A320 Down In France (Germanwings)

[UpperDeck]

Inch man...

Were you married to a flight attendant? Doesn't appear you hold them in the highest regard.

Both at Canadian and Air Canada sop was for an fa to replace a flight crew member who went to use facilities.

When was that changed---and why?

[Kip Powick]

Inch man...

Were you married to a flight attendant? Doesn't appear you hold them in the highest regard.

Both at Canadian and Air Canada sop was for an fa to replace a flight crew member who went to use facilities.

When was that changed---and why?

If you intended your comment about being "previously married to an FA" in a humorous vein you missed placing any smilies in the sentence.

If you did not intend any humour then I personally find you comment in poor taste and bordering on insulting.

As far as inchman's post goes, I personally agree 100% with him. The computer experts could change the entrance technology so that pilots had an override sequence and would never be denied entrance should the "alone" pilot have a medical/mental situation occurrence.

That would probably be the most cost effective way of solving the problem.

The other way is to give the pilots their "own bathroom" with the secure door aft of that door but the costs for retrofitting that would be very expensive and would probably mean loosing a few passenger seats and you know how the bean counters would look at that.

In CP I don't recall if the procedure, (always two in the cockpit), was always in effect because I know there were oft times we never had an FA come up front if the other pilot left. The only rule was donning the O2 mask and in most cases we just checked it, (again), and put it on our lap.

It should also be pointed out that we never flew with 600 hour pilots either, in fact no one was ever hired by a major carrier in Canada with such low time....in those days.

[Kip Powick]

From CNN

The Germanwings co-pilot accused of intentionally setting a plane on a fatal descent in the French Alps had an illness that he kept secret from his employer, the Dusseldorf public prosecutor's office said Friday.

The statement did not say what the illness was, nor whether it was a physical or mental health issue.

But documents found in a search of Andreas Lubitz's home and that of his parents "indicate an existing illness as well as adequate medical treatment thereof," the prosecutor's office said.

The fact that investigators found "ripped, recent medical leave notes, including for the day of the offense (crash), leads to the preliminary conclusion that the deceased kept his illness secret from his employer and his professional environment."

[cp fa]

Inch man...

Were you married to a flight attendant? Doesn't appear you hold them in the highest regard.

I was a flight attendant, and I disagree. There was nothing in his post that was unfair, unbalanced or offensive. He was merely stating obvious (to industry insiders) issues with the procedure.

[Kip Powick]

From CNN

I am sure this individual is not indicative of the general public but it does show you how some people think......................

[cp fa]

If you intended your comment about being "previously married to an FA" in a humorous vein you missed placing any smilies in the sentence.

If you did not intend any humour then I personally find you comment in poor taste and bordering on insulting.

As far as inchman's post goes, I personally agree 100% with him. The computer experts could change the entrance technology so that pilots had an override sequence and would never be denied entrance should the "alone" pilot have a medical/mental situation occurrence.

That would probably be the most cost effective way of solving the problem.

The other way is to give the pilots their "own bathroom" with the secure door aft of that door but the costs for retrofitting that would be very expensive and would probably mean loosing a few passenger seats and you know how the bean counters would look at that.

In CP I don't recall if the procedure, (always two in the cockpit), was always in effect because I know there were oft times we never had an FA come up front if the other pilot left. The only rule was donning the O2 mask and in most cases we just checked it, (again), and put it on our lap.

It should also be pointed out that we never flew with 600 hour pilots either, in fact no one was ever hired by a major carrier in Canada with such low time....in those days.

I agree with Inchman as well, this is knee jerk security theatre. It's not a real solution to the problem, because the problem is unsolvable. Even though the airline industry is one of the safest, it will never be enough, because the traveling public wants a 100% guarantee that no one will ever die on an airplane, and that is just not attainable.

I do think that some attention needs to be paid to mental health issues though. I am surprised that he was able to hide his medical problems from his employer. I would have thought that the doctor who was treating him should have been required to report his condition to the regulator, and possibly have his medical pulled, at least temporarily.

[Boney]

If a doctor, assuming that he was aware of his patient was a pilot, is required to report to the aviation authority any major issues with their patients that require them to be grounded, he/she could be held culpable after the fact.

Very sad state of affairs.

[Lakelad]

.

French pilots suing over crash leaks

Pilots angry that details about final moments of Germanwings flight reported in media before prosecutors informed.

Fri Mar 27 2015 - The Associated Press

PARIS—France’s leading pilots union said Friday it is filing a lawsuit over leaks about the investigation into the crash of a German jet into the French Alps.

Pilots around Europe are angry that information about the final moments of the flight was reported in the media before prosecutors and others were informed. Pilots are concerned that the circumstances of Tuesday’s crash will damage public trust.

After leaks in the media about the crash, a prosecutor announced that cockpit recordings indicate the co-pilot of the Germanwings A320 jet intentionally flew the plane into a mountain. All 150 aboard were killed.

Guillaume Schmid of France’s SNPL union told The Associated Press on Friday that the lawsuit is over violating a French law on keeping information about investigations secret while they are ongoing. The lawsuit doesn’t name an alleged perpetrator, a method in French law that leaves investigators to determine who is at fault.

“We can understand there is a certain pressure, a wish to know,” Schmid said — but he warned that leaking information too early can mislead the public instead of informing accurately.

The French air accident investigation agency, the BEA, “will never be able to satisfy the demand for immediate information ... It is designed to resist that,” and instead is meant to focus on “establishing irrefutable facts,” he said.

European Cockpit Association also expressed concern about the leaks and urged further investigation before drawing final conclusions.

.

[Guest]

From CNN

The Germanwings co-pilot accused of intentionally setting a plane on a fatal descent in the French Alps had an illness that he kept secret from his employer, the Dusseldorf public prosecutor's office said Friday.

The statement did not say what the illness was, nor whether it was a physical or mental health issue.

But documents found in a search of Andreas Lubitz's home and that of his parents "indicate an existing illness as well as adequate medical treatment thereof," the prosecutor's office said.

The fact that investigators found "ripped, recent medical leave notes, including for the day of the offense (crash), leads to the preliminary conclusion that the deceased kept his illness secret from his employer and his professional environment."

Is the last paragraph to suggest the pilot was in possession of medical notes from a doctor saying he was excused from working?!

Pretty sad if this event could have been avoided if some doctors note could have made it to the right person.

[dagger]

If a doctor, assuming that he was aware of his patient was a pilot, is required to report to the aviation authority any major issues with their patients that require them to be grounded, he/she could be held culpable after the fact.

Very sad state of affairs.

And if they were required to report a mental illness to aviation authorities, I suspect people with problems would not seek help.

It's really a difficult problem.

[thor]

Bio metrics for the cockpit door. As long as they don't use the CATSA scanners!

[AMEfirst]

Having lived through the fall out of 9-11 and what seemed like endless security bulitines from TC and the FAA, I suspect the procedures from this incident will evolve. Yesterday the Transport Minister manadated the expected kneejerk reaction. I would suggest that in the near future there will be changes to flight deck security that address the flight deck door technology.

IMHO, the requirement to ensure two crew members on the flight deck will change again.

having said that, it sure is an interesting discussion

[Kip Powick]

The CP guys and gals know this story........suffice to say I flew with this guy about 5 days before he parked his car and did himself in.

Cut his wrists, figured he wasn't dying fast enough so waded in the lake and drowned himself...as well.

My three day pairing with him was completely normal, not one indication that he had a growing problem which culminated with his suicide and only after the fact did everyone find out what was his problem........shocking and so very sad.

Suicide.......a permanent solution to a temporary problem.........in many cases..............in this recent case....will we ever know ????????????????????????

[Boney]

Dagger....Its a slippery slope. Isn't there a policy like that with TC?

Cheers

[moeman]

Bio metrics for the cockpit door. As long as they don't use the CATSA scanners!

Wouldn't work as any threat could put a knife to your throat as you leave the bathroom and force you to use the biometric device, thereby gaining access.

[UpperDeck]

KP; CP; AC et al...

Whether modified by an emoticon or not, I do not feel that my rhetorical question of inchman bordered on the insulting. You may not agree with my opinion---fair enough---but in my opinion, the various posts by Inchman do not convey a high opinion of flight attendants as valued members of crew. There are many others who believe that FA's are simply commodities who come and go and who bring little value to the table.

I was told by a recent hire pilot that there was a "suggestion" that flight crew ought to maintain a distance from cabin crew. This was offered as an explanation for the fact that many pilots would decline to accompany members of the crew to dinner outings on a layover.

Obviously, a lot of pilots never heard that "suggestion" (which I understand to be of fairly recent vintage) and in my opinion, both cabin crew and flight crew benefit from the association in informal settings.

There are many, many occupations that require the exercise of trust. Every time a flight attendant boards an aircraft, that FA necessarily evidences the trust placed in the members of the flight crew.

For four cabin crew members of that Germanwings flight, the trust was misplaced. And that is tragic.

And in my opinion, it is unfortunate that any flight crew member would think it appropriate at this time to imply that by reason of training (or the lack thereof) or disposition or other characteristics, cabin crew members pose an unacceptable risk on the flight deck as a security measure.

In Post# 34, Inchman stated;

"That works great unless the "protecting" flight attendant (who may have only entered the industry 6 weeks prior, perhaps as a short term "sleeper") decides to lock the door and take out the remaining pilot, then follow some basic instructions to cause the aircraft to crash....."

In Post #67, Inchman expanded on that thought;

"Flight attendants have access to the flight deck after only 6 weeks of training and now we are going to require that essentially unknown person to sit behind a lone pilot who is supposed to be paying attention to the aircraft by facing forward.....
What will the knee-jerk reaction be when a flight attendant kills a pilot and follows 4 simple instructions to crash an aircraft? Don't open the door, spin this, press that, pull this. I have no doubt it will happen. Is the answer 2 flight attendants for every pilot ? (Actually, I kind of like the sound of that! ) (Could have used a more graphic smilie, but thought better of it)."....

Please note the words emphasized...."I have no doubt it will happen."

As an aside, in another thread "We're No. 1", a question was asked of a poster; "Did you write the SAT's?"
That comment didn't abut any border---it crossed it but I read no objections.

[cp fa]

And if they were required to report a mental illness to aviation authorities, I suspect people with problems would not seek help.

It's really a difficult problem.

We still have a long way to go towards removing the stigma of mental illness. If you break your leg, you go to the hospital, but somehow admitting you have emotional problems is a sign of weakness and a source of shame. That has to change.

[J.O.]

Isn't there a policy like that with TC?

There is but I have never heard of a doctor outing a pilot's medical condition to TC.

[Don Hudson]

And if they were required to report a mental illness to aviation authorities, I suspect people with problems would not seek help.

It's really a difficult problem.

Pilots are not immune to such problems of course but it is interesting that it has taken so long just for that notion to sink in, become accepted and understood!

The problem with knee-jerk responses is that they are usually narrowly-conceived and inevitably brittle.

Air Canada pioneered a "P2P" (Peer-to-peer) Program decades ago, to address these very human, very real problems. Today, many U.S. carriers and most in Canada have such programs. They can reduce the stigma attached to some of these problems because the process is supported equally by both company and association. It's more than just a safety-valve, it is an entire, fully-functioning process with the involvement of trained, long-term, dedicated personnel from both sides who also fly for the airline. It works, not because it prevents or denies such problems but because it deals with them and as such it is not a brittle process but a resilient process.

[J.O.]

It sure does Don, I've had conversations with a few folks who have benefited from the program. Sadly, it would appear that the personal problems of young pilot involved this week were not known to his employer or his colleagues. It's a crack that would be difficult to close, as some suffer in complete silence, never revealing their pain until it's far too late.

[cp fa]

KP; CP; AC et al...

Whether modified by an emoticon or not, I do not feel that my rhetorical question of inchman bordered on the insulting. You may not agree with my opinion---fair enough---but in my opinion, the various posts by Inchman do not convey a high opinion of flight attendants as valued members of crew. There are many others who believe that FA's are simply commodities who come and go and who bring little value to the table.

I was told by a recent hire pilot that there was a "suggestion" that flight crew ought to maintain a distance from cabin crew. This was offered as an explanation for the fact that many pilots would decline to accompany members of the crew to dinner outings on a layover.

Obviously, a lot of pilots never heard that "suggestion" (which I understand to be of fairly recent vintage) and in my opinion, both cabin crew and flight crew benefit from the association in informal settings.

There are many, many occupations that require the exercise of trust. Every time a flight attendant boards an aircraft, that FA necessarily evidences the trust placed in the members of the flight crew.

For four cabin crew members of that Germanwings flight, the trust was misplaced. And that is tragic.

And in my opinion, it is unfortunate that any flight crew member would think it appropriate at this time to imply that by reason of training (or the lack thereof) or disposition or other characteristics, cabin crew members pose an unacceptable risk on the flight deck as a security measure.

In Post# 34, Inchman stated;

"That works great unless the "protecting" flight attendant (who may have only entered the industry 6 weeks prior, perhaps as a short term "sleeper") decides to lock the door and take out the remaining pilot, then follow some basic instructions to cause the aircraft to crash....."

In Post #67, Inchman expanded on that thought;

"Flight attendants have access to the flight deck after only 6 weeks of training and now we are going to require that essentially unknown person to sit behind a lone pilot who is supposed to be paying attention to the aircraft by facing forward.....

What will the knee-jerk reaction be when a flight attendant kills a pilot and follows 4 simple instructions to crash an aircraft? Don't open the door, spin this, press that, pull this. I have no doubt it will happen. Is the answer 2 flight attendants for every pilot ? (Actually, I kind of like the sound of that! ) (Could have used a more graphic smilie, but thought better of it)."....

Please note the words emphasized...."I have no doubt it will happen."

As an aside, in another thread "We're No. 1", a question was asked of a poster; "Did you write the SAT's?"

That comment didn't abut any border---it crossed it but I read no objections.

UpperDeck, you don't seem to have any problems making snarky comments when pilots make ill informed comments on lawyering issues.

Inchman has been in the industry long enough to know how and why changes are made to SOPs, and is pointing out why he feels this one doesn't address the problem. If you want to make him out to be some kind of schmuck, that's your issue. I don't think you'll find many here that will jump on that bandwagon.

[Don Hudson]

Philosophically-speaking, the pain which is resident in all at some point to differing degrees, is "the human condition" towards which our present culture is exceedingly and institutionally diffident and even hostile, perhaps to the point of even fostering and exacerbating such condition in some. Denial is a powerful pychological and therefore social force.

Such conditions cannot be quantified nor audited nor graphed and so the problem is not made manifest except by extraordinary acts, which acts include admitting to oneself or listening to others and either taking, or submitting to appropriate steps.

The present knee-jerk calls for cockpit videos, more training, better screening etc are all instrumental solutions which handle and categorize symptoms, not cause.

Certainly those left behind after such an unspeakable event deserve answers but such cannot be rushed, notwithstanding the media's inappropriate crush on all associated with this terrible tragedy; - there is no software that one can plug the question in, from which the answer to our pain will come including the pain of patience which cannot be avoided. Twitter particularly, exhibits and highlights a sad and surreal immaturity in the face of such realities.

Such events, (and there are plenty these days given instant access and distribution of "news"), make visible and take us to the edges of our concepts of what it is to be civilized and rational, and when and where these assumptions are so tragically absent, reveals an aspect of our nature most choose not to recognize, as evidenced by a still-existing stigma and prejudice.

An approach like P2P acknowledges these human frailties at face value, without judgement. But such programs are expensive and because of the confidential nature of the work, are not auditable and are not part of "the Annual Report".

Like flight safety work itself, "success" does not have a metric, because one cannot measure, that-which-did-not-happen, (and therefore program justification is different than traditional business-cases), and probabilities don't work when the notions of "how much, how many" drive priorities. You will never find anyone involved talking about the Program because it is its independence and confidentiality that keeps it both alive and successful.

Limitations or lack of such process may be at work here, but we don't yet know what programs if any, Lufthansa / Germanwings has implemented.

[cp fa]

What happened here was an anomaly, but the resulting SOP change is not only overkill, but it doesn't offer any guarantee that the anomaly couldn't happen again. I know a lot of pilots, and I can't think of a single one that I could overpower if I had to. And as Inchman pointed out, we're putting a cabin crew member up there on the assumption that every pilot may be potentially mentally ill, but with no guarantee that the cabin crew member isn't.

If this SOP had been in place at GermanWings, maybe the FO would have shot up an elementary school instead. Would that be better?

Recently Toronto city council started discussing putting barriers up in subway platforms to prevent people from committing suicide. It's going to cost about half a billion dollars. I thought that was the stupidest thing I ever heard. If someone wants to kill themselves, they'll just find another way. Wouldn't that money be better spent on mental health care?

[Say Again, Over!]

How about a code to get in that is agreed to and entered by both pilots at the beginning of each flight and can only be reset by a complete touchdown? The code couldn't be guessed since it would start existing less than a few minutes before the flight and couldn't be effectively be changed.

[deicer]

Another direction to look in is, who at LH/Germanwings knew of his condition and still allowed him to fly? What kind of liability issue is that?

From what I've read, the poor guy took a break from training/flying for several months and then was allowed back to fly. So someone knew.

This will be a painful can of worms for LH to chew through.....