Air crash - and update

[Anastasius]

It is sad that the media feeding frenzy has ensured that nearly everyone participating in forums across the internet discussing this event have suspended their ability for critical thinking and have simply gone along with the mob. Certainly not helped by either the senior French military leaking details allegedly to the New York Times or the FBI leaking information when approached (allegedly) to see if the co-pilot had any known terrorist connections. Shooting from the hip and using a language that was not his native one, the French prosecutor has done the whole enquiry no favours.

Yes, the co-pilot had a period of depression and so it's obvious, isn't it? He was so depressed that he ran the plane into the ground. So simple. So obvious. Only it is not. Let's try and look at things more rationally, shall we?

Yes, he had depression but we certainly do not know to what degree this manifested itself when he was suspended from training - SIX years ago. He is also reported to have been having anxiety attacks. So to what extent did the anxiety attacks contribute to his suspension as opposed to his depression? The witch hunt would, of course, say none at all.

An alternative scenario could be that he was under some medication, that he was hallucinating, that he had a mini-stroke...there are countless alternative explanations. He could have been suffering from delusions and thought he was landing. We simply don't know. In any other scenario, we might have been discussing 'diminished responsibility' and be more conciliatory.

There are other external factors that seem to have been quietly swept under the carpet. Dis-engaging the auto-pilot sounds an audible alarm. If this was the case the surely this would have been on the cockpit voice recorder? But this has not been mentioned. Eye-witnesses on the ground reported an explosion and smoke prior to the crash. Part of the plane wreckage is some distance away upstream of the main crash site.

Without doubt, this raises a lot of very thorny ethical questions. For instance, medical confidentiality. This is going to run and run and run. However, such questions are irrelevant because, just for a moment, say that a doctor knowing that the patient in front of him was a pilot had a duty to inform the authorities, by what mechanism? If I was a pilot the last thing I would be doing is going to my doctor and saying 'I'm feeling depressed'. And if I was feeling unwell and felt that it might influence my flying career, I'd be going to see a private doctor in Harley Street and no mention of my profession.

We need to take a step back and wait. Not condemn the man out of hand. That's the mentality of the mob.

Yes, he had been seeing a clinic for an illness. But it was NOT for depression. We don't know at the moment

(Yes, I know it's my first post but I feel very strongly about this witch hunt)

[Dave2002]

Anastasius

Thanks for that post. I agree with you that there has been a rush to judgement, the kind which sells newspapers most probably. There should be a period in which more evidence is gathered, and hopefully evidence which is sufficiently strong to carry relevant weight, and then a form of objective assessment of the events.

There hasn't yet been, AFAIK, a discussion about the missing flight recorder - whether it has been found, or damaged, or irretrievably lost. There may be more evidence, and more factors to be found, and considered.

It is, however, still a very sad event, whatever the cause. Whether it was caused by a plane malfunction, or a system malfunction, or a deliberate act, the accident investigators will eventually have to come to a conclusion, and then systems and protocols will need to be modified and improved. Some protocol modifications are already being considered and adopted. This event is causing a rethink of procedures, which we can hope will improve air safety for the future.

There is still the possibility though, that whether we wish to believe it or not, and personally I don't - that the co-pilot did indeed take the plane down deliberately. We can't rule that out, though at the present time many are ruling that in as the cause and this might mean that other possiblities will be missed, or not investigated properly.

For now there is little useful one can do, other than offer to support to those involved in this tragic happening, and also to consider ways of reducing the possibility of this kind of event happening in the future. We may also hope that the investigation will continue, and that we can gain a much deeper understanding of what went wrong, and how to avoid another crash like this one.

[Sydney Grew]

The long-term solution is to avoid the need for travel entirely. Develop virtual reality to the point where the experience rivals being there. The way of the future. Read Stapledon.

And the other absurd and primitive thing about aeroplanes is the requirement to dash along the ground for miles before leaping into the air. Long ago "run-ways" with all the resources they require should have been abolished in favour of vertical "take-off". Instead of that they have been allowed to grow like you know whom.

[Flosshilde]

b)[/I]
The problem with working in teams that always fly together in my mind you would get to know the other person and things would start to slide. Not much at first but SOPS wouldn't be followed rigorously, sterile cockpit not enforced... Among other things.
[SOPS = Standard operating procedures]

I don't see that that neccessarily follows. In fact, I think the opposite. If people work in teams the 'professional heirarchies' are more likely to be broken down, allowing staff to point out mistakes to their colleagues.

[P. G. Tipps]

Well, I don't think anyone here has rushed to any final judgements, and have simply responded to official and public pronouncements about the reasons for the crash by the French authorities. That in itself was intended to end unhelpful speculation in the media and elsewhere

It is not a question of blaming anyone for something which is a terrible tragedy for the families and friends of those involved.

Clearly something was not right about the behaviour of the co-pilot whether we wish to believe it or not. The only real point is how we can try and prevent (if that is at all possible) such a terrible tragedy happening again.

Certainly those airlines which have already changed their safety practices did not hang around awaiting any more evidence. Whether extreme mental illness or some inexplicable and mysterious factor was responsible for the atrocity did not affect their ability to make these additional changes to cockpit security.

They did the right thing and acted immediately, and these are the things that really matter not personal 'judgements' here, whether they happen to come from P.G. Tipps, Anastasius, or any other member!

[ahinton]

The pilot under suspicion is now alleged to have had a sick note for the day of the flight so was entitled to exercise the choice not to work that day but did not do so; whilst that is not conclusive proof of anything, it is presumably at the very least a factor to be taken into consideration in any inquiry.

[french frank]

There is some protest, however, about the way the media have treated the subject.

Like the author of this article, we know nothing, and speculation has exactly what as its goal?

[Honoured Guest]

There is some protest, however, about the way the media have treated the subject.

Like the author of this article, we know nothing, and speculation has exactly what as its goal?

People are speculating because they've been shocked by the crash and want the comfort of a coherent narrative of what happened.

The media are responding to this interest of the public, and are maximising the shock value and extending the intrigue.

[Don Petter]

Whatever the truth about the pilot, there is a significant quotation from the London editor of Aviation Security International.

“The kneejerk reaction to the events of 9/11 with the ill-thought reinforced cockpit door has had catastrophic consequences”

[Flosshilde]

There is some protest, however, about the way the media have treated the subject.

Like the author of this article, we know nothing, and speculation has exactly what as its goal?

People will always speculate about the reason for an event of this nature, with or without the (possibly ill-considered & premature) release of information. What I don't like is the constant interviews with local people who mostly don't have much connection (apart from living in the same town) with the victims.

[Anastasius]

People are speculating because they've been shocked by the crash and want the comfort of a coherent narrative of what happened.

The media are responding to this interest of the public, and are maximising the shock value and extending the intrigue.

And by using emotive words in their banner headlines.

How can ANY of the tripe about this on the front page of the newspapers be classed in any way as a 'coherent narrative'?

[Flosshilde]

I don't think newspapers are about 'coherent narrative' - surely that's the responsibility of history. Newspapers report events as they happen & information as it comes to light - that is inevitably going to be a mess & contradictory. Unless you would prefer newspapers to wait until everything has been discovered - wait, perhaps, a year or more before they report anything?

[Anastasius]

Well, I don't think anyone here has rushed to any final judgements, and have simply responded to official and public pronouncements about the reasons for the crash by the French authorities. That in itself was intended to end unhelpful speculation in the media and elsewhere ...

Really? How about this quote ?

Sadly, no other conclusion is possible apart from the co-pilot suddenly and silently collapsing onto both the altitude meter and door-lock switches simultaneously, whilst somehow managing to breathe 'normally' at the same time. And all this happening at the very point when he happened to be alone in the cockpit. A bit of a long shot, I fear ...

......

Leaving aside the fact that your 'alternative' is actually physically impossible, there are other possibilities as I put in my original post.

It is not a question of blaming anyone for something which is a terrible tragedy for the families and friends of those involved.

Well, apart from the media screaming that the pilot is a 'Killer', no.

Clearly something was not right about the behaviour of the co-pilot whether we wish to believe it or not.

I agree. What I do not agree with is the media's banshee wail claiming that it was 'deliberate'. The words 'may be' and 'might' and 'possibly' have been removed from the official press releases in the interest of maintaining the witch hunt.

[Dave2002]

Like the author of this article, we know nothing, and speculation has exactly what as its goal?

Speculation does have merits on occasions - such as in a brain storming session, or "what if" analysis. If used that way it has to be done under discreet conditions, and probably/preferably not in public. One might expect the investigation teams to speculate on a whole range of possibilities in order to get at some form of "truth", but the sort of speculation which is being carried on in the media is very likely not helpful, and may lead to completely undesirable social effects.

Even now, in "From our own correspondent" we hear "trying to underststand why he acted as he did" (Kate Adie) - which is still promoting the deliberate act hypothesis as though it has cast iron validity. Surely until many possibilities have been explored this should still be considered as only one explanation, though it may turn out to be the "correct" one. There might still be a move towards trying to find "evidence" - some of it anecdotal - to fit the hypothesis, rather than keeping more options open.

[Anastasius]

I don't think newspapers are about 'coherent narrative' - surely that's the responsibility of history. Newspapers report events as they happen & information as it comes to light - that is inevitably going to be a mess & contradictory. Unless you would prefer newspapers to wait until everything has been discovered - wait, perhaps, a year or more before they report anything?

I would prefer the newspapers to report the news factually and not use emotive words. The link that FF pointed to has hit the nail squarely on the head.