Plane crash: Germanwings A320 crashes in French Alps Watch

Schleigg
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#321
Report 4 years ago
#321
(Original post by shawn_o1)
It's not Airbus' fault, it's the co-pilot's (and the lack of rules and procedures). But then all this talk is going to resurface once the cause of the next plane crash is attributed to BOTH the pilot and co-pilot...
Perhaps that came across the wrong way.

I *know* it's not Airbus' fault but some folks on here are implying that is the case.

I was just trying to ascertain why they think that.
0
reply
esbo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#322
Report 4 years ago
#322
(Original post by shawn_o1)
It's not Airbus' fault, it's the co-pilot's (and the lack of rules and procedures). But then all this talk is going to resurface once the cause of the next plane crash is attributed to BOTH the pilot and co-pilot...
problem is as I see it is that the people who made the rules and procedure are part of the same body that is investigating the incident.

It's a bit like a criminal presiding over his own trial isn't it? After much consideration he will likely find himself not guilty.
0
reply
Doones
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#323
Report 4 years ago
#323
Please stop spouting nonsense.

The investigators are not part of EASA - EASA is assisting the BEA investigators. BEA is the French equivalent of the UK's AAIB (Air Accident Investigation Board). They are not linked to EASA.

Also there are French prosecutors (completely independent of EASA) investigating.

And, to be honest, I'm more surprised at just how fast this investigation is moving and is public - they aren't holding info back at all.
0
reply
esbo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#324
Report 4 years ago
#324
(Original post by jneill)
Please stop spouting nonsense.

The investigators are not part of EASA - EASA is assisting the BEA investigators. BEA is the French equivalent of the UK's AAIB (Air Accident Investigation Board). They are not linked to EASA.

Also there are French prosecutors (completely independent of EASA) investigating.

And, to be honest, I'm more surprised at just how fast this investigation is moving and is public - they aren't holding info back at all.
If they are assisting how can they be not linked?

The fact they are assisting implies there is some sort of link otherwise they would work independent of the EASA.

So there seems to be a problem here, the EASA is assisting in investigating itself. Or something along those lines.
0
reply
EnolaGay
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#325
Report 4 years ago
#325
(Original post by Schleigg)
Only if we step back in time about twenty years :P
Haha yeah
Some airlines, even today have a flight engineer on board though he isn't seated in the cockpit. Even extra pilots; like if it's a turnaround flight and based on company operating procedures, would fly back the jet whilst the other two take to the cabin.

(Original post by jameswhughes)
I don't think anyone's going to be hiring extra pilots or flight engineers (this position was abolished in the 1980s on commercial airliners anyway) which would waste loads of space and money, for a job that will only take a couple of minutes. All that needs to happen is someone else to go in temporarily, so the pilot can't lock himself in alone like on Tuesday.
Correct.
Didn't get you on the job that will only take a couple of minutes. Does that refer to the whole flying thing as a role pilots take or.. just the swapping for when in-charge decides to take a leak or something.


(Original post by Schleigg)
Perhaps that came across the wrong way.

I *know* it's not Airbus' fault but some folks on here are implying that is the case.

I was just trying to ascertain why they think that.
The Airbus.. is a wonderful machine. It's sad for responsible pilots around the world, when apparently one psychotic apple can spoil the entire noble profession. Also, to mention the amount of ridiculous things on the media about this.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#326
Report 4 years ago
#326
(Original post by EnolaGay)
Didn't get you on the job that will only take a couple of minutes. Does that refer to the whole flying thing as a role pilots take or.. just the swapping for when in-charge decides to take a leak or something.
The latter. Obviously.
2
reply
skunkboy
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#327
Report 4 years ago
#327
(Original post by Good bloke)
Yes. But having inadequate mental health monitoring and not having two-person cockpit rules is not doing one's best to prevent such an occurrence, is it?
Just those 2 factors can cause plane crash , do you think? Can you see the future? Everyone is always at risk, don't you think? We can reduce risks, but can't avoid them. They are just like our shadows following us everywhere. Can you run away from your own shadow?
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#328
Report 4 years ago
#328
(Original post by skunkboy)
Just those 2 factors can cause plane crash , do you think? Can you see the future? Everyone is always at risk, don't you think? We can reduce risks, but can't avoid them. They are just like our shadows following us everywhere. Can you run away from your own shadow?
Those two factors clearly do not cause every plane crash, but the evidence is suggesting they caused this one.

By putting in measures to prevent that combination happening again, we can aim to eliminate this kind of crash occurring again.

That much is common sense, no?
0
reply
esbo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#329
Report 4 years ago
#329
So it seem they too on a pilot who had a suicidal history!!!!!!!

You could not make it up, and worse still apparently only 1 in 10 candidate is taken on and they
picked the one with suicide attempts on his CV!!


As I have been saying the problem is the system, the same system which is investigating the problem.

I doubt the USA or Asia allows pilots with a suicidal history to get behind the wheel of a plane, just Europe!!
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#330
Report 4 years ago
#330
(Original post by esbo)
So it seem they too on a pilot who had a suicidal history!!!!!!!

You could not make it up, and worse still apparently only 1 in 10 candidate is taken on and they
picked the one with suicide attempts on his CV!!


As I have been saying the problem is the system, the same system which is investigating the problem.

I doubt the USA or Asia allows pilots with a suicidal history to get behind the wheel of a plane, just Europe!!
Well I somehow doubt they were written on his cv.

And why do you doubt that? What evidence to you have to support the notion that that is the case beyond one crash in Europe?

And it is not the same organisation investigating. How many times do you need to be told the truth before you'll actually understand it?
0
reply
esbo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#331
Report 4 years ago
#331
(Original post by Drewski)
Well I somehow doubt they were written on his cv.

And why do you doubt that? What evidence to you have to support the notion that that is the case beyond one crash in Europe?

And it is not the same organisation investigating. How many times do you need to be told the truth before you'll actually understand it?
They should know about his suicidal history that is their job, to screen our unsuitable pilots.

All the European safety bodies are interlinked, we need an outside body for an independent investigation, the US authorises perhaps.

But fundamentally it need to be an enquiry open to the public.

Not one done behind closed doors in smoke filled rooms, however as smoking, something which can provide relief to depressed people is banned there will probably be no smoke.
0
reply
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#332
Report 4 years ago
#332
(Original post by esbo)
How an I trying to derail it, I am talking about the Germanwings A320 crash in French Alps, the thread is about the Germanwings A320 crash in French Alps.

I fail to see how I could be more on topic, your comment makes no sense and is at odds with the facts, I am 100% on topic.
No.

You are making a series of posts which barely make any sense. Your general theme is that there is some massive conspiracy.

This thread is about facts concerning the crash, not about some crackpot theory you have.

If you want to discuss concerns about safety in aviation and air crash investigation, make your own thread. Don't hijack this one.
0
reply
esbo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#333
Report 4 years ago
#333
This thread is about the air crash in the alps, all my post are about the air crash in the alps.

The thread title does not exclusion of any particular aspect of the crash.

Hence all my posts are 100% on topic.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#334
Report 4 years ago
#334
(Original post by esbo)
This thread is about the air crash in the alps, all my post are about the air crash in the alps.

The thread title does not exclusion of any particular aspect of the crash.

Hence all my posts are 100% on topic.
Apart from all the lies, errors, mistakes and ignorance...

No, your posts are all about some massive - entirely fictitious - conspiracy that you seem to believe is going on despite there being not a single shred of evidence to support your wild, asinine and insulting theories.

You have been proven - time and time again - to be lying, to be wrong, to be ignorant, to not be willing to look up even basic facts.

You are now on my ignore list. Your irrelevance is not worth the effort.
1
reply
esbo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#335
Report 4 years ago
#335
(Original post by Drewski)
Apart from all the lies, errors, mistakes and ignorance...

No, your posts are all about some massive - entirely fictitious - conspiracy that you seem to believe is going on despite there being not a single shred of evidence to support your wild, asinine and insulting theories.

You have been proven - time and time again - to be lying, to be wrong, to be ignorant, to not be willing to look up even basic facts.

You are now on my ignore list. Your irrelevance is not worth the effort.

fine I have no problem with being on your ignore list, as the enquiry is being held behind closed doors you won't be seeing much evidence form them either and you have no way of cross checking what they say is correct.

if they wanted to do a cover up their are in the perfect position.

I wonder if the crash investigators are also ignoring other commentators?
0
reply
Schleigg
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#336
Report 4 years ago
#336
(Original post by esbo)
fine I have no problem with being on your ignore list, as the enquiry is being held behind closed doors you won't be seeing much evidence form them either and you have no way of cross checking what they say is correct.

if they wanted to do a cover up their are in the perfect position.
So what do you believe that the Civil Aviation Authorities are trying to cover up?
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#337
Report 4 years ago
#337
(Original post by Schleigg)
So what do you believe that the Civil Aviation Authorities are trying to cover up?
The Bermuda triangle, that Elvis was flying the plane and that pilots have actually been replaced by dogs.
0
reply
esbo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#338
Report 4 years ago
#338
(Original post by Schleigg)
So what do you believe that the Civil Aviation Authorities are trying to cover up?

Well the problem is they are a responsible for air safety and hence there is a problem if they are investigating secretly and behind close doors an incident where they themselves maybe at least in part at fault.

We all are notoriously bad an finding fault in ourselves, that is why an outside independent body is better and of course the investigation needs to be open to public scrutiny.

We have already seen information having to be leaked to the press before it became public, then we had the farce of the investigators telling us what we all ready know!!

You seen if an investigation is done in secret nobody will even know what is being cover up, so it is inherently UNSAFE!!!

A secret none independant investigation is by defintion unsafe!!!
0
reply
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#339
Report 4 years ago
#339
(Original post by Drewski)
The Bermuda triangle, that Elvis was flying the plane and that pilots have actually been replaced by dogs.
Ever been on an Airbus? You can hear a dog barking.



Now the corrupt authorities say that it is something called "hydraulics"... It's actually the crew. We all know it is.
1
reply
Schleigg
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#340
Report 4 years ago
#340
(Original post by esbo)
Well the problem is they are a responsible for air safety and hence there is a problem if they are investigating secretly and behind close doors an incident where they themselves maybe at least in part at fault.

We all are notoriously bad an finding fault in ourselves, that is why an outside independent body is better and of course the investigation needs to be open to public scrutiny.

We have already seen information having to be leaked to the press before it became public, then we had the farce of the investigators telling us what we all ready know!!

You seen if an investigation is done in secret nobody will even know what is being cover up, so it is inherently UNSAFE!!!

A secret none independant investigation is by defintion unsafe!!!
I don't understand how the Authorities can be at fault for the unforeseen actions of a rogue individual. Could you explain what rules should have already been implemented to prevent this sort of thing happening?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (65)
66.33%
No I haven't decided yet (20)
20.41%
Yes but I might change my mind (13)
13.27%

Watched Threads

View All