Germanwings 4U-9525 Crash

[Peter Mugridge]

Will some airlines move the door back so the front toilet becomes staff only?

El Al have done this for years haven't they?

 

[WestCoast]

This may be to stop someone forcing their way into the cockpit when the door is opened for the returning pilot. In which case a second crew member might be needed, one to go into the cockpit and the other to guard the door.

Will some airlines move the door back so the front toilet becomes staff only?

Firstly, I would hesitate to speak certainly on the situation, since although the initial findings point towards foul play, a fully comprehensive case with more evidence has yet to be compiled.

There are various challenges in keeping the flight deck closed to potential terrorists but open to crew members. The current system with the camera and controlled access system on modern aircraft was well thought out, but obviously can't override a rogue crew member.

I'm not sure whether any rule changes, secondary doors or even a private WC would reduce the risk enough to justify the cost and/or inconvenience. If an ill/ill-intentioned crew member is determined to act maliciously mid-flight, there will always be a way.

Instead I think the focus should be on reinforcing and strengthening the medical and integrity checks in place. However, a mental illness is not always easy to pick up on and can be well hidden. All employers have a duty to their staff and should know that they can seek help with them. How does this fit in with highly responsible positions such as airline crew where a loss of license is feared? There's no easy answer in my view.

 

[TheEdge]

El Al have done this for years haven't they?

El Al really are a special case. I would think what they do security wise would be hard to impossible to realistically repeat for most airlines.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

El Al really are a special case. I would think what they do security wise would be hard to impossible to realistically repeat for most airlines.

I'm not suggesting that everything should have all the hi-tech anti missile defences etc fitted to El Al aircraft... merely pointing out that they have the front toilet within the designated flight deck area behind the security door.

 

[Crossover]

It appears the latest news to emerge is that the documents found at the co-pilots home (which were earlier said to not be suicide notes) were medical sick notes, including one for the day of the incident, which had not been disclosed to his employers

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not suggesting that everything should have all the hi-tech anti missile defences etc fitted to El Al aircraft... merely pointing out that they have the front toilet within the designated flight deck area behind the security door.

That would seem to me to make some sense. It would also mean there was never any reason for passengers to be hanging around by the cockpit, and also that on a shorthaul flight there would never be any need to open the cockpit door during the flight at all. Thus reducing the risk all round.

It would mean longer queues for the bog, but again not all that many use it on shorthaul anyway.

 

[Antman]

Firstly, I would hesitate to speak certainly on the situation, since although the initial findings point towards foul play, a fully comprehensive case with more evidence has yet to be compiled.

There are various challenges in keeping the flight deck closed to potential terrorists but open to crew members. The current system with the camera and controlled access system on modern aircraft was well thought out, but obviously can't override a rogue crew member.

I'm not sure whether any rule changes, secondary doors or even a private WC would reduce the risk enough to justify the cost and/or inconvenience. If an ill/ill-intentioned crew member is determined to act maliciously mid-flight, there will always be a way.

Instead I think the focus should be on reinforcing and strengthening the medical and integrity checks in place. However, a mental illness is not always easy to pick up on and can be well hidden. All employers have a duty to their staff and should know that they can seek help with them. How does this fit in with highly responsible positions such as airline crew where a loss of license is feared? There's no easy answer in my view.

I agree that there is no easy answer and as you say there will always be a way for a determined crew member with ill intent, even if they have to take their time waiting for the right situation to carry out whatever evil deed they have planned. I think medical checks can only go so far and obviously nobody can read another persons mind, there have been many criminals who have appeared to be perfectly normal people in their day to day lives.

 

[jon0844]

Surely whatever changes you make, those who work within those rules will be able find ways around them if determined enough.

After all, staff are going to generally assume colleagues to be 'stable' and not mistrust them.

 

[ian959]

Surely whatever changes you make, those who work within those rules will be able find ways around them if determined enough.

Totally correct.

Indeed, with the usual knee jerk reactions that the Americans especially usually come up with, the changes will only result in more potential ways for someone who knows the system to beat the system. I remember having such a discussion with an Air Marshal years ago about this.

Even having two people in the cockpit at all times for instance, unless both are qualified pilots then how would a flight attendant by able to know if the remaining pilot is pushing all the right buttons? Its impossible, unless you start giving flight attendants to give them sort of cockpit procedures training (which adds another expense to an airline for dubious benefit). It is nothing but something to give people a warm fuzzy feeling.

The only real way to improve things is actually to do away with pilots all together - but there would be no warm fuzzy feeling in that at all, even though a pilot is really only needed to handle the taxiing and take off. Every other phase of flight can be handled automatically including the landing (provided all airports were equipped with the appropriate equipment). Most modern airliners are so reliable and so well monitored that their reliability is staggering.

Even taxiing and take off could potentially be automated if necessary I am sure.

In the meantime, I would be more concerned about getting rid of the toggle lock code override switch...

 

[Antman]

Totally correct.

Indeed, with the usual knee jerk reactions that the Americans especially usually come up with, the changes will only result in more potential ways for someone who knows the system to beat the system. I remember having such a discussion with an Air Marshal years ago about this.

Even having two people in the cockpit at all times for instance, unless both are qualified pilots then how would a flight attendant by able to know if the remaining pilot is pushing all the right buttons? Its impossible, unless you start giving flight attendants to give them sort of cockpit procedures training (which adds another expense to an airline for dubious benefit). It is nothing but something to give people a warm fuzzy feeling.

The only real way to improve things is actually to do away with pilots all together - but there would be no warm fuzzy feeling in that at all, even though a pilot is really only needed to handle the taxiing and take off. Every other phase of flight can be handled automatically including the landing (provided all airports were equipped with the appropriate equipment). Most modern airliners are so reliable and so well monitored that their reliability is staggering.

Even taxiing and take off could potentially be automated if necessary I am sure.

In the meantime, I would be more concerned about getting rid of the toggle lock code override switch...

I think the idea is that there will be at least two pilots in the cockpit at all times.

No pilot at all is another issue, I can't see that idea being well received!

 

[Spamcan81]

Totally correct.

Indeed, with the usual knee jerk reactions that the Americans especially usually come up with, the changes will only result in more potential ways for someone who knows the system to beat the system. I remember having such a discussion with an Air Marshal years ago about this.

Even having two people in the cockpit at all times for instance, unless both are qualified pilots then how would a flight attendant by able to know if the remaining pilot is pushing all the right buttons? Its impossible, unless you start giving flight attendants to give them sort of cockpit procedures training (which adds another expense to an airline for dubious benefit). It is nothing but something to give people a warm fuzzy feeling.

The only real way to improve things is actually to do away with pilots all together - but there would be no warm fuzzy feeling in that at all, even though a pilot is really only needed to handle the taxiing and take off. Every other phase of flight can be handled automatically including the landing (provided all airports were equipped with the appropriate equipment). Most modern airliners are so reliable and so well monitored that their reliability is staggering.

Even taxiing and take off could potentially be automated if necessary I am sure.

In the meantime, I would be more concerned about getting rid of the toggle lock code override switch...

AIUI the thinking behind "two in the cockpit" is that it would make it much more difficult for a renegade pilot to deny entry to the second pilot in the way that Lubitz did.

 

[edwin_m]

In the meantime, I would be more concerned about getting rid of the toggle lock code override switch...

I think removing this would be another knee-jerk reaction. From your text above I'm not sure if you agree or not.

The cabin staff would probably have to know the code to open the door, or if they didn't then any potential hijacker could just attack one of the pilots when they left the cockpit and force them to reveal/enter the code. Replacing the keypad with, say, a biometric scanner wouldn't help much.

If you believe the stories on the BBC there have probably been deliberate crashings of airliners by the authorised pilots about every five years. The only instance of deliberate crashing by a hijacker as far as I'm aware was 9/11, so even though it happened four times on that day the numbers might suggest that giving the pilot in the cockpit the ability to deny opening of the door increases the total hazard.

However terrorism can't be treated as a random statistical event because the terrorists will modify their behaviour according to the measures taken against them. So it is likely that the reinforced cockpit door and override switch have deterred some from attempting hijacking, so that if there was no override switch hijackings would become more likely. A 9/11 type incident would probably also have more casualties than a deliberate crashing by an authorised pilot, because the terrorists would aim to cause the maximum damage on the ground and an authorised pilot (unless a "sleeper" for a terrorist group) would not.

The cockpit door and the override switch also seem to have prevented at least one crash, that incident in Texas where one of the pilots had some sort of breakdown and the other one tricked him into leaving the cockpit and landed safely. So on balance I'd suggest the override switch is a benefit to aviation safety.

As stated above a member of cabin crew in the cockpit under the two-person rule might not notice, or might notice but not suspect, if the pilot put the plane into a gradual descent. However the other pilot would almost certainly notice and query this when returning to the cockpit, so any pilot with ill intent would have to either bring the plane down very quickly or somehow prevent the other pilot from returning without creating suspicion. There remains the risk that a pilot intending to crash the plane could overpower the other person, but short of going to a three-person rule it's difficult to see what more could be done to prevent that.

 

[jon0844]

We don't need knee jerk reactions.

As a result of what happened, I simply propose we ground all planes indefinitely.

 

[radamfi]

Could aircraft be designed so that they can be operated remotely if, in the airline's opinion, something has gone wrong with the pilots?

 

[dgl]

Could aircraft be designed so that they can be operated remotely if, in the airline's opinion, something has gone wrong with the pilots?

Quite easily, but securely? Possible but inherently difficult.
Controls are generally 'fly by wire' anyway so would just need the remote control interface.

 

[MarkyT]

I think removing this would be another knee-jerk reaction . . .

Some really good point there. I agree it's important not to go for knee-jerk reactions for such a vanishingly small likelihood. A two-person rule is a good start.

Here's my idea to help cover the further risk of the maniac overpowering the second person. A completely independent communications console in the passenger cabin which could allow a direct dialogue between the crew in the cabin and ATC. In conjunction with this, a system (perhaps a second secret keypad code previously unknown to anyone on board) to allow the door lock to be released in a non-overridable manner, only when authorised by ATC via the communication console.

 

[edwin_m]

Here's my idea to help cover the further risk of the maniac overpowering the second person. A completely independent communications console in the passenger cabin which could allow a direct dialogue between the crew in the cabin and ATC. In conjunction with this, a system (perhaps a second secret keypad code previously unknown to anyone on board) to allow the door lock to be released in a non-overridable manner, only when authorised by ATC via the communication console.

Interesting thought, but how would the ATC establish that the people talking to them from the cabin are who they say they are and not potential hijackers who have overcome the cabin staff and want to get into the cockpit? Bearing in mind that they can't ask the pilot...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Quite easily, but securely? Possible but inherently difficult.
Controls are generally 'fly by wire' anyway so would just need the remote control interface.

Same system as used for military drones, where a pilot somewhere in Texas can take out a jihadist leader in Afghanistan. Or alternatively an innocent wedding party.

But I think most potential passengers would prefer to take their chances with a rogue pilot or a hijacker on board than the perceived risk of someone "hacking" the plane (or capturing the control centre that can do so legitimately) and flying it to their destination of choice. Even if the method of takeover was 100% secure against tampering the perception of risk would probably still be unacceptable.

 

[MarkyT]

Interesting thought, but how would the ATC establish that the people talking to them from the cabin are who they say they are and not potential hijackers who have overcome the cabin staff and want to get into the cockpit? Bearing in mind that they can't ask the pilot...

It would have to be a judgement call by ATC. An unresponsive cockpit versus a plausible argument from the passenger cabin.

Same system as used for military drones, where a pilot somewhere in Texas can take out a jihadist leader in Afghanistan. Or alternatively an innocent wedding party.

But I think most potential passengers would prefer to take their chances with a rogue pilot or a hijacker on board than the perceived risk of someone "hacking" the plane (or capturing the control centre that can do so legitimately) and flying it to their destination of choice. Even if the method of takeover was 100% secure against tampering the perception of risk would probably still be unacceptable.

Many many practical problems with remote control at the scale of commercial aviation. Also part of the implicit understanding a passenger has with an operator is that a pilot / driver in charge of whatever kind of vehicle shares in the risk being experienced by the passenger. On a land vehicle in particular placing the operator up front in fact exposes them to the most risk in a collision, so it is assumed that ensures they will take the utmost care in their own best interest of self-preservation. A remote pilot breaks this implicit trust and would be a tough sell to the public I think. Even a remote system that could take over in an emergency would be fraught with difficulties: Always sufficient suitably qualified ground pilots available for all types of plane etc. Situational awareness - they'd be thrown into an emergency scenario at short notice, could they make the right decision under that stress etc.

Regarding automation, much flying today is practically automated, although aircrew continually supervise the 'robot' and can and do tweak the controls all the time according to unfolding events. Full unattended flight automation would demand there is always a safe fallback tactic when things go wrong. With land transport that is easy and usually means cutting power and applying brakes, but clearly that can't apply in the air. There we rely on the pilots to provide the fallback; they can use their skills and training to deal with all kinds of events.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Interesting thought, but how would the ATC establish that the people talking to them from the cabin are who they say they are and not potential hijackers who have overcome the cabin staff and want to get into the cockpit? Bearing in mind that they can't ask the pilot...

Then maybe the solution would be to adopt partially the remote control scenario being suggested on this thread.

Instead of ATC granting the access to the flight deck, they transmit a signal ( which perhaps should require three separate people simultaneously pressing a button that is out of reach of more than one person individually - i.e. three such buttons in the ATC, at least ten feet between them, all three must be depressed within a second or so of each other to activate the system ) which switches the aircraft into a fully automated mode but only to land at the nearest suitable airport. No on board over-ride to be fitted to this system.

 

[Stompehh]

Some people here are vastly underestimating how challenging it would be to implement any kind of remote piloting on a civil airliner.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It doesn't matter what systems you put in place, there will always be a way around them. As the old saying goes, build an idiot-proof system and someone will just build a better idiot.

If you have a secure cockpit this can happen. If you don't, 9/11 can happen. Both are extremely improbable, but even huge improbabilities will eventually happen.

The changes to cockpit security were a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11. We need to be wary of knee-jerk reactions again. Even two people in the cockpit at all times won't prevent it happening again if someone is that desperate, as we saw with FedEx 705 (although in that case the attack was unsuccessful).

 

[jon0844]

So true, and I do wish some people would stop coming up with 'foolproof' solutions. Not so much on here, but I've read the thread on the Digital Spy forum and some of the comments on there (both how to solve the problem, as well as opinions about depression etc) would make even Katie Hopkins look tame.

There are lots of people who like the idea of ATC taking control of a plane somehow, perhaps even continuing to fly and land it, like some sort of drone. Imagine the logistics of doing that, the safety implications (loss of connectivity, latency, what if the person taking control is the one with sinister intentions etc) and so on.

Whereas it might potentially work one day, if both pilots are unable to fly but the plane itself is, it will open up a whole new way of hijacking a plane. But, ATC also only has a limited coverage area, so do you now upgrade everyone to be able to control planes? How do you implement security? Who manages the codes/encryption beyond borders?

Perhaps one day we can have planes that will do ALL the flying by computer, and pilots will be locked out from the controls until there's an emergency. And to stop a pilot going rogue, it will take someone outside that monitors the flight to decide when to give them control, but imagine if control isn't given back? And what if a would-be suicide pilot just works with someone on the ground to create a defect that could see them given control?

In fact, what's to say a future attack won't be down to sabotage of a plane before take off?

Terrorists will always be seeking new ways to do something terrible. In fact, new ways to create terror are usually preferable than just doing something that has been done before. It creates more fear, and also allows for them to stand more chance of getting away with something simply because nobody is expecting it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

opinions about depression etc would make even Katie Hopkins look tame

I've been depressed for years but never wanted to crash a plane and murder 149 people.

More psychometric testing is obviously a good thing- I'd say that, if anything, this pilot was the sort of psychopath who usually goes machine-gunning US high schools- but this type of event is a fact of life. No matter what you do, occasionally something as jaw-droppingly awful as this will happen.

You can double-lock or triple-lock as many systems as you want, but someone somewhere will need some sort of executive control. And if they're hell-bent on destruction it'll happen.

 

[NSEFAN]

So true, and I do wish some people would stop coming up with 'foolproof' solutions. Not so much on here, but I've read the thread on the Digital Spy forum and some of the comments on there (both how to solve the problem, as well as opinions about depression etc) would make even Katie Hopkins look tame.

It all seems to be knee jerk reaction. This entire situation is horrible but given how unusual it is I'm not sure it's worth rewriting the entire method of working for planes. There comes a point where it is not worth taking action to improve safety because the costs are just not worth it.

 

[edwin_m]

It all seems to be knee jerk reaction. This entire situation is horrible but given how unusual it is I'm not sure it's worth rewriting the entire method of working for planes. There comes a point where it is not worth taking action to improve safety because the costs are just not worth it.

The "rule of two" strikes me as a cost-effective solution and frankly I'm surprised it wasn't done years ago. On longer flights it should be possible to spare a member of cabin crew for a few minutes during the cruise (it would be unusual for a pilot to leave the cockpit during climb and descent). On shorter flights the cabin crew are fully occupied flogging drinks and scratchcards but (more's the pity) it would be unusal to need one of them in the cockpit simply because on a short flight there's normally no need for a pilot to leave.

This simple change to procedure would probably have prevented most of the murder-suicide incidents. To do anything more would be hugely costly and possibly counter-productive, so is disproportionate.

 

[jon0844]

At least one airline has a toilet that's inside the cockpit (well, the door is further back) so perhaps that's one thing that could be done relatively easily and with some possible benefit and no real downside, besides losing a toilet for passenger/other crew use.

I actually don't think we need to do anything but consider this a freak incident, although I guess people might just want change because they'll be terrified to fly in the future. If passenger numbers did fall (who knows if they will) then airlines might make changes for that reason alone.

 

[WatcherZero]

Co Pilot of Germanwings flight Lubitz had in the week before the crash researched from his tablet Treatments for depression, suicide and security of cockpit doors according to German police.

Also Germanwings says they didn't know he had suffered from depression while training even though Lufthansa the parent company did.

 

[Antman]

At least one airline has a toilet that's inside the cockpit (well, the door is further back) so perhaps that's one thing that could be done relatively easily and with some possible benefit and no real downside, besides losing a toilet for passenger/other crew use.

I actually don't think we need to do anything but consider this a freak incident, although I guess people might just want change because they'll be terrified to fly in the future. If passenger numbers did fall (who knows if they will) then airlines might make changes for that reason alone.

Hopefully this was a freak incident that won't ever happen again but nobody can take that chance so I think doing nothing just isn't an option, people will want reassurances.

As awful as this incident was if the plane had come down in a built up area it really doesn't bear thinking about.

 

[edwin_m]

Hopefully this was a freak incident that won't ever happen again but nobody can take that chance so I think doing nothing just isn't an option, people will want reassurances.

As awful as this incident was if the plane had come down in a built up area it really doesn't bear thinking about.

Something has been done - the rule of two.

 

[Antman]

Something has been done - the rule of two.

Err........yes I did mention that earlier in the thread:roll: