Germanwings flight 4u9525 CVR.

[XFDDesign]

As a total moron, from the outcomes of 9/11 to this, why hasn't there been an emergency panic option that crew would trigger for "compromised plane" which just throws on Emergency Autopilot which gets routed to the nearest airport? (Even if it's something where the system takes control, flies level and begins some comms transaction to get emergency flightplan data) I get that Autolanding systems are still buggy, but between a kamikaze and a computer, I'll hedge my survival bets on the computer.

[Kjelt]

Just on the news, he was seeing a psychiatrist and this doctor was the one who told him to call in sick and not to go to work. There is a doctor patient confidentiality if that was not the case the psychiatrist could have warned his employer and 149 people would still be alive.
We may also have to look at this if this is what society wants and needs.

[SeanB]

Automated plane instead, but you would find it hard to get passengers onto what is basically an elevator that flies. You get enough nervous people already in regular offices who will walk between floors because of that. In addition elevators do not kill the occupants ( at least not often) if they go wrong.

[AF6LJ]

Automated plane instead, but you would find it hard to get passengers onto what is basically an elevator that flies. You get enough nervous people already in regular offices who will walk between floors because of that. In addition elevators do not kill the occupants ( at least not often) if they go wrong.

In a word Hacked.
This is in my opinion the worst of a thread full of bad ideas.
Why not just accept that there is a level of risk attached to getting out of bed every morning and move on.

[dannyf]

Why not just accept that there is a level of risk attached to getting out of bed every morning and move on.

Bingo!

[AF6LJ]

Why not just accept that there is a level of risk attached to getting out of bed every morning and move on.

Bingo!

The dumbest thing every done to an aircraft was to make the door to the flight deck lockable from the inside. Arm the crew or provide an air martial on each flight. All this other stuff is over thinking a simple problem. People behave when armed people are around as a general rule.

Oh and before I see a hundred replies regarding bullets on planes, they make special bullets that won't penetrate the skin or windows of the plane, but they do enough damage to flesh to provide a good amount of stopping power. 

[Kjelt]

The dumbest thing every done to an aircraft was to make the door to the flight deck lockable from the inside. Arm the crew or provide an air martial on each flight. All this other stuff is over thinking a simple problem. People behave when armed people are around as a general rule. 

You're from the US of A I assume. This time it was a psyched out co-pilot but what keeps in your case a psyched-out air marshall from doing the same thing? Besides you don't want guns on a plane, not on anyone it does more harm than good and you can't shoot anyway without risking damaging a window and loosing the compression which makes it totally useless in the hands of the good guys and a way to create havoc in the hands of the bad guys.

[G0HZU]

Automated plane instead, but you would find it hard to get passengers onto what is basically an elevator that flies. You get enough nervous people already in regular offices who will walk between floors because of that. In addition elevators do not kill the occupants ( at least not often) if they go wrong.

In a word Hacked.
This is in my opinion the worst of a thread full of bad ideas.
Why not just accept that there is a level of risk attached to getting out of bed every morning and move on.

In the space of two posts you go from promoting the 'accept the risk and do nothing' approach to promoting the use of guns on a plane.

[AF6LJ]

Automated plane instead, but you would find it hard to get passengers onto what is basically an elevator that flies. You get enough nervous people already in regular offices who will walk between floors because of that. In addition elevators do not kill the occupants ( at least not often) if they go wrong.

In a word Hacked.
This is in my opinion the worst of a thread full of bad ideas.
Why not just accept that there is a level of risk attached to getting out of bed every morning and move on.

In the space of two posts you go from promoting the 'accept the risk and do nothing' approach to promoting the use of guns on a plane.

You should re read what I wrote.
The guns are to stop the crazies. Like the co-pilot on SSRI drugs who has flipped out and wants to fly a plane into a mountain, a school or some such target in order to go out with a Bang and immortalize his place in history.

There is no inconsistency in what I post.
I do find that some people in some localities have gun-phobia.
Since I grew up around guns, lived in the gun culture most of my life I see them as harmless as a soldering iron.

[G0HZU]

Since I grew up around guns, lived in the gun culture most of my life I see them as harmless as a soldering iron.

So you would be happy to have issued that copilot with a gun? Who do you think he would shoot first and why?

(take your time over this one if you need to...)

[economist]

Since I grew up around guns, lived in the gun culture most of my life I see them as harmless as a soldering iron.

So you would be happy to have issued that copilot with a gun? Who do you think he would shoot first and why?

(take your time over this one if you need to...)

The obvious answer to the hypothetical is "who cares?". The co-pilot demonstrated quite clearly that he had the ability to kill everyone on the plane using the plane itself. If you can't trust him, then you are screwed. So it seems a little silly to worry about him having a gun or not. He already controls the most deadly weapon possible if you happen to be on the plane (or even on the ground if such a pilot were to target your area in a crash).

Just another crazy gun owning American here...

[AF6LJ]

Since I grew up around guns, lived in the gun culture most of my life I see them as harmless as a soldering iron.

So you would be happy to have issued that copilot with a gun? Who do you think he would shoot first and why?

(take your time over this one if you need to...)

I certainly would be happy to see the crew armed. I have flown for a long time, there was a time in this country (the US) when you could carry your hunting rifle on and stow it in the overhead. I should point out this was before the rash of hijackings in the late sixties that went though the seventies. There were air materials on board during the late seventies which put an end to the hijackings here in the US. Unfortunately that practice went by the wayside and then we had 9/11. One thing I might point out; after the 1972 Thanksgiving day hijacking here on the west coast (Google D. B. Cooper) we had for a short time armed national guard in California airports. You would think we were in Israel, unfortunately now we have those legalized molesters known as the TSA.

[dannyf]

The dumbest thing every done to an aircraft was to make the door to the flight deck lockable from the inside.

Statistically, that's still the wiser decision.

Arm the crew or provide an air martial on each flight.

Don't know about that. Too much downside risk in my view.

[AF6LJ]

Since I grew up around guns, lived in the gun culture most of my life I see them as harmless as a soldering iron.

So you would be happy to have issued that copilot with a gun? Who do you think he would shoot first and why?

(take your time over this one if you need to...)

The obvious answer to the hypothetical is "who cares?". The co-pilot demonstrated quite clearly that he had the ability to kill everyone on the plane using the plane itself. If you can't trust him, then you are screwed. So it seems a little silly to worry about him having a gun or not. He already controls the most deadly weapon possible if you happen to be on the plane (or even on the ground if such a pilot were to target your area in a crash).

Just another crazy gun owning American here...

So going by your logic other crew members would be paralyzed in fear if a co-pilot with a gun decided to use the plane as a weapon.
Sorry no crazies here, gun owner, yes. Gun owning Female YES. (that is called empowerment).

[AF6LJ]

The dumbest thing every done to an aircraft was to make the door to the flight deck lockable from the inside.

Statistically, that's still the wiser decision.

Arm the crew or provide an air martial on each flight.

Don't know about that. Too much downside risk in my view.

Where are you getting your stats from?
Lets see commercial flight has been going on since the 1930s or before.
Until late 2001 the flight deck doors have been locked.
Seventy years VS fourteen years...
Please do the math and post it supporting your claim.
I would love to see it.

[economist]

Since I grew up around guns, lived in the gun culture most of my life I see them as harmless as a soldering iron.

So you would be happy to have issued that copilot with a gun? Who do you think he would shoot first and why?

(take your time over this one if you need to...)

The obvious answer to the hypothetical is "who cares?". The co-pilot demonstrated quite clearly that he had the ability to kill everyone on the plane using the plane itself. If you can't trust him, then you are screwed. So it seems a little silly to worry about him having a gun or not. He already controls the most deadly weapon possible if you happen to be on the plane (or even on the ground if such a pilot were to target your area in a crash).

Just another crazy gun owning American here...

So going by your logic other crew members would be paralyzed in fear if a co-pilot with a gun decided to use the plane as a weapon.
Sorry no crazies here, gun owner, yes. Gun owning Female YES. (that is called empowerment).

No, sorry if I was being unclear. I would arm the crew. If they can't be trusted with guns they can't be trusted flying the plane in the first place.

[AF6LJ]

No, sorry if I was being unclear. I would arm the crew. If they can't be trusted with guns they can't be trusted flying the plane in the first place.

It makes sense to arm the crew.
When the rash of hijackings took place in the 60's and 70's I was surprised to find out the crew was not armed. It wouldn't bother me at all to see a federal agent on board also. This won't cover every possible but the cost is relatively low and beats the hell out of a locked door that can be used against the crew.

The US practice of having two crew members on the flight deck at all times is good and truthfully I am somewhat surprised the rest of the world has not adopted this procedure after 9/11 as well. I guess it will be more popular now.

[G0HZU]

It makes sense to arm the crew.

It makes a lot more sense to have no guns anywhere on the plane. If this copilot had a gun then he could have conveniently shot the pilot at a critical moment where nobody would then have the reaction time to stop him crashing the plane even if there was a way to open the cabin door.

Hopefully, lessons will be learned from this episode and there will be extra safeguards put in place to make it harder for a single crew member to deliberately crash a plane.

Giving the crew guns and givin gun totin' marshalls a seat on every plane isn't going to be the solution...

[AF6LJ]

It makes sense to arm the crew.

It makes a lot more sense to have no guns anywhere on the plane. If this copilot had a gun then he could have conveniently shot the pilot at a critical moment where nobody would then have the reaction time to stop him crashing the plane even if there was a way to open the cabin door.

Hopefully, lessons will be learned from this episode and there will be extra safeguards put in place to make it harder for a single crew member to deliberately crash a plane.

Giving the crew guns and givin gun totin' marshalls a seat on every plane isn't going to be the solution...

We all are entitled to our opinions.
In that vain...
Putting a lock on that flight deck door was in plain English; Beyond Stupid.

[a210210200]

Mmmm...12 cabin crew on a flight, some sleeping in pajamas in the crew rest compartment during most of the flight. Cards that don't work, wrong scan sequence, lost cards, crowding in front of the safety door. How long is this going to take?
Major modifications to cockpit door interface. This isn't going to happen just to cater for some far-fetched scenario.
Take your scheme to pprune and see what the professional pilots think of it. Yes, there are a few left on the site.

You can control how many keys are needed to operate the door override the purpose is to just require more than one key so that you don't allow easy access. Cards work, there is no sequence, you really shouldn't drop your ID card and why would the reader be on the door the pin pad is not on the door it is on the front cabin control screen which has plenty of room around it.

Minor modifications to the pin pad and software not the door.

[grumpydoc]

There is a doctor patient confidentiality if that was not the case the psychiatrist could have warned his employer and 149 people would still be alive.

In the UK, at least, it is recognised that public safety outweighs doctor-patient confidentiality. So, for instance, if a patient admits they drink and drive but won't do anything about it, then it is acceptable for a GP to report them to the DVLA.

I suspect the problem here is that the psychiatrist (if that is indeed the speciality of the doctor issuing the sick note) thought that he would actually take time off work.

[a210210200]

In the UK, at least, it is recognised that public safety outweighs doctor-patient confidentiality. So, for instance, if a patient admits they drink and drive but won't do anything about it, then it is acceptable for a GP to report them to the DVLA.

I suspect the problem here is that the psychiatrist (if that is indeed the speciality of the doctor issuing the sick note) thought that he would actually take time off work.

From what I'm hearing on the news it isn't really certain the sick note was for a mental issue.

“A German hospital said it had evaluated Mr. Lubitz twice in the past two months but added that he had not been there for assessment or treatment of depression.”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/mar/27/germanwings-crash-details-emerge-of-the-co-pilot-who-crashed-his-plane-live-updates

[G0HZU]

It makes sense to arm the crew.

It makes a lot more sense to have no guns anywhere on the plane. If this copilot had a gun then he could have conveniently shot the pilot at a critical moment where nobody would then have the reaction time to stop him crashing the plane even if there was a way to open the cabin door.

Hopefully, lessons will be learned from this episode and there will be extra safeguards put in place to make it harder for a single crew member to deliberately crash a plane.

Giving the crew guns and givin gun totin' marshalls a seat on every plane isn't going to be the solution...

We all are entitled to our opinions.
In that vain...
Putting a lock on that flight deck door was in plain English; Beyond Stupid.

it looks like all airlines will now not allow a single member of crew to be alone in the cockpit at any one time. I think we can all agree that it's amazing (frightening?) that this was not already accepted policy on all airlines.

Hopefully, the door locking protocol will be reviewed as well. This would hopefully deal with problems caused by suicidal crew members as well as ones that suddenly fall ill and maybe operate the controls in error as they lose their judgement and reasoning as they pass out. But always having two people in the cockpit would help here too.

[Howardlong]

An AME (aviation medical examiner) can revoke your medical at any time, and they will know who you doctor is as part of your regular medical, and they will confer. However, other than the annual class I medical by an AME, the onus is often on the individual to make the decision whether or not to disclose interim health issues to their AME. As part of pilot training, it is made clear that any change in your health that may affect your flying must be referred to your AME.

The problem is that for many pilots, particularly in the low cost carrier segment, if you have no medical, you have little or no income so there is a financial penalty to disclosing any medical issues. In addition, the amount of debt a pilot can incur as part of their training is enormous, and can make the average student loan look like a drop in the ocean.

I did find it interesting that the P2 had only 630 hours despite being with the carrier for two years, there were questions to be answered there, and it seems he had been on extended medical leave if the reports are to be believed. i would nt say a pilot with 630 hours is particularly well experienced, as initial reports stated. We should be very wary of any reports other than the BEA's own. The BEA have a mandate to provide a factual report free from subjectiveness and assumption, and that should be the primary, if not the only guide as to what happened.

(Completely coincidentally my own AME was on the BBC News just now as part of a report.)

[economist]

The problem with the locked cockpit door, regardless of how many crew are required to be behind it, is that it accepts the premise that the passengers' lives don't matter. The whole point is to allow the crew to land the plane safely (i.e., to avoid an event like 9/11) all while terrorists/criminals do as they will with the unarmed and defenseless passengers.