This air disaster has infuriated me as i was in training for my dream job as an ATC and I was removed from training because i have a learning disability and require medication to sit in a class room but it doesn't make me any less able to do the job but it may make me better at it. According to the laws of my country because of the medication i require to SIT in the classroom it disqualify's me from A) every getting an aviation medical and B) ripped my dream job away from me. This all happened because i was honest about my mental issues and learning issues now if you don't think that learning disabilities are real all the power too you but i know what i know. When i came forward with this i was met with a stigma from the aviation doctors that we have here in Canada but i was also met with support from the people who were in my class because not only did it show that i was ethical but that i had respect for the laws that govern the industry that i am still working in and love. This act of cowardice that he committed will be changing for the industry as a whole but lets not forget awful things happen in all industry's that involve implicate public trust ie. fire fighters, law enforcement personal, Medical professionals, and to a lesser extent taxi drivers, and just basic other people not to have a moment of "crazy" and harm other people. We should look at the Laws and rules that govern aviation in Germany and see if maybe the reason that he didn't come forward is he was worried that he would lose his dream job, i know i had the struggle with weather or not to say anything or just carry on and hide the fact that i had this disability as i knew i would loose my training seat and i would also most likely loose my chance of ever doing it again but i did come forward and i don't regret it one bit. As more comes out about this crash it seems that he may have told someone at one point about it and received the help he needed but didn't maintain getting the help after he got to his goal. That may be caused by the thought that well i have reached my goal and my depression will just go away and everything will be better. Well as we are learning now that wasn't the case and as someone who has had to come out and say i have a problem and i need help instead of condemning the actions of the individual lets look at what caused him to think that this was the most appropriate action instead of seeking help like most people who are looking in saying well if i was in that situation I would have gone and got some help.

I think we should try to retain some perspective here. There likely have been several Andreas Lubitzes throughout the history of commercial aviation. Most of them were never provided the right opportunity. They would have done themselves in some other way, wound up getting help, or whatever. If the GW9525 captain had been able to regain access to the flight deck while Lubitz was having his breakdown, that might have been all it would have taken to recover the situation -- no hand-to-hand combat or anything, just a human sitting there in desperate need of help.

The Door is central to this whole tragedy. Pihero calls it an "obscenity" that the captain could not regain his own command because of a locked door. I've previously said something to the effect that it would make a good comedy sketch in a sequel to "Airplane" if the outcome weren't such a tragedy. And why do we have the Door? Because of the terrorists. The Door was an attempt to solve a social and geopolitical problem with technology. This was always going to be simply a half-fix and come with its own characteristic hazards as we have now seen. The villains here are the terrorists. Whoever they might currently be, they've notched one more "victory," and I suspect they know it.

[Edited 2015-03-31 10:56:35]

Pihero, good topic of discussion.

The first thing that comes to mind is, does this happen enough to need a major effort to address it?

And then I have an idea, of course.  

A second code given to two of the regular FA's, chosen at random? That is, only the two FA's know individually, that they have a second code.

If there is a need to over ride the cockpit door lock, the pilot who is locked out would tell the FA's the situation.

One of the FA's with the second code would come forward and enter it after the regular first code.

This would unlock the cockpit door.

Since two FA's have the second code, they can't both be in the cockpit.

It is also not known which two FA's have the second code, and the FA's would have to be convinced that it is necessary to open the door. They would be told not to reveal themselves unless they believe it is necessary to open the cockpit door.

[Edited 2015-03-31 10:55:22]

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 31): Changes in procedures, like always 2 persons in the cockpit at all flying times is likely to improve for now confidence with passengers. Most realize that what happened on this flight was so beyond normal is it unlikely to occur in their lives.

This is the norm in the US (and has been at least since 9/11) ... I think most flyers here were shocked to find out that wasn't policy elsewhere ... it just makes sense ...

Regarding someone who is suicidal ...

Suicide is often a lonely act ... someone with those tendencies is usually unlikely to act on them if they have a witness.

With a second person in the cockpit, you're helping to repress that tendency to act ...

Quoting Pihero (Reply 49): What do you think of the way the BEA has so far dealt with releases and transparency - i_f any - ?

I think they've been so transparent as to be invisible. Not a criticism of them under the circumstances, but the prosecutors seem to be making all the official announcements. They already have stated for the record the cause of the accident. I suspect the BEA just need to tidy up the technical details.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 47): I agree and I'd add that this is an endless race toward technical solutions to human problems : armored cockpit doors are supposed to keep flight deck unviolable. Fine. - Now we have to implement procedures to make sure that the poor guys locked up front are still breathing : an FA has to check with them every 20 minutes or so. What if they don't answer and unlock the door ? - OK, give the FAs an overriding code. - That code could be revealed - under threat, I suppose - to a bad guy ? - Oh ! Easy ! we give the flight deck crew an unoverridable switch . - Now what if one of the guys up front is the baddie and manages to prevent any one from entering the cockpit after he got rid of his colleague ? - Still very easy : Keep two live people at all times in the cockpit . - But suppose the Flight attendant who replaced the pilot gone to the toilet is another baddie ? What if he/she has other accomplices in the cabin ? - The answer is obvious, old chap : make the airplane pilotable by remote control, remove all possibility for those on-board to take over... - And suppose the data link, the command frequency is jammed / hacked by a yet another baddie ? - Now, let's pray together... Especially if the remote pilot is the hijacker...He/she should be protected by an armored door... ... ad libitum...

Awesome post, Pihero, and as a security professional I fully agree. Too often we see an incident that there's an outcry to try to prevent that specific incident from happening. What people do not always recognise is that (a) the bad guys adapt to current conditions, and the exact same attack may no longer be used, but other ones might be and that (b) the consequences of a security solution need to be analysed, as they may create new issues.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 52): And then I have an idea, of course.

You generally have one !
Yes, it could be a further solution.

Quoting hivue (Reply 54): I think they've been so transparent as to be invisible.

You have to understand how the system works :
The BEA director has two caps
One is the head of an investigation team that only deals with expert appraisal of an accident in order to further air safety.
The second one is that privileged information is reserved for the head of the criminal investigation : the prosecutor of the district in which the accident happened - or in this case - the best equipped prosecution office.
As it happened, the CVR transcripts revealed a lot on the events of that flight but the prosecutor couldn't be joined. The BEA, out of respect to the victims' families, wanted the prosecutor to be able to provide the info to the families. A well-documented report was made that evening, destined for the prosecutor...and the scoop was leaked to the NYT who didn't have the same code of ethics, as we now know.
The SNPL-ALPA has filed a law suit on the subject of the leak and I'm all for it.
Now that the furore has died down, the BEA will now resume their normal investigation routine. Hence my advice to wait for the preliminary report in less than three weeks'time.

and BTW, from now on, all the BEA findings, bar the evidences - as the CVR tapes or transcripts - cannot be used in any court of law.It will be the duty of some appointed experts to issue a report and their findings to the state prosecution and any defence attorney.

Quoting airshows (Reply 50): This air disaster has infuriated me as i was in training for my dream job as an ATC and I was removed from training

I really do feel for you and I respect your honesty and integrity.
Unfortunately, I really don't know anything about the regs governing ATCOs.
Were you a pilot in France, you would have been referred to the CMAC which then would have called for an expertise from one CMPN and they would, in all probability append a temporary waiver to your licence. You'd be then asked to consult specialised MDs, follow a likely treatment, and be assessed again... and again for a one year period (that's quite the norm ) in order to see whether you show any sequel.
Or course, use of psychotropic drugs - they are listed - is a no no.

Any human system will only work if there is trust.

Quoting hivue (Reply 51): The villains here are the terrorists. Whoever they might currently be, they've notched one more "victory," and I suspect they know it.

Can't agree more.

Quoting Armodeen (Reply 43): I enjoy your insights and clearly you have vast knowledge of the industry. I just wanted to point out that there is very little evidence linking pilots with more hours to better flying ability. There is only clear evidence for better training = better decisions & technical ability. This trend is borne out over several other high stress careers (medicine etc) where numerous studies have shown that better educated people make better decisions on average than poorly educated people with more experience.

If you don't see the difference between 700 hours and 7000 hours I don't think anyone can change your mind with the facts.

Quoting hivue (Reply 54): I suspect the BEA just need to tidy up the technical details.

I am not French, but as I recall, any death - no matter if related to aviation or not - is first & foremost a criminal matter, so a DA is always going to be the first Person to coment.
would this explain why the BEA will first conduct their FULL investigations before commenting, whilst a district attorney feels he has a Job to do.......???
I may be wrong, but this is my understanding of the French juditial System!

How about something a bit different?

The best defence against such an incident would be pilots who frequently work together, socialize together, and are close enough to have sensed there was a problem in someone's personal life, and to intervene. I feel that if pilots were to work together in much smaller groups - i.e. a maximum of 20-30 in a pool who almost always work together, some situations might be avoided.

Of course there's no guarantee (and would likely result in higher crew costs), but I think it offers several advantages over crews paired on a near random basis.

I don't know if this has been posted elsewhere. Apologies if it has and I just missed it. I figured it might be relevant here.

"The handwritten note was posted online by Jai Dillon, who describes himself as an airline pilot operating the B737, soon to be operating an A320 from London Heathrow Airport."


http://www.itv.com/news/2015-03-31/p...ot-in-wake-of-germanwings-tragedy/

Good thread, thanks...but let me start by apologizing for the length of this post

We need more of pilot and crew perspective since this effects the people who fly for a living the most. Like most things since 9/11, most of the changes affect pilots and crews much more than the passengers. in reality, very little has changed for the passenger...more people are flying than ever before.

To the flying public and the public at large, this tragedy, as shocking as it is, will soon be relegated to the back pages, and shortly after, be little more than a sad trivia question and an episode of Air Crash Investigations, (Mayday).

Regardless of the air tragedy, the losses of life, the perceived dangers, the real dangers...to the vast majority of the flying public, those tragedies happened very far away, (in perception even if not reality), and it will never happen to me.

It's the same attitude that lets people do dangerous things, (or dangerous seeming things), that if done often enough, don't mitigate the dangers, but give an illusion of safety. Air travel doesn't even have the illusion of danger anymore, despite tragic accidents, or in this case, mass murder.

The attitude is, "Hey...things crash. Oh well, I hope my flight to Topeka, (Manchester, Bonn, Vladivostok, Perth, Sao Paulo....), isn't late. Waiting at the airport is a killer.".

Pilots and cabin crew bear the brunt of the changes. 9/11 was caused by animals with box cutters, but pilots are the ones put in a cage. A genuine worry since 9/11, (and now a terrifying possibility), the reinforced cabin door, designed to protect the aircraft, can now be used as an instrument for its doom. One thing that could have saved that plane load of people, is the old, crappy style cockpit door.

They now are urged to look askance at their fellow crewmates, with whom their lives are entrusted, not as comrades any more, but potential foes...a reality not seen since McCarthyism. The good old days of one, big happy, flying family are what has been shattered by this. What joy is there in flying a plane load of people if you are trapped in a box, little bigger than a closet for hours on end?

I can think of few better breeding grounds for PTSD.

I still remember the joy and pride I felt when, as a 7 year old on my first big airplane, (a DC 6), when I was allowed, (not just allowed but encouraged), to visit the cockpit. It really did seem magical. Asking the pilots questions they probably had heard hundreds of times before was a thrill and these guys in their snazzy uniforms seemed happy to show me around and explain what the switches and lights did.

In the summer of 2001, I did a lot of flying around Canada, and I asked the flight attendant if I could visit the cockpit. I was allowed to ride jump for a number of flights, from takeoff to landing. It was as thrilling then as almost 40 years ago.

Most of the flying public only care about schedules, ticket prices, overhead space, and trying to snag a full can of coke. For the rest of us who experience real joy at seeing the ground fall away, the Germanwings tragedy and its aftermath, will take yet another piece of that joy away.


Ironically, the last time I got to experience an airline flight where the cabin door was open and I was welcome up front, was a few years after 9/11, on Yemenia Airlines. There, in the supposed cradle of terrorism, the ancestral home of the bin Laden's, I got to experience in a flight that which will forever be impossible in the civilized world, freedom.

Quoting airshows (Reply 50):

Pihero, I am glad you put the mental health issues first, because I believe it is, by far, the most important aspect. There will always be a way of circumventing physical barriers, or overcoming automated systems. Mere things will never be able to provide safety from insanity...but understanding sanity, might.

Mental health is painfully misunderstood and underdiagnosed in the modern world. Depression isn't thought of as a real thing. Just the word, 'depression', seems no more serious than the feeling when your favorite team loses. I mean, how serious is that? Just get over it, you loser.

People with depression, (or almost any mental disorder), are very unlikely to seek help. GP's don't know how to handle it, psychiatrists throw meds at whatever they think the problem is and if these don't work out, there are lots of others to try. Psychologists play "what do you think the problem is?", games, assuming if you talk enough about something, everything will be just fine. You certainly aren't going to tell your friends and family about what you are going through, because guaranteed, you will suffer ridicule for your honesty.

You can never prevent all human caused tragedy. The most sane seeming person in the world can snap under certain circumstances. Ordinarily sane people can be made to do normally unimaginable horrors, with intense enough indoctrination. Proof of that is the military. Within a few months, anybody can go from the nicest, most giving person in the world, to a mass murderer, willing to kill on a massive scale just because somebody with a shiny hat says so.

Before mental health issues can be effectively dealt with in any significant way, they have to be treated as real disorders, not imaginary excuses for weaknesses.

For the love of God...PTSD is just beginning to be accepted as a real thing, requiring real, medical, social an societal help to, not even cure, but just to survive as a human...and this is for war veterans. Holy crap...if people who have have seen, (and have been responsible for), people becoming unrecognizable, scattered, bloody pieces of meat in an instant...that they must beg to be considered for the smallest bit of help, what the hell hope do the rest of us have?

How many veterans have you seen begging by the side of the road? How many people period? How many homeless are there? Who can possibly imagine that these people are there by choice?

If we can't help the people who very obviously need it, how can we ever help the ones that hide it?

In the United States Air Force you can not step into a nuclear role of any type if you have ever been treated for depression. You are flat out denied access to anything related to your job.

Piloting civilian aircraft larger than 50 people should require the same. As September 11th proved, an airliner can be used as deadly weapon that can go beyond the scope of lives lost and mean economic disaster for a company or even
an entire nation. Piloting an airliner should have just as stringent health requirements as those who fly or handle nuclear weapons. The USAF calls it the personal reliability program or PRP.

I do not believe depression is curable and is not compatible with a pilot entrusted with the lives of 70-150+ people. Most people with depression also tend to be bipolar, methodical, and quick to anger under the right circumstances. Other medical issues should have the same privacy they have always had but mental health issues should be reported. Any pilot treated for mental health issues should not be hired. There are always red flags in these cases discovered after the fact.

Everything should stay the same. The EU should adopt US rules regarding 2 people in the cockpit. There should also be 3 separate codes one code for the captain that does not require the other pilot to allow access and the other pilot does not know. The second is the same but for the FO. The third is a general access code that requires the cockpit to allow or deny access. The idea that someone can lock the other pilot out and simply stay quiet and keep denying access to the cockpit is ridiculous.

I don't see aviation changing too much other than the reporting of mental health issues and cockpit entry systems revamped. As for pilot less airliners. I am an engineer and I have seen the ghost in the machine rear its ugly head more times than I can count. You could never get me on a pilot less aircraft.

Quoting rwessel (Reply 32): No. Box cutters are terrible weapons, and the fact that box cutters were used is basically irrelevant. Any number of other ordinary and allowed things could have been, and could still be, used as equivalently (in)effective weapons. Banning box cutters is definitely one of the pointless knee jerk reactions after 9/11.

You can make a weapon out of anything. Just ask any guy in prison.

As our threadstarter stated, it all comes down to trust and I could not agree more.

There will always be someone out there with either a mental issue or a personal grudge that will try to find a way to beat the system. That is why it is so important that we constantly change our routines so that we do not get too comfortable with them and bad guys out there cannot watch us to see a potential hole.

I have had air marshals warn me that there are still a lot of bad people--even after 9/11--who continue to probe us, looking for weaknesses and a strategy to attack us again. All we can do is do our best, stay informed, follow SOP's and communicate well among the entire crew. We all work under a Chain of Command. It started (for instance on a large international flight with two crews) with the senior captain, then the second captain, the first officers in seniority order, the purser and then the flight attendants in seniority order. It is entirely possible that there could be a tragedy (Asiana comes to mind) where the most junior flight attendant could wind up with the command of the aircraft if everyone else were dead or incapacitated. So that is why it is imperative that we brief well before the trip departs base and again every day while on the trip so that no one becomes complacent. The captain sets the tone and we all say "Yes Sir/Ma'am" and follow their instructions to the letter.

There will be other incidents like this one. That is sad but really unavoidable.

Someone asked the perspective of crew members. Always having 2 in the flight deck makes sense, but it can be a pain at times. Sometimes a pilot needs to use the lavatory right when we're in the middle of serving our customers, and being gone for X minutes can throw a wrench in the service. But you know what? We do it, I know I can't always control when I need to use the facilities.

On Delta's A330s they now have a secondary cage like door by the lavatory, so a pilot can open the flight deck door and use. The facilities without a passenger having any access to the fligh deck. The FD door still needs to be opened from the inside, but that offers an extra layer of security, again from the outside, not from a crew member.

So two in the flight deck makes sense, I just hope we don't end up with a homicidal flight attendant who incapacitates the pilot flying and causes another tragedy. And I really hope I'm not being prescient by typing that. As has been stated over and over again, every solution introduces a new risk.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 34):

I believe a good solution would be to internalize parts of the medical testing/checks. What about airlines having a dedicated psychologist or medical professional that the pilots work with throughout their careers? The problem currently is that the medical checks we have to go through have a penalising culture associated with them. At any instance, a medical check (or sim/line check for that matter) can be a career-ender. Everything you have worked for and dreamed of can disappear just like that. I do know pilots that suffer from bouts of depression or types of trauma that just deal with it and move on. It is more common than some would think. They know that if they were to mention it and/or ask for time off it may go on their record and cause them problems in career advancement. It doesn't give pilots much incentive to raise their concerns does it? This may be further heightened after this crash with pilots worrying about what the effect of their employer knowing about what they are going through on their careers.

We need this penalty type culture to disappear. If pilots weren't so worried about being dropped or suspended, they would be more likely to bring up the problems they face and seek help for them. If airlines had a dedicated doctor that was actually concerned about them and understood their concerns, knew each of them well and wanted to help them through their troubles pilots would be more open about the problems they face. Being an employee of the airline, the doctor would place great emphasis on helping them because they would want them to return to service but also know when the problems are substantial enough for grounding. In other words the pilots aren't just another number that needs to be checked and cleared, they are friends etc.

It shouldn't be an interview with a scheduled time you must meet, (you may be suffering from problems but be able to put on a brave face and pass these face to face checks) but someone who is readily available that you can talk to and is able to help. This can be in addition to all the checks they already undergo - those are required, but this is less formal way to let pilots open up and get an idea of any problems they may be facing

Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 65): I believe a good solution would be to internalize parts of the medical testing/checks.

That's very close to the CEMPN - Aircrew medical examination center - system and as a matter of fact, Air France have their own CEMPN and there is quite a high degree of trust in it as more than half of the crews ( pilots and FAs as they have also, contrarily to most countries, a government-issued licence ) use it.

Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 65): The problem currently is that the medical checks we have to go through have a penalising culture associated with them. At any instance, a medical check (or sim/line check for that matter) can be a career-ender

As I said earlier, everything hangs on to the trust and confidentiality attached to the process. Here, it seems to work quite well and I know a good number of people who owe their continuing career to the advice, counceling, care and treatment of these centers.
Can a pilot fly after an infarctus ?
I suffered one on a tennis court in Africa... got medevac'ed six hours later to CDG, then by helicopter to a specialized hospital, got stented and had an interview with the Center's head surgeon... The only subject was about getting my licence back as quickly as possible and nothing else... and became the pet case of four cardiologists...
I regained command of a flight exactly one year after the incident.

One of the aspects of the way Flight 9525 is treated both by the media and the majority of the A.net community is the nebulous reference to *depression*.
We can all be subject to a period of ill-being after an accident of life : the loss of loved ones, a difficult divorce... a depression that time, psychological counceling... can cure... Being open on this matter is obviously the best solution ( remember, one is legally responsible for one's fitness to fly ). The airline doctors and the CEMPN will help finding the right treatment and getting one's job back.
A pathological mental illness is something very different.

Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 65): We need this penalty type culture to disappear.

Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 65): It shouldn't be an interview with a scheduled time you must meet, (you may be suffering from problems but be able to put on a brave face and pass these face to face checks) but someone who is readily available that you can talk to and is able to help.

An ideal situation i would welcome.
Thanks for this post.

Quoting billreid (Reply 24): Perhaps militarizing cockpits is the answer, train pilots to fly, but also train them to protect the cargo as well. We have air marshals on board. But what use would that have been with the pilot locked out? Why not make the pilots the air marshals and make the doors two way devices. I would feel a lot safer!

So you want the pilots to abandon the flight controls to go Steven Segal on the terrorists? I don't get how "militarizing" the pilots solves anything but a breach to the cockpit itself. Having the captain have to leave the cockpit to shoot a bad guy as a de facto security procedure would certainly not make me feel safer.

Quoting savethequads (Reply 62): I do not believe depression is curable and is not compatible with a pilot entrusted with the lives of 70-150+ people. Most people with depression also tend to be bipolar, methodical, and quick to anger under the right circumstances.

Wow. Viewpoints like this are EXACTLY the problem this country (and really, the world) deals with the stigmatization of mental illness. It's a very successful way to ensure people suffering work even harder to hide their symptoms and to not seek help. It also sounds like you've playing doctor on the internet. "Most people with depression also tend to..." Really? If you're not a mental health care professional, this is nonsensical hyperbole and speculation.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 47):

Pihero, as a former pilot that it looks like you are, you should also be aware of how this industry is developing in a constant race to the bottom and you didn't mention the worse and worse working conditions for the employees in this industry.

This article describes it well.

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...388949/?utm_source=btn-email-ctrl3

We have seen in the past, pilots have serious problems with drugs and alcohol. Eventually policies were developed to prevent flying while intoxicated but on occasion they still happen. We also changed polices that instead of firing on a first offense, other pilots and crews can report a pilot who they believe is intoxicated to their companies or government regulators and not face penalties for 'being a rat'. Such policies also do what is really needed, to remove the person from the immediate risk to themselves and others, but push them into rehabilitation, reduce risk to the airlines and the pilot able to keep the job.

Several years ago we saw a JetBlue pilot have a mental health breakdown in flight, but fortuntally they didn't lock out a co-pilot and the plane diverted, the troubled pilot removed. Now they are suing JetBlue for their actions or lack of actions that allow him to board that plane.

Perhaps we need some form of screening by airlines to see if a pilot or crew member has physical or mental health issues, recognize the stress of being a pilot has on some, sound 'wihistleblower' policies where crews can report other members with issues that can cause conflict. Cultures at airlines may need to change as well. I bet the long time, more relaxed attitudes with Southwest means a lot less stress and less likelihood of a troubled pilot or crew member on board.

IMO the idea that you an "detect" mental health issues by watching other people and reporting them is a false safety. You can not see mental health issues.

Some posts above somebody talks about how the USA military keeps "mental defective" persons from nuclear weapons and there have been scandals in that areas.

It will never be possible to have 100% success rate in detecting all crew that could turn dangerous and weed them out and how many do you throw out that would be perfectly OK .
And who is completely normal? And who defines completely normal? Mental health issues are seldom black and white but mostly grey.

But all this discussions here do not touch one point. There has been at least one occurrence were a malfunctioning lock kept the captain from returning to the flight deck and what does one do about that.

[Edited 2015-04-01 03:59:21]

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 70):

Well, the odds of having a malfunctioning lock, combined with an incapacitated crew member or crew member with bad intentions at the same time are very small.

I still believe some kind of personal code for the door for the pilots only could prevent a similar Germanwings situation from happening again.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 71): Well, the odds of having a malfunctioning lock, combined with an incapacitated crew member or crew member with bad intentions at the same time are very small.

That is exactly how accidents occur, compination of strange coincidences.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 72):

Can you name how many times this scenario happened already? My guess is 0. There are other places in which we need to improve safety much more then.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 68): you should also be aware of how this industry is developing in a constant race to the bottom

I'm afraid the article is a way of hijacking a tragic event.
I understand that some pilots could have a gripe with the European airlines recruitment policy but their arguments that a lot of flying hours is better than the 250 an ab-initio cadet shows at the end of his/her formation is at least arguable.
I'd be happy to discuss all the points on the article, one by one, if you started a paragraph for each one of them, here on this thread.

The *worsening conditions* of the job come mostly for that damn armored door :
- Diminishing human interactions, with both one's crew and one's passengers;
- Diminishing roie of a pilot as a *Flight Commander*... Who is really in charge of the inside of an airliner ? It's in all probability the purser. Just ask a flight attendant after a duty period the name of that captain and you could be surprised.
- Increased claustrophobia, increasing the *chances* of coming-to-light of conflicting personalities - in spite of all the CRM rules - between Captain and First Officer ( In this respect, Flight 447 could be a seminal event ).
- Increased fatigue due to restricted *distraction* periods
- Loss of a common visible goal / plan of action, be it commercial or safety-related inside the whole crew. As a matter of fact, the very idea of a crew has disappeared in most flights.

IMHO, all the above point to a a diminished safety level.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 61): Pilots and cabin crew bear the brunt of the changes. 9/11 was caused by animals with box cutters, but pilots are the ones put in a cage.

   Ironic, isn't it ?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 61): .but let me start by apologizing for the length of this post

Please don't. The post was enjoyable.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 61): There, in the supposed cradle of terrorism, the ancestral home of the bin Laden's, I got to experience in a flight that which will forever be impossible in the civilized world, freedom.

You still can have it with a few airlines I know of.
That reminded me of lady a few years ago who had the ground staff handle me a letter in which she expressed a wish to visit a cockpit.
She was married - had been for fifteen years - to a US airline pilot and she regretted never having the opportunity to see her husband at work and understand what he really felt flying airplanes.
So I arranged her to be upgraded, made sure that she would have a meal and when I welcomed her at the door, told her that the jump seat was hers for all the flight except during our meals and some unforeseen weather encounter en-route.
Shje was with us most of the flight, mostly silent... the first officer commented on the systems and some of our procedures, I just tried to explain what we could see on the ground - the different colours of the fields, the encroachment of towns into the forests...- We made an early descent over the Alps to show the Mont Blanc and the Matterhorn... The traffic on arrival was heavy, leading to a lot of speed limitations and vectors. The FO made a perfect kiss of a landing.
We kept her with us until the last passenger had deplaned... We had to, because at that point she was very emotional : she had missed 15 years of understanding the man of her life.
Months later, I had forgotten all about her until one day OPS gave me a letter addressed to "the captain of flightXXX on DateXXX* in which she renewed her thanks and told me that she'd taken flight lessons in order to fly with her husband.
A very warm feeling for me.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 73): Can you name how many times this scenario happened already? My guess is 0. There are other places in which we need to improve safety much more then.

I do not know how often it has happened, but it happened at least once.

www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/30/u...etliner-door-idUSKBN0L307K20150130

Today we have all the passengers with their little gadgets recording such incidents. I would not know where to look for if that has happened before, but thinks that happened once can happen again.

[Edited 2015-04-01 05:38:46]

Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 22): While I agree with most of the things Pihero writes in his opening post, I cannot agree to the "Western, white, more respected, supreme people" type of thinking that somehow shines through here. These are also very subjective things: less visible, less respected where and by whom? I wonder if the Japanese would be respecting Japan Air Lines less than Lufthansa for example. My intention is not to attack anyone with this post and I understand that after the tragic event happening so close to home or even at home people feel shaken and emotional. Seeing the amount of mental problems in our countries I just think that it was naive to think that something like this could not happen in the Western countries.

I completely agree. I really can't get the point of this thread. The comparisons with September 11 are very unfortunate IMO.

If this tragic accident has an outcome that pilots will be better monitored, as a customer I welcome it.

Aviation is still one of the most hierarchical industries in the civil world, and pilots used to sit on top of that pyramid. Pilots are not God's gift to the world as some of them still believe. Time to move on.

Awesome post Pihero!
I must say that this accident to me, sadly, shows that the perpetrators of 9/11 have achieved their goal.
Agree or disagree, this armored cockpit door is one of the few, if not the only, security measure that is designed to protect the people on the ground and not those onboard the aircraft.

We now have a total of 183 people onboard killed "due to" the armored cockpit door vs 265 onboard the 4 aircraft at 9/11 (246 excluding hijackers). At the moment I don't think that MH370 is a similar case, but if so, then we are looking at 422 vs 265...

At one stage, I believe, the priorities will go back to protecting those onboard over those on the ground again... and I do hope grim statistics like the above won't be the reason.

The only accident I can think of where the armoured cockpit door may have saved the day, was the PSA case...

Quoting Pihero (Thread starter): 2/- Flight Safety vs security : The armored cockpit door has been proven in some instances to fall short of a desired safety level. To me, a device which prevents a captain from entering his flight deck is the ultimate obscenity. One solution – and I again welcome a serious discussion on the subject – could be a “captain’s override code” or a biometric locking device.

At the moment, 2 persons in the cockpit won't prevent another 4U9525... But it does reduce the likelihood. There's nothing we can do to stop the determined suicidal, but the undecided suicidal can have their opportunities reduced by such measures.

But the benefits of 2 persons in cockpit at all times doesn't stop at preventing a suicidal pilot, but reduction in "total loss due incapacity" risks. The additional risks are, unfortunately, clear and present too.

Quoting Pihero (Thread starter): 3/- The pilotless airliner :

Oh God No!

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 77): I must say that this accident to me, sadly, shows that the perpetrators of 9/11 have achieved their goal. Agree or disagree, this armored cockpit door is one of the few, if not the only, security measure that is designed to protect the people on the ground and not those onboard the aircraft.

I could not agree more with mandala499's conclusion.

My view on this is influenced from intimate insights into security issues that I have gained as a senior federal police officer since the early 1990ies, but also from discusions with pilots of all qualifications and holder of a private pilot's licence for nealy three decades.

After 9/11 any reasonable appoach towards giving flight safety priority was outweighed by concerns over security (at any cost).

///

Quoting Pihero (Reply 74): A very warm feeling for me.

While I truly appreciate the amazing convenience, (and wonder in its own right), of being able to, with 3 of 400 anonymous others, fly to the other side of the world in a day...I do get nostalgic for some the magic lost in our cattle car, paranoid modern airline system.

Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 22): I cannot agree to the "Western, white, more respected, supreme people" type of thinking that somehow shines through here.

...and where did you see that ?

Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 22): These are also very subjective things: less visible, less respected where and by whom? I wonder if the Japanese would be respecting Japan Air Lines less than Lufthansa for example.

It's down to public perception : LuftHansa, Delta, BA, Japan Airlines, Emirates.... are more visible than Corsair, Norwegian and Air Astana....
Taking the amount of posts about two very similar accidents, Air France is obviously more visible than Air Canada.
There is no racism or cultural bias in that respect.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 76): I completely agree. I really can't get the point of this thread.

Nor do I get your points on the main thread like :

- "...That is specially interesting since some cultures need to be always "right"

-... there is indeed a national psychology.

- ... national psychology here is key to understand this crime.

- ... Lufthansa, like many flag carriers, is an ambassador of its country (Germany), and it is proud of its Ubergermanness that sells very effectively around the world....

- ...(a country that as you have said values privacy in great esteem), while somehow leaving uber-German Lufthansa as another victim. "

Should I quote more ?

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 75):

That's not the scenario we discussed. We discussed the scenario where there was a problem with the door while at the same time the pilot left in the cockpit had bad intentions or was incapacitated. So your example is invalid.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 81): Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 75): That's not the scenario we discussed. We discussed the scenario where there was a problem with the door while at the same time the pilot left in the cockpit had bad intentions or was incapacitated. So your example is invalid.

Than you should try reading what others write before commenting on it. I wrote about malfunctioning doors. It is an added risk of the hard locked doors that they do not always open when they should.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 80): Taking the amount of posts about two very similar accidents, Air France is obviously more visible than Air Canada. There is no racism or cultural bias in that respect.

More visible where? Do you think that an English language forum run from a western country is a good gauge of universal visibility? I'm pretty sure in Canada Air France is less visible than Air Canada.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 80): It's down to public perception : LuftHansa, Delta, BA, Japan Airlines, Emirates.... are more visible than Corsair, Norwegian and Air Astana.

You pointed out that the previous accidents:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 7): No, he was not. The previous occurrences happened in countries... errr... less visible, to airlines less respected.

I specifically mentioned Japan Airlines due to Japan Airlines flight 350 which crashed due to a deliberate action by the pilot - which I'm sure you are aware of. Thus I felt that indirectly you're trying to say that Japan is a less visible country than Germany and Japan airlines a less respected airline than Lufthansa. I'm sure this can be true in France, Germany or even Finland, but I'm also equally sure that the situation is not the same in Japan, South Korea or Singapore.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 80): ...and where did you see that ?

How about:

Quoting Pihero (Thread starter): but we were no killers. Andreas Lubitz proved we could be.

We = The pilots of more respected, more visible countries?

Quoting Pihero (Thread starter): How to recover public trust and confidence

... into more respected and more visible airlines? MH370, MI185, MS990 obviously did not have the same effect except maybe in those less visible countries.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 77): Awesome post Pihero! I must say that this accident to me, sadly, shows that the perpetrators of 9/11 have achieved their goal. Agree or disagree, this armored cockpit door is one of the few, if not the only, security measure that is designed to protect the people on the ground and not those onboard the aircraft.

GREAT post Mandala and Pihero !!!

Travelling by air will never be the same again, things just change in time. I personally do not think, however, that this unfortunate event of GW flight will have an efect in a decrease number of passengers. If really happened what the investigation is heading to, it is first of all a big failure of the individual and the „Germans in their perfection“ will for sure implement measures to minimize the risk of any such repetition. I'm sure I lived in Germany for 7 years. I also wanted to be a professional pilot and it was my dream since school. However not stabilized blood pressure resulted in „no go“ so I only own PPL and simply enjoy the time in the air. Yes, I sadly remember those days when if showing PPL license to the crew I could fly in the front sitting on jump seat. But the world is complicated, we have a lot of new threats, including terrorism. We started distrust baggage, then passengers and now we probably begin to distrust the crews. OK, accepted, but I do not want an unmanned aircraft. I believe in human and his ability to make decisions and to find solutions in cases technology simply can not handle. But where IMHO the society makes a big mistake is that in many cases the interest of individuals is above the interest of public and many individuals have simply lost responsibility and accountability for their own actions. Instead of humility and acceptance of the consequences of their own mistakes and actions they simply seek lawyers only to protect yourself as an individual, regardless of what is moral and what is the impact on others. I have family experience with depression from my wife´s side and this in several cases and in various forms. It is not easy to handle such desease but it is manageable. I do not think that suffered depression should stop somebody flying for a lifetime, but based on my experience if someone is in the process of treatment and acute medication he should not be active in the profession with direct responsibility for lives of others until cured and asymptomatic. Many here say if this implemented people will probably hide it. But this is again lack of own responsibility and accountability. And those two are the highest ranked things I respect pilots and crews for.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 77): We now have a total of 183 people onboard killed "due to" the armored cockpit door vs 265 onboard the 4 aircraft at 9/11 (246 excluding hijackers). .

don't forget the 3000+ lives on the ground, not to mention billions in property damage and (hard to put a price on it) terror and fear in the hearts of everyone in New York, the US, the western world...

Safety for those on the ground IS more important, sorry to say it like that.....

Quoting savethequads (Reply 62): I do not believe depression is curable and is not compatible with a pilot entrusted with the lives of 70-150+ people. Most people with depression also tend to be bipolar, methodical, and quick to anger under the right circumstances. Other medical issues should have the same privacy they have always had but mental health issues should be reported. Any pilot treated for mental health issues should not be hired. There are always red flags in these cases discovered after the fact.

Congratulations. Adopt a policy like this and all you'll ensure is that no pilot ever seeks treatment for anything even remotely approaching mental illness. Then when the next pilot suicide inevitably happens because no one is being treated anymore, you'll be dumbfounded because the pilot
wasn't "officially" depressed.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 82):

No you should try reading my post before commenting on it. Don't act like you didn't know what I meant.

Quoting ricknroll (Reply 6): It was only a matter of time. There was the tube driver in London who appeared to have deliberately driven his train into the end of a tunnel, for example. This is a matter that affects more than just the airline industry. The public still use the train services.

Trains have automatic train protection now. Most upgraded systems would stop the train well before you hit the end of the line. They also have curve speed protections to prevent de-railing by suicide or micro-sleep. Can't really apply ATP directly to planes as they don't run on rails and can't just come to a dead stop while travelling.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 9): Quoting DDR (Reply 8): However, I don't see what there can't be a simple key (as in actual metal key) override that a pilot can insert into a lock. Strictly forbidden by our respected ( ?????) lawmakers.

A single key or pin or even multiple static pins can be stolen that is why the lockout was convinced by the original designers.

Quoting InsideMan (Reply 26): There is no way a device / code / key will be introduced which will make the armored door useless. Once a terrorist can force the crew to give up the key / code / device etc. the whole armored part in armored door is moot.

What happens if not all the key/device/codes are supposed to be used no terrorist could have foreknowledge if it is randomized per flight.

Quoting B8887 (Reply 27): A PIN code to override the lock known to one crew member is also a good iniative, I think.

Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 28): and we would probably see a “captain’s override code”

Quoting Pihero (Reply 34): I have to apologize for the wording of *a captain override*. It's simplistic but this is how I would envisage the system : 1/- A captain's code or a captain's biometric identification that would allow him/her to render the lock inoperative. That code should be updated for each flight.... and 2/- An association of codes from two crew members, one being the senior copilot, the second any flight attendant chosen at random. The combination dialing of the two separate codes will also render the locking device inoperative. Thius codes will also be changed at the beginning of every flight.

Biometrics can be stolen, spoofed and are by definition very fixed/static codes. Randomizing a pool of override codes per flight is the much better defence against abuse.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 52): A second code given to two of the regular FA's, chosen at random? That is, only the two FA's know individually, that they have a second code.

How are people going to remember a constantly changing random pin code? Having fixed codes makes the system vulnerable to external attack at the company or just leaked information. Having an device stored randomly distributed key pool would eliminate the need to remember passwords while still giving the crew control.

Quoting hivue (Reply 51): The Door is central to this whole tragedy. Pihero calls it an "obscenity" that the captain could not regain his own command because of a locked door. And why do we have the Door? Because of the terrorists.

I think the correct statement is why couldn't the crew as a group open the door we don't just trust the pilots to get us there we trust the whole crew. Having a system that is tolerant of bad actors in any place makes a lot of sense in light of this event.

Also we can move door technical discussions like pins and the such to this thread, Secure Cockpit Door Unlock Design (by tomlee Apr 2 2015 in Tech Ops)

In terms of mood I'd say I would personally be much more sound at heart if the crew operated as a group instead of trusting single or even two individuals amongst them.

[Edited 2015-04-02 02:36:39]

Quoting InsideMan (Reply 85): don't forget the 3000+ lives on the ground, not to mention billions in property damage and (hard to put a price on it) terror and fear in the hearts of everyone in New York, the US, the western world.

So you're saying they've already won.
Those on the ground who were killed are important, but why should those onboard be less important?
Now, what if 4U9525 instead of going towards the Alps, decided to hit a skyscraper instead and killed thousands?

Changes are needed, but it's time to now take into account that those onboard are EQUALLY important with those on the ground. Unless we make thee changes (and rationally too), we will eventually reach the stage when total of people killed onboard due to these cockpit doors, equal if not exceed those killed on the ground on 9/11... If we reach that stage, will you still say the 3000+ lives on the ground are more important?

If we say the current method is OK and needs no changes (improvements), then safety has not improved, or even regressed after 4U9525.

Quoting InsideMan (Reply 85): Safety for those on the ground IS more important, sorry to say it like that.

So never fly then, so that you never contribute to being a flying missile with hundreds of lives aimed at buildings to kill thousands.
I guess terrorists should stop trying to bomb places, instead turn teenagers into closet terrorists and pay for their flying lessons.

[Edited 2015-04-02 03:29:31]

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 89): Changes are needed, but it's time to now take into account that those onboard are EQUALLY important than those on the ground. Unless we make thee changes (and rationally too), we will eventually reach the stage when total of people killed onboard due to these cockpit doors, equal if not exceed those killed on the ground on 9/11... If we reach that stage, will you still say the 3000+ lives on the ground are more important?

Most of the design effort into post 9/11 security did literally ignore everyone in the passenger cabin. The door being secure does make sense but having no way to open it when the bad guys are on the flight deck side makes zero sense.

One other interesting thing you could do to make unlocking the door require the approval of the entire cabin would be to require >95% of the call attendant buttons be activated scaled to number of rows occupied. That way at least the cabin would have a literal button war which post 9/11 the consequences would be obvious and I don't think terrorists would be able to fight back against the entire cabin.

Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 83): I felt that indirectly you're trying to say that Japan is a less visible country than Germany and Japan airlines a less respected airline than Lufthansa

I will not be drawn into this kind of argument.
Take it somewhere else.
When I say *we*, we is the universal community of airline pilots. The preceding events were less visible, less obvious in the diagnosis of the suicide intent.
Flight 9525 is an altogether new - as :" it's never happened before"- event in its deliberation and apparent cool-bloodedness.
There had been , even in Europe, instances of one of the flight deck crew trying to crash the plane. The RAM ATR is one,but, fortunately most tragic outcomes have been averted.
If you're looking for racism and ethnic bias, i'd refer you to the Malaysian 777 disappearance thread. You could have a field day there.
But not here, not from me.

Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 83): Quoting Pihero (Reply 80): Taking the amount of posts about two very similar accidents, Air France is obviously more visible than Air Canada. There is no racism or cultural bias in that respect. More visible where? Do you think that an English language forum run from a western country is a good gauge of universal visibility? I'm pretty sure in Canada Air France is less visible than Air Canada.

Keep in mind the aftermath...a plane on fire is a lot more shocking/discussion worthy to the average person. Busted up plane out in YHZ in the middle of the night, no injuries. slightly newsworthy. Maybe about the same significance as the Jazz DH4 that had the gear failure in YEG.

A 343 on fire in a ravine off the end of the runway at Canada's biggest airport, in full view of Canada's busiest highway, with cameras, being covered live on the news? Bigger story to the average person. Regardless of airline

Please let's get back to the subject.
I'm especially interested in the flying public thoughts after 9525.

- What would you see implemented ?

- Has your vision of airline safety changed ?

- Do you feel more at risk, now, or it hasn't changed your image of the airline industry ?

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 89): So you're saying they've already won. Those on the ground who were killed are important, but why should those onboard be less important?

I wouldn't say they've won, as terrorists would most likely prefer taking down a skyscraper rather than an aircraft.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 89): Changes are needed, but it's time to now take into account that those onboard are EQUALLY important with those on the ground. Unless we make thee changes (and rationally too), we will eventually reach the stage when total of people killed onboard due to these cockpit doors, equal if not exceed those killed on the ground on 9/11... If we reach that stage, will you still say the 3000+ lives on the ground are more important?

No life is more ore less important than another life, but all things being equal 3000 lifes are more important than 150, simply due to quantity. Why do you think some countries passed laws allowing them to shoot down hijacked aircraft?

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 89): f we say the current method is OK and needs no changes (improvements), then safety has not improved, or even regressed after 4U9525.

That is not what I said. The two persons in the cockpit rule should already help significantly. What are the chances of two bad or suicidal persons being in the cockpit at once? I also believe it would stop one suicidal person from following through with their plan if they first have to incapacitate someone else.....
Also, screening can be significantly improved. Not to make pilots hide mental problems, but to eliminate susceptible candidates from the beginning and raise red flags earlier for exisiting pilots to get them help.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 89): So never fly then, so that you never contribute to being a flying missile with hundreds of lives aimed at buildings to kill thousands.

I will never let a terrorist or someone else make me afraid of flying. If that happens, then they have won.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 89): I guess terrorists should stop trying to bomb places, instead turn teenagers into closet terrorists and pay for their flying lessons.

Who says that isn't happening today? We can only hope, that they are detected before they get the chance to be alone in a cockpit.....

Quoting InsideMan (Reply 94): Also, screening can be significantly improved. Not to make pilots hide mental problems, but to eliminate susceptible candidates from the beginning and raise red flags earlier for exisiting pilots to get them help.

You can say that but how exactly are you going to make people not hide their problems if the failure to hide said problem will get them kicked out of training or sideline a pilot forever. (Or are you going to let them get help risk relapse later at which point your in the same situation we have here)

Quoting InsideMan (Reply 94): That is not what I said. The two persons in the cockpit rule should already help significantly. What are the chances of two bad or suicidal persons being in the cockpit at once? I also believe it would stop one suicidal person from following through with their plan if they first have to incapacitate someone else.....

This is a very big presumption that a suicidal, revenge, ... filled person who planned the event ahead of time would not attack a single other person in a surprise attack to then kill the rest in a crash.

You don't need two bad actors for a two person rule to fail basically. 3 people rule actually works (although the costs are significant) because it is instead of a 1v1 a 2v1.

Quoting InsideMan (Reply 94): That is not what I said.

Please note: "if we"...

Quoting InsideMan (Reply 94): Who says that isn't happening today? We can only hope, that they are detected before they get the chance to be alone in a cockpit.....

It's a never ending battle... That, relies on intelligence... if the intelligence fails and he gets into an airliner cockpit... we can't stop him...

Quoting InsideMan (Reply 94): The two persons in the cockpit rule should already help significantly.

Indeed! It reduces the willingness for the "undecided" to commit such an act.

Quoting InsideMan (Reply 94): What are the chances of two bad or suicidal persons being in the cockpit at once?

We arrested 2 "Islamic hardline" pilots who keep asking to fly together once, coz one of them was friend with a terrorist recruiter. Was quite a shock, luckily, upon hearing the CVR, and various other evidence, it was proven that they weren't suicidal terrorists (although they were prohibited from requesting to fly together again). Seeing the counter terrorist squad boarding the aircraft upon arrival and entered the cockpit in front of passengers were a bit of a shock. (This was several years ago).

Quoting InsideMan (Reply 94): Also, screening can be significantly improved. Not to make pilots hide mental problems, but to eliminate susceptible candidates from the beginning and raise red flags earlier for exisiting pilots to get them help.

Counselling should be provided. Ironically, where I am, the minister insists on face-to-face briefing for crew and dispatchers before first flight of duty, and the dispatcher would be held liable if the pilot ended up being suicidal coz he failed to notice that... *facepalm* And recently he mentioned that "face to face briefing would have picked up his suicidal tendencies on that day"... (We're waiting for the president to sack him!)

Quoting Pihero (Reply 93): - What would you see implemented ?

- Counselling services for crew to be made available and confidentially.
- An end to "unable to deadlock from inside the cockpit", but still provide reasonably impenetrable measures.
- Updated training for pilots on "how to defeat the terrorists' mission" (eg: fly low to burn fuel to prevent reaching the target, controlled crash vs everyone onboard massacred, etc)

Quoting Pihero (Reply 93): - Has your vision of airline safety changed ?

No. When the impenetrable door lock measures were introduced, something like this was foreseeable. If there are no changes, then unfortunately, politicians treat each and everyone of us as cannon fodder as soon as we board the aircraft. My views on airline safety hasn't changed, but my views on the politics behind it has.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 93): - Do you feel more at risk, now, or it hasn't changed your image of the airline industry ?

I feel that I am cursed with knowing too much whenever I step on board an aircraft... terrorist threat is quite far down my list of fears.
My changed image of the airline industry is that it has become a victim of politics and knee-jerk reactions in the name of "showing you are doing something" (to get votes).

Quoting Pihero (Reply 66): That's very close to the CEMPN - Aircrew medical examination center - system and as a matter of fact, Air France have their own CEMPN and there is quite a high degree of trust in it as more than half of the crews ( pilots and FAs as they have also, contrarily to most countries, a government-issued licence ) use it.

Thank you for this, I'll have a look at it.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 66): As I said earlier, everything hangs on to the trust and confidentiality attached to the process. Here, it seems to work quite well and I know a good number of people who owe their continuing career to the advice, counceling, care and treatment of these centers.

Spot on, and this is what is important and where the emphasis should be.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 66): One of the aspects of the way Flight 9525 is treated both by the media and the majority of the A.net community is the nebulous reference to *depression*. We can all be subject to a period of ill-being after an accident of life

Exactly right, no one is immune to such things and we should be careful when making the distinction.

Quoting Pihero (Thread starter): To me, a device which prevents a captain from entering his flight deck is the ultimate obscenity.

I agree fully, I do not know what a good solution is, there have been a few good ideas floated around, but to me this should never be an acceptable compromise where a pilot is completely unable to regain access. I understand on the rare occasion the pilot locked out may actually be the problem but if this is the case the passengers or crew would most likely look after this. Whether or not this would have prevented this accident is irrelevant, the scenario where you are unable to regain access should never arise.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 93): Please let's get back to the subject. I'm especially interested in the flying public thoughts after 9525. - What would you see implemented ?

1. Another crew member in cockpit when pilot leaves (for case of unconsciousness, to commit suicide in presence of other person I believe is much complicated, crew member can help in emergency etc.)
2. In professions with direct responsibility for lives of others (pilots, bus drivers, policemans, nuclear etc.) rules should be implemented where not saying to authorities the fact being suspended from work by doctor is considered as criminal behaviour

- Has your vision of airline safety changed ?
No. Every incident/accident leads to safety improvement

- Do you feel more at risk, now, or it hasn't changed your image of the airline industry ?
No.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 93): Please let's get back to the subject. I'm especially interested in the flying public thoughts after 9525. - What would you see implemented ? - Has your vision of airline safety changed ? - Do you feel more at risk, now, or it hasn't changed your image of the airline industry ?

- i think, the 2-people in the cockpit at all times ist a good beginning, Even better, when the door can only be locked by the 2 simultaneously.

- yes and no: 9525 was not the first case, but what can happen to LH can happen to any airline.

- yes. Trust is gone. 20 years ago, airlines trusted passengers that they wanted to come home safely. Sometimes you had to identify your checked baggage on the tarmac, sometimes not even that. And passengers trusted the crew that they wanted to arrive safely. No all that ist open to questions.