An observation from the BEA preliminary report pages 22-23

From the previous DUS-BCN flight, aircraft level at 37000ft, captain leaves cockpit, seconds later ATC cleared them firstly to 35000ft and then circa 40 seconds later to 21000ft.

Lots of manipulation of target altitude to to 100ft etc during the time the captain wasn't in the cockpit, but when the captain returned to the cockpit four minutes later the target altitude selected was 25000ft and not 21000ft :confused:

ATC expecting 21000ft within an unstated time frame, but in the absence of terrain clearance issues would there be any reason not to set the desired altitude at anything other than 21000?

No indication of if this setting issue was resolved by subsequent communications and actions by the flight crew and if it raised any queries.

Requiring a flight attendant to wait on the flight deck while one of the pilots is out seems like a reasonable, unrevolutionary precaution.
Nobody wants to be the ones who allow the next GW either.

Of course, nothing will ever be able to stop a determined, skilled individual that is trusted with the operation of an aircraft from crashing it, no matter who is in the cockpit at the time.

EgyptAir 990 proved that.

In this case even if a CC person were on the flight deck what are the chances of them realizing what was happening in time to prevent this. I understand that she/he could have possibly let the captain back on to the flight deck but based on what has been reported it would seem that the alarm was raised only after the captain could not regain entry.
As has already been pointed out its all pretty moot anyway considering that if either of the two people at the front decide to end it there is not a lot that the other pilot, CC or SLF can do. Like anybody in control of people carrying transport the public places trust in the individual/s at the pointy end.
It's the trust in the system (and fellow workers) that allowed this individual to be in his position that I suggest should be questioned.
And no I don't have the answers for that.

1 hour turnaround! What a joy! Give me that every time...

EASA releases Task Force report
 

European Commission - PRESS RELEASES - Press release - European Aviation: Commission releases Task Force's report on Germanwings incident

The Task Force recommendations are:
- The principle of 'two persons in the cockpit at all time' should be maintained.
- Pilots should undergo a psychological evaluation before entering airline service.
- Airlines should run a random drugs and alcohol programme.
- Robust programme for oversight of aeromedical examiners should be established.
- A European aeromedical data repository should be created.
- Pilot support systems should be implemented within airlines.

Next steps:
The Commission will review the recommendations, taking into account advice received from other sources such as the independent accident investigation led by the French Civil Aviation Safety Investigation Authority (Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses (BEA)). Where legislative action is to be taken, EASA will be requested to develop concrete proposals, which will then be included in EU aviation safety regulations. EASA will also be asked to produce non-legislative deliverables such as guidance material and practical tools for information sharing, and to monitor actions taken by Member States and industry.

BTW
 

BTW, for EASA to call this an "incident" IMO grossly underestimates the magnitude of its impact on society and industry....

Once again EASA task force ignoring the problem completely and making recommendations to satisfy the public ie: recommending the politicians solution.

How about a look at how pilots are treated, the ever reducing TC's and the struggle to survive under a mountain of debt, changing contracts and applying FTL's as targets rather than limits.

Physiological evaluations can be beaten/manipulated at first hire interviews and as people get fed up as their life circumstances change or work pressure builds up, the desire to do the undesirable may come at random times after the initial psych evaluation.

Totally agree,the E.C. is completely missing the point in this,was he drunk or on drugs…no,he probably knew the chop was coming and was having a breakdown as a result.His actions were abhorrent but let's not deflect the real issues with bull**** recommendations in the hope that it will all go away.

Looks like most of this is patterned after what U.S. airlines have been doing for quite a while.

The psych eval (remember the Drs. Janus and the rocking chair at Delta?) had gone away at many American carriers for a while but has returned in online form in recent hiring.

The head U.S. Department of Transportation doc has wanted yearly pscyh evals for pilots for some time now and he may get it after the Germanwings 'incident'.

The big picture
 

Banks, multinationals, corrupt governments, big airlines are run by psychopaths on behalf of their shareholders.

A crew of an airliner flies a plane, these aforementioned individuals fly around with billions, thousands of employees, whole countries.

What about psychological screening for those that run these bodies?

Where is IFALPA?

What about non European airlines flying into Europe?

Is EASA going to do anything about them?

What about non European airlines flying into Europe?
Is EASA going to do anything about them?

True. With EU airlines able to sub-charter their flights to cheaper operatives, albeit for short term, EASA rules may not apply to all EU flights with EU nationals as pax. The same will be true for non-EU airlines operating in/out of EU. In the latter case EASA may put their head in the and and say the pax have a choice; in the former the pax may not even know until they board the a/c. Knee jerk reactions often cause many more problems than they solve. e.g. 100ml bottles of liquid in hand luggage. Totally BS useless.

Typical reaction of the doushbags in cologne... they use that incident to flex their muscles and extend the reach of legislation even further into our lives.

None of the proposed points would have prevented the murder Lubitz has committed.

This is the biggest joke of all:

"should"....

I can already see the MOLs of the airline world taking care of a pilots support program - that will consist of an axe, no doubt about that.

Dr. Janus and the Rocking Chair
 

Airbubba: "The psych eval (remember the Drs. Janus and the rocking chair at Delta?)"
That was very entertaining!

His dudeness:


Well...perhaps. But, in the EU, the US, Canada, and OZ, the unions will short circuit your concern.

Not-so-random drink and drugs testing would be welcome imho.
And this alleged mass-murder only serves to demonstrate that controls over flight crew are still not yet adequate to protect the innocent travelling public. Who have a right, when they compulsorally place their trust and lives into the hands of two or three unknown, and unseen individuals, to expect that those individuals are Fit to Fly. In every sense.

ChissayLuke:

It will never be 100%, anymore than trains, automobiles, and ships.

I don't recall saying that it ever would be.
But it is a sound aspiration, and there is a burden of duty of care upon 'regulators', to ensure that it is as near as it can be.
It is my view that the travelling public has a right to expect such.

I perceive the bigger danger here is not that we miss existing psychological conditions that affect pilots. Instead, my opinion (FWIW) is that increasing the pressure on pilots, and the intrusion of monitoring into private lives will drive some pilots into conditions that were NOT existing.

I agree absolutely that there needs to be a wholesale improvement in pilot support systems, and that pilots should be able to seek appropriate support and/or treatment for mental health issues. Just the same way as it is currently possible for physical health issues.

I just can't see that moving further down the road of intrusive monitoring linked to career-guilotines is going to achieve the intended result of reducing what is already a VERY rare situation.