Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

A near miss, but something to consider as a risk... 1

Status
Not open for further replies.

JohnRBaker

Mechanical
Jun 1, 2006
35,343
2
38
US
I suspect that the airlines will be revamping their cockpit policies when it comes to off-duty air crews:

Off-duty Alaska Airlines pilot charged with attempted murder after trying to shut down plane engines midflight

Flight 2059 from Everett, Washington, was bound for San Francisco when it was diverted to Portland, where Joseph David Emerson was booked on 83 counts of attempted murder.



John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without
 
On the other hand, it could be desirable to have a third person in there. On the Flight 370, weren't there just two pilots? Supposition was the wacko pilot locked the other out of the cockpit or killed him or whatever.
 
There have been cases where a 3rd (off-duty) pilot has been significantly beneficial in emergencies. I can't remember the specific case, but there was one where the aircraft had serious control problems where they delegated the throttles to the 3rd pilot while the two on-duty pilots worked together on the controls. If memory serves, they were having to use differential thrust to get the plane under control and were adjusting it for turns and yaw control.

As long as the 3rd person is qualified for the aircraft type and they use good CRM, it's normally a positive thing. Even if they are not qualified for the type, but are a multi-engine transport pilot, a 3rd can still ease the workload in emergencies. In other emergencies, there have been airline mechanics who have taken the jump seat to assist in the diagnosis and response to systems failures.

This case was an extreme outlier that should not, in my opinion, be used to limit the captain's discretion over who is allowed to sit in the jump seat.
 
Murph 9000 - you are thinking of United Airlines MD-10 Flight 232, aka Sioux City Iowa crash. The extra pilot was flying in a passenger seat and was called into the cockpit to help with the throttles.

This Alaska Airlines incident most resembles Federal Express Flight 705, April 7, 1994, that was hijacked by a Fed Ex flight engineer flying in a cockpit jump seat. He attacked the pilot and co-pilot with a hammer. His goal was suicide so his family could collect insurance. The injured pilot and co-pilot managed to regain control and land the plane. In the process the plane was forced far outside its flight envelope. Quite a tale of heroism.
 
A known lockout was Germanwings. This doesn't seem to be a suicide or other attack. Apparently shut off the fuel pumps via engine fire control system, and then stopped. Pilots turned pumps back on. No matter, it's a federal law problem so he got arrested and charged.

 
John said:
revamping their cockpit policies when it comes to off-duty air crews

Well, this guy could have been PIC on the next flight, so need to go deeper than off duty policies.
 
Coincidence, but Captain Sully of the Hudson River landing was also from Pleasant Hill. Talk about divergent career paths.
 
Airlines are supposed to have policies checking the mental health of air crew but it is clearly difficult as the German wings murder suicide proves, plus the MH 370 mystery and others over the years.

Can't see how this could be avoided really as the pilot was able to fly the next day I assume.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.
 
Murph 9000 said:
There have been cases where a 3rd (off-duty) pilot has been significantly beneficial in emergencies.
There was a recent incident when a pilot was somehow incapacitated and an off-duty pilot passenger landed the plane.

Brad Waybright

The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
 
In all cases, points to free access where no one can isolate potential bystander help from rescue. A locked cockpit is the nightmare scenario. An open cockpit and a few wary passengers is all that is needed. Freedom and vigilance in guarding it is always the best answer. 9/11 couldn't have been repeated on 9/12.
 
An open cockpit and a few wary passengers is not a great solution. Two throats cut before the wary passengers realize the turn at the lavatory door has taken place is too late.

The difference on 9/12 is no pilot would open the door to any uncertain situation. On 9/11 no hijacker forced their way past a locked door. Pilots felt they were immune to injury because no hijacker could possibly take their place.
 
"free access where no one can isolate potential bystander help from rescue"

Meaning, crew can unlock the door from the outside to allow help in.

The premise of the OP is that insiders can be dangerous, too.
 
Same from the seattle article.

" In statements to the Horizon flight crew and to police, Emerson described himself as suffering from depression and insomnia, claiming he believed he was dreaming when he attempted to disable the plane, an FBI special agent investigating the matter said in an affidavit. Emerson, the FBI agent continued, told police “it was his first-time taking mushrooms."

DONT EAT THE MUSHROOMS

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.
 
Presumably for cutting rather than stabbing. Rope is the kind of enemy that takes too many prisoners at sea.
 
It's interesting watching how stigmatized killing someone while drunk is when compared to doing the same on other drugs.

The mushroom excuse is a bid off, though. Mushrooms don't keep you up for 40 hours and nobody who has been up for 40 hours takes mushrooms.

Alas, we will never know the truth. Magic mushrooms are clear from your system in less than 24 hours and are rarely tested for in standard drug tests.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top