Plane, 150 on board crashes in southern France

[PeteMorris]

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

 

My doctor asked me once what I do, and I told him and he was none the wiser

 

 

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 did specifically say a 'determined' person.....

 

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

 

Well I couldn't say whether it's international law or not...But rather that than have someone bring a plane down.

 

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)

 

A bucket?....Minimal cost!

[*_ash_*]

Well I couldn't say whether it's international law or not...But rather that than have someone bring a plane down.

 

The law is probably there for a reason. Auto-pilots (or certain settings in the auto-pilot) can be known to disengage at times and sometimes unexpectedly. Best if someone is sat there if it happens!

 

An example off the top of my head, pitot tubes becoming blocked or malfunctioning. This can disengage parts of it.

[Obelix]

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

 

Depends if he does his yearly medicals or not I guess. If not though I'd have thought the yearly requests for a copy of records to go to Lufthansa would have been a bit of a giveaway...

[Harleyman]

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

 

 

 

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.

 

I would imagine that airlines issue standard forms which the pilot has to give to the doctor when undergoing the required periodic medical exams as those medical exams must be pretty stringent and the airline kept fully informed of his condition. A doctor would therefore know that his patient was a pilot and who employed him

 

If the airlines are not doing that then they should be.

 

It's now come to light that Lubitz was receiving psychotherapy treatment for noticeable suicidal tendencies SEVERAL YEARS before obtaining his pilot's license but since then had not "shown any signs of wishing to kill himself". In the following period and until the present he was given sick notes "without any suicidal tendencies or feelings of aggression towards others" This info from Ralf Herrenbruek, spokesman for the Dusseldorf Prosecutor.

 

Maybe the shrinks thought he was okay but his girlfriend seems to have, judging from recent statements, thought differently.

 

This man should never have been given a pilot's license based on his past troubles over several years. Germanwings really dropped the ball there. Now quite justifiably they are going to learn a hard and very expensive lesson

 

---------- Post added 31-03-2015 at 19:14 ----------

 

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)

 

A problem with a passenger might in some instances require the captain to leave the cockpit.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Harleyman

[Tyranna]

 

My 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.

 

Good idea, also the idea of having a forward toilet adjacent to all cockpits (they do exist on some short haul and long haul types of plane). Alternatively, airlines may have to bring back the 'Navigator' role, as early jet airliners (De Havilland Comet, VC 10, Boeng 707, etc.), like propeller planes before them had a Navigator/Radio Operator in addition to the pilot and co-pilot. Maybe one of the cabin crew could have to be officially trained up as a standby navigator class/grade of crew member and paid accordingly, much like you get different grades of nurse from 'A all the way to 'H' depending on their level of proficiency and/or special responsibilities.

 

Quite frankly, although the pundits can proclaim until the cows come home that flying is the 'Safest' form of transport compared to the car, for example, if the average number of hours each person flies is placed alongside the average enormous number of hours they travel in a car or walk along roads, the plane soon comes a poor second to the car, and probably comes closer to riding on a bicycle, per hour of travel.

 

Furthermore, I cannot think of one single other form of transport when it is a common occurrence in serious accidents that all lives are lost out of a passenger list frequently numbering over 100 souls, except, perhaps space travel which is still in its infancy. (e.g. Columbia and Challenger disasters). Yes, there are many 'survivable' air crashes, such as the 'Miracle of the Hudson' where all survived, but a crash without deaths outside the runways of an airport is so damn rare that the pilot in such a case deserves and automatic Nobel Prize. Yes, there are ship sinkings and train crashes that may kill tens or hundreds of people, but even there a considerable number often survive; almost 1000 survived in the Titanic as well as the 1300 who died; the Costa Concordia sank at NIGHT and yet only 30 people out of 2000+ died; the Clapham Junction and Moorgate Train crashes in London 30 and 40 years ago each killed around 30 but many hundreds walked away unhurt.

If air transport at 500mph in a thin, fragile metal tube fuelled with tons of highly inflammable naphthalene was invented today, the Health and Safety would probably outlaw it immediately for the general public, but when does the public even have the SLIGHTEST say in the design of aircraft, unlike cars;), for example, where many manufacturers actually take on board customer feedback into the next new model?

Why not airbags in the back of each seat for passengers behind?

Why not PARACHUTES (No, Seriously?):rant: instead of the stupid and useless lifejackets which, if inflated too early, will actually cause passengers to BLOCK the emergency exit doors and prevent others from surviving?

Whay not a huge airbag in the front of the aircraft or in its wheel-wells to give the plane a soft landing if it falls to the ground? All these and more Oh, My God, SO SIMPLE ideas could save at least some lives in even some of the most catastrophic accidents, such as the German Wings one.

 

Finally, ONE REALLY sensible form of transport:P (which the Germans were world-famous for originating) the AIRSHIP might well be on the return to the skies; initially for cargo and pleasure flights (See: http://www.hybridairvehicles.com/Passenger/cargo airships of the future).

Even if they are a tad slower (Up to 299mph apparently with two jet engines and HUGE fuel economy) maybe this will become the norm for at least short-haul air travel in the next decade, depending on 'safety' issues and the need to manufacture greater amounts of Helium, or using even Hot Air as in hot air balloons, which will be cheaper still.....

[JFKvsNixon]

Good idea, also the idea of having a forward toilet adjacent to all cockpits (they do exist on some short haul and long haul types of plane). Alternatively, airlines may have to bring back the 'Navigator' role, as early jet airliners (De Havilland Comet, VC 10, Boeng 707, etc.), like propeller planes before them had a Navigator/Radio Operator in addition to the pilot and co-pilot. Maybe one of the cabin crew could have to be officially trained up as a standby navigator class/grade of crew member and paid accordingly, much like you get different grades of nurse from 'A all the way to 'H' depending on their level of proficiency and/or special responsibilities.

 

Quite frankly, although the pundits can proclaim until the cows come home that flying is the 'Safest' form of transport compared to the car, for example, if the average number of hours each person flies is placed alongside the average enormous number of hours they travel in a car or walk along roads, the plane soon comes a poor second to the car, and probably comes closer to riding on a bicycle, per hour of travel.

 

Furthermore, I cannot think of one single other form of transport when it is a common occurrence in serious accidents that all lives are lost out of a passenger list frequently numbering over 100 souls, except, perhaps space travel which is still in its infancy. (e.g. Columbia and Challenger disasters). Yes, there are many 'survivable' air crashes, such as the 'Miracle of the Hudson' where all survived, but a crash without deaths outside the runways of an airport is so damn rare that the pilot in such a case deserves and automatic Nobel Prize. Yes, there are ship sinkings and train crashes that may kill tens or hundreds of people, but even there a considerable number often survive; almost 1000 survived in the Titanic as well as the 1300 who died; the Costa Concordia sank at NIGHT and yet only 30 people out of 2000+ died; the Clapham Junction and Moorgate Train crashes in London 30 and 40 years ago each killed around 30 but many hundreds walked away unhurt.

If air transport at 500mph in a thin, fragile metal tube fuelled with tons of highly inflammable naphthalene was invented today, the Health and Safety would probably outlaw it immediately for the general public, but when does the public even have the SLIGHTEST say in the design of aircraft, unlike cars;), for example, where many manufacturers actually take on board customer feedback into the next new model?

Why not airbags in the back of each seat for passengers behind?

Why not PARACHUTES (No, Seriously?):rant: instead of the stupid and useless lifejackets which, if inflated too early, will actually cause passengers to BLOCK the emergency exit doors and prevent others from surviving?

Whay not a huge airbag in the front of the aircraft or in its wheel-wells to give the plane a soft landing if it falls to the ground? All these and more Oh, My God, SO SIMPLE ideas could save at least some lives in even some of the most catastrophic accidents, such as the German Wings one.

 

Finally, ONE REALLY sensible form of transport:P (which the Germans were world-famous for originating) the AIRSHIP might well be on the return to the skies; initially for cargo and pleasure flights (See: http://www.hybridairvehicles.com/Passenger/cargo airships of the future).

Even if they are a tad slower (Up to 299mph apparently with two jet engines and HUGE fuel economy) maybe this will become the norm for at least short-haul air travel in the next decade, depending on 'safety' issues and the need to manufacture greater amounts of Helium, or using even Hot Air as in hot air balloons, which will be cheaper still.....

 

You are a comedy genius, this is the funniest post I've read on here for a long time!

[Tyranna]

You are a comedy genius, this is the *****est post I've read on here for a long time!

 

Thanks for the comment; I WAS actually trying to be serious, although quite frankly rather cynical and tongue-in-cheek at the same time; as it is a serious thread, I would be happier if in keeping with the topic people kept a serious angle on posts...

[buck]

Yes I saw in the news today as well that the law firms are queueing up for this.

 

 

 

Only a few days after, and the hindsight brigade are at it already. I wonder how long before she gets death threats on twitface.

 

 

---------- Post added 30-03-2015 at 14:56 ----------

 

I'll join in:

 

My hindsight brigade comment: It's worth noting also that the security measures that were put in place after 9/11 probably contributed towards this accident because airlines made the cockpit impenetrable, because let's face it, they had to or no one would fly. So that's worked well then in this case.

 

My hindsight brigade comment: He [allegedly] wanted notoriety, just like all the other people that do things that end up on the news 24/7. Do you think the circular nature of this type thing and social media contributes towards heinous acts? That's worked well then.

 

Plenty of household names to choose from in recent years who wanted to be famous and that's exactly what the media gave them.

It would seem to me that the doctor who considered this pilot was unfit to fly should have told the airline, not his girl friend. This all brings to mind the Malaysia Airlines 777 that disappeared without trace, never to be found so far. Could this also be a result of a suicide pilot?