Germanwings Plane Crash Was No Accident 737
hcs_$reboot writes The Germanwings plane crash takes a scary turn. After a couple of days investigation, it appears that the co-pilot requested control of the aircraft about 20 minutes into the flight. The pilot then left the cockpit, leaving the co-pilot in full control of the plane. Then, the co-pilot manually and "intentionally" set the plane on the descent that drove it into the mountainside in the southern French Alps. Co-pilot Andreas Lubitz, a 28-year-old German national, could be heard breathing throughout the plane's descent and was alive at the point of impact, according to the prosecutor.
it could have been an accident (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's assume that on average a person faints only once in a lifetime, and that on average we spend 5 minutes a day with seeking out and using the restroom. Then on average we should expect in every 70*365*24*24*60/5 = 177 million hours that a pilot faints while another is using the restroom, assuming that these two events are uniformly distributed and independent. According to IATA [aviationbenefits.org] the total number of flight hours in 2012 was 45 million. Dividing the two numbers we see that we should expect such a joint occurrence to happen once in every four years. That it does not happen this frequently is essentially due to the retentive heroism of the pilots, that they tend to stay put even when the urge comes until they guide the plane to safety.
Re:it could have been an accident (Score:5, Informative)
Except that the co-pilot "manipulated the flight monitoring system" to allow the plane to descend at 1000 meters/minute.
Jeebus, that's terrible!
Re:it could have been an accident (Score:5, Informative)
And the co-pilot had to have blocked the door so that the pilot could not re-enter. From the article, there is a code that allows crew members to open the cabin door from the outside, but the pilot inside the cabin has the ultimate power to block access. So it seems the co-pilot deliberately overrode the ability of the pilot to access the cabin again.
Re:it could have been an accident (Score:5, Funny)
It's a single switch. Dont make it sound like he pushed a dresser in front of the door.
Re:it could have been an accident (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the pic of the switch in question:
http://oi58.tinypic.com/qyhc0p... [tinypic.com]
In "normal" mode its set to allow the door to unlock when the external code is entered.
In "unlocked" mode, the door is completely unlocked.
In "locked" mode, the door is completely locked, the external code will not unlock it.
The action to move between the three states is a very deliberate one - you need to lift the switch up and move it, there is an infinitesimally small chance that it was engaged by accident.
Re:it could have been an accident (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed. Here's a 5 minute Airbus-produced video showing how the reinforced door interlock system works, including the exact same switch you describe:
Airbus Reinforced Cockpit Door Description and Procedure
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:it could have been an accident (Score:5, Interesting)
No.
Simply falling on this switch wouldnt cause it to change positions - it requires a deliberate act to do so, the switch requires a certain force to pull up and then move to one position or another, its not like accidentally changing channels on your TV because you sat on the remote.
Also, there is no button or switch he could have fallen on which would have caused the gradual descent that we know the aircraft took. Changing the auto pilot altimeter requires you to use a dial and then confirm the change in two separate actions. Any interaction with the side stick would require the auto pilot to be off, which would mean we should have seen a lot of other, large movements in the aircrafts path, which are completely missing from the telemetry we have at the moment.
The few commands that we see in the telemetry (and by telemetry I mean the transponder tracks, which cover speed, height and directional changes) indicate that the aircraft was under either the control of the pilot or the autopilot for the entire duration of the descent.
Re: (Score:3)
Simply falling on this switch wouldnt cause it to change positions - it requires a deliberate act to do so, the switch requires a certain force to pull up and then move to one position or another, its not like accidentally changing channels on your TV because you sat on the remote.
According to this video, the switch does not need to be lifted before being switched into the lock position
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:it could have been an accident (Score:5, Informative)
Regarding overriding the autopilot system, not it is not - you do not "remove" the autopilot from "normal law", as that is the normal operating law and you cannot intentionally degrade to alternate law.
Flight laws have nothing to do with autopilot states or limits. They are flight system protections and limits.
The 15 degrees value you use is the protection that normal law gives the pilot when the pilot is in charge, it is not a limit on what inputs you can command using the side stick while the autopilot is on. 15 degrees is quite a steep nose down angle.
Lets not forget here that we are talking about the aircraft descending, which does not necessarily require it to have a nose down position. There are several ways in which to achieve a descent, most of them in a normal situation does not require side stick interaction.
Re: (Score:3)
Tex Johnston did a couple of barrel rolls in a prototype Boeing 700 during a demo flight. [wikipedia.org]
Re:it could have been an accident (Score:5, Informative)
I can believe this. But what if, instead of falling against the switch, the copilot, recognizing that he was about to pass out (e.g. recognizing symptoms of an impending stroke), intentionally attempted to move the switch to the "unlocked" postion (to make it easier for the captain to get into the cockpit quickly)? Due to a combination of confusion, physical incapacitation, and infamiliarity with a probably rarely-used control, he could conceivably have turned the switch to the wrong position even while he was attempting to do what he thought would be the best possible action.
The switch is designed such that the middle ("norm") position is the only one that's stable and will be retained without the user pushing the switch. I.e. the switch will always move back to "normal" when not actively pushed to either "lock" or "unlock". And with the switch in stable position, the door can always be unlocked from the outside -- with a short delay that gives the person inside the cockpit time to actively suppress the unlock using the switch. If the person in the cockpit does nothing, the door unlocks. So without deliberate and repeated activity from the person inside the cockpit, there is no scenario that would indefinitely prevent people outside the cockpit from entering.
Re: (Score:3)
Not per cockpit flight recorder (Score:3)
Per French prosecutor, Co-pilot set controls to descend for deliberate crash. The course was a steady 26 degrees indicating he didn't faint and fall on the control stick and still maintain 26 degree course. Further, you must not just touch the control but hold it down for a time before the course is maintained. Breathing was normal.
The solution, already standard in the US (and today by NorewgianAir) is to require 2-crew in the cockpit at all times (one may be a stewardess). Further, aviation experts seem no
Re: (Score:3)
So what you're saying is that...it's possible [nih.gov]?
Re:it could have been an accident (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:it could have been an accident (Score:4, Funny)
if(plane_is_in_dive && security_code_entered){
open_fucking_door()
}
Re:it could have been an accident (Score:4, Funny)
open_fucking_door()
They applied that patch a while ago already. But they also forgot the tailing ';' and the patch could not be accepted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:it could have been an accident (Score:5, Informative)
Ot that they haven't slept. I know several airline pilots, they are told to fly even when they are very tired or when sick.
Re:it could have been an accident (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The door has been switched to "Locked".
Let me rephrase that: The door has likely been switched to "Locked".
Re: (Score:3)
I think his point is that there could be alternate reasons why the door would not open besides the position of the switch. Malfunctions, whether mechanical or electrical, CAN happen and HAVE happened.
They are rare, but he is correctly noting that we're speculating here.
Re:it could have been an accident (Score:5, Insightful)
If something like that happened, you would expect the copilot to say something about it. Instead, all they hear is the captain banging on the door, and only continued breathing from the copilot.
Re:it could have been an accident (Score:5, Interesting)
there's speculation, there's also logical inference. considering the entire universe of possibilities doesn't mean we turn off our brains
you are correct we should consider all possible situations, no matter how remote, because we're already in far remote territory here with this sequence of events
but the door being locked (intentionally or otherwise), combined with the pilot banging on the door outside and no answer, leads one to a logical conclusion about copilot intent: he meant to do this
the door could have malfunctioned AND the copilot didn't care about banging on the door?
i guess the door could have malfunctioned AND the copilot had a stroke
but everything in life is a calculated consideration of possibilities, and now we're going from "chance of winning the lottery" to "chance of winning the lottery 100 times in a row"
Re:it could have been an accident (Score:5, Insightful)
No. You are trying to explain a mechanical failure of a door right at the moment when the aircraft suddenly starts descending into mountains all the while during which the copilot also does nothing to try to correct this unscheduled descent and also ignores air traffic control. Seriously if it has wings and floats on the water and looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Your version requires many, many things to go wrong at once. The simple answer is, of course, only one thing went wrong - the co-pilot locked the door and set the plane to descend. Occam's razor, and all that.
Adding fuel to this theory is that the co-pilot was detatched and monosyllabic when receiving the briefing about landing in Dusseldorf - he had already made up his mind that he wasn't going to reach Dusseldorf. If the pilot wasn't going to go to the bathroom he probably was planning on killing the pilot anyway.
Re:it could have been an accident (Score:5, Insightful)
Giving one pilot (in the cockpit) the means to basically lock himself in with no ability for the other pilot to enter is too great a danger.
Except when there is a terrorist threatening the pilot outside, asking him to enter the code...
Re: (Score:3)
But there are more would-be terrorists in the world than severely depressed pilots.
Re:it could have been an accident (Score:5, Informative)
But there are more would-be terrorists in the world than severely depressed pilots.
It is not that rare:
Mozambique Airlines flight 470 - 29 November 2013
Egypt Air flight 990 - 31 Oktober 1999
Silk Air flight 185 - 19 December 1997
Royal Air Maroc flight 630 - 21 Augustus 1994
Japan Airlines flight 350 - 9 Februari 1982
Re: (Score:3)
The violence policy center estimates 674 murder suicides per year for the US alone. I would say this qualifies a murder suicide, if it wasn't done for political / religious reasons that would make it terrorism.
If we exclude acts done in hot zones like Iraq, Yemen, Syria, etc that are more military in nature, how many terrorist attacks were there last year? I don't know but I'd guess less than 674.
Re: (Score:3)
Where was the flight attendant? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's my understanding that the flight deck by international regulation is a "no alone" zone, meaning that when the pilot left, a flight attendant should have entered the flight deck so that the copilot was not alone. This rule is why it made sense to have a "Locked" position on the door.
The real question, to me, is, why was the flight attendant not on the flight deck while the pilot was away?
Re:Where was the flight attendant? (Score:5, Informative)
AFAIK, there is no such rule in Europe (yet).
Re:Where was the flight attendant? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fast forward a few years. Cabin attendant takes the crash axe from behind the copilot's seat and kills him with it. (One of the fire extinguishers will do fine to knock him out, too).
Really, there's only so much you can do to prevent this kind of thing. Once flying personnel can't be trusted anymore, all bets are off.
Re: (Score:3)
According to TFA, or maybe another article I read, that is a US-only requirement. There is no such requirement in Europe.
Re: (Score:3)
According to TFA, or maybe another article I read, that is a US-only requirement. There is no such requirement in Europe.
Who wants to place odds on which airlines implement this rule tomorrow, as policy, before the regulators get around to having a meeting on it?
I've got a nickel on Lufthansa doing it (coincident to ownership). Virgin too.
Re:it could have been an accident (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, not having a "Locked" position would be the same amount of idiotic.
But also failing to give one pilot the means to lock out the other pilot would be too great a danger.
Both scenarios presume one pilot who intends to destroy the aircraft and one pilot who intends to save it. That's the presumption either way, and however you approach the problem it's going to come down to whether the bad guy is locked into, or locked out of, the cockpit.
It's a coin toss, not 9/11-triggered-stupidity corruption.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No matter how you look at it. When it comes down to it. You have to trust your pilots. There's just no getting around that...
Re:it could have been an accident (Score:4, Insightful)
In addition to all of the other evidence against this.... its rare that a person feints while in a seated position, its far more common while standing. A pilot, especially one alone in the cockpit is in a seated position. Also you are assuming that people who feint are representative of the population as a whole and of the population of active working pilots; where there is likely some medical self selection bias at work in both of those assumptions.
Also for the most part, both pilots can leave the cockpit, or take a nap, and the plane shouldn't crash. This isn't exactly a wright brother's special here, this is a modern commercial airliner.
There really isn't a lot of room here for an accident based on the TFAs claims
Re:it could have been an accident (Score:5, Funny)
...its rare that a person feints while in a seated position,...
That's not true at all. For example, often times when I am relegated to the middle seat on an airplane I'll get all fidgety and unbuckle my belt. The aisle seat passenger will assume I need to get up and start to get his/her stuff in order so that I may be let out. Then I just settle back in to my chair and keep watching my movie.
I think you meant, "faint".
Re:it could have been an accident (Score:5, Funny)
its rare that a person feints while in a seated position, its far more common while standing.
Only because it's hard to advance or retreat from a seated position. I bet there's an example in a Three Musketeers movie though. Allez!
Re:it could have been an accident (Score:4, Informative)
Only on some airlines. Others allow one in the cockpit for the "minimum time necessary" (paraphrase of what I read on BBC News earlier).
Re:it could have been an accident (Score:5, Informative)
Re:it could have been an accident (Score:5, Funny)
I'm pretty sure that the autoland feature refuses to cooperate in the middle of the Alps.
Read reviews for the copilot here: (Score:5, Informative)
http://pilots-airmen.findthedata.com/l/986395/Andreas-Guenter-Lubitz
he didn't request control of the plane (Score:3, Informative)
The command was given by the captain before he left the cockpit (most likely to use the toilet).
Either Way (Score:2)
The saddest part of the story is the publicity will encourage other malcontents to mimicry.
Be careful of the term "terrorist attack" (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that no attack occured gives the talking heads leeway to claim there was no "terrorist attack." That does not mean the fellow flying the plane at the time didn't have sympathies for terrorists or had been outright radicalized.
They also hate calling something a "terrorist attack" if there isn't a pre-announced political message for the reasons behind the attack.
Myself, I have a feeling they're going to learn a few things about him during the investigation that they'd rather were not true.
Re:Be careful of the term "terrorist attack" (Score:5, Insightful)
it could be as mundane as depression
but then we're talking about depression and overwhelming narcissism here
because depressed suicidal people still know right and wrong: they aren't going to take 150 innocent people out with them. the desire to harm the self for various reasons is not the same as the desire to harm others. so when you're talking murder/ suicide, such as when a dad or mom kills the spouse/ kids then themselves, you're at a level far beyond and far different than just depression and suicide, you're dealing with a narcissistic asshole
if it is simply suicide and not terrorism, this suicidal guy is still a complete piece of shit on the level of a terrorist. to be so overwhelmed with such a selfish egotistical internal drama that 150 lives simply don't mean a thing? wow
man, if this is all because some fucking girl broke up with him... fuck this douchebag
Re:Be careful of the term "terrorist attack" (Score:5, Insightful)
I knew someone who stepped in front of a train. The driver was pretty badly affected by it. He wasn't a narcissist, he was just mentally ill with depression. In that state a person's brain isn't working properly and they sometimes act on faulty logic. In the case of people who kill their families before killing themselves they probably see it as the "right" thing to do, because they want to die but don't want their families to suffer grief, and see death as a way of ending suffering.
It's hard for us to imagine but when your whole world is pain things like that seem to make sense.
Re:Be careful of the term "terrorist attack" (Score:5, Interesting)
A couple of days ago, a Christian musician family in Phoneix (I think) went obviously nuts and engaged in a massive firefight with police in a big box parking lot they were camping in. Their entire repetoir was about Jesus coming and the End Times - and I'm guessing, since they were all armed, they were the US Government-Obama-is-Satan cultists that are extremely pervasive in the Confederacy (the West is just the suburbs of the Confederacy, has been since the end of the civil war). We have a gigantic armed cult of doomsdayer Dominionists dispersed throughout the country, and the FBI taskforce that monitored it was taken down at the insistence of Congressional confederate Republicans. Our loonies wear ties and Glocks and praise Jesus and fear the negro President. Not even a little bit hyperbolic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm guessing, since they were all armed, they were the US Government-Obama-is-Satan cultists
Yeah, if they had well armed bodyguards that demanded that the common man be barred the ownership of arms they'd probably be Republicans-are-all-religous-loons goosesteppers.
Not even a little bit hyperbolic.
Um, I'm "well armed", not a Republican, not a Christian, science supporting, environmentally aware person... you're being one step short of the level when we need to call the men
Re:Be careful of the term "terrorist attack" (Score:5, Insightful)
Or he chose the remote location because that was the route he was scheduled to fly that day.
people are going to be saying (Score:4, Insightful)
"USA overreaction to 9/11 means locked doors!"
but pilot suicide/ homicide is just as much a bizarre outlier as murderous hijacking
plus, they thought about this problem when designing the system. the door system means someone can enter a PIN on a keypad outside and override the lock (in case of pilot incapacitation). to override the override, the person inside the cockpit has to actively deny the outside override attempt. which in this case the copilot apparently did
so this copilot is a complete scumbag. depression and suicide is nowhere remotely an excuse or even a valid explanation for selfishly mass murdering 150 innocent people. this is assuming we are talking depression and suicide, and not more nefarious intent
what are we left with? keep the door open and we have murderous hijacking? keep the door locked and we have murderous pilots? yeah both are extremely rare outliers, but it's fucking scary either way
air travel is so much safer than driving statistically. but at least when you die in a car, it's for mundane, hum drum reasons usually. when something goes wrong in the air, it's cinematic drama, emotional and blood curdling. disgusting
and those poor people
there's screams on the recording on the end
we would have hoped they had no idea what was coming, but they knew full well what was happening.
Remote Override (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Remote Override (Score:4, Insightful)
I think we'll see renewed calls for a remote override capability built into airliners, so the ground can take over the plane when pilots become non-responsive or the plane begins to rapidly descend.
Well won't that would be fun when the hackers focus their attention on their new remote-control planes.
Re:people are going to be saying (Score:5, Insightful)
If a pilot or copilot wants to bring down a plane, it's unlikely there is any security procedure that could stop it. He didn't even need the locked door bit, He could have almost as easily just stabbed the captain when he turned his back.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
pilot suicide/ homicide is just as much a bizarre outlier as murderous hijacking
Oh the irony! The A320 was one of the first planes to have only 2 pilots instead of 2 pilots + 1 engineer (for cost reasons). At the time, 2 persons could always be in the cockpit at anytime.
Normal breathing in the face of murder and death (Score:3)
From the news it sounds like they could hear the co-pilot breathing normally and calmly during the whole descent - in the face of murdering 150 people and killing yourself plus the actual pilot hammering against the door trying to get in, this suggests at least diminished empathy and remorse a.k.a. psychopathic tendencies.
This validates the US policy... (Score:5, Insightful)
... of having a flight attendant stay in the cockpit when one of the pilots goes to the bathroom.
I would have previously said that was too paranoid but apparently not.
Re:This validates the US policy... (Score:5, Insightful)
What's up with people and these retarded knee-jerk reactions ? And you got even modded insightful. This was obviously premeditated. You don't think the guy would be capable of doing the same thing if a clueless flight attendant was there while pilot is taking a leak ? A guy capable of killing himself and 150 other people like this is perfectly capable of knocking the flight attendants lights out before locking the door, and if he really intended to crash the plane... he would indeed punch her/him out first.
Second thing... there's what.. 100k flights per day for the last 10 years ? That's like 360000000 flights. For one freak occurrence you should not introduce new laws and regulations and shit. That's exactly what happened on 9/11 .. knee jerk reactions which introduced dozens of new regulations and laws that basically did nothing but made life more difficult and annoying (security theater). And don't give me that crap how every life matters.. nobody cares really about strangers, ottherwise everybody would be in tears over starving children in Africa and some other places instead of stuffing themselves with pizzas, burgers and beer while reading slashdot and playing Call of Duty or whatever. This is just IN now.. plane crashes. So everybody is commenting about it, talking about it, and falsely emotional about it.
And finally, comment on your post title (This validates the US policy). -- The US has some of the stupidest policies ever. They are like everything else - fake.
On the surface (or on the paper) they look cool and effective, in real life they're just a shallow cover or a front for taking away your freedom and controlling your life.
I hope Europeans will actually think how they gonna deal with this instead of doing what Americans are doing. Perhaps incorporate emergency biometric scanner or something like that on the door that can override the "unlock" option ? There are dozens of better systems than .. "oh yeah, we can solve the problem by putting the flight attendant in while pilot is out"...
Jesus.
Re: (Score:3)
Security is hard... (Score:5, Interesting)
Designing security systems is very hard, and this crash seems to be a classic example of why it is so hard.
The reinforced cockpit door, and the access control system, was introduced after 9/11. Before that the cockpit door was typically a flimsy thing you could break down with a few good kicks. The reinforced door is designed to prevent passengers from obtaining access to the cockpit. The threat model includes attempts at brute force (the door has to withstand roughly an hour of abuse with anything that can be found in the cabin) and tries to coerce the cabin crew for keys or codes (as the pilots control entry). Airbus (and also Boeing, I am pretty sure) also has an emergency procedure which lets you enter the cockpit should the pilots be incapacitated, but the pilots can disable this. There is a nice video here which illustrates hos the access control system airbus uses works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
If media is correct one of the pilots wanted to crash the plane, and used the cockpit security system to prevent the other crew from interfering. This was not part of the threat model, and that made the current security system work in favor of the attacker instead of the rest of the crew. Not good. It cost 150 lives.
There are ways to get around this. Some airlines require two people to be present in the cockpit at all times, in an effort to prevent this kind of attack. It makes it a lot harder, but not impossible. It could also be possible to allow people on the ground to override the lock on the cockpit door. But in both cases you need to actually design your security system to deal with the threat, which I am sure people are rushing to do now...
Re:Security is hard... (Score:5, Insightful)
Zero. The 9-11 attacks worked because no one expected the hijackers were intending to suicide all along. We now know it, and they cannot hijack planes and succeed anymore, as no one will cooperate.The entire plane would swarm them, and rightly so. So they don't hijack. Zero hijackings prevented, not because of protocols, but because it's damned impossible to succeed, even without steel doors. We've overreacted, and now we've lost an actual plane because of the totally safe terrorism doors that even the commander can't open. Sigh.
Reminds me of one thing (Score:3)
We (almost) have self-driving cars. Aircraft generally self-drive themselves almost all time now. Why not have self-driving aircraft?
Seems a lot safer for now. Pilot can enter anytime if an emergency of non-standard situation is declared (and verified).
Re: (Score:3)
We (almost) have self-driving cars. Aircraft generally self-drive themselves almost all time now. Why not have self-driving aircraft?
Because then everyone dies when the computer fails. Autopilots regularly fail and expect the pilot to take over; sometimes, like AF447, the pilot flies it into the sea, but most times they resolve the problem and continue.
This is particularly problematic when sensors fail, as they did in AF447, and the computer doesn't know what's going on any more.
Has anyone looked at the Pilot? (Score:3)
I hate to throw conspiracy theory out there, but if the Pilot had made intentions to do dastardly deeds with the plane, perhaps this was a co-pilot trying to save lives at the sacrifice of 150. While I know this is unlikely, but there is the potential for this to be a thing.
Still, the Co-pilot would have probably said something on the flight recorder, so who really knows. Odds are in the favor that the co-pilot was an undiscovered nutter.
The cost of anti-terrorism (Score:3)
So now one plane has been destroyed as the direct result of anti-terrorism measures; in this case, the relatively uncontroversial hardening of the cockpit doors.
This has happened before (Score:3)
US solution adopted IMMEDIATELY by NorwegianAir (Score:3)
http://www.nrk.no/norge/endrer-rutinene-etter-flystyrt-1.12282226
NorwegianAir today requires 2 crew at all times in cockpit, just as we have in the US. We can only hope Lufthansa can follow sooner than later. Also, it's about time cockpit streaming cameras are required on all large passenger jets, demystifying most accident investigations. The worldwide passenger demand certainly trumps any pilot privacy.
Re:Risk Management (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently this is not the case in Europe. Perhaps it will be now.
How unfortunate this happened.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing is, this really is a freak occurance. So many flights, every single day, over every single city. People need to piss and shit, its simple biology. Every time someone goes for a piss break, someone else needs to be called in? That is just silly and insulting to the people involved.
In the grand scheme of things to worry about, this isn't really one of them. Its ridiculous to feel we need new regulations every time something happens...the next tragedy will always happen. It is inevitable.
Re:Risk Management (Score:5, Insightful)
Airplanes are all about redundancy, especially commercial air travel. It applies to the actual plane, and I see no reason not to apply it to pilots. Why do you think there are two pilots to begin with? Airlines want to save money. They would drop the second pilot if it weren't for safety regulations in the first place.
You screw up a car? You can coast to a stop most of the time and call it a fun adventure. You screw up and airplane and you will most likely DIE. So yes, I prefer to be silly and insulting to the people involved since it means air travel will be safer.
Re:Risk Management (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell that to the family of the people that crashed. Sorry, I will take a little inconvenience of the flight crew, versus allowing a single person in the cockpit able to do what happened here.
Re:Risk Management (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time someone goes for a piss break, someone else needs to be called in?
When you are actively responsible for the lives of 150 people, then yes, absolutely, without any doubt whatsoever, this should happen.
Its ridiculous to feel we need new regulations every time something happens...the next tragedy will always happen. It is inevitable.
Good regulations can help people and in this case may have saved lives. What I find abhorrent is your attitude that over a hundred human lives aren't worth a very slight inconvenience.
Re:Risk Management (Score:4, Informative)
Regulations suck, but they're often effective:
http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/articles/20140315_gdc500_0.png
Re: (Score:3)
According to a CBS article, the US has a policy that no one single person can be in the cockpit alone during a flight. If one of the pilots needs to leave the cockpit, a member of the flight crew will step in until the other pilot returns.
Apparently this is not the case in Europe. Perhaps it will be now.
How unfortunate this happened.
According to the Telegraph:
"[Carsten Spohr, CEO of Lufthansa,] said that in the US there is a rule that a steward remains in the cockpit when a pilot leaves, but that this is not the case in Europe and that he does not think it is necessary to change the procedures, despite the tragedy. "
Penny pinching CEO sticking to the low cost line no matter what.
Re:Risk Management (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless, was 16 schoolkids (amongst others) on that flight. You wanna hari kari? Go ahead, but keep it on your own dime.
Invoking "Think of the children" is just as bad here as anywhere else. None of the people on that plane deserved what happened to them*
* with perhaps the exception of the co-pilot
Re:Risk Management (Score:5, Insightful)
'Invoking "Think of the children" is just as bad here as anywhere else.'
If you can't see the obvious tragic death of a child (with their future robbed from them) having a heavier weight than an 80 y/o great grandmother who's had a wonderful life then I can't help you.
Yes, NOBODY deserved what happened to them -- but as someone who's experienced the death of elder loved ones and children, I can tell you the conversations about loss are quite different at their respective wakes.
Re:Risk Management (Score:5, Insightful)
'This "think of X" makes me sick'
Be sick, then.
Attending the funeral of a lost elder: Virtually all the conversations are about OUR loss. "I'll miss him. He was always there for me. He's been in my life since I was born".
Attending the funeral of a lost child: All the conversations are about the child's loss. "He'll never go to college. He'll never have a girl friend. He'll never get married. He'll never be a father".
Think it's sick? Bully for you. You're wrong.
'The bottom line is you are justifying it by casting another person as "lower" or "less""'
Ship goes down, save the children first. Sick? Or common sense? One life isn't worth more or less than any other -- on that we agree. But when talking about loss, we are have very different conversations.
Re:Risk Management (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Very smart! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but having two people in the cockpit is a safety measure, not a security measure. It helps if one pilot has a heart attack, but it does pretty much nothing if one pilot is a suicidal, murderous maniac.
I wouldn't say "nothing". It's hard to concentrate on suicide if you're busy trying to murder someone.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they should go back to having 3 crew members in the cockpit on the large passenger planes.
Yes I know its going to cost money, but how much did that plane cost, and there have been other times when the pilot or copilot has deliberately crashed the plane.
(I remembere an egyptian one)
We still don't know about MH370
Re: (Score:2)
Any method of getting in from the passenger compartment would be vulnerable to coercion.
I think maybe they should just have the senior flight attendant enter the cockpit whenever the pilot or copilot leaves, so that there are always two people in the cockpit (in theory, they probably won't *both* be suicidal...)
Either that, or implement better vetting of pilots.
Or maybe they should give the pilots their own bathroom, so there's no reason to leave the cockpit in
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Any method of getting in from the passenger compartment would be vulnerable to coercion."
not if you have an air marshall with an AA12 shotgun full of beanbag rounds right there. There are very simple answers, the airlines are whiny bitches that claim they cant afford it, and that is the center of the problem.
3 crew on flight deck for all aircraft, Let the pilots rest and get good sleep, and2 very well armed angry air marshalls on every flight. Solves 100% of all "terrorisim" problems.
Sadly the people
Re:Risk Management (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, until the air marshals themselves go rogue. (It seems unlikely, but then again, so is a suicidal copilot.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Risk Management (Score:4, Interesting)
You already need a pass code but, apparently, also whoever is in the cockpit also has to authorize.
The above is incorrect -- the person in the cockpit doesn't have to authorize, he just has to not actively prevent re-entry. (The PIN system is designed so that if the person in the cockpit passes out, another flight crew member can get into the cockpit. A requirement that the person in the cockpit actively grant access to the cockpit would defeat the purpose)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not always true... (Score:5, Interesting)
So now we want our drone pilots to take over passenger aviation controls the moment it's suspected an aircraft leaves it's projected path.
Maybe we should, if there is only one person in the cockpit. This is not just a single freak event. The same thing happened on Egypt Air 990 [wikipedia.org]. The copilot deliberately locked the pilot out, and then flew the plane into the sea while chanting "I rely on God". And we still don't know what happened to Malaysia Air 370 [wikipedia.org].
Intentional crashes appear to be about as common as terrorist attacks. So they should be taken seriously.
Re:Not always true... (Score:5, Interesting)
Before we got so efficient, a cockpit would have 3 or 4 personnel. Pilot, co-pilot, engineer, possibly radio officer. If there were always at least 2 people in the cockpit at all times, then it would be much harder for a single berserker to crash.
Unless of course, you arm the pilots and they shoot everyone else first.
Re: (Score:2)
It's impossible to crash this type of Airbus plane by accidentally leaning on the controls after a heart attack. Also, they could hear normal breathing until the last moment, and they know that the door must have been locked from the inside.
Re:Not always true... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Unless they are a complete and utter psychopath...
How would to call somebody who decides to crash into a mountain with 149 innocent passengers/crew ?
Re: (Score:3)
It's more likely that somebody will be breathing normally during a suicide mission than that they'll be breathing normally during a severe medical emergency, or during a mechanical malfunction, struggling to keep control of the plane.
Also, a medical condition wouldn't explain why the plane entered a descent (it takes a bunch of coordinated actions to do that), or why the captain couldn't open the door.
Re: Can't wait... (Score:4, Interesting)
Here you go: The American on board worked for a major intelligence contractor and was administering a mysterious $300 million contract for the Pentagon at the time of the crash.
You're welcome.
Re: Can't wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Can't wait... (Score:4, Funny)
So beware of all Frenchmen.
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.infowars.com/news.... [infowars.com]
Re: (Score:3)
So you are saying: 28 year olds were perfectly fit to pursue risky adventures. Am I missing something from your argument?
Have you ever looked at the average age of air force fighter pilots? People in their mid-twenties get to fly planes packed full of munitions that can ruin your day.