Alps A320 Crash

[shagrat]

Its a regulation now in Germany, it was mandatory in the US before...

[airdoc]

2 persons in the cockpit is NOT mandatory... it's a recommendation.

 

Besides... it is a bad idea. What if the other person is incapacitated? Now you created another problem by trying to solve the first one. Great!

 

Why would there be a need to lock the cockpit doors if one of the pilots *inside* the cockpit is incapacitated for some reason? On the contrary there shouldn't be such a need, because the other pilot would have to ask the flight attendants to come in the cockpit and assist/take care of the copilot.

[outlawal2]

We can go round and round forever with all kinds of scenarios but the fact remains that if someone wants to bring the plane down bad enough and they are a pilot copilot whatever.. They are going to bring it down... There is no silver bullet answer to questions like these and it sucks for sure.. But that is the way of it..

[chaos]

We can go round and round forever with all kinds of scenarios but the fact remains that if someone wants to bring the plane down bad enough and they are a pilot copilot whatever.. They are going to bring it down... There is no silver bullet answer to questions like these and it sucks for sure.. But that is the way of it..

 

Bravo... at least one person here who gets it. It is a fact of life that some things just can't be prevented.

[chaos]

Why would there be a need to lock the cockpit doors [....] flight attendants to come in the cockpit and assist/take care of the copilot.

 

Agreed and I see what you're saying now. Still ridiculous to go to these extremes to prevent a similar occurrence from happening again. I can see all sorts of problems cropping up when it requires 2 people to open the door... especially since the door has to be opened frequently, for all sorts of reasons, during any flight.

 

And I'm getting sick of so-called 'experts' and media pundits driving these changes while the investigation isn't even completed yet. Knee-jerk reactions are never going to work...

[Spook]

The dead pilot he should be blamed, it is irresponsible on the part of the media say something.

[shagrat]

Bravo... at least one person here who gets it. It is a fact of life that some things just can't be prevented.

Well, if a terrorist is determined to bring a plane down... If a passenger wants to do harm... etc., etc., etc.

That is exactly NOT what people talk about. The argument is that if there is a good chance that two people in the cockpit would prevent SOME of the scenarios, not all!

If I would use your argument, there is no need for two pilots anyway, as the autopilot should be capable if flying the plane completely on its own. No need for a pilot to sit there until the landing approach?

It may cost the airline some money, but it may prevent a few accidents... Let's hope next time a pilot is having this morbid feelings you are not the other pilot or a passenger and wish somebody had taken this fragile chance to prevent it, as faint as it may seem...

 

Seatbelts in cars are useless in mist accidents above 100km your innards get smashed to pulp anyway, still nobody finds it silly to have a regulation to put on seatbelts all the time.

[cichlidfan]

Seatbelts in cars are useless in mist accidents above 100km your innards get smashed to pulp anyway, still nobody finds it silly to have a regulation to put on seatbelts all the time.

 

Yet there are still places that don't require a helmet when riding a motorcycle. Go figure. :huh:

[shagrat]

Whatever, I really wonder what is so terribly complicated or annoying about the two person rule? It seems to work in the US, or do you say,there are a lot European airlines that don't fly to the US anymore because they can't manage to provide a flight attendant in the cockpit?

Neither, have I heard about regular complaints to the US authorities.

So can somebody elaborate why it is such a tremendous hassle to implement something, that works obviously?

If we just estimate that ONE other flight didn't end up in such a disaster, because of that rule, would it be worthwhile, or do you think we could have spared another couple hundred people in an accident, easily?

[airdoc]

.... I can see all sorts of problems cropping up when it requires 2 people to open the door...

 

I wasn't clear enough. Two people should be required in order to prevent the door from opening after someone outside the cockpit has dialed in the code trying to get inside, i.e. in exceptional circumstances.

 

Under all other circumstances, doors are locked during flight, but are able to be opened by anyone dialing the code

[chaos]

Whatever, I really wonder what is so terribly complicated or annoying about the two person rule? It seems to work in the US, or do you say,there are a lot European airlines that don't fly to the US anymore because they can't manage to provide a flight attendant in the cockpit?

 

First off... there is no requirement to have two persons in the cockpit at all times... even when you find yourself flying over Manhattan at 35000ft. But, what do I know... I fly long haul... to the U.S. among many other places.

 

I'm not that familiar with US air-law but I know of several U.S. airlines that operate under the 2 person at all times 'rule'. From what I know, this rule was established right after 9-11. Whether this is 'law', I don't know. It could very well be a company SOP. Again, don't quote me on this. Point being, this is definitely not a requirement put on foreign airlines.

 

If we just estimate that ONE other flight didn't end up in such a disaster, because of that rule, would it be worthwhile, or do you think we could have spared another couple hundred people in an accident, easily?

 

One life lost is one too many... obviously. Where do we draw the line because we might as well stop flying altogether, right? What about a bus-driver? Should he have somebody watch over his shoulder at all times because he just might fall asleep behind the wheel? Where do you draw the line?

 

This is an over-reaction by the public. Understandable perhaps but let the real experts learn the lessons and --possibly- implement 'solutions'. From where I'm sitting... I still trust my colleagues just as much as before this tragedy. That's all I have to say about this.

 

For another pilot's point of view...

http://mashable.com/2015/03/30/pilot-response-germanwings/

[shagrat]

I draw the line, where to avoid "inconvenience" is worth more than one life. Simple. Or what exactly is the problem with two people in the cockpit at all times?

And to be clear about the trust issue. I do not see "distrust" as a reason to do it, but the chance to help somebody, not to take that final step or to have somebody in the cockpit if the one pilot gets into trouble, health problem, choking on bead crumbs, spilling a hot coffee whatever.

[PFunk1606688187]

We can go round and round forever with all kinds of scenarios but the fact remains that if someone wants to bring the plane down bad enough and they are a pilot copilot whatever.. They are going to bring it down... There is no silver bullet answer to questions like these and it sucks for sure.. But that is the way of it..

 

Silver bullets are not what regulations and standards and procedures are about. Adding a 2 person cockpit rule certainly degrades the capability of someone wanting to bring a plane down. Now instead of having an opportunity to just flip a few switches and hum to himself as he sends 150 people to their doom he has to be more overt, he has to face another person and perhaps that will in some cases, many cases, perhaps most cases deter or alter the chain of events to allow those 150 people to survive what would otherwise be a hopeless plummet into a mountain.

[WildBillKelsoe]

I hope Airbus and Boeing implement ejection seats to all on board. And I'm not being cynical.

[Yurgon]

The flight data recorder was found on April 2nd. According to German media, it looks as if data can be recovered from it.

 

Today, the Düsseldorf district attorney also reported they had looked through the copilot's browser history from his tablet and found searchterms relating to suicide, relating to sealing and securing the cockpit doors and relating to medical treatment issues.

[shagrat]

First off... there is no requirement to have two persons in the cockpit at all times... even when you find yourself flying over Manhattan at 35000ft. But, what do I know... I fly long haul... to the U.S. among many other places.

 

I'm not that familiar with US air-law but I know of several U.S. airlines that operate under the 2 person at all times 'rule'. From what I know, this rule was established right after 9-11. Whether this is 'law', I don't know. It could very well be a company SOP. Again, don't quote me on this. Point being, this is definitely not a requirement put on foreign airliners

So I just found this:

 

http://khon2.com/2015/03/26/faa-requires-two-people-in-cockpit-on-u-s-flights-at-all-times/

 

May be long haul pilots are not required or simply ignoring FAA regulations, I don't know what is the usual approach here, yet it seems some officials in the US have thought about it, and taken measures long before the current accident.

I don't want to start a pissing contest, but I new I read something about this "official regulation" in a newspaper.

 

If it is possible in a country like the US, with planes used regularly like buses, elsewhere, why should it be impractically, inconvenient, impossible in Europe and the rest of the world?

 

In my view it would mean a little bit more planning, may be an additional flight attendant (as in additional cost for the airline) weighted against the option to help a pilot/co-pilot in the cockpit what could in some cases prevent trouble.

Not necessarily prevent a determined killer from bringing the plane down, but e.g. help the pilot if he spills a hot coffee over his thighs, chokes on some food, even if he suffers a heart attack, allergic shock, whatever the attendant could quickly react, help or at least infirm the rest of the crew including the other pilot.

Edited April 3, 2015 by shagrat

[Darkwolf]

Or what exactly is the problem with two people in the cockpit at all times?

 

The problem is an obvious overreaction. Everytime something happen, they are rules. Nowaday, you can't do no shit at all in whatever proffesionnal/leisure activity because they are f* rules everywhere. Some are needed, most were just placed here because one stupid dude did something stupid, and someone has placed a rule to prevent that... but most of the time, it still happen anyway.

 

What will happen is that :

 

-1/ Those who are going to make something stupid will not care if they is a text or not

-2/ the 99.99999% of people who are straight, will have another f**** text f**** their life.

 

 

One night, some people went playing paintball in the night, in a forbidden place with NVG (forbidden too). One month after, Paintball was nearly forbidden in France and I had to move to Belgium since my company decided to move there. Took us 5 years before having the restriction withdrawn.

All that because someone stupid decided to play in the night.

 

 

 

Someone stupid decided to crash his plane on a mountain. HELL LET'S PLACE A LAW !

That will mess with 99.9999999% of the legit pilots, and actually this is proven absolutely useless : If someone wants to crash a plane, he'll do it. But everytime a pilot want to piss, he'll have yet-another-protocol to follow.

 

What are we going to add to the law when a plane will go missing because a plane crashed with two people on board? Shall we place a cop in the cockpit next ?

 

 

They are more death per year from people dying in car crashes than suicide. Would you like the state to forbid you to drive alone unmonitored ?

 

So to answer that -

 

It not the content but the principle of yet-another-rule that is the problem

[shagrat]

We talk about a rule, other countries have in place already for quite a while... The rule to wear the seatbelt in the car was heavily opposed in Germany, when they implemented it in the 70ies, yet it obviously saved a lot of lives.

So you say we should oppose rules for the sake of opposing rules?

My point was, it is already implemented and seems not to be too inconvenient in the US, so why is it so difficult to just do it in Europe as well?

Because the pilots feel bad? Because the flight attendants, can't cater the business class guys all times? Because it cost more money? ...what exactly is the argument NOT to do it? Even if it saves one life, I would consider it worth the effort. May be even if it makes people "feel" more secure, it could be worth the effort.

Given that security controls at airports don't prevent weapons or explosives smuggled onboard, why do we still do it - because it "reduces" the risk of weapons and other dangerous stuff getting in the plane... so it is worth the effort to do the controls or not?

 

A lot of US citizens would like to have a "no guns" rule in place as well, some NRA nutheads oppose them, so constantly people get killed, children shoot other children "accidently"... In countries where weapons are forbidden, these "accidents" are almost not happening, comparing the numbers, now is the "no guns rule" a good idea, or is it preventing nice people from defending themselves and their property?

A similar useless debate, as it is not about the guns, but about money, self esteem, and history... at least that is how it seems to me.

Edited April 3, 2015 by shagrat

[PiedDroit]

....

It not the content but the principle of yet-another-rule that is the problem

Wow... Do you realize that your paintball thing does not kill 150 persons? I understand you are upset about it, because you had to move your business but this is really not the place to bring this example.

Even when talking about the road, the sheer number of people dying in traffic is not caused by a single person, 150 death is more likely to be caused by 150 other individuals, which is harder to control but also less problematic.

 

I think the decision to have always 2 people in the cockpit is the best one and the most reasonable. Actually that was my first reaction when I heard about this tragedy - why did the copilot ended up alone?

 

The rules in aviation are about removing the single points of failure, having only one person is obviously one of them.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I am not going to put any opinions out because the implementation of it as a rule (opposed to a recommendation) depends mostly on the feasibility of it financially. It is worth mentioning that last year's Ethiopian Airlines 767 highjacking (pilot wanted asylum, landed in Switzerland instead of destination Milan) happened the same way: pilot went for a wee, got locked out.

[Yurgon]

I don't get this whole inconvenience thing. It's not like this would be the first time a catastrophic event led to inconveniences that most people agree are totally useful.

 

Just a few such events that come to my mind...

 

Crew resource management? Why, what an inconvenience. Of course pilots know to fly the plane. Just because one crew failed to do that, everybody now has to follow all these new rules...

(101 fatalities).

 

(Of course some people say it's worth it, but what do they know?)

 

And come on, any experienced aviator worth his salt can judge the airspeed by looking out the window; take-off abort is for pussies.

(189 fatalities).

 

And why check the environmental controls? Everyone knows it's set to auto and doesn't need to be checked.

(121 fatalities).

 

I'm sure the forum could come up with dozens of cases where a single accident either led to new regulations that airlines follow all over the world, or that were the direct result of failure to follow such procedures because some pilots apparently think they know better than to follow inconvenient regulations.

 

How many lives have been saved by crew resource management? We'll never know.

 

How many lives will be saved by the 2-persons-in-cockpit rule? I guess we'll never know. But in all likelihood we will know if another suicidal pilot decides to use 4U9525 as a template and then we'd have to ask ourselves if that incident could have been prevented by the very simple inconveniences we're currently discussing.

[shagrat]

^^^This!!!

[chaos]

You may not get the whole 'inconvenience' thing (which it isn't but whatever...) but let's just hope that real experts drive this thing instead of politicians, media and laymen...

[shagrat]

Yup, agreed. Better them, than lazy, or "inconvenienced" pilots, or the penny pincers in the airline HQ...

The more I listen to your arguments, I wonder why airline pilots are allowed to leave the cockpit at all. A-10 pilots crossed the Atlantic using piddle packs, and flying without a co-pilot,or would that be to inconvenient for you?

You could even lock the cockpit on the ground and only open it, after landing... That would be the kind of inconvenient rule you talk about, right?

What is the problem with asking a flight attendant to come to the cockpit?

[chaos]

If it is possible in a country like the US, with planes used regularly like buses, elsewhere, why should it be impractically, inconvenient, impossible in Europe and the rest of the world?

 

Again, not impossible... If the 'cool heads' prevail and decide to implement this rule anyway then we _will_ do it... obviously. Not for the _right_ reasons, mind you, but because that's how the public would like to see it done. I have a fundamental problem with that and so should you. Darkwolf said it a lot better then I can...

 

Not necessarily prevent a determined killer from bringing the plane down, but e.g. help the pilot if he spills a hot coffee over his thighs, chokes on some food, even if he suffers a heart attack, allergic shock, whatever the attendant could quickly react, help or at least infirm the rest of the crew including the other pilot.

 

Don't know what to say to that... those events don't need immediate action... as in- "right now or we'll crash" sort of thing while the other pilot takes a leak and needs 30 seconds to open the door. We can go 'round and 'round and come up with any situation which may arise while the other pilot is 'outside'. It is missing the point of this discussion.

 

...

 

Again, you're missing the point... or I just suck at explaining. Either way... it is NOT an "inconvenience thing" as I've tried to explain before.

 

 

============================================================ FAA Regulations PART 91=============

 

 

BTW: regarding occupancy of the flightdeck...

 

 

 

§91.105 Flight crewmembers at stations.

 

(a) During takeoff and landing, and while en route, each required flight crewmember shall—

 

(1) Be at the crewmember station unless the absence is necessary to perform duties in connection with the operation of the aircraft or in connection with physiological needs; and

 

(2) Keep the safety belt fastened while at the crewmember station.

 

(b) Each required flight crewmember of a U.S.-registered civil aircraft shall, during takeoff and landing, keep his or her shoulder harness fastened while at his or her assigned duty station. This paragraph does not apply if—

 

(1) The seat at the crewmember's station is not equipped with a shoulder harness; or

 

(2) The crewmember would be unable to perform required duties with the shoulder harness fastened.

 

==============================PART 125========================================

 

§125.311 Flight crewmembers at controls.

 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each required flight crewmember on flight deck duty must remain at the assigned duty station with seat belt fastened while the airplane is taking off or landing and while it is en route.

 

(b) A required flight crewmember may leave the assigned duty station—

 

(1) If the crewmember's absence is necessary for the performance of duties in connection with the operation of the airplane;

 

(2) If the crewmember's absence is in connection with physiological needs; or

 

(3) If the crewmember is taking a rest period and relief is provided—

 

(i) In the case of the assigned pilot in command, by a pilot qualified to act as pilot in command.

 

(ii) In the case of the assigned second in command, by a pilot qualified to act as second in command of that airplane during en route operations. However, the relief pilot need not meet the recent experience requirements of §125.285.

 

==============================================================================

 

Don't get your information from a TV station or News website... ;-)

Edited April 3, 2015 by chaos