Plane crash: Germanwings A320 crashes in French Alps

Original post by Good bloke

Given your scepticism for experts, how do you determine which set of experts is correct, if either? Perhaps the South Korean ones are creating stress-related problems among their pilots with such rigorous tests.

As I have said several time being open not secretive is the key to knowing which experts are correct.

Public scrutiny is the key to safely not secretive shadowy all powerful bodies
answerable to nobody but themselves.

Reply 263

Original post by esbo

They only do a check when you apply for a job, zilch after that, South Korean Airline for example does regular detailed checks.

So we are at the problem I have been alluding to, a secret enquiry conducted by the people who are at fault, ie the European Aviation Safety Authority.

Incorrect.

There are yearly medical exams that a pilot must pass in order to retain their license.

That is independent from the EASA requirements, which is why it's phrased the way it is.

Reply 264

Good bloke

Original post by esbo

I said the airline not the crash investigator, don't use straw-men arguments.

Nonsense! Don't lie! You said, in post 254:

And of course the main cause of the crash was how the airline, crash investigator and all the other pumped up secretive officail kept his mental illness secret.

Reply 265

Original post by esbo

As I have said several time being open not secretive is the key to knowing which experts are correct.

Public scrutiny is the key to safely not secretive shadowy all powerful bodies
answerable to nobody but themselves.

How do you know they're open about it? They could just be saying it to cover their backs.

You're making it up as you go along. You're wrong.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 266

So we are in the unsatisfactory position were those who may be at fault hold all the information in secrecy and can release whatever they like and it can't be checked.

Reply 267

Noble.

17

Original post by esbo

As I have said several time being open not secretive is the key to knowing which experts are correct.

Public scrutiny is the key to safely not secretive shadowy all powerful bodies
answerable to nobody but themselves.

Why do you put so much weight on public opinion when, like yourself, they don't know what the **** they're talking about in matters like this?

Your only area of expertise pertaining to this case, if the last couple of pages are anything to go by, are the effects of being off much needed medication.

Reply 268

Original post by Good bloke

Given your scepticism for experts, how do you determine which set of experts is correct, if either? Perhaps the South Korean ones are creating stress-related problems among their pilots with such rigorous tests.

Perhaps they are, but at least we are aware of the issue now and it can be looked into by numerous independent and varies sources most of whole will not be protecting their own job as first priority.
They can put their findings into the the public domain and they can be further scrutinised.

Reply 269

InnerTemple

20

Original post by esbo

Perhaps they are, but at least we are aware of the issue now and it can be looked into by numerous independent and varies sources most of whole will not be protecting their own job as first priority.
They can put their findings into the the public domain and they can be further scrutinised.

This report will be published.

Most are, on sites like this: http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports.cfm

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 270

Original post by InnerTemple

This report will be published.

Most are, on sites like this: http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports.cfm

A report done in secret by those who may well be at least in part responsible is worthless and dangerous.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 271

InnerTemple

20

So some reports today that Lubitz had sought medical attention for a vision problem. The reports suggest that this problem could have jeopardised his flying career.

Another piece - I think on the BBC - explained that Lubitz had aspirations to join Lufthansa's long haul fleet.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 272

Scott.

2

The pilots on the airfrance flight were just as bad, but they didn't get half of the scrutiny. Their series of basic errors should account for murder. They had that much time to recover from a stall.

Reply 273

Original post by Scott.

The pilots on the airfrance flight were just as bad, but they didn't get half of the scrutiny. Their series of basic errors should account for murder. They had that much time to recover from a stall.

Which airfance flight are you referring to?

Reply 274

Original post by InnerTemple

So some reports today that Lubitz had sought medical attention for a vision problem. The reports suggest that this problem could have jeopardised his flying career.

Another piece - I think on the BBC - explained that Lubitz had aspirations to join Lufthansa's long haul fleet.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Seems like they have hung onto this information for a long time before releasing it.

Is it acceptable that information realted to aircrast safety is withheld from the public?

It is just not acceptable to me the slow pace and delay when lives are at risk same goes for the secrecy.

Reply 275

shawn_o1

21

Just wondering how it would be possible to implement this "two people in the cockpit at all times" rule?

Reply 276

Original post by shawn_o1

Just wondering how it would be possible to implement this "two people in the cockpit at all times" rule?

When pilot / co-pilot needs the toilet, a member of the cabin crew steps in.

Reply 277

shawn_o1

21

Original post by Drewski

When pilot / co-pilot needs the toilet, a member of the cabin crew steps in.

OK so that probably means one of the cabin crew has been trained as a pilot or co-pilot?

Reply 278

EnolaGay

3

Original post by shawn_o1

OK so that probably means one of the cabin crew has been trained as a pilot or co-pilot?

No, not necessarily. Cabin crew receive some basic cockpit training as to what some controls do, where the safety equipment's are.. and so on. It could also be a flight engineer or a standby pilot stepping in. Doesn't have to be cabin crew, it varies with the company.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 279