Aftermath of Germanwings tragedy - Cockpit security - where next?

Profile picture for user nJayM

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 1,684

In the aftermath of GermanWings tragedy - Cockpit Security - where next?

Is it conceivable that pilots of commercial airliners can be psychologically screened in depth and often to make it practical or financially viable?

Is it also conceivable that; as some airlines have done since the German Wings tragedy of introducing a procedure that a Cabin Crew member is in the cockpit when a pilot has to leave the cockpit; that every cabin crew member be also screened in depth and often to make it practical or financially viable?

We are talking of human beings (flight crew and cabin crew) who have unpredictable mood changes, domestic pressures, financial pressures, direct or indirect involvement with terror organisations, etc

The psychological screening isn't the same as a breathalyser.

What of the events reported of the 20 April regarding Cathay Pacific ?

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/21/travel/cathay-pacific-pilot-knives-heathrow/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/11549221/Airline-pilot-arrested-at-Heathrow-for-possession-of-knives.html

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/19/pilot-arrested-heathrow-possession-knives-cathay-pacific-hong-kong

At 61 a 'Nutter' or what?

What if any is/are the solution/s?

Original post

Member for

8 years

Posts: 5,849

Regarding Mental health screening:

I think it will be deemed unconstitutional if ruled in court. For example We don't screen our politican for mental health (shld we?) and Psychology is still not an explicative [explanatory] sciences. It would be hard to set a standard or draw a line clear enough, and not legally intrusive, to sustain such decisions out of the tinfoil hat mental state.

But then some Eu countries have now a legal standard world apart from a true democratic process. It might be possible that we'll see such decision implemented only as an excuse for conveniences in order to help the industry to recover from the GW's aftermath.

This would logically only aggravates the state of confusion (non-Cartesian process) and increases the tempo of error.

We have to remember that on-the field professionals deemed Mr Lubitz not fit for flying. This advice was then ruled-out by a non-specialist advice provided by a physician with no connection with Aero. If someone want to look and trim the possibility of another similar event*, that where they need to pin-point their attention.


*My opinion is that we still can't ruled out any other scenario in the GW crash.

Profile picture for user jbritchford

Member for

15 years 2 months

Posts: 1,518

Unconstitutional? I can imagine objections but I haven't heard that one; on what grounds do you think it would be unconstitutional?

Profile picture for user nJayM

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 1,684

There is a very sensible solution; not for retro-fitting, but to be considered in all new commercial aircraft both in production and waiting to be produced .

A possible effective solution for existing commercial aircraft in service is also being discussed.

A detail of the oveview of the top level software systems logic/algorithm(s) are being brain stormed at present. No patent safeguard is being considered by me or anyone involved and it is a sound solution and suggestion when it is offered.

None of the solutions involves psychological (non quantifiable) assessments.

Naturally not a lot can be shared here of the detail on this public forum until one of the large manufacturers take up the reigns. Also there is an inbuilt anti terrorist aspect that is near foolproof hence details of this will have to be kept well under wraps.

What can be incorporated and retro fitted if not already in place is automatic mandatory breathalyser checking apparatus on the flight deck for flight crew when they sit down at start of flight and after any periods of leaving the cockpit (for rest or comfort breaks). It should render the aircraft unmovable until all flight crew (including any relief flight crew members on board) are cleared by the breathalyser system and in the event of any flight crew coming up positive (excess alcohol) on the the breathalyser system during flight then the flight crew member not showing a positive (excess alcohol) result would have to request a landing at the next nearest airfield. And they would wait on a relief flight crew. Yes delays to passengers but in the interests of absolute safety.

The mandatory breathalyser check is now incorporated on many modern coaches.It immobilises the coach until a driver with an acceptable level of alcohol in their system clears the breathalyser check.