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 9th Apr 2015, 18:27
  #3161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,517
It seems very unlikely the CC is going to go along with this if 2 minutes earlier they had a friendly wave and chat while the pilot went off to the toilet and then remaining flight deck crew pushes the nose towards the ground while insisting that the other pilot not be let in.
"pushing the noise towards the ground" might be nothing more sinister than the required swift'ish response to a TCAS RA.....how good is the average CC members knowledge of the FCOM 1 and QRH?

Now if the suggestion is that there always has to be two rated pilots on the flight deck we might be heading towards common ground.

Last edited by wiggy; 9th Apr 2015 at 18:42.
wiggy is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2015, 18:37
  #3162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,045
However, there does seem to be a track record of c. 5 'pilots' deciding, when temporarily alone, to crash their aircraft.
I am intrigued by the "5"? LAM, GW. EgyptAir started solo, but carried on when Capt returned. SilkAir had 2 up front. FedEx the non-pilot employee (at the time) attacked the Flt Crew. PSA the non-pilot employee shot the pilots. MH370 might be any of the above, or none.
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2015, 20:52
  #3163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Sand free now
Posts: 193
In hazard and risk analysis there are often some hazards that although extremely rare/very very low probability - are totally unacceptable. I believe that this is one of those events. These events must be prevented rather………..

OK, how ? And can we have another example where risk has been totally removed altogether that involves human beings.
JaxofMarlow is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2015, 21:01
  #3164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas, like a whole other country
Posts: 424
SilkAir had 2 up front.
I don't believe that's been established for certain, as there was a period of from 5 to 10 minutes from the time the CVR stopped recording before the aircraft went into a death dive. Authorities have speculated that during that time (after Capt. Tsu returned to the cockpit and pulled the breaker), FO Ward may have left the flight deck for whatever reason.

I seem to recall the crash of Air France 422 (actually operated by TAME) in 1998 was for a time suspected as suicide as the normal takeoff procedures from Bogota appeared to have been disregarded before it flew into a mountain. It occurred not long after SilkAir, which may have fueled some of the suspicions. In any case, the probable cause was eventually listed as loss of situational awareness in crap weather.
Carbon Bootprint is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2015, 21:06
  #3165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: In a Pineapple Under the Sea
Age: 57
Posts: 99
John Farley:

I take your point about some risks being unacceptable but in my view it is just not possible mitigate this particular risk.

You say it is relatively easy to mitigate - how so? How would you prevent any pilot on short finals just stuffing the pole forward and so diving into the ground before the other pilot had any chance to react?
Just because you cannot eliminate all of the risk doesn't mean you shouldn't try to mitigate for some of the risk. It should be perfectly acceptable to implement measures to try to prevent an incident like this.

No - I do not portend to have all of the answers - or all of the solutions. We (the collective) quickly instituted a measure ("impenetrable" doors) in response to 9/11. It created opportunity that we (perhaps) did not foresee. Refining what we did in response to try to prevent what now appears to be more than a "one off" seems appropriate.

Put yourself on board. What would you have done in the Capt's position? Would you have wished for CC on the Flt Deck? Have you really thought about that?
WillFlyForCheese is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2015, 23:15
  #3166 (permalink)  

Do a Hover - it avoids G
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 86
Posts: 2,206
mm flynn and WillFlyForCheese

My post was to give my views to Ian W about his post.

Of course I am not against anybody who wants to reduce the ways a suicidal pilot can crash an aircraft and comes up with solutions that eliminate specific methods. However there will always be one way that cannot be mitigated or protected against (the short finals case). That is the point I was trying to make to Ian W.
John Farley is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2015, 00:22
  #3167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 6,000
In hazard and risk analysis there are often some hazards that although extremely rare/very very low probability - are totally unacceptable. I believe that this is one of those events. These events must be prevented rather than saying as you imply (or as can be inferred from what you say) millions of people fly every year this was only 149 that's an infinitesimally small risk, therefore, we can just shrug our shoulders and say we still meet the target level of safety. That does not wash with an unacceptable hazard, especially one that may have relatively simple mitigation.
Ian

of course its totally unacceptable as was 9/11 but 9/11 and the reactions to 9/11 have cost $billions in the way it changed the face of airports, inconvenience to the flying public and lost time to Industry. It has made flying a tedious, stressful form of travel with massive delays at airports and a loss of human liberty

Some of the very protections against another 9/11 have facilitated this equally awful act.( the security door) Because it was that system designed to keep terrorists out which Lubitz studied days before with a fundamental flaw in its system to make his awful plans a possibility

Most things are possible but they also come with a huge cost as the reactions to 9/11 showed.

This is not a time for emotional reactions a time for political intervention a time for knee jerk or ill thought out legislation or even a time for the Multi Billion $ security industry to see an opportunity for making more money but a time for calm and practical look at how another Lubitz can be deterred from ever doing this again.

i stress the word Deterred rather than stopped because there has to be a balance.

High in that contemplation must be the fact thats its unlikely that another Lubitz will ever do this again, A one off awful action by a very damaged and disturbed mind who somehow escaped notice not only by the medical world but also his colleagues who he worked and trained with.

Any action has to be balanced by the cost not just in money terms but by further restrictions making aviation less attractive to the paying public as happened with 9/11 but also to the would be pilots of the future who will not see flying as a desirable career to follow.

i have been flying for 30 years and i do so because I enjoy what I do! The day I don't enjoy what I do because it all becomes a mass of hassle is the day to hang up your hat and do something else and probably most pilots are the same.

Anything you do will carry a cost and also a price and as in this case may also open up a risk to another equally unforeseen but unlikely tragic event. Will the PERCEIVED benefits out way the negatives of any such action ?

Last edited by Pace; 10th Apr 2015 at 08:11.
Pace is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2015, 01:54
  #3168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Frankfurt
Age: 70
Posts: 36
"pushing the noise towards the ground" might be nothing more sinister than the required swift'ish response to a TCAS RA.....how good is the average CC members knowledge of the FCOM 1 and QRH?
This is irrelevant, she or he has simply to decide whether opening the door to the captain or FO is reasonable. Independent of what the Pilot Flying is doing is there a sensible reason to exclude the other pilot Y/N? People skills, is supposed to be what CC are trained for isn't it?
DrPhillipa is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2015, 06:56
  #3169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,517
she or he has simply to decide whether opening the door to the captain or FO is reasonable. Independent of what the Pilot Flying is doing is there a sensible reason to exclude the other pilot Y/N?
On what basis does he/she do that? There might well be a sensible reason to exclude the other pilot, but the CC member quite possibly has no idea what the interaction has been between the two pilots in the minutes/hours before one of them left the flight deck..and before it's explained to them the TCAS RA kicks in....( and I know I'm playing Devil's advocate here)

People skills, is supposed to be what CC are trained for isn't it?
Ummm...There are people skills and then there's the skill set needed to spot a crime about to happen.

For the sake of interest seeing as many seem to like the idea of "two up" all times and are happy with one being CC can I ask what are the proposed rules (because there have to be some)..always let any pilot back on to the flight deck? In all circumstances let the captain back in? Only let F/O in if captain agrees? Let any pilot back who gives a cheery wave....etc
wiggy is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2015, 08:46
  #3170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 6,000
always let any pilot back on to the flight deck? In all circumstances let the captain back in? Only let F/O in if captain agrees? Let any pilot back who gives a cheery wave....etc
Wiggy

The flight crew have an absolute right to be where they belong on the flight deck.
Any flight crew Captain or FO has a right to re enter and have access to the flight deck.

The remaining Flight Crew member still on the the flight deck has no rights to block that entrance to him/her unless they have absolute backed up evidence that their actions are correct.

I would suggest that a Captain /FO on the outside who has lost the plot would be noticed by the CC who I am sure would be relaying messages to the remaining pilot flying that pilot X has lost the plot and just assaulted a CC or whatever?

On the ground the remaining handling pilot would I am sure be able to justify his actions with multiple CC and PAX witness.
There are a number of reasons why the other pilot may not be able to continue with his / her duties,illness, incapacitation jumps to mind but that becomes a team event with CC and even a PAX Doctors involvement! I cannot think of any innocent situation where one pilot would unilaterally have cause to lock out another flight crew member without third party involvement and witness

But you cannot get away from that absolute right principle! Any other argument goes into the realms of absurd

Last edited by Pace; 10th Apr 2015 at 10:18.
Pace is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2015, 09:51
  #3171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,517
I'll bow out for the moment (hurrah I hear you say), pointing out that contrary to some newspaper reports EASA themselves are yet to be convinced that 2 on the Flight Deck provides the guaranteed/only solution, and have concerns about introducing extra risks, and have therefore not yet at least made it mandatory:

From EASA Safety Information Bulletin 2015-04:

"The Agency recommends operators to re-assess the safety
and security risks associated with flight crew members
leaving the flight crew compartment due to operational or
physiological needs during non-critical phases of flight.
Based on this assessment, operators are recommended to
implement procedures requiring at least two persons
authorised in accordance with CAT.GEN.MPA.135 to be in
the flight crew compartment at all times, or other equivalent
mitigating measures to address risks identified by the
operator’s revised assessment.
Any additional risks stemming from the introduction of such
procedures or measures should be assessed and mitigated."

Last edited by wiggy; 10th Apr 2015 at 10:07.
wiggy is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2015, 10:12
  #3172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The blasted heath
Posts: 238
@Wiggy

Some sense there from EASA.
gcal is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2015, 10:27
  #3173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 937
There have been relatively few cases in the past which look similar to this sad A320 loss.


Some people would argue that it is worth spending more and more money managing risk especially where human life is concerned. But even in these cases there will be a break-even point. We may not like to think about risk control in these terms but it is realistic.
Sober Lark is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2015, 10:44
  #3174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 6,000
wiggy

Any additional risks stemming from the introduction of such
procedures or measures should be assessed and mitigated."
I too agree that the EASA comments are a sensible and balanced approach.
this last bit is rather vague?

I can only presume it means that the airlines need to consider the additional risks of allowing CC onto the flight deck with one pilot present.

A free for all allowing any CC to take up that role would indeed add risk maybe greater than the risk of a rogue FO and should be mitigated.

i could see a CC rating/ endorsement for flight deck procedures with training both on simulator and classroom as well as length of service and experience being a move which would substantially lower that risk and make that CC a useful addition to over all safety and risk mitigation. The cost would be in the extra training and the extra pay those CC should have for holding such an endorsement. Even give them the right to wear a half gold bar on the uniform to identify such endorsed CC

For me the above a re look at the door system with a blocking override ability and a system put in place for colleagues to be able and more aware of expressing concerns over an individual pilot is all that needs to be or should be done

Last edited by Pace; 10th Apr 2015 at 11:14.
Pace is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2015, 11:30
  #3175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,220
Originally Posted by NigelOnDraft View Post
I am intrigued by the "5"? LAM, GW. EgyptAir started solo, but carried on when Capt returned. SilkAir had 2 up front. FedEx the non-pilot employee (at the time) attacked the Flt Crew. PSA the non-pilot employee shot the pilots. MH370 might be any of the above, or none.
I believe the 5 that are referred to are (1994 - 2015)
LAM - Started Alone
Egypt Air - Started Alone
Silk Air - Is believed to have started alone (but unclear due to disabled CVR and FDR)
Royal Marco - Unclear
German Wings - Was alone

There are a couple of others where a single pilot has taken a commercial aircraft and used it to kill himself and others - but of course that is a totally different mitigation.
mm_flynn is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2015, 11:44
  #3176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Alba
Posts: 32
The cost would be in the extra training and the extra pay those CC should have for holding such an endorsement. Even give them the right to wear a half gold bar on the uniform to identify such endorsed CC
You cannot be serious!
jaytee54 is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2015, 11:50
  #3177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 6,000
You cannot be serious!
Very serious! you cannot have a policy where a young inexperienced CC can be placed doing flight deck duties after a few weeks training to become a CC and no real knowledge of his /her background.
With no real knowledge for them to act as a cabin crew observer over one pilot and all that entails or could in a worst case scenario entail ? would that be a serious option or sensible option?
surely it would require a level of training and background with the company of possibly 3 years to be a safe option

Last edited by Pace; 10th Apr 2015 at 12:01.
Pace is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2015, 12:02
  #3178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Alba
Posts: 32
Three and a bit thousand posts on this thread have convinced me that:-
  • Computers are better at accurate flying, humans are better at problem solving.
  • Fully automated aircraft are not really viable/trustworthy yet, maybe never will be.
  • Humans make mistakes sometimes, and just occasionally do some strange and tragic things, justified in only that one mind.

There is no way we can stop the occasional human error or the extremely rare murderous action. All of the solutions mentioned could be circumvented by a problem solving human. I think we just have to live with it as one of the very slight risks inherent in aviation, and virtually every other aspect of life. It is still safer than fully automated aircraft.
jaytee54 is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2015, 12:02
  #3179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,340
Originally Posted by JaxofMarlow View Post
In hazard and risk analysis there are often some hazards that although extremely rare/very very low probability - are totally unacceptable. I believe that this is one of those events. These events must be prevented rather………..

OK, how ? And can we have another example where risk has been totally removed altogether that involves human beings.
"where risk has been totally removed altogether that involves human beings" Is not the sense of what I wrote.

One argument is that if you can only come up with 5 or 6 cases of pilots causing death out of the millions of flights in the same period then that is such a low risk that we can disregard it and do nothing - which is what is being said by many posters.

My position is that for many people the hazard of being flown into the ground by someone they have trusted their lives to is totally unacceptable, so the normal risk analysis of the case being of such a low probability that we needn't attempt to mitigate it, is no longer true. Despite its low probability as much as possible should be done to reduce the risk of 'rogue' pilots crashing the aircraft.

I can assure you that logical or not - if a similar crash happens again you can rely on an extremely strong, potentially irresistible, push to automate pilots out of the cockpit.
Ian W is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2015, 12:12
  #3180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,517
Oh what the heck..please allow me a "one more time" ....

Pace

Re: your flight deck observer idea:

surely it would require a level of training and background with the company of possibly 3 years to be a safe option
Agreed..in fact why not give them 2/3/4 bars and call them a pilot......

Ian

if a similar crash happens again you can rely on an extremely strong, potentially irresistible, push to automate pilots out of the cockpit.
Indeed, that may well happen eventually but in the mean time can I ask if that "crash" happens tomorrow are you planning to ground commercial aviation for the decade(s) that your automated/partially automated airliner will take to become a reality.
wiggy 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.