:(
Quote
Germanwings Flight Carrying at Least 148 Crashes in Southern France
By NICOLA CLARK
MARCH 24, 2015
PARIS — A German plane carrying at least 142 passengers and six crew members from Barcelona to Düsseldorf crashed Tuesday in southern France, the French civil aviation authority confirmed.
The wreckage of the aircraft, an Airbus A320 operated by Germanwings, a budget subsidiary of Lufthansa, was located by a French military helicopter near the town of Prads-Haute-Bléone, according to Eric Héraud, a spokesman in Paris for the aviation authority, the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile.
The pilots declared an emergency at 10:47 a.m. local time and descended rapidly to around 5,000 feet, from a cruising altitude of 38,000 feet, while flying over the town of Barcelonnette in the Alpes de Haute Provence region, Mr. Héraud said.
President François Hollande of France said many of the victims were German. "The conditions of the accident, which have not yet been clarified, suggest that there might not be any survivors," he said.
Mr. Hollande said he would be in contact with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and King Felipe VI of Spain, who is visiting France on Tuesday. He said that all information would be shared with the German and Spanish authorities.
"We must feel grief because this is a tragedy that happened on our soil," Mr. Hollande said. "I want to make sure that there have been no other consequences as the accident happened in a very difficult area to access, and I do not know yet if there were houses nearby. We will know in the next few hours. In the meantime, we must show support."
This is quite bad.
Not sure what good the wall-to-wall live new coverage will do, little information so far and unlikely for a few more hours before rescue crews can examine the crash site in detail.
Is wall-to-wall live news coverage ever good?
Quote from: Liep on March 24, 2015, 07:26:48 AM
Is wall-to-wall live news coverage ever good?
Were it's an evolving situation and the coverage could provide information that affects/changes some peoples decisions, say during a revolution or riot, like those few days in Egypt or when coverage of the riots in England gave people an idea of where and where not to go?
:(
And: A flight from Barcelona crashes near a small town named Barcelonnette? Seriously, that's weird.
Quote from: mongers on March 24, 2015, 06:48:02 AM
Oh dear. :(
Hope it wasn't terrorism.
Does not seem so yet. At least the remains will be easily found unlike previous crashes.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on March 24, 2015, 07:36:54 AM
Quote from: mongers on March 24, 2015, 06:48:02 AM
Oh dear. :(
Hope it wasn't terrorism.
Does not seem so yet. At least the remains will be easily found unlike previous crashes.
Yes, that's something for the relatives, as opposed to the Malaysian airliner or the delays faced by those close to the Ukraine flight victims.
Quote from: Liep on March 24, 2015, 07:26:48 AM
Is wall-to-wall live news coverage ever good?
During a war it can be fun.
Damn. :( And that was the safest airliner in the world (probably still is, even after this).
:(
Anyone else watch that air-crash forensics show "Mayday"? I used to, until my wife told me to stop because it freaked her out too much.
:(
One black box has been found.
//http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0324/689326-germanwings-plane-crash/
Quote from: Malthus on March 24, 2015, 11:27:43 AM
I used to, until my wife told me to stop because it freaked her out too much.
Why? FYI I've never heard of this show so I'm not sure why it'd freak her out.
Quote from: Caliga on March 24, 2015, 12:23:17 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 24, 2015, 11:27:43 AM
I used to, until my wife told me to stop because it freaked her out too much.
Why? FYI I've never heard of this show so I'm not sure why it'd freak her out.
She has a bit of a phobia about vehicles crashing, ever since she totaled our car (mechanical problems, single-car accident). The show is all about recounting the history of plane crashes and the subsequent investigations to root out the causes of same.
The ironic thing is that when planning holidays, she is always in favour of extensive, adventerous travel plans involving much use of potentially dangerous vehicles - see my thread on our recent holiday in Mexico, that involved four airplane rides (two on budget Mexican locals), travelling through Mexico City traffic by car, and a 13 hour trip to the Guatamalian border over mountainous roads in a Mexican "combi" held together with chewing gum and twine, apparently. :lol:
Much screaming & panic attacks ensued.
:lol:
Apparently it was falling for full 8 minutes. Can't imagine something like that.
This accident is very strange. Unless I missed it in one of the articles I've read, there was no attempt to make a distress call. It also sounds like there are many large pieces of debris which IIRC means it probably didn't plunge straight into the ground but rather descended a bit more gradually. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on March 24, 2015, 01:35:04 PM
This accident is very strange. Unless I missed it in one of the articles I've read, there was no attempt to make a distress call. It also sounds like there are many large pieces of debris which IIRC means it probably didn't plunge straight into the ground but rather descended a bit more gradually. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on March 24, 2015, 06:42:23 AM
:(
Quote
The pilots declared an emergency at 10:47 a.m. local time and descended rapidly to around 5,000 feet, from a cruising altitude of 38,000 feet, while flying over the town of Barcelonnette in the Alpes de Haute Provence region, Mr. Héraud said.
quote]
:hmm:
So I guess I did miss it Lusti. :lol:
16 students and two teachers from small town high school...damn. 😕
Quote from: Zanza on March 24, 2015, 01:54:33 PM
16 students and two teachers from small town high school...damn. 😕
Yeah, that's horrible. :( There was a flight out of New York on the way to Paris (I think) that went down off of Long Island in the 80s or 90s and there was like an entire high school's French club + French teachers on that flight.
edit: TWA Flight 800.
Ok, this explains why I was confused:
QuoteCrash Experts Face Mystery of Eight-Minute Drop Without a Mayday
by Andrea Rothman
3:40 PM EDT
March 24, 2015
(Bloomberg) -- Investigators probing the crash of a Germanwings jetliner in the foothills of the French Alps will seek to determine why the aircraft made a rapid descent spanning eight minutes without a single mayday call.
It was French air traffic controllers, not the A320's two pilots, who declared an emergency after the plane spent just 60 seconds cruising at 38,000 feet before plunging, seemingly still under control, to 5,000 feet. The Airbus Group NV model, bound for Dusseldorf from Barcelona, was carrying 150 people.
Why neither pilot issued a distress call and why the plane lost altitude without seeking permission will be a key focus for France's BEA air-accident investigation bureau as it probes the crash and the plane's black boxes, one of which has been found. Declaring an emergency even in difficult circumstances is a bedrock principle of pilot training, compounding the mystery over the crew's silence as the tragedy unfolded in broad daylight and benign weather conditions.
"Something triggered a descent," said Paul Hayes, director of safety at London-based Ascend, an aviation data provider. "They'll want to know whether that's to do with the aircraft, with some external event, with the crew, or with a combination of all of those. And they'll want to know why the descent wasn't stopped and the aircraft recovered."
Germanwings said that the A320 was delivered to its parent, Deutsche Lufthansa AG, in 1991 and was flown by a pilot with 6,000 hours of experience on Airbus jets. The plane was serviced last summer, had logged 46,700 flights, and flew to Barcelona this morning without incident, the airline said.
No Contact
French controllers declared an emergency at 10:47 a.m. as they saw the narrow-body rapidly losing height over the Alpes de Haute-Provence region, said Eric Heraud, a spokesman for French civil aviation authority DGAC. Attempts were made to contact the crew during the descent, without success, according to the SNCTA union, which represents air traffic management workers.
"There were a lot of consecutive calls," SNCTA national secretary Roger Rousseau said. "The controller sees the altitude of the aircraft on his radar, and if he sees the altitude dropping he immediately calls the pilot."
The majority of air crashes occur upon takeoff or landing, with airlines and aviation regulators having steadily eliminated causes such as mid-air collisions.
While a number of developments could cause an aircraft to make a rapid descent from cruising altitude, such as a double engine failure tied to contaminated -- or insufficient -- fuel, under such circumstance the pilots would ordinarily still be able to communicate their predicament.
Pressurization Failure
More-catastrophic events might include a cracked cockpit windscreen, a sudden loss of the aircraft's integrity from faults with its fuselage or wings, or a malfunction of flight systems including those governing external communications.
Bill Waldock at the Embry Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott, Arizona, said that the Germanwings A320's eight-minute descent was "fast, but not outside the limits," and that the silence of its pilots may suggest they were too preoccupied with getting the plane to a lower altitude to talk.
"No communication would argue something was going on which caused the pilots to not really try to communicate," he said. "If they had an emergency of some sort and were trying to control the airplane, that's the number one priority."
Waldock, who has taught accident investigation for 25 years, characterized the loss of altitude as consistent with "some sort of controlled descent" that may point to a cabin-pressurization failure rather than a stall event, in which an aircraft plummets after losing lift.
Intentional Act
With the Germanwings A320 appearing to have hit the ground largely intact and with some forward momentum, the plane seems unlikely to have been blown apart by a bomb, and there's no evidence of a hijacking.
It's still possible that the jet was brought down by an intentional act, said Steve Wallace, former head of the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration's accident-investigation arm. The most credible explanation of the disappearance of a Malaysian Air jet last year is that someone in the cockpit sent it off course, he said, adding that investigators will want to study similar theories in probing today's tragedy.
For now, the BEA and Airbus have sent teams to the scene of the crash to begin sifting through evidence. France's minister for the interior, Bernard Cazeneuve, has also gone to the site, French President Francois Hollande said on television.
Debris Field
John Cox, the head of aviation safety consulting firm Safety Operating Systems LLC in Washington, said the debris field is likely to provide clues as to how the A320 met its end, with the survival only of smaller pieces of wreckage indicating a higher-speed impact.
The sequence of events should be made clearer by analysis of the plane's voice and data recorders, which in addition to providing a wealth of readings on the flight itself should reveal what exchanges took place between the pilots -- or with air traffic control -- in the critical minutes before the crash.
"They're going to be looking for the black boxes very strongly," Cox said. "You look at everything. The weather, the crew, the maintenance history, the airplane history."
One of the flight recorders has been recovered, the French government said, without specifying which one.
To contact the reporter on this story: Andrea Rothman in Toulouse at [email protected]
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Benedikt Kammel at [email protected] Christopher Jasper
Alien invasion?
Nah. Aliens have no use for Earth.
A new muslim weapon, perhaps?
Could the plane have depressurized? The plane as advanced as Airbus would automatically descend in that case, but everyone could be knocked out before they had a chance to put on their masks.
Quote from: DGuller on March 24, 2015, 04:40:13 PM
Could the plane have depressurized? The plane as advanced as Airbus would automatically descend in that case, but everyone could be knocked out before they had a chance to put on their masks.
That would be my guess. The fact that it occurred pretty quickly after reaching cruising altitude would favor the idea of some altitude-related problem, as well. It's happened before, and probably happened to that Air Malaysia jet as well.
Quote from: grumbler on March 24, 2015, 05:13:50 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 24, 2015, 04:40:13 PM
Could the plane have depressurized? The plane as advanced as Airbus would automatically descend in that case, but everyone could be knocked out before they had a chance to put on their masks.
That would be my guess. The fact that it occurred pretty quickly after reaching cruising altitude would favor the idea of some altitude-related problem, as well. It's happened before, and probably happened to that Air Malaysia jet as well.
Oh, it did? Definitely sounds like Helios flight. If it was never properly pressurized in the first place, then it would be more insidious than a sudden decompression. People would slowly go dumb and confused without anything to shock them into reacting. Then again, Helios airline was extremely incompetent, and that accident couldn't have happened without that incompetence. Germanwings doesn't sound like that kind of airline.
Quote from: DGuller on March 24, 2015, 05:16:48 PM
Oh, it did? Definitely sounds like Helios flight. If it was never properly pressurized in the first place, then it would be more insidious than a sudden decompression. People would slowly go dumb and confused without anything to shock them into reacting. Then again, Helios airline was extremely incompetent, and that accident couldn't have happened without that incompetence. Germanwings doesn't sound like that kind of airline.
The accident couldn't have happened the way it did to the Helios flight without some negligence, but there are more was for a plane to depressurize than the kind of door seal fuckup we saw there.
But this is all kinda pointless speculation on my part. We'll know in this case soon enough.
I agree re: depressurization.
If the crew conked out from depressurization, why would the plane make a controlled descent for 8 minutes?
Did the pilot nudge the Controlled Descent lever when he passed out?
He could have reprogrammed the autopilot to descend to 'x' feet. You can also program the descent rate and the aircraft will hold that as well. You can cancel that at any time and take control, but of course you can't do that while unconscious. :(
Why would he have reprogammed the autopilot to make a controlled descent into the Alps?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2015, 06:40:07 PM
Why would he have reprogammed the autopilot to make a controlled descent into the Alps?
Why wouldn't he have wanted to make a controlled descent if the plane had depressurized?
Quote from: Caliga on March 24, 2015, 06:35:33 PM
He could have reprogrammed the autopilot to descend to 'x' feet. You can also program the descent rate and the aircraft will hold that as well. You can cancel that at any time and take control, but of course you can't do that while unconscious. :(
Handy general rule: when Yi starts asking leading questions, respond with leading questions, not answers (which only encourage him to ask more leading questions). Cuts out a lot of the headache, and has to potential to start a discussion.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2015, 06:33:20 PM
If the crew conked out from depressurization, why would the plane make a controlled descent for 8 minutes?
Did the pilot nudge the Controlled Descent lever when he passed out?
Modern Airbuses have a lot of "survival instincts" built in. I don't know whether automatically descending to low altitude when detecting depressurization is one of those things, though, but it would make perfect sense to have it.
Quote from: Caliga on March 24, 2015, 02:01:21 PM
Quote from: Zanza on March 24, 2015, 01:54:33 PM
16 students and two teachers from small town high school...damn. 😕
Yeah, that's horrible. :( There was a flight out of New York on the way to Paris (I think) that went down off of Long Island in the 80s or 90s and there was like an entire high school's French club + French teachers on that flight.
edit: TWA Flight 800.
Yeah, and that was also the set-up at the beginning of the first
Final Destination movie, which caused some controversy at the time--a lot of people felt that mirroring the TWA Flight 800 crash so closely was in very poor taste.
Wasn't TWA Flight 800 also the one that they never could figure out a cause for?
Quote from: DGuller on March 24, 2015, 06:48:02 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2015, 06:33:20 PM
If the crew conked out from depressurization, why would the plane make a controlled descent for 8 minutes?
Did the pilot nudge the Controlled Descent lever when he passed out?
Modern Airbuses have a lot of "survival instincts" built in. I don't know whether automatically descending to low altitude when detecting depressurization is one of those things, though, but it would make perfect sense to have it.
That seems plausible in theory, but given how advanced they are, it seems unlikely that such a fail safe would not include something as basic as "Oh, btw, while descending in this critical situation, don't descend so low that you fly into the ground".
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2015, 09:45:19 AM
That seems plausible in theory, but given how advanced they are, it seems unlikely that such a fail safe would not include something as basic as "Oh, btw, while descending in this critical situation, don't descend so low that you fly into the ground".
:hmm: That is a good point. Terrain avoidance would probably top even emergency descent on the list of survival priorities. It wouldn't crash until it ran out of fuel.
Two people from a small company I worked for died in the crash - I didn't know them personally, but it's still a bit of a shock.
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2015, 09:45:19 AM
That seems plausible in theory, but given how advanced they are, it seems unlikely that such a fail safe would not include something as basic as "Oh, btw, while descending in this critical situation, don't descend so low that you fly into the ground".
There is a difference between "don't fly so low you hit the ground" and "I'm so smart I can see that mountain right in front of us." I don't think there is any such thing as an autopilot that can see ahead of the plane.
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2015, 10:21:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2015, 09:45:19 AM
That seems plausible in theory, but given how advanced they are, it seems unlikely that such a fail safe would not include something as basic as "Oh, btw, while descending in this critical situation, don't descend so low that you fly into the ground".
There is a difference between "don't fly so low you hit the ground" and "I'm so smart I can see that mountain right in front of us." I don't think there is any such thing as an autopilot that can see ahead of the plane.
I dunno, gps and terrain mapping and radar ground avoidance and all that?
You could certainly be correct that perhaps the fail safe isn't sophisticated enough to account for that, but I would be a little surprised if it wasn't on these modern planes. The dang things can land themselves, right? Terrain avoidance (and this is gross terrain avoidance, not nap of the earth type stuff) has been around a long time, hasn't it?
This particular plane was built in 1990, so it wasn't all that modern. Maybe it didn't have all the state-of-art failsafe systems, although I presume these things are upgraded throughout their service life.
Quote from: Zanza on March 24, 2015, 01:54:33 PM
16 students and two teachers from small town high school...damn. 😕
:(
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2015, 10:21:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2015, 09:45:19 AM
That seems plausible in theory, but given how advanced they are, it seems unlikely that such a fail safe would not include something as basic as "Oh, btw, while descending in this critical situation, don't descend so low that you fly into the ground".
There is a difference between "don't fly so low you hit the ground" and "I'm so smart I can see that mountain right in front of us." I don't think there is any such thing as an autopilot that can see ahead of the plane.
What about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrain_awareness_and_warning_system ?
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2015, 10:25:28 AM
I dunno, gps and terrain mapping and radar ground avoidance and all that?
You could certainly be correct that perhaps the fail safe isn't sophisticated enough to account for that, but I would be a little surprised if it wasn't on these modern planes. The dang things can land themselves, right? Terrain avoidance (and this is gross terrain avoidance, not nap of the earth type stuff) has been around a long time, hasn't it?
GPS doesn't tell you about that mountain ahead, just about your current latitude and longitude. These aircraft wouldn't have been fitted with "terrain mapping" radar, nor can an airliner autopilot connect to terrain mapping radar (which is used in bombers, not airliners, because of the stresses it places on the plane and crew). You need to consider that mountains feature massive changes in terrain (kinda by definition) and radar altimeters just give you the distance to the ground now, not the distance to the ground ahead of you. The kind of system that could predict the lay of the land ahead of the aircraft such that an airliner could automatically fly through mountains doesn't exist, as far as i know. If the land were relatively flat (no mountains higher than the minimum altitude allowed by the automatic system) the plane would presumably fly until the crew recovered or the plane ran out of fuel. That wasn't the case here, though.
Quote from: DGuller on March 25, 2015, 10:28:33 AM
What about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrain_awareness_and_warning_system ?
The weather was clear; had the pilots been conscious, they wouldn't have needed such a warning system to tell them they were about to hit a mountain.
Yeah, the stuff the wiki article mentions is all around *warnings* and alerts. That would not help in our hypothetical of the plane under some kind of autopilot.
Under our hypothetical, the plane could have been warning them like crazy they were about to fly into a mountain.
I'm guessing we are all on the side of some sort of malfunction. Depressurization is possible, but I suppose so is some type of fire or catastrophic loss of control.
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2015, 11:33:35 AM
Yeah, the stuff the wiki article mentions is all around *warnings* and alerts. That would not help in our hypothetical of the plane under some kind of autopilot.
Under our hypothetical, the plane could have been warning them like crazy they were about to fly into a mountain.
Yeah, but theoretically, if you can generate a warning, you can generate an input for the survival auto-pilot.
I wonder what the point of Hollande, Rajoy and Merkel flying there and looking sad is. This accident surely doesn't have a political component, so what's their role in this?
Quote from: Zanza on March 25, 2015, 02:37:19 PM
I wonder what the point of Hollande, Rajoy and Merkel flying there and looking sad is. This accident surely doesn't have a political component, so what's their role in this?
Any of them nearing election time, in a popularity slump or owe one of the others a favour?
I once was an expert witness in a plagiarism trial regarding a children TV program. The plaintiff lost - on one hand it was painfully obvious they had ripped off her work, but on the other hand it's not like she created something so unmistakably unique as to merit protection by itself.
EDIT: Meh, wrong thread. Off to the Jeremy Clarkson one.
They missed the singularity.
So apparently one pilot was locked out of the cockpit just before the descent began. Whether the pilot left inside was incapacitated or doing it willfully is left unknown, but the black box has audio of the outside pilot trying to smash open the door.
I think this is gonna get weird.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/world/europe/germanwings-airbus-crash.html?_r=0
Oh dear.
Quote from: Zanza on March 25, 2015, 02:37:19 PM
I wonder what the point of Hollande, Rajoy and Merkel flying there and looking sad is. This accident surely doesn't have a political component, so what's their role in this?
Avoiding accusations of indifference.
Bill Clinton's lips would have quivered in sympathy.
Quote from: Liep on March 25, 2015, 07:17:20 PM
So apparently one pilot was locked out of the cockpit just before the descent began. Whether the pilot left inside was incapacitated or doing it willfully is left unknown, but the black box has audio of the outside pilot trying to smash open the door.
I think this is gonna get weird.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/world/europe/germanwings-airbus-crash.html?_r=0
I just read that, does not sound good. Whatever the reason, the passengers would have noticed this, makes for a long terrifying end for them.
Oh, boy, that's certainly a twist.
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 25, 2015, 07:26:13 PM
I just read that, does not sound good. Whatever the reason, the passengers would have noticed this, makes for a long terrifying end for them.
:yes: :cry:
Quote from: Liep on March 25, 2015, 07:17:20 PM
So apparently one pilot was locked out of the cockpit just before the descent began. Whether the pilot left inside was incapacitated or doing it willfully is left unknown, but the black box has audio of the outside pilot trying to smash open the door.
I think this is gonna get weird.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/world/europe/germanwings-airbus-crash.html?_r=0
The guy could have had a heart attack or a stroke, it doesn't have to have been on purpose. Though yeah, this would have been super terrifying for the passangers.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 25, 2015, 07:33:48 PM
Quote from: Liep on March 25, 2015, 07:17:20 PM
So apparently one pilot was locked out of the cockpit just before the descent began. Whether the pilot left inside was incapacitated or doing it willfully is left unknown, but the black box has audio of the outside pilot trying to smash open the door.
I think this is gonna get weird.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/world/europe/germanwings-airbus-crash.html?_r=0
The guy could have had a heart attack or a stroke, it doesn't have to have been on purpose. Though yeah, this would have been super terrifying for the passangers.
If the cockpit doors really can be opened only from the inside, then is there ever a situation where a single person would be allowed to be in the cockpit at any given time? It seems like a completely unnecessary lack of redundancy against an easily foreseeable occurrence.
Quote from: DGuller on March 25, 2015, 07:38:00 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 25, 2015, 07:33:48 PM
Quote from: Liep on March 25, 2015, 07:17:20 PM
So apparently one pilot was locked out of the cockpit just before the descent began. Whether the pilot left inside was incapacitated or doing it willfully is left unknown, but the black box has audio of the outside pilot trying to smash open the door.
I think this is gonna get weird.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/world/europe/germanwings-airbus-crash.html?_r=0
The guy could have had a heart attack or a stroke, it doesn't have to have been on purpose. Though yeah, this would have been super terrifying for the passangers.
If the cockpit doors really can be opened only from the inside, then is there ever a situation where a single person would be allowed to be in the cockpit at any given time? It seems like a completely unnecessary lack of redundancy against an easily foreseeable occurrence.
Isn't the doors automatically locking a post nine eleven precaution? :unsure:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 25, 2015, 07:41:09 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 25, 2015, 07:38:00 PM
If the cockpit doors really can be opened only from the inside, then is there ever a situation where a single person would be allowed to be in the cockpit at any given time? It seems like a completely unnecessary lack of redundancy against an easily foreseeable occurrence.
Isn't the doors automatically locking a post nine eleven precaution? :unsure:
Yes, I think what he meant was that a stewardess should then be in the cockpit in the event of one of the pilots leaving it. This couldn't have been the case here.
Some dude on CNN was saying that if a pilot leaves the cockpit, someone else from the flight crew is supposed to go in there in order to prevent situations like this.
Quote from: Caliga on March 25, 2015, 08:24:33 PM
Some dude on CNN was saying that if a pilot leaves the cockpit, someone else from the flight crew is supposed to go in there in order to prevent situations like this.
I saw this on my flight back to Californian last week. The copilot needed to piss and so one of the Flight Attendants jumped into the cockpit to give the pilot a quickie while the number 2 took a leak.
I've never noticed that before, but then again I usually don't sit that close to the cockpit, and I'm typically staring at my iPhone or Android the whole time. :sleep:
Quote from: PDH on March 25, 2015, 08:32:28 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 25, 2015, 08:24:33 PM
Some dude on CNN was saying that if a pilot leaves the cockpit, someone else from the flight crew is supposed to go in there in order to prevent situations like this.
I saw this on my flight back to Californian last week. The copilot needed to piss and so one of the Flight Attendants jumped into the cockpit to give the pilot a quickie while the number 2 took a leak.
Huh, I guess the guy going to the bathroom missed out.
Perhaps it was 'mass suicide' by pilot? :(
If so then it might be becoming enough of a trend for procedures to have to be put in place?
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2015, 09:47:57 PM
Perhaps it was 'mass suicide' by pilot? :(
If so then it might be becoming enough of a trend for procedures to have to be put in place?
What procedures can reliably tell if a pilot will commit mass suicide or not?
He was jealous of the other Pilot and his quickie with the stewardess.
Quote from: Caliga on March 25, 2015, 08:24:33 PM
Some dude on CNN was saying that if a pilot leaves the cockpit, someone else from the flight crew is supposed to go in there in order to prevent situations like this.
That's what I figured was likely the process.
I am quite certain this was a suicide.
The other alternative is this not exactly likely sequence of events:
-one pilot becomes sick/has a stroke/whatever
-other is dumb enough to leave for a moment
-door malfunctions and doesnt let him back in
-all this happens above the Alps of all places
-the plane descends in a fast but controlled manner until it crashes to a mountain side
compare that to:
-guy wants to off himself and the passengers
-convinces the other guy to leave
-locks him out
-crashes the plane
Quote from: mongers on March 25, 2015, 09:47:57 PM
Perhaps it was 'mass suicide' by pilot? :(
better use the term mass murder for such a scenario
BBC:
QuoteThe co-pilot of the Germanwings flight that crashed into the French Alps took sole control of plane and intentionally started the descent, officials say.
Doesn't necessarily mean he meant to do it maliciously. Let's hope not at least.
Holy shit. I've suddenly developed a fear of flying.
Quote from: Caliga on March 26, 2015, 06:57:52 AM
Doesn't necessarily mean he meant to do it maliciously. Let's hope not at least.
What else could it mean?
Who knows? But if he intended to commit suicide I would have expected him to just disengage the autopilot and put the plane into a steep dive.
BBC:
QuoteThe co-pilot of the Germanwings plane that crashed into the French Alps on Tuesday appeared to want to "destroy the plane", French prosecutors said.
Wow. Just...wow. That is terrifying.
Unless they have information that hasn't been released to the public yet, I don't know how 'French prosecutors' could suspect that already.
Quote from: Caliga on March 26, 2015, 08:24:43 AM
Unless they have information that hasn't been released to the public yet, I don't know how 'French prosecutors' could suspect that already.
What they had in the story shows a pretty good reason for suspicion at least.
This is the second time within 12-13 months. Not much we can do about pilot murder suicides. Unless all flights require 3 pilots in the cockpit.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 26, 2015, 08:27:34 AM
This is the second time within 12-13 months. Not much we can do about pilot murder suicides. Unless all flights require 3 pilots in the cockpit.
Wasn't too long ago that they did. But they absolutely can do something about suicidal pilots, nothing that's a 100% of course, but screening your safety personal is required everywhere in aviation I would hope.
I would also think a simple change would be that no person should ever be alone in the cockpit on planes above a certain size. If a pilot wants to go tinkle, a stew needs to hang in the cockpit. Not a foolproof fix, but could certainly make it a lot harder for a single person to take down the plane.
Although if a pilot decides he is going to crash the plane, I am guessing he has a pretty good shot at it if he is alone or not.
Quote from: Caliga on March 25, 2015, 08:24:33 PM
Some dude on CNN was saying that if a pilot leaves the cockpit, someone else from the flight crew is supposed to go in there in order to prevent situations like this.
Lufthansa guy says that only applies in the US not in Europe.
Quote from: Caliga on March 26, 2015, 08:24:43 AM
Unless they have information that hasn't been released to the public yet, I don't know how 'French prosecutors' could suspect that already.
Yes, the information that is on the Black box.
Quote from: Liep on March 26, 2015, 08:59:58 AM
Quote from: Caliga on March 25, 2015, 08:24:33 PM
Some dude on CNN was saying that if a pilot leaves the cockpit, someone else from the flight crew is supposed to go in there in order to prevent situations like this.
Lufthansa guy says that only applies in the US not in Europe.
My guess is that there will be a bit of a re-think of that policy ...
From what I read, the only way for the pilot to be unable to enter the cockpit would've been to be intentionally locked out by the co-pilot. In that case, it's pretty obvious why the French prosecutors already reached their conclusion: there is simply no other remotely possible explanation.
Quote from: Liep on March 26, 2015, 08:59:58 AM
Quote from: Caliga on March 25, 2015, 08:24:33 PM
Some dude on CNN was saying that if a pilot leaves the cockpit, someone else from the flight crew is supposed to go in there in order to prevent situations like this.
Lufthansa guy says that only applies in the US not in Europe.
Ordinarily this would be a place for smug comments about the US being better than Europe. But, this regards airline security, and anything that justifies the US mode of operations in that space is a disaster.
Quote from: DGuller on March 26, 2015, 09:38:35 AM
From what I read, the only way for the pilot to be unable to enter the cockpit would've been to be intentionally locked out by the co-pilot. In that case, it's pretty obvious why the French prosecutors already reached their conclusion: there is simply no other remotely possible explanation.
I thought someone mentioned auto-locking cabin doors.
Although I do think it's the most likely explanation.
Assuming that's correct, I wonder if the dude went with the long, slow descent to increase or decrease the passengers' terror.
Ugh, horrible news.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2015, 09:51:10 AM
I thought someone mentioned auto-locking cabin doors.
They are auto-locking, but there is a PIN lock, and the pilots know the code. The code will open the cockpit door, unless someone on the inside locks it out.
Quote from: Zanza on March 25, 2015, 02:37:19 PM
I wonder what the point of Hollande, Rajoy and Merkel flying there and looking sad is. This accident surely doesn't have a political component, so what's their role in this?
it's expected of politicians to go on the site of a multiple-victim tragedy. when they don't, they are referred as heartless bastards. Stephen Harper got a lot of shit from the media because he didn't go himself visit flood victims in Quebec, and there was zero casualties. Imagine when there are victimes and politicians don't visit the families on site.
Quote from: Liep on March 26, 2015, 08:42:48 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 26, 2015, 08:27:34 AM
This is the second time within 12-13 months. Not much we can do about pilot murder suicides. Unless all flights require 3 pilots in the cockpit.
Wasn't too long ago that they did. But they absolutely can do something about suicidal pilots, nothing that's a 100% of course, but screening your safety personal is required everywhere in aviation I would hope.
I would assume cheap airlines (like this one) would not spend a lot of money on professional shrinks for pilots - they would just (no pun intended) wing it, even if there was a specific regulatory requirement to do the screening.
Quote from: Malthus on March 26, 2015, 09:20:55 AM
Quote from: Liep on March 26, 2015, 08:59:58 AM
Quote from: Caliga on March 25, 2015, 08:24:33 PM
Some dude on CNN was saying that if a pilot leaves the cockpit, someone else from the flight crew is supposed to go in there in order to prevent situations like this.
Lufthansa guy says that only applies in the US not in Europe.
My guess is that there will be a bit of a re-think of that policy ...
Norwegian just did. It makes sense and doesn't come with extra expenses.
Remember there was also the case of the Egyptian pilot a few years ago who is suspected of 'suicide-mass murder', I forget the name of the airline*.
Maybe procedures do need to be change or perhaps more importantly corporate culture that might put too much pressure on pilots and asks them to work for too little? :unsure:
* Egypt Air 990
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt_Air_990 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt_Air_990)
You think the co-pilot killed a plan load of people over a labour dispute?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2015, 11:05:25 AM
You think the co-pilot killed a plan load of people over a labour dispute?
No but being an airline pilot was once a prestige job, now terms and conditions are much worse for many pilots, so if you're earning noticeably lower wages than in the past that can put pressure on people's expectations of what they get out of life.
Quote from: mongers on March 26, 2015, 11:10:38 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2015, 11:05:25 AM
You think the co-pilot killed a plan load of people over a labour dispute?
No but being an airline pilot was once a prestige job, now terms and conditions are much worse for many pilots, so if you're earning noticeably lower wages than in the past that can put pressure on people's expectations of what they get out of life.
iirc the co-pilot was 28. The days of an airline pilot being a prestige job were long gone before he decided to become a pilot.
Quote from: mongers on March 26, 2015, 11:10:38 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2015, 11:05:25 AM
You think the co-pilot killed a plan load of people over a labour dispute?
No but being an airline pilot was once a prestige job, now terms and conditions are much worse for many pilots, so if you're earning noticeably lower wages than in the past that can put pressure on people's expectations of what they get out of life.
He was 28.
And of course it was a presty job when I bet there was 10% of planes in the air.
And I read somewhere that you need to keep a lever pressed in the cockpit to keep the door closed. No way that is done accidentaly.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2015, 11:05:25 AM
You think the co-pilot killed a plan load of people over a labour dispute?
Why not? I
regularly commit mass murder when I don't get a bonus.
It's a wonder I still have my job. :D
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2015, 10:39:10 AM
I would assume cheap airlines (like this one) would not spend a lot of money on professional shrinks for pilots - they would just (no pun intended) wing it, even if there was a specific regulatory requirement to do the screening.
Germanwings is a budget airline, but it is also part of the Lufthansa group. I am sure they had stringent rules for their pilots and actually enforced them as well.
Quote from: Zanza on March 26, 2015, 11:17:17 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2015, 10:39:10 AM
I would assume cheap airlines (like this one) would not spend a lot of money on professional shrinks for pilots - they would just (no pun intended) wing it, even if there was a specific regulatory requirement to do the screening.
Germanwings is a budget airline, but it is also part of the Lufthansa group. I am sure they had stringent rules for their pilots and actually enforced them as well.
Yes, I think Lufthansa would be one of those organisation that would try to do it's best in handling personnel; on the other hand I wouldn't trust Ryanair further than I could throw Michael O'Leary, but I'd be willing to give that a go if there was lots of hard airport concrete about. :)
Apparently pilot suicide is more common than some would think, but it invariable involve just the pilot in a small aircraft:
http://blog.al.com/wire/2014/03/pilot_suicide_blamed_for_8_us.html (http://blog.al.com/wire/2014/03/pilot_suicide_blamed_for_8_us.html)
Quote from: mongers on March 26, 2015, 11:30:03 AM
Apparently pilot suicide is more common than some would think, but it invariable involve just the pilot in a small aircraft:
Nah...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAM_Mozambique_Airlines_Flight_470
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_350
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Air_Maroc_Flight_630
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SilkAir_Flight_185
Quote from: mongers on March 26, 2015, 11:30:03 AM
Apparently pilot suicide is more common than some would think, but it invariable involve just the pilot in a small aircraft:
http://blog.al.com/wire/2014/03/pilot_suicide_blamed_for_8_us.html (http://blog.al.com/wire/2014/03/pilot_suicide_blamed_for_8_us.html)
Actually, the conclusion is that pilot suicide is very rare.
QuoteIf the crash was due to a crew member's suicide, it would be an exceedingly rare event. A National Transportation Safety Board study released last month shows eight of 2,758 fatal aviation accidents in the U.S. from 2003 to 2012 involved intentional crashes of the aircraft by a pilot or crew member
And that's as out of a total of aviation accidents. If you take it out of a total of all flights, it must be like one in a million (or probably even less).
Quote from: Zanza on March 26, 2015, 11:44:51 AM
And that's as out of a total of aviation accidents. If you take it out of a total of all flights, it must be like one in a million (or probably even less).
:yes:
Quote from: Zanza on March 26, 2015, 11:44:51 AM
And that's as out of a total of aviation accidents. If you take it out of a total of all flights, it must be like one in a million (or probably even less).
At any one time isn't there's somewhere like 6,000 to 10,000 airliners/aircraft in the skies worldwide, so that would suggest what several million multi-engined flights per year, so yes it is rare, just not sometime you'd want to happen on your flight.
I wonder how those figures compare with terrorist attacks or military action against civilian flights over a long timescale, say the last 40-50 years?
Quote from: Zanza on March 26, 2015, 11:38:01 AM
Quote from: mongers on March 26, 2015, 11:30:03 AM
Apparently pilot suicide is more common than some would think, but it invariable involve just the pilot in a small aircraft:
Nah...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAM_Mozambique_Airlines_Flight_470
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_350
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Air_Maroc_Flight_630
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SilkAir_Flight_185
I was going with what the report said 7 of the 8 flights involved single engined/ lone pilots.
Quote from: mongers on March 26, 2015, 11:58:25 AM
Quote from: Zanza on March 26, 2015, 11:44:51 AM
And that's as out of a total of aviation accidents. If you take it out of a total of all flights, it must be like one in a million (or probably even less).
At any one time isn't there's somewhere like 6,000 to 10,000 airliners/aircraft in the skies worldwide, so that would suggest what several million multi-engined flights per year, so yes it is rare, just not sometime you'd want to happen on your flight.
That's a problem of perspective, needless to say. It is drastically more likely that you will die in your car, because some idiot overtakes when he shouldn't and smashes straight into you at high speed.
If we lived afraid to die all the time, we would not live.
Do we have any information about the copilot's ethnicity/religion? :ph34r:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2015, 12:19:23 PM
Do we have any information about the copilot's ethnicity/religion? :ph34r:
German/unknown
Had a depression/burn-out six years ago. Was never noticed in the regular screenings of pilots by the air safety authorities here.
Quote from: Malthus on March 26, 2015, 11:15:20 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2015, 11:05:25 AM
You think the co-pilot killed a plan load of people over a labour dispute?
Why not? I regularly commit mass murder when I don't get a bonus.
It's a wonder I still have my job. :D
you're Call of Duty kills don't count. ;)
Quote from: viper37 on March 26, 2015, 01:02:40 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 26, 2015, 11:15:20 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2015, 11:05:25 AM
You think the co-pilot killed a plan load of people over a labour dispute?
Why not? I regularly commit mass murder when I don't get a bonus.
It's a wonder I still have my job. :D
you're Call of Duty kills don't count. ;)
For old time's sake - EU2 kills. :P
Quote from: Malthus on March 26, 2015, 01:09:10 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 26, 2015, 01:02:40 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 26, 2015, 11:15:20 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2015, 11:05:25 AM
You think the co-pilot killed a plan load of people over a labour dispute?
Why not? I regularly commit mass murder when I don't get a bonus.
It's a wonder I still have my job. :D
you're Call of Duty kills don't count. ;)
For old time's sake - EU2 kills. :P
And all that killing was in the name of God which is very out of fashion in the west these days, so better keep it silent.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2015, 12:19:23 PM
Do we have any information about the copilot's ethnicity/religion? :ph34r:
German white guy :ph34r:
:(
There was a flight out of NYC I think it was, before 9/11 when we weren't thinking of suicide attacks on air liners. It was an Egyptian flight and went into a dive and crashed into the ocean. There were reports of the pilot praying as the plane went down and being before 9/11 people weren't really thinking of a suicide to kill others, but it was speculated on. I remember Egyptian officials examining the pilot's background and such and it just never seemed to get anywhere. Does anyone remember that, and what the outcome was?
Yes, EgyptAir Flight 990... it's been mentioned earlier in the thread. I don't think that was ever definitively proven as EgyptAir rather vehemently denied it was the cause.
Quote from: KRonn on March 26, 2015, 01:57:53 PM
There was a flight out of NYC I think it was, before 9/11 when we weren't thinking of suicide attacks on air liners. It was an Egyptian flight and went into a dive and crashed into the ocean. There were reports of the pilot praying as the plane went down and being before 9/11 people weren't really thinking of a suicide to kill others, but it was speculated on. I remember Egyptian officials examining the pilot's background and such and it just never seemed to get anywhere. Does anyone remember that, and what the outcome was?
Zanza already posted the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990
Quote from: Caliga on March 26, 2015, 02:00:21 PM
Yes, EgyptAir Flight 990... it's been mentioned earlier in the thread. I don't think that was ever definitively proven as EgyptAir rather vehemently denied it was the cause.
The link says everything Egypt ever said about that case was 100% BS.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2015, 11:05:25 AM
You think the co-pilot killed a plan load of people over a labour dispute?
The guy was muslim.
So....that was an interesting outcome....
Quote from: Liep on March 26, 2015, 01:13:47 PM
And all that killing was in the name of God which is very out of fashion in the west these days, so better keep it silent.
Was Khazaria playable in EU2? :hmm:
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2015, 01:37:12 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2015, 12:19:23 PM
Do we have any information about the copilot's ethnicity/religion? :ph34r:
German white guy :ph34r:
Impossible! A German White Guy could
never commit mass murder. :ph34r:
Quote from: Siege on March 26, 2015, 02:15:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2015, 11:05:25 AM
You think the co-pilot killed a plan load of people over a labour dispute?
The guy was muslim.
Because only Muslims do evil things?
Quote from: Malthus on March 26, 2015, 02:26:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2015, 01:37:12 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2015, 12:19:23 PM
Do we have any information about the copilot's ethnicity/religion? :ph34r:
German white guy :ph34r:
Impossible! A German White Guy could never commit mass murder. :ph34r:
It may not be murder. He may have made a rational and self interested decision to end his life in defiance of the the statists would cared only about the "public good" of keeping the plane flying. His was an act of supreme individual freedom.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2015, 01:37:12 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2015, 12:19:23 PM
Do we have any information about the copilot's ethnicity/religion? :ph34r:
German white guy :ph34r:
White piple are muslims too.
I found this funny, the number is fatal accidents per billion passenger km. On the right is "motorbikes, etc". :lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dr.dk%2Fnyheder%2Fhtm%2Fgrafik%2F2015%2Fbilleder%2FBilvsFly_huge.png&hash=5e2fa96f832b8475be8cb36092c4fe299e0a9b05)
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2015, 02:34:50 PM
It may not be murder. He may have made a rational and self interested decision to end his life in defiance of the the statists would cared only about the "public good" of keeping the plane flying. His was an act of supreme individual freedom.
1/10 - Unoriginal and way too obvious.
Quote from: Siege on March 26, 2015, 02:38:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2015, 01:37:12 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2015, 12:19:23 PM
Do we have any information about the copilot's ethnicity/religion? :ph34r:
German white guy :ph34r:
White piple are muslims too.
Do you have evidence that this man is Muslim are you just telling us lies like when when gave an Oath to Defend the United States against all enemies?
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 26, 2015, 02:59:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2015, 02:34:50 PM
It may not be murder. He may have made a rational and self interested decision to end his life in defiance of the the statists would cared only about the "public good" of keeping the plane flying. His was an act of supreme individual freedom.
1/10 - Unoriginal and way too obvious.
Spruce it up then.
Quote from: KRonn on March 26, 2015, 01:57:53 PM
I remember Egyptian officials examining the pilot's background and such and it just never seemed to get anywhere.
From what I remember, Egyptian officials examined the pilot's background, and cleared him when they discovered that he was an acquaintance of Hosni Mubarak.
Quote from: Liep on March 26, 2015, 02:57:54 PM
I found this funny, the number is fatal accidents per billion passenger km. On the right is "motorbikes, etc". :lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dr.dk%2Fnyheder%2Fhtm%2Fgrafik%2F2015%2Fbilleder%2FBilvsFly_huge.png&hash=5e2fa96f832b8475be8cb36092c4fe299e0a9b05)
Thanks, that's definitely the last time I go anywhere near an etc, those things are dangerous and so forth.
Well going by "tog" seems okay. What's a "Tog"?
I feel sorry for Bil
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2015, 03:46:53 PM
Well going by "tog" seems okay. What's a "Tog"?
A British tank.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F6%2F64%2FTOG2_Tank_Bovington.jpg%2F800px-TOG2_Tank_Bovington.jpg&hash=658e11d724ac7602b3810eadf4cf1e6e322db321)
Its armor is not that thick, but at least there is a lot of it.
Yeah, aim for that window thingie. Especially when it's open.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2015, 03:46:53 PM
Well going by "tog" seems okay. What's a "Tog"?
Train On Ground; safe, it's only when they become airborne that it gets dangerous.
Quote from: DGuller on March 26, 2015, 03:58:29 PM
Its armor is not that thick, but at least there is a lot of it.
I saw it in the summer, it's a bloody massive thing, takes up 1/4 of a large hanger, how they ever thought it would work, makes the Char 2C look positively svelte-like.
I think that's a M26(?) Pershing in the background that it's overshadowing?
This is so weird and sad. Awful past few days :(
Danish is such a cute language.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2015, 05:02:16 PM
Danish is such a cute language.
Have you ever been to Denmark? It's a ghastly place.
I spent about 4 hours there.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2015, 05:21:28 PM
I spent about 4 hours there.
I don't blame you for getting the fuck outta there.
So crabby.
Quote from: Liep on March 26, 2015, 02:57:54 PM
I found this funny, the number is fatal accidents per billion passenger km. On the right is "motorbikes, etc". :lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dr.dk%2Fnyheder%2Fhtm%2Fgrafik%2F2015%2Fbilleder%2FBilvsFly_huge.png&hash=5e2fa96f832b8475be8cb36092c4fe299e0a9b05)
Huh, I would have thought trains would be even safer than planes.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 26, 2015, 05:48:33 PM
Quote from: Liep on March 26, 2015, 02:57:54 PM
I found this funny, the number is fatal accidents per billion passenger km. On the right is "motorbikes, etc". :lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dr.dk%2Fnyheder%2Fhtm%2Fgrafik%2F2015%2Fbilleder%2FBilvsFly_huge.png&hash=5e2fa96f832b8475be8cb36092c4fe299e0a9b05)
Huh, I would have thought trains would be even safer than planes.
Take into account that, when a train crashes, the death toll can easily reach the high hundreds.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 26, 2015, 05:48:33 PM
Huh, I would have thought trains would be even safer than planes.
Train accidents involving death are probably more rare but when something goes wrong more people are killed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2015, 05:02:16 PM
Danish is such a cute language.
Der er et yndigt Land,
Det staaer med brede Bøge
Nær salten Østerstrand;
Det bugter sig i Bakke, Dal,
Det hedder gamle Danmark,
Og det er Freias Sal.
Der sad i fordums Tid
De harniskklædte Kæmper,
Udhvilede fra Strid;
Saa drog de frem til Fienders Meen,
Nu hvile deres Bene
Bag Høiens Bautasteen.
Det Land endnu er skiønt,
Thi blaa sig Søen belter,
Og Løvet staaer saa grønt;
Og ædle Qvinder, skiønne Møer,
Og Mænd og raske Svende
Beboe de Danske Øer.
Vort Sprog er stærkt og blødt,
Vor Tro er reen og luttret
Og Modet er ei dødt.
Og hver en Dansk er lige fri,
Hver lyder tro sin Konge,
Men Trældom er forbi.
Et venligt Syd i Nord
Er, grønne Danarige,
Din axbeklædte Jord.
Og Snekken gaaer sin stolte Vei.
Hvor Ploug og Kiølen furer,
Der svigter Haabet ei.
Vort Dannebrog er smukt,
Det vifter hen ad Havet
Med Flagets røde Bugt.
Og stedse har sin Farve hvid
Dit hellige Kors i Blodet,
O Dannebrog, i Strid.
Karsk er den Danskes Aand,
Den hader Fordoms Lænker,
Og Sværmeriets Baand.
For Venskab aaben, kold for Spot,
Slaaer ærlig Jydes Hierte,
For Pige, Land og Drot.
Jeg bytter Danmark ei,
For Ruslands Vinterørkner,
For Sydens Blomstermai.
Ei Pest og Slanger kiende vi,
Ei Vesterlandets Tungsind,
Ei Østens Raseri.
Vor Tid ei staaer i Dunst,
Den hævet har sin Stemme
For Videnskab og Kunst.
Ei Bragis og ei Mimers Raab
Har vakt i lige Strækning
Et bedre Fremtids Haab.
Ei stor, vor Fødestavn,
Dog hæver sig blandt Stæder
Dit stolte Kiøbenhavn.
Til bedre By ei Havet kom,
Ja ingen Flod i Dalen,
Fra Trondhiem og til Rom.
Med hellig Varetægt
Bevare du, Alfader!
Vor gamle Kongeslægt.
Kong Fredrik ligner Fredegod;
Hvor er en bedre Fyrste,
Af bedre Helteblod?
Hil Drot og Fædreland!
Hil hver en Danneborger,
Som virker hvad han kan.
Vort gamle Danmark skal bestaae,
Saalænge Bøgen speiler
Sin Top i Bølgen blaa.
:cry:
:weep:
double blaa
First time I actually read the entire national anthem. It's quite fun. "A friendly country south in the north"
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2015, 06:18:25 PM
double blaa
Well, it was written before we got the 'å' instead of 'aa'.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2015, 06:04:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 26, 2015, 05:48:33 PM
Huh, I would have thought trains would be even safer than planes.
Train accidents involving death are probably more rare but when something goes wrong more people are killed.
I'd have though it was the other way around, fatal accidents more common, lower numbers killed per incident.
Quote from: mongers on March 26, 2015, 06:28:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2015, 06:04:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 26, 2015, 05:48:33 PM
Huh, I would have thought trains would be even safer than planes.
Train accidents involving death are probably more rare but when something goes wrong more people are killed.
I'd have though it was the other way around, fatal accidents more common, lower numbers killed per incident.
That's what I thought at first as well, but if those statistics are worldwide, then it makes somewhat more sense. Train crashes in third world countries can be very dire.
Quote from: DGuller on March 26, 2015, 06:42:32 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 26, 2015, 06:28:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2015, 06:04:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 26, 2015, 05:48:33 PM
Huh, I would have thought trains would be even safer than planes.
Train accidents involving death are probably more rare but when something goes wrong more people are killed.
I'd have though it was the other way around, fatal accidents more common, lower numbers killed per incident.
That's what I thought at first as well, but if those statistics are worldwide, then it makes somewhat more sense. Train crashes in third world countries can be very dire.
I think the figure might be for Europe or the EU, we need someone to translate.
But I did find these for the EU and they seem very similar:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jul/25/how-safe-are-europe-railways (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jul/25/how-safe-are-europe-railways)
Quote
How safe is it to travel by train?
Well, according to the ERA's 2013 health and safety report "comparisons of fatality risks for travelling passengers reveals that train is one of the safest mode of transport". The fatality risk for an average train passenger in the EU is around 0.15 fatalities per billion kilometres - three times lower than the risk for a passenger on a bus or coach.
Fatality risk of passenger using different mode of transport (EU-27 in 2008-2010) Transport mode used by user Fatalities per billion passenger kilometers
Airline passenger 0.1
Railway passenger 0.16
Car occupant 4.45
Bus/Coach occupant 0.43
Powered two-wheelers 52.59
Vessels passenger N/A
Coach? Like horse-driven ones or is that something different in Britain?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 26, 2015, 07:03:19 PM
Coach? Like horse-driven ones or is that something different in Britain?
Think Greyhound bus.
I'm thinking now a bus is a city bus and a coach is an intercity bus.
Amiright mongers? Amiright?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 26, 2015, 07:34:07 PM
I'm thinking now a bus is a city bus and a coach is an intercity bus.
Amiright mongers? Amiright?
Broadly.
Someone reprogramed the autopilot, so I guess that settles it. It was deliberate.
http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-europe-germanwings-plane-crash-updates-20150326-htmlstory.html
Now that tim has made it official I can finally get some sleep.
Jesus! :cry:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32063587
QuotePassengers could be heard screaming just before the crash, he added.
I don't see how this can be true if the pilot was trying to break down the door, wouldn't that be obvious?
QuotePassengers were not aware of the impending crash "until the very last moment" when screams could be heard, Mr Robin said, adding that they died instantly.
What if the lock malfunctioned?
Quote from: 11B4V on March 27, 2015, 12:37:05 AM
What if the lock malfunctioned?
It says he manually reprogrammed the autopilot to bring the plane from 38,000 feet to 100, the lowest level.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 27, 2015, 12:42:40 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 27, 2015, 12:37:05 AM
What if the lock malfunctioned?
It says he manually reprogrammed the autopilot to bring the plane from 38,000 feet to 100, the lowest level.
Maybe he thought he cleared the mountains.
I may be tires (only slept 4 hours, ending a big transaction) but isnt't the "fatalities per km" metrics a bit misleading? I mean planes naturally are used to travel much longer distance so why the metrics may make planes look good, if you take into account fatalities per trip (flight, train ride etc.) planes stop looking so good. Or am I wrong?
Quote from: Martinus on March 27, 2015, 12:44:59 AM
I may be tires (only slept 4 hours, ending a big transaction) but isnt't the "fatalities per km" metrics a bit misleading? I mean planes naturally are used to travel much longer distance so why the metrics may make planes look good, if you take into account fatalities per trip (flight, train ride etc.) planes stop looking so good. Or am I wrong?
I think they can try no. of deaths per hour travelled on each transport mode. Per trip isn't fair. If A's daily commute takes 10 minutes and B's take 3 hours, of course B is far more likely to experience an accident along the way.
Maybe they should check pilots for crazy. Just a thought.
All airlines should require that there should be at least two people in the cockpit at all times. That should be effective immediately. If you want to pee, you need to get someone to take your seat first. Isn't 100% proof, but is better than nothing.
Quote from: Martinus on March 27, 2015, 12:44:59 AM
I may be tires (only slept 4 hours, ending a big transaction) but isnt't the "fatalities per km" metrics a bit misleading? I mean planes naturally are used to travel much longer distance so why the metrics may make planes look good, if you take into account fatalities per trip (flight, train ride etc.) planes stop looking so good. Or am I wrong?
Yes, that's correct, and that's how insurance companies work out transportation risk, rather than the more widely used fatalities per mile.
Plus, the risk on planes is much less linear than on other ways of transport - the take offs and landings are usually the most risky. So if you "commutted" by plane for 50 miles each day for 100 days you would have a much higher risk of dying than taking one 5000 mile trip.
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/geld/schadenersatzrecht-riesige-unterschiede-zwischen-tod-und-tod-1.2411262 (in German)
Germanwings will have to pay damages to the families of the victims. In case of mechanical failures there's a limit of 150,000. However, if the crash is caused by an "illegal act," then there's no limit. Funeral costs will be covered, naturally, but then things will diverge a lot. Biggest item will be the loss of income for the family. In case of a top manager this can be a lot, in case of a school child or baby not so much. Emotional damages are handled very restrictively by German law; 8000.- EUR is already considered very high. In 2007, a German court determined the emotional stress of someone dying of a heart attack and struggling 15-30 seconds to be worth 5,000.-
Still just desperately sad about this. Terrorism or an individual suicide are comprehensible. With this....
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 27, 2015, 07:52:47 AM
Still just desperately sad about this. Terrorism or an individual suicide are comprehensible. With this....
What's that German word for 'hate of/for the world' ?
Quote from: mongers on March 27, 2015, 08:00:26 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 27, 2015, 07:52:47 AM
Still just desperately sad about this. Terrorism or an individual suicide are comprehensible. With this....
What's that German word for 'hate of/for the world' ?
Weltschmerz?
Quote from: Liep on March 27, 2015, 08:09:12 AM
Quote from: mongers on March 27, 2015, 08:00:26 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 27, 2015, 07:52:47 AM
Still just desperately sad about this. Terrorism or an individual suicide are comprehensible. With this....
What's that German word for 'hate of/for the world' ?
Weltschmerz?
Yes, but I think I'm wrong, as the word isn't really about hate more sadness for/with the world?
Quote from: mongers on March 27, 2015, 08:14:03 AM
Quote from: Liep on March 27, 2015, 08:09:12 AM
Quote from: mongers on March 27, 2015, 08:00:26 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 27, 2015, 07:52:47 AM
Still just desperately sad about this. Terrorism or an individual suicide are comprehensible. With this....
What's that German word for 'hate of/for the world' ?
Weltschmerz?
Yes, but I think I'm wrong, as the word isn't really about hate more sadness for/with the world?
Yeah, it translate more into "hurting for the world". But I'm sure the Germans also have a word for hating the world with a passion.
Quote from: Liep on March 27, 2015, 08:16:03 AM
Quote from: mongers on March 27, 2015, 08:14:03 AM
Quote from: Liep on March 27, 2015, 08:09:12 AM
Quote from: mongers on March 27, 2015, 08:00:26 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 27, 2015, 07:52:47 AM
Still just desperately sad about this. Terrorism or an individual suicide are comprehensible. With this....
What's that German word for 'hate of/for the world' ?
Weltschmerz?
Yes, but I think I'm wrong, as the word isn't really about hate more sadness for/with the world?
Yeah, it translate more into "hurting for the world". But I'm sure the Germans also have a word for hating the world with a passion.
Yes that's what were looking for.
Quote from: Liep on March 27, 2015, 08:16:03 AM
Quote from: mongers on March 27, 2015, 08:14:03 AM
Quote from: Liep on March 27, 2015, 08:09:12 AM
Quote from: mongers on March 27, 2015, 08:00:26 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 27, 2015, 07:52:47 AM
Still just desperately sad about this. Terrorism or an individual suicide are comprehensible. With this....
What's that German word for 'hate of/for the world' ?
Weltschmerz?
Yes, but I think I'm wrong, as the word isn't really about hate more sadness for/with the world?
Yeah, it translate more into "hurting for the world". But I'm sure the Germans also have a word for hating the world with a passion.
Yes, but it has been illegal to use after the Nuremberg Trials.
Quote from: Syt on March 27, 2015, 08:27:29 AM
Quote from: Liep on March 27, 2015, 08:16:03 AM
Quote from: mongers on March 27, 2015, 08:14:03 AM
Quote from: Liep on March 27, 2015, 08:09:12 AM
Quote from: mongers on March 27, 2015, 08:00:26 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 27, 2015, 07:52:47 AM
Still just desperately sad about this. Terrorism or an individual suicide are comprehensible. With this....
What's that German word for 'hate of/for the world' ?
Weltschmerz?
Yes, but I think I'm wrong, as the word isn't really about hate more sadness for/with the world?
Yeah, it translate more into "hurting for the world". But I'm sure the Germans also have a word for hating the world with a passion.
Yes, but it has been illegal to use after the Nuremberg Trials.
I figured. :P
According to documents found during the search of the co-pilot's home, he was in medical treatment, though so far there's no info what he suffered from. There were several doctor's notes for medical leave, some of them torn up, including for the day of the incident. He hadn't told his employer about this medical condition/leave.
Quote from: Martinus on March 27, 2015, 12:44:59 AM
I may be tires (only slept 4 hours, ending a big transaction) but isnt't the "fatalities per km" metrics a bit misleading? I mean planes naturally are used to travel much longer distance so why the metrics may make planes look good, if you take into account fatalities per trip (flight, train ride etc.) planes stop looking so good. Or am I wrong?
There is no one right metric. If you have to go somewhere, then that somewhere will be the same distance away, more or less, whether you go by plane or walk on foot. In that context, per-mile statistics make the most sense.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 27, 2015, 02:00:30 AM
All airlines should require that there should be at least two people in the cockpit at all times. That should be effective immediately. If you want to pee, you need to get someone to take your seat first. Isn't 100% proof, but is better than nothing.
Yeah, that isn't going to stop a really dedicated pilot from putting the plane in grave danger, but it is a start. And it also seems like a good idea for other reasons, like making sure something simply doesn't happen to a single pilot alone in the cockpit.
There were two pilots in the cockpit of that EgyptAir flight apparently.
Quote from: Syt on March 27, 2015, 08:53:00 AM
According to documents found during the search of the co-pilot's home, he was in medical treatment, though so far there's no info what he suffered from. There were several doctor's notes for medical leave, some of them torn up, including for the day of the incident. He hadn't told his employer about this medical condition/leave.
He was in psychiatric care and would have lost his flight license if he had told Germanwings.
And with good reason, as it turns out.
BTW, does Germanwings sound better in German than it does in English?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2015, 09:54:10 AM
BTW, does Germanwings sound better in German than it does in English?
At the press conference they pronounced it in a very American accent, it seemed so out of placed.
Deutschenflapflapflappenneren?
Quote from: Zanza on March 27, 2015, 09:35:49 AM
Quote from: Syt on March 27, 2015, 08:53:00 AM
According to documents found during the search of the co-pilot's home, he was in medical treatment, though so far there's no info what he suffered from. There were several doctor's notes for medical leave, some of them torn up, including for the day of the incident. He hadn't told his employer about this medical condition/leave.
He was in psychiatric care and would have lost his flight license if he had told Germanwings.
Taking away his licence would be the right thing to do, but then this creates a disincentive for him to tell anyone.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2015, 09:33:17 AM
There were two pilots in the cockpit of that EgyptAir flight apparently.
Yeah, if someone is dedicated to taking the plane down, it is not going to be easy to stop a pilot.
But the emotional/mental thing could be influenced by the presence of someone in the cockpit, and at least give them a chance to stop it.
But overall, if a pilot decides he wants to take everyone with them, the odds are pretty bad.
So the headshrinker that gave him the stay home from school notes is American. Don't know if that makes any difference.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2015, 12:07:19 PM
So the headshrinker that gave him the stay home from school notes is American. Don't know if that makes any difference.
Gee, thanks Obama.
Is there a "second amendment solution" to this problem?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2015, 03:40:10 PM
Is there a "second amendment solution" to this problem?
If only the pilot had a gun he could have just shot himself.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2015, 09:54:10 AM
BTW, does Germanwings sound better in German than it does in English?
Sounds very good in Denglisch. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2015, 03:40:10 PM
Is there a "second amendment solution" to this problem?
Allow airlines to install remotely-operated gun turrets in cockpits.
Seriously though, between this and MH370, maybe it's time to engineer the pilot out of the picture.
Really? The 0.00001% chance that the pilot is going to kill everyone is the reason we should engineer them out of the picture?
If there's only a 0.000009% chance that the autopilot will kill everyone, then sure.
Self-flying planes may actually be a thing of the future. Airplanes can mostly fly themselves already.
Quote from: Barrister on March 27, 2015, 04:18:49 PM
Self-flying planes may actually be a thing of the future. Airplanes can mostly fly themselves already.
I kind of doubt it, actually. I think we will see more and more automation, of course, but it is going to be a long time before a auto pilot can handle the emergencies as well as a well trained human.
Human error caused this crash and a lot more besides, including 9/11, Tenerife and others. Taking pilots out of the picture seems reasonable. We are close to self-driving cars, flying a plane seems easier than driving a car.
Quote from: Berkut on March 27, 2015, 04:24:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 27, 2015, 04:18:49 PM
Self-flying planes may actually be a thing of the future. Airplanes can mostly fly themselves already.
I kind of doubt it, actually. I think we will see more and more automation, of course, but it is going to be a long time before a auto pilot can handle the emergencies as well as a well trained human.
Maybe it won't be able to handle emergencies as well as a human, but it will also have a lot less emergencies to deal with.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2015, 03:44:30 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2015, 03:40:10 PM
Is there a "second amendment solution" to this problem?
If only the pilot had a gun he could have just shot himself.
I don't think that would have stopped the copilot from crashing the plane, though it may have stopped the copilot from killing the pilot.
I flew on the return trip of that Germanwings flight a few months ago.
There was a funny moment in my flight today when the captain went to take a leak. As he opened the door to the cockpit, he turned around to see quite a few people watching intently. The bastard laughed his ass off. :lol:
Quote from: Iormlund on March 28, 2015, 09:34:42 AM
I flew on the return trip of that Germanwings flight a few months ago.
There was a funny moment in my flight today when the captain went to take a leak. As he opened the door to the cockpit, he turned around to see quite a few people watching intently. The bastard laughed his ass off. :lol:
:D
Quote from: The Brain on March 27, 2015, 05:07:53 PM
Human error caused this crash and a lot more besides, including 9/11, Tenerife and others. Taking pilots out of the picture seems reasonable. We are close to self-driving cars, flying a plane seems easier than driving a car.
We need Apple to design self-flying planes.
Their batteries will run out mid-flight and the windshield will break easily but you will be able to use your iPhone (and ONLY iPhone) mid-flight.
Co-pilot was treated for suicidal tendencies.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/germanwings-co-pilot-andreas-lubitz-had-been-in-treatment-for-suicide-risk-1427726274
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 30, 2015, 06:31:41 PM
Co-pilot was treated for suicidal tendencies.
Apparently, the treatment was unsuccessful.
Quote from: dps on March 30, 2015, 08:48:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 30, 2015, 06:31:41 PM
Co-pilot was treated for suicidal tendencies.
Apparently, the treatment was unsuccessful.
I imagine they have patient simulators in psychiatrist school, and a suicidal patient is one of the simulations. If you give him good advice, he goes on to live a happy and fulfilled life. If you do poorly, he kills himself. If you do REALLY poorly, this happens.
They seemed to have been partially successful. The guy didn't kill himself for a while.
Seems he was cracking up under the pressure, and was convinced his eye sight was going (the doctors said it was all in his head), he may have had a total psychotic break.
Quote from: dps on March 30, 2015, 08:48:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 30, 2015, 06:31:41 PM
Co-pilot was treated for suicidal tendencies.
Apparently, the treatment was unsuccessful.
Mr. President, I don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up.
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2015, 08:37:51 AM
Mr. President, I don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Razgovory on March 30, 2015, 10:21:59 PM
Seems he was cracking up under the pressure,
What a loon.
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2015, 08:37:51 AM
Quote from: dps on March 30, 2015, 08:48:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 30, 2015, 06:31:41 PM
Co-pilot was treated for suicidal tendencies.
Apparently, the treatment was unsuccessful.
Mr. President, I don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up.
:lol:
Quote from: Caliga on March 24, 2015, 06:35:33 PM
He could have reprogrammed the autopilot to descend to 'x' feet. You can also program the descent rate and the aircraft will hold that as well. You can cancel that at any time and take control, but of course you can't do that while unconscious. :(
...or insane. :wacko:
My initial posts in this thread were pretty great, I must say. I should be an expert witness in aviation trials. :showoff:
Quote from: Caliga on March 31, 2015, 12:55:02 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 24, 2015, 06:35:33 PM
He could have reprogrammed the autopilot to descend to 'x' feet. You can also program the descent rate and the aircraft will hold that as well. You can cancel that at any time and take control, but of course you can't do that while unconscious. :(
...or insane. :wacko:
My initial posts in this thread were pretty great, I must say. I should be an expert witness in aviation trials. :showoff:
You could discuss and debate with the guy that found amelia earhart's plane. :)
:lol: He hasn't found shit.
There's supposed to be a cell phone video floating around Germany media from inside the cabin. The Wolfman was speculating someone on the wreckage team lifted a SIM card and sold the video.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2015, 05:27:37 PM
There's supposed to be a cell phone video floating around Germany media from inside the cabin. The Wolfman was speculating someone on the wreckage team lifted a SIM card and sold the video.
I saw that story strenuously denied by some Frenchman.
Makes as much sense to me that someone phoned the video to someone else, who then sold it.
With recent media coverage, it looks like people are right to not openly talk about mental conditions they may have suffered from at one point. I just saw an article that noted confusion as to why he was ever allowed to be a pilot when he told them he had once suffered a severe depressive episode.
Quote from: garbon on March 31, 2015, 05:31:22 PM
With recent media coverage, it looks like people are right to not openly talk about mental conditions they may have suffered from at one point. I just saw an article that noted confusion as to why he was ever allowed to be a pilot when he told them he had once suffered a severe depressive episode.
So the article questions why he was not discriminated on based on his disability?
This attitude is not uncommon over here and it's why seeking therapy carries a fair bit of stigma still. Though it's starting to get better.
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 31, 2015, 05:36:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 31, 2015, 05:31:22 PM
With recent media coverage, it looks like people are right to not openly talk about mental conditions they may have suffered from at one point. I just saw an article that noted confusion as to why he was ever allowed to be a pilot when he told them he had once suffered a severe depressive episode.
So the article questions why he was not discriminated on based on his disability?
It has actually been quite an uphill fight to get mental disorders properly classified as disabilities. The ADA amendment in 2008 stopped what had been a continuous slide in the courts towards only considering debilitating conditions to be disabilities. Prior to 01JAN09 a company could probably get away with a policy of not hiring depressed people. Under the current wording they would probably lose. I think it is still hard to prove a discrimination case for something like that unless it is blatant.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 31, 2015, 06:01:50 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 31, 2015, 05:36:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 31, 2015, 05:31:22 PM
With recent media coverage, it looks like people are right to not openly talk about mental conditions they may have suffered from at one point. I just saw an article that noted confusion as to why he was ever allowed to be a pilot when he told them he had once suffered a severe depressive episode.
So the article questions why he was not discriminated on based on his disability?
It has actually been quite an uphill fight to get mental disorders properly classified as disabilities. The ADA amendment in 2008 stopped what had been a continuous slide in the courts towards only considering debilitating conditions to be disabilities. Prior to 01JAN09 a company could probably get away with a policy of not hiring depressed people. Under the current wording they would probably lose. I think it is still hard to prove a discrimination case for something like that unless it is blatant.
Interesting. Here its the other way around. Some might argue that the definition of a disability has become too expansive. In any event it would include a mental disorder or mental illness. Also the level of proof required to establish a discriminatory act is very low. The complainant need only establish the disability played some factor in the alleged discriminatory decision. It need not be the main reason. So in many cases the existence of the disability creates a prima facie case which is difficult for an employer to rebut.
Quote from: garbon on March 31, 2015, 05:31:22 PM
With recent media coverage, it looks like people are right to not openly talk about mental conditions they may have suffered from at one point. I just saw an article that noted confusion as to why he was ever allowed to be a pilot when he told them he had once suffered a severe depressive episode.
What do you think Germanwings should have done with this information?
Quote from: Iormlund on March 28, 2015, 09:34:42 AM
I flew on the return trip of that Germanwings flight a few months ago.
There was a funny moment in my flight today when the captain went to take a leak. As he opened the door to the cockpit, he turned around to see quite a few people watching intently. The bastard laughed his ass off. :lol:
It's hi-larious.
Quote from: Berkut on March 27, 2015, 04:24:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 27, 2015, 04:18:49 PM
Self-flying planes may actually be a thing of the future. Airplanes can mostly fly themselves already.
I kind of doubt it, actually. I think we will see more and more automation, of course, but it is going to be a long time before a auto pilot can handle the emergencies as well as a well trained human.
Yeah, you'd have to completely rewire the flux capacitor and probably employ protomatter in the Genesis matrix to create an autopilot capable of flying a plane. What are you basing this on? Gut feeling?
Anyway, could passenger planes be flown like drones are? If passenger flights were drones, you get rid of the risk of terrorist takeover as well as mass-murder by pilot pique. Furthermore, it would eliminate fatigue-induced accidents, to whatever extent those exist. (Now, I'll add the caveat I do
not know how viable this is. But drones seem to work for military applications.)
Quote from: garbon on March 31, 2015, 05:31:22 PM
With recent media coverage, it looks like people are right to not openly talk about mental conditions they may have suffered from at one point. I just saw an article that noted confusion as to why he was ever allowed to be a pilot when he told them he had once suffered a severe depressive episode.
Not everyone is cut out to be a pilot. Better to weed them out early before they mass murder people.
Quote from: The Brain on April 01, 2015, 12:30:03 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 31, 2015, 05:31:22 PM
With recent media coverage, it looks like people are right to not openly talk about mental conditions they may have suffered from at one point. I just saw an article that noted confusion as to why he was ever allowed to be a pilot when he told them he had once suffered a severe depressive episode.
Not everyone is cut out to be a pilot. Better to weed them out early before they mass murder people.
Yes because that is what depression is.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 31, 2015, 06:19:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 27, 2015, 04:24:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 27, 2015, 04:18:49 PM
Self-flying planes may actually be a thing of the future. Airplanes can mostly fly themselves already.
I kind of doubt it, actually. I think we will see more and more automation, of course, but it is going to be a long time before a auto pilot can handle the emergencies as well as a well trained human.
Yeah, you'd have to completely rewire the flux capacitor and probably employ protomatter in the Genesis matrix to create an autopilot capable of flying a plane. What are you basing this on? Gut feeling?
Anyway, could passenger planes be flown like drones are? If passenger flights were drones, you get rid of the risk of terrorist takeover as well as mass-murder by pilot pique. Furthermore, it would eliminate fatigue-induced accidents, to whatever extent those exist. (Now, I'll add the caveat I do not know how viable this is. But drones seem to work for military applications.)
Military drones are flown by pilots. They are simply not inside.
Trains are, I think, a much better example. They are perfectly capable of working on their own, yet we still put a dude in command for whatever the reason (peace of mind, insurance, etc).
Quote from: Ideologue on March 31, 2015, 06:19:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 27, 2015, 04:24:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 27, 2015, 04:18:49 PM
Self-flying planes may actually be a thing of the future. Airplanes can mostly fly themselves already.
I kind of doubt it, actually. I think we will see more and more automation, of course, but it is going to be a long time before a auto pilot can handle the emergencies as well as a well trained human.
Yeah, you'd have to completely rewire the flux capacitor and probably employ protomatter in the Genesis matrix to create an autopilot capable of flying a plane. What are you basing this on? Gut feeling?
Anyway, could passenger planes be flown like drones are? If passenger flights were drones, you get rid of the risk of terrorist takeover as well as mass-murder by pilot pique. Furthermore, it would eliminate fatigue-induced accidents, to whatever extent those exist. (Now, I'll add the caveat I do not know how viable this is. But drones seem to work for military applications.)
Until somebody builds a radio transmitter capable of taking over remote control of the plane and smash it to the ground or into a building. There is no fail safe method.
Quote from: Iormlund on April 01, 2015, 03:00:45 AM
Military drones are flown by pilots. They are simply not inside.
Trains are, I think, a much better example. They are perfectly capable of working on their own, yet we still put a dude in command for whatever the reason (peace of mind, insurance, etc).
I blame Stephen King.
Btw, crop for the love of Hod.
Quote from: Tamas on April 01, 2015, 03:03:21 AM
Until somebody builds a radio transmitter capable of taking over remote control of the plane and smash it to the ground or into a building. There is no fail safe method.
A much more likely scenario is that the pilot loses connection to the plane for technical reasons (satellite failure, antenna broken, solar storm etc.) and can't reestablish the connection before the plane crashes somewhere. That's not a huge deal with unmanned drones, but it would be a disaster with people on board the plane.
Quote from: Caliga on March 31, 2015, 12:55:02 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 24, 2015, 06:35:33 PM
He could have reprogrammed the autopilot to descend to 'x' feet. You can also program the descent rate and the aircraft will hold that as well. You can cancel that at any time and take control, but of course you can't do that while unconscious. :(
...or insane. :wacko:
My initial posts in this thread were pretty great, I must say. I should be an expert witness in aviation trials. :showoff:
I think I did okay as well. While it turned out that the pilots weren't unconscious, one was fully conscious and one was completely absent, so on average I was right. And while it turned out that none of the planes are equipped with autopilot programming that I thought they were equipped it, some of that programming would in fact be practical to implement at some time in the future. :smarty:
Caliga loses points for posting a news story without commentary beyond a single emoticon. :P
Quote from: Ideologue on March 31, 2015, 06:19:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 27, 2015, 04:24:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 27, 2015, 04:18:49 PM
Self-flying planes may actually be a thing of the future. Airplanes can mostly fly themselves already.
I kind of doubt it, actually. I think we will see more and more automation, of course, but it is going to be a long time before a auto pilot can handle the emergencies as well as a well trained human.
Yeah, you'd have to completely rewire the flux capacitor and probably employ protomatter in the Genesis matrix to create an autopilot capable of flying a plane. What are you basing this on? Gut feeling?
Anyway, could passenger planes be flown like drones are? If passenger flights were drones, you get rid of the risk of terrorist takeover as well as mass-murder by pilot pique. Furthermore, it would eliminate fatigue-induced accidents, to whatever extent those exist. (Now, I'll add the caveat I do not know how viable this is. But drones seem to work for military applications.)
Drones work for military applications in large part because the very concept of the drone includes the idea that they are mostly dispensable. That is the entire fucking point of a drone - there isn't a person in it, so if the pilot oopsie crashes it, it isn't nearly as big a deal, or if it gets shot down or whatever.
A commercial airliner is exactly the *opposite* of a drone when it comes to tolerance for error on the part of the operator, or the system not having the same level of fidelity as an actual pilot sitting in the plane itself.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 31, 2015, 06:01:50 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 31, 2015, 05:36:48 PM
It has actually been quite an uphill fight to get mental disorders properly classified as disabilities.
It helps if in you bite people.
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2015, 09:36:29 AM
Drones work for military applications in large part because the very concept of the drone includes the idea that they are mostly dispensable. That is the entire fucking point of a drone - there isn't a person in it, so if the pilot oopsie crashes it, it isn't nearly as big a deal, or if it gets shot down or whatever.
A commercial airliner is exactly the *opposite* of a drone when it comes to tolerance for error on the part of the operator, or the system not having the same level of fidelity as an actual pilot sitting in the plane itself.
Agreed. The pilot is the last person you will take out of any given type of flying.
Quote from: garbon on April 01, 2015, 02:23:03 AM
Quote from: The Brain on April 01, 2015, 12:30:03 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 31, 2015, 05:31:22 PM
With recent media coverage, it looks like people are right to not openly talk about mental conditions they may have suffered from at one point. I just saw an article that noted confusion as to why he was ever allowed to be a pilot when he told them he had once suffered a severe depressive episode.
Not everyone is cut out to be a pilot. Better to weed them out early before they mass murder people.
Yes because that is what depression is.
This is a safety issue. Safety first. Period.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 01, 2015, 08:09:46 AM
Caliga loses points for posting a news story without commentary beyond a single emoticon. :P
What was I going to say at that point? I guess I could have pulled a Tim and said "Monstrous." :hmm:
Quote from: grumbler on April 01, 2015, 10:31:44 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 01, 2015, 09:36:29 AM
Drones work for military applications in large part because the very concept of the drone includes the idea that they are mostly dispensable. That is the entire fucking point of a drone - there isn't a person in it, so if the pilot oopsie crashes it, it isn't nearly as big a deal, or if it gets shot down or whatever.
A commercial airliner is exactly the *opposite* of a drone when it comes to tolerance for error on the part of the operator, or the system not having the same level of fidelity as an actual pilot sitting in the plane itself.
Agreed. The pilot is the last person you will take out of any given type of flying.
Indeed. It might get more and more automated, perhaps even to the point where the pilot is there almost only as a backup for emergencies, but it's hard to imagine any time in the near future that 100-200+ humans will entrust their lives entirely to automated control.
Just like even self-driving cars will likely always maintain manual controls for override purposes.
This attitude might change after several generations of flawless automated operation...but that's too far off yet.
Quote from: Iormlund on April 01, 2015, 03:00:45 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 31, 2015, 06:19:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 27, 2015, 04:24:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 27, 2015, 04:18:49 PM
Self-flying planes may actually be a thing of the future. Airplanes can mostly fly themselves already.
I kind of doubt it, actually. I think we will see more and more automation, of course, but it is going to be a long time before a auto pilot can handle the emergencies as well as a well trained human.
Yeah, you'd have to completely rewire the flux capacitor and probably employ protomatter in the Genesis matrix to create an autopilot capable of flying a plane. What are you basing this on? Gut feeling?
Anyway, could passenger planes be flown like drones are? If passenger flights were drones, you get rid of the risk of terrorist takeover as well as mass-murder by pilot pique. Furthermore, it would eliminate fatigue-induced accidents, to whatever extent those exist. (Now, I'll add the caveat I do not know how viable this is. But drones seem to work for military applications.)
Military drones are flown by pilots. They are simply not inside.
No, I know. Anyway, it was just an idea.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 01, 2015, 09:40:57 PM
Just like even self-driving cars will likely always maintain manual controls for override purposes.
This attitude might change after several generations of flawless automated operation...but that's too far off yet.
It won't be that long. As soon as automated systems are safer than humans on average, we won't be able to engage manual override without losing insurance coverage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/07/science/planes-without-pilots.html
QuotePlanes Without Pilots
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. — Mounting evidence that the co-pilot crashed a Germanwings plane into a French mountain has prompted a global debate about how to better screen crewmembers for mental illness and how to ensure that no one is left alone in the cockpit.
But among many aviation experts, the discussion has taken a different turn. How many human pilots, some wonder, are really necessary aboard commercial planes?
One? None?
Advances in sensor technology, computing and artificial intelligence are making human pilots less necessary than ever in the cockpit. Already, government agencies are experimenting with replacing the co-pilot, perhaps even both pilots on cargo planes, with robots or remote operators.
"The industry is starting to come out and say we are willing to put our R&D money into that," said Parimal Kopardekar, manager of the safe autonomous system operations project at NASA's Ames Research Center.
In 2014, airlines carried 838.4 million passengers on more than 8.5 million flights. Commercial aviation is already heavily automated. Modern aircraft are generally flown by a computer autopilot that tracks its position using motion sensors and dead reckoning, corrected as necessary by GPS. Software systems are also used to land commercial aircraft.
In a recent survey of airline pilots, those operating Boeing 777s reported that they spent just seven minutes manually piloting their planes in a typical flight. Pilots operating Airbus planes spent half that time.
And commercial planes are becoming smarter all the time. "An Airbus airliner knows enough not to fly into a mountain," said David Mindell, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology aeronautics and astronautics professor. "It has a warning system that tells a pilot. But it doesn't take over."
Such a system could take over, if permitted. Already, the Pentagon has deployed automated piloting software in F-16 fighter jets. The Auto Collision Ground Avoidance System reportedly saved a plane and pilot in November during a combat mission against Islamic State forces.
The Pentagon has invested heavily in robot aircraft. As of 2013, there were more than 11,000 drones in the military arsenal. But drones are almost always remotely piloted, rather than autonomous. Indeed, more than 150 humans are involved in the average combat mission flown by a drone.
This summer, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Pentagon research organization, will take the next step in plane automation with the Aircrew Labor In-Cockpit Automation System, or Alias. Sometime this year, the agency will begin flight testing a robot that can be quickly installed in the right seat of military aircraft to act as the co-pilot. The portable onboard robot will be able to speak, listen, manipulate flight controls and read instruments.
The machine, a bit like R2D2, will have many of the skills of a human pilot, including the ability to land the plane and to take off. It will assist the human pilot on routine flights and be able to take over the flight in emergency situations.
A number of aerospace companies and universities, in three competing teams, are working with Darpa to develop the robot. The agency plans for the robot co-pilot to be "visually aware" in the cockpit and to be able to control the aircraft by manipulating equipment built for human hands, such as the pilot's yoke and pedals, as well as the various knobs, toggles and buttons.
Ideally, the robots will rely on voice recognition technologies and speech synthesis to communicate with human pilots and flight controllers.
"This is really about how we can foster a new kind of automation structured around augmenting the human," said Daniel Patt, a program manager in Darpa's Tactical Technology Office.
NASA is exploring a related possibility: moving the co-pilot out of the cockpit on commercial flights, and instead using a single remote operator to serve as co-pilot for multiple aircraft.
In this scenario, a ground controller might operate as a dispatcher managing a dozen or more flights simultaneously. It would be possible for the ground controller to "beam" into individual planes when needed and to land a plane remotely in the event that the pilot became incapacitated — or worse.
What the Germanwings crash "has done has elevated the question of should there or not be ways to externally control commercial aircraft," said Mary Cummings, the director of the Humans and Autonomy Laboratory at Duke University and a former Navy F-18 pilot, who is a researcher on the Darpa project.
"Could we have a single-pilot aircraft with the ability to remotely control the aircraft from the ground that is safer than today's systems? The answer is yes."
NASA would like to see fewer humans guiding planes on the ground, too. This month, in a research laboratory here, agency officials ran a simulation of new software intended to bring more automation to the nation's air traffic control system, specifically to help with congestion and spacing of aircraft.
Last month at the NASA Ames facility, retired air traffic controllers and commercial pilots sat at air traffic control terminals and helped scientists test the system as it simulated air traffic arriving in Phoenix.
The software, known as Terminal Sequencing and Spacing, can coordinate the speed and separation of hundreds of aircraft simultaneously to improve the flow of planes landing at airports. Ultimately, NASA says, it may be able to increase the density of air traffic in the nation's skies by as much as 20 percent — with fewer human controllers.
Indeed, the potential savings from the move to more autonomous aircraft and air traffic control systems is enormous. In 2007, a research report for NASA estimated that the labor costs related to the co-pilot position alone in the world's passenger aircraft amounted to billions of dollars annually.
Automating that job may save money. But will passengers ever set foot on plane piloted by robots, or humans thousands of miles from the cockpit?
"You need humans where you have humans," said Dr. Cummings. "If you have a bunch of humans on an aircraft, you're going to need a Captain Kirk on the plane. I don't ever see commercial transportation going over to drones."
In written testimony submitted to the Senate last month, the Air Line Pilots Association warned, "It is vitally important that the pressure to capitalize on the technology not lead to an incomplete safety analysis of the aircraft and operations."
The association defended the unique skills of a human pilot: "A pilot on board an aircraft can see, feel, smell or hear many indications of an impending problem and begin to formulate a course of action before even sophisticated sensors and indicators provide positive indications of trouble."
Even at NASA's recent symposium, experts worried over the deployment of increasingly autonomous systems. Not all of the scientists and engineers who attended believe that increasingly sophisticated planes will always be safer planes.
"Technology can have costs of its own," said Amy Pritchett, an associate professor of aerospace engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology. "If you put more technology in the cockpit, you have more technology that can fail."