The Germanwings D-AIPX Plane Crash: Mitigants and the Aftermath

The plane crashed on 24 March 2015, and investigators, I gather, currently have the mind that the first officer/co-pilot deliberately crashed it—with the absence of the pilot.

To prevent this scenario from repeating itself, the Canadian and New Zealand aviation authorities have recently changed regulations to require that at least two people be on the flight deck at all times during flight for safety reasons. [Wikipedia: Germanwings Flight 9525.] A policy aftermath.

Might a requirement to always have more than two crew members for the flight deck permit the head of the cabin crew as a stop-gap for a temporary absence by a traditional member of the flight crew?

Where there’s a flight engineer in addition to the pilot and copilot, this becomes is a non-issue; only just an additional expense.

Could the crash have been avoided if the pilot wasn’t locked out? It’s a 50-50 probability (for two players). And we’ve been schooled by enough movies to imagine the few things possible on the flight deck. It could’ve gone either way, lending credence to the new regulation.

This particular policy change reflects a shift from ‘innocent until proven guilty’ to ‘guilty if innocence isn’t seen.’ It’s the way with security though: assume reasonable cases for concern, and mitigate them as best as possible. The incident highlighted a now reasonable concern to mitigate.

Would there be broader implications for pilot training, and in-flight security observances and behaviour? Obviously, some authorities have done a process review and implemented recommendations. Take no one for granted—even those you should perhaps ordinarily trust as a matter of ideal.

Other aviation authorities, and ICAO, so far seem to be taking their time. There’s no need to be hasty about making changes to the status quo, because of any systemic effects. Analyse the whole for the part, and not just the part for itself, unless you can prove that the part exists (or could exist) distinctly.

Mitigants might also include toilets for an elongated flight deck or measures to ensure the pilots don’t need to leave the flight deck during flight (with any appropriate exceptions). We could choose to ensure emergency access—and associated procedures for access—to the flight deck from outside. (I assume there is none, for security reasons still.) There might be more stringent flying certification, or pre-flight suitability assessments for flight crews before every flight etc.

Apart from maintaining the status quo, any person oriented mitigant to this newly highlighted threat would be an additional cost to the airlines and/or the pilots. (We also count non-financial costs.)

How feasible are the options? Which is the craziest from a financial perspective? Where safety or security is paramount, money shouldn’t be an object. But then, it always is in business. Hence, a reason for innovation. We’d also want to take more stress off pilots and airlines.

Rather than focus on the person factor only, let’s enhance the technology also. Let’s program the plane to recognise and take evasive action in identified scenarios that lead to crashes, irrespective or pilots’ commands? There are a whole lot of issues to resolve if this route could be permitted for civil aviation. We may also choose to go pilotless (no deck presence) except perhaps on takeoffs and landing ….

Technology suppliers have an opportunity here to make money again while contributing to flight safety; for this incident has served to market a potential need. A technology aftermath.

A question:
How or why was the pilot locked out of the flight deck. Was he escorted out, or did he have to use the toilet or something. I gather that on short flights, the pilots prepare, and try to ensure they won’t need to use the toilet while flying. Makes sense for more than one reason.

To state the obvious, there’s no intention to trivialize anything of the crash or surrounding circumstances.

Before the crash, I had told an airline ticketing agent that I liked Lufthansa (the owner of Germanwings). And he said something I dismissed and apparently thoroughly filtered. And now? I still like Lufthansa.

Is this utilitarian business?

… listening to the news with one ear, one report spoke of the record revenues from excise duties in a particular region paid largely by three companies. Two were in the alcohol business (brewery/distillery) and the third was BAT (with the last ‘T’ for tobacco). This report was, on the surface, okay until the next one which spoke of the need to enlighten the people, smokers in particular, about the downsides of smoking, and the need to stop (or never start).

First you keep them in production, mass production, with near unlimited distribution (convenience stores everywhere), and then you try to restrict their market(ing) and limit product take up by teens especially. What other examples are there?

It’s the manufacturing value chain that needed digital terrestrial TV first.
The government is always happy to do spectrum allocation and licensing.
Broadcasters and customers spend on new equipment.
We want more options.
We want more convenience.

Has it been more hype than substance?
What other examples are there?

In addition to the widely reseached health effects of smoking which acknowledges it as very contrary to the physical man, smoker and inhaler alike, it has severally been said to increase the governments’ healthcare burdens significantly. We choose to let them live. They/we/you keep them, and bear with them, at least for the tax that they pay, first. Second, for the fear of a fight against the ‘powerful’—and very rich— companies involved. (Don’t play with a man’s livelihood where he’s got clout that includes an addicted crowd and a happy supply chain.)

Economics sways emotion.
Emotion sways economics.
Who arbitrates?

Maintain the programs to deal with withdrawal symptoms and end addictions.
Control via legalization. Get some money on top of it.
You don’t want to have to find people new jobs for the ones that would be lost if the industry is shut down.

How powerful is the money motive?
But, they who are determined to be rich, fall into temptation, and a snare, and many foolish and hurtful covetings, the which, sink men into ruin and destruction,— For, a root of all the vices, is the love of money, which, some, being eager for, have been seduced from the faith, and have pierced, themselves, about with many pangs (Rotherhams Bible, 1 Tim. 6). Thinking motivations and contexts.

Who doesn’t like to look good.

You want to belong to a group and still maintain your independence and freedom to break the rules of the group.
One of the dilemmas of governments. And to think of it, some married folks too.
Is there necessarily a dilemma?

Finally, in the extreme (limit, in mathematics), if everyone were smokers then the problems we see with smoking would be amplified. If no one smoked, then what could be the loss or gain to individuals, communities and nations in the long run.