dutchroll Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Yeah it is the nature of the beast to an extent. But some blokes take it several steps too far. That gets tiring after a few hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Perry Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Yeah it is the nature of the beast to an extent. But some blokes take it several steps too far. That gets tiring after a few hours. Sorry to keep hanging on your coat tails Dutch, . . . . but I guess it could be VERY tiring if you are getting the crap from a Captain,. . . .but if it's coming from a subordinate, then I would invoke a favourite Australian saying I learned well when there,. . . . PYHI. ( Pull yer 'ead in . . . ) It's now a popular vernacular item at my local airfield. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Well I hate to be seen as sexist but I have a daughter and when she's in that state it I'd rather negotiate with a terrorist. Not sexist at all Mate, life facts are facts. My missus would be a prime example to support the notion, thank goodness she's past her time now. Would often get extremely irrational and very violent 2 or 3 days before and lucky I have a bloody hard head. The hotel just down the road know's me by my first name from staying there 1 or 2 nights a month. I've flown with a lady pilot in the right seat whilst ferrying, and I have to say, that, even on a long leg, Pictures of said legs not showing ...... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red750 Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 German newspaper Express.de reports that co-pilot Andreas Lubitz may have spiked the flight captain's coffee with a diuretic drug, to increase his need to go to the toilet and leave the cockpit during the doomed flight from Barcelona to Dusseldorf. Investigators reportedly found evidence that the 27-year-old, who had a history of depression, had surfed the internet for information about the drug - which increases the need to urinate - before the murder-suicide at the controls of the airbus A320 on March 24. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Today at 40,000 ft I went for a loo break. When the young male hostie came in & sat on the jumpseat he was asked "What would you do if the plane nosed over and the remaining pilot doesn't do anything?" Answer: "Errrrrm.........reach over, grab the stick, and pull back on it?" Minute or 2 explaining that this really wasn't a good idea at 40,000 ft, and what's wrong with verbalising your concern first, or tapping the guy and saying "hey are you ok?" Then he was asked: "What if alarms went off and the pilot still wouldn't respond to it?" Answer: "Ummm I'd probably scream a lot." I made it a really quick toilet break. 1 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgmwa Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Hope that hostie isn't on any flight I'm on. Maybe you should ask for an older female hostie next time, Dutch. She'd probably do better. Still, it really shows what a nonsense it is to have an untrained person in the cockpit and say `problem solved'. They should at least be taught how to operate the door locking system to ensure they can always let the other pilot back in, because that's probably about all they could realistically do in an emergency. rgmwa 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Doris Day can land them. Seriously ....... what a dumb response Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 What's the cheapest fix: broaden the training of hosties, increase surveillance of pilots or install a bottle in the flight deck? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Nev, at post 282 you've got 6,666 likes! You have the mark of the beast and then some! You are now fully qualified to breath fire and brimstone over us all. Old K, you're gonna upset the lady captains with thinking like that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 What's the cheapest fix: broaden the training of hosties, increase surveillance of pilots or install a bottle in the flight deck? It 'depends' Ok that was meant to be a slight pun suggesting adult nappies (diapers for those of you prefer) Don't ask me how I know the brand name......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Well, we all (or most of us anyway) know that it has been policy-by-decree from the Government to address "adverse public perception". However when you get an untrained jumpseater saying that if the plane starts descending and they don't think the pilot is responding, that they should reach over and pull back on the stick at high altitude, well that has serious safety implications. You'd be more likely to survive if they did nothing, at least initially! The Germanwings disaster was effectively a "quadruple failure", which are generally highly improbable. 1. History of mental illness wasn't correctly acted on or monitored 2. Ended up extremely suicidal 3. Ended up murderously suicidal towards innocent strangers (this is very unusual even for someone who is suicidal) 4. Managed to get other pilot to leave & lock him out without giving away any hints through unusual behaviour etc They really need to address failure #1 at the root of everything. At some point they really should address failure #4 too, through "smarter" cockpit access systems for flight crew but I suspect that will be expensive. A system needs to allow goodies (authorised people) in, but keep others out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted April 10, 2015 Author Share Posted April 10, 2015 Today at 40,000 ft I went for a loo break. When the young male hostie came in & sat on the jumpseat he was asked"What would you do if the plane nosed over and the remaining pilot doesn't do anything?" Answer: "Errrrrm.........reach over, grab the stick, and pull back on it?" Minute or 2 explaining that this really wasn't a good idea at 40,000 ft, and what's wrong with verbalising your concern first, or tapping the guy and saying "hey are you ok?" Then he was asked: "What if alarms went off and the pilot still wouldn't respond to it?" Answer: "Ummm I'd probably scream a lot." I made it a really quick toilet break. And CASA signed off on this policy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Nev, at post 282 you've got 6,666 likes! You have the mark of the beast and then some! You are now fully qualified to breath fire and brimstone over us all.Old K, you're gonna upset the lady captains with thinking like that. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff13 Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 http://www.shewee.com/ Hardly even a challenge to the modern woman. A 2 litre milk bottle is normally good for the trip Adelaide to Brisbane in a B/Double, approx 20 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 The breadth of information available here is truly astounding! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 And CASA signed off on this policy? I don't think CASA had any choice. It was mandated by the Federal Government after about 5 seconds of thought went into it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted April 10, 2015 Author Share Posted April 10, 2015 Unbelievable policy and everyone thought Abbott was going to be some sort of steady well considered leader 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Shows why politicians should keep out of things that require knowledge and investigation beyond the 3 word approach to a vote catching technique. Aviation and stupidity make bad bedfellows. Truss should retire. (as well as a few others). Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnm Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 ........ I disagree .............. thank god for a democracy I think if pilots wear a nappy they exempt themselves from going to the toilet - and I'd suspect some probably do anyway - who knows (they have all worn them before anyway) If there was a fill in person on the A320 tragedy .................. this entire thread may not of even of been posted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Perry Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 [ATTACH=full]35011[/ATTACH] Marty,. . . why oh why would you need a pee bottle which detailed the pee quantity with markings on the side of the bottle. . . .d'you think the accident investigators are perverts ? ? ? ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Marty,. . . why oh why would you need a pee bottle which detailed the pee quantity with markings on the side of the bottle. . . .d'you think the accident investigators are perverts ? ? ? ? I believe the markings may come in useful for hospital use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Perry Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 I believe the markings may come in useful for hospital use. Assuming you don't spill the damn thing whilst you are crashing throught the trees. . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 ........ I disagree .............. thank god for a democracyIf there was a fill in person on the A320 tragedy .................. this entire thread may not of even of been posted I'm not sure you've considered the safety ramifications of an untrained person thinking they can just reach over and pull on the sidestick of an Airbus which has started descending and where the pilot is unresponsive. Even if everything else is working normally, if they weren't screaming before, they'll certainly start doing so when they pull the sidestick back! With the Germanwings tragedy, I have serious doubts as to whether an untrained person would've achieved anything at all. It is becoming clearer that Lubitz wanted to die and planned well ahead of time to destroy the aircraft and everyone on board. There are any number of ways of doing this, second person in cockpit or not. So this is the sequence: 1. One-in-a-billion odds (whatever number you choose, they're tiny and if you consider them too large, locking yourself in your room is probably warranted) coincide of a murderously suicidal pilot locking out other pilot and destroying aircraft with everyone on board. 2. Very dubious that 2nd person would've prevented it as this pilot had researched and pre-planned his action to guarantee success. 3. Government introduces people into cockpit without training who think they can just yank back control stick of large jet at 35,000-40,000ft if other pilot is unresponsive. On even a basic risk-analysis, this is very unsound. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happyflyer Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 Surely the idea of putting a non pilot crew member in with the remaining pilot is just to open the door and scream for help if he does something strange. I don't think anyone expected the hostie to fly the plane. The remaining pilot is in his seat with seat belt on. I would think he could not do anything to the hostie without sliding the seat back and taking of the belt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff13 Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 Surely the idea of putting a non pilot crew member in with the remaining pilot is just to open the door and scream for help if he does something strange. I don't think anyone expected the hostie to fly the plane. The remaining pilot is in his seat with seat belt on. I would think he could not do anything to the hostie without sliding the seat back and taking of the belt. That is the way I see it happening. They are there to provide access to the other pilot or in this case, prevent a lockout. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now