Airbus A320 crashed in Southern France

[averow]

intrusive monitoring

We are seeing the same in my own field of anesthesiology and critical care. I am all for continuous quality improvement, etc. but it makes me very upset when a mid-level manager with much less education or experience that I have dissects my performance down to the microsecond including whether or not I use blue or black ink on my notes.

When performance reviews get very punitive then it fosters an uneasy atmosphere especially for a professional.

[Pitch Up Authority]

The arrogance of psychological evaluations

As pilots we accept: black boxes, CVR, a door to keep the terrorists out, two checks every year, a line check and an annual medical.

On top of this we get bombarded with the principles of CRM where it is accepted that every decision that is made may be challenged by the other crew member.

The result of all this is that pilots "rightfully" develop an attitude to demand the same from those that judge their personality traits.

If those that are about to peal us like an onion are not familiar with our profession we will end up with the good ones being thrown out.

The first one who dares to challenge the decision made by the psch will be considered as a rebel and unfit to do the job. I do not know a single good captain that does not draw a line in the sand when needed.

The decision taken by EASA has put us under the dictatorship of the psychologist and possibly worse that of the psychiatrist. The door is wide open for abuses and there is nothing we can do about it.

And the ONLY reason why this happened is that the doctors that were aware of the condition of the German Wings pilot DID NOT inform the airline.

Just to mention a common problem. Any pilot that gets involved in a divorce will have to explain his marriage complications to a shrink just in order to keep his job!!! Madness!!!

[aterpster]

Pitch Up Authority:

Just to mention a common problem. Any pilot that gets involved in a divorce will have to explain his marriage complications to a shrink just in order to keep his job!!! Madness!!!

That is simply awful! Where are your unions?

[flyawaybird]

jetopa

Since this seems an isolated case because pilots have been flying for time immemorial and did not commit mass murders or even single killing. Does the case of narcissistic disturbance cause some people to just want to Kill?
I mean one wonders if this individual did this on purpose.

[Slfsfu]

I question the statement Since this seems an isolated case….

I think there have been as many as 4 or 5 in recent years where the investigation has come down on the side of intentional action by the pilot having been the cause of the fatal crash. Maybe around 1000 souls lost.

I do not presume to offer any comment on how to solve the issue. Just wanted to correct that statement.

[PastTense]

For Families of Germanwings Victims, Anger Burns Through Grief

Nevertheless, the families of the Haltern victims and those of more than 50 other victims are meeting on Saturday to discuss filing a lawsuit in the United States, where Mr. Lubitz was training when he was granted a leave to recover from depression. Elmar Giemulla, a German lawyer representing many families here, said he believed that in addition to additional compensation allowed under United States tort laws, a suit could help uncover more information about the extent of Lufthansa’s knowledge of Mr. Lubitz’s condition and how he could have been considered flight-worthy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/wo...gh-grief.html?

[sb_sfo]

Not a lot of detail in that piece on how a US suit would be heard by a US judge, unless there were American victims?

[peekay4]

Not a lot of detail in that piece on how a US suit would be heard by a US judge, unless there were American victims?

Yup. There were three Americans onboard.

According to the Montreal Convention, a plaintiff may choose to bring suit in any one of five different jurisdictions:

1. The domicile of the carrier
2. The carrier's principal place of business
3. Where the carriage contract was made (*)
4. At the destination, and
5. Where the passenger has his/her "principal and permanent" residence (*)

(*) Assuming the carrier does business there either directly or indirectly through a commercial agreement (codeshare, etc)

That last jurisdiction, the so called "fifth jurisdiction", only applies when there is damage resulting from death or injury of passenger (which is obviously the case here).

Note that the citizenship of the passenger does not come into play; Only the "principal and permanent" place of residence matters.

[sb_sfo]

Thanks for the lesson.

[Greasy Monkey]

A simpler solution.

The autopilot system having the ultimate control over the door lock - whenever pre-set deviation limits for the flight controls are exceeded, the door is unlocked. The door lock should also be designed as fail-safe - requires power to retain locked state.

These deviation limits should be set according to the flight plan/route (automated calculation of % deviation, or similar), and if they are to be over-ridden, require two valid pass-codes from the assigned crew.

[armchairpilot94116]

Let's look at how many times a locked door has prevented entry by terrorists and others bent on ill intent since we started having these break-proof doors, versus how many times a pilot has killed everyone by locking these same doors.

Maybe it is better to do away with these doors.

Maybe the cabin crew need all be trained in martial arts and be expert at those skills, rather then just serving drinks/food as well.

[Herod]

It's been said before, but I'll say it again. TWO PEOPLE ON THE FLIGHT DECK AT ALL TIMES.

[gcal]

I do not understand how simply having two people there would have helped in this case.
How would a non pilot have understood what the intentions could be by the initial variations of height?
What could they have done once the realisation had settled in?
A second person in the case of incapacitation so they could call for help yes; but not in this case.

[Herod]

Simples. Opened the door.

[Uplinker]

Yes, this has been misunderstood.

The purpose of the 'baby sitter' in the cockpit while one pilot goes to the loo is purely to open the door and let that pilot back in to the cockpit.

The baby sitter is not expected to assimilate what the remaining pilot is doing to the flight path, nor are they expected to physically restrain or control that pilot by themselves.

They just open the door.

[Alain67]

How would a non pilot have understood what the intentions could be by the initial variations of height?

Seeing the ground getting closer would have been a major concern for every non pilot - and not stupid - person !

[Mr Magnetic]

Originally Posted by armchairpilot94116

Let's look at how many times a locked door has prevented entry by terrorists and others bent on ill intent since we started having these break-proof doors, versus how many times a pilot has killed everyone by locking these same doors.

Maybe it is better to do away with these doors.

Given that we can never know how many terrorists may have been deterred by the presence of a locked door, the only sensible way to quantify this would be to total up all historical incidents and "pro-rata" the result based on hours flown since the introduction of locked doors vs hours flown before.

I've no idea what number you would end up with but I suspect it would spoil your point...

[1201alarm]

It's been said before, but I'll say it again. TWO PEOPLE ON THE FLIGHT DECK AT ALL TIMES.

Absolutely agree. Lubitz most probably wouldn't have done this if he would not have been alone. He waited until he was fully in charge and had no chance of "failure".

The question is what is a smart way of always having two people in the safe perimeter of the cockpit? To bring a flight attendant upfront creates many other issues.

I would argue the two pilots have to be the two people who always stay upfront. We need to redesign the forward space so the pilot does not have to leave the safe perimeter to go to the loo.

[B2N2]

Really?
Its got nothing to do with the door or the toilet.
Red flags started showing during his flight training and they were ignored.

To bring a flight attendant upfront creates many other issues.

Name one...just one.

[Herod]

I have to agree with 1201alarm. At least on the 737, it would have made more sense to position the door aft of the forward toilet. It wouldn't have been too difficult to connect a hot water boiler for tea/coffee at the same time. Have a hatch to allow crew meals to be served, and the area becomes self-contained and secure. But at the same time, I'm also puzzled about the problems raised by having cabin crew in the flight deck when the pilot is out. It was SOP with both the companies I worked for post 9/11.