Airbus A320 crashed in Southern France
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After the horse has bolted.
As a none pilot please permit me to put forward a theory? Before 9/11 Locking doors were a very good idea but from that point the parameters changed. Security measures were massively upgraded to prevent multiple terrorists getting aboard. From that point it was better to have the security doors removed. If a lone terrorist or someone unstable mentally manages to get aboard then the whole plane can stop the situation being fatal. Is it not a case of reacting to something that happened in the past with a solution that no longer perfectly fits the changed parameters of the present? Keep the massive airline security but remove the doors so that a lone threat cannot become the sole person in charge of the controls?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: France
Age: 66
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question from a non familiar A320 pilot: on my last A/C there was to way to get the aircraft going down : either ALT SET ou V/S. Are the same modes available on the 320 ? If yes, is it possible regarding the company procedures that at the time of the beginning of the actual descent ( above Toulon), the V/S was set to minus 3000 ft/mn in preparation for a future descent ?
none of the pilots will need to leave the cockpit area unless, they are on a wide body, long-haul flight where there is a relief pilot. Even then, the relieved pilot does not leave until such time the relief pilot is in his seat, which is normal procedure anyways. (I would think!)
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Downunder
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airline I fly for has a policy of never leaving anyone alone on the flight deck. If either pilot needs a bathroom break, a cabin crew member occupies their seat. Fool proof system? No, but certainly doesn't hurt.
Suicides are rarely direct acts of violence towards others and the People committing them are seldom extrovert, physically violent People. If anything they only tend to be violent by effecting 'collateral' fatalities as is the case with quite a number of wrong-way Drivers.
So, such a measure would probably massively reduce the risk of such an occurence although probably indeed not totally eliminate it.
The other Thing is that the door locking logic might need some tweaking, especially in the light of the fact that after 9/11 passengers will not sit there and wait when an obvious intruder is threatening a Crew member in order to enforce antrance to the Cockpit. So, a code that after -say 30s- allows entrance no matter what, would allow passengers/CC to intervene should a Cockpit Crew member be threatened to allow entrance to the Cockpit and still prevent this really tragic and horrible Scenario.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
press conference: no buzzer, pax unaware, no TOGA, no fighter jet?
I listened to most of the press conference (interupted by streaming hick ups), and I must say I liked the presecutor very much. He had obviously listened to the recording carefully and had been briefed, and was trying to give an honest summary while trying hard not to be misunderstood.
Some of the things he said or did not raised questions:
1. While he described the clicking of the altitude knob and the breathing of the FO in great detail, there was no mention of a buzzer. Can the lock/deny function be activated before the first request for entry? If so, will it suppress the buzzer even on the first request?
2. He said the pax were unaware of the drama until the very last moments when cries could be heard. How on earth could they not notice the Captain trying to break down the door?
3. There is no mention of any recovery attempt, whereas transponder data say the flight gained 2000 ft prior to impact. Eye witness accounts are compatible with TOGA being applied.
4. No mention of the Mirage.
Some of the things he said or did not raised questions:
1. While he described the clicking of the altitude knob and the breathing of the FO in great detail, there was no mention of a buzzer. Can the lock/deny function be activated before the first request for entry? If so, will it suppress the buzzer even on the first request?
2. He said the pax were unaware of the drama until the very last moments when cries could be heard. How on earth could they not notice the Captain trying to break down the door?
3. There is no mention of any recovery attempt, whereas transponder data say the flight gained 2000 ft prior to impact. Eye witness accounts are compatible with TOGA being applied.
4. No mention of the Mirage.
Transparency International
CVR question
It has been reported, that the co-pilot can be heard breathing during the descent.
Is it really possible to hear normal breathing on the CVR in a 20 year old 320?
Is it really possible to hear normal breathing on the CVR in a 20 year old 320?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you take 150 with you, the primary action is murder, not suicide.
We tend not even to consider cases where the motivation is more personal than political as 'terrorism' - but that is to make a serious category error. Terrorism can be personal as well as political. The subject in this article is school shootings, but I urge people to read it carefully; the points he makes are very perceptive:
How We All Miss the Point on School Shootings
Don't flinch from calling it what it is; this was a terrorist mass murder. The piece we're missing is the motive - and even if it turns out it isn't political, that doesn't diminish the terrorism.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: England
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Not saying of course it will not happen as a kneejerk response.
Why would you want to mitigate having TWO PEOPLE ON THE FLIGHT DECK AT ALL TIMES DURING FLIGHT?! A very sensible and effective procedure. Checks and balances. Nothing 'Kneejerk'. We do it already. My understanding is that FAA regulations already require it for American carriers. I doubt it would lead to the world thinking we 'cannot be trusted'.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time for an alternative and independent mental health service for crews? This seems to be happening far too often and must now be featuring in the safety stats(although you would have to make some assumptions about MH370).
If an individual is struggling with their health, the potential of loss of income and a job they love may prevent treatment. There has to be a mechanism provided that gives individuals the potential for greater protection in the industry through what could be caused by a run of bad luck. For many young professionals layered with significant debts and on low pay, the shame of bankruptcy and professional failure may be too much of a risk for treatment to be sought. Of course, given professional treatment, an individual may have sense talked into them; but such a mechanism will have to lie outside of the company, authority and even possibly union.
I really hope there is an alternative explanation, but the message needs to be clear in industry however, this is not suicide, its mass murder.
A difficult one to fix no doubt.
If an individual is struggling with their health, the potential of loss of income and a job they love may prevent treatment. There has to be a mechanism provided that gives individuals the potential for greater protection in the industry through what could be caused by a run of bad luck. For many young professionals layered with significant debts and on low pay, the shame of bankruptcy and professional failure may be too much of a risk for treatment to be sought. Of course, given professional treatment, an individual may have sense talked into them; but such a mechanism will have to lie outside of the company, authority and even possibly union.
I really hope there is an alternative explanation, but the message needs to be clear in industry however, this is not suicide, its mass murder.
A difficult one to fix no doubt.
Last edited by VinRouge; 26th Mar 2015 at 13:29.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 447
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... I tend to find that Germans are a lot less security conscious than other Westerners.
As for the annual psych, some companies would love this at it would be a great way to get rid of unwanted pilots. Furthermore, the predictive power of psychology seems to be limited, as ever so often serial killers or molesters are released as "healed and no further danger to society" only to prove their shrinks wrong.
All in all it is certainly quite early to say "suicide" or "terrorism". I remember a case where a Captain not older than the Copilot of the GWI flight had a kind of fit/seizure in-flight (pre 9/11) and was pretty much useless for the remainder of the flight, though alive and breathing. I wouldn't bet a penny on someone afflicted by that absolutely avoiding touching anything on the flight deck that might cause a descent...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: San Antonio, TX USA
Age: 62
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i'm still not totally convinced of the suicide angle. Without knowing precisely how long that cockpit door would hold, a suicidal FO in total control of the aircraft would dial in a 3000fpm descent from FL380 and then sit back and do nothing? I know suicidal people are irrational by definition, but with full control of the situation, for an unknown amount of time, one would think a much steeper descent, and a turn to the closest terrain linearly would have been in order? Seems more likely that the FO was not conscious for whatever reason sometime after the Captain left the cockpit.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus video explaining cockpit door entry options / procedures
Found via the BBC website - this pretty much answers all of the questions re granting or denying access to the cockpit (assuming that this, or a similar, system was installed on that plane)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixEH...ature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixEH...ature=youtu.be
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: not a million miles from old BKK
Posts: 494
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.
Last edited by Xeque; 26th Mar 2015 at 13:10. Reason: Responding to Fizz57 on the previous page
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Cologne
Age: 34
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posting as I'm wondering if anyone's thought the same thing.
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?