Germanwings 4U9525 dissapears over the Alps

[dazz 69]

About the 'third crew member option'.  Does this 'member' have to have any flight experience, while either the Captain or First leaves the cockpit for restroom considerations? Probably not.  What about putting an Air Marshall (make this a regulation, as part of a mandated Cabin Crew) onto every flight that leaves the ground...and THEY would be the one called upon (he/she would be armed!) to babysit the cockpit, and keep the seat warm for the flight crew member powdering his/her nose...

 

If they made that mandated...it would end all passenger fears, this horrible tragedy has created....

 

Sorry, but a stewardess, or male flight attendant as the 'seat warmer', does NOT cut it for me, to any longer feel secure that this won't be copy-catted by some other airborne nut case....

 

I truly want an agent (male, female, female, male...the agent's sex doesn't matter...) but ARMED and trained to use that side-arm...sitting in the empty seat...  Only that,... personally...now...will make me feel safe, that this will never be repeated again...aboard any carrier...U.S., or Europe based.

 

The Air Marshall, would be responsible for not only the passenger cabin's peace and security......but now, the very flight deck, itself!!!

 

Ses

 

Personally, it would freak me out to board in a plane and see a guy with a gun. You may trust your marshalls a great deal, but what about international flights in foreign airlines? Would you feel the same confidence flying in [insert remote country] with an armed guy from the military of some weird [insert remote country]?

What if the bad guys manage to overcome him and take his gun?

What if the marshall goes nuts?

No pilot will be ok with having an armed dude in the cockpit.

 

Then there's the cost impact, but the main problem is that it creates more problems than it solves IMO. 

A rogue pilot can put a plane in a dive or a spin in a few seconds, the sheer g-forces making it impossible for the marshall or the other pilot to do anything about it.

You simply can't put rules in place to account for pilots wanting to crash a plane. All you can do is maybe bring back the psychological tests and raise the minimum flying time requirements.

 

I'm not going to stop trusting my pilots because of this event

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

I don't see a difference between a suicidal pilot and a suicidal air marshal. In both cases you are putting trust in an individual and both can bring down an airliner

 

I'm not going to stop trusting my pilots because of this event

 

I agree, I feel just as safe flying today then ever, one thing about any event is following it people become extra vigilant. I have about 10 flights coming up and as far as I am concerned business as usual, more likely to be killed driving to or from the airport.

[Christopher Low 5,341]

 

I guess they simply didn't think it was that serious.

 

I guess that assumption is going to change real quick.

[iwebber 207]

Well, if you're still not getting what I'm saying, maybe these articles can help explain. I don't necessarily agree 100% with these, but they mainly say that he was there too early, and that hiring time and experience helps eliminate some people that should not be there.

I get what you're saying (and I know what you mean about the articles, interesting read but more about telling the public what they want to hear), if you put 20 random people in a room and leave them there for a week, you just need to watch them and you'll quickly see who's a nutter, who's clever, who can't take the pressure, who can, who's an organiser, who's a doer, who's a talker etc etc. The longer you leave them the more you learn about them without having to 'test' for anything, ergo, put 20 random newly qualified pilots in regional airliners and wait and see who's any good (or indeed the opposite, wait and see who takes themselves out), I get that.

 

How do you know when they're "OK", what traits are considered good and/or bad, how big a next step do you allow, how do you keep it fair, when do you stop watching them, do you ever stop? There's an awful lot to look at and counting down the hours waiting to see how many people they kill seems both lazy and slightly negligent. It's almost like using the travelling public as beta testers for your pilots.

 

I also get that with your background, knowledge and experience of flying in the US, having a 625 hour, 27 year old Airbus FO pretty shocking and immediately it's hard to see past what seems such an obvious oversight. You ask yourself, why don't they just do it like we do? (We felt the same after the BUF crash, reading about the crew's 'commute' left me wide eyed and open mouthed.)

 

It also doesn't help that if we did do it your way, there's a fair chance he would have killed less people in a smaller aircraft (unless he found a densly populated area to crash into). It seems such an obvious solution; but he's not a normal/usual ab initio pilot. Very few of them have a history of mental illness/depression, most of them are keen, enthusiastic, driven guys who love flying (although you can usually drop the keen and anthusiastic after a few years!).

 

I'm not saying young people are going to do something like this. I'm saying that airlines should give time and experience a *chance* to weed some inappropriate people out of their applicant pool.

The loophole he slipped though was a medical/reporting loophole and whilst I get that if we'd left him floundering in an ATR for a few years he may well have done something that stopped his progression to bigger aircraft, why don't we just close the loophole and leave the all the other "normal" ab intio guys alone. A simple case of a minority ruining it for a majority. It also has the added benefit that it may catch older, more experienced guys going through similar issues who really shouldn't be operating as crew either.

 

Ab initio pilots in jet airliners isn't that uncommon here and, in general, most airlines are pretty good at keeping an eye on them and making sure their lack of experience doesn't damage the operation. When an airline sponsors an ab initio they usually keep pretty close tabs on them during training and whilst I recognise it's only 18 months or so, by the time they reach a real flight deck they've been observed for nearly 2 years in a wide variety of flying/stressful situations, how long should they wait before they're deemed 'fit to fly an Airbus'. At the airline I fly for they also get extra line checks for a few years and, obviously, they have to keep passing the sim checks every 6 months or so.

 

I'm not blind to the fact that at 21 (say) I wasn't really mature/ready/confident enough to do the job I'm doing now, some people are though and it's not very fair to deny them a job because someone else can't do it (none of us would be here then). Even if we did, I can't help feeling that at 27 he'd be old enough. If you can pass all the tests then that proves your competance, if you pass the medicals that proves your fitness to fly, there is an element of experience required to achieve those but I appreciate it's measured in the 100's rather than 1000's of hours.

 

I think we've both gone round and round a bit and I doubt we'll ever fully understand each others position, I've enjoyed the discussion though, it's strange how two of the safest skies in the world actually operate so unbelievably differently. I only fly to JFK in the US and it always seems a little 'wild' there, from what I've heard even you guys think that though!, gotta love those roof top bars though.

 

Safe flying and all the best.

 

in my undergraduate days, there was a Business 101 class that was really difficult. It served to separate the serious from the unanchored, and those that could handle the pressure versus those that could not.

(Excuse Sarcasm) And getting all the required licences to fly an Airbus, even *gasp* as an FO, is a walk in the park...

 

I truly want an agent (male, female, female, male...the agent's sex doesn't matter...) but ARMED and trained to use that side-arm...sitting in the empty seat...

Please no, the last thing I need when my better half goes for a wazz is someone in the flight deck eyeing me waryly just waiting for me to touch something so they can shoot me in the head for making an ATC requested deviation in the aircraft's trajectory, that would really stress me out...

 

And what do you do in the Jetblue 191 situation, the FO saved the day by locking the Captain out of the flight deck and diverting the aircraft. In this case, the FO locked the Captain out of the flight deck and killed everyone. If there's someone on the flight deck with a gun how will they tell the difference, especially an untrained agent with a gun. At the end of the day, it comes down to one person (the guy with a gun in this case), I can't help feeling that adding more and more people to the problem actually increases the chance of someone being unhinged and causing an accident.

 

Nothing's changed, we are and always will be, at the mercy of the two guys at the front of the aircraft (or bus or train), if one of them has nefarious intentions, there's very little you can do by the time they've reached the flight deck that morning.

 

What I hope the accident investigators will concentrate on is how to stop medically unfit (esp mental fitness) pilots from being on the flight deck.

 

[TurboTomato 90]

An armed "Air Marshal" on every flight, is possibly the worst idea, ever.

[KevinAu 441]

At this point, I don't think there's any loophole to be closed or any new regulation required. What are you going to do if the airline insists on hiring known nutjobs? My only point was that time and experience makes known who the nutjobs are so that they can be passed over by the hiring department. If the hiring department insists on hiring a documented nutjob, what difference does it make if they have 250 or 12500 hours? This is all completely on Lufthansa's management.

 

I fly out of JFK often. Best thing to do at a place like that is to keep your head swivelling, think of it as an uncontrolled airport with a ground and tower freq, and be wary of the 767s that don't seem to understand english all that well.

[dazz 69]

I'm curious about the 1500 rule in the US.

I take it is was put into place after the Colgan Air crash right?

So what is it that pilots can't fly until they have 1500 under the belt? Can they fly turboprops in regionals?

[KevinAu 441]

I'm curious about the 1500 rule in the US.

I take it is was put into place after the Colgan Air crash right?

So what is it that pilots can't fly until they have 1500 under the belt? Can they fly turboprops in regionals?

Yes it was one of the knee jerk reactions to Colgan. It's not a 1500 hr rule per se, but rather anybody in the airlines is required to have an ATP license, which requires 1500 hours to be eligible for. So yes, you need to have 1500 hours under your belt before you can fly for any airline, even at a regional. However, there is a 'Restricted ATP' available which requires fewer hours if you meet certain requirements, such as going to certain flight schools or having military time.

[vololiberista 205]

The Air Marshall, would be responsible, for not only the passenger cabin's peace and security,......but now, the very flight deck, itself!!!   

 

'The Lubitz Tragedy'.......would never happen again....never again.

 

Ses

Assuming of course that the said Air Marshall didn't have any personal problems or a history of concealed depression.

[dazz 69]

Yes it was one of the knee jerk reactions to Colgan. It's not a 1500 hr rule per se, but rather anybody in the airlines is required to have an ATP license, which requires 1500 hours to be eligible for. So yes, you need to have 1500 hours under your belt before you can fly for any airline, even at a regional. However, there is a 'Restricted ATP' available which requires fewer hours if you meet certain requirements, such as going to certain flight schools or having military time.

 

Got it, thanks Kevin

[xplanery 250]

 

 

Assuming of course that the said Air Marshall didn't have any personal problems or a history of concealed depression.

 

Yes, then we would  simplyhave air marshallers who hijack an aircraft / commits suicide with it. 

[tf51d 284]

I truly want an agent (male, female, female, male...the agent's sex doesn't matter...) but ARMED and trained to use that side-arm...sitting in the empty seat... Only that,... personally...now...will make me feel safe, that this will never be repeated again...aboard any carrier...The America's, or Europe based.

 

 

 

The Air Marshall, would be responsible, for not only the passenger cabin's peace and security,......but now, the very flight deck, itself!!!

 

 

 

'The Lubitz Tragedy'.......would never happen again....never again.

 

What prevents the same situation occurring with an Air Marshall? Now it's worse, because now you have an armed person in the cockpit, that may not be all there. There is no fool proof way to prevent something like this. The only thing you can do is to mitigate the risk as much as possible. The first thing that needs to be done is eliminate this self reporting crap. If a medical professional deems a person unfit to pilot either from a physical or mental condition they should be obligated to report it to the proper authorities and their employer if they work for an airline. Privacy is important but I think in situations where public safety is involved, it's outweighed. In fact since there is a self reporting responsibility put on the flight crew already, privacy is not an issue, since they are suppose  to reveal it to their employer/authorities themselves. I don't think it's necessary or appropriate to have to report the actual diagnosis, just that the opinion of fitness, based on their medical findings. To be fair The flight crew member would then have a chance to challenge the finding, by getting a second professional opinion. This type of policy should be in place in other professions affecting public safety as well, like Police, Fire. Even this is no guarantee but it's the closest, I think we can get, to prevent this situation in the future..

[iwebber 207]

At this point, I don't think there's any loophole to be closed or any new regulation required. What are you going to do if the airline insists on hiring known nutjobs?

 Absolutely, I hope airlines will start to take the medicals and people's medical history more seriously before they hire now.

 

The loophole I think needs addressing is that when a Doctor tells a pilot he can't fly, the pilot should not be able to fly. At the moment, the pilot can just ignore the Doctor and pitch up at work and carry on regardless. The system relys on the pilot declaring himself unfit to the company and they stand him down. I don't know if it's the same over there but broadly speaking that's how it works here, it's usually fine for physical illness (frankly, any excuse to have some time off while still being paid is a godsend) but it's a bit different with mental issues.

 

Best thing to do at a place like that is to keep your head swivelling, think of it as an uncontrolled airport with a ground and tower freq

Like it, in the air I've not had too many issues (although the majority of my TCAS RAs have been there) but on the ground it's a nightmare, there are aircraft going everywhich way and we never know how any of them will relate to what we're doing, I imagine it's like driving in Manhattan. Very similar to CDG where, irrespective of what the controller tells you, your clearance is always, taxi to your parking stand and give way to every Air France aircraft, sure as eggs is eggs that's what's going to happen so don't let the words he uses make you believe otherwise...

[KevinAu 441]

Structurally, what needs to change is that it has to be non-punitive for people to medical out. There needs to be enough assurances and insurance in place that one can maintain their livelihood should they be deemed unfit to fly. The LTD at Expressjet is an example of what airlines should have in place. Otherwise, people will always find a way to get around any kind of self reporting or doctor reporting requirements if they fear losing their livelihood. Anyways, there already are long standing requirements for medical professionals to report to authorities if they deem anybody is a danger to themselves or others. Again, none of this would have made a difference in this case because he was already reported and still Lufthansa insisted on offering him employment. No amount of legislation can save us from that kind of stupidity.

[Baylorguy 39]

I get what you're saying (and I know what you mean about the articles, interesting read but more about telling the public what they want to hear), if you put 20 random people in a room and leave them there for a week, you just need to watch them and you'll quickly see who's a nutter, who's clever, who can't take the pressure, who can, who's an organiser, who's a doer, who's a talker etc etc. The longer you leave them the more you learn about them without having to 'test' for anything, ergo, put 20 random newly qualified pilots in regional airliners and wait and see who's any good (or indeed the opposite, wait and see who takes themselves out), I get that.

 

 

Sarcasm aside (no need for that here)... you are missing the point.  Yes, flight training is obviously tough, but there is a difference between going through training in a controlled environment and actually executing, on a daily basis, everything you learned, plus having to deal with life's curve balls, plus fully knowing 100+ people sitting directly behind you are placing their lives in your hands.  If I earn my wings with flying colors, time will tell (no pun intended) whether I can actually cut it with passengers behind me, much less on an A320.

 

A pilot can get through training with flying colors and then not be able to handle flying in other scenarios.

Edited April 1, 2015 by n4gix
Removed excessive quote. Again!