GermanWings Accident Triggers New Rules

[On Guard for Thee]

One policy affects applies to a cockpit of a plane and has no effect on any rights. The other is national legislation that affects an entire nation... yeah.... Exactly the same.

I sort of tried to point out that same distinction a bit earlier in this thread. Not sure if it caught on. As far as aviation goes Im quite happy to spend time doing things to prevent against something that is not very likely in the first place. As for my rights and freedoms, not quite so happy to give those away under the same rationale.

[Smallc]

One policy affects applies to a cockpit of a plane and has no effect on any rights. The other is national legislation that affects an entire nation... yeah.... Exactly the same.

If it takes away rights, it won't stand. As of now, I don't see it though.

[Bob Macadoo]

If it takes away rights, it won't stand. As of now, I don't see it though.

Well to be fair.....legal experts not suckling at the PMO teat do see it though.......could you post your LLB please?

[Smallc]

Well to be fair.....legal experts not suckling at the PMO teat do see it though.......could you post your LLB please?

The Constitutional experts at Justice will have crafted this bill...though to be fair, they have been stretching recently. I really don't have much of an opinion on the bill. I was just agreeing that it has a similar basis to the new cockpit rules.

[Derek 2.0]

You can deactivate the autopilot but I wont tell you how. Its how the first A 320 crash happened. 3200 fpm is not a steep rate of descent. Its easy to exceed that. Doesnt really matter does it.

I'll bite..........why won't you divulge how to deactivate the "autopilot"? Is it because you don't know how? Surely anyone interested can read this Airbus pdf, hence the info is not "Top Secret"

Two toggle buttons on the A320's FCU:

Having never flown a A320, but with reading Airbus notes for five minutes, its rather obvious.........so from the above FCU, which two buttons turn off the aircraft's "autopilot"? No need for the cloak and dagger...........

---------

As mentioned by Argus, its rather clear that the pilot thwarted the flight control protection modes by simply complying with the aircraft's programmed flight control laws, descending the aircraft at a rapid rate (closer to 4000 fpm based on the last reported altitude and point of impact), but not so much so to engage programmed safeties ( the aircraft pitched 15 degrees or greater nose down) and setting the FCU's level off point lower than the highest mountain peaks.........

Clearly further safeguards are needed, and will be brought forth..........as is said often in the United States, the FAA's safety guidelines are written in blood.

[On Guard for Thee]

I'll bite..........why won't you divulge how to deactivate the "autopilot"? Is it because you don't know how? Surely anyone interested can read this Airbus pdf, hence the info is not "Top Secret"

Two toggle buttons on the A320's FCU:

Having never flown a A320, but with reading Airbus notes for five minutes, its rather obvious.........so from the above FCU, which two buttons turn off the aircraft's "autopilot"? No need for the cloak and dagger...........

---------

As mentioned by Argus, its rather clear that the pilot thwarted the flight control protection modes by simply complying with the aircraft's programmed flight control laws, descending the aircraft at a rapid rate (closer to 4000 fpm based on the last reported altitude and point of impact), but not so much so to engage programmed safeties ( the aircraft pitched 15 degrees or greater nose down) and setting the FCU's level off point lower than the highest mountain peaks.........

Clearly further safeguards are needed, and will be brought forth..........as is said often in the United States, the FAA's safety guidelines are written in blood.

Yes I know how to deactivate an autopilot. Argus comment seemed to imply that you cant do so. In any case, what he likely did was twirl a knob up near the glare shield to input a 3200 ft. min. ROD and then reconnect the autopilot. Down we go. He wouldnt even have to be bothered flying it.

[Derek 2.0]

Yes I know how to deactivate an autopilot. Argus comment seemed to imply that you cant do so. In any case, what he likely did was twirl a knob up near the glare shield to input a 3200 ft. min. ROD and then reconnect the autopilot. Down we go. He wouldnt even have to be bothered flying it.

Then, from the picture of the A320's FCU, which button(s) are pressed and/or knob(s) rotated (I've never twirled any knobs in a cockpit)? And why were you so averse to tell Argus? It's not a guarded secret.........

[On Guard for Thee]

Then, from the picture of the A320's FCU, which button(s) are pressed and/or knob(s) rotated (I've never twirled any knobs in a cockpit)? And why were you so averse to tell Argus? It's not a guarded secret.........

I have twirled knobs in a cockpit. That was a 24 year old airplane, so it had some knobs still. Doesnt really matter in the overall scheme. He dialled in a rate of descent ad down she went. If Argus wants to know how to deactivate flight control systems he will have to find out on his own. Although I have no idea why he would. I just corrected some of his comments on technical aspects. The press sometimes stears people wrong.

[Bob Macadoo]

I have twirled knobs in a cockpit. That was a 24 year old airplane, so it had some knobs still. Doesnt really matter in the overall scheme. He dialled in a rate of descent ad down she went. If Argus wants to know how to deactivate flight control systems he will have to find out on his own. Although I have no idea why he would. I just corrected some of his comments on technical aspects. The press sometimes stears people wrong.

There it is....aviation porn isn't exciting as gun porn though.

[Wilber]

The A320 autopilot is never really off. Manual control is provided by using the side stick to send commands to the autopilot, rather than using the flight guidance system. When I got the chance to sit in a 320 cockpit, the lack of trim switches was driving me nuts until it dawned on me that the autopilot always keeps the aircraft in trim even when the pilot is controlling the aircraft with the sidestick.

It seems German privacy laws might have been a major enabler in this incident.

http://time.com/3761895/germanwings-privacy-law/?xid=emailshare

[eyeball]

It seems German privacy laws might have been a major enabler in this incident.

Here we go...

Way ahead of you.

So. When we start mandating that doctors inform authorities about the medical fitness of patients where public safety can be compromised where do we stop? Should critical only mean in cases where deaths and injuries can occur and if so how many? Should the mobilization of resources and intent to mobilize more in the wake of two soldiers deaths be the measure of how big our reaction should be or should it give us pause to consider how far state governments might try to over-react? Why should we restrict measures or only focus on this as an occupational or industrial issue, and if we do should it include people whose business, economic or political decisions can affect millions?

Let's not forget as many as 1 in 5 Canadians will suffer a mental illness in their life. Everyone of these who drive or own a gun for example is a potential ticking time-bomb.

Where do we start where do we stop and with who why and when?

[Argus]

I have twirled knobs in a cockpit. That was a 24 year old airplane, so it had some knobs still. Doesnt really matter in the overall scheme. He dialled in a rate of descent ad down she went. If Argus wants to know how to deactivate flight control systems he will have to find out on his own. Although I have no idea why he would. I just corrected some of his comments on technical aspects. The press sometimes stears people wrong.

I believe he's trying to get you to supply evidence that you actually know anything about your talking about (which you are steadfastly refusing to do).

I really don't get the snottiness on this subject, except by Bob Macadoo, of course, who is incapable of writing any other sort of post. There's no politics involved here, nor ideology. All I was suggesting was my impression of the interview I saw said the aircraft would not permit someone to simply shove the nose down and head straight into the ground. I am uncertain as to whether that means it can't be done under autopilot or it can't be done at all and make no claim to any piloting expertise.

Edited March 29, 2015 by Argus

[On Guard for Thee]

I believe he's trying to get you to supply evidence that you actually know anything about your talking about (which you are steadfastly refusing to do).

I really don't get the snottiness on this subject, except by Bob Macadoo, of course, who is incapable of writing any other sort of post. There's no politics involved here, nor ideology. All I was suggesting was my impression of the interview I saw said the aircraft would not permit someone to simply shove the nose down and head straight into the ground. I am uncertain as to whether that means it can't be done under autopilot or it can't be done at all and make no claim to any piloting expertise.

Theres no snottiness as you put it. I was only pointing out that the descent rate leading to this crash could be easily achieved by dialing it into the AP, or simply deactivating it ad pushing the nose down.

[Argus]

Theres no snottiness as you put it. I was only pointing out that the descent rate leading to this crash could be easily achieved by dialing it into the AP, or simply deactivating it ad pushing the nose down.

And you know for a fact there are no safety systems which would prevent the pilot from deliberately going into a steep dive? Because it seems to me that would be something the makers of passenger liners might want to build into their aircraft given there is no reasonable reason why you would want to push the nose straight down and dive vertically into the ground.

[Derek 2.0]

The A320 autopilot is never really off. Manual control is provided by using the side stick to send commands to the autopilot, rather than using the flight guidance system. When I got the chance to sit in a 320 cockpit, the lack of trim switches was driving me nuts until it dawned on me that the autopilot always keeps the aircraft in trim even when the pilot is controlling the aircraft with the sidestick.

Right, so the FMGCs will compute speed, lateral path and vertical plan after a manual NAV entry into the MCDU , versus the FCU, which requires manual inputs for each speed, vertical plan and lateral path to "fly the aircraft"...

As to trim, yaw, turn coordination etc, wouldn't that be under the continual control of the flight augmentation computer? Which in itself would answer Argus's question as to why the pilot didn't just put the aircraft into a deep dive.

[On Guard for Thee]

And you know for a fact there are no safety systems which would prevent the pilot from deliberately going into a steep dive? Because it seems to me that would be something the makers of passenger liners might want to build into their aircraft given there is no reasonable reason why you would want to push the nose straight down and dive vertically into the ground.

There are systems that war a pilot if he is about to hit the ground...GPWS ground proximity warning system ad EGPWS which is the same with the additional support of GPS positioning. They would also warn of an excessive dive rate or bank angle turn rate. But they wont stop you from doing those things. For one thing in certain places, such as where I live airplanes have to get close to mountains to get into certain airports. In this German plane crash though, the rate of descent flown is not uncommon. Im sure there were lots of warnings occurring in that cockpit before they hit.

[Guest]

Here we go...

Way ahead of you.

So. When we start mandating that doctors inform authorities about the medical fitness of patients where public safety can be compromised where do we stop? Should critical only mean in cases where deaths and injuries can occur and if so how many? Should the mobilization of resources and intent to mobilize more in the wake of two soldiers deaths be the measure of how big our reaction should be or should it give us pause to consider how far state governments might try to over-react? Why should we restrict measures or only focus on this as an occupational or industrial issue, and if we do should it include people whose business, economic or political decisions can affect millions?

Let's not forget as many as 1 in 5 Canadians will suffer a mental illness in their life. Everyone of these who drive or own a gun for example is a potential ticking time-bomb.

Where do we start where do we stop and with who why and when?

Maybe you could base it on the number of potential dead. If the guy is a cab driver, with only three or four potential victims, then the Doctor must say nothing. A bus driver, with the number of potential dead in the dozens, well, then a Doctor can think about it, but eventually realize that a patients right to privacy is more important that the lives of a mere few dozen.

With an aeroplane comes the real dilemma. The dead would number in the hundreds. What to do, what to do?

I think any Doctor who realizes that his patient has a real chance of going off the deep end while he is solely in charge of a nuclear arsenal, or something like that, really has a responsibility to consider telling someone. And by that, I mean really, seriously consider it.

Edited March 29, 2015 by bcsapper

[Derek 2.0]

Let's not forget as many as 1 in 5 Canadians will suffer a mental illness in their life. Everyone of these who drive or own a gun for example is a potential ticking time-bomb.

Where do we start where do we stop and with who why and when?

Clearly it would need to be a measure of the potential outcomes........On average, 200 Canadians are murdered each year by firearms, contrasted with this example, in which a single person suffering from a mental illness killed 75% that number in minutes........

In Canada, the Canadian Firearms Center is updated daily with arrest records and the Hospital mental health database...these rights to privacy are waived when applying for a PAL/RPAL......For example, my Father required a doctor's note on reapplying for his RPAL because he was prescribed Zyban to quite smoking....as we later learned, such medication is also used to treat varying levels of depression....hence the CFC requiring assurance that he was not a threat to himself or others due to his taking of prescribed medications.

It would seem, in light of this incident, such rights should also be waived for airline pilots or ships captains

[Argus]

It would seem, in light of this incident, such rights should also be waived for airline pilots or ships captains

How about people who work in nuclear power plants? I wonder what sort of psychological testing they get...

[Derek 2.0]

How about people who work in nuclear power plants? I wonder what sort of psychological testing they get...

Sure........likewise further measures to prevent terror.

[eyeball]

Exactly what sort of tests are we talking about when testing for mental health or illness as the case may be and when, every five or two years or during an annual medical like mine? Seafarers and pilots have already been waiving rights ordinary Canadians have been exempt from for years, we even have cameras watching us on commercial fishing vessels. Why shouldn't everyone be just as prepared to waive the same rights air pilots and sea captains do?

Only two lone 'terrorists' causing only two deaths were enough to cause Ottawa to react with controversial divisive legislation with the potential to affect everyone's privacy not too mention an escalation and re-entrenchment of our country's war footing on the global stage. If our rights are based on numbers I can only imagine how far our government would go in reaction to a real 9/11-like attack...after uncurling from it's initial foetal position.

If our rights are based on your potential to do harm then everyone is a potential ticking time bomb - anyone of us could drive a car down a crowded sidewalk or even kill the last lonely turbot.

Don't forget, if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear...right?

Edited March 29, 2015 by eyeball

[Wilber]

Here we go...

Way ahead of you.

So. When we start mandating that doctors inform authorities about the medical fitness of patients where public safety can be compromised where do we stop? Should critical only mean in cases where deaths and injuries can occur and if so how many? Should the mobilization of resources and intent to mobilize more in the wake of two soldiers deaths be the measure of how big our reaction should be or should it give us pause to consider how far state governments might try to over-react? Why should we restrict measures or only focus on this as an occupational or industrial issue, and if we do should it include people whose business, economic or political decisions can affect millions?

Let's not forget as many as 1 in 5 Canadians will suffer a mental illness in their life. Everyone of these who drive or own a gun for example is a potential ticking time-bomb.

Where do we start where do we stop and with who why and when?

In many countries, Canada and US included, it is already a fact for persons such as aviators and some others in transportation. Has been for years. A physician is obligated to report any condition that could seriously affect that person's ability to do their job safely. Apparently that is not the case in Germany.