Quote: (03-27-2015 01:37 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Odds are shortening on the jilted lover theory: reporters are saying the guy suffered a major breakdown after his engagement fell through.

Counting down until a Female Typist blames Toxic masculinity; Male Entitlement; and, with a straight face, Gamergate.

Caitlin Dewey? Jessica Valenti?

Not trivial enough for Lindy West - unless she wants to spite me - and not sexual enough for Amanda Hess.

Note that these same typists who will inevitably - if rightly - demonise this idiotic man are quite happy to excuse Suicide By Truck if you're a Tranny.

Quote: (03-26-2015 05:04 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Or simply doing what the US does and requiring a flight attendant to go into the cockpit while one of the pilots is in the bathroom. If they had this rule, this never would've happened. I suspect this policy will now be implemented worldwide.

Seriously, never would've happened?

That's just great. Jesus, do some of you ever, and I mean ever, think as to what you are saying??

The whole point of rigorous training, and physical and mental checks, conducted by airlines is to have the most vetted personnel in the cockpit. Having a minimum wage waiter/waitress in the cockpit only begs for more trouble because who is to say that he/she won't decide to wreak some havoc while in there?

The fact that (post 9/11) US requires it means nothing because the US in general is ruled by kneejerk responses, fear of random lawsuits, and marketing gimmicks ("Fear not our passengers, when our pilot goes to a loo, we have a 20-year old hottie Stacy (or a 50-y.o. crypt keeper) keeping watch on your co-pilot.)

Horrifying. It truly is the worst form of crime, since in addition to its atrocity, there is nothing left to punish. I understand why some people want to believe in afterlives. If there was one, this guy would be suffering some incomprehensibly horrific shit right now.

Latest news is they found a doctors note saying the guy had sick leave because he was unfit to fly - but he apparently never gave it to his employee and tore it apart

(dutch link: http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2015/03/27/co-p...ek-melden/ )

This is really sad. People trust these guys to get them there, you know? Some people on that plane had dreams, hopes, and opportunities waiting at their destinations. When I flew to my current location I had ambitions, but the people on this plane had their hopes destroyed because of this.

Just said on the news that although he was sharing his apartment with his girlfriend, he may have recently split up from her.

Sounds like he had been suffering from depression and he has been hiding this from his employer.

I would like to think this will encourage more discussion about mental health issues and depression in men - I suspect it won't and it will focus more on why his employer was not aware of his condition and allowed him to continue working.

A very tragic event. RIP to all those killed.

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, as I didn't have time to read every post in its entirety up to now, but there are insights to be gained from an interview last night on German television with Lufthansa executives.

First, I have some more information about the operation of the doors, as I understood it, that didn't seem to have been mentioned yet. The crash must have most certainly been intentional, because over the course of minutes, a button needs to be actively pressed to continue to thwart attempts to gain entry to the cockpit in Germanwings/Lufthansa A320s. There are about three layers involved in the security model (I forget the details in their entirety).

The executives seemed pretty nervous in that they stiffly and stubbornly (as is the norm here) insisted that Lufthansa had the highest of standards and a demonstrative safety record over the years with the procedures they have practiced heretofore. They continually steered the question as to why they had yet, or chose not, to implement a system such as that in the U.S. requiring a second crew member to enter the cabin (which they dismissed as an idea they would evaluate and consider for the future). They also refused to publicize or, of course, discuss, what the reason was behind Lubitz' break in his training. As you've surely read, they merely insist that he was "100%" fit to fly. I only found out now from earlier posts in the topic here what the break in his training was due to. The German media won't publicize that (or Lubitz' name, even) due to privacy laws that are actually respected here (though in this case...).

Clearly, the executives recognize that if you put the lazy hole in their safety procedures together with the flag in the co-pilot's background, you've got one hell of an international liability lawsuit coming your way.

P.S. By the way, a work colleague said that the U.S. only implemented the second crew member policy after several failed attempts at suicide flights by pilots in the States, but I have yet to (try and) verify that as of yet.

There seemed to be a spate of reports emerging from anecdotal evidence (Facebook, friends of the dude, etc.) that his now ex-girlfriend was Middle Eastern and Muslim, and that Lubitz himself was a recent convert.

Now that line of reporting/thinking seems to be falling apart some as Speisa (some seemingly-legit European news site) has pulled their initial story, leaving no legit links available at this point and you're left with only blogs like this one...

Some dudes blog saying Lubitz was convert to Islam.

Quote: (03-27-2015 07:51 AM)authun Wrote:  

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, as I didn't have time to read every post in its entirety up to now, but there are insights to be gained from an interview last night on German television with Lufthansa executives.

First, I have some more information about the operation of the doors, as I understood it, that didn't seem to have been mentioned yet. The crash must have most certainly been intentional, because over the course of minutes, a button needs to be actively pressed to continue to thwart attempts to gain entry to the cockpit in Germanwings/Lufthansa A320s. There are about three layers involved in the security model (I forget the details in their entirety).

The executives seemed pretty nervous in that they stiffly and stubbornly (as is the norm here) insisted that Lufthansa had the highest of standards and a demonstrative safety record over the years with the procedures they have practiced heretofore. They continually steered the question as to why they had yet, or chose not, to implement a system such as that in the U.S. requiring a second crew member to enter the cabin (which they dismissed as an idea they would evaluate and consider for the future). They also refused to publicize or, of course, discuss, what the reason was behind Lubitz' break in his training. As you've surely read, they merely insist that he was "100%" fit to fly. I only found out now from earlier posts in the topic here what the break in his training was due to. The German media won't publicize that (or Lubitz' name, even) due to privacy laws that are actually respected here (though in this case...).

Clearly, the executives recognize that if you put the lazy hole in their safety procedures together with the flag in the co-pilot's background, you've got one hell of an international liability lawsuit coming your way.

P.S. By the way, a work colleague said that the U.S. only implemented the second crew member policy after several failed attempts at suicide flights by pilots in the States, but I have yet to (try and) verify that as of yet.

I'm not sure what the rules in EU/Germany are but in the US if you have any history of mental illness it's very, very difficult to get your flight medical. That might seem like a good thing but what it does is force pilots to hide any issues they might be having and avoid getting help. Imagine you're a young dude, you've invested tens of thousands of dollars into getting all your certs and landed a dream gig at an airline. Are you going to risk all of that because you feel a little down about a chick? No. So you put off getting any kind of help and go deeper and deeper into whatever depression is brewing. They should really switch over to the model they use for alcoholism which is if you self report and show you're getting help you can generally keep flying.

Quote: (03-27-2015 07:51 AM)authun Wrote:  

P.S. By the way, a work colleague said that the U.S. only implemented the second crew member policy after several failed attempts at suicide flights by pilots in the States, but I have yet to (try and) verify that as of yet.

The purpose of the flight attendant going to the flight deck is so they can open the door in the even of pilot incapacitation. Most planes built before the 2000s do not have a way to get from the cabin to the flight deck... It's just a simple deadbolt. Funny thing is the flight attendants are never trained how to open the door and unless a pilot shows them, they have no idea.

Quote:Quote:

I'm not sure what the rules in EU/Germany are but in the US if you have any history of mental illness it's very, very difficult to get your flight medical.

As more details about his medical condition come out, just keep in mind that Germany is an entirely different culture when it comes to sick leave and it's important to keep the significance of such a note in context. They hand these slips out like candy; sick days aren't counted against you as they are in the U.S. and Germans go to the doctors twice as much as Americans.

Ironically, strict rules about mental illness make people less likely to seek treatment or report it to employers. The military is a good example of this.

Quote: (03-27-2015 04:29 AM)72 and sunny Wrote:  

Quote: (03-26-2015 05:04 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Or simply doing what the US does and requiring a flight attendant to go into the cockpit while one of the pilots is in the bathroom. If they had this rule, this never would've happened. I suspect this policy will now be implemented worldwide.

Seriously, never would've happened?

That's just great. Jesus, do some of you ever, and I mean ever, think as to what you are saying??

You'd be wise to watch your tone there, newbie.

Quote:Quote:

The whole point of rigorous training, and physical and mental checks, conducted by airlines is to have the most vetted personnel in the cockpit.

The psychological checks vary widely from airline to airline and sometimes consists of nothing more than a checklist asking the pilot the simplest of questions which can be falsified.

Quote:Quote:

Having a minimum wage waiter/waitress in the cockpit only begs for more trouble because who is to say that he/she won't decide to wreak some havoc while in there?

Having two people in the cockpit would make it highly unlikely that one of them will bring down an aircraft. If a flight attendant goes berserk, the pilot calls for the other pilot. If the pilot loses it, the flight attendant is there to open the door.

Quote:Quote:

The fact that (post 9/11) US requires it means nothing because the US in general is ruled by kneejerk responses, fear of random lawsuits, and marketing gimmicks ("Fear not our passengers, when our pilot goes to a loo, we have a 20-year old hottie Stacy (or a 50-y.o. crypt keeper) keeping watch on your co-pilot.)

The point of the US policy isn't to ward off suicidal pilots as much as to ensure that if there's a medical emergency, the other pilot isn't locked out. I think for that reason alone it's justified.

Quote: (03-27-2015 09:02 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(03-27-2015, 09:29 AM)72 and sunny Wrote:  [quote]Quote:

The fact that (post 9/11) US requires it means nothing because the US in general is ruled by kneejerk responses, fear of random lawsuits, and marketing gimmicks ("Fear not our passengers, when our pilot goes to a loo, we have a 20-year old hottie Stacy (or a 50-y.o. crypt keeper) keeping watch on your co-pilot.)

The point of the US policy isn't to ward off suicidal pilots as much as to ensure that if there's a medical emergency, the other pilot isn't locked out. I think for that reason alone it's justified.

The US that mandated indestructible cabin doors post 9/11.

The response to that terrorist attack has now killed 150 people. Every action has consequences, and you can never forsee them all.

Cabin crew on the flight deck seems like a sensible idea given this situation, but when there's a crash caused by their presence the knee-jerk reaction will see them chained to the rear of the plane.

In previous jobs I've done mental health evaluations for prospective police officers.

It's for the most part a formality, they basically lie their asses off and say they've never had a miserable day in their lives, they take the psych tests and produce laughably fake scores denying problems of any kind, and unless they are actively hallucinating and unable to listen to what you're saying they're going to get a pass.

This guy could have come off totally fine if a little tightly wound in a psych eval even three weeks ago. Pilots must be able to present as superficially OK to even get the job. He might not have been feeling murderous even 6 hours before the flight.

Total speculation: Maybe a horrible mocking text from ex received right before the flight in combination with depression, rage at the woman and an underlying personality disorder pushed him over the edge. He might have wanted revenge at any cost. His hate for her completely overcame any remaining compassion and humanity he had.
"You'll be so sorry you ever treated me like this."
And she will be , and will deny he even hinted at what he would do.

I'm not saying evals are useless, it's just people can fall apart from a mood disorder in a couple of weeks or even days , they can become floridly psychotic and believe that aliens are tracking the plane etc, and you can't keep doing an eval daily or weekly or even monthly .

So you've got to have social and mechanical barriers in place so even when someone nuts up they get stopped. The traditional male desire to remain in denial about mental illness is not going to change for decades. "It's all in your mind", "you just have to think positive".

That's why I like the idea of returning to the 3 man crew. It's astronomically unlikely 2 of the three will nut up, unless they're some kind of religious nut buddies.

Quote:speakeasy Wrote:

Having two people in the cockpit would make it highly unlikely that one of them will bring down an aircraft. If a flight attendant goes berserk, the pilot calls for the other pilot. If the pilot loses it, the flight attendant is there to open the door.

Guys, there's something called mathematics.

In any given situation when one of the pilots is left by himself in the cockpit he may or may not proceed to down the plane. Now, if you introduce another person (flight attendant) into the cockpit that person ads his very own "(s)he may or may not proceed to down the plane" risk. Now you have two people who may or may not be up to no good whereby before you had one. In other words, additional person increases odds (of havoc) by virtue of his mere presence (especially unvetted, untrained), even if that person (arguably) also slightly offsets the pilot's original intention with that same physical presence.

Besides, there's also further increased risk of terrorist and crazies rushing the cockpit door with (more) frequent and/or longer door openings.

Again, the fact that you have that scenario today in the US, only shows how deep the rabbit hole goes. Increased risk is actually sold to general sheep as increased safety. Nothing is what it seems in the Matrix.

Quote:speakeasy Wrote:

The point of the US policy isn't to ward off suicidal pilots as much as to ensure that if there's a medical emergency, the other pilot isn't locked out. I think for that reason alone it's justified.

If there's a medical emergency the pilot/flight attendant crew who are outside aren't locked out. They can enter it right away or after a few mins. autoreset because the pilot inside isn't actively keeping the switch in the lock position, which was the case in this incident.

Quote: (03-27-2015 01:59 PM)72 and sunny Wrote:  

Guys, there's something called mathematics.

In any given situation when one of the pilots is left by himself in the cockpit he may or may not proceed to down the plane. Now, if you introduce another person (flight attendant) into the cockpit that person ads his very own "(s)he may or may not proceed to down the plane" risk.

That additional person doesn't add additional risk, it provides an additional check and balance. An additional person makes it increasingly unlikely that any one of them could successfully pull off a suicide crash before being stopped. Why do you think the copilot waited until the pilot was in the bathroom before carrying out his act? Could he have carried out this act with another person there? No.

Quote:Quote:

Besides, there's also further increased risk of terrorist and crazies rushing the cockpit door with (more) frequent and/or longer door openings.

How does having a flight attendant make the door openings more frequent? Door opens, pilot walks out, flight attendant walks in. How does that change the frequency? So the door stays open one extra second? What's the big issue?

How reliable are the sources that say that the pilot's most recent dip in his psychiatric health was triggered by being dumped by a girl?

Quote:Quote:

Doorway to disaster on Germanwings Flight 9525
STEPHEN L CARTER

OPINION:
So it looks deliberate.

French prosecutors said their working theory is that the co-pilot of Germanwings Flight 9525 deliberately crashed the plane into the Alps on Tuesday. The news comes hard on the heels of the chilling report from the New York Times that the captain had left the cockpit and was unable to get back in. The Times story quoted an official involved in the investigation:

"The guy outside is knocking lightly on the door, and there is no answer," the investigator said. "And then he hits the door stronger, and no answer. There is never an answer.

"He said, 'You can hear he is trying to smash the door down'."

Now here's Wednesday's statement from prosecutor Brice Robin:

"The co-pilot through voluntary abstention refused to open the door of the cockpit to the commander, and activated the button that commands the loss of altitude."

The co-pilot's intention, Robin said, was "to destroy the aircraft." He was alive at the moment of impact.

The chilling part is that the theory, if true, illustrates the ease with which the very devices created to make flights safer can be turned against their purpose. One of the pilots left the cockpit for perfectly innocent reasons, and then, when the emergency arose, couldn't get back in because the security design worked against him.

Since the September 11 attacks, federal law has required that the cockpit be protected by "a rigid door in a bulkhead between the flight deck and the passenger area to ensure that the door cannot be forced open from the passenger compartment". The door must "remain locked while any such aircraft is in flight except when necessary to permit access and egress by authorised persons". The door may be unlocked with a key, but they key may not be possessed "by any member of the flight crew who is not assigned to the flight deck". Most airlines around the world comply with those US rules.

According to its operating manual, the A320, like most passenger aircraft, has an electronic keypad that can be used to unlock the door. As a standard security measure, however, such keypads can be disabled by the pilots.

That's the point. Whoever is in the cockpit can lock everyone else out. This makes sense if one is trying to prevent a hijacking. It becomes a problem when the pilot turns out to be the bad guy. In the case of Flight 9525, if the prosecutors are right, the co-pilot, determined to crash the plane, would have disabled the keypad, making egress impossible in the time remaining.

These events stand as a chilling reminder of how difficult it is to harden our systems entirely against attack. The human factor is always a variable for which we cannot fully account. Eric Schlosser, in his book Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety, tells us how planners agonised for decades over how to prevent a crazed individual from stealing or detonating a nuclear weapon. Even if guarded against outsiders, the systems couldn't be completely protected against insiders. His chilling conclusion is that the problem was never really solved: We've just been lucky.

It's likely that pilots have been locked out of cockpits before, but always by accident. Their colleagues doubtless have let them back in, and nobody's given the matter another thought. Probably the incidents were never even logged. Even if they had been, it's not likely much would have changed. As the sociologist Charles Perrow notes in his book Normal Accidents, we rarely take precautions against incidents that seem trivial at the time they occur.

In hindsight, we can now see the cost of the security we've put into place. But there's no obvious fix. Plainly we can't forbid pilots to leave the flight deck - nature may always call. And having gone to all this trouble to harden cockpit doors, it would be silly to begin softening them again. The deployment of some sort of emergency unlocking device would be asking for trouble.

Maybe someone will come up with a clever and effective solution. But no matter how layered and complex our security systems, we'll never be able to remove the human element. And there is always the risk that an insider will thwart the system.

- Stephen L Carter is a Bloomberg View columnist and a law professor at Yale.

- The Washington Post

Quote: (03-27-2015 08:11 AM)MikeinMKE Wrote:  

There seemed to be a spate of reports emerging from anecdotal evidence (Facebook, friends of the dude, etc.) that his now ex-girlfriend was Middle Eastern and Muslim, and that Lubitz himself was a recent convert.

Now that line of reporting/thinking seems to be falling apart some as Speisa (some seemingly-legit European news site) has pulled their initial story, leaving no legit links available at this point and you're left with only blogs like this one...

Some dudes blog saying Lubitz was convert to Islam.

When in doubt, bring the muslim out.

Never fails.

Well I guess the "game can save lives" guys were right all along.

Quote:Quote:

As the hunt continued for a motive for Lubitz’s mass murder, it also emerged that he had recently split from his girlfriend, and appeared to have made a desperate last attempt to win her back by buying her a brand new Audi car only weeks ago. She appeared to have said no, as the car was never delivered

Quote: (03-27-2015 08:22 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Well I guess the "game can save lives" guys were right all along.

Quote:Quote:

As the hunt continued for a motive for Lubitz’s mass murder, it also emerged that he had recently split from his girlfriend, and appeared to have made a desperate last attempt to win her back by buying her a brand new Audi car only weeks ago. She appeared to have said no, as the car was never delivered

I need new glasses I think I just read something about buying a cunt a car. Clearly no one would do that. Damn.

I wonder if she is a cow or actually an attractive girl. I bet a Deutsche Mark that she is a an overrated chubby chick. I can't believe he would murder those people over a chick.

Quote: (03-27-2015 08:25 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

Quote: (03-27-2015 08:22 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Well I guess the "game can save lives" guys were right all along.

Quote:Quote:

As the hunt continued for a motive for Lubitz’s mass murder, it also emerged that he had recently split from his girlfriend, and appeared to have made a desperate last attempt to win her back by buying her a brand new Audi car only weeks ago. She appeared to have said no, as the car was never delivered

I need new glasses I think I just read something about buying a cunt a car. Clearly no one would do that. Damn.

I wonder if she is a cow or actually an attractive girl. I bet a Deutsche Mark that she is a an overrated chubby chick. I can't believe he would murder those people over a chick.

The most predictable entities of the day appear to be groupthink feminists and beta males. I dread the feminist bullshit over this.

Quote: (03-27-2015 08:22 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Well I guess the "game can save lives" guys were right all along.

Quote:Quote:

As the hunt continued for a motive for Lubitz’s mass murder, it also emerged that he had recently split from his girlfriend, and appeared to have made a desperate last attempt to win her back by buying her a brand new Audi car only weeks ago. She appeared to have said no, as the car was never delivered

Beta rage - it kills.

First Elliot Rodgers, now this. I wonder how often we'll be seeing this in the next few years.

HSLD

Quote: (03-27-2015 12:10 AM)Gringuito Wrote:  

It looks like airlines after this accident are finally moving voluntarily to the US system where two people are required in the cockpit at all times. This should help reduce this type of problem.

As sad as it is, they should make sure there is at least one MALE flight attendant with basic self-defence training to fulfil this role. Is your average coffee-serving broad going to be able to stop a pilot with the will to murder?

Quote: (03-27-2015 05:57 PM)Professor Fox Wrote:  

In hindsight, we can now see the cost of the security we've put into place. But there's no obvious fix. Plainly we can't forbid pilots to leave the flight deck - nature may always call. And having gone to all this trouble to harden cockpit doors, it would be silly to begin softening them again. The deployment of some sort of emergency unlocking device would be asking for trouble.

Maybe someone will come up with a clever and effective solution. But no matter how layered and complex our security systems, we'll never be able to remove the human element. And there is always the risk that an insider will thwart the system.

1) Toilet room in cockpit. Let's face it, the pilots are leaving to mack and cause they're bored, not because of bathroom.

2) Go back to 3 Man crews ( notice in the article it's not mentioned, although that's the way it used to be in all big airliners. That's because cost-reduction is holy Notice in the coming days what will NOT be mentioned is that all flight crews used to be 3-man. It's like the growing income equality, what is NOT mentioned is the real story. )

3) A type of lock that can only be hard-locked by 2 of the three man crew scanning their badges inside the cockpit.

That covers this scenario: We have in the cockpit
Sane pilot A,
Sane Pilot B
Would-be mass murderer Engineer X.

1) Sane pilot A leaves to go to bathroom.

2) Insane pilot X by surprise disables Sane Pilot B in the cockpit, screams " Spaghetti monster is great!" and sets course for a field stadium of soccer fans.

3) sane pilot A comes back, says "let me in"

4) No answer from Insane X.

5) Pilot A decides ( because he knows there's two people in there so there's foul play or a meteorite hit the windshield, but he hears no wind noise or alarms, so it's not a meteorite. )

5) Sane pilot A, declares cabin takeover, enlists aid of flight crew and assembles a four person team at flight deck door. Uses secret code to unlock door.

6) Insane X can't pilot and block door at same time, he should be overpowered by the five person emergency team. Smaller stews are tasked with gouging out Insane X's eyes while the presumably stronger pilot tries to tackle or bludgeon him.

Having pilots with guns makes all this totally undependable, but guns are sacred in USA and there's no use even trying to argue someone shouldn't have a gun so I don't do it.

I also haven't heard how it works that pilots leave the cockpit and it's just assumed the hijackers which the locked door is supposed to protect against can't just pounce at that point.