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.

Thanks for the lesson.

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.

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.

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

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.

Simples. Opened the door.

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.

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

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...

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.

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

Name one...just one.

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.

B2N2 it is obvious 911 refers. 1 pilot + 1 cabin crew Hijacker. Mmm.
Not a well thought out solution IMHO

Greasy Monkey

Great :rolleyes: ...so how would that work if one of the pilots becomes incapacitated and the other pilot decides to initiate an diversion to an en-route airport? He/she might be OK with the door becoming unlocked, but he/she and perhaps the Feds might not be...How would it work if you had to engage in serious weather avoidance - in addition to doing the weather avoidance, liase with ATC/cabin crew, etc, you've now got to enter (repeatedly?) codes? A "simpler solution" it is not....

1201

Agreed. If not done properly and with great care it certainly has the potential to create serious problems, and no, I'm not going to spell them out here.

Firstly brother, having a second person on the flight deck, they would have noticed the captain banging on the door and even seen him on the CCTV panel.

Secondly brother, the first officer (the scumbag coward that he really was and his parents must be so proud of him) would never have dared such a move with a second body in the flight deck.

All pilot suicide accidents have occurred when one pilot has been in the flight deck, except for Egypt Air (and some claim Air France 447 as well but no comment from me).

1/ The 1 pilot + 1 cabin crew hijacker scenario ( unless you want to start vetting cabin crew in the same manner as we do pilots......cabin crew don't even do one on one interviews in some airlines, they do mass interviews......hardly the same standard)
2/ Distraction. How many pilots have been distracted by conversation with the cabin crew and missed position reports or a looming CB while they are organising their post flight drinks session? I'd suggest quite a few, I know that both myself and my Captain missed top of descent once when we had a particularly attractive young lady up front with us. When I go to the loo and I have a good looking twenty something male First Officer who is green on type, I know I return as quickly as possible if the cabin crew member who goes in is a young and attractive female. Distraction.

We may as well stop all modes of transport because this scenario could occur anywhere, be it trains, subway, ISS... plus the chance of two airline employees organizing a hijacking together is a very remote possibility. Yes the possibility still exists but for that argument, we may as well ban knives, forks and any sharp objects to protect our children.



I am sorry but if something like that distracts you, then you have demonstrated a lack of airmanship and have jeopordized the safety of every soul on board. God forbid anyone who is that easily disoriented and distracted takes off from a coastal airport towards the sea/ocean in the middle of the night without any visual cues!

I have to agree. If I knew which airline you fly/flew for I would avoid it.

THR RED ACC, brother!!

What if the captain bangs on the door to let him in but the copilot claims he's having psychotic episode!! What to do?? Legally she's obliged to open the door!

Think that's far fetched? I remember a incident on a jet blue flight where the captain developed such an episode!! Granted, the second person on the flight deck happened to be an off duty pilot, but what if there was not an off duty pilot onboard?

Wow, what choice would. A CA face, the copilot which a strange look on his face claiming the captain is crazy or the copilot is crazy. Just saying!!