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 26th Mar 2015, 13:35
  #1141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Age: 73
Posts: 227
In fact RiSq I believe someone committing suicide is thinking very logically. What they see is no future, so why carry on, there is no point, so end it all.

This is the thought process behind suicide. So why did he think he had no future? that is the question.
horizon flyer is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 13:36
  #1142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 66
Many, many 'non professionals' trust the mentioned 'professionals' with their lives - banking, air travel, Doctors, etc, etc.

Often it is those professionals we trust, who let us down. Sadly this thread is slowly pointing to another 'professional' doing just that.

It's an open forum and allows (to a degree), freedom of speech.
c53204 is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 13:36
  #1143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Harrogate
Age: 42
Posts: 12
I just don't see how you can "fix" the problem of a pilot wanting to down a plane. Sure, you could bring in measures to make this particular situation less likely, but what is to stop a pilot in control of the aircraft stuffing it into a row of houses (or the airport terminal) on descent. In that case there would be very little reaction time available to recover the situation.
sp3ctre is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 13:37
  #1144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: New York / Southern France
Age: 65
Posts: 95
Video of French Prosecutor's Statement

You can watch the press conference of Brice Robin, the French state prosecutor based in Marseille (who has responsibility for the region of the crash) here. Scroll down to the second - clearly labeled - video screen on the page. In French, of course.
AGBagb is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 13:37
  #1145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,223
SELECTION - that's a problem.
Psychological tests should be implemented in EVERY airline. Not only native language check.
These tests will only do one thing - they grow a mental monoculture and not for the very good. I understand, this is a typical European reaction, BUT, this thinking already lead to two world wars and I don't want a third. So, No, this would only help politicians to win elections, but changes nothing on the threat.
ChickenHouse is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 13:38
  #1146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,045
How common is it for captains to leave their seats and flight decks on such a short sector? If it is relatively uncommon, then the FO (if it is proven to be by his hand) must have either been considering this action for a number of flights, or just took his opportunity on the spur of the moment.

Is it too simplistic to say there would/might have been signs that all was not well with this young pilot?
DUD-BCN-DUS I would say, at some point, very likely.

On the turnround there is much to do, the cleaners are in the toilets, the water doesn't work to wash hands, no air conditioning.

I am not a psychologist, I'll fly with a different colleague most days, and we have grown up in different eras, possibly cultures etc. The slightest query to or about someone will result in a bullying and harassment accusation re racism / sexism. We are actively taught in our airline to be "tolerant" of everybody, which equates to me the opposite of seeking out potential issues.
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 13:39
  #1147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 75
@Pace. It's not just the salary. He/she will need to sit somewhere and so that will be lost revenue in addition. Your point is well made however.
londonman is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 13:39
  #1148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: NUTTER IN VECC
Age: 55
Posts: 23
Point taken, but I suspect this is less to do with LCC economics and more a rare consequence of a human mind in a dark and sad place. I don't know if there are any security measures that would completely eliminate the potential for something similar to happen again.
Tom Bangla is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 13:40
  #1149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Simply Towers.
Posts: 1
So now we can stop speculating about the cause of the crash we will speculate on what causes a person to commit suicide instead, all the suicide experts putting their views forward. Low pay, oh yes that must be it? Someone else giving us an opinion that the majority of railway suicides are committed on the spur of the moment...... That is absolute rubbish and I can confirm that, having investigated a large number of such incidents.
Let's wait and see what is eventually discovered about this individual before making up lots of 'reasons' why he did what he did, please?
Simplythebeast is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 13:44
  #1150 (permalink)  
TWT
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: troposphere
Posts: 692
One guy standing can,with a little bit of effort,neutralise one guy who is seated.Even with 2 pilots on the flightdeck,if one of them makes a certain choice then the result can still be the same.There is no simple answer.
TWT is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 13:45
  #1151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 58
Posts: 116
It's very clear that the airline industry has the most thorough incident investigation systems and arguably the least effective responses to the outcomes of those investigations.

The industry must take into account the concept of paying passenger perceptions. It can't continue the current cockpit security arrangements. This incident, as infrequent as it is historically, should not be regarded as a rare outlier.

It's clear that the post 9/11 security arrangements are not effective. The industry needs to acknowledge the current limitations of automatic control.

Despite all the noise this forum highlights a number of recurrent themes that managers should heed.
bud leon is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 13:46
  #1152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,045
I am a 737 Captain for a major operator and we don't have any expensive security equipment such as cameras to look in the cabin or double doors etc.

When a pilot needs to leave for the toilet we follow a very sensible procedure to identify who is at the door through use of a communication protocol and visual verification (peephole). The Cabin is secured and the pilot then leaves the flight deck (whilst the other pilot remains ALWAYS at the controls) a member of the cabin crew then passes into the flight deck and the door is re secured. When the pilot is ready to come back the same procedure is followed. The Pilot Flying when ready asks the cabin crew member to visually identify through the peep hole and then simply opens the door at which point they swap over again. Both pilots are now back on the flight deck. It is my understanding that this procedure is predominantly to substitute the use of cameras etc as one pilot must ALWAYS remain at the controls during flight. This procedure however also ensures that TWO people are ALWAYS on the flight deck. Should anything go wrong with the pilot flying such as falling unconscious or God forbid some sort of extremely erratic behaviour (like wanting to kill everyone) then the cabin crew member simply turns the door handle from inside the flight deck at any time and this mechanically opens the door outwards to the cabin enabling others to gain access.

I cannot speak for other airlines but my understanding is that if they have cameras etc then there isn't necessarily a requirement for a procedure to keep TWO people on the flight deck. Crews from other airlines will be able to confirm whether this is the case.
The whole point of the expensive cameras and door lock system is to avoid and mitigate the system you highlight. If these systems fail we go back to your system. This would be at the heart of why going back to your system for all is not likely acceptable - it makes clear that we up front cannot be trusted, and that undermines much of our industry's safety foundation.

Not saying of course it will not happen as a kneejerk response.
NigelOnDraft is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 13:46
  #1153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: europe
Posts: 235
We really must make these jobs worth their candle - even at the cost of the ticket price. Professional pilots terms and conditions, rostering, rest periods, FTLs, have been eroded for the past decade if not longer. The job MUST be made tolerable, or we will generate more of these tragedies...
This does not necessarily mean more pay - just better overall conditions and a culture of valuing professional pilots.
With more low time cadets being taken into the teams, we must value them. They are the Captains of the next generation.
I won't disagree with you but keep in mind that, if it turns out that the FO deliberated descended and crashed, we're talking about a guy with 630hrs on type.
That is what? A year in the airline? Can't think a guy with such a low time and having passed through only a few experiences (the good and the bad ones) will be such in a mood of doing a thing like that.

My point is, sometimes you can't blame rostering, low pay, pressure... it's just human nature. Some people go nuts and then shit happens. If it was a suicide it will be hard for us in the industry to believe and to accept but we somehow will have to.
archer_737 is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 13:47
  #1154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: South Alabama
Posts: 80
I guess the quick answer is, there must always be two crew members in the cockpit at all times. So before a pilot leaves the cockpit for any reason a crew member comes in and stands behind the door to let him back in.

Trust no one, the cockpit must always have two people in it, I think is a must be solution, no matter what is done with the door system.
A cabin crew member in the cockpit might help in the case of a suddenly incapacitated pilot, it also opens the possibility that a "sleeper cell" terrorist working as one of the cabin crew could attack the remaining pilot and cause destruction of the a/c. Yes, a slim chance, but the point is that no system is foolproof.

How about a "dongle" or key slug, or other removable device the captain can take with him when leaving the cockpit which would disable the capability to disable the external key pad? The door could still be locked, but not disabled until the pilot returned and re-inserted the device back into the console. This idea is not fool proof either, but it would be relatively cheap and would have prevented this particular crash.
Mozella is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 13:49
  #1155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Grand Turk
Age: 56
Posts: 64
It seems to me that it would be beneficial for investigators to release "known" facts during the course of an investigation. What is the point of trying to conceal facts? It only encourages speculation and leaks.

At the same time, officials should do their utmost to avoid speculative conclusions or releasing information that is not agreed to be fact by all relevant parties.

I think that it would be unwise to follow the path of giving free access to the cockpit and remove the protection afforded by a locked door. The world today is different and the potential for interference with flight crew is not as uncommon as it used to be; whether by terrorist or otherwise.

At the end of the day if a member of the flight crew is determined to bring an aircraft down it is very difficult to stop them; door or no door. These issues need a thorough and objective analysis and review. There is no simple solution, it will always be a compromise.

I look forward to the true facts coming out of this tragic event and what, if anything, could have been done to prevent it...
wheelsright is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 13:49
  #1156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Luberon
Age: 67
Posts: 896
Some background info on the co-pilot....

The First Officer was Andreas Lubitz, 28. He was "young". He was from Montabaur, in Rhineland-Palatinate. He had 630 flight hours. He joined Germanwings in September 2013 straight from the Lufthansa Flight Training School in Bremen.
Lufthansa said both pilots were trained at the Lufthansa Flight Training School in Bremen. The captain had over 6,000 flight hours' experience and joined Germanwings in May 2014. Previously he was a pilot with Lufthansa and Condor, a Lufthansa partner airline.
The first officer joined Germanwings in September 2013. He had about 630 flight hours. They were unable to confirm whether this was his first job as a professional pilot, or any previous experience.
The German newspaper Bild reported the first officer was from Montabaur in Rheinland-Pfalz and cited the city mayor Gabriele Wieland speaking to the DPA press agency.
A flying club which the First Officer was a member of has released a statement in tribute to him:

" Andreas died as First Officer on the tragic flight. Andreas became a member of the association as a teenager, he wanted to realise his dream of flying. He began as a gliding student and made it to become a pilots on an Airbus 320.
He was able to fulfill his dream, the dream he has now so dearly paid for with his life. The members of the LSC Westerwald mourn Andreas and the other 149 victims of the disaster on March 24, 2015.
Our deepest sympathy goes out to the families. We will not forget Andrew. The members of the Luftsportclub Westerwald."

The first officer lived with his parents in Montabaur and also kept a residence in Dusseldorf, according to Ms Wieland.
Andreas Lubitz: First picture of Germanwings pilot and what we know about him - Telegraph
sitigeltfel is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 13:50
  #1157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: back of beyond
Posts: 98
We seem to be approaching the point where, in public perception at least, pilots cause more accidents than they avoid. This incident will certainly strengthen the case for the pilotless aircraft, and reduce public resistance to such a proposal.
fizz57 is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 13:50
  #1158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 728
Well, yesterday I would not have believed it possible, but it would appear that we have a suicide by the First Officer.

We will now be faced with the usual call for "something" to be done.

But what? Eventually this is a matter of trust which we have to have in people.

A train driver, bus driver, surgeon, ship captain, the list goes on forever of people who individually hold our lives in their hands.

Even with an extra member of staff on the flight deck an a/c can be crashed on purpose in moments.

Who is going to prevent me suddenly stamping sudden full rudder at m0.81?
Is a flight attendant going to stop me switching off the flight control computers and applying full forward side stick?
Of course, the answer is no,
macdo is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 13:51
  #1159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 41
FQ at DLH/GWI

As a result of this tragedy the FQ, which suppose to be the most demanding part of the entrance assessment requirements for potential cadets at DLH, will certainly come under scrutiny. The FQ tests personal/psychological integrity of potential cadets-the same essential attributes which failed in this case.
MartinAOA is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2015, 13:52
  #1160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brisbane, Qld
Posts: 1,155
For those of you interested in the debate about a crew member in the Cockpit and if it would do any good, let us not the forget the lessons from Federal Express Flight 705

Federal Express Flight 705 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Deadheading Crew Member boarded the aircraft with every intention of crashing it and even armed himself with handheld weapons but still failed to do so, in no small part due to him being outnumbered.

Keep this example in mind for those who think that having extra crew in the Flight Deck or even making sure there is CC in there to cover for a Flight Crew Member needing to use the facilities will serve no purpose.

With the remaining Pilot flying being in their Seat and the CC sitting in the Jumpseat I'd say it would be particularly difficult for the Pilot Flying to attempt to incapacitate the CC Member, it would be bloody obvious when the Pilot Flying tries to get up and do something as they should not be leaving the seat at all.

A CC Member might not be able to tell when you've done something wrong to intentially cause harm but they'll figure it out pretty quickly and at least it gives a far greater chance for the Pilot Not Flying to be able to regain access to the Cockpit and try to save them whilst the CC Member does their best to restrain the one causing the problem!!
Ixixly 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.