'Flight Forward' is an avoidable syndrome taught to military officers. Essentially it is the tendency to fly forward into an irresistible, overwhelming superior force. Tennyson's Charge of the Light Brigade is an example of it. The period of instruction, as I remember, is - hey! don't do that. Resist it. It makes no sense.
I think three years of extended pilot training in the military, due to its rigorous indoctrination at a very young age (21 to 24), cannot be duplicated in the civilian world. It is absolutely brutal at times. A weak mind typically is (psychologically) broken during the training process (fallen angels). It's part of the training. The finished pilot would be less likely to . . . fly forward into a mountain.
I may be prejudiced but I think only military pilots should be tapped to fly commercial airline aircraft.
I think three years of extended pilot training in the military, due to its rigorous indoctrination at a very young age (21 to 24), cannot be duplicated in the civilian world. It is absolutely brutal at times. A weak mind typically is (psychologically) broken during the training process (fallen angels). It's part of the training. The finished pilot would be less likely to . . . fly forward into a mountain.
I may be prejudiced but I think only military pilots should be tapped to fly commercial airline aircraft.
2
Interesting to see these comments and ideas for more regulation, more technology. What looks to be a depressed pilot took the lives of hundreds in an attempt to kill himself. I find this incredible. The selfishness of this man, incredible.
But is that what really happened? We've had millions of flights and I have no doubt that pilots 'get depressed.' Still, do not recall suicide by jet in my lifetime; at least not suicide due to depression. My guess is that there is more to learn here, but we may not as it might not be the PC message that media and government want us to hear.
Regardless, you cannot enable your government to make new regulations and laws as a result of one tragedy. Or two or three. This is bizarre thinking and solves nothging except to add the the already over-burdened bureaucracy we live under today.
Please, don't knee jerk! It is costly and doesn't solve root cause. If this man was truely this depressed, he should have been grounded. Period.
But is that what really happened? We've had millions of flights and I have no doubt that pilots 'get depressed.' Still, do not recall suicide by jet in my lifetime; at least not suicide due to depression. My guess is that there is more to learn here, but we may not as it might not be the PC message that media and government want us to hear.
Regardless, you cannot enable your government to make new regulations and laws as a result of one tragedy. Or two or three. This is bizarre thinking and solves nothging except to add the the already over-burdened bureaucracy we live under today.
Please, don't knee jerk! It is costly and doesn't solve root cause. If this man was truely this depressed, he should have been grounded. Period.
2
Any change made by pilot to alter course of aircraft or any other manipulation that deviates from original route and altitude, if deemed suspicious by intelligent software logic, when only one pilot is present in cockpit should be delayed till another pilot enters the cockpit.
In this situation the outside pilot should be able to enter into cockpit by entering code on keypad. So the LOCK mode should be automatically deactivated by software. Also there should be indicator on outside of door that lights indicating suspicious activity so that he is mentally prepared and may summon flight attendant for help.
Pilots can be made to scan their badge while going out to decide whether 1 pilot is inside or 2 pilots are inside. Or better yet, other intelligent solutions should be used (like weight on seats in the cockpit) to detect that.
Assuming that pilot comes out of the cockpit when it is smooth and steady flight, this logic will prevent deliberate actions of rouge pilot.
In this situation the outside pilot should be able to enter into cockpit by entering code on keypad. So the LOCK mode should be automatically deactivated by software. Also there should be indicator on outside of door that lights indicating suspicious activity so that he is mentally prepared and may summon flight attendant for help.
Pilots can be made to scan their badge while going out to decide whether 1 pilot is inside or 2 pilots are inside. Or better yet, other intelligent solutions should be used (like weight on seats in the cockpit) to detect that.
Assuming that pilot comes out of the cockpit when it is smooth and steady flight, this logic will prevent deliberate actions of rouge pilot.
Perhaps the non-rated crew members should as part of their training receive a few hours of orientation on what should be a normal situation in the cockpit, how to transmit on the communication system and so forth.
Consider the bottom line: No airline would order a pilots-only bathroom in the cockpit (giving up one or two passenger seat rows) from a manufacturer on the strength of one documented crash due to a pilot having been locked out of the cockpit!
The doors are currently key-locked with an interior deadbolt; why not install a keypad (including a backup battery in case of electrical failure)? The code would be changed before each flight segment and briefed to the Flight Attendant in Charge. A deadbolt would remain to deter unauthorized entry, but selecting an additional number (known only to the Captain & First Officer) would retract the bolt.
Alan J.
The doors are currently key-locked with an interior deadbolt; why not install a keypad (including a backup battery in case of electrical failure)? The code would be changed before each flight segment and briefed to the Flight Attendant in Charge. A deadbolt would remain to deter unauthorized entry, but selecting an additional number (known only to the Captain & First Officer) would retract the bolt.
Alan J.
3
.
.
Having two pilots in the cockpit didn't prevent one of them from ditching Malaysian 370 into the Indian Ocean last year. Both pilots were in the cockpit when one of them re-programmed the flight computer with the fatal route. We don't know which pilot did this, but the other was unable to prevent the murderer from programming the death flight. The other pilot had to be incapacitated or was in on the plan. Either way, the two pilot solution has lots of holes in it.
.
Having two pilots in the cockpit didn't prevent one of them from ditching Malaysian 370 into the Indian Ocean last year. Both pilots were in the cockpit when one of them re-programmed the flight computer with the fatal route. We don't know which pilot did this, but the other was unable to prevent the murderer from programming the death flight. The other pilot had to be incapacitated or was in on the plan. Either way, the two pilot solution has lots of holes in it.
3
So why not just make the locks on the cockpit door open from either side. That doesn't sound like it would cost all that much and still allow for the pilots to go out and come back in without having to get the co-pilot or who ever to unlock the door.
That is probably too easy of a fix though. Can't generate enough fear and money with simple solutions.
That is probably too easy of a fix though. Can't generate enough fear and money with simple solutions.
1
Mindless security closes the stable doors once more after the horses have left. Now a pilot will have to murder the second person in the cock pit before the plane can be crashed.
Ever since the fourth flight on 9/11 the passengers have successfully thwarted bombings and hijackings while the billion dollar Security Theatre fails to connect the dots. It is an unending source of amazement that Security Theatre still trumps everything.
To Bin Laden's legacy of homeland security, patriot act, etc. can now be added these 150 deaths.
Ever since the fourth flight on 9/11 the passengers have successfully thwarted bombings and hijackings while the billion dollar Security Theatre fails to connect the dots. It is an unending source of amazement that Security Theatre still trumps everything.
To Bin Laden's legacy of homeland security, patriot act, etc. can now be added these 150 deaths.
3
This tragedy illustrates why it's a terrible idea to arm pilots.
1
The second person allowed entry into the cockpit could be deranged and cause the same damage as a co-pilot or pilot left alone. This really is no solution to the basic problem.
In the late 1970's there was a report (NTSB or Congress) that said to stop the spat of hijackings that we needed to reconfigure the big jets so that the cockpit had its own door to the outside, its own bathroom, and a fixed bulkhead between it and the passenger deck.
The report said that the "human factor" of a Captain having to make the decision to open a door if a flight attendant had a knife at their throat would be taken away because there would be no door to open.
It would not stop a pilot from killing or incapacitating another pilot and flying the airplane into a mountain.
My reading, limited I admit, over the years on suicide suggests that people are not likely to engage in a "hand to hand" combat - life and death struggle with another person to commit suicide. It is usually a very passive thing.
A sealed cockpit with two or three pilots on the flight deck at all times would likely prevent a suicidal pilot from taking over, it would also stop any hijacking as there is no way to get into the cockpit, and another 9/11 could never happen.
It was the greed of the airlines investors that stopped those recommendation's from happening. It is the greed of the flying public that wants lowers fares at any cost.
We paid the price for that greed on 9/11 and apparently in this event in the alps.
The report said that the "human factor" of a Captain having to make the decision to open a door if a flight attendant had a knife at their throat would be taken away because there would be no door to open.
It would not stop a pilot from killing or incapacitating another pilot and flying the airplane into a mountain.
My reading, limited I admit, over the years on suicide suggests that people are not likely to engage in a "hand to hand" combat - life and death struggle with another person to commit suicide. It is usually a very passive thing.
A sealed cockpit with two or three pilots on the flight deck at all times would likely prevent a suicidal pilot from taking over, it would also stop any hijacking as there is no way to get into the cockpit, and another 9/11 could never happen.
It was the greed of the airlines investors that stopped those recommendation's from happening. It is the greed of the flying public that wants lowers fares at any cost.
We paid the price for that greed on 9/11 and apparently in this event in the alps.
4
There is technical solution here. We have the capability to "build software walls" around the airplane in flight. If the pilot attempts to take the airplane "through the software walls," the software takes over, keeps the plane on course and lands it. The airplane in effect becomes an un-piloted vehicle.
Aerospace companies (I think Honeywell?) have been working on this for a decade.
The pilot community, and others, hate this idea.
Yes there are risks here, but think of all the recent "incidents," including 911, that would have been prevented.
Aerospace companies (I think Honeywell?) have been working on this for a decade.
The pilot community, and others, hate this idea.
Yes there are risks here, but think of all the recent "incidents," including 911, that would have been prevented.
2
Ah, but think of the possibility of hacking such a system, either from the outside or via a planted software bug/virus.
1
At the minimum install a small bathroom just for the pilot and co-pilot. This would also prevent a passenger-hijacker from assaulting the pilot / co-copilot when he / she was on a potty break. Sure it would cost the airline a seat or two for that space. I wonder if this already exists on some of the largest airplanes.
1
I am surprised to see the Editorial Board write this editorial as quickly as it did. If there's one thing this tragedy illustrates it's the need to think things through.
It's not clear, for example, that having a flight attendant in the cockpit would have prevented this crash; it may have come down to who was physically stronger, the rogue pilot or the flight attendant. And what about a rogue flight attendant?
And then there's the issue of crew members carrying guns, which leads to another set of complexities.
This horrible tragedy was enabled by actions taken after 9/11, with the requirements for secure cockpit doors. Did we overreact after 9/11? We did reduce the number of hijackings, but we allowed the sort of tragedy that occurred this week, and perhaps also with MA 370. Never forget the law of unintended consequences.
Importantly, we may have to address difficult issues regarding mental illness. German law protects medical information, and we so far do not know why the copilot took a leave from his training, and whether it was related to mental illness as some have speculated. We need to protect privacy, and the vital rights to confidentiality which we all have, but we need ask some hard questions: are there some who should not hold certain jobs, like flying commercial airplanes?
It's not clear, for example, that having a flight attendant in the cockpit would have prevented this crash; it may have come down to who was physically stronger, the rogue pilot or the flight attendant. And what about a rogue flight attendant?
And then there's the issue of crew members carrying guns, which leads to another set of complexities.
This horrible tragedy was enabled by actions taken after 9/11, with the requirements for secure cockpit doors. Did we overreact after 9/11? We did reduce the number of hijackings, but we allowed the sort of tragedy that occurred this week, and perhaps also with MA 370. Never forget the law of unintended consequences.
Importantly, we may have to address difficult issues regarding mental illness. German law protects medical information, and we so far do not know why the copilot took a leave from his training, and whether it was related to mental illness as some have speculated. We need to protect privacy, and the vital rights to confidentiality which we all have, but we need ask some hard questions: are there some who should not hold certain jobs, like flying commercial airplanes?
I don't know what the safe number of people in the cockpit should be, but a safe rule would require every one of the authorized cockpit crew to have a private personal code that will let him/her get back in the cockpit. They simply enter their private code into the system before each take-off.
Seems like a fingerprint and cornea recognition system, automatically entered for each flight by the flight crew scheduler, would make entry by the cockpit crew rather clever. Certainly less costly than another pilot, plus, some small planes really can't accommodate another body in the cockpit.
Risks to human life and limb cannot be reduced after the fact of myriad deaths by plane crrashes have occurred. Could the catastrophe of the Germanwings flight ending in the high Alps have been prevented? Doubtful. Pilot suicide under the influence of depression, drugs, terrorist activity, who knows what? cannot be prevented either. Raking up the past of air disasters won't prevent future ones from happening. Catastrophic crashes - destruction of airplanes and ships -have been happening since Icarus flew too close to the sun. What was past is prologue. The unsinkable Titanic sank for many reasons, not least of which the Captain - Edward Smith - was a human being in a race to get his White Star ship to New York in the fastest time. He ignored moving his ship to southerly latitudes (on 15 April 1912) to avoid icebergs sighted in the north Atlantic, and effectively was responsible (along with the horrifically flawed design of the mighty ship by Thomas Andrews) for the tragic and huge loss of life that April night. No amount of raking through past catastrophes will prevent future losses. Human life is and always was messy. Praying for the beloved dead lost in the French Alps won't bring them back.except in blessed memory.
At least those killed - unimaginably horrifically - perhaps didn't endure more than a few moments of inchoate agony before they died. Death is the lot of all human beings sooner or later. And no amount of preventive risk-taking can change that fact.
At least those killed - unimaginably horrifically - perhaps didn't endure more than a few moments of inchoate agony before they died. Death is the lot of all human beings sooner or later. And no amount of preventive risk-taking can change that fact.
Always having two crewmembers in the cockpit is eminently sensible, but let's not get carried away with extreme reactions to an extremely unusual event. I will not cut down every tree on my property just because one might fall on my house.
Soon we'll hear a plea for guns in the cockpit. Let's arm the captain to protect against a crazy copilot. Duh! Then you have to arm the copilot to protect against a crazy captain. The last thing you want is gunfire in an aircraft, with bullets opening up the cabin pressure vessel and causing other damage, and two dead pilots. Wait a minute! What about having three pilots? Great idea! Of course, that means three guns. And a 50% greater chance that one will be psychotic.
So think about those trees around your house. And, while you're at it, better tear the house down, too, lest it catch fire some day with all your family trapped inside.
Soon we'll hear a plea for guns in the cockpit. Let's arm the captain to protect against a crazy copilot. Duh! Then you have to arm the copilot to protect against a crazy captain. The last thing you want is gunfire in an aircraft, with bullets opening up the cabin pressure vessel and causing other damage, and two dead pilots. Wait a minute! What about having three pilots? Great idea! Of course, that means three guns. And a 50% greater chance that one will be psychotic.
So think about those trees around your house. And, while you're at it, better tear the house down, too, lest it catch fire some day with all your family trapped inside.
1
What about requiring European carriers to follow US certification standards (ie hours). This guy had 700- hours. We require 1250-1500; more time for these psych quirks to show up, not to mention experience.
3
And what happens when the pilot to be overridden is the Federal Flight Deck Officer who is packing heat?
1
It's far from a complete solution, but it would be easy to implement and may have prevented this tragedy. Require the plane to be on autopilot when one crew member leaves the cockpit, and require simultaneous entry of separate lock and unlock codes by the two pilots on two different keypads to change mode.
1
Increased cockpit security will affect revenues so even a small modification of the.cockpit and cabin would be opposed by the airlines. But the following would avoid the rare instance of this mass murder as well as the "dance" that must occur when another member of the flight crew must temporarilymove to the cockpit. Also, one of the "deadheading" crew should be assigned to the jumpseat.
1. Move the starboard bulkhead and eliminate seats 01 E & F.
2. Reverse and move the galley aft of the starboard access door.
3. Install a self-contained lavatory within the expanded cockpit.
4. Move other class-bulkheads eliminating the rearmost D, E, & F
1. Move the starboard bulkhead and eliminate seats 01 E & F.
2. Reverse and move the galley aft of the starboard access door.
3. Install a self-contained lavatory within the expanded cockpit.
4. Move other class-bulkheads eliminating the rearmost D, E, & F
As has been voluminously acknowledged, this kind of incident is ridiculously rare. In fact, this appears to be the first time it has happened on a major airline. Yet people are falling over themselves to suggest elaborate systems to try to prevent it from happening again. There is a reason for this: most people refuse to accept that no system can prevent every possible outcome of every possible circumstance. No politician could get away with the simple truth: no system is perfect. We do what is reasonable. We don't get carried away by our emotions. Let's all keep our heads.
2
According to news reports, 28 minutes after take off, the Captain expressed his need to depart the flight deck for the lavatory. 28 minutes! I understand what the airlines term "physiological needs," but this borders on the absurd. Can't a Captain plan his food and drink intake better before a flight, especially, a short, domestic flight, so that there is no need to use the lavatory en route? Alternatively, the airlines could issue absorbent diapers to their pilots and eliminate part of the problem at least.
Pilots are human, and they need to go to the bathroom- get over it! They also need to stretch to avoid cramps and keep their circulation going, so they will have to leave their seats at one time or another. Some probably fly multiple times in a day, so it is likely they can't use the bathroom until they are in the air.
You could say the same thing about passengers; no matter how short the flight is, you can always count on many who can't hold it for a flight, no matter how short it is.
You could say the same thing about passengers; no matter how short the flight is, you can always count on many who can't hold it for a flight, no matter how short it is.
1
Cockpit areas should be redesigned so that they have their own toilet. Thus, there will be no need for a pilot to leave the cockpit area during a flight. This will cost money, of course, as will having a third pilot/flight engineer. But, the public will demand it and will cut back on their flying if the airlines don't respond to this situation.
3
Enough about installing a bathroom in the cockpit; there is only so much designers can cram into the nose of an aircraft. Pilots still need to stretch to avoid cramping and circulation issues.
1
1. Move bulkhead -eliminate seats 01 E&F
2. Move galley aft of access door
3. Install self-contained lav. in cockpit
4. Move bulkheads remove rearmost D,E,F
2. Move galley aft of access door
3. Install self-contained lav. in cockpit
4. Move bulkheads remove rearmost D,E,F
How about a security officer on board each flight? Maybe spending a little more money securing the cockpit and a little less looking for toothpaste tubes at security checkpoints is in order. Make it a TSA cost instead of a direct airline cost. Under no circumstances should the security officer be armed--that would present additional risk that the security officer would take over the plane, and the presence of a weapon that could be taken by a terrorist. Unlike a sky marshall, whose identity is unknown, the security officer would be a uniformed TSA officer whose only job is to babysit the pilots, to sit in the cockpit when one of the pilots has to leave.
But who will guard the guard? And, who will guard the guard who's guarding the guard?
2
With all this talk about putting a flight attendant in the cockpit: there was a flight attendant in the cockpit, that was Mr. Lubitz's job prior to being allowed to build time during commercial flights. Unfortunately there was only one Air Transport Pilot on board, and he had gone to the bathroom.
Airlines across Europe, Africa, and Asia train people to become pilots, rather than hiring experienced pilots from the start. There isn't the breadth and depth of the US military and general aviation pilot pool to draw from.
Requiring two Airline Transport Pilots on airliners would mean that when one ATP went to the bathroom, an ATP was still flying the airplane. Passengers should have a right to be flown by an ATP, or be informed that they are on a training flight before they board.
Airlines across Europe, Africa, and Asia train people to become pilots, rather than hiring experienced pilots from the start. There isn't the breadth and depth of the US military and general aviation pilot pool to draw from.
Requiring two Airline Transport Pilots on airliners would mean that when one ATP went to the bathroom, an ATP was still flying the airplane. Passengers should have a right to be flown by an ATP, or be informed that they are on a training flight before they board.
I have only one thing to add: if the co-pilot deliberately crashed the plane (as now seems likely), it was not suicide, it was mass murder. And we (and the NY Times) should call it that.
4
You and hundreds of others felt compelled to repeat that, but the fact is, this crash happened only three days ago and until the final report is out and legal action is initiated, it is all a preliminary THEORY. The BEA typically is professional enough to focus on investigations without spouting off unsubstantiated accusations until they completed a thorough study.
Why not simply acknowledge the fact that commercial aviation is extremely safe even with this type of rare event ? It's much safer than driving on the highway, mile per mile. Maybe we should be debating lowering the speed limit to 50 from 55 rather than worry about suicidal pilots ? 30,000 people die each year in the US from car accidents. Don't worry though, there'd be a huge uproar if they tried to lower the speed limit, including from me. Death has to be kept in proper perspective.
2
Yes but many people survive a car accident. It's very certain that when a plane crashes there will be no survivors.
Although some safety measures cost money, or cut into profits, I am sure all of us who fly would prefer to pay a bit more for any gains that can be made in increasing the probability of a safe arrival at the destination to a near-certainty. Accordingly, I invite the commercial aviation community to start thinking outside the box. Reconfigure the flight deck: it is too small, anyway: a tradition dating back to the infancy of aviation. Allow the flight deck to expand, become more comfortable & less claustrophobic, at least on the jumbo jets. Maybe move a modern, compact but comfortable w.c. into this area, instead of having the pilot have to exit the cockpit outright. Consider that Air Marshals should be more commonly found on flights, that maybe these highly trained security personnel might have as part of their kit a discreet, hack-proof remote control that would allow them to override a locked cockpit door. Enlarge the training of at least 1 purser per flight in some of the basic safety measures that could be used in an emergency to save a flight, if both pilots are dead. Or bring back the 3rd body in the cockpit, the "navigator" -- if only for an extra set of eyes/hands. Do more.
13
There is technical solution here. We have the capability to "build software walls" around the airplane in flight. If the pilot attempts to take the airplane "through the software walls," the software takes over, keeps the plane on course and lands it. The airplane in effect becomes an un-piloted vehicle.
Aerospace companies (I think Honeywell?) have been working on this for a decade.
The pilot community, and others, hate this idea.
Yes there are risks here, but think of all the recent "incidents," including 911, that would have been prevented.
Aerospace companies (I think Honeywell?) have been working on this for a decade.
The pilot community, and others, hate this idea.
Yes there are risks here, but think of all the recent "incidents," including 911, that would have been prevented.
1
It appears that the lock to the cockpit is ELECTRONIC anyone who knows the code can open the door. This German pilot did not have the code? Or did he forget it? What about flight attendants? The should have the code as well.
For some reasons the Times editorial does not mention that.
For some reasons the Times editorial does not mention that.
2
Watch the video on another story on this in this newspaper. The person in the cockpit can block entrance to someone with the code but there is a five second window of opportunity that seems to have been missed.
1
"By contrast, two people are required to be in the cockpit on United States airlines, according to the Federal Aviation Administration and an industry association."
Doesn't prevent both of them from being semi-incapacitated from 'happy hour' drinking, as happened at least once in US, when a flight was scrubbed because another member of the crew was concerned about the condition of the two pilots (and probably more often that we don't know about). So the two-person rule is no panacea. Sadly, not sure what is
Doesn't prevent both of them from being semi-incapacitated from 'happy hour' drinking, as happened at least once in US, when a flight was scrubbed because another member of the crew was concerned about the condition of the two pilots (and probably more often that we don't know about). So the two-person rule is no panacea. Sadly, not sure what is
Three of the last four major air disasters were caused by pilot error or malfeasance. Is it time to change the protocol so that planes in flight are guided automatically with pilot intervention only in an emergency, with permission granted from the ground?
1
This is expensive and more long-term, but what about putting a bathroom behind the cockpit door? Seems like it's a good idea for the pilots never to have to open the armored door.
Another idea is a total override unlocking code that you can get from a dispatcher on the ground (assuming you can call from the other side of the cockpit?). Might be problematic for the dispatcher to know when to give it out though.
Having a second person in there at all times definitely seems like the best solution for now, and no it wouldn't always stop someone hellbent on trying (neither would a second pilot who stayed in the cockpit), but it wouldn't make it easy for someone to make a precarious, last second decision, which suicides often are.
Another idea is a total override unlocking code that you can get from a dispatcher on the ground (assuming you can call from the other side of the cockpit?). Might be problematic for the dispatcher to know when to give it out though.
Having a second person in there at all times definitely seems like the best solution for now, and no it wouldn't always stop someone hellbent on trying (neither would a second pilot who stayed in the cockpit), but it wouldn't make it easy for someone to make a precarious, last second decision, which suicides often are.
1
Unless two people in the cockpit is somehow the cause of a future crash, in which case we need someone else outside the cockpit to monitor the two inside. But just in case he's a double agent, ground control should be able to take control of the cockpit door. Just in case the tower is taken over though, emergency control sticks should be accessible under each passenger's chair....
Best suggestion I saw was for the cockpit entrance to be totally blocked, there should be buttons that are impossible for one person to press at the same time. It would require two people cooperating to do so.
There is a lesson here that applies beyond air travel. We always prepare for the risks we know about, and are always surprised by a risk we hadn't considered. Whether it's 9/11, the financial collapse, or a new pandemic, the risk is never anticipated and we are never prepared.
With national security, public health, or financial regulation, we always look backwards to the past, but of course the risks are in the future. I'm sure that an incident like this will never happen again in our lifetime, just as we'll never again have planes used as missiles. But there will be some currently unknown event that will shock us in the future.
With national security, public health, or financial regulation, we always look backwards to the past, but of course the risks are in the future. I'm sure that an incident like this will never happen again in our lifetime, just as we'll never again have planes used as missiles. But there will be some currently unknown event that will shock us in the future.
Jim:
Actually, the 9/11 incident was predicted by the 1997 Gore Commission report ("Final Report of the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security"). Among other risks, this report envisioned the use of fully-fueled air transport planes as flying bombs.
Unfortunately, having Al Gore's name on the cover, the Bush Administration apparently never read it (or certainly never learned anything from it).
And this more-recent risk (of a suicidal/homicidal pilot) has already occurred multiple times.
Actually, the 9/11 incident was predicted by the 1997 Gore Commission report ("Final Report of the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security"). Among other risks, this report envisioned the use of fully-fueled air transport planes as flying bombs.
Unfortunately, having Al Gore's name on the cover, the Bush Administration apparently never read it (or certainly never learned anything from it).
And this more-recent risk (of a suicidal/homicidal pilot) has already occurred multiple times.
2
Having two person in the cockpit doesn't really help. Ever since firearms are allowed in the cockpit, a malicious pilot or co-pilot just has to reach over and pull the trigger for the same effect.
2
Some of this issue is attributable to aircraft mfrs building planes to require only a crew of two, even in the largest planes, by automating everything. Saves the company money. In the golden days of airlines there were at least three and as many as five crew, each of whom had their own job. Personally, I think it's wise to have a third pilot in there but that can't happen with the aircraft built in the past 20-30 years, and for many years to come. I also would prefer trans-oceanic flights to with four engines (or three, but there aren't anymore of those around) instead of two. Etops of 240 or 360 is a long way to go on one engine. I know engine reliability is extraordinary,
but I prefer to err on the side of caution. But that would cost the airlines money. It's cheaper for them to have insurance and make payouts to families of crash victims.
but I prefer to err on the side of caution. But that would cost the airlines money. It's cheaper for them to have insurance and make payouts to families of crash victims.
Having 2 people in the cockpit at all times means there MUST BE 3 PEOPLE in the cockpit BEFORE the pilot exits. It is critical that the procedure for a pilot to leave the cockpit involve the entrance of a 3rd person PRIOR to the pilot's departure. 3 going down to 2 is safer that 1 going up to 2. I say this because the co-pilot could close and then lock the door before the flight attendant enters in the event that the pilot leaves first.
Am I the first person to consider the similarities of this case with the recent Liam Nielsen movie where he was the air
Marshal who was framed to be the dead instigator of this crash?
My first question is if this co pilot was personally recognized by anyone still alive. If this was a look alike imposter we have a weird plot inspired by a movie.
I wouldn't in any way discount a terrorist act at work here.
Marshal who was framed to be the dead instigator of this crash?
My first question is if this co pilot was personally recognized by anyone still alive. If this was a look alike imposter we have a weird plot inspired by a movie.
I wouldn't in any way discount a terrorist act at work here.
1
I was very surprised to hear that the European carriers do not mandate 2 people at all time. But I have also talked to domestic fliers who say that the flight attendants often stand outside the cockpit but not go in when the pilot uses the restroom leaving 1 pilot
Simple solution. An armed Air Marshal in the cockpit on every flight. I would think that would change the dynamics immediately
Simple solution. An armed Air Marshal in the cockpit on every flight. I would think that would change the dynamics immediately
What if the armed air marshal is the one who goes crazy?
2
Mandating two (preferably pilots) in the cockpit is a deterrent but hardly foolproof.
This episode eats away at the trust flight crew have to be able to have in each other.
This episode eats away at the trust flight crew have to be able to have in each other.
In my many flights in the US. I have noticed flight attendants placing the carts they rollout through the aisle with drinks between themselves and the cockpit door when their cabin crews needs to visit the John.
Adding a person to the cockpit would help, but in the end it is the human factor that counts. Murder-suicide seems to be the name of the game these days, whether in the air or in the neighbourhood.
These folks should check the passenger names to make sure that this fellow wasn't targeting a lover on row thirteen who wasn't playing any more.
Adding a person to the cockpit would help, but in the end it is the human factor that counts. Murder-suicide seems to be the name of the game these days, whether in the air or in the neighbourhood.
These folks should check the passenger names to make sure that this fellow wasn't targeting a lover on row thirteen who wasn't playing any more.
Why doesnt the pilot have some fingerprint automatic overide. This is surely a perfect use of biometric scan passwords.
Why do all the articles after a air disaster have to mention the sentence 'Air travel over all remains incredibly safe' line. Yes it is safe but if it goes down then most likely none of its passengers will survive. We need to think about faster land based travel.
1
Land based travel accounts for at least 40,000 deaths annually on US roads alone.
Why not three? One person could easily incapacitate another, especially on flights that have armed the pilots. Include a security officer in the cabin.
Alternatively, consider the uninterruptible autopilot idea that Boeing has developed. In the case of foul play, ground controllers or someone on the plane could trigger a system that automatically lands the plane at the nearest airport.
Alternatively, consider the uninterruptible autopilot idea that Boeing has developed. In the case of foul play, ground controllers or someone on the plane could trigger a system that automatically lands the plane at the nearest airport.
2
Ground controllers are, in most cases, not pilots. If they are, they would not likely be qualified to fly a given model of plane. Besides, controllers are busy enough keeping planes from colliding with one another as that is their primary job.
And how to you protect the plane against a mentally unstable ground controller?
1
Mandatory psychiatric monitoring.
Mandatory dismissal of flight crew members with psychiatric issues.
Mandatory dismissal of flight crew members with psychiatric issues.
1
How about 3 pilots. What would an airline flight attendant do if the pilot or co pilot was not in the cockpit and there was an emergency with the plane? Three pilots should be the rule. Make it safer and let the airlines absorb the extra cost.
As with any business, the cost will be passed on to you. Planes have been known to crash with three pilots as well as with two.
I'm going to give a big smile and "Thank you"to pilot and copilot the next time I get on an airplane.
How about a small bathroom strictly for the flight deck? Sure it would cost and it would take up precious seats. But then pilots and co-pilots would not have a reason to leave the flight deck. Exiting and entering the flight deck also gives potential passenger-hijackers a moment to get into the flight control area.
1
If we are going to seal flight crew in the cockpit, how are they going to stretch to maintain circulation and dexterity on long flights? Are you going to say that they should also install treadmills?
It's probably a good idea to have the second person but for many obvious reasons, it is no fail-safe either.
Besides that, I have, of course, no evidence to challenge the official interpretation that this was a purposeful act by someone who was mentally impaired, insane, whatever the polite word is these days. It's likely what happened. But, do we never tire of rushing to early judgment? I know it makes everyone feel good to feel they "know" what happened. But, doesn't it too often turn out to be wrong? Again, not saying it is, but can't we, with no way to prevent the tragedy now and having no living suspect, to wait a few days before we are so sure of ourselves?
Besides that, I have, of course, no evidence to challenge the official interpretation that this was a purposeful act by someone who was mentally impaired, insane, whatever the polite word is these days. It's likely what happened. But, do we never tire of rushing to early judgment? I know it makes everyone feel good to feel they "know" what happened. But, doesn't it too often turn out to be wrong? Again, not saying it is, but can't we, with no way to prevent the tragedy now and having no living suspect, to wait a few days before we are so sure of ourselves?
2
What utter nonsense. The one way that is impossible to bring down a plane is to force open the door. The passengers would tear the terrorist into pieces. An attendant inside is useful but not necessary in a health emergency, but not against a pilot. The pilot could lock the door and then overpower and disable the attendant. Some lobbyist from a campaign contributor sold an unnecessary and dangerous gadget to the regulator agencies.
After 14 years, it is necessary to sharply reduce the hysterical measures that make life miserable for people to stop a trivial terror problem that would kill fewer people than we kill on the highways each weekend. And that leads to a Mideast policy that has brought terror to millions.
After 14 years, it is necessary to sharply reduce the hysterical measures that make life miserable for people to stop a trivial terror problem that would kill fewer people than we kill on the highways each weekend. And that leads to a Mideast policy that has brought terror to millions.
Having 2 pilots in the cockpit did not prevent the co-pilot of EgyptAir flight 990 from bringing that plane down.
In that case, the pilot also left to go to the bathroom. As the EgyptAir disaster was pre-9/11 the cockpit door was not armoured, and thus the pilot was able to regain entry into the cockpit.
He was still unable to prevent the co-pilot from directing the plane into the ocean and eventually also turning off the engines.
There is no use implementing a solution that doesn't solve the issue.
In that case, the pilot also left to go to the bathroom. As the EgyptAir disaster was pre-9/11 the cockpit door was not armoured, and thus the pilot was able to regain entry into the cockpit.
He was still unable to prevent the co-pilot from directing the plane into the ocean and eventually also turning off the engines.
There is no use implementing a solution that doesn't solve the issue.
2
They do NO PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING of their pilots! As a forensic psychologist, this is absurd! This person can be screened. The level of over controlled hostility present to murder hundreds of people is discoverable.
Seems like the pilot suicide has become a great concern than terrorism....there's a rather long list of late, including the "missing" Malaysia Airlines jet that are (likely) linked to pilots having made a conscious choice to take a plane down either in a steep dive or slowly and methodically crash into a mountain or the sea. Of course we can't make anything fail-safe, but perhaps more thought needs to go into what exactly cockpit security truly entails? If threats from within are becoming as great as threats outside, what is the best recourse?
I cannot fathom the pain that families and friends who've lost a loved one must be enduring right now. My thoughts go out to them all. Hopefully we can find ways to prevent this type of incident from happening again.
I cannot fathom the pain that families and friends who've lost a loved one must be enduring right now. My thoughts go out to them all. Hopefully we can find ways to prevent this type of incident from happening again.
Why the NY Times and other media forums even allow the public to make comments on matters like this is very questionable since the majority of the people making comments have little, if any experience or expertise in such matters.
Of course some people raise valid concerns, but is this the proper forum? Let the experts do their job and then provide the public their findings...
Of course some people raise valid concerns, but is this the proper forum? Let the experts do their job and then provide the public their findings...
3
The experts have already done their job!
Pilots should pair up to fly with a small group of other pilots, a team, so over time they get to know each other well and be able to spot unusual behavior.
1
We seem to have a spate of copy-cat murder-suicides by aircrew members. I don't know what has triggered it, people here are speculating about various pressures on aircrew, diminished prestige and rewards, etc. One can also wonder about how aircrew are selected, trained, supervised.
We have seen copy-cat behavior in other mass-murder-suicides --there are fads, that one hopes will become passe', although that would probably mean simply that some other murder-suicide fad would take its place.
But one factor here that I think does matter, is that the age of aviation where almost everyone involved saw it as a calling ... is over. 35 years ago, when I was a working pilot ... I knew of pilots who committed suicide, but they never would have taken a plane down, never would have done that to passengers, or "to aviation."
Today it's just a job for many, and it has all the opportunities to send people "postal" that other high-pressure large heirarchal-logistical systems create.
Intentionally crashing an airplane with passengers is not just an attack on the particular company, it's an attack on the industry, an attack on who and what hires pilots. The spate of these is new, and very troubling.
Lee Harrison, CFI 2010029
We have seen copy-cat behavior in other mass-murder-suicides --there are fads, that one hopes will become passe', although that would probably mean simply that some other murder-suicide fad would take its place.
But one factor here that I think does matter, is that the age of aviation where almost everyone involved saw it as a calling ... is over. 35 years ago, when I was a working pilot ... I knew of pilots who committed suicide, but they never would have taken a plane down, never would have done that to passengers, or "to aviation."
Today it's just a job for many, and it has all the opportunities to send people "postal" that other high-pressure large heirarchal-logistical systems create.
Intentionally crashing an airplane with passengers is not just an attack on the particular company, it's an attack on the industry, an attack on who and what hires pilots. The spate of these is new, and very troubling.
Lee Harrison, CFI 2010029
Interesting that, on this point, US regs. are more restrictive than Euro regs...
3
You need to get out more.
There is a principle in matters of safety which is being explored in the design of highways and sidewalks in Europe. It is this: when you increase "measures" to make things more safe, you might, in fact, be creating new opportunities for danger. This appears to be what has happened with the hardened cockpit doors. They were, first, the very best safety measure that could be applied after 9-11, 2001, but now we see they created a new, dangerous obstacle.
The pilot in charge absolutely must have the ability to completely restrict access to the controls. Otherwise, the hardened door area is meaningless. If an absent pilot has an easy way to get back in, then a terrorist could try to force a pilot outside to open the door or find a way to do it himself.
We need to relax a bit, though. Lightning strikes and bee stings are much more common dangers, but we go out in thunderstorms in the summer and walk in open fields without worry. A plane crash is so very frightening because it is spectacular and because we, as passengers, feel utterly helpless in the back of the plane. Driving to work tomorrow will, however, be far more dangerous.
Whatever measures might be taken to override the locked/lock position for the doors will have to be kept secret to avoid alerting any potential terrorists. Plus, admitting a 3rd person keeps the door open longer, increasing a potential for rushed access by passengers.
http://terryreport.com
The pilot in charge absolutely must have the ability to completely restrict access to the controls. Otherwise, the hardened door area is meaningless. If an absent pilot has an easy way to get back in, then a terrorist could try to force a pilot outside to open the door or find a way to do it himself.
We need to relax a bit, though. Lightning strikes and bee stings are much more common dangers, but we go out in thunderstorms in the summer and walk in open fields without worry. A plane crash is so very frightening because it is spectacular and because we, as passengers, feel utterly helpless in the back of the plane. Driving to work tomorrow will, however, be far more dangerous.
Whatever measures might be taken to override the locked/lock position for the doors will have to be kept secret to avoid alerting any potential terrorists. Plus, admitting a 3rd person keeps the door open longer, increasing a potential for rushed access by passengers.
http://terryreport.com
1
Each pilot should have a handheld panic button which, unless cancelled by the other pilot within 15 seconds, automatically engages autopilot in a way that only the control tower can fly the plane.
2
I'd rather have a trained pilot fly the plan than an air traffic controller fly it under any circumstances; they need to focus on routing planes around an airport.
Two people in the cockpit is an improvement. Does not r/o one of them, if sufficiently paranoid delusional or psychotically resentful ,harming the other in some way. and bringing down others with his suicide. Regular mental health checkups, in addition to physical checkups, should be required.
Why not put auto-pilot on and require two pilots to enter their personal codes to unlock the auto-pilot for manual flight? The various suggestions, including mine, seem to happen after major death. No one seems to think about standards or policy and procedure before unusual events like this one occur. It may be human nature to wait for a major event to focus attention on the details that otherwise go unnoticed every time we step aboard a vacation or business flight. The people who died were innocent victims of a system that operates by rules. It seems a basic need to secure the cockpit controls and manual over-ride were not well thought-out by the rule-makers. They seem to be overly sensitive to terrorists than rouge pilots. Recent history over the past decade suggest that pilots also need to be assessed regularly for psychological issues and passengers need to have safeguards in place to foil an attempt by a pilot to take command of the plane to end the life of the innocents aboard. It is one thing to end one's own life - thought a troubling matter of itself, but to also take-out passengers in the process of a suicide dive chills all of us who are in the hands of pilots frequently and have no alternative but to have faith in the "system" of rules that supposedly protect us from rouges who would run the plane into the ground.
No need to make any changes whatsoever since the actual odds of a random event happening again is virtually nil. From a Bayesian perspective the change in probabilities is infinitesimal. Tampering with the system will bring unintended consequences for something that is not real. Let's make sounds of outrage but please don't tamper with a great safety system. The guy was a "Black Swan". No way to predict it and forcing 2 people in the cockpit at all times will require to retrofit urinals on the flight deck, not too nice with gender-mixed crew.
1
Laboratories operating under biological safety rules (BL levels) have a two person rule, to prevent the same single person event in the presence of deadly diseases. A case at Yale, where a lab worker murdered a young woman he shared space with under that rule and stuffed her in the wall comes to mind. We have no method or procedure here with the two person rule that stops an inside attack from the cockpit, the flight attendant can't fly the plane or probably overpower the pilot. The over ride of the automatic pilot, which here triggered the event, resetting to 96 feet appears to have been the cause. There is no technology linking the two pilots, indicating from one to the other, a change of course or problem. Two minutes might have made all the difference if the autopilot reset was relayed to the pilot. The idea of changing the door locking method just doesn't make sense. There was time to get in, the pilot just didn't have it. An inside attack has to be solved inside.
Isn't it premature to say that this is a murder-suicide?
These are very grave charges, and there are many other scenarios that could be imagined, including the prosecutor's desire for publicity overwhelming his common sense. Let's get a more evidence before forming an opinion.
These are very grave charges, and there are many other scenarios that could be imagined, including the prosecutor's desire for publicity overwhelming his common sense. Let's get a more evidence before forming an opinion.
6
Although two persons in the cockpit would have lessened the chance of this incident under some circumstances, it may not have worked under all circumstances.
A deranged pilot could have tried to do this without having his copilot leave first. There is no guarantee that a flight attendant would have been able to help here. However, there are many circumstances where an extra person could have helped, so why not implement the rule.
As I remember it, there was a pilot acting strange on a flight to Las Vegas, and in that case the copilot tricked him into leaving the cockpit and had others keep him out. There a lot of scenarios to imagine.
A deranged pilot could have tried to do this without having his copilot leave first. There is no guarantee that a flight attendant would have been able to help here. However, there are many circumstances where an extra person could have helped, so why not implement the rule.
As I remember it, there was a pilot acting strange on a flight to Las Vegas, and in that case the copilot tricked him into leaving the cockpit and had others keep him out. There a lot of scenarios to imagine.
We know of three cases in which the pilot of a commercial jetliner committed suicide by deliberately crashing the aircraft and killing everyone on board, the Egypt Air flight in 1999, Flight 370 almost exactly a year ago, and the current crash. Three times is enough for this to be a serious, continuing problem.
Airline regulators should require the following responses, continuing psychological counseling for all pilots, two crew members must be present in the cockpit at all times, real time data reporting on all commercial aircraft.
Airline regulators should require the following responses, continuing psychological counseling for all pilots, two crew members must be present in the cockpit at all times, real time data reporting on all commercial aircraft.
2
In this day and age of super electronics, I am sure a digital solution is certainly possible, short of requiring presence of two people in the cockpit. For example, the door lock can be easily coded so that the pilot who leaves the cockpit uses his/her biometrics to enter it, regardless of the lock from inside.
Is it fail-proof? No. Nothing can be fail-proof in a system that requires operations by humans, (e.g. an aircraft) against humans who willing to die. A person who is willing to die for a cause is the most dangerous weapon in the world we live today.
Is it fail-proof? No. Nothing can be fail-proof in a system that requires operations by humans, (e.g. an aircraft) against humans who willing to die. A person who is willing to die for a cause is the most dangerous weapon in the world we live today.
2
The timing was too coincidental for something to have happened to the co-pilot. It had to be foul play. WHen they release the tapes, we'll know for sure, but I think they already know.
That's the third times within two years that we have a rogue pilot. Malaysia 370 had 239 passengers, LAM 470 had 33 passangers.
I doubt that psychological screening will be enough.
We need a more viable mechanism to get into the cockpit, an immediate unlock, maybe something that can be requested from ground control from outside the cockpit. Maybe we can implement a safety system that brings back a plane to a secure route for some time in an emergency, which can be triggered from somewhere outside the cockpit.
But above all we need more mutual control in the cockpit. We have done so much to eliminate every technical risk that now the human risk has become the remaining significant factor.
I doubt that psychological screening will be enough.
We need a more viable mechanism to get into the cockpit, an immediate unlock, maybe something that can be requested from ground control from outside the cockpit. Maybe we can implement a safety system that brings back a plane to a secure route for some time in an emergency, which can be triggered from somewhere outside the cockpit.
But above all we need more mutual control in the cockpit. We have done so much to eliminate every technical risk that now the human risk has become the remaining significant factor.
1
Air travel Kabuki theater strikes again. We made doors so secure that the pilots can't even get in to prevent the terrorist attacks that never came. Brilliant.
How about a keypad on the outside of the door? Yeah, I know, the bad guys will figure a way to get in. But pilots committing mass suicide far outnumber any terrorist attacks. Let's get our priorities straight. But of course that will never happen because omg, the terrorists are out to get us!
How about a keypad on the outside of the door? Yeah, I know, the bad guys will figure a way to get in. But pilots committing mass suicide far outnumber any terrorist attacks. Let's get our priorities straight. But of course that will never happen because omg, the terrorists are out to get us!
14
I read that there is such a keypad on the A320, but the pilot was still unable to get in, perhaps because the co pilot had reset it (not sure if this is possible).
Pilots committing mass suicide far outnumber terrorists????? Did you read the article? How many mass suicides have there been? Even with security and the strong doors, attempts to break into cockpits still occur regularly! The doors likely prevent attacks AND keep those that do occur from succeeding. But PLEASE- 2 people in the cockpit at ALL times- every airline!
@Ricky Barnacle: There was a keypad but the co-pilot overrode it from the cockpit.
2
I was surprised when I heard a big airliner doesn't require two people in the cockpit. The A320 is not like a tiny 12 seater (which I was on once back in the early 70s)! What if there is a medical event?
Of course, people seem to have a tendency to build great walls. But if the Great Wall of China didn't stop a brutal dynasty from collapsing in the span of less than twenty years, there is unlikely any walls strong enough to secure the precious cargo we call humanity.
Whether the co-pilot was depressed or being a terrorist, if indeed he did crash the plane on purpose, it is irrelevant. Prevention means to teach everyone to treasure humanity, no matter one's circumstances
Of course, people seem to have a tendency to build great walls. But if the Great Wall of China didn't stop a brutal dynasty from collapsing in the span of less than twenty years, there is unlikely any walls strong enough to secure the precious cargo we call humanity.
Whether the co-pilot was depressed or being a terrorist, if indeed he did crash the plane on purpose, it is irrelevant. Prevention means to teach everyone to treasure humanity, no matter one's circumstances
1
So you're asking to somehow change human nature? Yin and Yang? Good and evil? It can't be done. Half of all people are inherently evil. By prevention I hope you mean somehow keeping that half at bay.
Ya, A long time a ago I was on a 12 seat Cesna. The co-pilot did not ask are you a flight attendant? Between me and the other guy we pretty much controlled the food.
Given our looks no one asked for a can of Pepsi.
It was a bumpy ride/
Given our looks no one asked for a can of Pepsi.
It was a bumpy ride/
Bos:
A medical event isn't a particularly exciting case. In routine in-flight operation, the pilots are never operating the plane; the autopilot is. The first time you'd need pilot activity is when the next radio message is due. In fact, the A320 in question has "autoland". At least in theory, it could complete a routine flight without any interaction at all by the pilot(s).
A medical event isn't a particularly exciting case. In routine in-flight operation, the pilots are never operating the plane; the autopilot is. The first time you'd need pilot activity is when the next radio message is due. In fact, the A320 in question has "autoland". At least in theory, it could complete a routine flight without any interaction at all by the pilot(s).
I can see how having a flight attendant in the cockpit could help in the case of a pilot being incapacitated. But if a pilot has melicious intent he/she would likely take out the flight attendent. And if the pilot did become incapacitated, the other pilot would presumably not be locked out.
The best solution seems to be to enable remote control of the plane. But I'm not sure if that is even possible
The best solution seems to be to enable remote control of the plane. But I'm not sure if that is even possible
7
Is remote control the best solution? With remote control an attacker does not even have to be on the plane. No system is foolproof - I would feel safer without remote control.
I was told by a long-haul senior pilot and captain for a top tier airliner who ran the regular Toronto-Tokyo return fights "15 years ago" that auto-pilot can take-off and land the top Airbus jet - at that time - as well as cruise from/to the corresponding airports "without human intervention". The captain also stated that human pilots often manually landed planes (at that time) to deal with turbulence that required slight adjustments and quick responses.
If you consider the case of loss of oxygen that causes pilots and passengers to lose consciousness after 20 seconds. an auto-pilot program that senses cabin pressure and oxygen could initiate an emergency procedure to bring the plane down fast and safe to permit recovery of oxygen and send warning signals to the nearest air traffic controller who could manage the recovery of the plane and the passengers/crew as required with or without the pilots assistance.
If you consider the case of loss of oxygen that causes pilots and passengers to lose consciousness after 20 seconds. an auto-pilot program that senses cabin pressure and oxygen could initiate an emergency procedure to bring the plane down fast and safe to permit recovery of oxygen and send warning signals to the nearest air traffic controller who could manage the recovery of the plane and the passengers/crew as required with or without the pilots assistance.
I agree completely, but it means the person in the cabin near the door has to be a well-trained, large person able to resist an attack and prevent the lock switch from being held own as the other pilot tries the keypad.
There are 3 modes for the cockpit door, UNLOCKED, NORMAL, LOCK.
NORMAL mode is a mode in which door is locked but can be opened from outside by entering a code on keypad.
Following is a solution to prevent a pilot from getting locked out.:
1) The door can only be locked in LOCK mode when 2 pilots scan their badge into a scanner inside the cockpit within 2 seconds of each other.
2) When a pilot goes out, the door always goes into NORMAL mode so that he can get back entering his code on the outside keypad.
3) In essence, for the cockpit to be made totally inaccessible from outside, both pilots must be present inside the cockpit.
4) When any pilot goes outside the cockpit, the door cannot be locked in LOCK mode by the other pilot.
All this assumes that the pilots carry their badge securely.
NORMAL mode is a mode in which door is locked but can be opened from outside by entering a code on keypad.
Following is a solution to prevent a pilot from getting locked out.:
1) The door can only be locked in LOCK mode when 2 pilots scan their badge into a scanner inside the cockpit within 2 seconds of each other.
2) When a pilot goes out, the door always goes into NORMAL mode so that he can get back entering his code on the outside keypad.
3) In essence, for the cockpit to be made totally inaccessible from outside, both pilots must be present inside the cockpit.
4) When any pilot goes outside the cockpit, the door cannot be locked in LOCK mode by the other pilot.
All this assumes that the pilots carry their badge securely.
50
An attacker could wait until one of the flight crew leaves and then coerce him/her into giving up the code.
So while this may have prevented the Germanwings incident it would circumvent the original reason for the lock - allowing those in the cockpit to lockout those outside the cockpit.
So while this may have prevented the Germanwings incident it would circumvent the original reason for the lock - allowing those in the cockpit to lockout those outside the cockpit.
1
Not a solution. If there is a hostage outside the cockpit door (say a pilot on a BR break or an attendant who knows the code) with a knife to the neck and there is no way for the remaining 1 or 2 cockpit inhabitants to prevent the hijacking takeover, the plane can be taken over. Regular mental health exams for pilots may be a better solution. Even that is not foolproof.
1
This assumes that when a pilot or co-pilot exits the cockpit, they will not be forced to unlock the cockpit by someone threatening them with bodily harm. It is going to be hard to come up with a fail-safe system. One option might be to increase the size of the cockpit to include its own lavatory, snack-bar, and comfy seats for relaxation. Then make the cockpit doors lock automatically at the beginning of the flight, and unlock automatically at the end. The pilots could never leave during flight. While we are dreaming, it would be nice to be able to over-ride the controls from a base on the ground if necessary.
1
The article mentions prior suicides with smaller planes. This is the fourth with large commercial jets:
- 1997 Silk Air Flight 185
- 1999 Egypt Air Flight 990
- 2014 Malaysia Airlines Flight MH 370
- this one
- 1997 Silk Air Flight 185
- 1999 Egypt Air Flight 990
- 2014 Malaysia Airlines Flight MH 370
- this one
10
You should add the four flights on Sept 11 to your list.
As far as I know it has not been determined that flight MH 370 was deliberately crashed by one of he pilots. This is why they want to find the plane to determine what in the world has happened...
Ex military pilots are usually the best pilots because they have more experience and they have been through a selection process that puts them under stress and formally evaluates how they perform. But pilots now are being financially abused as the airlines relentlessly push for profits. Hard to tell what happened in this case.
9
In early 1950s I worked in the dispatch office of NWA at MSP and know of a co-pilot on DC-3s who refused to be left alone in the cockpit for any reason. Even though the flight segments were short, if one had to go it wasn't an emergency. He was subsequently fired. Airline pilots are subject to ills like the rest of us.
2
It might not enough to simply have a second person in the cockpit at all times.
The industry and federal regulators need to take the time to figure out the most effective preventative scenario.
Perhaps we need three pilots on every flight, not just two. How is a flight attendant supposed to take over for a disabled or criminally intent pilot? Is a food cart (now used by some airlines) really our best protection against someone barging though an open cockpit door. Should there be a cockpit code accessible from the outside? Who should be able to use this code? Should there be automatic equipment over ride? In light of what happened, should pilots now be banned from carrying guns?
Lots of questions.
We need really smart experts to come up with some smart, effective answers.
The industry and federal regulators need to take the time to figure out the most effective preventative scenario.
Perhaps we need three pilots on every flight, not just two. How is a flight attendant supposed to take over for a disabled or criminally intent pilot? Is a food cart (now used by some airlines) really our best protection against someone barging though an open cockpit door. Should there be a cockpit code accessible from the outside? Who should be able to use this code? Should there be automatic equipment over ride? In light of what happened, should pilots now be banned from carrying guns?
Lots of questions.
We need really smart experts to come up with some smart, effective answers.
5
Food cart? What are you talking about? Nobody's suggesting the F/A's would use food carts in any way. They just keep an eye on things temporarily while sitting in the vacant cockpit seat.
Anderson Cooper reported yesterday, that some airlines' policy is that when one pilot needs to leave the cockpit, the door is left open - and a food cart is put in front of the open doorway to block the entrance. A flight attendant stands between the food cart and the open doorway, blocking the entrance to the cockpit until the second pilot returns and locks the door from the inside.
Do we require two people in the cab of trains?
Trains often have more than 1000 people on board or
be traveling bombs in the form of oil tank cars.
Better might be video monitors for trains.
Trains often have more than 1000 people on board or
be traveling bombs in the form of oil tank cars.
Better might be video monitors for trains.
3
Quite a bit harder to kill everyone on board a train that cannot be flown into the ground at 600 mph. Can't fly a train into a skyscraper. Haven't seen many terrorists try to hijack trains.
In fact, in the aftermath of a fatal Metro-North Railroad crash caused by the engineer dozing off and failing to slow for a sharp curve, the railroad now requires a conductor to be in the engineer's cab in advance of any such curves.
Pilot salaries on subsidiary planes from big airlines are paid extremely meager. So little that they often have to bunk in one room on an overnight for they can't afford a regular hotel room. Small airlines often use pilots that have failed to make the cut or don't have enough hours to fly major airlines. They are often tired from not enough rest before flying making stress issues worse.
These fact may not have been the issue with this horrendous crash, but they need to be addressed.
Airlines are making a good profit right now, or someone is, so certainly treating the pilots better is of huge importance. Pilots look great with their uniforms, but underneath there are issues that airlines need to solve. The few pilots I have met, fly because they have a passion for it, not for the money. Having the responsibility of hundreds of passengers they needs better monitory rewards.
These fact may not have been the issue with this horrendous crash, but they need to be addressed.
Airlines are making a good profit right now, or someone is, so certainly treating the pilots better is of huge importance. Pilots look great with their uniforms, but underneath there are issues that airlines need to solve. The few pilots I have met, fly because they have a passion for it, not for the money. Having the responsibility of hundreds of passengers they needs better monitory rewards.
9
Flying is an expensive proposition. The business model depends on economies of scale. That is to say, hiring two highly experienced pilots to fly 300 passengers from LA to NYC pencils out better than paying the same two pilots to fly 30 passengers from Seattle to Spokane. That is why planes get bigger and bigger, and why less experienced (cheaper) pilots tend to be found flying for the regionals.
Further, training is expensive. Renting a small plane (e.g. Cessna 172) and instructor currently costs about $100 to $200+ an hour. Google the hourly operating cost for any jet: it is in the thousands per hour. How many hours of training should airlines and/or students pay for until they can respectively start making money? Think about this when you are searching for the absolutely cheapest flight to visit your mom for the weekend.
Statistically, commercial flying is quite safe. OTOH, when things go wrong people die, same as trains, cars or the bus. The big difference is the number of people in the vehicle when it crashes.
Further, training is expensive. Renting a small plane (e.g. Cessna 172) and instructor currently costs about $100 to $200+ an hour. Google the hourly operating cost for any jet: it is in the thousands per hour. How many hours of training should airlines and/or students pay for until they can respectively start making money? Think about this when you are searching for the absolutely cheapest flight to visit your mom for the weekend.
Statistically, commercial flying is quite safe. OTOH, when things go wrong people die, same as trains, cars or the bus. The big difference is the number of people in the vehicle when it crashes.
The simplest solution is to have constant audio and video monitoring of every cockpit and cabin, coupled with the ability to take control of the aircraft from the ground. Anything short of that is problematic. If it is costly, it certainly could be paid for by passengers, ungrudgingly.
9
Maybe the simplest solution is actually to stay home. The idea that "everyman" can hop on a plane rather than drive or take the bus is of rather recent vintage.
I fly (both as a passenger and as a private pilot) but have dear friends who regard planes as death traps and won't set foot in one unless there is a potential million dollar business deal at the destination.
I fly (both as a passenger and as a private pilot) but have dear friends who regard planes as death traps and won't set foot in one unless there is a potential million dollar business deal at the destination.
Given what we know about the hacking capabilities of both nation states and private sector criminal organizations, it is far from clear that the risk of enabling ground personnel to take control away from the pilots is lower than the risk of a berserk or disabled pilot.
This is an extreme event that requires extreme rethink based on extreme redoubt. On that basis, the always-two-in-the-cockpit theory has already proven wrong. Lets not take false comfort in it just because it hasn't yet been proven wrong in the US yet. In fact there is no proof it has ever worked. How many rogue pilots are in jail because they were outnumbered? How many medals of valor have been handed out to cabin crew for intervening inside a cockpit and preventing a rogue event?
We also have no idea how flight attendants feel about being summoned at a moment's notice to babysit the cockpit because the pilot needs to do his or her business. Chances are many resent it highly and for perfectly good reasons, but go along anyway (I'm guessing here).
A good measure of how effective a recommendation is how unpalatable it is. For short flights especially, discourage any and all stepping out of the cockpit. Discourage means visits get logged, reviewed, shamed. Empower cabin crew by having them lock the pilots in and letting them out only after reaching the destination. Exceptions can be accommodated but with strings attached. A pilot who absolutely must go should be allowed to work something out over the phone with the stewardess who has the keys. He/she will have to be nice and say please and maybe as insurance, send a restaurant certificate/flowers later. But all that's a lot better than simply whistling for additional crew and getting up to go, like these guys do today.
We also have no idea how flight attendants feel about being summoned at a moment's notice to babysit the cockpit because the pilot needs to do his or her business. Chances are many resent it highly and for perfectly good reasons, but go along anyway (I'm guessing here).
A good measure of how effective a recommendation is how unpalatable it is. For short flights especially, discourage any and all stepping out of the cockpit. Discourage means visits get logged, reviewed, shamed. Empower cabin crew by having them lock the pilots in and letting them out only after reaching the destination. Exceptions can be accommodated but with strings attached. A pilot who absolutely must go should be allowed to work something out over the phone with the stewardess who has the keys. He/she will have to be nice and say please and maybe as insurance, send a restaurant certificate/flowers later. But all that's a lot better than simply whistling for additional crew and getting up to go, like these guys do today.
2
I wonder, did the copilot on the Germanwings flight 9525 just get the idea to lock out the captain and fly the aircraft into the side of a mountain on the spur of the moment when the pilot left the cockpit?
It was not a long flight, just a little over 2 hours. It is likely that on most flights of this duration neither the pilot nor copilot leaves the cockpit, so the copilot could not count on having this opportunity.
Hard to believe a person could be ready to do a thing like this on such short notice.
It was not a long flight, just a little over 2 hours. It is likely that on most flights of this duration neither the pilot nor copilot leaves the cockpit, so the copilot could not count on having this opportunity.
Hard to believe a person could be ready to do a thing like this on such short notice.
11
If this was at all premeditated (and who knows at this point), I'm guessing it wasn't short notice - he probably flew several flights waiting for this opportunity.
12
The two-pilot rule makes sense, but how about paying pilots more? This is a profession that has seen real incomes stagnate or drop for years. Some discount and regional carrier pilots in the U.S. make poverty wages! Working conditions are very tough. Many of the airline pilots I've met living in Dallas love their jobs because they love to fly, but we should not take advantage of them for that. All airline personnel - pilots, flight attendants, baggage handlers, mechanics - should be treated better, with better pay and solid benefits they can count on. This is a reminder that these jobs are uniquely risky in that any mistakes or troubles can cost dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of lives.
31
you mean if he had a bigger salary he wouldn't have killed 160 people? Americans don't go on strike much but they sure drive a hard bargain.
If it indeed happened as many people are surmising, perhaps this situation should cause US regulators to re-think the current policy on allowing pilots to be armed with handguns. While it's certainly possible that a pilot who is intent on killing himself and everyone else on board could manage to do so under many circumstances, it would certainly seem easier for him or her to do that if all that were necessary was to reach to an ankle holster, pull out the trusty Smith & Wesson, and shoot his fellow pilot dead before diving the aircraft into the ground.
I don't recall any situation where an armed pilot thwarted an attack, but there has been at least one instance when a pilot's weapon discharged accidentally in the cockpit. Armed pilots present more potential harm that good.
I don't recall any situation where an armed pilot thwarted an attack, but there has been at least one instance when a pilot's weapon discharged accidentally in the cockpit. Armed pilots present more potential harm that good.
87
Why is the answer always to ask for a gun?
18
It's not. That's his point.
1
The NRA, apparently.
At least in the US, pilots have suffered a sharp drop in income and professional prestige. Paying pilots more and giving more time to rest, even if it hurts the bottom line, may not be so bad.
45
Yes, if only the co-pilot had been paid more, he wouldn't have murdered 150 people. Good thinking.
18
This article didn't take into account the Malaysian Airlines plane that was probably the result of pilot foul play, as well as LAM flight in Africa Nov 2013 that was downed by a copilot while the pilot was locked out of the cockpit, as well as the Egyptian Air flight. Actually a lot of the passengers killed in the last two years have been at the hands of pilots.
18
Maybe the captain didn't leave to use the restroom. Maybe the co-pilot asked him to do something or get something in another part of the plane to get him out of there. Or told him of some made up emergency in another part of the plane.
For many reasons, it's doubtful the captain would have left a 28 year old in charge so he could use the bathroom.
My heart breaks the passengers and crew and all those who love them.
For many reasons, it's doubtful the captain would have left a 28 year old in charge so he could use the bathroom.
My heart breaks the passengers and crew and all those who love them.
13
A 28 year old can normally be expected to handle a great deal of responsibility capably- Mnay of the pilots in the X-15 program were around this age- and I think Neil Armstrong, who had been an X15 pilot, was the first man to step onto the Moon- when he was I believe, in his early 30's.
11
Agree.
3
That would be on the cockpit voice recorder, Margaret. Haven't you read the articles? They have all the conversation between the two of them recorded and it's been widely reported on. There was no discussion about anyone getting anything. The pilot-in-command just asked the co-pilot to take over and went to use the restroom or something.
1
After the two massacres in Paris in January, there was a Times article about how France hasn't adopted a lot of the post-9/11 security measures that the United States (and please note that I don't necessarily endorse all those measures).
The USA has now had this 2-person in the cockpit security measure for years-- which literally costs 0 dollars to implements. Airlines and airline regulatory bodies talk to each other. This was a conscious decision within Europe not to implement this measure.
I often get the sense that Europeans implicitly believe that they're somehow immune from the problems the US faces (and routinely get splashed accross their television screens). Violence, terrorism, etc.
It's true that our problems of this nature often run deeper than in Europe, but people are people. So-called 'American problems' are really human problems, and they'd be better served if they more often used common sense.
The USA has now had this 2-person in the cockpit security measure for years-- which literally costs 0 dollars to implements. Airlines and airline regulatory bodies talk to each other. This was a conscious decision within Europe not to implement this measure.
I often get the sense that Europeans implicitly believe that they're somehow immune from the problems the US faces (and routinely get splashed accross their television screens). Violence, terrorism, etc.
It's true that our problems of this nature often run deeper than in Europe, but people are people. So-called 'American problems' are really human problems, and they'd be better served if they more often used common sense.
26
Beyond the two person cockpit rule, perhaps all pilots/co-pilots in flight should wear a Fitbit or similar device that can provide physiologic measures that might distinguish whether anyone in that role is possibly asleep, unconscious or dead, with alerts to ground control and the senior flight attendant on board.
13
Now THAT is a really smart idea....good thinking. The Astronauts all did for a long time. Of course, the pilot's unions would cry about it, but seriously...that's the best comment on this story I've heard today.
In the long term, a crash avoidance computer system could disallow trajectories that would lead to a crash - much like the systems car manufacturers are starting to create. So, flying into the Alps, or even quickly into the ground or sea, or just aimlessly out to the ocean, should be impossible.
(But then the problem is whether the pilot can disable the system - a feature that might be necessary if the avoidance system malfunctions.)
(But then the problem is whether the pilot can disable the system - a feature that might be necessary if the avoidance system malfunctions.)
4
Why do planes even allow pilots to change course and descend straight into a mountain. The plane should be programmed to not allow such a thing, perhaps requiring some sort of emergency code entered by both pilots in the extremely rare instance that they would need to control the plane in such a strange matter.
7
It's hard for software to tell the difference between "crashing into a mountain" and landing.
15
Some cars can park themselves without hitting hard objects or they alert you when you try to change lanes and another car is there. It seems to me that software can be created where the plan has a radar and it knows that the course will cause it to hit a mountain.
1
Is it? Flight simulators seem to know when the pilot has crashed. We have precise digital maps, we have radar, why would it be hard to make a plane know where a mountain is?
3
maybe a key or key that is stored in the cockpit or a code that unlocks the cockpit door known only to the crew would work just as well
1
The assertion in the editorial that no commercial flight crashes have involved pilot suicides is incorrect. Egypt Air 990 was almost certainly crashed by the co-pilot, and Malaysia Airlines MH370 the same.
31
As far as MH370 goes, that would seem to be a rather loose definition of "certainly".
8
Read more closely--the editorial doesn't say that no commercial flight crashes have involved pilot suicides. It only says that pilot suicides are extremely rare and that there was no case of pilot suicide involving a commercial jet between 2003 and 2012. Egypt Air 990 crashed in 1999, and Malaysia Airlines MH370 was in 2014 (and I'm pretty sure there hasn't been any determination of what actually happened there).
8
@Paul Adams: That's the opposite of what the article asserts. The article asserts there HAVE been at least 8 incidents of pilot suicide. Did you read a different article or something???
An accident is a result of a series of events coming together at one point. Example, the O-ring on the space shuttle many, many years ago.
What both the O-ring and this tragedy have in common is something called 'routine'. The flight path this aircraft was doing had been done a 100 times before if not more. There was nothing to alert anyone anything was unusual.
So, of course have two trained people in the cockpit at all times but even then people will become so used to the system guards will be down.
What both the O-ring and this tragedy have in common is something called 'routine'. The flight path this aircraft was doing had been done a 100 times before if not more. There was nothing to alert anyone anything was unusual.
So, of course have two trained people in the cockpit at all times but even then people will become so used to the system guards will be down.
2
Pilots should also not just wander out of the cockpit for convenience -- I don't know why the pilot of this ill-fated flight had to venture out just 20 minutes into it. The whole flight was only 1.5 hours long, and if pilots relieve themselves before takeoff, they should be able to sit through flights like this.
Additionally, while all suicides are not preventable, there is a strong link between substance abuse and depression/suicide. There should be programs in place to prevent substance abusing pilots from operating (not just BAC at time of flight, but substance abuse in general). With responsibility of hundreds of lives, all commercial pilots should be committed to healthy lifestyles.
Most pilots are already very responsible; like all safety measures, these steps can help achieve incrementally greater safety.
Additionally, while all suicides are not preventable, there is a strong link between substance abuse and depression/suicide. There should be programs in place to prevent substance abusing pilots from operating (not just BAC at time of flight, but substance abuse in general). With responsibility of hundreds of lives, all commercial pilots should be committed to healthy lifestyles.
Most pilots are already very responsible; like all safety measures, these steps can help achieve incrementally greater safety.
6
Regarding drug testing, airlines do conduct random drug testing while pilots are on duty. The airline notifies the pilot the he/she must report to a drug testing center within a given time period (ie. 30 minutes) at any given location while they are on duty.
It's uncommon for pilots to leave the cockpit and is discouraged. Sometimes it just can't be avoided.
It's uncommon for pilots to leave the cockpit and is discouraged. Sometimes it just can't be avoided.
1
Just getting into the cockpit wouldn't prevent a pilot from crashing a plane. They can turn off the engines when restarting is impossible or they can force a stall at low altitude, or just drive the plane into the ground right after take-off. Until there's much more computer control, we're going to be at the mercy of pilots and drivers whenever we're passengers.
8
We don't know the cause of the crash. The co-pilot may have suffered cardiac arrest or a cerebral hemorhage. We should therefore not rush to judgment but wait for a physical and psychological autopsy to be done.
Most pilots seem to have strong life-affirming egos that are in full control of their emotions. At this point it seems unlikely that a seemingly healthy young pilot of 28 would not only end his own life but also commit mass murder.
Most pilots seem to have strong life-affirming egos that are in full control of their emotions. At this point it seems unlikely that a seemingly healthy young pilot of 28 would not only end his own life but also commit mass murder.
7
After the Captain left the cockpit the flight left its original track, turned left and left its flight level, these actions require manual inputs in the flight management system of the aircraft, I think that this rules out what you suggest.
22
Except that before that attack, if one happened, the co-pilot had interrupted the normal flight protocol to put the plane into a faster than normal descent.
8
"a seemingly healthy young pilot of 28":
Your assumption but the specifics now emerging about his actions while in the cockpit do not necessarily support the mental health of the this co-pilot which is a key factor in his performance.
He may have been physically fit but he was not "!00% flightworthy" as the spokesman for Lufthansa described the co-pilot.
Your assumption but the specifics now emerging about his actions while in the cockpit do not necessarily support the mental health of the this co-pilot which is a key factor in his performance.
He may have been physically fit but he was not "!00% flightworthy" as the spokesman for Lufthansa described the co-pilot.
2
"By contrast, two people are required to be in the cockpit on United States airlines, according to an industry association and aviation safety experts. If one pilot has to go outside for any reason, flight attendants or off-duty pilots flying on the plane can step in. "
Yeah, but can you imagine a typically female and petite flight attendant struggling to regain control from a heavyset male pilot, if she stepped in while the other pilot was away? Males are usually heavier and bigger than females and can injure or harm them. Maybe the outcome would have been the same on this flight even if one of the F/A's had stepped inside the cockpit.
Yeah, but can you imagine a typically female and petite flight attendant struggling to regain control from a heavyset male pilot, if she stepped in while the other pilot was away? Males are usually heavier and bigger than females and can injure or harm them. Maybe the outcome would have been the same on this flight even if one of the F/A's had stepped inside the cockpit.
12
Exactly -- but it's totally politically incorrect to say this. So we'll assume that an unarmed 5'4" 115 lb woman (such as myself) can control a six foot tall 200 pound man intent on homicide. So yeah -- ask that flight attendant to step into the cockpit for a couple minutes to keep charge of the co-pilot while the pilot is away and let's pretend this is a problem that the US has already solved.
10
It might not matter if the "madman pilot" and the flight attendant were evenly matched or not. It's unrealistic to expect a third party to engage in hand-to-hand combat at the same time he or she is trying to control the course of the plane. Something like that is thought to have happened in Egypt Air 990 and it do not turn out well.
6
If there had been a flight attendant in the cockpit she could have opened the door for the pilot.
7
I don't think the Editorial staff is following the news that closely or is aware of what's being published in its own newspaper. Reporting in the NYT clearly states that putting the place in a descent occurred after the pilot had left the cockpit, that it required several turns and could not have been voluntary, so Andreas Lubitz was conscious. We know that. Is the Times implying that Mr. Lubitz locked the pilot out of the cabin, put the plane in a descent (for no reason) and then passed out? An Editorial looks sloppy and lacks credibility if facts cited are not accurate and true.
That two people should be in the cockpit at all times is obvious, but I guess it wasn't to Lufthansa or Europeans regulators. I'd like to know why that wasn't the policy all along.
That two people should be in the cockpit at all times is obvious, but I guess it wasn't to Lufthansa or Europeans regulators. I'd like to know why that wasn't the policy all along.
46
It makes more sense to install a pilot restroom side the area enclosed by the locked cabin door and have at least two pilots in the cabin at all times. This would balance the new lockout issues and the terrorism considerations, reduce the possibility of pilot incapacitation and/or deliberate crashes, and would help restore passenger confidence.
32
There's been frequent mention of the need for redundancy with reference to the mechanics of the aircraft, and data but there's a tragic irony with this airline disaster that there wasn't consideration for 'redundancy' in personnel in the cockpit of Germanwings, the economy line of Lufthansa.
When it comes to the safety of the passengers relying on one pilot/co-pilot to fly is a tragic cost.
Our thoughts are with those families of the 150 lost souls at rest on the slopes of the French Alps.
When it comes to the safety of the passengers relying on one pilot/co-pilot to fly is a tragic cost.
Our thoughts are with those families of the 150 lost souls at rest on the slopes of the French Alps.
9
While a flight trained individual would be optimal, a flight attendant, air marshal or off duty pilot would suffice to be able to open the door should the pilot need to leave the cockpit at all. Better still- use the restroom before leaving.
12
Do you expect people to hold it for 10 hours?
3
On flights that long, there is a relief pilot on the plane.
6
This was a 90 minute flight
2
If the co-pilot in the cockpit had simply been incapacitated, the pilot should have been able to gain access to the cockpit using an emergency code on the keypad outside the door - unless for some reason he was not in possession of the code. If he did try to use the code, then his inability to gain access would imply that the co-pilot had prevented keypad access by turning the cockpit switch to the lock position. There may not be enough information to tell if the pilot did try and was prevented for re-entering the cockpit using this emergency code. It could also be significant that the co-pilot interrupted his pilot's training with Lufthansa for what appears to be an extended period of time, and for unknown reasons. The training is supposed to take 1.5 - 2 years, but it appears that the co-pilot took 5 years to complete the program. In addition to cockpit security measures, there needs to be greater scrutiny of unexplained absences by pilots or pilots in training, as well as their physical and psychological fitness. There are not many other professions where an individual literally has the lives of hundreds of people in his or her hands, and the scrutiny should be commensurate with the gravity of that responsibility.
23
And indeed it has been reported in this newspaper that the co-pilot manually locked the door, and that the pilot was unable to regain entry via the keypad during the 5 minute lockout period, during which time the plane crashed.
6
Do you have a link for a source that says definitively that the co-pilot overrode the keypad lock, Meredith? Everything I read says that that is the "supposed" scenario.
d
Requiring two people in the cockpit sounds good, but it's doubtful it would do any good against a pilot who is dead-set on killing himself and everyone else on board. See EgyptAir 990.
24
Excellent Point!
Private pilot since 1970.
More PIC hours than the co-pilot.
Private pilot since 1970.
More PIC hours than the co-pilot.
1
Why not just build airplanes with a toilet for the flight cabin?
10
I am sorry to say this but I do not think that all disasters can be prevented and changing the entire system because one disaster took place could lead to other problems.
Remember when "three strikes and you are out" was supposed to be a SOLUTION to the problem of crime? But it led to its own serious problems.
There is such a thing as the law of unintended consequences.
Remember when "three strikes and you are out" was supposed to be a SOLUTION to the problem of crime? But it led to its own serious problems.
There is such a thing as the law of unintended consequences.
27
probably you have a point, however narrowing the possibilities. by employing the ideas in this comments section is certainly a beginning. What an incredibly hostile act he committed.
2
Commercial airlines pay anywhere from $80 to $300 million for each jet they buy.
The one hundred or two hundred passenger and crew lives aboard are priceless.
Is the relatively modest price of adding another pilot or navigator to the cockpit worth it ?
Not adding another pilot or navigator looks a lot like cheapness, mismanagement or negligence...take your pick.
The one hundred or two hundred passenger and crew lives aboard are priceless.
Is the relatively modest price of adding another pilot or navigator to the cockpit worth it ?
Not adding another pilot or navigator looks a lot like cheapness, mismanagement or negligence...take your pick.
111
In the end the financial pressures do affect such cost-cutting decisions. The costs are incurred on every single flight, but the benefits, as in this tragic situation, are exceedingly rare. Humans have serious issues with properly estimating risks and distinguishing risks from uncertainty. Also, the technical equipment in most modern aircraft enable operation without an additional flight engineer or pilot. You also have to consider that pilots are a scarce human capital resource and that the airline industry has been fighting pilot costs for decades, it is in their DNA, sadly.
14
If it's not mandated by law to have two pilots in the cockpit at all times, airlines should start selling themselves as safer and do it anyway. People that want that extra security will fly that airline.
2
Another option: disable the 'locked' door position when a pilots exits. Or: install a lavatory in the cockpit. Or all three.
5
Or how about thumbprint recognition both coming and going.
Agree a small privy would be useful.
Wonder why pilot couldn't. have used privy before he got on plane.
Agree a small privy would be useful.
Wonder why pilot couldn't. have used privy before he got on plane.
4
Thumbprint recognition is of no more use than a secret code and a lot harder to implement.
These systems are designed to keep anybody from entering the cockpit if the person or persons inside the cockpit don't want people outside to enter. Think about it. The co-pilot goes back to schmooze with a flight attendant. He's grabbed by a terrorist. People scream. The pilot locks the door to the cockpit (or it locks automatically when the co-pilot leaves). The terrorist walks the co-pilot up to the cockpit door and say "open it up or we'll shoot everybody." In the thumbprint scenario, it's even better for the terrorists. They just shoot the guy and then run his thumb over the scanner.
These systems are designed to keep anybody from entering the cockpit if the person or persons inside the cockpit don't want people outside to enter. Think about it. The co-pilot goes back to schmooze with a flight attendant. He's grabbed by a terrorist. People scream. The pilot locks the door to the cockpit (or it locks automatically when the co-pilot leaves). The terrorist walks the co-pilot up to the cockpit door and say "open it up or we'll shoot everybody." In the thumbprint scenario, it's even better for the terrorists. They just shoot the guy and then run his thumb over the scanner.
10
Why not reconfigure the cockpit area to include a privy plus a lounge/kitchen area for weary crew members? This event doesn't make any sense so I guess neither does my "suggestion." I'm trying to get beyond 15o lives lost for no apparent reason. And I can't.
11
I am a flight attendant for a legacy carrier. We would love it if the flight deck had their own Lav and galley to use. Until that unlikely day occurs we will continue to comply with the FAA and company mandated guidelines for flight deck entry and exit procedures. If we have a pilot jumpseater in the flight deck, it isn't necessary for one of us to go up there. This is such a incomprehensible tragedy. I am not sure how this F.O. slipped through the cracks....to get type rated on the 320 and cause such mayhem...God Bless those souls on board.
Directly contrary to the assertion in the editorial, there are at least five known cases, in addition to this week's, in which the best evidence points to a deliberate crash by a commercial airline pilot, killing many innocent people each time. These cases are listed and summarized in today's edition of El Mundo, the leading newspaper in Madrid. http://www.elmundo.es/internacional/2015/03/26/55142da1268e3ecb098b4586....
19
Thank you. I cited three in my previous post. There is a clear pattern here that must be addressed.
The editorial statement: "It is unclear whether the co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz, was even conscious"—is really quite misleading and uncalled for. Especially using the words "even" conscious.
There is no reason to presume Mr. Lubitz was anything but conscious as he locked the door to prevent re-entry of the pilot and manually dialed the plane into a landing descent.
There is no reason to presume Mr. Lubitz was anything but conscious as he locked the door to prevent re-entry of the pilot and manually dialed the plane into a landing descent.
78
While it's true that we'll likely never know with any certainty whether the co-pilot was conscious immediately before the crash, the facts that the cockpit door was locked, and that the co-pilot was young and apparently healthy, make it seem probable that this was a murder-suicide.
No doubt that two people should be in the cockpit at all times.
Ultimately, as long as we need humans to fly planes, murder-suicides, just like mechanical malfunctions, will be an unavoidable possibility. Luck plays such an inevitable and huge role in our lives, from our circumstances of birth to our death. We can only try to mitigate risk; estimate risk-benefit trade offs; and count ourselves fortunate for what hasn't gone wrong.
No doubt that two people should be in the cockpit at all times.
Ultimately, as long as we need humans to fly planes, murder-suicides, just like mechanical malfunctions, will be an unavoidable possibility. Luck plays such an inevitable and huge role in our lives, from our circumstances of birth to our death. We can only try to mitigate risk; estimate risk-benefit trade offs; and count ourselves fortunate for what hasn't gone wrong.
16
How does an unconscious copilot make the several turns of a knob required to lock the cockpit door from the inside? And even in the unlikely event that he did lose consciousness, why would he intentionally lock the captain out first?
1
In reduce one risk, we usually create new ones. Perhaps keeping two people in the cockpit at all times is a rule that should be implemented more broadly, but we shouldn't think that all that stands between us and perfect safety is an insufficiency of rules.
I was always puzzled at the TSA insistence on extra psychological testing before allowing pilots to have a gun. If they can't be trusted with a gun,mother can't be trusted with a far more lethal airplane. Ether the requirement was unnecessary or the current screening of all pilots is inadequate.
I was always puzzled at the TSA insistence on extra psychological testing before allowing pilots to have a gun. If they can't be trusted with a gun,mother can't be trusted with a far more lethal airplane. Ether the requirement was unnecessary or the current screening of all pilots is inadequate.
6
What exactly would have been the purpose of having a flight attendant sit in the captain's seat while the captain went to the lavatory? The average airline pilot is fully capable of killing the average flight attendant with his bare hands.
Also, one of the dirty little secrets of flying an airliner is that either pilot would very likely succeed in crashing the aircraft if they desired, *despite* the heroics of their counterpart. If we cannot fully trust both the pilot and copilot to independently pilot the aircraft, then we are lost.
Other than adding periodic psych evals to the mandatory physicals, what can we do?
Also, one of the dirty little secrets of flying an airliner is that either pilot would very likely succeed in crashing the aircraft if they desired, *despite* the heroics of their counterpart. If we cannot fully trust both the pilot and copilot to independently pilot the aircraft, then we are lost.
Other than adding periodic psych evals to the mandatory physicals, what can we do?
43
"The average airline pilot is fully capable of killing the average flight attendant with his bare hands."
Are assuming at all flight attendants are female?
Are assuming at all flight attendants are female?
6
At some point AI (Artificial Intelligence) will be wired into the on-board computer that will detect if something is being done incorrectly. Pilots won't like it, but in it's simplest form it's the device that over rides a car's acceleration into a person or cyclist in front of a car by braking even though driver has foot on the gas pedal.)
15
He said average. The average flight attendant IS female.
9
Would having a flight attendant in the cockpit really help? Or is this another "feel good" safety theater thing.
If the single pilot/copilot passed out or died he wouldn't double lock the door first. The other pilot could get back in using the code pad.
If someone like the germanwings copilot had bad intent what would stop him (to paraphrase a Lufthansa spokesman) from whacking the flight attendant on the head with the ax to keep her/him from opening the door.
If the single pilot/copilot passed out or died he wouldn't double lock the door first. The other pilot could get back in using the code pad.
If someone like the germanwings copilot had bad intent what would stop him (to paraphrase a Lufthansa spokesman) from whacking the flight attendant on the head with the ax to keep her/him from opening the door.
22
Perhaps not likely to work in many instances but it creates one more barrier to this sort of thing happening. It makes what the pilot did slightly harder to do, assuming he had ill intent here.
Though I'd broadly agree that if a pilot or co-pilot decides to down a plane. . . there's a very good chance they'll succeed. We'll always be putting a lot of faith in pilots - that's not really a "problem" that has a solution.
Though I'd broadly agree that if a pilot or co-pilot decides to down a plane. . . there's a very good chance they'll succeed. We'll always be putting a lot of faith in pilots - that's not really a "problem" that has a solution.
1
It's a good point, but mental health issues can be unpredictable, so just the presence of another person can affect behavior. At least it would have delayed and made it harder to take the plane down alone.
1
It is unbelievable that the post 9/11 reflections on how to prevent tragedy did not foresee this.
5
Two people in the cockpit at all times would be a good start, but for bettering the odds it just might be a good idea to have an air marshal on each flight, dressed in civilian clothes and equipped with an override switch for the cockpit door lock and syringes loaded with sedatives as well as that last resort, a gun with low-power ammunition so only the intended target is penetrated. Such might be needed if it comes to a struggle in the cockpit. Pity one should even have to think that way, but behaviour worthy of murderous savages requires some rather starkly tough solutions. After all, when you get on a plane it's your life that will hang in the balance.
10
And what would this air marshal do as the plane drops several thousand feet per minute and he is pinned to the ceiling?
8
That solution sounds to me like a recipe for disaster. Every time such an "undercover" air marshall leapt into action, the passengers and crew would assume he/she was a terrorist or other rogue element, and they would respond accordingly. What a nightmare.
5
You are obviously unaware of the simple math of the sheer number of flights and the limited number of human resources. I don't believe Europe will have enough air marshals available on each and every flight and this will seriously slowdown the European airline industry, though I do support such an action.
1
It is outrageous that German aviation regulations permit a pilot to remain alone in the cockpit, just outrageous. American FAA regulations require that when one pilot exits the cabin for any reason they require a flight attendant to enter and stay in the cockpit until the other pilot returns to the cabin. This foolish lack of attention to common sense security of the pilot cabin by the German aviation authorities under current news reported information appears to have basically permitted the murder of 149 innocent people.
7
The two person rule makes sense and if there was any doubt that it made sense, consider that numerous airlines after the disappearance of the Malaysia Air added a second person in the cockpit precisely because one viable explanation for that plane's disappearance is a rogue pilot. Yes, in that case there seem to have been two men on the flight deck, but short of assigning an air marshal to monitor a single pilot, at least putting another person alongside a single pilot provides some security. The question is why Germanwings did not follow this example. Is there a different policy on regular Lufthansa flights? Or, to put it another way, is part of cost cutting on Germanwings, not having enough cabin personnel to put one person in the cockpit when one pilot is absent?
3
The seeming problem in the crash in France seems, quite possibly in the other mysterious crashes as well, to be some strange action by one or more pilots. The frequency of this oddity seems to indicate a serious lack of screening in selecting and assigning individuals to the role of pilot. In the haste for profits are airlines cutting corners in screening people for the responsibility for other peoples' lives? Instead of airline cover-up, we need some sunshine to be shown on the airline pilot screening practices that seem to be seriously deficient in costing crew members and hundreds of innocent passengers their lives.
6
This is an important start, of course. But other precautions must join it, and those are real time monitoring of flight data and cockpit microphones transmitted by satellite to a ground recording station, and video cameras in the cockpit recorded in the same manner. The FAA must impose this on all American carriers and those who land at American airports. The costs will be small relative to what search and recovery has cost in just the past two years.
10
well said.
There is not sufficient capacity for the reception of real time audio and video from every plane.
1
There is no reason at all to think that any amount of real time knowledge of what was happening in the plane would have changed the outcome in any way.
Why do common sense measures come only after a tragedy? Two people in the cockpit at all times should have already been the standard on every airline.
7
This is the case in the United States, but the US doesn't control policy for the all of the world's airlines.
2
This is where the airlines erred fatally when the forced the aircraft manufacturers to eliminate the position of the Flight Engineer (F/E). A third crewmember in the cockpit, especially an F/E who with his superior technical knowledge, as compared to the pilots, was the best and cheapest Safety guarantee, and as the last few accidents unfortunately demonstrated, the F/E was also the best and cheapest Security guarantee. The airlines of course are saving $250,000 per aircraft per year by eliminating the position of the Flight Engineer, but each accident costs at least $500 million, to say the least of the human cost.
180
This makes the most sense to me. Having a flight attendant sit in for the pilot going to the bathroom is not sensible.
10
This just seems to be a plug for flight engineers. I have nothing against flight engineers, but there was nothing mechanically wrong with the plane. How would've a flight engineer -- any more than a flight attendant in the cockpit -- helped?
3
This would increase the danger. If any one of the three wants to crash the plane, it will be impossible to stop it from happening. They might not be able to do what was done here, but there are numerous other ways for a pilot to bring down a plane. If you were driving a car and decided to crash it, would a passenger in the right seat be able to stop you even if they had controls?
3
What about making psych tests mandatory? Pilots are resisting them. Why? They should be part of the regular fitness process conducted by all airlines.
40
It takes the NTSB up to a year to determine exactly what factors were and were not involved in any particular crash. Would it be unreasonable to expect a respected journal like the NYT to wait until that body has completed it's examination and evaluations before submitting opinions like this for consideration?
11
What in the details of this situation could invalidate the point that had another person been in the cockpit with the co-pilot the captain might have been able to get back inside and stop this tragedy? Maybe the copilot was deliberately committing mass-murder-suicide. Maybe he passed out. Either way, the captain was locked out and couldn't get back in, and requiring two bodies in the cockpit at all times would help minimize that risk.
8
Whatever the cause of this accident is determined to be, it make sense to have 3 people in the cockpit. So start doing it now.
4
You have all the details pertaining to this crash? The column presents a case based upon selected details which are plausible, even likely, but not confirmed. If policy makers were actually to legislate according to this kind of speculative reasoning, the outcomes may or not produce the intended results because of factors not considered or because of the factors considered being less relevant to outcomes than presumed.
7
I'd think that the technology is available to take over control of a plane remotely in the case of pilot incapacitation or hijacking. Of course, such a capability possesses its own risks, but there's no good reason why an event like this needs to happen when it's entirely possible to determine from the ground if a plane is in danger of crashing under human guidance, and to take control away from the pilots in the rare event this happens.
10
What if the person on the ground who has the capability to take over a plane decides he wants to crash a plane?
16
A fair point David, but it is easier to have more people on the ground involved in the process, much of which could be managed by computers. That would make it very hard to intentionally crash a plane remotely.
I think the bigger risk would be hacking into the plane's onboard computer and taking over control.
It was just an idea...
I think the bigger risk would be hacking into the plane's onboard computer and taking over control.
It was just an idea...
I would think that the satellite bandwidth needed to take remote flight control of all of the airliners in the sky at any given moment would far exceed that which is commercially available. It's not a bad idea, just probably not feasible.
Not sure I understand the psychology of killing oneself and 150 other people because I am depressed. Couldn't he have taken a Cessna and crashed it in a cornfield killing just himself? One must wonder if this is a signature of the times we live in, this guy wanted to live in infamy.
21
I am thinking of this incident as I would think of a school shooting where many are killed, and usually the shooter kills himself. Only here, the airplane is the weapon.
10
Why go so far as to wreck a Cessna? Why not just walk into a river or lake and inflict as little damage as possible other than to oneself? It is so difficult to understand a person who doesn't wanted to be remembered well by those who survive us.
3
The mass murder aspect is truly deeply disturbing. At least it should inform us about the complexity of mental health issues.
1
Good piece. Too often the editorial page ignores the dictates of common sense, in this case, au contraire.
7
go back to 3 man cockpit. Now there is no flight engineer, but you can have someone like an Air Marshal or another pilot ride the fold-down jumpseat. That way always 2 in the cockpit, no matter who leaves for drink or head..
61
Agree, but why have an Air Marshal when you could have a real F/E who knows that aircraft much better than anybody else, and costs almost the same as an Air Marshal?
49
What would they want an attendant to do with a crazy, violent pilot to do when faced with a crazy person?