[Closed] Plane crash in the alps

It was already there, your brain was reading what it wanted to read. 😛 Some of you are quite angry today I must say.

I won't make any more guesses as to the pilot or the events that happened, but I will reply to semi-related discussion.

geetee1972 - Member

How often do you fly?

Maybe once a quarter? Why do you ask?

Probability as I fly 10 times a year.

One long distance for 18 hr plus then various 1 to 2 hours flight.

The airlines I flew with lost two planes and the other airline I flew with lost one. All within 3 years period.

Therefore, it is a concern to me who are flying the plane.

You might not but you have not experienced bumpy ride in the plane have you? 🙄

geetee1972 - Member

Nick - in the spirit of 'we don't know what really happened', it's also possible that Chewkw is reflecting some anger from somewhere else. He may also have lost someone in similar circumstances, i.e. someone else's suicide took someone else with them.

His anger and attachment to this line of debate would be understandable in those circumstances.

Okay, who in the above quotes are trying to rationalise and who is trying to be passive aggressive?

geetee1972 are you trying to be passive aggressive?

I have not lost anyone in the plane crash but my father did have a plane (military) crash while he was in RAF. Yes, he did. One of his colleague died I think. He was not destine to die that way and so were some of his colleagues. Nope, nobody committed suicide nor lost someone in such circumstances.

geetee1972, why are you making such personal assumption about my family members? I was commenting on the plane crash with my "rationale" and separating individual personal comments. Can you not distinguish that? 😯

There's absolutely zero evidence of premeditation. Not a shred.

Probability as I fly 10 times a year.

One long distance for 18 hr plus then various 1 to 2 hours flight.

The airlines I flew with lost two planes and the other airline I flew with lost one. All within 3 years period.

Therefore, it is a concern to me who are flying the plane.

You might not but you have not experienced bumpy ride in the plane have you?

Srsly?

I fly a similar amount to you, but I'm wholly able to rationalise, and would happily fly GermanWings tomorrow, or Malaysian. I've been on some very bumpy flights in the last year. Really struggling with the relevance again. Do you just like reading your own words?

The drive to the airport is still by far the most dangerous part of the journey.

You might not but you have not experienced bumpy ride in the plane have you?

Ah you mean turbulence? Yep, that's pretty normal, I don't tend to worry about that.

So you fly once a month. My wife flies five days a week. Has over 8000 hours logged. So my concern with safety is as sharp as anyone's and I have no concerns at all.

Any idea what the chances of you being killed in an aircrash are? Globally it's 1 in 4.7million. Move somewhere like the US and that increases to 1 in 45 million. You could fly every single day for 123,000 years before being even involved in a fatal aircrash let alone killed in one.

So your one flight a month barely even registers.

I must say a couple of posters have turned this thread into a witch hunt, which is quite sad really. IMO that's the point it crossed a line into bad taste.

Those responsible have made their opinions very clear, perhaps they should **** off duck out.

wow - it has finally happened I agree with njee20.

The drive to the airport is still by far the most dangerous part of the journey.

Per journeys as opposed to miles, flying is actually more dangerous.

njee20 - Member
Srsly?

I fly a similar amount to you, but I'm wholly able to rationalise, and would happily fly GermanWings tomorrow, or Malaysian. I've been on some very bumpy flights in the last year.

I will fly with them but at the back of my mind it will always be a concern.

🙁

The drive to the airport is still by far the most dangerous part of the journey.

A couple of months ago a truck driver came right up my ass in the motorway roadworks- lights on full beam then undertook me and part way realised that I was still in the middle lane as two feeder lanes from another motorway spew out into both into his lane at speed so he slew across sideways into my lane.

I stayed cool throughout.

I'd rather have that any day than get on a normal flight.

Flying in big commercial airlines scares me shitless. I'm not afraid to admit it. Before I board I probably have two or three big dumps. I scan everyone in the queue, I analyze every sound, I interpretate any staff hand signs as code for a problem. When I get off I feel like I've been reborn, given another chance. 😆

If you offered me a chance to get in a twin-seater plane with a 60-something year old pilot though? I'd jump at it. Mad.

geetee1972, why are you making such personal assumption about my family members?

Well because you were being so dogmatic and angry about this 'mass murder' thing (and pissing people off in the process) that I was trying to take a more understanding approach, cut you some slack and suggest there might be a reason for you being what was coming across as a bit of a knob. But since that's not the case, I guess you're just being.....well you can work it out.

That's because you perceive a lack of control Hora, I ****ing hate flying on airliners - I enjoy flying gliders.

If something went wrong in a glider, there's a good chance I could bail. In an airliner you are crammed into a flying bomb surrounded by smelly passengers and no way to escape. Gliding is probably more dangerous though, however humans are emotional beings more than they are rational beings.

geetee1972 - Member

You might not but you have not experienced bumpy ride in the plane have you?

Ah you mean turbulence? Yep, that's pretty normal, I don't tend to worry about that.

So you fly once a month. My wife flies five days a week. Has over 8000 hours logged. So my concern with safety is as sharp as anyone's and I have no concerns at all.

Any idea what the chances of you being killed in an aircrash are? Globally it's 1 in 4.7million. Move somewhere like the US and that increases to 1 in 45 million. You could fly every single day for 123,000 years before being even involved in a fatal aircrash let alone killed in one.

So your one flight a month barely even registers.

You have no concerned but I am Not you. Can you understand that? Everyone sees things different? Yes?

Now applying the logic of probability then the likelihood of a plane crash is higher for your close one by comparison to ordinary folks is that right? Your being calm etc does not mean your logic makes sense to other without prior explanation of your wife or you as frequently flyer.

Yes, 1 in 47 million but what is Your probability?

geetee1972 - Member

geetee1972, why are you making such personal assumption about my family members?

Well because you were being so dogmatic and angry about this 'mass murder' thing (and pissing people off in the process) that I was trying to take a more understanding approach, cut you some slack and suggest there might be a reason for you being what was coming across as a bit of a knob. But since that's not the case, I guess you're just being.....well you can work it out.

Are they your family? I may be making comments but I have never attacked forum members' family or make assumption about their family members. I only comments on forum users coz they are up to it.

You can called me what you like but do leave family members out will you? I am just be nice here ...

I will fly with them but at the back of my mind it will always be a concern.

That's your inability to rationalise. Entirely irrelevant. Like all your contributions here.

wow - it has finally happened I agree with njee20.

Don't worry, there'll be something to change that soon I'm sure 😉

Per journeys as opposed to miles, flying is actually more dangerous.

That's a corking way to skew statistics though isn't it!? How many times does the average person drive a car each year? 500? How many flights do they make? 2?

Per billion hours seems a more comparable metric, as I accept that the speed of a plane does bias deaths/km in favour of aviation:

Deaths per billion hours
Bus: 11.1
Rail: 30
Air: 30.8
Water: 50
Van: 60
Car: 130
Foot: 220
Bicycle: 550
Motorcycle: 4840
Space Shuttle: 63,128

Put it this way, if you took as many journeys in an airliner as you did in a car then you are more likely to end up in an aircraft accident. The risk per journey is supposedly about 3 times than driving. Geetees risk on that day of being in a car crash is lower than his subsequent flight risk, his lifetime risk for being involved in a car accident is much higher though.

they don't get psychological screening. I'm not sure I know enough about the subject to state that there is any potential value to that being done mind,

I suppose i would become a case of knowing what you're going to get asked each time it comes round . . . so can prefix your answers to suit what gets you through ??? ( I don't know enough about the subject, but just a thought)

As for the copilot actions . . . what I wonder is how did he set the descent or instruct the plane to do so. I thought you were able to set either (or both) a height and/or a rate of descent / climb.

My point being, if the height was set all the way to zero from the 30k feet they were at, then thats clearly a singular act to bring down the plane.

But what if there was a problem such as the cabin pressure discussed earlier through which the co-pilot decided to instruct the plane to descend at a particular rate of descent, with the intention of levelling flight at a lower altitude, but passed out before being able to do so, or being able to let the pilot through the locked door, leaving the rate of descend unchanged until it hit the ground.

Both are deliberate acts to descend the plane, and have the same end result ... but different intentions at the time of making the plane descend.

Put it this way, if you took as many journeys in an airliner as you did in a car then you are more likely to end up in an aircraft accident.

Yes, but it's a stupid metric, because you'll struggle to make a commercial flight of much under 30 minutes, and the vast majority of car journeys are significantly less than that. Deaths/hour is a much more comparable metric, and that shows car travel to be significantly more dangerous than air travel.

FWIW, deaths per billion journeys:

Deaths per billion journeys
Bus: 4.3
Rail: 20
Van: 20
Car: 40
Foot: 40
Water: 90
Air: 117
Bicycle: 170
Motorcycle: 1640
Space Shuttle: 14,925,373

Chewk I think you might have completely misunderstood me here. I was not attcking your family. I was being sensitive to something that might have happened to you that we don't know about and would explain why you were saying what you were saying (which is that the pilot is a mass murderer).

I completely accept you might have a fear of flying. I accept that the more you fly the more likely you, statistically speaking, to be involved in an accident.

You're just also being a little insensitive and dogmatic about this mass murderer thing.

Yes, but it's a stupid metric, because you'll struggle to make a commercial flight of much under 30 minutes, and the vast majority of car journeys are significantly less than that. Deaths/hour is a much more comparable metric, and that shows car travel to be significantly more dangerous than air travel.

Because a larger percentage of aircraft crash at or near takeoff, those that don't likely carry on flying for another few hours. If there were more shorter journeys then this would likely change.

Because a larger percentage of aircraft crash at or near takeoff, those that don't likely carry on flying for another few hours. If there were more shorter journeys then this would likely change.

Not enough to make car travel safer if you're using an apples:apples comparison though.

Also, I'm not sure where you got those stats from as all the stats I've seen show them about even "per hour".

Gotta say, the thought has only just occurred that some poor sod (or sods) has to listen to the CVR and make an educated guess as to what's happened - a sobering thought, it's not a patch compared to what the relatives of the crash victims must be going through, but what a horrible, harrowing way to earn your daily bread.

Also, I'm not sure where you got those stats from as all the stats I've seen show them about even "per hour"

[url= http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/166/2/212.short ]Here[/url] and [url= http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/square/ca14/ALYCIDON%20RAIL/INFORMED%20SOURCES%20ARCHIVE/INF%20SRCS%202000/Informed%20Sources%2010%202000.htm ]here[/url].

but what a horrible, harrowing way to earn your daily bread.

The opposite, I bet its actually very interesting, and gives you a lot of job satisifaction. They are doing a job. Emotion doesnt come in to it, or you couldnt do the job.

it's not a patch compared to what the relatives of the crash victims must be going through, but what a horrible, harrowing way to earn your daily bread.

As crash investigation jobs go I reckon it could be worse. A friend of mine is an expert* on on board fires - she helps piece together what happened from what's left behind - plane and contents.

*A proper one, not an internet one.

[quote=fisha said]
But what if there was a problem such as the cabin pressure discussed earlier through which the co-pilot decided to instruct the plane to descend at a particular rate of descent, with the intention of levelling flight at a lower altitude, but passed out before being able to do so, or being able to let the pilot through the locked door, leaving the rate of descend unchanged until it hit the ground.
Both are deliberate acts to descend the plane, and have the same end result ... but different intentions at the time of making the plane descend.

From what I've read about the door lock, it requires action from within the cabin to stop an emergency code entered on the outside opening the door.
The reports so far indicate the co-pilot was breathing til the end.
Why press the descend button but not communicate with ATC.

Emotion doesnt come in to it, or you couldnt do the job.

njee20 - Member
Put it this way, if you took as many journeys in an airliner as you did in a car then you are more likely to end up in an aircraft accident.
Yes, but it's a stupid metric, because you'll struggle to make a commercial flight of much under 30 minutes, and the vast majority of car journeys are significantly less than that. Deaths/hour is a much more comparable metric, and that shows car travel to be significantly more dangerous than air travel.

There are dozens of flights under 30mins - ANY within the Canary islands are less than 20 including takeoff/landing.
Plenty even within the UK can be that too.

They could hear him turning the crank to disable the autopilot. He was breathing until the end. Shocking.

http://www.meretrix.com/~harry/flying/notes/safetyvsdriving.html

Sadly the co pilot died as did his passengers, and fellow staff,until we know what happened and why, its so sad to call the co pilot a mass murderer.

The families and freinds of those involved will be grieving for their loss of loved ones.

Lets also not forget the Moorgate incident 40 years ago when a tube train driver failed to stop at a dead end underground station , 40 people where killed, then, and no mechanical problems where found.

There are reasons for most things, its just the time it takes to find out what happened.

[quote=njee20 ]Here's something for you... flying is statistically just as safe as it was on Tuesday morning (well, very very minescule difference)

Statistically it's a tiny bit safer than it was.

geetee1972 - Member

Chewk I think you might have completely misunderstood me here. I was not attcking your family. I was being sensitive to something that might have happened to you that we don't know about and would explain why you were saying what you were saying (which is that the pilot is a mass murderer).

Ok.

I completely accept you might have a fear of flying. I accept that the more you fly the more likely you, statistically speaking, to be involved in an accident.

Ok.

You're just also being a little insensitive and dogmatic about this mass murderer thing.

Ok. I shall stop that. 😀

There are dozens of flights under 30mins - ANY within the Canary islands are less than 20 including takeoff/landing.
Plenty even within the UK can be that too.

Yeah the length of the trip isn't really significant, a long flight has about the same risk as a short flight. Hence the use of "per hours" doesn't paint a complete picture of the risks involved with flying.

Folks,

I shall STOP the reference to mass murderer.

🙁

edit: ... wait for the outcome of the investigation ...

Folks,

I shall STOP the reference to mass murderer.

WTF. Why post that!? You must just be trolling. Seriously, piss off. I can't believe I'm wearing out my keyboard on you.

Yeah the length of the trip isn't really significant, a long flight has about the same risk as a short flight. Hence the use of "per hours" doesn't paint a complete picture of the risks involved with flying.

Where we're ending up is that there isn't really a way to compare the two, hardly surprising given how different they are as modes of transport. However it remains that statistically speaking you are more likely to die en route to the airport, than when on the plane.

Tom,

Do me a favour, and stick to bikes or something you know about. You're really demonstrating your ignorance of aviation matters and this isn't the thread or medium to be spouting such nonsense given the horrific allegations associated with this crash.

Thank you.

You can twist the stats anyway you like, but one I read went along the lines of: if you chose to fly a scheduled flight anywhere in the world every day at random, on average it would be 280,000 years before you were involved in an incident or accident. And then the chances are you'd survive.

It may seem like air crashes are more common than the used to be, but the accident rate is falling and much smaller than it was even 5 years ago. The reason there are more accidents is due to the huge growth in passenger traffic. If you applied the same accident rates we had 10 or 15 years ago, by now there should be an air crash every week. But safety has improved at a faster rate than growth so flying is getting safer despite thousands more flights every day.

Deaths per billion journeys stat doesn't say anything about safety. That is just an indication of your risk of death should you be involved in an accident. The point about the safety of flying is that you are extremely unlikely to be involved in an accident at all.

No consolation to those involved in crashes though.

allthepies,

Yup - agreed about contacting ATC. Strange set of circumstances all round I suppose.

Slightly different aspect on the topic, but I had a long chat with an air traffic controller about black boxes, and the importance of them being able to survive ... then be found as well. (think of MH370) We came up with the notion that planes should have an ability to emergency broadcast their live data when the plane thinks its in an emergency situation ( such as collision warnings, sharp dives, engine failures etc) and that planes should be able to listen out and record any emergency broadcasts they receive whilst flying. That way, when the plane is crashing, others in the air are capturing the data in a manner that is going to all but guarantee will be available at an early stage.

njee20 - Member

Folks,
I shall STOP the reference to mass murderer.

WTF. Why post that!? You must just be trolling. Seriously, piss off. I can't believe I'm wearing out my keyboard on you.

😛 No, not trolling as my assumption was based on the announcement but I think my reference might put people off so better stop and wait for the final investigation.

Is it just me, or does anyone else think Chewkw is Fred's latest alias?

@project you can say its sad to call the co-pilot a mass murderer but it does look incredibly likely that that is exactly what he is. Stories and quotes now from fellow flight school pupils who said he had a burn out / depression and took 6 months off flight training.

@geetee, I think it is relevant he was young / inexperienced. If he was prone to depression he might have killed just himself if he'd been flying only as an amateur or on smaller commercial or cargo planes or killed himself via some other means.

It's a fact but I feel far more sorry for the 149 other people who died than I do for the co-pilot

It's a fact but I feel far more sorry for the 149 other people who died than I do for the co-pilot

It's a fact but I feel far more sorry for the 149 other people who died than I do for the co-pilot

I feel sorry for the kind of people who have nothing more going on in their lives than to speculate and make pronouncements based on the rumours surrounding this tragedy.

[quote=fisha ]We came up with the notion that planes should have an ability to emergency broadcast their live data when the plane thinks its in an emergency situation ( such as collision warnings, sharp dives, engine failures etc)

Wouldn't have helped for MH370 or this one as it wouldn't have been triggered (until way too late to be useful). Nor likely for AF447 because the data wouldn't have been received. So that immediately gets rid of all the obvious recent cases where I presume you were suggesting it would be useful.

Deaths per billion journeys stat doesn't say anything about safety. That is just an indication of your risk of death should you be involved in an accident. The point about the safety of flying is that you are extremely unlikely to be involved in an accident at all.

Major stats fail.

Where we're ending up is that there isn't really a way to compare the two, hardly surprising given how different they are as modes of transport. However it remains that statistically speaking you are more likely to die en route to the airport, than when on the plane.

Again, major stats fail. Also, the numbers I have posted point to flying being just as dangerous per hour as driving. That's without taking into account hours vs journeys and the bias inherent in using hours as a measure.

jambalaya - Member

it does look incredibly likely that that is exactly what he is.

It's incredibly likely that it was premeditated with malice aforethought and that he was in sound mind when he did it? Based on...

Although I guess that as fatal accidents are lower but when they do occur casualties are much higher, so your chance of being involved in a fatal accident whilst flying is much lower borks the results as well. So as an individual on board a flight, you have a lower chance of being involved in a fatal accident and thus being killed.

Deaths per billion journeys/hours/miles should be considered as a risk of a number of individuals dying on a journey, not your own personal risk.

Per million hours:
General Aviation:
11.2 fatal accidents and 19.7 fatalities per million hours
Driving:
.528 fatal accidents and .588 fatalities per million hours
Commercial Aviation:
.2 fatal accidents and 6.5 fatalities per million flight hours

Again though, the fact that flight times are longer skews the results a bit.

So the first poster I quoted was actually right, I misinterpreted the post.

apparently the co-pilot became "curt" when the captain was talking through the landing.

Either he was planning to never make the landing or something snapped then, maybe some anger towards the captain?

As for live data - it can't hurt. Rolls Royce get live engine data and it can help prevent failure and plan maintenance. The question is what you do with it, how you store it, retrieve it etc. If a US plane is over Asia who receives and logs the data? Do the manufacturers set it up? Governments? Airlines? I would assume you would have to use satellites?

I suppose that if the 'plane had encountered a technical problem and was gliding inexorably downwards, the pilot might at least have tried to land it somewhere flat rather than stuff it straight into a mountain at high speed.

BoardinBob - Member

Is it just me, or does anyone else think Chewkw is Fred's latest alias?

Moi as someone else vice versa? 😆

Who's Fred? 😯 I think I can vaguely recall him.
[b]
Anyway, back to the original topic please.[/b]

... less of me cos I know I am good. 😆

andyl - Member

apparently the co-pilot became "curt" when the captain was talking through the landing.

Either he was planning to never make the landing or something snapped then, maybe some anger towards the captain?

Reading other news the fingers are clearly pointing at the co-pilot so my original assumption may not be far off. 😮

Fred, occasionally, made sense

TBH its the only poster on here on who I just glide over to the next one though the bold caught my eye and it was the last post

Junkyard - lazarus

Fred, occasionally, made sense

TBH its the only poster on here on who sI just glide over to the next one

I see ... 😯

I feel sorry for the kind of people who have nothing more going on in their lives than to speculate and make pronouncements based on the rumours surrounding this tragedy.

It's incredibly likely that it was premeditated with malice aforethought and that he was in sound mind when he did it? Based on...

A racer, my point regards mh370 was more along the lines of reducing the effort needed to get black box data when it goes missing. You're absolutely right that it may not have helped in that case.

My idea was for planes to broadcast and receive data themselves without need for ground listening or satellite. For the majority of airliner flights, they are in radio sight of other plans, even when transatlantic. They broadcast noir knowing if anyone is listening . . . More of a just in case type thing. The system wouldn't need to be overly protected from crashes, since as it would be expected to be wrecked on impact as the data is stored on another plane which is likely to complete its journey.

Having a bit of think about it more, regarding whose data, it could be a standard format of what is recorded, but in an encrypted data format that only the airline has the encryption key to. Then other planes record blindly, and pass it over as it's no use to them personally .

As for live data, that won't give much before it hits, but it could easily be scaled to send live -1, -2, -3 etc minute data on set frequency steps away from the original emergency broadcast frequency.

jambalaya - Member

Based on official announcements it was deliberate and thus clearly in my view premeditated.

Then I suggest you look up what the word means.

Standby for various airlines promoting their 'enhanced' security procedures as a result of this terrible crash.

Never let genuine safety issues get in the way of a bit of opportunist PR.

And whatever you do, don't let those guys carry more than 100ml of toothpaste.

Good grief.. this thread is like being in a busy room full of people shouting at each other 🙄

Sory Tom not a stats fail. It says nothing about the number of accidents over the 1billion journeys which is what we're really interested in. It could be all those deaths are caused by 1 accident in 1 billion journeys whereas on other modes of transport many more accidents would occur. 3500 people die on british roads every year, I'm not sure if on average a quarter of those deaths occur in air accidents every year. For you as an individual all you're worried about is the risk of an accident not how many people might die if you are involved in an accident.

23.7% of stats are bullshit (and that's a fact prove me wrong!) and prove nothing unless the assumptions and other fiddle factors are stated to provide context.

Trek - Norweagan carrier has already said it will introduce the two person minimum, it is a fact that those are the rules in the US and the EU airlines don't follow the same procedures. We have to admit that the US authorities where right on this one, they forsaw this sought of issue when the re-inforced doors where introduced.

Northwind - Member

jambalaya - Member

Based on official announcements it was deliberate and thus clearly in my view premeditated.

Then I suggest you look up what the word means.

Plan, with intention, to evade being caught, intention to carry out plan, carry out plan.

Am I right in saying that all these are evident?

Intention
Plan
Action
Execute plan

😯

no_eyed_deer - Member

Good grief.. this thread is like being in a busy room full of people shouting at each other

Nahhh ... see, you are wrong there (getting very anal now 😆 )
Nobody is shouting on the forum. i.e. no one has typed with capital. 🙄
Ts! Ts! Ts! You don't even know how interweb works ... 😯

Good grief.. this thread is like being in a busy room full of people shouting at each other

[quote=jambalaya ]Trek - Norweagan carrier has already said it will introduce the two person minimum,EasyJet too I believe.

Jambalaya, we don't have to accept they were right at all.
Personally, I'm not reassured by the thought that a member of cabin crew is standing behind me.
What if they're intent on causing trouble?
These are knee jerk, PR driven reactions rather than considered, security based decisions.
Sure, you can come up with scenarios where an extra crew member in the flight deck may help, but on the balance of risk I'd suggest it's more harm than good.

However, my opinion doesn't really count. All I ask, is that decisions are made on the basis of perceived and actual risk, rather than opportunism.

Am I right in saying that all these are evident?

Intention
Plan
Action
Execute plan

Not from the press reports I have read, no.

Unless other information comes to light the only one we can be sure of is Action.

Trek, you can be assured that since this is the second accident where lack of access into the cockpit has been a factor (the first being the Helios crash) since 9/11 when armoured cockpit doors were introduced the industry will do something about this.

But for all you airline pilots on here I fear that this is all strengthening the case of pilotless aircraft, given that almost all air crashes in recent times has been a result of pilot error. No aircraft has ever crashed when flying on auto pilot or cat 3A auto land in zero visibility. It's a big leap of faith the travelling public will have to face but I'd we really want zero air crashes it's the next step.

I thought the mega airbus (a380? ) Was such that to get insurance, the pilots had to let it do the flying on its own.?

Having worked with UAVs a lot, I emphatically don't second that ^^. The Hudson ditching was an example of airmanship saving the day, would a UAV have done that?

GrahamS - Member

Am I right in saying that all these are evident?

Intention
Plan
Action
Execute plan

Not from the press reports I have read, no.

Unless other information comes to light the only one we can be sure of is Action.

Well BBC news just reported that persecutor said " ... the co-pilot crashed the plane deliberately ... ".

Let's see if we can satisfy the following conditions/definitions:

[b]1. Intend[/b] - he has no involuntary action so that leaves his deliberation action which means he was fully aware of his action. Intention. Checked!

[b]2. Plan[/b] - this is still unclear until they find more information from his house but some news have started reporting that he was "trying to commit suicide". If he has prior knowledge of his intention then he must have put a plan in at a later stage. Let's see.

[b]3. Action[/b] - that's very clear. He manipulated the control etc. Checked!

[b]4. Execute plan[/b] - if he has planned it then, he managed to execute the plan. Related to point 2. Let's see ...

😯

You're right, the majority are pilot error, but to me that calls for better pilot training (which is happening), as I don't think the technology's mature/secure/robust enough yet for unpiloted.

wobbliscot, who knows what the future holds.
Re cat 3 approaches, I can guarantee that if it hadn't been for the intervention of pilots on a Cat 3 approach, many a/c would have been lost, particularly in the early days.

The Helios incident resulted in many changes to SOPs, hopefully such an event couldn't happen again.

I'm not a Luddite, I'm more than happy for technology to take it's course if it's beneficial.
I just want it to be made on the basis of sound reasoning. Quite often we solve one issue, but open up a whole bank of new problems. Cheers, Trek.

Sadly we flew past the Alps that very morning to Alicante and at 9:25 time at 37000 feet I spoted a very strange and erratic Jet stream Most snake like with two frantic turns followed by a dark jet stream but no jet at the front. As the two further jets below us.
I was to talk to the cabin crew but we seemed to decend and come off course to see closer and to turn side on of the jet stream., But again the jet stream was at an abrupt end with no jet.

God rest there souls

Sory Tom not a stats fail. It says nothing about the number of accidents over the 1billion journeys which is what we're really interested in. It could be all those deaths are caused by 1 accident in 1 billion journeys whereas on other modes of transport many more accidents would occur. 3500 people die on british roads every year, I'm not sure if on average a quarter of those deaths occur in air accidents every year. For you as an individual all you're worried about is the risk of an accident not how many people might die if you are involved in an accident.

23.7% of stats are bullshit (and that's a fact prove me wrong!) and prove nothing unless the assumptions and other fiddle factors are stated to provide context.

I did correct myself chap.

I am very shocked by the News output.

And I feel quite sad.

😕

I have a plan for

[b]how to talk a complete load of rubbish[/b]

but still have Junky pay attention to me

Since 9/11 flight deck doors have been locked from the inside. That has contributed to the crashing of this plane, conceivably the Malaysian plane, and at least one other (Singapore? Can't remember). The question now must be - are travelers more at' risk from terrorists or pilots?

[quote=wobbliscott ]Trek, you can be assured that since this is the second accident where lack of access into the cockpit has been a factor (the first being the Helios crash) since 9/11 when armoured cockpit doors were introduced the industry will do something about this.

There's a strong suspicion it's the third - though there's speculation that in the other the crew had deliberately incapacitated the pax anyway.

Trek, I'm no advocate of pilotless aircraft but the reality is that back in the 50's and 60's pilots came from miltary backgrounds where 'by the seat of the pants flying' was the thing and despite far less reliable aiircraft than we have today flying was safe enough to prosper. These days with the lack of supply of pilots from the miltary, pilots are trained for proceduralised flying, largely in simulators (they're human after all and get scared when things don't go to plan) from day 1 so their basic airmanship is not as good as it was. Great for 99.9% of the time when everything goes right and to procedure, but for those 0.1% of occasions where things go properly pear shaped they haven't got those basic instinct old school pilots like to boast about. And it's then when the risk of an accident is real and the quality of the pilot is needed. I'm not sure how the industry can close that skills gap in an economically viable way - we all like our cheap flights at the end of the day. Anyway, I'm about to catch a plane for my 7hr flight back home, so wish me luck!

Sorry Tom, I didn't see your correction when I submitted.

Sadly we flew past the Alps that very morning to Alicante and at 9:25 time at 37000 feet I spoted a very strange and erratic Jet stream Most snake like with two frantic turns followed by a dark jet stream but no jet at the front. As the two further jets below us.
I was to talk to the cabin crew but we seemed to decend and come off course to see closer and to turn side on of the jet stream., But again the jet stream was at an abrupt end with no jet.

God rest there

Private Eye did a great piece on internet forums after the last "mystery" plane crash, and this one beats their satirical one by a mile! 🙂

aracer - Member

I have a plan for

how to talk a complete load of rubbish

but still have Junky pay attention to me

Please let us know when you are talking rubbish otherwise we may mistake everything you say as rubbish. This is to avoid misunderstanding.

When do you plan to start your " ... load of rubbish"? 😆