leicsmac Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Except, they can't be locked out unless the person/people inside the cockpit want to lock them out. There is a keypad that allows them to enter from the outside, unless the person/people inside deactivate it. I don't normally ask this MC, but do you have a source for this one? Even though that seems like a good idea to prevent entry from a hostile party who might try to coerce a crew member, it seems like there should be some kind of override for such a system, just in case we do indeed have a situation where a pilot wishes to carry out a mass murder/suicide. In any case, this is still all speculation.
Merging Cultures Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 I don't normally ask this MC, but do you have a source for this one? Even though that seems like a good idea to prevent entry from a hostile party who might try to coerce a crew member, it seems like there should be some kind of override for such a system, just in case we do indeed have a situation where a pilot wishes to carry out a mass murder/suicide. In any case, this is still all speculation. No problem, it isn't confirmed this is the case, but it is very likely. More likely that in the 2 mins that the other pilot went to the loo the guy inside had some sort of heart attack etc that was silent and not picked up on the voice recorder. Also, on the A320 the joystick is at the side of the seat, so the guy would have to deactivate autopilot, and then fall on the joystick so that it fell straight forward. An A320 operating manual (different operator... but...): http://nicmosis.as.arizona.edu:8000/ECLIPSE_WEB/TSE2015/A320_DOCUMENTS/A320_Operating_Manual_PDF_N_FCOM_RJA_TF_N_EU__20130329_DSC_25.pdf When the flight crew does not respond to requests for entry, the door can also be unlocked by the cabin crew, by entering a two to seven-digit code (programmed by the airline) on the keypad, installed on the lateral side of the Forward Attendant Panel (FAP). Two articles mentioning the code: http://www.wsj.com/articles/search-resumes-for-germanwings-flight-9525-in-french-alps-1427272932 Many Airbus jets are fitted with crew-controlled locking mechanisms to prevent unauthorized access to the flight deck. While access from the cabin is permitted through a keypad code, the pilots can lock out external access for five minutes or longer using a switch in the cockpit, according to training materials reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. http://www.afr.com/business/transport/aviation/germanwings-plane-crash-a320-pilot-says-copilot-can-be-locked-out-of-cockpit-20150326-1m82vb An Australian A320 pilot, who declined to be named, said the locked flight deck of the aircraft could be entered using an emergency code on a keypad – in the case of the pilot flying the aircraft being incapacitated, the door will automatically open after a set period of time if the correct code is entered. However, in the event the pilot flying the aircraft does not want the other pilot to enter the flight deck, the one in the cockpit has the ability to block entry if he reacts before the door would open automatically.
leicsmac Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 No problem, it isn't confirmed this is the case, but it is very likely. More likely that in the 2 mins that the other pilot went to the loo the guy inside had some sort of heart attack etc that was silent and not picked up on the voice recorder. Also, on the A320 the joystick is at the side of the seat, so the guy would have to deactivate autopilot, and then fall on the joystick so that it fell straight forward. A320 operating manual: http://nicmosis.as.arizona.edu:8000/ECLIPSE_WEB/TSE2015/A320_DOCUMENTS/A320_Operating_Manual_PDF_N_FCOM_RJA_TF_N_EU__20130329_DSC_25.pdf When the flight crew does not respond to requests for entry, the door can also be unlocked by the cabin crew, by entering a two to seven-digit code (programmed by the airline) on the keypad, installed on the lateral side of the Forward Attendant Panel (FAP). Two articles mentioning the code: http://www.wsj.com/articles/search-resumes-for-germanwings-flight-9525-in-french-alps-1427272932 Many Airbus jets are fitted with crew-controlled locking mechanisms to prevent unauthorized access to the flight deck. While access from the cabin is permitted through a keypad code, the pilots can lock out external access for five minutes or longer using a switch in the cockpit, according to training materials reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. http://www.afr.com/business/transport/aviation/germanwings-plane-crash-a320-pilot-says-copilot-can-be-locked-out-of-cockpit-20150326-1m82vb An Australian A320 pilot, who declined to be named, said the locked flight deck of the aircraft could be entered using an emergency code on a keypad – in the case of the pilot flying the aircraft being incapacitated, the door will automatically open after a set period of time if the correct code is entered. However, in the event the pilot flying the aircraft does not want the other pilot to enter the flight deck, the one in the cockpit has the ability to block entry if he reacts before the door would open automatically. Thanks for that. I knew that the A320 was sidestick already so a medical problem would be unlikely. That does seem pretty dangerous that a single pilot can bar entry to the cockpit in that fashion for an indefinite period of time, even though s/he has to consciously keep doing it. Has the potential for something awful to happen, even if the idea is sound.
Guest MattP Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Thanks for that. I knew that the A320 was sidestick already so a medical problem would be unlikely. That does seem pretty dangerous that a single pilot can bar entry to the cockpit in that fashion for an indefinite period of time, even though s/he has to consciously keep doing it. Has the potential for something awful to happen, even if the idea is sound. When you think about it it's not really is it? Pilots are flying the plane and have the lives of the passengers in their hands, we just have to trust them. If a pilot is going to do something terrible he's going to do regardless of what procedures we put in place, if he can't lock someone out he'll probably just knock out his co-pilot or something and do it that way.
Merging Cultures Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Thanks for that. I knew that the A320 was sidestick already so a medical problem would be unlikely. That does seem pretty dangerous that a single pilot can bar entry to the cockpit in that fashion for an indefinite period of time, even though s/he has to consciously keep doing it. Has the potential for something awful to happen, even if the idea is sound. Apparently, the override can be set for 5-20 mins. I haven't read anything about it being for a limited number of overrides, but you'd think that there would be someway to deal with that. Otherwise as you say someone could indefinitely keep overriding the system. The only other explanation I can think of is that something wasn't connected properly after the maintenance the day before. But then the plane would fall out the sky rather than gradually descend. All speculation though. Very sad.
leicsmac Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 When you think about it it's not really is it? Pilots are flying the plane and have the lives of the passengers in their hands, we just have to trust them. If a pilot is going to do something terrible he's going to do regardless of what procedures we put in place, if he can't lock someone out he'll probably just knock out his co-pilot or something and do it that way. That's fair enough - you have to balance the risk of the pilots doing something terrible or one of the (or a group of) passengers doing something likewise. I guess it's not possible to have a perfectly foolproof system in this case. I still find the media jumping to conclusions that this was a nefarious act loathsome, though. But fear sells, as I said.
Guest MattP Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 That's fair enough - you have to balance the risk of the pilots doing something terrible or one of the (or a group of) passengers doing something likewise. I guess it's not possible to have a perfectly foolproof system in this case. I still find the media jumping to conclusions that this was a nefarious act loathsome, though. But fear sells, as I said. I think that's harsh, these comments and conclusions are apparantly from a leading source in the investigation, they aren't jumping to them. They wouldn't be doing a journalists job properly if they weren't reporting it.
Jimothy Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Seems the co-pilot took sole control and intentionally started the decent. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32063587
Guest Kopfkino Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Being confirmed by Marseille prosecutor now. Captain left for the toilet, FO delibrately initiated the descent. Captain tried to get back in, no response from the cockpit. Could hear breathing in the cockpit right up until impact, ATC comms could be heard but were ignored. The alarms were sounding and more violent attempts to open the door were heard. Screams and the very first impact were heard and then silence
Merging Cultures Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 It's awful. I can't imagine how terrified people were.
ramboacdc Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Being confirmed by Marseille prosecutor now. Captain left for the toilet, FO delibrately initiated the descent. Captain tried to get back in, no response from the cockpit. Could hear breathing in the cockpit right up until impact, ATC comms could be heard but were ignored. The alarms were sounding and more violent attempts to open the door were heard. Screams and the very first impact were heard and then silence very first impact? so it hit the ground, bounced, then exploded? i was under the impression it hit the side of the mountain nose first. i refuse to believe this but i honestly don't know why.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 very first impact? so it hit the ground, bounced, then exploded? i was under the impression it hit the side of the mountain nose first. i refuse to believe this but i honestly don't know why. I think it means the sound of the nose hitting the side of the mountain or something, I'm not entirely sure tbh
Babylon Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 very first impact? so it hit the ground, bounced, then exploded? i was under the impression it hit the side of the mountain nose first. Eh? I would imagine it means the sound of first contact, at which point all the micorphones etc would get destroyed.
ramboacdc Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Eh? I would imagine it means the sound of first contact, at which point all the micorphones etc would get destroyed. thats what i thought. when they say "first impact" then more noise then silence says to me they clipped something first. hit the ground and somehow bounced, ripped a wing off on a mountain and crashed. god knows.
Babylon Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 thats what i thought. when they say "first impact" then more noise then silence says to me they clipped something first. hit the ground and somehow bounced, ripped a wing off on a mountain and crashed. god knows. I think you're reading too much into it. First impact is first impact, it doesn't suggest a second impact.
MC Prussian Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 What a dick - deliberately sacrificing a plane full of people! Authorities, however, claim it is no suicide.
ramboacdc Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 I think you're reading too much into it. First impact is first impact, it doesn't suggest a second impact. see quote below Being confirmed by Marseille prosecutor now. Captain left for the toilet, FO delibrately initiated the descent. Captain tried to get back in, no response from the cockpit. Could hear breathing in the cockpit right up until impact, ATC comms could be heard but were ignored. The alarms were sounding and more violent attempts to open the door were heard. Screams and the very first impact were heard and then silence to you does that suggest the sound of a bang then silence then? i see your point i just thought it was like bang...bang silence
Babylon Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 see quote below to you does that suggest the sound of a bang then silence then? i see your point i just thought it was like bang...bang silence Screams, Impact, Silence is what it says to me.
kingfox Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Bet that was the last thing people expected. Sending a plane down deliberately, well and truly awful.
ramboacdc Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Screams, Impact, Silence is what it says to me. just seems odd to hear the impact. planes dont blow up slowly. would have thought it would be (for arguments sake) talk talk silence. not talk talk bang silence. you are right i am looking into this too deep
purpleronnie Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Just before the final impact one can heard what appears to be the first impact of the plane on a mountain top.
leicsmac Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 I think that's harsh, these comments and conclusions are apparantly from a leading source in the investigation, they aren't jumping to them. They wouldn't be doing a journalists job properly if they weren't reporting it. Their job is to report facts, not hearsay and speculation dressed up as such and not backed by evidence. They do that way too often when there's an angle to pursue that can sell. When you're dealing with a massive tragedy like this, and then they report these matters without evidence in their search for an angle, disregarding the human cost of it all...that's what I find loathsome. It seems disrespectful to the dead, happens much too often, and it creates fear when sometimes there is no reason for any. Once it's confirmed that foul play was involved here (and it's looking increasingly likely to be the case), that's the time to break out the 'terrorist act' line - not before
MPH Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 Their job is to report facts, not hearsay and speculation dressed up as such and not backed by evidence. They do that way too often when there's an angle to pursue that can sell. When you're dealing with a massive tragedy like this, and then they report these matters without evidence in their search for an angle, disregarding the human cost of it all...that's what I find loathsome. It seems disrespectful to the dead, happens much too often, and it creates fear when sometimes there is no reason for any. Once it's confirmed that foul play was involved here (and it's looking increasingly likely to be the case), that's the time to break out the 'terrorist act' line - not before No speculation, no heresay, just an investigator who didnt want to be named until the official report was out. what sickens me is what is now being reported by the BBC website and what now appears to be offivicial........ Mr Robin said there was "absolute silence in the cockpit" as the pilot fought to re-enter it. However, passengers could be heard screaming just before the crash, he added Those poor people It is now very deliberate, apparently.... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32063587
leicsmac Posted 26 March 2015 Posted 26 March 2015 No speculation, no heresay, just an investigator who didnt want to be named until the official report was out. what sickens me is what is now being reported by the BBC website and what now appears to be offivicial........ Mr Robin said there was "absolute silence in the cockpit" as the pilot fought to re-enter it. However, passengers could be heard screaming just before the crash, he added Those poor people It is now very deliberate, apparently.... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32063587 If the investigator wasn't sure enough of things to have their name on it, then s/he should have waited for the official line too. Again, 'unnamed sources' can so easily be made up - though, again, not as it turns out in this case. It does sound very much like a deliberate act of foul play. Appalling.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.