Plane crash: Germanwings A320 crashes in French Alps Watch

Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#341
Report 4 years ago
#341
(Original post by Schleigg)
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?
Well for one, why did those so called experts not ask every pilot before every flight if they plan on crashing their plane into the alps. Regardless of where the plane is going, just to be thorough.

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
esbo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#342
Report 4 years ago
#342
(Original post by Schleigg)
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?
Well the at least two in the cockpit rule for starters.


That rogue individual would not have been allowed to be in the cockpit alone under USA regulations, however it is allowed under European regulations, so there is clear conflict of interest here with European authority investigating European failing in secret!!

That is IMO a recipe for disaster.

And there is an inherent problem in air safety if bodies reponsible for air safety are in essence investigating themselves in secret!

Adn of course the secrecy bit is a major problem, it is hard to do a cover up of anything when it is done under the public gaze.
0
reply
esbo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#343
Report 4 years ago
#343
(Original post by Aj12)
Well for one, why did those so called experts not ask every pilot before every flight if they plan on crashing their plane into the alps. Regardless of where the plane is going, just to be thorough.

Posted from TSR Mobile
And they could implement a two in the cockpit rule on top of that just in case he lied to them.

Makes it much harder for a rogue pilot as he faces to consequences of being caught and having to explain himself.

It remove a guarantee of success for him.

Remember one day you might be a passenger on such a plane!! (as it happens I won't)

Remember it has taken the loss of 150 lives for the European agencies to change their procedures.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#344
Report 4 years ago
#344
(Original post by Aj12)
Well for one, why did those so called experts not ask every pilot before every flight if they plan on crashing their plane into the alps. Regardless of where the plane is going, just to be thorough.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Expert: so, where are you flying from and to today?
Pilot: London to Oslo.
E: tell me, do you plan on crashing the plane today?
P: ...no, I'm not an idiot.
E: you don't plan on crashing into the Vatican?
P: of course not, I'm going nowhere near Rome.
E: AHA! So you know where it is! You must have thought about it! I knew it!
P: ...
E: Quick, bring out the swinging light bulb, I must interrogate this fly boy further!
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#345
Report 4 years ago
#345
(Original post by Drewski)
Expert: so, where are you flying from and to today?
Pilot: London to Oslo.
E: tell me, do you plan on crashing the plane today?
P: ...no, I'm not an idiot.
E: you don't plan on crashing into the Vatican?
P: of course not, I'm going nowhere near Rome.
E: AHA! So you know where it is! You must have thought about it! I knew it!
P: ...
E: Quick, bring out the swinging light bulb, I must interrogate this fly boy further!
See, brilliant system. Might have to build special prisons for all these pilots.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Schleigg
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#346
Report 4 years ago
#346
(Original post by esbo)
Well the at least two in the cockpit rule for starters.
Well for starters the Aviation Authorities don't dictate how many people should occupy the flight deck at any given time, that is down to the Airline rulebook.

That rogue individual would not have been allowed to be in the cockpit alone under USA regulations, however it is allowed under European regulations,
That rogue individual would not have been allowed on the flight deck full-stop under USA/ FAA law as he is not deemed experienced enough to operate as a First Officer on scheduled commercial flights having only 650-ish hours instead of the requisite 1500.

so there is clear conflict of interest here with European authority investigating European failing in secret!!
Nobody apart from you has said that the failings are down to European rules. You shouldn't really support your own argument with something you've said yourself.

Do you have anything that EASA should have implemented to prevent rogue individuals committing premeditated and unforeseen acts of heinousness?
0
reply
esbo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#347
Report 4 years ago
#347
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release...15-4724_en.htm

European Commission - Fact Sheet Factsheet on EU security measures in civil airliners

Brussels, 30 March 2015

What are the current rules on the minimum crew members required in the cockpit?

On 27 March 2015, EASA (the European Air Safety Agency) has issued a recommendation for airlines to observe the “four-eye-rule” in the cockpit; stipulating that in the case of the Captain or First Officer leaving the cockpit, a member of the crew should be present in the cockpit with the remaining pilot.

European safety regulations require that pilots shall remain at the aircraft controls unless absence is necessary for physiological or operational safety needs.
There is no European requirement that a member of the cabin crew must enter the cockpit in the event a pilot needs to take a short break for such needs. There is however a requirement that the cockpit door can be opened from the outside in case of emergency.
As we can see the EASA has changed it's rules, so I think it is fair to say they were not folowing best practise in the past or are not now, it is difficult
to see how both can be the case.
0
reply
esbo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#348
Report 4 years ago
#348
(Original post by Schleigg)
Well for starters the Aviation Authorities don't dictate how many people should occupy the flight deck at any given time, that is down to the Airline rulebook.

They have just issued new guidelines.

And in my opinion the aviation authorities should dictate how many people should occupy the flight deck at any given time.

It is highly unsafe to leave it to the airlines who face commercial pressures.
0
reply
Schleigg
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#349
Report 4 years ago
#349
(Original post by esbo)
They have just issued new guidelines.

And in my opinion the aviation authorities should dictate how many people should occupy the flight deck at any given time.

It is highly unsafe to leave it to the airlines who face commercial pressures.
How does the Airline's commercial pressure prevent them from denying rogue individuals the ability to act on their hidden threat?

Allow me to suggest another hypothetical scenario where the person who comes to the flight deck to replace the abluting pilot is a rogue individual. That person kills or disables the handling pilot and flies the aircraft into the ground. What then? Three people on the flight deck at all times? Ban pilots from getting out of their seat and enforce compulsory packed lunches and nappies?
0
reply
esbo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#350
Report 4 years ago
#350
https://euobserver.com/news/128179


EU aviation safety authorities issued a recommendation for European airlines Friday (27 March) saying that at least two people should be in airplane cockpits at all times.

The recommendation - by the European aviation safety agency (EASA) - follows the crash of a Germanwings airplane on Tuesday (24 March) that killed 150 people in the French Alps.
The co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz, is said to have deliberately flown the Barcelona-Duessdeldorf flight into a mountain.
Crash investigators say he locked himself in the cockpit when the captain left to use the bathroom.
"The agency makes this recommendation based on the information currently available following the dramatic accident […] and pending the outcome of the technical investigation,” the EASA said in a statement.
"This recommendation may be reviewed in the light of any new information concerning the accident," the agency added.
EASA recommendations are not binding but "they have weight", said an EU aviation safety official.
Until now EU rules stated that a flight crew should stay in the cockpit, except for physiological or operational needs.
While US airlines have had rules for a long time that say there should be two people in the cockpit at all times, the EU had issued no such requirement so far.
"This is because on EU airplanes, it is possible to see from both pilot seats who is on the other side of the door. In other parts of the world, there is no CCTV for the cockpit door. That is why there is another person in the cockpit," said a EU aviation safety source on Friday before the recommendation was issued.
Some European airlines had already decided themselves to add a second crew member in the cockpit.
After Norwegian Airlines on Thursday, EasyJet, Virgin Atlantic and Monarch revised their policy.
On Friday morning EU sources said that they were "consulting with the airline industry and member state about what would be appropriate or feasible, what would be the impact and side effects.”
EU aviation authorities also did not exclude a change in the rules - adopted after the 11 September 2001 attacks in the US - which require armoured-plated locked doors in the cockpit.
"The case of a pilot locking himself in was not considered when this rule was introduced. It was only made against unlawful entrance in the cockpit," said an official, pointing out that hijacking has almost disappeared thanks to these measures.
"Now we’re asking ourselves obvious questions. Action can be taken at EU level, but it would also have to be addressed at international level," the source added.
Meanwhile, the psychological profile of Andreas Lubitz has prompted questions about how to ensure that pilot are better screened for possible problems.
See this is the whole problem with an Authority investigating itself, for it to make improvements it has to effectively admit it had failed, a clear conflict of interests.

"This is because on EU airplanes, it is possible to see from both pilot seats who is on the other side of the door. In other parts of the world, there is no CCTV for the cockpit door. That is why there is another person in the cockpit,"
This sounds rather dodgy to me and does not make a lot of sense, it seems rather obvious to me the reason for two in the cockpit is to prevent such an incident and they are trying to concoct and excuse to cover their own failings.
0
reply
esbo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#351
Report 4 years ago
#351
(Original post by Schleigg)
How does the Airline's commercial pressure prevent them from denying rogue individuals the ability to act on their hidden threat?

Allow me to suggest another hypothetical scenario where the person who comes to the flight deck to replace the abluting pilot is a rogue individual. That person kills or disables the handling pilot and flies the aircraft into the ground. What then? Three people on the flight deck at all times? Ban pilots from getting out of their seat and enforce compulsory packed lunches and nappies?
Well I myself would have 3 people in the cockpit at all times.

That is my preference, it is better than two and miles better than 1.

(indeed with auto pilots 0 might be safer than 1 when cruising!!!).

Anyhow as the cabin crew should face the same checks as passengers, killing the pilot would not be so easy.

I my self actually think security doors may create more problems than they solve, passengers are aware of the potential of suicide attacks
now and would be quicker to take action.

But 3 in cockpit is safer than two.
0
reply
esbo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#352
Report 4 years ago
#352
So it seems even now two in the cockpit is only a recommendation not a rule.

Note the USA has not had such an incident of pilot suicide as far as I am aware.

The EASA has the problem now of having to admit it was negligent in the past.

So it seems to come up with some halfway house solution, passing the buck to the airlines.


So it has concocted a means by where the rules are changed without admitting it was wrong
thereby hopefully covering it's own back, which is of course priority in such incidents
0
reply
Schleigg
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#353
Report 4 years ago
#353
(Original post by esbo)
So it seems even now two in the cockpit is only a recommendation not a rule.

As it always has been... though not for reasons of potential pilot sucides

Note the USA has not had such an incident of pilot suicide as far as I am aware.

Correlation does not imply causation, there have been no fatal tsunami in the UK and we drink more tea than anywhere else. Maybe Japan should drink more English Breakfast tea to stop all those pesky tidal waves?

The EASA has the problem now of having to admit it was negligent in the past.

Once again, correlation does not imply causation. There will always be a way for people to exploit a system. Just because they've addressed the newly created problem doesn't mean they failed prepare for an unforeseen event. What's EASAs policy on Cabin Crew murdering the Pilots and crashing the aircraft? That's right, there isn't one because it's not something you would necessarily prepare for.

So it seems to come up with some halfway house solution, passing the buck to the airlines.

The policy has always been down to the Airlines because they are the people who operate the aircraft and provide the manning! You don't see the DVLA ordering two drivers per bus just because there's an outside chance someone might decide to drive off a bridge

So it has concocted a means by where the rules are changed without admitting it was wrong
thereby hopefully covering it's own back, which is of course priority in such incidents
See my bold.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#354
Report 4 years ago
#354
(Original post by Schleigg)
See my bold.
All that is just quacking to him. It'll mean nothing and will just be yet more evidence of a cover up. TSR's version of an aviation David Icke.
0
reply
Doones
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#355
Report 4 years ago
#355
(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.
I didn't even know that was an option. Now done it too. Ah, that's better...
0
reply
dolan m
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#356
Report 4 years ago
#356
i wish those cockpit doors could be fitted in my garage.
1
reply
esbo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#357
Report 4 years ago
#357
(Original post by Schleigg)
See my bold.

So it seems even now two in the cockpit is only a recommendation not a rule.

As it always has been... though not for reasons of potential pilot sucides
"On 27 March 2015, EASA (the European Air Safety Agency) has issued a recommendation for airlines to observe the “four-eye-rule” in the cockpit;"

So if there was no change in policy, why do they need to issue a new recommendation.


And note the double speak, “four-eye-rule” surely it would be “four-eye-recommendation” ?

They seems to be having thier cake and eating it here, both a recommendation and a rule, which is it?
0
reply
esbo
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#358
Report 4 years ago
#358
Co-pilot Lubitz was 100% fit to fly and his flight performance was perfect, CEO of Lufthansa parent airline. Spohr said.
"Well, he would, wouldn't he." To quote Mandy Rice-Davies.

He is a crackpot who should not have been at the controls at all.

They can argue they failed to pick up the problem, but to argue ie was 100% fit to fly beggars belief.
0
reply
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#359
Report 4 years ago
#359
(Original post by esbo)
The EASA has the problem now of having to admit it was negligent in the past.
Experience is a hard teacher. She gives you the test first and the lesson afterwards.
1
reply
Schleigg
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#360
Report 4 years ago
#360
(Original post by esbo)
"On 27 March 2015, EASA (the European Air Safety Agency) has issued a recommendation for airlines to observe the “four-eye-rule” in the cockpit;"

So if there was no change in policy, why do they need to issue a new recommendation.


And note the double speak, “four-eye-rule” surely it would be “four-eye-recommendation” ?

They seems to be having thier cake and eating it here, both a recommendation and a rule, which is it?
Because you appear to be acting in a purposefully obtuse manner with regards to the language being employed in your quote. They haven't issues a 'new' recommendation. Good practice has always been to have two sets of eyes on the flight deck at all times (I feel like I am repeating myself).

If there is a spate of burglaries around your neighbourhood then the police will recommend people keep their doors and windows locked when they go out. Surprisingly enough that is what most people already do, the authorities issue such obvious advice to be seen to be doing something.
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 (135)
62.79%
No I haven't decided yet (46)
21.4%
Yes but I might change my mind (34)
15.81%

Watched Threads

View All