The New York Times is reporting the cockpit voice recorder indicates one pilot refused to allow the other back into the cockpit as he crashed the plane intentionally. (www.nytimes.com) 更多...
A probable hare-brained idea: in a situation like this the pilot kept outised the cockpit agains his will will be allowed to send a message to the airline HQ which in turn will reléase the locking mechanism open.
The technology is there but we can regulate something to death. Couple of things here: Who is going to pay for it and #2. Most of us did not find out until the 214 crash that there was a different standard for Airlines coming in here. I think that if they fly into our airspace, they should adhere to our standards under part 121. Seem to me they are under part 192, but not sure on that number, but some of the standards are different.
I think there is a communication system that allows flight attendants to do this. I seem to recall that on 9/11, flight attendants were communicating with their airlines as to what was taking place on at least one of the flights. If they can do this for your car when you lock the keys out, I would imagine it would be possible to do it with an airliner.
On 9 11, they weren't much above that and were still over NYC. They didn't have a problem. I'm a thinkin' that there was only 1 that did and she was on the AA, and I think Todd called his wife over in PA on flight 97 but it was low too.
Both, United and American Flight Attendants communicated with their company ground personnel by using the onboard "air-phone" systems, which were located in the seatbacks.F/A's and Pax used cell phones, in addition to the Onboard phones, to communicate to the ground thru loved ones who then called the proper authorities.
Since cell phone communications can not be executed inside an aircraft I was referring to the satellite phones that most airlines carry aboard but so far I learned that it is stored inside the cockpit so to make this a doable solution said satellite phone should be stored in the galleys or anywhere is well behing the aircraft.
I bet they could come up with an app that used Bluetooth to unlock the door. Not much chance in intercepting the signal as it would probably just be used in an emergency. Encrypted on the phone and password protected...yeah...that's the ticket.
I notice news coverage showing a training video for typing in something on a keypad outside of the cockpit as a way to get in. However I am under the impression that this is not intended to be an entry as you might be able to force a staff member to enter the code. Hopefully someone here can comment knowledgeably.
Time? First you have to reach the bureaucrat within the bureaucracy. How much time did it take to to fly this airplane into the ground? How much time does it take to reach the guy with the code and then have him/her engage it.
I just read breaking new that Air Canada has just implemented the mandatory 2 people minimum in the cockpit at all times rule. This is prudent under the circumstances, and it seems to have worked for US carriers, however I am not sure how effective it really would be. Would it really be difficult for someone who is mentally unstable for whatever reason to quickly incapacitate this individual, particularly if they are physically much larger and stronger? This is not intended as a sexist remark, and there are exceptions, but, generally speaking, how hard would it be for a 6' 200 man to knock out a 5'5" 120 pound woman. My point is this may place flight attendants at unnecessary risk in an area where they are not really trained.
Well, Norwegian announced it today as well. You are probably correct in your thinking, about physical size. It may just be the thought of it. A suicidal person is generally thinking only of themselves and just another person in the pit there with them may turn those thoughts aside, at least temporarily.
Hey Preach, I'm thinking any pilot can figure a way to bring down a bird if he really wants to. What happens when the pilot flying transitions to climb right after t/o, concentrating on the hsi, and the other pilot jerks the throttles to flight idle? I'm guessing something bad gonna happen even with 2 in the cockpit. BTW, I'm reading that the perp here may have been a recent Muslim convert. That may be hype to sell print.
I'm like you, it's just like a thief. A lock is only gonna stop an honest man. It will only slow a thief down for a few. I think you could have a cockpit full and if they wanted to take it down they could. 2 in there is just window dressing. It may help some as far as a deterrent but it wouldn't stop it if somebody wanted too. Ala the FedEx some years back. The guys plans changed as far as what he thought he would have to deal with crew size but he tried anyway. Had it not been a couple of Vietnam Vets, he'd probably have been successful. I haven't heard anything about the Muslim angle yet but I wouldn't be surprised if it came out, real or imagined.
It came off Facebook, put out by the Tea Party but no real news source link. He is that FB link if you want it. Some of the major news services apparently picked up on it as well.
With a little planning and the right timing, how hard would it be to strangle the guy in the other seat? Hands, eyes, and mind all occupied, focused on doing something with the plane, and BANG, cord around the neck, whatever else.
Having someone else in the cockpit is an implicit security measure, not an explicit one. It wouldn't deter some ISIS sicko, but for some one like this where the lights are on and no one's home, it's all about the path of least resistance. The abstraction of flying a plane into the ground so indirectly with the autopilot, not just nose diving into the deck or doing something similarly sensational, tells me this guy wasn't going to physically overpower someone in the process -- it was him getting to be alone without confrontation that allowed it to happen. A 10-year-old girl sitting in the cockpit would have been just as good as having a green beret in the cockpit.
There is no such thing a the perfect defensive plan and I don't think anyone has proposed one. As preacher said above, 'locks only keep honest men out'. A 97 pound female F/A would qualify as a second in the cockpit. Her only advantage would be fleeting and then if she were standing. But she may be able to get the door opened to let the pilot in. It may all come down to the intuition you use every day.
Looks like suicide committed by PIC: Once at altitude, the other pilot gets out of his seat, closes door. PIC changes willingly the altitude setting on autopilot, leaving throttle and course as is. He does neither react to calls from ATC, nor to the knocks on the door. He was not incapacitated. If so, the autopilot would have kept FL380 till the cows come home. Then he just waits.
Looks like. Though why commit suicide through a normal descent which takes quite some time and might have given the pilot or others opportunity to re-enter the cockpit? Why not autopilot off, engines off and nose down. Much faster. Then again, maybe he wanted to let fate decide. We'll never fully know...
If he really cared to do it fast, he would have firewalled the throttles and pushed the nose down to overspeed and overstress the airframe. As has been already pointed out: we will never know what he was thinking. Then again, do we really want to know what crazy religious nutcases are really thinking? *shrug*
I would think that the passengers would have panicked and started sending text or tried to make phone calls if something like that was going on. Eight minutes is a long time, there would be tweets, emails, texts etc. and I haven't heard of anything like that.
About texting / cell phone: Yes, there are villages and most probably there is cell phone coverage in the area of the last part of the flight. But the plane was flying at 400 kts. GSM phone cells are small (few km diameter and the plane flying at 900 km/h, leaves only 10-20 seconds per cell) and it takes a while for the phone to register with a base station. Most passengers are non-French so mobile roaming is involved, which takes even longer to register. Because of this, they were most probably not able to get a lock on a base station. If they tried, I would assume that the phone operators could check the logs and see if people tried. That could help to indicate whether or not the passengers were incapacitated by hypoxia.
I'm a telecoms engineer, but not in the mobile business. So anyone, feel free to correct me.
Unless there is wifi on the flight and its actually working, making a call, sending a text, email , etc is completely useless. Also there is probably no cell towers in the French Alps so even when the plane gets down to around 10k there is still no signal for any passengers to work with. The best thing anyone with a phone can do is record a good bye message to their friends and family and maybe take some pictures of what is going on around the plane. There is a slight chance that the phone memory could survive a crash and maybe help in the investigation on what happened to cause the crash.
Also, the pilot would have hopefully enlisted other people to try to break the door down. For all we know, that's what happened and the door stayed intact.
You're right. For now this is an OK stop gap measure but is certainly not a long-term solution. If you are going to have armed marshalls on the plane (like El Al), then do it....properly.
There is no sure fire permanent solution. A deranged man could over come a mature male as well as a slight built F/A. The guy would have to get out of the sitting position first and with no warning. I don't think airmarshalls are on every single flight yet.
Preacher said it well when he said "locks only keep honest people out" and someone else mentioned early on that all the money and time devoted to keeping people out of the cockpit kept the pic out of it as well. We have so many examples where bureaucracy has only added to the problem. I.m not sure another law or regulation will help or hinder. I'm inclined to think that more rules, regulations and laws will hinder on site solutions and cost more lives and equipment.
With countries now rushing emergency rules to address this issue, I'm seeing many media outlets claiming that "two crew members in the cockpit at all times" is the rule for US operators. However, I'm not finding that rule in the FARs.
Is this actually a FAR requirement, or is it policy implemented by the individual airlines? I realize that FAA probably has review and approval over many of the operational procedures of individual air carriers, so it may effectively work as a regulatory requirement without actually being published as a rule. Can any of the industry professionals here clear up where the authority for this "rule" really originates?
Well, I can't call it chapter and verse but I don't think it's just the 121 gang. I flew 135/91 for a lifetime and it was applicable to us. I was director of flight ops as well and I remember it coming down. We took most of our stuff thru Jepp. and I generally didn't question the stuff. Besides, it made perfect sense, especially at the time
It would explain the lack of communications with controllers -- they didn't answer repeated calls and sent out no distress calls during the eight minute descent. They may not have been flying level, but they were flying straight, so they probably weren't fighting with the plane.
And if not hypoxia, something along the lines of heart attack, aneurysm, etc... I'm sure they're diving into medical records right now. Hoping they find a body to examine.
I don't think it was lack of oxygen. In the crates I have flown, the flight deck had the same environment as the cabin. Airbus may have a sealed cockpit. If so, it is different from a Boeing or MD-80 series. Lose oxygen on the fight deck and the rest of the craft loses atmosphere also. It is not a cocoon with its own atmosphere, is it? Thus, I dismiss the hypoxia theory.
Sorry if this is a stupid question (forgive me) but couldn't flight decks be extended to accommodate a flight crew toilet? That way they do not need to leave the deck.
How about they just issue the pilots "Depends" and require pilots to stay in the cockpit for the entire flight unless the plane requires 3 crew in the cockpit....then 1 could leave at a time.
Even if the Captain had been in the cockpit the outcome may not have changed because the copilot could have easily incapacitated the Captain without warning any number of ways.
Basically if a pilot wants to sabotage an aircraft from the flight deck there is little that can be done to prevent it. In this case however being allowed to single seat an A320 with only 600 hours of total flight time seems risky...requiring more flight time for such a responsibility could ensure a higher level of pilot maturity and provide an increased window of time to weed out pilots who may have potentially problematic mental or personality issues.
Well, single seating at cruise is not a big deal if there is a qualified officer in charge, which there was. As far as the incapacitation, I think it will just depend on the individuals and how an attack comes about. Granted, it was 3 instead of 2, but the FedEx md11 from a few yesrs back almost didn't make it. Probably with a lesser crew, he would have succeeded.
I think they have all been reconfigured into a morphidyte MD11. They just had 2 crew. The 3rd man in that meelee was the perp. Suicidal with and axe up against 2 Vietnam vets. Neither are flying today as a result of disabilities in that deal
It is possible but not practical. RyanAir wanted to eliminate the toilets altogether on their planes. They can add more seats where the toilets are. More seats, more revenue. Also, less toilets, less weight. It would certainly be more convenient for the pilots. It just ain't gonna happen.
I don't think that's a stupid question, Bill. I'm sure there are engineers "noodling" on that concept right now. While they're at it, incorporate a galley. A sterile cockpit during flight. That might be a bit extreme. Maybe not.
Here's a simple (sort of) solution... Pressure switches in both seats that detect when someone is seated. Only when both seats are occupied can the keypad override be used. Whenever a seat is unoccupied, regardless of the setting of the override switch, the keypad will work.
I'm not even sure that having 2 in the cockpit is a failsafe. For example, in the Egyptair 990 suicide crash the pilot re-entered the cockpit but was unable to correct the situation in time. As pointed out by others, somebody in the cockpit determined to bring a plane down can probably work around any safeguard. The best thing you can do is try and screen out people who might do this. It's been pretty successful if one considers the number of pilots through history in contrast to the number of times an event like this has occurred.
To my thought, the most important aspect of what's happened is depression and its stigma. The FAA has done little on this issue. Allowing a small number of medications is it so far. If those don't work for someone, they just have to suck it up and fly if they want a paycheck. There is little safety net, as Disability Insurance is mostly useless, with those companies fighting like hell to deny claimants. People are mostly scared to engage anyone with depression issues, and are likely to run from anyone with psychiatric issues. So, pilots who are dealing with depression and other psychological and/or psychiatric issues are going to mostly be left untreated or not properly treated. So, it would be best for attitudes to change to address pilots facing these issues.
John, I am going to play Devil's Advocate here. There are different types of depression. The depression one gets from a traumatic event such as a death or loss are rarely long term and are easily treatable. True Clinical depression is chronic, recurring and can last a lifetime and there can be a genetic component to it. The drugs used to treat this type of depression have numerous side effects that can interfere with ones judgement and skill set. I don't know about you, but I don't want to fly with someone who has a long term mental issue like this. I won't even get into untreated bi-polar disorder. Perhaps someone with true and chronic psychiatric issues should not pursue a flying career where the trust of the general public is put into their hands. It seems very selfish to me that someone would be willing to risk the lives of others for their own interests. I do understand where you are coming from. Chronic depression runs in my family and can be very difficult to treat. I am one of the fortunate ones who did not inherit the gene. Perhaps there does need to be a psychiatric evaluation at the ATP level.
I remember that USAF had a psychiatric screening for pilots and high stress/security clearance positions. Best I remember from back in the day, it was a joke. Questions were leading and if you answered them wrong you wouldn't get the job and hence there went any chance of a career. I guess the doc could look at body language but most didn't. Flight Surgeon, or in this case civilian AME, is probably best line of defense, aided by co-workers. I personally think self reporting is useless, due to needing a paycheck but I don't have all the answers. Even if someone did report and get treatment and was brought back, there would be the trust issue as that would spread like wildfire.
Not saying it is what we are all thinking in the back of our heads, but remember, the PIC did crash a E-190 (LAM Mozambique iirc) about a year or two ago
Yeah. Although if I remember right 990 they weren't locked out... disgruntled employee has done it before too... that PSA BAe, and unsuccessfully, the fedex cargo jet....
Are we that afraid of terrorism that we'd rather have something like this than take the tiny risk of having someone take a key from the captain's cold dead fingers, or beat a passcode out of him?
A pilot who has the intent of crashing a plane could easily overtake a FA. How do we solve this? An armed air marshal supervising the PIC while the other pilot uses the restroom? How could you be certain that an ARMED marshal might not try to bring down a plane. This event is going to have far reaching effects. We put our lives in the hands of these pilots and we assume they love their jobs and have our best interest/lives/safety at heart. Sadly, this is apparently not the case here. There will have to be some type of system whereas a pilot can "lock" the autopilot on while he steps away from the controls and that input can only be unlocked with 2 passcodes/inputs/thumbprint scan/retinal scan..whatever,from BOTH pilots for the control to be reinstated to both pilots. A sad day for aviation to be sure.
A pilot could kill the guy next to him in his seat, too. How do we protect against that? An air marshal in the jump seat? The marshal could lose his marbles and shoot both of the pilots. So an air marshal to watch the air marshal... ...there is no way to fully protect against the lone psycho.
Reminds me of Dr. Seuss - the Watchers watching the Watchers watch the Watch Watchers. Same thing for all the layers being proposed on equipment and SOP.
A lot of overhead, but not a lot of gain in the system.
Agree with JD. This type of incident along with face-palm human error incidents, are just ammo for the pilot-less aircraft lobby if you can call it that. I think everyone knows in the back of their mind that pilot-less is where civil passenger aviation is going eventually . . . hopefully WAY down the road. Once computers can be reliable enough and the system able to accommodate, we will start seeing passenger flights without a human pilot. From 3 to 2, from 2 to 1, from 1 to none.
What the pilot-less lobby doesn't get is that the next generation of psycho can bring ALL of the pilot-less aircraft down if he is a good enough hacker.
The more secure features we install the more difficult we might make it for a flight crew attempting to resolve an emergency from making essential deviations from the computed "standard" permitted protocols. Airbus already seems to have gone a long way towards having computers override humans. In Papa X-Ray's case it seems that the bypass-proof locks we installed on the door to prevent the "bad guys" from gaining access prevented the "good guy" from trying to save the a/c. If we require two passcodes or keys to "unlock" the autopilot what happens if one of the keyholders deliberately dumps his key in the head ? Does the a/c keep flying at 38000 until fuel is exhausted ? No, we need a bypass procedure. So, what stops the "bad guy" from using the bypass procedure to unlock the autopilot in the same way that the "bad guy" used the door lock system to isolate Papa X's flight deck ?
The problem is, fancy or not, a cockpit door is a door, and there's no door in existence anywhere on the planet that can guarantee absolutely 100% of the time that it will let the right people in and keep the wrong people out.
Unless they just get rid of the door entirely and make the pilots climb in through the window like a NASCAR then put a few layers of battleship armor between the cockpit and the rest of the cabin, they can't guarantee the cockpit is going to be 100% secure keep the wrong people out. And if they make a way for someone to always be able to override it from outside, there's a human factor and that can always be manipulated in some way or another, whether it's taking a key, stealing a code, holding his amputated finger up to a print scanner, or what not.
I notice that when the descent started, speed increased, as expected. However, about half way to the ground, the speed is reduced. Can someone proffer an explanation for this?
Pilot 1 goes to bathroom, Pilot 2 starts descent in VS mode.. Has a heart attack and dies before entering the level off altitude. Pilot 1 tries to get back in but it's too late?
Why Pilot 2 should have started descent mode before becoming incapacitated ? It shows up no reason leaving level (human action) without informing ATC. Sequence looks more like suicide with controlled flight into terrain.
One important factor you're missing. Why would he lock out the other pilot. The captain tried using his code entry, but that can be disabled from the inside.
Too early to jump to conclusions. But it is normal that everybody is thinking about possible scenarios. Can somebody with more knowledge than myself comment if the following could be a possible scenario?
* One of the pilots goes to the bathroom * At that moment oxygen levels get low * person in the cockpit is too slow or doesn't realize and is incapacitated by hypoxia. However, he still starts the descent to a safer altitude. * person in the bathroom realizes and can grab a 'portable oxygen device' for cabin crew * the plane keeps descending, but nobody is in the cockpit to terminate the descent.
Questions to that: * explosive or rapid decompression: should be audible on the CVR, isn't it ? * slow decompression: would that sound any alarms in the cockpit. I'd hope so, but then it would also be audible on the CVR. * if the person in the cockpit started a descent. Would that be on manual flight controls? Or is that also an automated procedure? * If it is an automated procedure. Would that level of at a certain altitude or just fly down at a certain angle?
28 year old Co pilot with 630 hours killed 149 people.... That is why in the USA if the pilot or co pilot removes themselves from the cockpit a flight attendant comes to the cockpit. That way you always have two up front. I'm sure the rest of the world will go by that by the end of the day or the end of the week. Very very sad.
Looking at the location of the crash site and the surrounding area on Google Earth, there are a number of villages and roads in the area. I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't be cell coverage in the area, and one should be able to connect with the cells as the plane descended. Even if you try to send a text at cruising altitude and can't connect, phone will continuously search for a cell to connect to and then send and receive pending messages.
I'm halfway between DC and Richmond, VA, just outside a good sized city. Good luck getting a cell signal here. I have no problem at all believing there was no cell coverage in the flight area.
An unusual story about which I am reminded: Last year, one year ago this week in fact, a Jet Blue flight was forced to land in Amarillo. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-03-27/jetblue-plane-diverted-after-captain-becomes-ill-during-flight
As I recall, the copilot took over and locked the pilot out of the cockpit by changing the combination when the pilot left to use the lavatory. The copilot had judged that the pilot was not fit to fly (details in the article linked).
I'm not sure what security Germanwings had in-place, but if it was the same mechanism by which a code could be entered for the pilot to re-enter the cockpit, then it would be likely the remaining pilot had to change the code. The other possibility, that the exited pilot forgot the code and some kind of health event overtook the remaining pilot in the cockpit, seems remote. It would be two acts to crash the plane rather than one: locking out the exited pilot and using the plane's controls to intentionally crash. Not knowing how the 320 operates, it may be even more difficult than this to essentially override the computer to fly the plane into the ground.
I'm not a commercial pilot but perhaps a security card situation carried by both pilots. Both cards would need to be inserted into a software console before and after autopilot is engaged. If pilot leaves cockpit he removes his security card. And autopilot can not be disengaged until second security card is reinserted. The same software app may also control the hatch rather than the present method. Pilot must insert card then pin and he's in and both pilots together are in control.
You have more trust in technology than I do. That seems to be the Airbus thought train though. I like the idea of human pilot over ride ability to all systems, personally.
In this case, we humans built A door more stout than it was and found out 15 years later that a flight deck crewman could not reenter. Why? Because another crewman locked him out with an electronic code. I like the American solution of always having a minimum of two flight crew in the cockpit at all times during operations.No system is perfect and men and machinery will fail from time to time. Only The Supreme Being has access to perfection.
Heard 2 hours ago on french info radio that F/O's body found with torn documents in pocket showing him on sick leave. Was not supposed to fly. Apparently Airline not advzd.
It's remote where they crashed, but not too remote for about half of the descent (I'd say). Of course, it probably took a while until people realized what's going on...
Right Preach. Not knowing is the problem. My wife was a therapist working with mental, drugs, alcohol etc. etc..for years. She was telling me mental illness especially depression is hard to police. Family members may see signs something is wrong but reluctant to intervene. But in the outside world a depressed person can function well and when the individual makes the decision to act on their emotions the burden is lifted and days or weeks before the act they can appear to be the life of the party. So Preach I'm stumped. Increasing security protocol in workplace (cockpit) I guess will help but seems to me individual like this will continue to slip through the cracks on occasion.
Well, as a couple of folks have said here on the various threads, you cannot protect against everything. There are some things that are going to happen in spite of best efforts. I could preach a good sermon here but won't. It will just have to suffice to say that there is a lot of stuff out there right now that is hammering at us. Now, whether they have always been there and we are just now hearing about them/identifying them matters not. They are there, they are identified and we must do our best to deal with them. Our biggest problem is going to be keeping from a knee jerk reaction as we have on so many things. Ultimately, this world is going to have to get back to God. My sermon for today.
The flight time is not a factor by itself. It is where you are in that flight and they were at cruise. All settled and done, primarily monitoring. Normal
Maybe one of you real pilots could fill me in. Would the PIC that was left in the pit have any reason to mess with the auto pilot while the the other pilot was out of his seat? What I am wondering is that if there was a need for an adjustment/correction and a medical emergency of some sort that incapacitated the PIC, he would not have been able to reset the auto pilot? Seems to me we may never know. Terrible.
Question: I do not see any mentions of announcements heard on the plane PA system. Passenger must have seen the Captain banging on the door in the rather small A320. I'm sure they where wondering what in the world was going on. Is it odd that there is no reference to a PA announcement trying to (at least at first) calm people down?
Question: I do not see any mentions of announcements on the plane PA system. Passenger must have seen the Captain banging on the door in the rather small A320. I'm sure they where wondering what in the world was going on. Is it odd that there is no reference to a PA announcement trying to (at least at first) calm people down?
We are US citizens living in Europe and fly a variety of low-cost and legacy carriers. For every flight that I have been on, when one of the pilots leaves the cockpit, a F/A enters; ensuring two people are in it at all times. Wondering if the requirement is EU mandated or a rule by each airline.
They say that it is U.S. mandated but not a requirement in the EU. If it is done over there it must be an airline policy or could even be local to the flight I guess
Maybe one of you real pilots could fill me in. Would the PIC that was left in the pit have any reason to mess with the auto pilot while the the other pilot was out of his seat? What I am wondering is that if there was a need for an adjustment/correction and a medical emergency of some sort that incapacitated the PIC, he would not have been able to reset the auto pilot? Seems to me we may never know. Terrible.
This is basically speculation too, but in the nutshell: They got to cruise and settled in. Captain had to go P. No problem with FO handling as all should be automatic. They would have stayed at cruise a fair bit until getting closer to Dusselldorf. I can't see any reason that anything would need to be touched at that point. The only thing I am really curious about is why, if suicide was the intent, is why the descent wasn't faster and why there was no fire/explosion or real impact point. Then again, if he was incapacitated, why did he put it on a descent at all.
It is my understanding from John whom gets his info from an insider in Germany that the first officer adjusted the rate of descent mode thereby eliminating any doubt as to his intentions
Well, I can believe that. I'm a thinkin' he started out somewhere around 2 grand and would up about 3500 grand per minute. Regardless, it crashed. Some have talked about dumping fuel on the way down but the A320 does not have fuel dumps.
Gaining re-entry: Why didn't they apply a combo type lock on the cockpit door ? Easy access back in. Unless the high security bolt was thrown. In that case then only a key and over ride the high security type lock - period. Locks by time....high security locks only by more time.
Here's a possible solution: When pilot A has to leave the cockpit, they enter a code, which prevents pilot B from locking pilot A out. Upon pilot A's return, when they enter the access code, it re-enables the lockout feature. This would lower security for a bit, but could have prevented what happened here.
A French prosecutor says the co-pilot of the Germanwings airbus was breathing normally and appeared to want to “destroy the plane.” He was a German national without any indication of a connection to terrorism.
There has got to be something here not being told about this FO, for him to be arbitrarily blamed for taking the plane down. Granted, all appears to point that way, but how do they know he was not incapacitated in some way. The other thing, as I have stated, that bothers me and some other folks, how come no fire.
"... how do they know he was not incapacitated in some way?"
Not a pilot but after watching the video on the door locking system I'll take a guess.
1) FO wasn't going to open the door so the pilot punches in the code.
2) buzzer sounds in cockpit for 30 seconds and door opens if "no response from cockpit"
Video doesn't specifically say this but if the buzzer only sounds say 10 seconds, FO locks door for 5 minutes, buzzer stops. Meaning FO is not incapacitated, door remains locked and stuff happens.
One pilot exited cockpit on Germanwings flight 9525
According to an official involved in the investigation of the fated Germanwings flight 9525, one pilot was locked out of the cockpit during the plane's final minutes.
So how does that work when the captain or co-pilot needs to go to the bathroom? Does a member of the cabin crew need to sit in the cockpit during that time?
OK for those who asked. Prior to 911, and the secure cockpit door, it was not uncommon for 1 pilot to leave the cockpit for physiological reasons. This would leave only one person in the cockpit. After 911 we installed the secure door. The US airlines elected not to modify aircraft with a video system to verify who was at the door prior to cockpit entry. Without a video system, one crew member must get up from a control seat to look through a peep hole to verify who is attempting entry. Therefore, once one person leaves the cockpit, the US carriers established the policy where a F/A would enter the cockpit. That F/A would verify, via the peep hole, who was entering. This allowed the sole pilot to remain at the controls and did not require him to just electricly unlook the cockpit door without verifying who was entering. Some foreign carriers elected to ìnstall a video system. This allows the single pilot flying, to verify who is entering, electrically unlock the door, without getting up from a control seat.
No, not being sarcastic, just being politically correct and meaning it, we need 3 pilots in the flight management compartment at all time, fill up the jump seats ad a third pilot, yes it costs, but what are 150 lives worth?
Reportedly they have the cockpit voice recorder. There are reports they also have the on-board flight data recorder however 1 of its memory cards was reported to be missing.
The FDR records a lot of data and can take a while to read out even if undamaged. Photos that I've seen, show that at least one of the recorders was pretty banged up, so it could take longer to recover. Looks like it hit a speed so there could be impact damage that could slow recovery of the data. Early indications seem to rule out a mechanical problem, so the Cockpit voice recorder data will be the critical factor in determining what happened.
Come on all you Xenophobic American, "if it ain't Boeing I'm not going", not invented here types. Surely you can come up with some contorted thought up reasoning why it must be the fault of airbus industrie.
I am probably one of Boeing's biggest proponents on here as that it all I have ever flown and don't like being locked out of my ability to control a plane, but any of them will go to the ground when commanded to.
No, I said locked out of my ability to controls mu plane. Cockpit door apparatus is standard regardless of aircraft. Might be a tad of difference on installation but as far as I know, it looks like the locking mechanism is the same. I can't say with a certainty as I have never graced the cockpit of an Airbus.
Irony is the English way of saying sarcasm while pretending to avoid offence, hopefully unsuccessfully. Incidentally, have you heard about the Englishman with an inferiority complex? He thought he was the same as everyone else.
I can recognize sarcasm a mile away but generally don't engage in it with someone I don't know. I requested a sarcasm font that many of us have asked for at least 3 months ago but FA chose to do a home page upgrade that nobody really wanted rather than stuff that had been asked for.
preacher1 you are such hard work. You havn't got relatives working on the immigration desks at airports have you. Because I think I recognise the sense of humour
No such Kin but I have got a guy that lives about 5 miles from me by your name, except he was a lawyer all his life and has a daughter that followed him that is TopGun in the divorce world. Bill Bob, is this you?
I find it suspicious that the crash of Flight of germanwing completely disintegrated My company will incorporate this model the airbus 320-200 and lack the black box chip or memory card manager juanguerrero.- charter flights worldwide express Bolivia
That's OK... until someone hacks the ground-air link and takes control and crashes a plane remotely. Then there's no one on board to countermand the hacker's override.
It is my understanding that the dispute between Lafthansa and its pilots at least partially involves the shrinking of the Lufthansa fleet and the increase in the Size of the Germanwings fleet. If so, I would assume that many pilots would be given the opportunity to transfer over to Germanwings at a lower rate of pay. The people transferring over would probably have more hours than the accused co-pilot of that doomed flight. That means that with only 640 hours on type, he was probably going to be furloughed. This pilot had worked apparently for almost 5 years as a FA. He really had the determination and heart to stick to his dreams of flight. Perhaps,the company was about to put him on the beach again. Totally speculative, but the scenario caused by the 2 airlines and their labour disputes with their pilots, might lead to an unbalanced desperate young pilot to make a bad decision. Comments?
Richard...I have read several articles that said co-pilot had 600 hrs when he hired on in 2013. If he has 640 hrs in type, that would give him 1240 hrs total experience. Does anyone know if this possible? I do not know foreign carriers minimum requirements for right seat. If true, hiring 600 hr pilot and putting him in the right seat makes know sense.
Well, a big part of the dispute is that early retirement program, and lest we forget, I don't know about 600, but there were a bunch of newbies hired here at 800-850 before the 1500 hr rule came along.
The talking heads on CNN just reported that he only had 100 hours on type. Hard to believe if he's been with Germanwings for 1.5 years as a pilot. The 600+ hours seems much more likely.