Airbus A320 crashed in Southern France
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Double Oak, Texas
Age: 71
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Discussed in other posts about how to mitigate risks posed by rogue pilots ...
A forbidden sequence of words in these hallowed threads... "uninterruptible A/P"..... Much like the way drones have been flown for decades, remotely via radio control/ data link.
Detailed patents applied for years ago by an enormous aviation entity.
A forbidden sequence of words in these hallowed threads... "uninterruptible A/P"..... Much like the way drones have been flown for decades, remotely via radio control/ data link.
Detailed patents applied for years ago by an enormous aviation entity.
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?
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
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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 09:18.
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."
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 09:07.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wiggy
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
Any additional risks stemming from the introduction of such
procedures or measures should be assessed and mitigated."
procedures or measures should be assessed and mitigated."
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 10:14.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Alba
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You cannot be serious!
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 11:01.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Alba
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Three and a bit thousand posts on this thread have convinced me that:-
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.
- 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.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
OK, how ? And can we have another example where risk has been totally removed altogether that involves human beings.
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.
Oh what the heck..please allow me a "one more time" ....
Pace
Re: your flight deck observer idea:
Agreed..in fact why not give them 2/3/4 bars and call them a pilot......
Ian
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.
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
Ian
if a similar crash happens again you can rely on an extremely strong, potentially irresistible, push to automate pilots out of the cockpit.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Alba
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
surely it would require a level of training and background with the company of possibly 3 years to be a safe option.
surely it would require a level of training and background with the company of possibly 3 years to be a safe option.
That way you get someone who is both available and suitable.
Your way would be a rostering nightmare. If there Must be a half-bar CA on every flight, in the front galley, what happens if they take ill and there is no qualified standby? Do you cancel the flight?
Then think about "How could a person with ill intent USE this system?"
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Reisterstown, Maryland USA
Age: 69
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
News reports suggest that Lubitz may have slipped the captain a diuretic in a beverage. Thus, premeditation to get the captain out of the flight deck. No matter what new technology and procedures are introduced, some diabolical mind will calculate a work around.
Aircraft are really safe and dependable, the rare maniac is not.
Aircraft are really safe and dependable, the rare maniac is not.
Last edited by winterymix; 10th Apr 2015 at 11:23. Reason: spelling
News reports suggest that Lubitz may have slipped the captain a diuretic in a beverage.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your way would be a rostering nightmare. If there Must be a half-bar CA on every flight, in the front galley, what happens if they take ill and there is no qualified standby? Do you cancel the flight?
Then think about "How could a person with ill intent USE this system?"
Then think about "How could a person with ill intent USE this system?"
Surely the same argument would go for a Cabin Crew manager/ess or senior Cabin crew and rostering? if they are not available do you let the aircraft go with newbies?
who ever is allowed to enter the flight deck to diminish the likelihood of another Lubitz must surely be trained for that role and know how to unlock the door or handle different situations with a difficult or potentially dangerous flight crew member.
He/ She will be alone with that potentially dangerous flight crew member so probably not the best idea to send up a 22 year old girl who has been one month on the job and doesn't have a clue what she is looking at or dealing with?
Have you considered the possibility of a planted terrorist taking such a job ? at least this way you will only use CC with three years on the Airline which itself will reduce that possibility! Nothing that is done will make a future Lubitz impossible only less likely.
There are already private reporting systems in place where a pilot can report a safety concern without making it official and keeping a degree of anonymity. Part of the reason that lubitz got through the net was that no body noticed anything wrong with the guy. Colleagues and friends are best placed to notice and report concerns over any pilot so maybe such a site could be accessible to pilots, friends or relatives to make their concerns known whether justified or not?
Last edited by Pace; 10th Apr 2015 at 13:53.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace . . .
Any cabin crew is qualified not to sit in the vacant pilot's seat, but to sit in a jump seat nearest the door, or to stand next to the door and to open the door manually to preclude the other pilot from being locked out.