fly_tornado Posted April 11, 2015 Author Share Posted April 11, 2015 Hypothetical: a crazy pilot pulls a full power 6G wingover and points the plane into an extreme inverted dive or spiral dive. how does the rest of the crew restore order? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 Also if you are talking about odds, doesn't introducing another person to the cockpit increase your chance of getting a suicidal maniac in there? Or are cabin crew exempt from all that crazy emotional instability? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted April 11, 2015 Author Share Posted April 11, 2015 how easy would it be to make a garrote out of a pair of shoe laces Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 FT if you come up with too many clever things like that you might not find many people offering you flights:wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 I don't think CASA had any choice. It was mandated by the Federal Government after about 5 seconds of thought went into it. I was under the impression that CASA tells the Govt what they (CASA) will do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Perry Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 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. Well Geoff,. . .That's probably Govt. thinking anyway,. . .assuming they have actually carefully THOUGHT about it with some serious technical advice, and not just knee-jerked in a cynical attempt to placate public opinion without first looking into what would REALLY be required for a non-pilot to "provide access" . . . to make things appear to the travelling public that it is all OK now. . . . If cabin staff members are to ensure the return of the "other" pilot, short of leaving the door open,. . . then would this not require all of them to undergo training on the type of aircraft, so that they would have at least the first part of ANY idea at all how the cockpit locking system actually worked on that type of aircraft ? This will be quite a difficult problem to solve in the short term, as it is a lot more complex than it first seems I think. . . . as has been said before,. . .a suicidal pilot could place a large RPT aircraft into a fairly non-recoverable flight condition in a very short time. . . . Not trying to detract from the value of your post in any way mate,. . .Just wondering . . . Cheers. . . . Phil 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted April 11, 2015 Author Share Posted April 11, 2015 FT if you come up with too many clever things like that you might not find many people offering you flights:wink: Grab a champagne flute from 1st class, break it and shiv the pilot in the neck, he might not die but he won't be much resistance if he is bleeding out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harbourtrade Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Surely the technology is there that should a pilot leave the flight deck the parameters of the flight path are locked until the pilot (or second person) returns. The reset procedure requiring two people to unlock it simultaneously. The "locked" flight path is time locked for say 5 or 10 minutes and then Automatically unlocks. Enough time for the pilot to return. Introducing a trolley dolly isn't real very clever. Alternative Access to ensure a pilot cannot be permanently Locked out via the door has been covered many times here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted April 12, 2015 Author Share Posted April 12, 2015 2nd cockpit is the go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 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. Yes this is quite true. However you'd be shocked to learn how many don't get that concept. Another friend of mine who flies Boeings relayed to me that one of the girls they had up there "minding" him thought that it was her job to takeover control of the plane if he went unconscious. Therein lies the problem. It's bigger than most people think or believe, too, but this is what happens with hasty reactions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red750 Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 one of the girls they had up there "minding" him thought that it was her job to takeover control of the plane if he went Surely that's a matter of training, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Surely that's a matter of training, though. It's both training and selection criteria. The modern selection criteria for a part-time flight attendant (we essentially don't take them full time any more) is, well, "basic" let's say. Training is cut to the bone. This is reality in a commercial airline under certain modern day managerial styles. So yeah it's training, which is considered a "cost" by the bean-counters. And costs must be minimised. I'm serious - this is how they view it! It's also selection criteria, but to tighten the selection criteria is also considered a "cost" because the recruitment pool gets dramatically shallower and higher incentives must be offered to find the right people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octave Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 It's both training and selection criteria. The modern selection criteria for a part-time flight attendant (we essentially don't take them full time any more) is, well, "basic" let's say. Training is cut to the bone. This is reality in a commercial airline under certain modern day managerial styles.So yeah it's training, which is considered a "cost" by the bean-counters. And costs must be minimised. I'm serious - this is how they view it! It's also selection criteria, but to tighten the selection criteria is also considered a "cost" because the recruitment pool gets dramatically shallower and higher incentives must be offered to find the right people. cabin crew are already trained to effectively evacuate an aircraft in adverse conditions, I don't see that it would be much of a stretch to be trained how to operate a flight deck door. There seems to be an impression that the reason for a cabin crew member being present on the flight deck when one pilot steps out is to fly the plane, I don't believe this is the intention of the new regs. I recently read an interview with an anonymous pilot who claimed that on some occasions he had stepped out of the flight deck on a long haul flight and returned to find the other crew member had nodded off. This seems to me to be a reasonable reason for this rule. In terms of the Germanwing incident, who knows what difference this rule would have made, but it seems to me that the copilot waited for until he was alone in the cockpit presumably because he did not want to have to physically overpower the captain. The question is would the presence of a cabin crew member that would need to be overpowered in order to prevent them from opening the door have made a difference? Who knows, but it certainly would not have made matters worse. I find it a little disturbing that in this conversation cabin crew seem to be characterized as being dumb bimbos, but these are the people who are supposed to be able to evacuate a burning plane. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 I find it a little disturbing that in this conversation cabin crew seem to be characterized as being dumb bimbos, but these are the people who are supposed to be able to evacuate a burning plane. Some are. Some are not. I'm always very careful to make it clear that I have worked with some very good cabin crew. Regrettably the opposite is true too. The "old salt" Cabin Managers/Pursers will be the first to agree with me. I've had, on a number of occasions, the Cabin Manager (we call them the "CSM") come up to the cockpit and say "I need a sanity break - I'm about to strangle one of our crew". It's just a sign of the times and a very broad selection criteria. And the consequence of this is that instilling common sense and airmanship under certain scenarios gets complicated. Surely the technology is there that should a pilot leave the flight deck the parameters of the flight path are locked until the pilot (or second person) returns. That could get interesting if the aircraft gets a TCAS Resolution Advisory while the flight path is locked! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bennyboy320 Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Surely the technology is there that should a pilot leave the flight deck the parameters of the flight path are locked until the pilot (or second person) returns.The reset procedure requiring two people to unlock it simultaneously. The "locked" flight path is time locked for say 5 or 10 minutes and then Automatically unlocks. Enough time for the pilot to return. Introducing a trolley dolly isn't real very clever. Alternative Access to ensure a pilot cannot be permanently Locked out via the door has been covered many times here Great idea, except for as stated above a TCAS RA or an engine failure, unreliable airspeed, smoke & fumes, depressurization, weather deviation, ATC altitude or heading change just to name a few. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 ...The "old salt" Cabin Managers/Pursers will be the first to agree with me. I've had, on a number of occasions, the Cabin Manager (we call them the "CSM") come up to the cockpit and say "I need a sanity break - I'm about to strangle one of our crew"... Aircrew are not alone there Dutch. Plenty of other occupations have the same challenges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 That could get interesting if the aircraft gets a TCAS Resolution Advisory while the flight path is locked! Interesting point though - instead of locking the flight path, how about setting a "hard deck" altitude which is higher than any mountains within 15 minutes flight time? That way full maneouvrability is still assured, but it can't be flown into terrain. The only problem would be if a pilot got the runs close to approach time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harbourtrade Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Pilots don't leave the flight deck unless they are comfortable to do so, ie if the circumstances are safe to do so. I think to "lock "a flight path for 5 minutes would be more than safe. Let's face it. Flight paths are "locked" (autopilot) 99% of the time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Perry Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Surely the technology is there that should a pilot leave the flight deck the parameters of the flight path are locked until the pilot (or second person) returns.The reset procedure requiring two people to unlock it simultaneously. The "locked" flight path is time locked for say 5 or 10 minutes and then Automatically unlocks. Enough time for the pilot to return. Introducing a trolley dolly isn't real very clever. Alternative Access to ensure a pilot cannot be permanently Locked out via the door has been covered many times here OK,. . .not a BAD idea,. . . .then someone asks . . . ." What about if there was a sudden emergency, requiring a rapid change of direction / level ? " . . . . . five or ten minutes is a little too long I would suggest,. . . Another worthy poster on this thread, reckoned that he could place an aircraft in a pretty well unrecoverable condition of flight in under thirty seconds. . . . . NEXT IDEA . . . . .? Intrinsically good thinking,. . . . but too many caveats. ( BTW. . . I KNOW he won't really do this, . . .otherwise he would not have told us about it. . . ) Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Pilots don't leave the flight deck unless they are comfortable to do so, ie if the circumstances are safe to do so. I think to "lock "a flight path for 5 minutes would be more than safe. Let's face it. Flight paths are "locked" (autopilot) 99% of the time. The autopilot doesn't lock the flight path. It just flies the plane according to the instructions the pilot has given it. Lubitz crashed the A320 into the mountainside on autopilot. A TCAS RA requires disconnection of the autopilot and changing the flight path in accordance with the TCAS commands within 5 seconds. A depressurisation is flown on autopilot but requires immediate pilot input (autopilot mode changes). An engine failure in the cruise is also flown on autopilot but requires pilot input (autopilot mode changes) within around 30-60 seconds to avoid excessive speed loss. A severe turbulence encounter requires immediate pilot input and may cause the autopilot to disconnect all by itself. During which 5 minute period are you going to exclude these probabilities? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harbourtrade Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 I wonder (clearly I don't know for sure and you would have a better idea) how many times any of the above has happened when a pilot takes a considered brief break to go to the toilet. We do know how many times a pilot has driven an aircraft into the ground deliberately when one pilot has left the cockpit. I would assume should any of the situations occur which you suggest the "lock out" would "unlock" In any case, no doubt in the not too far away future, systems will be in place that prevent pilot suicides/murder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 5 days ago the other pilot was having a break while I was in the seat, with a flight attendant in the jumpseat. ATC blurted out a bunch of instructions including a descent to be commenced immediately for a looming traffic conflict, a simultaneous heading change, and a reduction in speed for sequencing. We were heading off in another direction, descending, decelerating, and I had made 4 selections on the autopilot pilot control panel plus a radio reply within about 5-10 seconds and before the flight attendant even knew what was happening. In fact they had continued talking during all of this and I have no idea what they actually said! I think better and smarter access technology to the cockpit will eventually be the answer. I don't believe all the issues and counter-issues can be fixed procedurally. It's just too complicated. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 It's so B silly I can't believe it is actually happening. ( This response with the extra person) How much training have they had? What specific purpose are they there for?. Why are they sitting in a pilot seat in flight? Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harbourtrade Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Understood Dutchroll. But yes, with the brave new world that is ahead of us with satellite control systems, integrated air traffic control, aircraft "talking" to each other (eg google cars) etc etc it is inevitable eventually that pilots will have less and less control. Interesting times ahead of us. We are all too aware of how many pilots have killed us but it would also be interesting to know ow many times pilots have saved us. And, are they saving us from the dangers caused by other pilots? On the other hand, it would be difficult to imagine a computer saving us from a situation like QF 32. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Many situations where "pilot error" is blamed, on fuller investigation are anything but. He/she is usually deceased, and can't conduct a suitable defence. The $ drives policy in Airlines. Maintenance and training costs are the first targeted. Accountants run the show and their ignorance of operational matters are legend. People buy tickets based on price and then complain the airline is not up to scratch ..Nev 3 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