Plane crash in Southern France.

  • Thread starter Dennisch
  • 346 comments
  • 13,252 views
I'm not disputing that - I'm saying that it is highly unusual for a prosecutor to announce such a conclusion before the investigation has barely started.
They like to flex their muscles. Here in the US, people like police and prosecutors have no authority over an accident until the NTSB investigation is complete. They can hoot and holler all they want but it's all meaningless.
 
The news reported that the two person cockpit rule is ONLY currently implemented on North American airlines, it is not a rule in Europe.

You can bet it will be tomorrow.

EasyJet are saying they'll change their cockpit regulations accordingly from tomorrow. Norwegian Air Shuttle are the only other airline planning to put such rule changes into effect ASAP.
 
EasyJet are saying they'll change their cockpit regulations accordingly from tomorrow. Norwegian Air Shuttle are the only other airline planning to put such rule changes into effect ASAP.
I hope the rest follow suit.
 
DK
I'd say that's only possible with the larger airliners like the 747 or A380 due to the room available in the cockpit of smaller airlines.
Yeah, most of your major airliners here in the US are primarily domestic. Only a few of the wide-bodied aircraft like a 777, or maybe a 747 (as it gets pretty small up there if you've ever been in one) could fit a small shower room behind. The 777 of Emirates I believe have crew compartments, but those are located clear at the back...
 
They like to flex their muscles. Here in the US, people like police and prosecutors have no authority over an accident until the NTSB investigation is complete. They can hoot and holler all they want but it's all meaningless.

It depends, in this case it's a murder if the facts that have been presented are correct. The same was initially thought to be true of TWA800 which led to the FBI taking the lead in the investigation, all a bit of a mess as I recall.

I hope the rest follow suit.

It's little defence against a pilot who intends to crash a plane, there are a million-and-one (well, a few) ways for a pilot to destroy a plane if he or she wishes to, regardless of whether or not the seat beside them is occupied. At some point we have to trust the pilot :(
 
It's little defence against a pilot who intends to crash a plane, there are a million-and-one (well, a few) ways for a pilot to destroy a plane if he or she wishes to, regardless of whether or not the seat beside them is occupied. At some point we have to trust the pilot :(
Better little defense than defenseless ;)
 
I have to be honest, I thought cockpits had their own toilets. I would have thought most commercial aeroplane builders would have thought of such an eventuality.

Nope. On US carriers, the pilot or first officer can take restroom breaks, but a flight attendant blocks the cockpit door when that happens. It still wouldn't have made a difference, in this case.

What a senseless tragedy.

If the flight is on the longer side, I'd rather the folks in the cockpit were allowed to use the lav, rather than forcing them to "cross their legs" after 3-4 hours. After all, their comfort and convienence matters when there's (m)any souls on board.
 
Last edited:
I was actually thinking about that, but it won't be physically possible otherwise someone would have made it already :)
I know but it's just terrible seeing stuff like this happen - and with no way of escape or device from stopping the plane in commercial flights like this, everyone on board is basically stranded and faces almost certain death.
 
I know but it's just terrible seeing stuff like this happen - and with no way of escape or device from stopping the plane in commercial flights like this, everyone on board is basically stranded and faces almost certain death.
Indeed, horrible way to die if you have time to realize what is happening. Last years crash of MH17 above Ukraine also stuck in my head for quite a while, plane getting blown to pieces at cruising altitude...

ps. Look what i found:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131223-should-planes-have-parachutes
 
Indeed, horrible way to die if you have time to realize what is happening. Last years crash of MH17 above Ukraine also stuck in my head for quite a while, plane getting blown to pieces at cruising altitude...

ps. Look what i found:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131223-should-planes-have-parachutes
This pic:
main-qimg-a98dd08e659494c111283bb70998f463
 
This pic:
main-qimg-a98dd08e659494c111283bb70998f463
That pic is just funny.

A plane is not a lunar lander module

I doubt the parachutes can with stand the constant speed of 800km/h as the engines would have to be shut down.
Also where the explosive bolts are to sheer the plane would make those areas very weak and since a plane expands and contracts a lot through out its service life it would end just like Aloha Airline 243.
And with some airlines taking some shortcuts with servicing that is the last thing you want, another area that can cause an issue.

The best method IMO would be to redesign the door locking system.
If a pilot has locked out the other pilot, the other pilot can use an emergency code that will open to the door straight away regardless if the pilot has flipped the switch to LOCK, this code can change daily like it does in some military bases.
 
That pic is just funny.

A plane is not a lunar lander module

I doubt the parachutes can with stand the constant speed of 800km/h as the engines would have to be shut down.
Maybe the plane will be brought to an almost stall speed then the chutes would deploy
 
Parachutes are a ridiculous idea, you'd need a number of stages and, presumably, a pilot over-ride that would make them moot in a case like this.
 
If the parachutes are already out then wouldn't the finds simply fall off (down)?

Not really.

There is a reason why fighter jet pilots who used the emergency escape which blows the canopy off the jet, the chair goes flying into the air and after a few seconds the parachute opens
 
They should just have emergency full plane parachutes that can be deployed remotely.

There are full plane parachutes availble as an option on some light aircraft (2 seaters) but for a heavy airliner travelling that fast and high the design and costs envolved would be astronomical. It would be better to have individual parachutes for the passengers and bailout the back door.

Was also thinking about the guys motive, maybe it wasn't suiscide that people got caught up in... maybe it was clear thinking murder.
 
There are full plane parachutes availble as an option on some light aircraft (2 seaters) but for a heavy airliner travelling that fast and high the design and costs envolved would be astronomical. It would be better to have individual parachutes for the passengers and bailout the back door.

No, because instructing the passengers to use the parachutes would take an eternity, plus by the time everyone jumps the plane would've already crashed. Also where would they meet? People would probably be injured upon their individual landings (trees, water bodies etc).
 
Was also thinking about the guys motive, maybe it wasn't suiscide that people got caught up in... maybe it was clear thinking murder.
Or perhaps anger. The prosecutor noted an abrupt change in the co-pilot's demeanour in the CVR recording. It's possible that someone with a history of depression or psychosis and/or anger management issues could have been upset by something the other pilot said/did/suggested, and decided to exact revenge by crashing the plane. This might be inconsistent with the fact that the co-pilot appeared to remain calm, but anger/rage can manifest itself in different ways and it can impel people to act in a highly disproportionate manner. When the captain left the cockpit, the opportunity presented itself. It sounds ridiculous that someone could do something so terrible over something so petty, but it may have been the straw that broke the camel's back... Lufthansa are in the midst of a prolonged and bitter dispute with their pilots over pay and conditions, and that too might have been a contributing factor. That it might have been a vastly disproportionate reaction to a petty incident and decided on a whim is a disturbing but plausible possibility.
 
Last edited:
No, because instructing the passengers to use the parachutes would take an eternity, plus by the time everyone jumps the plane would've already crashed. Also where would they meet? People would probably be injured upon their individual landings (trees, water bodies etc).

I can't believe I'm entertaining the idea... but some chance of survival is better than none. That said, you'd need to set up a line-chute (where the chute begins to deploy in part as you leave the aircraft) and you have to egress in a way that allows you to clear the tailplanes. Airlane passengers aren't trained parachutists.
 
I can't believe I'm entertaining the idea... but some chance of survival is better than none. That said, you'd need to set up a line-chute (where the chute begins to deploy in part as you leave the aircraft) and you have to egress in a way that allows you to clear the tailplanes. Airlane passengers aren't trained parachutists.
I'm going to entertain a bit too, but you can't have the the line chute configuration when everyone is seated the way they are on flights like this. That's why it's full-plane parachute or bust.
 
He may have guessed
Guessed?
I stated a fact and the statement of a fact can only be true or untrue, never a guess.

And what you said about that statement?
was wrong
How can a statement be wrong, if it is true?
The statement was:

Based in all information that we known at moment, the only reason for the crash is a suicide.

The only way for this statement not to be true, is if there is another reason (or explanation) based in the information that we had when I posted it for the first time (before the revelation of the contents of the cockpit voice recorder).

You said early (also before that revelation) on another post:
there are myriad explanations.
So, if you said this, certainly it is very easy for you to produce one explanation who prove (like you has claimed in various comments) that my statement is untrue.
Of course, if you can not produce that, then my statement is true and you has posted a bunch of garbage about it.
 
No, because instructing the passengers to use the parachutes would take an eternity, plus by the time everyone jumps the plane would've already crashed. Also where would they meet? People would probably be injured upon their individual landings (trees, water bodies etc).

In this situation I'd take my chances.
 
Back