-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Plane Crash in the Alps
- Thread starter Sandman
- Start date
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
Definitely agree.
The worry for me after a situation like this is that all the captain hindsight post-hoc analysis kicks in massively overestimating the likelihood of an incident like this happening again (or rather, the frequency of such events). This, I think, can lead to some poor decisions and measures that do more harm than good can get implemented.
shaney
Alan Hutton
I dont see what difference a female flight attendant or a male one who resembles John Inman could make to a pilot intent on murder.
Being able to overide the pilot and control the plane from the ground is another option.
Because there's a massive difference between setting a crash course, closing one's eyes and waiting for the inevitable and physically restraining/injuring/killing another human being at close quarters whilst manually crashing a plane.
It seems that was the case here as it would have been far easier to just stick a pen in the captain's throat or take his head of with an axe than to lock him out and risk him getting back in.
It's very similar to when you go hunting. I've helped friends with farms resolve rabbit problems with rifles - it's a really easy thing to do. It's not so easy when you clip one and have to go and pull its neck to finish it.
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
it is, opens up another avenue for abuse though
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
Agreed. Potentially a big difference.
Would be interesting to know how many hijackings have been prevented, or some estimate of that, by roosterpit doors being locked. Not saying it's a bad idea, but this particular instance would have been prevented if the doors couldn't lock like that. Not sure locked roosterpit doors actually prevent hijackings from terrorists, but I could be wrong. If a terrorist did make his way into the roosterpit, for example during a bathroom break for a pilot the door locks could also prevent passengers and crew from taking back control in time.
Interesting, although somewhat morbid, ideas I think. Really highlights the difficulties in making good safety and security policies on issues like these.
I think the locked roosterpit rules were brought in directly after 9/11.
In all likelihood they've stopped at least as many hijackings as they've enabled deliberate crashes.
shaney
Alan Hutton
I saw it discussed that some airlines are considering having their planes with a toilet at the front outside the roosterpit, and a security door which seperates it from the passengers. They would also take away the abilty for one pilot to change the door keycode by himself. This means the pilots never have to leave a secure contained space for the whole duration of the flight. Obviously money and logistics mean it probably wont happen.
I can't see it myself.
Most airlines run stock for well over 20 years - it would be prohibitively expensive for them to make those changes.
shaney
Alan Hutton
I agree, but a lot of planes already have toilets at the front, so that would just involve installing a security door in front of it. In theory these toilets could still be used by passengers for most of the flight, and the new security door only closed when the pilot needs to go.
In reality though, when this stops being "news", not much will probably change.
Last edited:
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
Changes in security and safety procedures for air travel are relatively common and even substantial and costly changes are not uncommon. You don't have to be particularly old to remember pre-9/11 security and know just how much things have changed.
If nothing is done it's probably because this is (perhaps rightly) considered a very low frequency occurrence that can not be easily prevented without creating other risks.
More people are killed in traffic in the EU in a week than died in this crash. Probably the first crash caused by pilot suicide in years. The "news" as you call it of this incident generates attention way beyond proportion if compared to most other kinds of accidents and risks.
jts1882
Dean Richards
Like a lot of the rules, the two pilot rule is to reassure the public. It would have stopped to slow descent into the mountain, but if the co-pilot is intent on suicide, he could have put the plane into steep descent. Would the pilot have been able to overcome him and regain control?
chicken_badge
Gudni Bergsson
I'm sure every now and again a driver, maybe even a taxi, bus or train driver, commits suicide taking others with them. Do we insist on every vehicle being controlled by two people?
Due to the complexity of the job, and also the fact that if one pilot is unwell you can't stop the plane quickly, two pilots are a necessity. But the likelihood of one being suicidal is so, so remote it is not worth investing a penny in some fancy code system. Let's face it, if that suicidal guy had to deal with something like that in the alps I'm sure he would have found a way to take out the co-pilot.
All investment and strategy needs to be in supporting the mental well being of the pilots and careful enough checking to make sure they are fit to fly.
Due to the complexity of the job, and also the fact that if one pilot is unwell you can't stop the plane quickly, two pilots are a necessity. But the likelihood of one being suicidal is so, so remote it is not worth investing a penny in some fancy code system. Let's face it, if that suicidal guy had to deal with something like that in the alps I'm sure he would have found a way to take out the co-pilot.
All investment and strategy needs to be in supporting the mental well being of the pilots and careful enough checking to make sure they are fit to fly.