Airbus A320 crashed in Southern France
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it possible he was incapacitated by faulty oxygen apparatus, possibly becoming irrational? I.e. panicking into initiating a descent prior to passing out.
Doesn't explain the door defeating the commander, though.
The breathing being audible on a hot mic seems impossible in a very noisy cockpit, unless of course it is insulated by the oxygen mask.
Doesn't explain the door defeating the commander, though.
The breathing being audible on a hot mic seems impossible in a very noisy cockpit, unless of course it is insulated by the oxygen mask.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: England
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because it costs money
Seriously? Are you with us? Why would it cost money?
One of the cabin crew stays on the Flight Deck momentarily with the PF until the PNF returns. It's not new. It's not rocket science.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Airbus flight deck O2 mask has an integral mike which is activated when you pull the mask out of its stowage.
The nature of the sound when using it is very distinctive and the cvr would have identified its usage very quickly.
The nature of the sound when using it is very distinctive and the cvr would have identified its usage very quickly.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
like Colgen with fatigue and experience, our system in Europe puts massive debt onto young individuals with huge stressors that can open the door to depress a lot of young individuals. I wonder if this has played its part.....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NigelOnDraft
Seriously? Are you with us? Why would it cost money?
One of the cabin crew stays on the Flight Deck momentarily with the PF until the PNF returns.
Seriously? Are you with us? Why would it cost money?
One of the cabin crew stays on the Flight Deck momentarily with the PF until the PNF returns.
But you miss the bigger reason I stated. Currently you require the CC on the Flt Deck to check the ID of the person entering, and action the door. If that system is not required, then the sole purpose of the CC there is to oversee the pilot - a rather big step to admit.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 53
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Consequences of being diagnosed with depression?
Could someone from the industry please tell us if there are any consequences for your medical if you ask for help because you feel severly depressed? Imagine this young guy, just two years on the job, feeling more and more depressed. Would he be afraid to seek medical help because this might be the end of his career? This itself would have started a self-enforcing cycle of helplessness and seeing no way out other than suiciding himself. Tighter screening would thus be counter-productive. If this guy was able to turn himself in, get diagnosed properly and e.g. be treated with one of the modern drugs like citalopram or escitalopram he might well be fit to fly (IF he suffered from depression, might be some other condition as well). A few years ago, we had a discussion here on PPRuNe about alcoholism and how it is a medical condition that needs professional help to get out of. And how many pilots delay seeking help because they are afraid of losing their job...
@Jackonicko
You are correct: all pilots should have demonstrated their competence to complete the flight 'single pilot' safely and competently by the stage of final line check, and usually followed up in subsequent OPC and LPC checks.
This does not stop some pilots (usually captain) doubting the ability of their 'co-pilot' (usually first officer). This cannot always be taken as solid evidence of the (in)ability of the one being doubted; it can also offer insight into the mindset and potential CRM issues with the one expressing the doubt.
Of the many issues arising here, as a frequently paying passenger, I find that the idea that one of the two pilots on board may be viewed (by his own captain) as being incapable of being left on his own by virtue of his inexperience and inability to be profoundly shocking.
That a sane Captain could profess to preferring to soil himself than to leave an inexperienced first officer alone at the controls is mind-boggling.
With a two-pilot cockpit, surely pax have the right to expect that in the event of a pilot incapacitation, the remaining pilot (whether captain or F/O) will be fully and entirely qualified and capable of safely and competently completing the flight, regardless of weather conditions, and indeed that he would be capable of dealing with any emergency or hazard.
That a sane Captain could profess to preferring to soil himself than to leave an inexperienced first officer alone at the controls is mind-boggling.
With a two-pilot cockpit, surely pax have the right to expect that in the event of a pilot incapacitation, the remaining pilot (whether captain or F/O) will be fully and entirely qualified and capable of safely and competently completing the flight, regardless of weather conditions, and indeed that he would be capable of dealing with any emergency or hazard.
This does not stop some pilots (usually captain) doubting the ability of their 'co-pilot' (usually first officer). This cannot always be taken as solid evidence of the (in)ability of the one being doubted; it can also offer insight into the mindset and potential CRM issues with the one expressing the doubt.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: cheese
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you really have a pilot that is focused on a suicide/mass murder plot, a two person flight deck rule doesn't seem like much of a hurdle. If you are planning to kill everyone anyway, why not just start off by bludgeoning/strangling/stabbing/slip a ruffie/etc. the pilot next to you and then the two person rule is bypassed. If the pilot looks to be too hard to handle, maybe the replacement FA would be easier.
The French prosecutor seems very certain it is all the co-pilots fault. Another scenario is: captain exits cockpit and first officer becomes incapacitated for whatever reason, such as brain haemorrhage or epilepsy and he disengages the autopilot in his confusion or the fit process. You may still hear breathing without response.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lizz
They're saying the f/o was having normal conversations at the start of the flight, then on the brief for the decent he's 'laconic'. Forgive me if I'm wrong but unless the captain had said before the brief that he was going to the toilet afterwards, f/o wouldn't have known he would be left alone thus not realising until after the brief that he could do whatever he did so his bluntness surely would have nothing to do with it?
They're saying the f/o was having normal conversations at the start of the flight, then on the brief for the decent he's 'laconic'. Forgive me if I'm wrong but unless the captain had said before the brief that he was going to the toilet afterwards, f/o wouldn't have known he would be left alone thus not realising until after the brief that he could do whatever he did so his bluntness surely would have nothing to do with it?
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Code
That is already the case. The remaining pilot can stop the code usage so that it cannot be extracted from the crew member outside the flight deck under duress and used to gain illegal access to the cockpit.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 74
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There appears to be a assumption, that if the senior pilot had been able to unlock the door, that would have ensured the safety of the crew and passengers.
Therefore if changes are made to enable a pilot to open a deadlocked door, such a tragedy will not reoccur.
I am not sure that the prospect of a violent confrontation on a flight deck between two pilots, as each struggles to take control of a passenger jet, is likely to instil public confidence.
The loss of all those lives including many children and teenagers, to say nothing of the fear they must have experienced in the final minutes of their lives, demands more than mere changes to the security system on the door to the flight deck.
Therefore if changes are made to enable a pilot to open a deadlocked door, such a tragedy will not reoccur.
I am not sure that the prospect of a violent confrontation on a flight deck between two pilots, as each struggles to take control of a passenger jet, is likely to instil public confidence.
The loss of all those lives including many children and teenagers, to say nothing of the fear they must have experienced in the final minutes of their lives, demands more than mere changes to the security system on the door to the flight deck.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Clarty Waters, UK
Age: 57
Posts: 925
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
3 Posts
At the end of the day, if you devise a system that allows a crew member to re-enter a locked cockpit, you introduce a weakness to the system that could be exploited by others.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Antarctica
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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,
Trust is indeed the only answer to this problem. There have been train drivers who have failed to stop at terminus stations and ultimately investigators have not be able to come to any other conclusion than driver suicide. The Moorgate incident on the London Underground springs to mind. But thankfully, despite the opportunity presented to solo drivers throughout the subways of the world, it seems their minds don't generally follow the same dark labyrinths that their train full of passengers do. We have to trust them.
I think we have to accept that suicide cant be stopped, mainly because we rarely know it is going to happen. But, changing all the rules everytime an event like this occurs is probably not the answer either. So, leave the security doors in place, ensure there are two on the FD at all times, don't substitute intelligent pilots for unintelligent computers and don't overplay the state of mind issues during medicals.
What airlines could do is ensure that all employees flying and non flying have easy access, without prejudice to caring, confidential and non-judgmental support services for staff who feel they need help. Does your airline already have that?
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,
Trust is indeed the only answer to this problem. There have been train drivers who have failed to stop at terminus stations and ultimately investigators have not be able to come to any other conclusion than driver suicide. The Moorgate incident on the London Underground springs to mind. But thankfully, despite the opportunity presented to solo drivers throughout the subways of the world, it seems their minds don't generally follow the same dark labyrinths that their train full of passengers do. We have to trust them.
I think we have to accept that suicide cant be stopped, mainly because we rarely know it is going to happen. But, changing all the rules everytime an event like this occurs is probably not the answer either. So, leave the security doors in place, ensure there are two on the FD at all times, don't substitute intelligent pilots for unintelligent computers and don't overplay the state of mind issues during medicals.
What airlines could do is ensure that all employees flying and non flying have easy access, without prejudice to caring, confidential and non-judgmental support services for staff who feel they need help. Does your airline already have that?
Bralo20: I wonder why the pilot didn't use an axe to gain access...
1. Because the doors are designed to withstand a grenade attack
2. Because you think it's a sensible idea to have an axe in the main cabin?
2. Because you think it's a sensible idea to have an axe in the main cabin?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If nothing else, this tragedy highlights what every flightcrew member has been saying to each other since the knee-jerk secuirty reactions came in post 9/11; that if one of us wanted to crash our aircraft, we could do so with little difficulty.
This exposes the security farce - no yoghurts, bottled drinks, Swiss Army knives etc - that we have been forced to accept fro the past 14 years.
As a previous poster said; we should be part of the aviation security solution. The politically-driven authorities have never accepted this and this awful incident has blown a hole in their logic with regard to flightcrew and security.
This exposes the security farce - no yoghurts, bottled drinks, Swiss Army knives etc - that we have been forced to accept fro the past 14 years.
As a previous poster said; we should be part of the aviation security solution. The politically-driven authorities have never accepted this and this awful incident has blown a hole in their logic with regard to flightcrew and security.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair Nigel, even Europe's ultra low cost airline use 2 in the FD method at all times.
If the latter then the 2 CC is required, and avoids asking the question of "why" they are there
Are there airlines out there requiring 2 crew and have Phase 2? (not suggesting we name them...)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No it won't. You cannot rely on your average home computer to work correctly 100% of the time despite them being around for 30 years and more.
Rely on only computers to fly a passenger carrying aeroplane? That would be the death of the industry.
(a) computers are programmed by humans. Once the programme is locked in then any errors made are locked in too.
(b) old programmers adage - there is always one more bug.
Rely on only computers to fly a passenger carrying aeroplane? That would be the death of the industry.
(a) computers are programmed by humans. Once the programme is locked in then any errors made are locked in too.
(b) old programmers adage - there is always one more bug.
We rely on dedicated software to keep nuclear power plants from melting down, and other critical, life or death applications, like medical software, and don’t forget the armed drones sent to kill people!
Mission critical software is not “your average home computer”, this is software that is dedicated to specific tasks, not general purpose, "jack of all trades” software like Windows, which is much easier to screw up and let bugs creep into. The chances of mission critical software catastrophically failing is orders of magnitude less likely than a pilot suicide.
Moreover, it doesn’t have to work correctly 100% of the time, just more than human pilots do.
