Germanwings flight crash - deliberate?

[Velocity]

@chizzuk

Barcelona to Dusseldorf is about 2 hours, and it is perfectly feasible for someone to not need a toilet for that span.

He could wait for the next flight he was piloting. Sooner or later, on one flight, someone would need to leave the cockpit and leave him alone.

[Alley_Dweller]

@GIGObuster

As far as I can remember and mentioned in the GQ thread, the rules are that the flight attendants have to stand guard outside the cockpit. Not very useful if the remaining pilot decides to lock the door by ignoring or just pushing the attendant aside, and then it seems to me that it would be a rule that is easy to get around.

I would also think that makes sense as having an air attendant inside the cockpit would also increase the risks, not only on security but by attendants bumping into things in the cockpit or making other mistakes.

But, as I said in the other thread, airlines in the US do indeed do this. They station flight attendants both inside and outside the cockpit. The cockpit door is kept locked until the pilot returns.

A suicidal maniac pilot could indeed kill the flight attendant. But he could also kill his unsuspecting co-pilot without going to all the trouble of getting him out of the cockpit. Even if there were a way of getting into the cockpit from inside, he could send the plane into a steep dive long before anybody on the outside could get the key.

[GIGObuster]

@Alley_Dweller

But, as I said in the other thread, airlines in the US do indeed do this. They station flight attendants both inside and outside the cockpit. The cockpit door is kept locked until the pilot returns.

Actually you said that you are not aware of what the rules actually are, and that you seem to think that “it appears” to be correct, so we need a cite please.

[Cazzle]

After MH370, there was speculation about one pilot locking the other out and there was discussion about an existing feature that overrides the cockpit door lock, something the flight crew would know how to do. My recollection was that the airline confirmed the existence of the lock override without giving any details. Is that right?

[GIGObuster]

@Eliahna

After MH370, there was speculation about one pilot locking the other out and there was discussion about an existing feature that overrides the cockpit door lock, something the flight crew would know how to do. My recollection was that the airline confirmed the existence of the lock override without giving any details. Is that right?

There is this video of the procedure in an Airbus that shows that there is an override procedure, but it works if the pilot(s) inside is indeed disabled, if what they say so far was the case, then the pilot inside was aware and touched the switch to prevent that override or somehow the door switch was set to the lock position, but that it seems it is not the default position.

AIRCRAFT | Airbus Cockpit Door

[Alley_Dweller]

@GIGObuster

Actually you said that you are not aware of what the rules actually are, and that you seem to think that “it appears” to be correct, so we need a cite please.

NO, I do not know of any rule that requires this procedure. I do know that this is the procedure that US airlines follow, whether it is required by any regulation or not.

I have witnessed it happen hundreds of times. There are millions of passengers in the United States that have witnessed it happen over the last decade.

You claim to be some kind of expert on A320 procedures? I notice that you seem to deliberately be avoiding saying whether you have flown on a plane in the United States and witnessed a pilot bathroom break anytime within the last decade.

[GIGObuster]

@Alley_Dweller

NO, I do not know of any rule that requires this procedure. I do know that this is the procedure that US airlines follow, whether it is required by any regulation or not.

I have witnessed it happen hundreds of times. There are millions of passengers in the United States that have witnessed it happen over the last decade.

You claim to be some kind of expert on A320 procedures? I notice that you seem to deliberately be avoiding saying whether you have flown on a plane in the United States and witnessed a pilot bathroom break anytime within the last decade.

I have flown in planes in the USA but did not notice it, in any case this is just a simple request for a cite because looking around the cites I have seen point to the same idea: the attendants stand guard, they do not need to go inside the cockpit.

http://kcubbin.tripod.com/id34.html

Pilots have to go too

Pilots need to use the restroom in flight and flight attendants need to gain access to the cockpit to bring pilots refreshments. As a result, one pilot union estimates that the cockpit door is opened approximately 8 times during an average flight – thats once every 20 minutes. Currently a number of carriers are using ad hoc procedures to try and reduce the vulnerability of the cockpit whenever the door is opened. Some have instituted a two-in-the-cockpit rule. Here a flight attendant is summoned by the pilots via the interphone. The flight attendant then stands guard outside the cockpit while his identity and area security is visually checked by the pilots. Visual identification is accomplished by peep holes and/or security cameras. The pilot then opens the door and exchanges positions with the flight attendant a virtual body exchange. When the pilot wants to reenter the cockpit the procedure is reversed.

But that cite from Ken Cubbin that is/was a career flight crew member is old, so calm down, nowere I claimed that I was an expert, I cited what Airbus reports is the procedure to follow, I’m not 100% sure of how they do it in the USA but I did not notice it and there are very logical reasons why having the attendant inside the cockpit is not really safe, so it still makes more sense that they are standing guard, a cite is asked to get more information or confirmation, that is all.

[Alley_Dweller]

@GIGObuster

I have flown in planes in the USA but did not notice it, in any case this is just a simple request for a cite because looking around the cites I have seen point to the same idea: the attendants stand guard, they do not need to go inside the cockpit.

Did you miss the last sentence in your quote? The flight attendant stands outside until the pilot opens the door and then they EXCHANGE POSITIONS.
http://kcubbin.tripod.com/id34.html

The flight attendant then stands guard outside the cockpit while his identity and area security is visually checked by the pilots. Visual identification is accomplished by peep holes and/or security cameras. The pilot then opens the door and exchanges positions with the flight attendant a virtual body exchange. When the pilot wants to reenter the cockpit the procedure is reversed.

But that cite from Ken Cubbin that is/was a career flight crew member is old, so calm down, nowere I claimed that I was an expert, I cited what Airbus reports is the procedure to follow, I’m not 100% sure of how they do it in the USA but I did not notice it and there are very logical reasons why having the attendant inside the cockpit is not really safe, so it still makes more sense that they are standing guard, a cite is asked to get more information or confirmation, that is all.

German airline crash: 'You can hear he is trying to smash the door down'

“Procedurally, something was very wrong,” said Glen Winn, an aviation instructor at the University of Southern California and an expert in aviation security and anti-terrorism.

“You ask any pilot, they’ll tell you the same thing,” Winn said. “They don’t leave a person alone in the cockpit. They don’t do it. Nobody does that.”
…
American experts say the typical procedure is for a flight attendant to use a food cart to block access to the cockpit when the pilot opens the door to leave. A flight attendant is supposed to remain in the cockpit and open the door for the pilot upon his or her return.

“It’s a standard procedure” that Germanwings should have followed, Winn said. “That’s nothing secret. Everybody knows.”

[GIGObuster]

Ok, that is good and ignorance is fought. Somehow I got the impression though that you were claiming that the flight attendant was taking the place of the pilot, but it is now more clear that the attendant is just behind the door.

[usedtobe]

There was big stink many years ago when an Egypt Air plane was nose-dived into the sea.

The pilot had left the cockpit for the lav and, upon returning, found the plane was pretty much straight down.

There was dispute between US and Egyptian officials as to the dialog between the two - according to the US, the co-pilot said something to the effect “We are coming to you Allah”.
The Egyptians held that he was asking Allah for assistance.

The US considered it a suicide, the Egyptians did not want that term used.

This was before 9/11/01 and the security door on cockpits.

There is no reason why there could not be a 5 gallon can with a toilet seat on it on the flight deck - those are the first in-air toilets a pilot sees. The low man on the flight gets to empty the potty.
Another food cart would not be a problem.

A “lazy susan” type tray with a locked cover could be installed in the door should some unforseen need to pass something to the deck arise.

[Velocity]

@usedtobe

There is no reason why there could not be a 5 gallon can with a toilet seat on it on the flight deck - those are the first in-air toilets a pilot sees. The low man on the flight gets to empty the potty.

I think there would be vehement pilot opposition to such a practice.

[Broomstick]

@Hail_Ants

So it’s just come out thru the listening of the CVR that one of the pilots left the cockpit, and was then locked out. He can be heard first knocking on, then banging on, and finally trying to break down the cockpit door, all with no response. This means basically one thing to me: Pilot suicide.

Normally I don’t like to jump to conclusions but I can’t think of another too likely scenario in this case. The cockpit is not airtight so how could only the pilot become incapacitated so quickly via decompression etc.? Plus there’s no sound of this, or of a struggle so it wasn’t a terrorist hijacking/suicide.

@Trinopus

Why couldn’t it have just been a heart attack or stroke?

Yeah, maybe the pilot just dropped dead or stroked out or something? It’s rare but it has happened and it’s one of the reason airliners have TWO pilots on board, one and a spare so to speak. Yes, pilots get regular medical checks (every six months for airline guys) but stuff happens.

@Velocity

Why can’t the lavatory be part of a bigger enclosure area sealed off by hardened door? In other words, no door between cockpit and lavatory?

Because no one designed airliners like that and it’s either too expensive to retrofit or impossible to do so.

@GIGObuster

I would also think that makes sense as having an air attendant inside the cockpit would also increase the risks, not only on security but by attendants bumping into things in the cockpit or making other mistakes.

You seem to have a low opinion of flight attendents.

What, you think a flight attendant in the cockpit will be gyrating or dancing or something? If YOU found yourself in a cockpit in mid-flight would someone have to tell you “don’t touch anything” or would you be able to figure that out yourself?

@usedtobe

There is no reason why there could not be a 5 gallon can with a toilet seat on it on the flight deck - those are the first in-air toilets a pilot sees. The low man on the flight gets to empty the potty.

Unless turbulence empties it first.

Sure, pilot suicide could happen, so could a bunch of other things.

I’m still hoping they find the FDR, that could shed some more light on what happened.

[Richard_Pearse]

@usedtobe

There is no reason why there could not be a 5 gallon can with a toilet seat on it on the flight deck - those are the first in-air toilets a pilot sees. The low man on the flight gets to empty the potty.
Another food cart would not be a problem.

There are a few reasons.

1. There’s no room on most short haul aircraft for anything like that.
2. Personal privacy issues.
3. Hygiene.
4. This is where we work. How would you feel if you had a long-drop style toilet within 1 metre of your office chair or where ever you spend your work time?

There is a very basic conflict here. You can address the risk of terrorism by making it next to impossible for passengers to access the cockpit or you can address the risk of pilot suicide by making it next to impossible for the pilot lock someone out. You can’t have both in any meaningful way. So what risk do you want to mitigate? Which is higher? Which has the risk of killing more people?

Something else to consider is do we really need to change rules and designs every time someone finds a way to kill people? One of my pet peeves is our tendency, as a society, to enforce knee-jerk regulations every time something bad happens. Often the regulations don’t address the underlying issue anyway and are little more than appearing to be doing something.

[Richard_Pearse]

@Magiver

Because the pilot would not have descended at 3500 fpm and slowed the plane down in the process.

The slowing down is a result of getting lower. Basic descents are typically flown at a constant Mach which then automatically changes over to a constant indicated airspeed at some altitude. When descending with constant Mach the true airspeed gradually increases because the speed of sound is faster in denser air and when descending with constant indicated airspeed the true airspeed decreases.

Some example numbers:

Mach 0.76 at 35000’ = ~440 knots TAS
Mach 0.76 at 30000’ = ~450 knots TAS
290 knots IAS at 30000’ = ~450 knots TAS.
290 knots IAS at 10000’ = ~330 knots TAS.

IAS = indicated air speed.
TAS = true air speed.

The overall result is the true airspeed is significantly reduced at lower altitudes and it has nothing to do with any actions from the pilot.

The descent itself would need to be initiated by the pilot but once initiated it can continue without further action.

[mascaroni]

@Broomstick

What, you think a flight attendant in the cockpit will be gyrating or dancing or something? If YOU found yourself in a cockpit in mid-flight would someone have to tell you “don’t touch anything” or would you be able to figure that out yourself?

I remember in the late seventies, the Captain would invite passengers into cockpit (I got a great view of Mont Blanc). Obviously wouldn’t happen these days, but I would think the cabin crew would have been vetted and could be trusted not to do anything stupid.

[Richard_Pearse]

@mascaroni

I remember in the late seventies, the Captain would invite passengers into cockpit (I got a great view of Mont Blanc). Obviously wouldn’t happen these days, but I would think the cabin crew would have been vetted and could be trusted not to do anything stupid.

I sat in the flightdeck of a B767 in early 2000. A pity we can’t do that anymore.

When we go for a pee, the flight attendant comes in, the door gets locked, and they stand in the area behind the centre pedestal. Normally I’ll take my headset off, put the radios on the speaker and have a chat. There’s nothing they can do in a fit of clumsiness that can’t be undone quite quickly.

[Diceman]

The news report this morning said that the copilot was extremely new, with only about 660 hours of flight time.

Hopefully, he wasn’t a terrorist infiltrator or anything like that.

[JustinC]

Single pilot German copilot in control confirmed at live press conference, inclusive actioning descent voluntarily.

Captain requests access after returning from the toilet. No answer from PF.

Hard breathing is heard from cockpit till the end.

No comms with Marseille, nor reply to Squawk 7700 request. Other planes also fail to make contact.

Alarms are heard, followed by attempts heard to force the door.

Just before the final impact there is another bang possibly hitting a ridge.

No Mayday was ever sent out, nor was any response given to attempt at radio communications.

He had no reason to initiate the descent, no reason to refuse entry to the captain, no reason to refuse the comms.

What a sad day.

[Loach]

Deliberate attempt to destroy the aircraft.

I think at this point you can throw out the word “attempt.”

[gladtobeblazed]

If the copilot deliberately locked out the pilot I wonder if they will implement a 2-man solution to getting into the locked cockpit. One code for the flight crew, and a second one known only to an undercover air marshal.