Airbus A320 crashed in Southern France
Doc on board
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 14
737er: Agree, we are a long, long way from fully automated. But, wouldn't that only support more eyes? Also, you really think it's impossible to correct massive input for CFIT from cruise? If it's at least possible, isn't it worth it?
Not sure I understand what you mean by "more eyes". Please explain and I will give you my take.
As far as CFIT from cruise recovery, sure it's possible. But if a nutjob is bent on crashing the plane, then all we would be doing is changing the timing in which he accomplishes that.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Doc on board
737er: Agree, we are a long, long way from fully automated. But, wouldn't that only support more eyes? Also, you really think it's impossible to correct massive input for CFIT from cruise? If it's at least possible, isn't it worth it?
I liked flying with three in the crew. It made things easier during emergencies and non-normals. Someone to fly, someone to read the procedure and someone to perform the procedure. Even in a two pilot aircraft using an augmented crew with an IRO in the seat during critical phases of flight. Still the sensible division of duties. We are concerned with safety, right?
That attempted hijacking that was thwarted by a three man crew had a better outcome than the four successful attempts that followed.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
737er: Just meant that in an age when full automation was still considered too buggy for commercial flight, it would argue for a human failsafe, in this case an extra crew member on FD. And that includes the possibility of using physical force to deal with a rogue pilot. One good example is JAL 350, where the FO and FE overpowered the capt, and more survived (150) than would have had there been only one crew member on the FD.
Anyway, I'm off to bed. Have a great night all!
Anyway, I'm off to bed. Have a great night all!
and yet we don't read about Constellations and DC6's being deliberately flown into mountains very often back in the day so what is different now?
Quote:
Exactly. The most vulnerable part of the plane now is the mind and the mindset and the ideology of the pilot.
Me:
Nothing statistically supports that claim as being true.
Human factors, Risk Resource Managment (CRM) and strategies to improve pilot performance linked to those are one thing. And as you point out the most important thing. I agree.
The distinction is that somehow "now" there is a problem with pilots as the deliberate cause of crashes rather than either the savior or as the "tried but could have done better."
We have a tendency to eat our own. One extemely rare and bizarre incident does not a sound safety reaction make, no matter how outrageous or tragic it may be.
Ask George W. Bush about 9/11.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real fallacy comes from the idea that 2 pilots on the flight deck can even prevent a determined nutcase at the controls from crashing the plane.
For the reasoning behind a two-crew requirement post-Germanwings, we only have to look at the nervous traveling public and their accommodating airline executives to find our answer. No airline wants to appear less safe than the others and the idea of a sense of security - however false it might be as in the case of a two-crew cockpit scenario preventing a deliberate downing of the aircraft - is appealing to both passengers and airline executives.
737er: Just meant that in an age when full automation was still considered too buggy for commercial flight, it would argue for a human failsafe, in this case an extra crew member on FD. And that includes the possibility of using physical force to deal with a rogue pilot. One good example is JAL 350, where the FO and FE overpowered the capt, and more survived (150) than would have had there been only one crew member on th
For example, didn't seem to help in SFO.
For fighting the bad guy, no doubt an improvement I agree.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's the DM but they are quoting our trusted professionals....
European aviation chiefs FORCE British Airways to carry an extra person in the cockpit | Daily Mail Online
European aviation chiefs FORCE British Airways to carry an extra person in the cockpit | Daily Mail Online
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bille1319
Not just tabloids! Litany of it on here from first page.
Isn't it strange how none of the tabloids have been seen to apologise to Gernanwings and Airbus for suggesting just prior to the crash that this A320 was past its sell by date and insinuating maintenance problems.
Same newspaper, different story (that's a link to the story about Lubitz pre-announcing his intent).
Re the article on BA being forced to adopt the two-person policy, it's not immediately obvious how an EASA recommendation can "force" an operator to do anything (although of course public opinion, orchestrated by the press, can often have that effect).
Re the article on BA being forced to adopt the two-person policy, it's not immediately obvious how an EASA recommendation can "force" an operator to do anything (although of course public opinion, orchestrated by the press, can often have that effect).
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole point of two pilots is backup if one of the pilots is ill or incapacitated. Leaving one pilot on the flight deck invalidates the whole process. A third pilot can be cruise qualified only. It is an ideal training process.
European aviation chiefs FORCE British Airways to carry an extra person in the cockpit | Daily Mail Online
It's how we have done it in the states for a long time. Is it actually better (or less safe as the folks in the article maintain)?
Nobody really knows because it all depends on the circumstances. Those circumstances are so rare that there is no reliable data. It's risk managing gone wonky as a reaction to illogical fears as exacerbated by the media.
It's how we have done it in the states for a long time. Is it actually better (or less safe as the folks in the article maintain)?
Nobody really knows because it all depends on the circumstances. Those circumstances are so rare that there is no reliable data. It's risk managing gone wonky as a reaction to illogical fears as exacerbated by the media.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Claybird
It would appear that much of the 'philosophical, medical, detective-related, sociology-related, conspiracy theory-related and any other posts', has emanated from your fellow professionals. Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings!!
I just wish the vast majority of non-professional posters (both in this thread and in the Fight Deck area as a whole) would take their philosophical, medical, detective-related, sociology-related, conspiracy theory-related and any other posts not related to the nature of the rumors section of PPRuNe elsewhere.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yarpos
Tesscoe meant:
Who will guard the guards?
Sometimes translated as Who watches the watchmen?
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
why not just say what you want to say instead of trying to be cute?
why not just say what you want to say instead of trying to be cute?
Tesscoe meant:
Who will guard the guards?
Sometimes translated as Who watches the watchmen?
puzzling aspects
From a previous post of mine:
Also, why would a landing briefing be given during the initial climb? This is a time to be on the lookout for any pressurisation problems etc, closely monitoring leveling off etc, certainly not distracting attention away from these essential monitoring roles with a landing briefing.
How could they have listened to the destination ATIS to determine runway in use and expected approach, specific local WX etc to be able to give a detailed and full brief by this stage of flight?
This reported 'landing briefing' doesn't make much sense - I think there was more to this specific briefing than has been mentioned by those who know, along with the actual discussion that gave rise to the reported change of mood of the FO.
Apologies in advance if I have missed any vital pieces of information; I have tried to check the published information thoroughly before posting.
Some things are simply not adding up for me, particularly the 'evidence' supporting the theory that this was a malicious act by the FO. It seems that the FO has as good as been found guilty of murder without full evidence or any trial, however...
1. We are assured that the sound of the FO breathing (note: 'normally', not hyperventilating or panicked) is heard through to the end. Similarly, we're told that the Alt select can be heard being wound down, a seat being moved, and the door being opened and/or closed. Yet I haven't heard of any reports of the FD door being positively locked in the 'Lock' position, yet this should be clearly audible if these other faint sounds have been picked up. I cannot help feeling that this would be of sufficient importance to have been explicitly stated in the very detailed account offered by the French authorities of what they have heard. Some have questioned how breathing, described as gentle can be heard. I can assure readers that with digital signal processing techniques, including correlation and autocorrelation, signals significantly below the noise floor (ie completely drowned out by noise to the human ear) can be measured and heard, making the CVR a very rich source of audio clues that we wouldn't normally be able to hear. Few are aware that GPS operates by receiving signals sometimes 30dB or even 40dB below ambient noise levels (ie when massively swamped by noise which is many orders of magnitudes stronger than the actual GPS signal) by using this very technique.
2. Is the reported 'normal' breathing consistent with the alleged actions the FO is apparently guilty of doing? It gives the impression of being indicative of a relaxed, possibly incapacitated or even semi-conscious or unconscious person rather than someone knowing they are pointing at a mountain and about to die.
3. It has been assumed that the FO was conscious, if for no other reason than because he HAD to repeatedly re-lock the door after the 5 minute time-out. Have we had this explicitly stated by the authorities who know the facts or heard the CVR audio? If so, wouldn't this positive re-locking be clearly audible on the CVR as per my point above? However, the FO did not NEED to re-lock the door. If the Captain was preoccupied with banging on the door, as has been reported, it is entirely possible, even likely that he never made a (further) attempt to activate the access code as by this time his desperation to re-enter the FD would very likely be closing down options in his mind, to simply trying to smash his way in, just as we have been told. And wouldn't any attempt to re-enter the entry code be reported on as significant? A brief break in the door banging while a code is re-entered would be quite obvious on the CVR.
4. We are informed that the passengers were apparently unaware of the problem until the final seconds. By all accounts, the Captain made significant efforts to either gain the FO's attention, or indeed to break the door down. Are we really to believe that this all went completely unnoticed by the passengers?
Given these anomalies, I don't believe we have been told significant facts that have been revealed by the CVR. And it also seems very premature to judge the FO as totally guilty, as many have done so on this very forum, until the full facts are known. Maybe the media reports forced their hand, but I believe this partial revelation of CVR evidence combined with strong suggestion that the FO deliberately did this is not the way to handle such an important investigation as this.
Some things are simply not adding up for me, particularly the 'evidence' supporting the theory that this was a malicious act by the FO. It seems that the FO has as good as been found guilty of murder without full evidence or any trial, however...
1. We are assured that the sound of the FO breathing (note: 'normally', not hyperventilating or panicked) is heard through to the end. Similarly, we're told that the Alt select can be heard being wound down, a seat being moved, and the door being opened and/or closed. Yet I haven't heard of any reports of the FD door being positively locked in the 'Lock' position, yet this should be clearly audible if these other faint sounds have been picked up. I cannot help feeling that this would be of sufficient importance to have been explicitly stated in the very detailed account offered by the French authorities of what they have heard. Some have questioned how breathing, described as gentle can be heard. I can assure readers that with digital signal processing techniques, including correlation and autocorrelation, signals significantly below the noise floor (ie completely drowned out by noise to the human ear) can be measured and heard, making the CVR a very rich source of audio clues that we wouldn't normally be able to hear. Few are aware that GPS operates by receiving signals sometimes 30dB or even 40dB below ambient noise levels (ie when massively swamped by noise which is many orders of magnitudes stronger than the actual GPS signal) by using this very technique.
2. Is the reported 'normal' breathing consistent with the alleged actions the FO is apparently guilty of doing? It gives the impression of being indicative of a relaxed, possibly incapacitated or even semi-conscious or unconscious person rather than someone knowing they are pointing at a mountain and about to die.
3. It has been assumed that the FO was conscious, if for no other reason than because he HAD to repeatedly re-lock the door after the 5 minute time-out. Have we had this explicitly stated by the authorities who know the facts or heard the CVR audio? If so, wouldn't this positive re-locking be clearly audible on the CVR as per my point above? However, the FO did not NEED to re-lock the door. If the Captain was preoccupied with banging on the door, as has been reported, it is entirely possible, even likely that he never made a (further) attempt to activate the access code as by this time his desperation to re-enter the FD would very likely be closing down options in his mind, to simply trying to smash his way in, just as we have been told. And wouldn't any attempt to re-enter the entry code be reported on as significant? A brief break in the door banging while a code is re-entered would be quite obvious on the CVR.
4. We are informed that the passengers were apparently unaware of the problem until the final seconds. By all accounts, the Captain made significant efforts to either gain the FO's attention, or indeed to break the door down. Are we really to believe that this all went completely unnoticed by the passengers?
Given these anomalies, I don't believe we have been told significant facts that have been revealed by the CVR. And it also seems very premature to judge the FO as totally guilty, as many have done so on this very forum, until the full facts are known. Maybe the media reports forced their hand, but I believe this partial revelation of CVR evidence combined with strong suggestion that the FO deliberately did this is not the way to handle such an important investigation as this.
How could they have listened to the destination ATIS to determine runway in use and expected approach, specific local WX etc to be able to give a detailed and full brief by this stage of flight?
This reported 'landing briefing' doesn't make much sense - I think there was more to this specific briefing than has been mentioned by those who know, along with the actual discussion that gave rise to the reported change of mood of the FO.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's how we have done it in the states for a long time. Is it actually better (or less safe as the folks in the article maintain)?
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: California
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doctor patient confidentiality laws
@Nutwood
I wonder if the main "let out" is the pilot leaving the doctor's surgery without mentioning the things he or she fears will result in a dismissal.
Client confidentiality laws usually have a let out clause if the doctor has reason to believe the patient might be a danger to themselves and/or others.
It's how we have done it in the states for a long time. Is it actually better (or less safe as the folks in the article maintain)?
Apparently only some have done that: United Shifts Two-Crew Cockpit Policy on Certain Boeing Jets - WSJ
