As the previous thread got quite long I created Part 14 to continue the conversation.

We kindly ask that you remain respectful of everybody. This is a hot topic and things easily get heated.

May all the victims rest in peace.

Regards,
Ben Soriano

Germanwings A320 Crashed Enroute BCN-DUS - Part 13 (by American 767 Mar 28 2015 in Civil Aviation)

In reference to the detached retina story, this appears to be false.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32113507

Other articles indicate one doctor thought the vision problem might be psychosomatic.

From the end of the last thread:

The German prosecutors have just said that Lubitz had been treated because of a depression with suicidal tendencies BEFORE he started his pilot training. The later diagnosis during the training was depression without suicidal tendency.

Seems to me either the doctors employed by Germanwings performing the according (to this pass remark) mandatory more often and thorough health exams on Lubitz didnt dig deep, or he was a great actor.

[Quoting na (Reply 217):
[[Quoting md11engineer (Reply 216):
While this would have posibly avoided this tragedy, I doubt that the public in Germany wouldaccept this idea.]]


As sad as this event is, its singular, and not worth to abolish the German doctor´s oath of confidentiality in a haste. It would probably not even have avoided the tragedy as likely no doctor knew how serious his stability really was. And maybe it was just the recent split-up with his girlfriend which triggered this horrible event. Who knows, otherwise he probably wouldnt have done it that day and would have lost his license, at least temporarilly, within days.]



Without personally having any understanding of how things work in Germany, wouldn't it be fair to say in the future adopting a similar practice to that which Sweden uses (keeping a solid record within the department of transportation of potentially psychotic individuals) would be greatly beneficial to the general public worldwide?

I'm not entirely sure that it would even need to go into too many specific details to be somewhat effective. I'm aware that Lubitz knew what to say and how to say it in order to dupe the professionals, but there were still clear indictators of personal troubles that even he was unable to mask, like his gap in training and work experience. I figure if they set the bar fairly low and said for instance having a history of suicidal ideation alone in itself, or any other substantial suspicion that things within his mind weren't entirely on the up and up in general, then he wouldn't be eligible to fly any sort of plane commercially, let alone for a major airline?

I'm guessing too that it wouldn't be entirely invasive to be interviewing pilots throughout their training as well as pilots in general several times a year just to "check up" on them and see how things are going, especially if they're missing an unusual amount of shifts at work, or have in the past indicated emotional distress related to work. The more we learn about Lubitz having been diagnosed with severe burnout syndrome, and having a period of time lapse where he fought severe depression and had suicidal tendencies, the more I think that these sort of issues should hopefully be on the radar of every airline currently employing pilots, especially those recruiting them and training them in house to employ them down the road.

And yes, I'm aware that pilots aren't usually the type to be willing to offer up details relating to these things, but would imagine that occasionally interviewing family, doctors, and a couple of personal references for such broad things that are relevant to the survival of a plane load of people e.g. "has pilot x ever openly expressed the thought of possibly wanting to kill himself" might not be entirely out of line. When a friend of mine joined the US Navy, I was asked to meet with a Navy official for an interview about him, and for over an hour they asked me the most in depth and downright bizarre questions about him in order to try and weed him out as a possible future troublemaker, or as a negative type who could potentially try and infiltrate the government, etc.

I personally feel that if it is just as important to the Navy here in the U.S. to go to such great lengths to interview a personal reference at length prior to accepting someone for general training, that the same should hold true of an airline willing to put a person in control of the lives of dozens if not hundreds of people at a single time. I understand that the cost of this practice worldwide would be massive, but then again so is the cost of another intentional crash like this one to an airline in the future.

Thoughts?

Best,

OMP777X

From yahoo.com referring at an article about the timeline of events:

"- The plane dropped gradually from around 10-12,000 metres to 2,000 slowly enough, Robin said, that passengers would have been unaware anything was wrong.

"I think the victims were only aware at the very last moment. The screams are heard only in the last instants before the impact," said Robin."


I find it hard to understand how the pax didn't know until the last minute that something was happening. If one is sitting on a single aisle plane the size of the A320, it seems to me that everyone would notice and react to a pilot yelling and banging at the cockpit door.

So much of this tragedy makes no sense to me.

May be its possible not to be noticed if the cabin altitude will stay the same.
Is that possible ?

Regarding the press release from German authorities, it says he was treated for suicide ideas before he got his license. That doesn't include the flight training part then. After he got the license, he was JUST treated and often absent from work, but he did not had the ideas anymore. Lufthansa don't want to comment. How strange...

For me this arrogant Lufthansa behavior of "we don't know" "we can't comment" is already proof enough that they will just admit what becomes public knowledge, instead of going out and admit that they made a mistake hiring this guy in the first place and that they knew about the suicide problem since this guy started flight training with them.


[Edited 2015-03-30 08:37:24]

[Edited 2015-03-30 09:14:43]

Quoting Womack17 (Reply 4):

Good thing is that the Germanwings planes from Lufthansa origin do not have any screens where speed, altitude and so on are visible. No flight show, for example.

Quoting Womack17 (Reply 4): "- The plane dropped gradually from around 10-12,000 metres to 2,000 slowly enough, Robin said, that passengers would have been unaware anything was wrong.

Depends if somebody a frequent flyer or interested in aviation. Many people are too bothered with talking to each other or listening to music and don't acknowledge changing engine noise, changing attitude, or decreasing altitude.

As a hearing-disabled guy I really depend on vision. Visually, I perceive stuff earlier than other people, and I'm very quick to react when I see a danger. On the other hand, I'm turtle-like when it comes to somebody who yells "Attention!!!!". I take my time to look around and assess the situation for myself...

Taking up the topic again: I'm often amazed at how better-hearing people miss a public announcement in a train, or fail to see information signs. They're too much entrenched in their 08/15 routine to notice details.


David

In my company in South Africa, they can ask for a doctor's examination if they notice a pattern of excessive use of sick
leave.
The doctor then will only say, you are fit for work or unfit. The details remain confidential.
I would think that its the same in Europe.
It would take quite a number of sick leave events for a company to demand a doctor's examination. Possibly in this case
the time for the company mandated examination was getting closer.

Arent all this quick conclusion and leaks highly suspicious, this is Europe not Asia or africa where such things might happen.

I can imagine that the Mayday (Air Crash Investigation) episode is already in the works.

Quoting na (Reply 2): Seems to me either the doctors employed by Germanwings performing the according (to this pass remark) mandatory more often and thorough health exams on Lubitz didnt dig deep, or he was a great actor.

While LH has company doctors, first, he was not forced to use them, even for his bi-annual medical exam (he could have used any aero medical examiner) and the company doctors fall under the same confidentiality rules as any other doctor.

As employees, unlike e.g. in Ireland, we can pick our doctors and still get them paid by our medical insurance. We can also go straight to a specialist without having to consult a GP first.

Jan

[Edited 2015-03-30 09:47:54]

[Edited 2015-03-30 09:48:15]

[Edited 2015-03-30 09:48:57]

Re-posted from end of part 13:

In chronically dis-organized Italy we cannot hide sick-leave from our employers: sick leave can only be prescribed by general practitioners appointed to do so, using on centralized public health IT system, and employers are automatically notified. Of course, the employer does not get any information about the diagnosis or prescribed medicaments (privacy regulations are very strict and focused on emplyee protection just as much as in Germany), but knows for sure if and when any emplyee is not fit for work.

I was surprised to learn that in "over-organized" Germany anyone can apparently hide a medical condition from their employer as easily as ripping a paper slip. Is that right?

Quoting seahawk (Reply 204): They had him marked for regular tests, seems he did pass those.

Do we know that for a fact?

[Edited 2015-03-30 10:24:31]

Yes. I know situations where I might want to goto work, even if a doctor considers me unfit. E.g. when I'm still in my probation period, where I can be fired without reason or notice given.

Jan

Quoting jollo (Reply 13): I was surprised to learn that in "over-organized" Germany anyone can apparently hide a medical condition from their employer as easily as ripping a paper slip. Is that right?

That's right, it's all paper based, although technically it would be not too difficult to provide the data electronically, since doctors send their bills to the health insurance electronically and employers sending also data to the health insurance of sick employees for getting refunds from the health system.

What's the latest news on the missing FDR? What is the thinking around what may have happened to the contents of the box...might it have been thrown clear of the crash site once it broke out of it's container? Or is there a fear lurking that it might never be found because it's been buried or even pulverized because it lost the protection of its container?

Quoting Womack17 (Reply 4): "- The plane dropped gradually from around 10-12,000 metres to 2,000 slowly enough, Robin said, that passengers would have been unaware anything was wrong. "I think the victims were only aware at the very last moment. The screams are heard only in the last instants before the impact," said Robin." I find it hard to understand how the pax didn't know until the last minute that something was happening.

The prosecutor said the pax were unaware that something was wrong, not that they didn't know something was happening.

Quoting Womack17 (Reply 4): If one is sitting on a single aisle plane the size of the A320, it seems to me that everyone would notice and react to a pilot yelling and banging at the cockpit door.

My reading of the press reports (i..e. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/682308/...es-of-ill-fated-germanwings-flight ) suggests to me that the banging and yelling didn't happen till relatively late in the sequence of events, about half way through the descent. The same reports indicate the pax were only screaming at the very end of the sequence. So, it seems the pax were confused about what was going on till almost the end of the sequence of events.

I am getting into this real late, so apologies if this is covered int eh previous 13 threads.

How far out were they from starting their initial descent? And did ATC ever notice his descent or tried to reach him by radio?

AFAIK they are a few minutes from TOD, hence the Captain went to the Lav.

I once, dated a woman who was smoking hot and very funny, in the second day I discovered a small box with medication, a very powerful antipsychotic .... never saw her again afterwards...

If the First Officer was on meds he should not be allowed to fly...

those secrets have allowed tons of tragedies, like the unending saga of pedophile priests for example, because confession secrecy, heck even psychologists adhere to that , and in my case when I saw someone at risk by their actions or lack of, I would notify my superiors ASAP.


TRB

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 19): If the First Officer was on meds he should not be allowed to fly...

Meds or not, this FO shouldn't have been flying. There are hundreds of others in the cockpit who work through minor anxiety, depression, etc and meds can be beneficial in some cases. The FAA agrees as some anti-depressants are approved to fly on after a monitoring period and continuing doctor surveillance.

Quoting Delta777Jet (Reply 5): For me this arrogant Lufthansa behavior of "we don't know" "we can't comment" is already proof enough that they will just admit what becomes public knowledge, instead of going out and admit that they made a mistake hiring this guy in the first place and that they knew about the suicide problem since this guy started flight training with them.

As it is an ongoing criminal investigation this is normal.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 12): I read this morning that new details of the CVR transcript reveal screaming started when the captain started banging on the door and yelling.

Realize, that if the captain was in the bathroom, some period of that 8 minute timespan elapsed while he was "taking care of business" ... upon emerging from the lavatory, to the time of impact, would be the timespan where he was trying to regain entry to the cockpit.

And one can reasonably presume that the more "urgent" attempts at doing so were very late, most certainly after audible warnings were going off.

If you've ever sat in first class when warnings go off, they're clearly audible right through the cockpit door and bulkhead.

LOUD

Between those warnings, and the captain's aggressive attempts to regain entry, you can be very sure that, towards the end, the passengers knew something was seriously amiss.

Quoting cloudboy (Reply 18): How far out were they from starting their initial descent? And did ATC ever notice his descent or tried to reach him by radio?

They reached cruise altitude (FL 380) before the FO locked out the CPT and commenced the descent.

ATC recognized the descent very quickly (secondary radar interrogates the transponder and gets the altitude that's selected in the autopilot).

They tried to reach him by radio, yes.


David

Quoting Womack17 (Reply 4): I find it hard to understand how the pax didn't know until the last minute that something was happening.

At first they wouldn't. I've been in airliners that have descended quite low for various reasons. One experience actually *did* start to have me concerned, although afterwards I guessed it must have just been weather-related. But flying JFK-NRT on ANA one flight, we descended from 35,000 to 23,000 feet. I felt it and the moving map showed it. Planes descend a couple thousand feet during cruise all the time, but after descending 12,000 feet, I was definitely starting to wonder if we had some kind of problem that the pilots hadn't told us about yet. But eventually we just went back up.

Anyway, so initially I'm sure if any pax noticed anything, it would be similar to my experience. Just some wondering if anything was going on, and only among those really paying attention. But passengers in the front would definitely see the captain knocking once that started, and would know pretty quickly that he couldn't get in. On the leaked transcript, the first passenger screams are supposedly heard when he starts really banging on the door. At that point I think there must have been quite a lot of worry in the cabin, and that was still several minutes before the accident.

The authorities have to say what they can to make the families of the passengers feel better about their loss - there's no point for them in pouring salt on the wounds. Making statements to the effect of it being quick and painless is one way to do that. In this case, the very final moment definitely was that. But I'm sure over the last several minutes of the flight, everybody must have known that something very dangerous was happening.

Quoting 777way


Arent all this quick conclusion and leaks highly suspicious, this is Europe not Asia or africa where such things might happen.


I have been wondering the same thing. I know some BOD level types at airlines and they are very surprised about the revelations.

Maybe this the Internet at its best or worst but seems like something else is going on.

Quoting American 767 (Thread starter): Depends if somebody a frequent flyer or interested in aviation. Many people are too bothered with talking to each other or listening to music and don't acknowledge changing engine noise, changing attitude, or decreasing altitude.

Very true. I think we sometimes forget that not everyone shares our interest (or knowledge) of civil aviation and procedures. From my experience the vast majority of people on a plane have very little clue (or interest in) what goes on behind the cockpit door, what the aircraft is doing, or even which phase of the flight they're in. I was amazed a couple of years ago when I was on a flight to Hamburg, and there was a couple of ladies in the row behind me that talked literally non-stop from the moment they sat down, to the moment the engines were shut down. When the call came to disembark, one of them remarked that she hadn't even realised we'd landed (and then continued her conversation). This was a watershed moment for me, because it demonstrated just how safe, reliable and frankly mundane air travel is nowadays, and how much we all take it for granted.

Quoting flytimbo77 (Reply 26): This was a watershed moment for me, because it demonstrated just how safe, reliable and frankly mundane air travel is nowadays, and how much we all take it for granted.

When people talk a lot it's usually because they're nervous.

I am sorry, but a pilot with suicidal tendancies should not be flying. Ever.

If it is not already, this type of illlness should be required to be reported to the airline by the doctor. I know we have patient confidentiality, but that has just lost 150 people their lives.

Quoting ComeAndGo (Reply 27): When people talk a lot it's usually because they're nervous.

That can be true, yes - but that wasn't the case here - it was quite clear that these two ladies were utterly oblivious to what was going on around them. It wasn't nervous chatter, it was just like listening to two people talking in a coffee shop. I guess, as they say 'you had to be there'  

Quoting Revelation (Reply 17): The prosecutor said the pax were unaware that something was wrong, not that they didn't know something was happening.

The prosecutor is just making that up to make people feel better. There may have not been yelling till the end, but any number of passengers and crew might have well noticed the plane's descent after reaching cruising altitude - and wondered what was happening. What could they do? Ask a crew member? They may well have done so. What could they do? The captain did what he could do. Nothing.

Germanwings/Lufthansa is looking like a seriously irresponsible employer to permit this disfunctional young man to be a co-pilot on one of their planes; especially with a policy in place allowing them to isolate themselves in the cockpit. Their representatives would have been advised to keep their mouths shut (a la Rolls Royce) rather than say things that soon after are shown to be fictions; Machiavellian spins. The buck stops with them, not the pilot, not the co-pilot. They have stuffed up big time. And they will pay big time. Quite rightly so.

Do we really need post after post after post from people second-guessing an employment decision that was made years ago and out of the jurisdiction they're familiar with? Next time you hindsighters bash "the media" for inaccurate reporting or senseless speculation, take a good long look at these threads and ask yourselves if you're not even worse.

The chain of events that lead to this crash may be very different from most others, but that doesn't mean it can't be analysed. You will have to wait for this process to finish. And even when the result is out, you will still need to tread very carefully before you pass judgement.

[Edited 2015-03-30 14:41:52]

if we could just pause for a moment we can summarize the following

the airbus A320 despite being over 20 years old was in perfect flying condition and was in no way responsible for the crash

the aircraft had no problems with its windshield causing hypoxia to the pilots onboard as suggested in the first reports

Quoting Delta777Jet (Reply 5): For me this arrogant Lufthansa behavior of "we don't know" "we can't comment" is already proof enough that they will just admit what becomes public knowledge

Not sure about Germany, but the US has HIPPA (healthcare privacy laws) that prevent release of private health records (mental or physical) to anyone other than parties specified by the patient.

Quoting antskip (Reply 30):

I have to agree with you. It's easy to "feel" when the plane starts decending, never mind you could clearly see it by looking out the window.

Also, this is a narrow body aircraft. The captain trying to get into the cockpit would have been in plain view of most of the cabin.

I'm sure the screaming only started when everyone realized it was too late. Bloody awful for everyone.

Quoting antskip (Reply 30): The prosecutor is just making that up to make people feel better. There may have not been yelling till the end, but any number of passengers and crew might have well noticed the plane's descent after reaching cruising altitude - and wondered what was happening.

Wondering what was happening is still different from being aware that something is wrong. I presume the prosecutor chose his words carefully, which is what I'd expect from a well-trained lawyer. I also presume he was using the most charitable phrasing he could come up with, and I am grateful he did. The reality becomes evident soon enough.

Quoting antskip (Reply 30): Their representatives would have been advised to keep their mouths shut (a la Rolls Royce) rather than say things that soon after are shown to be fictions; Machiavellian spins.

Sadly you may be correct. I personally like the fact that the LH CEO reacted as a human being instead of a corporate cog but time will tell if such a humanist approach will cause difficulties for his corporation.

These replies are to posts from the last thread part 13.

Quoting InsideMan (Reply 200): not that the mirror is a reputable newspaper, but apparently the passengers where screaming for quite a longer while (essentially when the captain started banging on the door) than was previously stated. The leak seems to have forced the hand of the BEA and procecutors once again.

The death was instant and they didn't know until the end bit was an obvious white lie which is why they don't like (legally/ethically) people leaking confidential investigation materials when I'm betting it was some media group getting inside contacts to spill all the beans.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 201): From the parents who noticed the number of plane tickets he had purchased to different destinations and the knife he had packed, to the authorities who received the communication from the guy about the "flaw" he found and how he should be hired as a security guard at the airport, and did nothing (they didn´t even check up on the guy) and, of course, didn´t address the flaw he pointed out and eventually used.

This is like saying a security researcher who provides information on a hypothetical vunrablity should goto jail because they might try and prove it in practice and kill people. Makes zero sense. The parents would not have been able to 1) know he packed a knife, 2) what tickets he was purchasing, 3) what he was even doing when he wasn't home.

The problem with that case is a real physical/procedural security vulnerability existed and it was not closed even after the perpetrator disclosed the vulnerability. To fix that security hole it would only take a note on the desk and a little sign saying no more bag pickup from this end of the desk. That is the real failure not the parents failing to perfectly watch their children's every waking move and purchase.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 201): So yes, the door is one factor to be looked at. But adding a rule worldwide that 2 people now need to be in the cockpit at all times is not enough. It´s a start, but not enough. How a society deals with the mentally ill vs privacy concerns, that are very valid, needs to be looked at and a debate should follow. Probably worldwide, and at least in how it relates to certain industries, not only aviation. Can you imagine an individual with such issues as it appears to be the case here in charge of a nuclear powerplant? Are we willing to tolerate another Chernobyl because of privacy issues? I think that is key. I have my views on this but will not share them just yet. But I do think that if such a debate does not take place, though, not much will be gained by devising better systems for cockpit entry/exit/security within.

A nuclear power plant is a slow moving beast a single individual wouldn't be able to cause a Chernobyl because Chernobyl was a horribly designed nuclear power plant that had a known catastrophic flaw that was not disclosed to the operators who unwittingly exploited an already discovered flaw to disastrous ends. There were also no mitigation strategies (the reactor, roof, ... were all flammable) and there was no containment structure.

Your creating a false set of issues while ignoring that there is a clear failure for a door to open to authorized users.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 206): I see. So you are going with the "childish sarcasm" method of having a discussion. Good. That tells me I´ve been right in only responding to the posts of certain people the last couple of days. I´ll make an exception here.

It isn't sarcasm it is serious is the person going to foresee the future and call the police if they did how exactly is the police going to act on a accusation off a vague statement from a second hand account?

Quoting AR385 (Reply 206): Well, if I see something in a house that is not an antibiotic or a OTC pain med, I´d be curious as to certain meds in the cabinet. Not if I am a one time guest, but if the owner of the house is the person I´m SLEEPING with, I´d be very curiouys. And look at THE LABEL. Besides, while there have been leaks on the media on what he was taking, and they mention other stuff, I won´t mention here, these days everybody knows the names of the common SSRIs prescribed. At the minimum. And the names of the the common anti-anxiety meds, and sleeping meds. You don´t? Don´t know where you´ve been hiding since Prozac hit the shelves, what, 2 DECADES AGO? And no, I´m not saying he was on Prozac...

So your saying she rummaged through his meds to go look it up on medscape? Why exactly would you need to do that again? You can't assume total surveillance from friends/co-workers/... (Your speaking entirely on hindsight with the knowledge his is a perp)

Quoting AR385 (Reply 206): So you are a Psychopharmacologist now? You know that for a fact?

No but I can read the internet,
http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/01/the-placebo-phenomenon
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/09/ma...zine/the-placebo-prescription.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/placeb...ly-prescribed-by-doctors-1.1410636

They are not effective for viral, bacteria, external physical conditions but for the mind related issues like pain and mental health they can be very effective. It is called "Common knowledge" not hindsight.

http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/2...n-if-you-know-theyre-fake-but-how/

See I'm not speaking as an expert but placebos are quite standard. In a medical trial you have to prove your drug works better than a placebo otherwise there is no gain in using an active chemical. When a study of a drug fails but shows the placebo was working very well doctors will actually prescribe placebos because it is better than nothing and has few side effects (well it can have actual side effects but that is from the opposite nocebo effect)

Quoting AR385 (Reply 206): Sure. If it happens as a single event. An isolated case. But: 1) You have someone with a known psychiatric issue. After all you know about that break in AZ... 2) You see psychiatric medication lying around 3) He says "vague" (according to you) statements that for a pilot to say are frankly, worrying. 4) Has recurring nightmares on one topic that wake him up. 5) You have a shared intimacy with the person Do you see something here? A pattern maybe? Any one of those things above, by itself, sure, points to nothing. But not when put together.

The girlfriend does not have access to his entire medical history. She only knows he sees a doctor and takes drugs just like countless people around the world do. "Psychiatric medication" isn't a red flag the person is a mass murderer, the drugs are very common everywhere. The statement is vague and your filling it in with hingsight. Work related nightmares/dreams are normal.

5) I'm not even sure what your meaning by this, are you saying that having intimacy means you can read accurately mind read even their deepest hidden secrets or predict a future event that hasn't even crossed their mind yet?

It all makes sense in hindsight.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 206): Again, not so. But, it´s my opinion. Furthermore, sometimes, people don´t see things they don´t want to see. Or they see them but want, for their own sake, or due to Herd Instinct bias, to ignore them.

Your going to contradict statements from the people themselves? It isn't a matter of opinion the people say they did not see it coming and unless your calling them all liars.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 207): That's the problem, and we just cannot solve this one.

I strongly disagree you can't solve this one as in the fact the door failed to open for authorized users.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 207): her of his rape fantasies, and if somebody shows you his trust, are you going to disregard it and tell the police?

Talking about rape fantasies in waking discussion isn't considered a vague statement. You probably should tell someone else if something that directly disturbing comes up.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 207): Cockpit doors will only solve the terrorist part of the problem - when the pilots know there is something hair-rising happening in the back, and then they lock the door, and land ASAP.

Cockpit doors purpose is to provide authorized access while denying unauthorized use. That is it. The door failed in its simple task as authorized users could not open it.

Quoting na (Reply 217): As sad as this event is, its singular, and not worth to abolish the German doctor´s oath of confidentiality in a haste. It would probably not even have avoided the tragedy as likely no doctor knew how serious his stability really was.

I believe his last doctor visit was for eye checkup/treatment so I don't even see how they could have predicted anything as they don't do mental evals typically.

Quoting hivue (Reply 218): I don't quite follow that. In what sense was the FO's presence on the flight deck unauthorized?

The captain and cabin crew are authorized users of the door and were denied access in a use case that shouldn't exist. Common building doors don't allow one authorized user to deny access to other authorized users let alone all other authorized users. The door is meant to stop unauthorized users from entry (terrorists). The means in which they achieve this goal is clearly deficient (Door lockout logic).

Quoting hivue (Reply 218): That's pretty obvious... in hindsight. Thus we may want to question the original rationale of designing an impervious door to protect the airplane from the bad guys.

We are talking about re-designing by learning from previous events. Using hindsight to say people should have seen it coming is saying that before the event happened people should have had this hindsight knowledge (which is illogical)

The door is meant to allow only authorized users through and it shouldn't have failed just because one authorized user went off the walls it is a weak outdated design indeed.

Quoting art (Reply 219): At the moment a pilot on his/her own in the cockpit can secure the cockpit then do exactly what he/she chooses to do. I think a second person in the cockpit greatly reduces the possibility of the pilot being free to do exactly what he/she chooses to do. If that reduces the risk of a pilot with bad intentions from carrying those through from (say) 5/x to 2/x, it is an effective way of reducing risk significantly. Also, no changes to the aircraft door security system are required (which takes time to implement) so an immediate reduction in risk can be achieved.

I don't really agree that it "greatly reduces" it at best serves as a slight deterrent because the attacker (who could be the second person) has the element of surprise and would typically win on that alone. The aircraft door security system is not some static concept it has many revisions of which now include escape means when the door is jammed shut and accommodating two person incapacitation. (Both of these features didn't exist in the original design) All I'm proposing is that we make a system that allows only authorized users to open the door.

Quoting Womack17 (Reply 4): I find it hard to understand how the pax didn't know until the last minute that something was happening. If one is sitting on a single aisle plane the size of the A320, it seems to me that everyone would notice and react to a pilot yelling and banging at the cockpit door. So much of this tragedy makes no sense to me.

It is called a white lie, do you think the investigators want to have the families thinking about the minutes where they all realized the captain and cabin crew where locked out of the cockpit desperately trying to break the door down screaming all the while for the FO to open the door. Because when I read that it was not a very nice emotional train of thought.

If you knew someone on the flight that train of thought would be unimaginable for me as I didn't know anyone on the flight. The initial reports were worded to at least offer a bit of peace for the families until the full details could be worked out and the screaming for minutes bit would come up much later in an official report if ever where the time delay would at least dull the news a tiny bit. But as we know the media doesn't like that, exclusive as shocking as possible revelations are the name of the game.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 6): Good thing is that the Germanwings planes from Lufthansa origin do not have any screens where speed, altitude and so on are visible. No flight show, for example.

If you have a GPS app on your phone it works even in flight mode. (no tx only rx, not to mention with inflight wifi and even micro-cell that makes it so you could probably use flightradar24 inflight)

Quoting Delta777Jet (Reply 15): That's right, it's all paper based, although technically it would be not too difficult to provide the data electronically, since doctors send their bills to the health insurance electronically and employers sending also data to the health insurance of sick employees for getting refunds from the health system.

Electronic medical health (EHR, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_health_record records are not "simple" (Payment systems and charge codes to insurance don't really contain relevant/actionable diagnostic or medical information and it would be difficult to tell what exactly a charge was for or even who it was for in a public/private multi-payer system). Your talking about integrating many countless systems, groups, companies, insurance groups, government, ... In our city the health authority has probably at least 4 different non connected electronic health records systems. To share data you have to open one application and re-enter it into the other system which is another application or web portal. Certainly possible and would help medicine a ton but not as simple as it sounds.

Quoting redflyer (Reply 16): What's the latest news on the missing FDR? What is the thinking around what may have happened to the contents of the box...might it have been thrown clear of the crash site once it broke out of it's container? Or is there a fear lurking that it might never be found because it's been buried or even pulverized because it lost the protection of its container?

The data unit was either destroyed by the impact or embedded into the ground somewhere and finding it may be very difficult. It could have been thrown so far away that it will take a long time to find it. The data unit is designed to separate from the black box controller (it is the unit with the ultrasonic pinger attached) and everything as that increases the chances it would survive have they even found the non-data storing part of the FDR?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 17): The same reports indicate the pax were only screaming at the very end of the sequence. So, it seems the pax were confused about what was going on till almost the end of the sequence of events.

Also the CVR would probably only record screaming when it was loud enough. It wouldn't take long after the captain starting banging on the door for the cabin to realize something was terribly wrong.

Quoting BHXLOVER (Reply 28): I am sorry, but a pilot with suicidal tendancies should not be flying. Ever.

Probably true but then pilots from now on will know getting that written down is a career ender and even if they have said tendencies they will probably do everything to hide it.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 35): Wondering what was happening is still different from being aware that something is wrong. I presume the prosecutor chose his words carefully, which is what I'd expect from a well-trained lawyer. I also presume he was using the most charitable phrasing he could come up with, and I am grateful he did. The reality becomes evident soon enough.

The prosecutor was trying to soften the blow to families in the immediate until the investigation was formally ready to release a report. Typically they do not release things like the final words, screaming of pax, and so on. That is the media machine doing its best to amp up the event without a care in the world for the families or rules against it. Now that it is out in the open the charitable phrasing doesn't work any more and you have CNN having titles like is the media making things worse? (They are getting meta...)

Quoting aloges (Reply 31): Do we really need post after post after post from people second-guessing an employment decision that was made years ago and out of the jurisdiction they're familiar with?

Yes. Because this wasn't a case where they only had one chance to do the right thing. The employer likely had a long series of chances to notice that this young man was not fit to be at the controls of an airliner.

Quoting aloges (Reply 31): The chain of events that lead to this crash may be very different from most others, but that doesn't mean it can't be analysed. You will have to wait for this process to finish. And even when the result is out, you will still need to tread very carefully before you pass judgement.

Why?

Speculation here will have no effect on the investigation. And it is up to the individual to decide whether to pass judgment or not,, as is their right.

Quoting tomlee (Reply 37): The prosecutor was trying to soften the blow to families in the immediate until the investigation was formally ready to release a report. Typically they do not release things like the final words, screaming of pax, and so on. That is the media machine doing its best to amp up the event without a care in the world for the families or rules against it. Now that it is out in the open the charitable phrasing doesn't work any more and you have CNN having titles like is the media making things worse? (They are getting meta...)

Yes, he was trying to soften the blow, but in my opinion he really didn't misstate anything, he just stated them as charitably as he could, and did a commendable job at doing so (again IMHO). If I recall correctly this news was being announced the first day that families of the victims (and even the family of the perpetrator too) were first gathering in the Alpine area near the impact, so I am glad the prosecutor did things the way he did. The basic facts were shocking enough without "amping things up".

Well, no worries about softening the blow anymore, at least on a.net.

Picking up an issue mentioned in earlier threads: Insurers are putting aside 300 m USD for future lawsuits.

http://www.handelsblatt.com/unterneh...ionen-dollar-zurueck/11577858.html

Quoting tomlee (Reply 36): This is like saying a security researcher who provides information on a hypothetical vunrablity should goto jail because they might try and prove it in practice and kill people. Makes zero sense. The parents would not have been able to 1) know he packed a knife, 2) what tickets he was purchasing, 3) what he was even doing when he wasn't home.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Nippon_Airways_Flight_61

Excerpt: "He had originally planned to carry out the hijacking one day earlier, on July 22. He had told his parents and psychiatrist that he was traveling alone to Hokkaido, but his parents had discovered his bags containing multiple airline tickets and the knife, causing him to delay his plans for one day. Nishizawa had booked tickets on multiple departing flights: in addition to Flight 61 for New Chitose, he had tickets for ANA Flight 083 for Naha which left ten minutes earlier than Flight 61, and Flight 851 for Hakodate."

So there. Please read the article.

Quoting tomlee (Reply 36): Your creating a false set of issues while ignoring that there is a clear failure for a door to open to authorized users.

Nope. The door is just ONE issue.

Quoting tomlee (Reply 36): So your saying she rummaged through his meds to go look it up on medscape? Why exactly would you need to do that again? You can't assume total surveillance from friends/co-workers/... (Your speaking entirely on hindsight with the knowledge his is a perp)

No. But meds have LABELS, and if you are sleeping with someone, you wonder about those things. It´s not hindsight, it´s common sense.

Quoting tomlee (Reply 36): ee I'm not speaking as an expert but placebos are quite standard. In a medical trial you have to prove your drug works better than a placebo otherwise there is no gain in using an active chemical. When a study of a drug fails but shows the placebo was working very well doctors will actually prescribe placebos because it is better than nothing and has few side effects (well it can have actual side effects but that is from the opposite nocebo effect)

In psychiatry, certain meds do show a placebo effect. That is normal. But the ones that make it to market, do show that there is a clear difference between getting better by taking it, than just by the placedo effect. Look up "Risperidone."

Quoting tomlee (Reply 36): 5) I'm not even sure what your meaning by this, are you saying that having intimacy means you can read accurately mind read even their deepest hidden secrets or predict a future event that hasn't even crossed their mind yet?

Read their mind as in telepathy? No. Read their minds figuratively and get it that something is not normal? Yes. She did left him for a reason right?

Quoting tomlee (Reply 36): Talking about rape fantasies in waking discussion isn't considered a vague statement. You probably should tell someone else if something that directly disturbing comes up.

So you´ve never been in an exclusive relationship where you share your fantasies with your partner, and in some cases act them in a non-harmful way?

Sorry. We disagree on many things. It´s ok, But you won´t convince me, neither will I.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 42): Excerpt: "He had originally planned to carry out the hijacking one day earlier, on July 22. He had told his parents and psychiatrist that he was traveling alone to Hokkaido, but his parents had discovered his bags containing multiple airline tickets and the knife, causing him to delay his plans for one day. Nishizawa had booked tickets on multiple departing flights: in addition to Flight 61 for New Chitose, he had tickets for ANA Flight 083 for Naha which left ten minutes earlier than Flight 61, and Flight 851 for Hakodate."

This still ignores the fact if the airport actually told the person at the desk not to allow the said security hole to exist he wouldn't have been able to do it. That is the root cause he already gave forewarning and nothing was corrected even after it was revealed a month before.

When you discover a security vulnerability with someone disclosing it you should close it as soon as possible (especially if it is from an outside source). This change required an extremely low effort change with no cost, no tech, and had no further loopholes. The moment he demonstrated in a terrible manner what it could do they changed it immediately, total security fail basically when a perp tells you this can happen and then waits a month and then does something terrible with the exact same specific security hole. GW demonstrated what the door lockdown can do he just never told anyone a month before.

A knife is an allowed item in checked baggage and the parents did not know that those combined flights would mean he would instead of proving the security hole existed again go further and kill a pilot to prove it twice I guess. Again it is hindsight.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 42): Nope. The door is just ONE issue.

I was talking about the nuclear reactor issue your comparing to being false. The door is one of the issues and it is one that can be fixed in a logical thought out process which has minimal cost and weight implications.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 42): No. But meds have LABELS, and if you are sleeping with someone, you wonder about those things. It´s not hindsight, it´s common sense.

Labels don't look themselves up, placebos can be given false drug names as well, only a trained doctor or medically keen person would bother with checking every drug sitting within reach. We can't expect everyone to be that. It is in hindsight because your suggesting she do something she didn't.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 42): In psychiatry, certain meds do show a placebo effect. That is normal. But the ones that make it to market, do show that there is a clear difference between getting better by taking it, than just by the placedo effect. Look up "Risperidone."

Well obviously if it passed a double blind trial against a placebo it has to work better than it. I don't really see what your trying to get at. My point was that having prescription drugs may not be a "serious" drug with a wall of side effects and to an untrained person it is just a bunch of pills. This doesn't actually mean he wasn't on serious drugs just you can't say having pills means it always is serious as only a medically keen or trained person would be able to tell.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 42): Read their mind as in telepathy? No. Read their minds figuratively and get it that something is not normal? Yes. She did left him for a reason right?

She left him because she correctly deduced he had a problem of some sort. She just didn't know how serious of a problem or what it was going to cause. Do we sideline pilots when their relationships status changes or a girlfriend calls in a angry rage saying the guy has "problems".

Quoting AR385 (Reply 42): Sorry. We disagree on many things. It´s ok, But you won´t convince me, neither will I.

Sorry but I think you misunderstand these replies to your statements are not to convince you but to show others how they are flawed.

[Edited 2015-03-30 23:50:50]

Quoting tomlee (Reply 43): A knife is an allowed item in checked baggage and the parents did not know that those combined flights would mean he would instead of proving the security hole existed again go further and kill a pilot to prove it twice I guess. Again it is hindsight.

Oh no. They knew enough to stop him. They delayed his travel for two days. They also knew he was seeing a psychiatrist.

Quoting tomlee (Reply 43): She left him because she correctly deduced he had a problem of some sort. She just didn't know how serious of a problem or what it was going to cause. Do we sideline pilots when their relationships status changes or a girlfriend calls in a angry rage saying the guy has "problems".

Did you read the reasons she gave for leaving him? The "problem/problems of some sort" she described?

Quoting tomlee (Reply 43): Sorry but I think you misunderstand these replies to your statements are not to convince you but to show others how it is flawed.

That is your POV and I respect it. I don´t think at all it is flawed. But, you are free to think otherwise and to "show others".

Quoting AR385 (Reply 44): Oh no. They knew enough to stop him. They delayed his travel for two days. They also knew he was seeing a psychiatrist.

This article needs additional citations for verification. (May 2009)
This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. (May 2009)

Reading every reference did not turn up anything verifying that paragraph which has no citations inline.

Also ignoring that, the way the Wikipedia page is worded it says specifically "causing him to delay his plans for one day" (Him/his referring to Nishizawa not his parents which would have been written as "they delayed his plans for one day")

All that case demonstrates is that ignoring a security vulnerability is a very bad idea. The door lock down abuse is a security hole, misuse by persons on the authorized/clean side to commit malicious acts.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 44): Did you read the reasons she gave for leaving him? The "problem/problems of some sort" she described?

Saying he has "problems" is vague and is neither a specific threat nor an actionable one every reason given is still vague and doesn't mean the person is going to commit mass murder the next day. Now if she said he told her that he wanted to kill hundreds as soon as possible and she left him because of that specific problem and never told anyone about that then you would be right. But that isn't what occurred in reality.

[Edited 2015-03-31 00:22:40]

There is an opinion article today at El Pais (the leading newspaper in Spain) about the accident, wondering how it would be treated in the German media if it would be let's say an Iberia or Aegean aircraft maybe heading to Germany. And honestly, God forbid that it was the case giving how judgmental some country in central Europe seems to be to everything Southern European related:

http://internacional.elpais.com/inte.../actualidad/1427736715_494725.html

The article is in Spanish. In any case, the treatment of Spanish media has been very respectful.

I am sure some here will think about it as bad taste, but I think it is interesting and I have thought about it. The reasons for this accident have happened largely because the culture around it has somehow allowed it. I suspected there was something weird from the first moment (now it is easier to say it afterwards) and as I have said before, I was not even shocked about the suicide pilot. I have though whether this would have been possible in a Southern European, Latin or Anglo Saxon environment. Not because there are not crazy enough people in those places but because I suspect some big red flags would have risen before.

Now it seems the need to look for responses and find a "logic" to this accident. That is specially interesting since some cultures need to be always "right" and are largely based on standard procedures and rules that the society needs to follow. While I don't like to believe in topics, there is indeed a national psychology.

Quoting tomlee (Reply 37): If you have a GPS app on your phone it works even in flight mode. (no tx only rx, not to mention with inflight wifi and even micro-cell that makes it so you could probably use flightradar24 inflight)

Shorthaul flights in Europe don't have inflight wifi or micro-cells. Germanwings is the LCC division of Lufthansa so no IFE of any sort, or moving maps, this is the same on competing LCCs.
Scheduled gate-to-gate time for this flight is just 2 hours 20 minutes.

Quoting Andy33 (Reply 48): Shorthaul flights in Europe don't have inflight wifi or micro-cells. Germanwings is the LCC division of Lufthansa so no IFE of any sort, or moving maps, this is the same on competing LCCs. Scheduled gate-to-gate time for this flight is just 2 hours 20 minutes.

I am aware that not all flights have in flight wifi or micro-cell access just if they did accessing fr24 would be possible in those cases. GPS doesn't require the internet to operate, Google maps needs a connection because it does not store the map locally. There are a number of mapping applications that will give you offline maps and more simple ones that just display the current location data without any maps your phone has.

You can even get ADS-B data on your phone, http://www.rtl-sdr.com/ads-b-decoder-rtl-sdr-now-available-android/
(Requires a usb OTG cable plus a DVB-T stick ~20-30$ total) There are pre-made devices for tablets and stuff.

https://youtu.be/dSRXSDTlVBs?t=16s (much easier if you use it with a laptop, no antenna needed because your so close to the transmitter, plug some more sticks in and you can get ACARS and ATC radio) heck you never know once wifi becomes more common on flights FR24 stations could be flying with the planes.

[Edited 2015-03-31 01:42:48]