Plane, 150 on board crashes in southern France

[nikita]

Sorry. In real life, that would only take a few seconds, but typing it out you have to be a bit more specific

 

---------- Post added 30-03-2015 at 19:16 ----------

 

 

Have a look at this thread that I just found.

ash this is real life..

[*_ash_*]

I was actually looking for the following posts for Harley when I found that dreams thread.

It's not a serious one but I thought it was interesting since you mentioned it.

 

I was looking for this part of the 9/11 debate, regarding sidearms in the cockpit, but was specifically looking for anyone who was in favour of the newer regulations regarding cockpit doors. I only found this though.

 

---------- Post added 30-03-2015 at 19:25 ----------

 

ash this is real life..

 

cross posted, I explain that in post above ^^

[nikita]

What are you trying to explain.About firearms in cockpit.

[Harleyman]

Really? Of anyone, I can't believe you would ask this.

 

Can you not see that if pilots are aware that every single thing in their medical records is going to be available to the company/aviation industry, that they may be reluctant to report anything to their doctors?

 

This company is now facing a huge lawsuit as you desire, will have to add this to their risk assessments, as will every other. The first thing to happen is increased costs for everyone. Lawyers are already probably drooling.

 

Every pilot now with a record of any stress/anxiety/depression/ etc. would already be worrying about their jobs, do you want this on their minds too?

 

I'd hazard a guess that many if not all pilots have periods of stress and anxiety because it's an extremely stressful and demanding role.

 

Do you think anyone developing minor or severe problems would ever even mention it to anyone, let alone a doctor or their employers? They will keep it to themselves, possibly endangering themselves and others.

 

Why stop here though? It's not just pilots that have a hand in the plane. Have you ever watched Air Crash Investigation? If not watch a few and look what causes most accidents.

 

A good one to watch as it relates to this in some ways was the Egypt with Gamil El-Batouti.

 

IMO, The factors for this accident relate directly to modern information exchange via media and social media. He probably wouldn't have done it otherwise IF notoriety was what he wanted. Had 9/11 not happened probably the same, as the pilot wouldn't have been able to be locked out. These are if's and but's of course.

 

However, if someone's intention was to do something like this, then quick-fire responses like yours won't change anything. Everyone has the potential to be dangerous - Thankfully most aren't, and in particular VERY VERY rare in the case of pilots.

 

There are a lot more factors rather than just jumping on this bandwagon of 'how was someone who had a nightmare about a crash, let's ban all pilots with any history of this list above.'

 

There are thousands of planes in the sky every day with highly trained and the most intelligent people on the planet. It should stay that way. Nikita's post earlier saying 'I wouldn't want to be on a plane with a pilot...' is nothing short of being a red herring. It implies that I would want to be on a plane with a 'loony pilot', which is nonsense.

 

No pilot suffering from depression should be allowed anywhere near a cockpit.

 

While the general rule is that patient-doctor privacy is the right of everyone there has to be an exception when that person through his condition could be a danger to other people.

 

A pilot who knowingly withheld a medical condition of any sort and was able to avoid it being detected by a doctor could be fired on the spot and lose his pension if that condition was later detected. Would it be worth his while in that case? To lose his pension as well? Far better to resign his job and move onto something less demanding but perhaps still.

connected with the aviation industry.

 

The opinion that a medical or psychiatric condition could remain undetected by fellow pilots holds no water. There would have to be certain changes in his behavior which would be unavoidable and those familiar with him would notice it and it would be their responsibility to report it to the employer

 

In the case of Lubitz his suicidal tendencies were already known beforehand but it all just managed to fall through the cracks

[*_ash_*]

No pilot suffering from depression should be allowed anywhere near a cockpit.

 

While the general rule is that patient-doctor privacy is the right of everyone there has to be an exception when that person through his condition could be a danger to other people.

 

A pilot who knowingly withheld a medical condition of any sort and was able to avoid it being detected by a doctor could be fired on the spot and lose his pension if that condition was later detected. Would it be worth his while in that case? To lose his pension as well? Far better to resign his job and move onto something less demanding but perhaps still.

connected with the aviation industry.

 

The opinion that a medical or psychiatric condition could remain undetected by fellow pilots holds no water. There would have to be certain changes in his behavior which would be unavoidable and those familiar with him would notice it and it would be their responsibility to report it to the employer

 

In the case of Lubitz his suicidal tendencies were already known beforehand but it all just managed to fall through the cracks

 

I think some of your opinions and posts on other subjects make sense Harley. I know you've experienced a lot, and write some interesting posts. However, in other things, I think you are deluded in a world of nonsensical-idealism.

 

-

 

A pilot who knowingly withheld a medical condition of any sort and was able to avoid it being detected by a doctor could be fired on the spot and lose his pension if that condition was later detected

 

Didn't the report say that the note was recent? I'm sure it did. How quick do you want the information between doc and airline to be? Your solution is completely flawed, would be expensive beyond belief, would be a paperwork nightmare, and would just push an almost non-existent problem somewhere else.

 

Based on some of the things you wrote in that post, I won't discuss this with you any further. It's a waste of both our times.

[Harleyman]

I think some of your opinions and posts on other subjects make sense Harley. I know you've experienced a lot, and write some interesting posts. However, in other things, I think you are deluded in a world of nonsensical-idealism.

 

-

 

 

 

Didn't the report say that the note was recent? I'm sure it did. How quick do you want the information between doc and airline to be? Your solution is completely flawed, would be expensive beyond belief, would be a paperwork nightmare, and would just push an almost non-existent problem somewhere else.

 

Based on some of the things you wrote in that post, I won't discuss this with you any further. It's a waste of both our times.

 

I can only add then that thank God people like you are not running the airline business. I could see you as a paper bound bureaucrat who would operate and get things done, changes made with all the dazzling speed of a tortoise. But changes will come, pilots may not like them but they will learn to adapt sure enough

[*_ash_*]

I can only add then that thank God people like you are not running the airline business. I could see you as a paper bound bureaucrat who would operate and get things done, changes made with all the dazzling speed of a tortoise. But changes will come, pilots may not like them but they will learn to adapt sure enough

 

No answer to how long then?...

 

How quick do you want the information between doc and airline to be? Your solution is completely flawed, would be expensive beyond belief, would be a paperwork nightmare, and would just push an almost non-existent problem somewhere else.

 

-

 

I thank goodness that people like you are not in charge because you can't think things through and just think of things as completely black and white. You completely missed the point I made in post #118. Your actions would endanger more people.

 

I would implement changes when there was a recurring problem or problem that could affect thousands of flights, not think of a plan in 5 seconds to please people who can't think any further than the end of their nose.

[PeteMorris]

The way I see it (and I think someone else said it earlier) is this tragedy has happened as a direct result of 911. Where the airlines were forced to make the cockpit impenetrable by terrorists. Had the captain been able to gain entry, he 'may' have been able to stop it from happening.

 

The two people in a cockpit at any one time, on the face of it, sounds a good idea, but my thinking, and maybe it's slightly sexist, is that most (or at least a big percentage) of flight attendants are female, and if someone was determined enough, could be overpowered. So I don't see that being a foolproof solution.

 

My tinpot solution would be that if either the pilot or co-pilot need to leave the cockpit for whatever reason, then they must be at cruising altitude, and the plane put into autopilot, and they have to radio (the nearest control tower) that the cockpit will be vacant...and they both have to leave the cockpit together. With separate keyed entry back into the cockpit, so it can only be opened with both parties present.

 

Maybe that's not foolproof, but seems logical to me.

[charmer]

I can only add then that thank God people like you are not running the airline business. I could see you as a paper bound bureaucrat who would operate and get things done, changes made with all the dazzling speed of a tortoise. But changes will come, pilots may not like them but they will learn to adapt sure enough

 

Have you thought that perhaps his doctor didn't know what his job was? My Dr doesn't know what job I do.

 

 

The way I see it (and I think someone else said it earlier) is this tragedy has happened as a direct result of 911. Where the airlines were forced to make the cockpit impenetrable by terrorists. Had the captain been able to gain entry, he 'may' have been able to stop it from happening.

 

The two people in a cockpit at any one time, on the face of it, sounds a good idea, but my thinking, and maybe it's slightly sexist, is that most (or at least a big percentage) of flight attendants are female, and if someone was determined enough, could be overpowered. So I don't see that being a foolproof solution.

 

My tinpot solution would be that if either the pilot or co-pilot need to leave the cockpit for whatever reason, then they must be at cruising altitude, and the plane put into autopilot, and they have to radio (the nearest control tower) that the cockpit will be vacant...and they both have to leave the cockpit together. With separate keyed entry back into the cockpit, so it can only be opened with both parties present.

 

Maybe that's not foolproof, but seems logical to me.

 

The 2nd person isn't really there to fight off a person intending to do harm. People are far more likely to behave badly when they are alone than when they are being observed, there are studies that show this.

 

I also think that leaving the cockpit unattended would be a violation of international law.

[truman]

The way I see it (and I think someone else said it earlier) is this tragedy has happened as a direct result of 911. Where the airlines were forced to make the cockpit impenetrable by terrorists. Had the captain been able to gain entry, he 'may' have been able to stop it from happening.

 

The two people in a cockpit at any one time, on the face of it, sounds a good idea, but my thinking, and maybe it's slightly sexist, is that most (or at least a big percentage) of flight attendants are female, and if someone was determined enough, could be overpowered. So I don't see that being a foolproof solution.

 

My tinpot solution would be that if either the pilot or co-pilot need to leave the cockpit for whatever reason, then they must be at cruising altitude, and the plane put into autopilot, and they have to radio (the nearest control tower) that the cockpit will be vacant...and they both have to leave the cockpit together. With separate keyed entry back into the cockpit, so it can only be opened with both parties present.

 

Maybe that's not foolproof, but seems logical to me.

 

There may be an easier one..why not just extend the cockpit a bit and install a toilet... (obviously like the ones in the cabin with a door etc..)..no need for any of the flight crew to leave the cockpit "single manned)