, he could simply have taken his glider up for one last time....
holdatcharlie is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 18:24
  #3138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 6,000
ian

I always find it amazing that you guys will turn up for a flight with a complete stranger climbing in with you!

It is so far removed from my world.

Yet I understand you are all trained to one standard making such a situation possible.

that is not the way it used to be with crews flying together for years. It had its advantages but also disadvantages.

I just wonder whether the Captain and Lubitz had spent nights out and days together as well as flying together many times whether he would have become very suspicious that something was seriously not right with the guy? and taken his concerns higher or at least to have not trusted him alone?

i am not suggesting putting solid crews together but at least rostering crews so the FO and Captain at least know each other from previous trips and can quickly sum up the character of the guy they are flying with his weaknesses strengths and life events going on? Intuition is a very strong friend

I ask this as I wonder whether Lubitz was aware of anyone else but himself (and the pilot)? Do you think he might have just sat there thinking: 'this is it'. He was all alone, in his own little world. Then he locked the door, shut out the rest of the world, set the controls and maybe took something to relax or render himself unconscious?
Absolutely not!! The Police found that Lubitz has been researching the door locking mechanism on his computer days earlier so had plenty of time to consider what he was about to do to the 150 people on that aircraft! his Girlfriend had reported that he told her he was going to change the face of aviation!!

This was totally a premeditated and planned murder and destruction of himself

Last edited by Pace; 7th Apr 2015 at 20:07.
Pace is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 18:34
  #3139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,574
Ian W

Constituted crews have significant advantages as well as the potential for developing their own 'standard practices'. Perhaps a way out would be a system where a small group was constituted so crews were always drawn from the same subset.
As I remember it that sort of worked on the military with smallish crew numbers and a small number of crews. But TBH I'm really not sure how you'd begin to administer that in a large airline with, say, a company total of 4000 pilots and 10,000+ cabin crew, and with typically 400-500 pilots or more on each individual type the company operates. Each one of which will have their own requirements for days off/leave depending on their domestic situation.

There's much more isolation in the job these days than there was 20 years ago and there are fewer options for gelling socially as a team... Given the workload nobody is going to hang around at "base" for a get together on a Friday PM , and short haul night stops ( if your company does them) are often minimum rest. Many Long haul "slips" aren't much better. Chuck in a system of management being physically remote from the "Flight Line" and communicating by e-mail rather than personal contact and it's easy to see how someone with personal problems can hide things away and escape notice for a long time. Ratchet the work up even more and it's going to be even more difficult ... thanks EASA.

BTW the idea of airline crews developing their own "standard practices" is something management are very keen on avoiding...

Last edited by wiggy; 7th Apr 2015 at 19:09.
wiggy is online now  
Old 7th Apr 2015, 23:16
  #3140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 622
Certainly advise that a long term career in aviation may not materialise if NY article comes to fruition
There's nothing new in that article that hasn't been said before by the pilotless airliner crowd. Plus it quotes Missy Cummings, a known publicity seeker who comes out of the woodwork every time an aircraft crashes to attract attention for her cause.
dr dre 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.