17 ms·

Off-duty pilot allegedly tried to shut off engines on Alaska Airlines flight

stuff4ben 3y ago
Why was he in the cockpit? I thought non-flight crew (attendants and pilots) were given regular passenger seats?
- Scoundreller 3y ago
  Often off-duty pilots get some seat in the cockpit. I guess if they’re moving around for the company they can get an actual seat (edit: not so here, says they were en route to work for the airline, but maybe if you’re “commuting” from home it’s different). Not sure how it works if they just want to fly somewhere for free (would they just have to go in uniform or verboten in any way in the cockpit like that?) Other than the safety issue, if this person causes that program to end, every pilot is going to have it out for them even moreso (but hard to imagine it being any worse than it is).
  - boomboomsubban 3y ago
    If this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Express_Flight_705 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Express_Flight_705 didn't end deadheading, this event won't. Whether the airlines are looking for an excuse to end deadheading I don't know.
    - nocoiner 3y ago
      I doubt they’re trying to end deadheading as a whole (no idea about putting deadheaders in jump seats - though I assume not since those are non-revenue seats). If the airlines think there’s a pilot shortage now, just wait until they can only hire pilots from operational hubs. Deadheading is an essential part of getting pilots and attendants to where they’re supposed to be at the start of their work days.
      - Scoundreller 3y ago
        > just wait until they can only hire pilots from operational hubs. Doubly not going to be happy if they have to live in bases in California and pay income taxes there instead of commuting in from no-income-tax states like Washington.
    - Scoundreller 3y ago
      Can deadhead in a regular seat on a passenger plane. Invite them in if needed only. Airlines won’t like the loss of a revenue seat. The doors&locks are really good now. So good you can even lock out your co-pilot while they stop in the bathroom… (an argument in favour of having a 3rd deadheading pilot next to the others)
      - nedrylandJP 3y ago
        See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525
        SoftTalker 3y ago
        From that link: In response to the incident and the circumstances of the co-pilot's involvement, aviation authorities in some countries implemented new regulations that require the presence of two authorised personnel in the cockpit at all times. So if a pilot has to visit the lavatory, a flight attendant or some other qualified person has to replace the pilot on the flight deck (not in actual duty of course, just not leaving a single person alone there).
    - pbhjpbhj 3y ago
      I was looking for the page on deadheading which was linked from your page and usefully gives a list of when deadheads have been helpful and when they gave been malicious: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadheading_(employee) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadheading_(employee).
  - ulrashida 3y ago
    It's hard to see a policy solution for this: if you're an authorized passenger for that seat you'd also be eligible to fly a plane and wreck it when you're not a passenger. There's no material reduction in risk (other than in this isolated instance) to the change.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      More importantly, if you have at least the chance of catching someone like this (assuming it's all correct) when they're in the jump seat vs in the pilot's seat, it reduces risk slightly.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- yellow_lead 3y ago
  It depends. > In airplanes, jump seats—which are officially termed auxiliary crew stations—can be located in the flight deck. In cockpits, jump seats are provided for individuals who are not operating the aircraft. These might include trainee pilots, off-duty crew members in transition to another airport (see deadheading), government officials (such as Federal Aviation Administration staff), or airline staff. > Some airplanes do not have jump seats in the cockpit, while others have one or two. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jump_seat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jump_seat
- skort 3y ago
  From the article > Alaska Airlines said the off-duty pilot was sitting in the flight deck jump seat -- which is in the cockpit
- inoffensivename 3y ago
  Commuting pilots will often sit in the flight deck if there is no room in the back.
  - SoftTalker 3y ago
    This is the reason. The airlines do it so they don't lose a revenue seat in the passenger area. Allowing the deadheading crew to ride in the jumpseats (which never earn revenue) they can still sell all their passenger seats.
    - adrianmonk 3y ago
      And this flight was probably completely or almost completely full. Based on airline, cities, and time, you can guess this is Alaska Airlines flight 2059. From there, it's easy to confirm it was diverted to Portland. Both these sites show it was diverted to Portland yesterday: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/as2059 https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/as2059 https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/ASA2059 https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/ASA2059 So, it is an Embraer 175. The airline and SeatGuru have seat maps: https://www.alaskaair.com/content/travel-info/our-aircraft/e175 https://www.alaskaair.com/content/travel-info/our-aircraft/e... https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Alaska_Airlines/Alaska_Airlines_Embraer_E175.php https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Alaska_Airlines/Alaska_Air... Those only show 76 passenger seats, so the numbers don't quite add up, but the point is it's a smaller passenger jet. Tangent: why don't the numbers add up? Could be they reconfigured the seats and added a row. Could be reported wrong. Could be children under 2 who don't require a seat. (See https://www.alaskaair.com/content/travel-info/policies/traveling-with-lap-infants https://www.alaskaair.com/content/travel-info/policies/trave... .)
      - inoffensivename 3y ago
        It's common to have a few lap infants in the plane, so you could have 76 passengers, 3 lap infants, 4 crew, 1 crazy jumpseater. We often fly with 80+ people on board. Source: I am a E175 pilot.
- BlandDuck 3y ago
  Pilots need to be allowed in the cockpit during flight, for very obvious reasons. The fact that he was off-duty doesn't really change the security calculation. It might as well have been an on-duty pilot that had pulled this stunt. I am just grateful that it didn't turn into a disaster.
  - qup 3y ago
    If the pilot and copilot are in the cockpit, and a third off-duty pilot is traveling, what is the "very obvious" reason he needs to be in the cockpit?
    - mschuster91 3y ago
      Makes life easier if one of the pilots needs to visit the loo or eat something, as long as the third pilot is type rated. And besides that, it can also be useful in the case of a serious incident to have a third capable person at hand to run checklists, communicate with engineering, navigation or whatever else.
    - function_seven 3y ago
      It's not obvious that he needs to be in the cockpit, rather it's obvious that there is no security threat to allowing a pilot to occupy the jump seat. The trust they're given to fly the plane is a superset of the trust required to be in the cockpit at all.
    - imglorp 3y ago
      In addition to training etc, yes there are positives to having a certificated third person for "crew resource management". They are expected to observe and speak up if the PIC and SIC miss something, and to help in an emergency. In UA232 for example, a third pilot was instrumental in saving lives; it took six hands to make the airport. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232
      - mattpallissard 3y ago
- rtkwe 3y ago
  Airlines need to move pilots without planes from place to place and can't always get them a regular cabin seat so it's clear sometimes they'll need to be in one of the jump seats. Most of those in the main cabin are already dedicated to flight attendants so it's just down to the cockpit jump seat. As pilots they're already in the ultimate position if they wanted to do anything malicious with a plane so it's not really an additional security problem to have them up there.
darknavi 3y ago
Side note: Anyone in the greater area north of Seattle, Paine Field is a breath of fresh air compared to SeaTac. Small airports rock if they fly direct to where you want to go.
- SkyPuncher 3y ago
  I’ll take a layover out of a small airport. Security is sooooo much easier.
- sophacles 3y ago
  Depending on details they also can rock if they don't have direct flights. My local airport only has 2 direct flight destinations, both of which are major hubs. So almost all trips have a layover. We're located a 2-4 hour drive from 4 much larger airports. By the time you factor in our tiny airport never having a security wait and the 10 minute drive to get there, it takes a lot of layover time to match driving to a bigger city and arriving there 2 hours early. By the time you factor in gas, parking, etc - the price is about the same too (that is tickets cost more, but overall trip cost is equalish). Definitely worth it for everyone to look at though - just because the flight itself may be cheaper from a bigger airport doesn't mean the overall trip cost will be less, and the small airport experience is generally much nicer than the large airport one for ticketing and security.
- ciscoriordan 3y ago
  Cheap flights, expensive parking. Paine Field doesn’t have massive garages like SeaTac. I’ve taken the flight from the article and my airfare was lower than my parking costs for just a weekend trip. Ubers are expensive but only ~20% more than SeaTac with a Cap Hill starting point. All things considered, Paine Field is my first choice airport for the area.
  - bruceb 3y ago
    SeaTac can go directly from Capitol Hill via the rail and not worry about traffic. Can't do that with Paine Field.
bandyaboot 3y ago
Anyone have any knowledge of what would have happened had he successfully pulled the fire extinguisher handles? I have to imagine it would still be recoverable? Though I do understand that you’d be having to deal with recovering the engines at the same time as dealing with a hostile individual in the cockpit.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- oh_sigh 3y ago
  Depends what stage of flight they were in. The engines will shut off as the extinguishing system is activated, so if they were shortly after takeoff, they might not have enough time or enough energy to do an emergency landing back at the airport.
- bombcar 3y ago
  In a worst-case scenario, your plane becomes a glider (see some famous fuel-starvation incidents which result in flare-out). I suspect the jets have restart procedures available and can "flush" the fire extinguisher "juice" out.
- aschobel 3y ago
  At FL360 (36,000') the plane has a glide ratio of 20:1; so they would have been able to glide 136 miles.
  - hmaxwell 3y ago
    the only problem is that if there is no running jet engine, there is no more oxygen (produced from bleed air) and the oxygen masks last for 10-20 minutes...
    - mmart 3y ago
      The APU would still be able, to an extent, to provide pressurisation even if both engines are disabled.
kemiller2002 3y ago
That's scary, now let me add to that. Imagine if he was one of the pilots allowed to carry firearms on the plane. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43377461 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43377461
- aschobel 3y ago
  He was commuting to be crew on a 737 flight. No need for a weapon to kill a lot of people when you are at the controls of the plane.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Spooky23 3y ago
    When you’re a passenger in the jump seat, not being able to shoot the pilots made it more difficult to kill said people.
  - zzzeek 3y ago
    the pilot and first officer subdued him. if he had a gun he could have shot them both first and been successful.
    - MauranKilom 3y ago
      The point being made is that he could've just crashed his next own flight.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        From what I understand these things can happen on the spur of the moment without any logic to it.
      - JCharante 3y ago
        He's a 737 pilot, he could wait until he's jumpseating on a widebody plane and strike then.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
After the Germanwings disaster[0] and the near miss here, I wonder if it is time to re-evaluate the reinforced cockpit doors. Basically, every single passenger on an airplane knows that if someone is trying to attack the doors or otherwise hijack the plane, you have to stop them no matter what. Even if the hijackers have guns or knives, you still have a better chance trying to fight them. On the other hand, a single pilot behind a reinforced cockpit door can bring down the entire aircraft. 0.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525
- FabHK 3y ago
  Agreed. The difficulty of the trade-off to me indicates that we are near the optimum in aviation security (at least concerning cockpit doors).
- United857 3y ago
  Unlike Germanwings, this incident thankfully didn’t involve a single pilot behind a cockpit door. Most airlines banned such a scenario after Germanwings. Here, the flight deck was occupied fully and the two on-duty pilots were able to overpower the assailant successfully.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  Even without reinforced doors, blowing the fire bottles on all engines or nose-downing the aircraft at the end of the runway will bring down an aircraft if a pilot is intent on suicide, despite there being another pilot right next to you.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > After the Germanwings disaster[0] and the near miss here, I wonder if it is time to re-evaluate the reinforced cockpit doors. And while we're at it, a host of other aviation "security" rules as well, particularly the liquids rule, the insanity of confiscating nail clippers, or the power-trips that TSA or its sometimes just as nuts European counterparts pull off.
  - 3y ago
RankingMember 3y ago
Do we have any word yet on motive?
klinquist 3y ago
Already on VASAviation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbU6E6VJx30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbU6E6VJx30
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  The fact that these pilots always (seemingly) remain cool as a cucumber, despite the fact that someone just tried to murder them and 82 other people, always amazes me.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - SoftTalker 3y ago
    They probably got the shakes after they landed. When your life depends on getting a job done, adrenaline kicks in and you get it done. Plus flying is a very standardized, checklist-oriented task. They can fall back to their routines as a distraction from what just happened.
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    It's absolutely incredible. You can listen to pilots moments before they are about to die and they are nearly universally calm and collected. I like to remember that when things are figuratively on fire.
  - SkyMarshal 3y ago
    They’re both selected and trained for that quality, as are the rest of the flight crew.
- thamer 3y ago
  When asked by ATC, the pilots mention the threat level escalated to a 4 (at 2:39). I wasn't familiar with this scale so I looked it up, it's from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO): Level 1 — Disruptive behavior (verbal) Level 2 — Physically abusive behavior Level 3 — Life-threatening behavior (or display of a weapon) Level 4 — Attempted or actual breach of the flight crew compartment
gleenn 3y ago
Not in the article but what was the int? To actually kill everyone?
- d1str0 3y ago
  Too soon to know. Could be another undiagnosed mental issue.
- sva_ 3y ago
  It seems like he was on his way to be on duty in a 737 [0], so if he wanted to crash a plane, he'd probably been more successful a couple hours later. But who knows, people have episodes. It sounded to me like they had a fight, but no details so pure speculation. 0. https://abcnews.go.com/US/alaska-airlines-flight-diverted-after-credible-security-threat/story?id=104223059 https://abcnews.go.com/US/alaska-airlines-flight-diverted-af...
- kayfox 3y ago
  Somewhere buried in the reporting he had said he thought he was asleep and wanted to wake up. He had been up for 40 hours without sleep at that point, so he was definitely messed up.
singleshot_ 3y ago
Do you figure an airplane counts as a “dangerous weapon” for the purposes of the sentence enhancement at the end of 49 U.S.C. 46504?
tantalor 3y ago
why-do-we-even-have-that-button.gif
- MauranKilom 3y ago
  Engine fires.
- aaronmdjones 3y ago
  When an engine catches fire, you need to extinguish it. These are usually very large overhead red handles (or black handles with red illumination) that, when pulled, will shut off the fuel supply to that engine and flood it with extinguishing agents. This reliably kills the engine, with the hope of preventing the spread of fire.
  - phendrenad2 3y ago
    Seems like it should be a "insert two keys" kind of thing then. And/or just one button plus some kind of automated system that won't let you do it unless there's some sensor confirmation that it's necessary. Also, I wonder why we don't have electric planes. Sure, batteries aren't there yet. But we could have a jet turbine used as a generator (actually done quite often as a portable ground-based power source, it's really cool), a series of batteries to store the power temporarily, and electric fans to move the plane forward.
    - pdonis 3y ago
      > Seems like it should be a "insert two keys" kind of thing then. So if the plane's engine is actually on fire, you want to lengthen the process the flight crew has to go through to extinguish it? Remember that "engine fire" actually means "plane could be seconds away from a jet fuel explosion".
      - phendrenad2 3y ago
        Possibly, or possibly it would have a tiny effect in the event of a real emergency, and would completely stop what was attempted here. I'm sure I'm not the first to think of it, so I assume that it was dismissed for good reason.
ChoHag 3y ago
Back in the days when you could go into the cockpit for a chat, the pilots turned the engines of our 747 off (well, idle) over the middle of the Atlantic to show my brother and I how the autopilot worked.
- hn8305823 3y ago
  747's have an interesting feature called "drive disconnect", which mechanically disconnects the engine accessories like electrical generators and hydraulic pumps. If you're APU isn't running and you hit the disconnect on all four engines you have no electrical or hydraulic power and there is no way to fix it in the air! https://www.angelfire.com/ct3/ctenning/electrical_essays/747dash400elec/747dash400elec.html https://www.angelfire.com/ct3/ctenning/electrical_essays/747... > The pilots control module for the electrical power generation system is in the pilots overhead panel (P5, Figure 3). There are four drive disconnect switches at the bottom of the module. These are guarded switches. Lifting the guard and pressing the switch will cause the IDG shaft to mechanically disconnect from the engine gearbox. This would only be done in the event of an overheated IDG or low IDG oil pressure. Once disconnected, the IDG cannot be reconnected in flight.
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 3y ago
    You can't get the IDG's back but couldn't you still start the APU using battery power? Also, the disconnect seems to be only for the IDG's, wouldn't that still leave you with bleed air and hydraulics?
    - hn8305823 3y ago
      Also a quirk of the 747: you cannot start the APU in flight!
not-my-account 3y ago
Without motive, this is just speculation. But, mental health / stability of pilots is not an easy thing to track, as the GermanWings crash taught us[0]. [0] https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/the-madness-in-our-methods-the-crash-of-germanwings-flight-9525-and-our-broken-aeromedical-system-5b95abd4fe6d https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/the-madness-in-our-metho...
djohnston 3y ago
How do you fix the mental health issue with pilots? My understanding is that as soon as you self report you’ve basically jeopardised your career and you’re grounded for a minimum of 6 months while you wait for FAA physicians.
- thriftwy 3y ago
  Imagine if eyesight or cardiovascular tests depended on self-reporting.
  - nradov 3y ago
    Imagine if eyesight or cardiovascular tests were as subjective and unreliable as psychological assessments.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
      That and eyesight test may result in glasses, but not in a wholesale ban from the working population. Wife currently works in an institution that caters to mental disorders and system in US mostly sucks ( at least with regular healthcare, you can argue that it works for the well off ).
      - thriftwy 3y ago
        It can be a ban from being a pilot though.
- tpmx 3y ago
  Current regulations: https://www.faa.gov/pilot-mental-fitness https://www.faa.gov/pilot-mental-fitness The FAA’s regulations require airline pilots to undergo a medical exam with an Aviation Medical Examiner (AME) every six months to five years, depending on the type of flying they do and their age. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-67/subpart-B/section-67.107 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-D... Mental standards for a first-class airman medical certificate are:
hedora 3y ago
It’s strange that he did this when in the jump seat, and with other crew members present. Post 9/11, it is more common to wait for pilots to wait for the other pilot to use the restroom, then lock the anti-hijacking door. At that point, there’s effectively unlimited time to down / hijack the plane.
- bin_bash 3y ago
  it is, but I suppose it points to not being premeditated
- hn8305823 3y ago
  For this reason US airlines are required to have a minimum of two crew members inside the cockpit at all times. When a working pilot needs to use the restroom a flight attendant will temporarily take their place inside the cockpit. If you sit up front its not unusual to see them go through this dance which involves barricading the front galley area with drink carts first.
  - turquoisevar 3y ago
    I wish barricading the front galley with a cart was mandatory practice. It would've saved me the embarrassment of a suspected hijack by me. I remember one time on Delta sitting upfront in first and needing to use the bathroom immediately after waking up from a short snooze. A flight attendant was standing in front of the galley and started barking at me that I needed to sit down when I started to get up. Baffled by this, I checked the seatbelt light, which was off, and tried to explain that I needed to go the restroom, only for her to repeat that I needed to sit down. Only afterward, after I saw the pilot sneek out of the bathroom, did I put two and two together. I understand the need to be vigilant, as well as the fact that you don't want to indicate an opportunity for malice by telling passengers that the pilot is outside of the cockpit. So I’m sure there's no easy way of dealing with this. But blocking the way with a cart will have many, myself included, unconsciously waiting for the cart to be out of the way. Whatever the case, I don't think barking orders is the smartest thing to do, as it risks escalating the situation by evoking a response of equal weight.
yadaeno 3y ago
I was on this flight, I sat in the back and did not witness the initial events however I heard the pilot say we were diverting the flight to PDX and shortly after the jumpseat pilot was led to back of the plane. I thought he was having a heart attack, or possibly diabetic because the flight attendants were telling him it was "going to be okay" and to "take deep breaths", the guy was acting scared and non-violent. The flight attendant later announced it was a "medical emergency" which I thought it was weird because they never asked if there was a doctor on board. The pilot later explained that there was a "disturbance in the cockpit and we will likely board a new plane". Finally after we landed he was escorted by police.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Wow. That must have been super unnerving and retrospectively a lot more scary than you must have thought at the moment.
  - yadaeno 3y ago
    Honestly I kind of feel bad for the guy. He didn’t put up much of a fight and he sounded very shocked and sad at what he did. Now his career is over and as he’s a plane hijacker as far as the law is concerned. If he really wanted to crash the plane I imagine he would have succeeded.
    - lamontcg 3y ago
      It kinda makes more sense to me that he was taking something like Ambien and had an episode.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        Apparently he was experimenting with mushrooms and had a psychosis. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/24/us/alaska-airlines-off-duty-pilot-arraignment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/24/us/alaska-airlines-off-du...
bogota 3y ago
No idea what you do about this but it’s one of my biggest fears when flying. Fortunately you have two pilots but I don’t like seeing one step out to use the restroom ever.
- FanaHOVA 3y ago
  A flight attendant has to get in the cockpit if one goes to the restroom, they cannot be left alone.
  - rwc 3y ago
    *In the US
  - ZeKK14 3y ago
    In Europe, EASA recommends this since the Germanwings accident but it's not an actual rule, each company decides what they want to do. https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/74912/what-is-the-two-person-cockpit-rule-as-of-february-2020 https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/74912/what-is-t...
f233f2 3y ago
>Federal officials allege Joseph David Emerson tried to shut down the engines in midflight and had to be subdued by the two pilots. Why couldn't he? Does it take a long time to press the button, do you need several people to press it at once...?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- linhns 3y ago
  I think First Officer can override the decision in these situations
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - t0mas88 3y ago
    No. There are two fire handles in the overhead panel, one for each engine (and a similar one for the APU on some types). You pull it, that immediately shuts off fuel, hydraulics, generators etc on that engine. Twist it to discharge the fire extinguishers on that engine. No override, no extra steps. In case of an engine fire the procedure is to put a hand on the handle, the other pilot checks and confirms, and then you pull it.
- subw00f 3y ago
  Even if he could shut down the engines, the plane doesn’t fall immediately from the sky. They would have plenty of time to turn them on again.
  - mwint 3y ago
    Discharging the fire bottle into the engine complicates things a bit.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
fasteddie31003 3y ago
Can you restart the engines after the fire extinguish handles are pulled?
- t0mas88 3y ago
  If just pulled, on most types you can push them back in and that would reconnect hydraulics and generators etc. A restart should be possible. If you push and then twist to discharge the fire bottles I'm not sure you can restart, given that the discharge could cause damage.
- kayodelycaon 3y ago
  Sure, if you have enough altitude after you start the APU and reset the engines. The extinguishers contain halon or something equivalent, which will be cleared out when you spin up the engine. But I doubt there's a procedure for it. If you have enough altitude to restart, you have enough altitude for an emergency landing. It's better to follow the checklist and land on a runway with no engines, where emergency equipment is available. Rather than getting creative and crashing in a field because you failed to restart them.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    It's much safer to land with engines running than dead stick. The crew is going to try to get the engines running if at all possible.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    > It's better to follow the checklist Indeed it is. The checklist will have you attempt a restart.
  - gymbeaux 3y ago
    Landing a jet without engines means landing a jet without hydraulics, which is difficult. The emergency power from the Ram Air Turbine (drops from under the plane when engines fail to maintain some hydraulic pressure) runs out when the plane is about to land/crash as its airspeed is relatively low- then the hydraulics are barely working and you don’t have “power steering” anymore. In past incidents, pilots plot a course for a glide landing, and then work to get the engines started.
chimeracoder 3y ago
I'm confused why a pilot on a deadhead flight[0] was in the cockpit in the first place? The one (and perhaps only) significant safety change to air travel after 9/11 was the decision to keep the cockpit doors locked (and unopenable except from the inside) and to forbid passengers inside the cockpit between takeoff and landing. [0] https://abcnews.go.com/US/alaska-airlines-flight-diverted-after-credible-security-threat/story?id=104223059 https://abcnews.go.com/US/alaska-airlines-flight-diverted-af...
- bennyg 3y ago
  From the article: "When the jump seat, a third seat in the cockpit, is occupied, it’s often filled by an off-duty pilot, but the seat can be used by other airline employees or federal safety inspectors." Maybe these rules will change a bit going forward.
  - chung8123 3y ago
    This doesn't seem to be a safety issue you can plug by not allowing them in the cockpit off duty if you allow them in the cockpit on duty.
- Johnny555 3y ago
  Is it really a safety issue having another pilot from the same airline in the cockpit? Does allowing a third pilot in the cockpit increase the chance of having a mentally unstable pilot in the cockpit, or decrease? What if it was the on-duty copilot that tried to down the plane?
  - t0mas88 3y ago
    It's done thousands of times every day. Not just the same airline, nearly all airlines are part of the CASS system, which authorizes this. There are multiple examples of an additional crew member (an "off duty" pilot on the jumpseat is a crew member by the rules) being helpful in an emergency situation.
- francisofascii 3y ago
jacquesm 3y ago
There are quite a few of these instances, a Germanwings pilot, this one and MH370 is suspected to be a suicide case as well, and many more (see Wikipedia page linked below). There may well be more than that where the truth will never come out. Pilots are not immune to suicidal ideation, the problem is that they have a unique combination of responsibility, means and opportunity. Roughly 4% of all adults consider suicide at some point in their lives and this isn't any different for pilots. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_pilot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_pilot
- AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
  The FedEx spear gun one always stands out to me too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Express_Flight_705 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Express_Flight_705 The story, in particular the Mayday episode of it, is really harrowing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxDxwXE_Tv0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxDxwXE_Tv0
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Holy crap just reading the wikipedia page has my heart pounding. The sheer evil of planning to murder three of your co-workers so your ex-wife can pocket the insurance money.
  - Doxin 3y ago
    For anyone not yet motivated to watch the above: as I recall the sentence "bloody footprints on the ceiling" is involved.
- Jach 3y ago
  Learned something new today, I'm surprised it's as low as 4%. Guess that explains some of the comments here.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    I was actually surprised it was as high as 4%.
gigatexal 3y ago
One plausible reason as some have mentioned below is some mental health episode... my question is why do 83 people have to die because someone in a priviledged position can't handle their issues? The answer is they shouldn't. Just like the mentally unstable or those with violent histories shouldn't have access to guns folks who need this kind of help shouldn't have the lives of people in their hands.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  You're not wrong, but the issue one runs into is that if that's the approach the FAA takes to solving the issue, pilots will react predictably: they'll self-defend their careers and be extremely untruthful in mental health analysis screenings. So, "problem solved" as long as nobody believes anything self-reported in those screenings isn't lies-on-lies.
  - 0xBDB 3y ago
    It pretty much is the approach the FAA takes. It's extremely difficult to get a private pilot's license if you have a history of ADHD, never mind more severe mental illness, never mind again a commercial license.
- some_random 3y ago
  The question here isn't if this pilot should have been suspended or if a 6 time murderer should be allowed to buy a gun, it's how to deal with that AND prevent people who aren't going to take their own life much less the lives of others from having their jobs and rights taken away.
Blackthorn 3y ago
And just like that, special issuance for mental health will become that much more impossible.
- t0mas88 3y ago
  Which in the long run causes more issues since nobody when a career in aviation will ever seek professional help.
trollied 3y ago
AVHerald page. Will get updated as more information becomes available: http://avherald.com/h?article=510218dd&opt=0 http://avherald.com/h?article=510218dd&opt=0
xwdv 3y ago
I’m tired of people citing “mental health” issues as a way to soften any wrong doing by people who should otherwise be thought of as murderers with criminal intentions and no regard for human life. These people should be locked up and kept far away from civilized society, not sympathized. Plenty of people with mental issues get through life without wanting to kill others off. And a lot of people who want to kill others don’t even have mental health issues, they’re just evil or apathetic.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  I don't think that's the intent. I think the intent is to analyze it in a way to avoid other potentially harmful incidents.
- sterlind 3y ago
  psychopaths often have brain abnormalities, both in terms of activation (seen from fMRI studies) and actual physical white matter structure. [0] psychopaths are also evil. it's a personality disorder. it's not separable from the self like depression or schizophrenia, it's a disease of the self. we're just learning the physical aspects that lead to what we condemn. 0. https://www.med.wisc.edu/news-and-events/2011/november/psychopaths-brains-differences-structure-function https://www.med.wisc.edu/news-and-events/2011/november/psych...
yadaeno 3y ago
(duplicated from non-main thread) I was on this flight, I sat in the back and did not witness the initial events however I heard the pilot say we were diverting the flight to PDX and shortly after the jumpseat pilot was led to back of the plane. I thought he was having a heart attack, or possibly diabetic because the flight attendants were telling him it was "going to be okay" and to "take deep breaths", the guy was acting scared and non-violent. The flight attendant later announced it was a "medical emergency" which I thought it was weird because they never asked if there was a doctor on board. The pilot later explained that there was a "disturbance in the cockpit and we will likely board a new plane". Finally after we landed he was escorted by police.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- pvg 3y ago
  https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20copy%20paste%20mege&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
paxys 3y ago
The scary part is that he could very well have had this mental episode while in full control of his own aircraft, and at that point no one could have done anything to stop him.
frizkie 3y ago
Yikes. This is the flight I take home from visiting family usually multiple times per year. Love PAE as an airport.
Racing0461 3y ago
Any info on whether this guy was married or had a family? The other guy that crashed the plane from seatac didn't. just wanted to see if there was a correlation.
nat0704 3y ago
Shouldn't pilots, as a matter of course, have to undergo regular emotional checkips to ensure they're emotionally stable?
- eightysixfour 3y ago
  Painfully, as I understand it, it is the other way around. Pilots can’t see psychiatrists/therapists because if they get diagnosed with anything they lose their license.
  - Agree2468 3y ago
    [dead]
  - nat0704 3y ago
    That's really harsh.
  - arcastroe 3y ago
    Is there a special insurance to protect income for pilots in case they are diagnosed for mental health? Similar to how surgeons can get their hands ensured. (Not sure if this surgeon piece is even true, or just an idea that goes around)
- Agree2468 3y ago
  [dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lr1970 3y ago
Mental breakdown or attempted terror attack. These days anything is possible.
jerlam 3y ago
The Seattle Times adds a detail that isn't in other articles: the off duty pilot had successfully shut off fuel flow using the same handles: ---- To activate they must reach up and pull the handle down and turn it to lock it in place. Pulling the handle cuts electrical and hydraulic power to the engine and closes the fuel line. Turning the handle then releases a pressurized bottle of fire-suppressing halon gas. Alaska Air spokesperson Alexa Rudin said via email that “fortunately some residual fuel remains in the line, and the quick reaction of our crew to reset the handles restored fuel flow and prevented fuel starvation.” https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/alaska-air-off-duty-pilot-tries-to-shut-off-engines-on-flight-from-everett/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/alask...
- AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
  I'm not surprised he was successful (in pulling the fire handle -- not in taking down the aircraft). They are designed to be quick (but deliberate), because, if you're pulling one (or god forbid two) you're already in a serious situation where you have 50 other things going on. He probably was done before they even realized what he was doing. Fortunate that they were able to restore fuel flow before the engine was starved for fuel, but, it would have very unlikely been a catastrophic situation had they lost both engines. Modern airliners are designed to restart their engines in flight through various means and can glide for many many miles from cruise altitude giving the crew ample time to do an orderly restart. See: Gimli Glider. I say this not to excuse or minimize his actions but to emphasize to nervous flyers (like myself) exactly how redundant and safe modern aircraft are and how well trained modern crews are. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZWjSUDTpOg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZWjSUDTpOg
lostmsu 3y ago
I wonder if drugs were involved.
- lostmsu 3y ago
  Well, that was a good guess: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/alaska-air-pilot-in-aborted-flight-said-he-used-magic-mushrooms-documents-show/ar-AA1iOvnW https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/alaska-air-pilot-in-aborte...
  - lostmsu 3y ago
    At this point my guess would be the pilots who let him in did know about him consuming mushrooms and still let him in the cockpit. So basically they are almost just as responsible, or at least must be investigated as such.

Why was he in the cockpit? I thought non-flight crew (attendants and pilots) were given regular passenger seats?

Scoundreller 3y ago
Often off-duty pilots get some seat in the cockpit. I guess if they’re moving around for the company they can get an actual seat (edit: not so here, says they were en route to work for the airline, but maybe if you’re “commuting” from home it’s different). Not sure how it works if they just want to fly somewhere for free (would they just have to go in uniform or verboten in any way in the cockpit like that?) Other than the safety issue, if this person causes that program to end, every pilot is going to have it out for them even moreso (but hard to imagine it being any worse than it is).
- boomboomsubban 3y ago
  If this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Express_Flight_705 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Express_Flight_705 didn't end deadheading, this event won't. Whether the airlines are looking for an excuse to end deadheading I don't know.
  - nocoiner 3y ago
    I doubt they’re trying to end deadheading as a whole (no idea about putting deadheaders in jump seats - though I assume not since those are non-revenue seats). If the airlines think there’s a pilot shortage now, just wait until they can only hire pilots from operational hubs. Deadheading is an essential part of getting pilots and attendants to where they’re supposed to be at the start of their work days.
    - Scoundreller 3y ago
      > just wait until they can only hire pilots from operational hubs. Doubly not going to be happy if they have to live in bases in California and pay income taxes there instead of commuting in from no-income-tax states like Washington.
  - Scoundreller 3y ago
    Can deadhead in a regular seat on a passenger plane. Invite them in if needed only. Airlines won’t like the loss of a revenue seat. The doors&locks are really good now. So good you can even lock out your co-pilot while they stop in the bathroom… (an argument in favour of having a 3rd deadheading pilot next to the others)
    - nedrylandJP 3y ago
      See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525
      - SoftTalker 3y ago
        From that link: In response to the incident and the circumstances of the co-pilot's involvement, aviation authorities in some countries implemented new regulations that require the presence of two authorised personnel in the cockpit at all times. So if a pilot has to visit the lavatory, a flight attendant or some other qualified person has to replace the pilot on the flight deck (not in actual duty of course, just not leaving a single person alone there).
  - pbhjpbhj 3y ago
    I was looking for the page on deadheading which was linked from your page and usefully gives a list of when deadheads have been helpful and when they gave been malicious: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadheading_(employee) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadheading_(employee).
- ulrashida 3y ago
  It's hard to see a policy solution for this: if you're an authorized passenger for that seat you'd also be eligible to fly a plane and wreck it when you're not a passenger. There's no material reduction in risk (other than in this isolated instance) to the change.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    More importantly, if you have at least the chance of catching someone like this (assuming it's all correct) when they're in the jump seat vs in the pilot's seat, it reduces risk slightly.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
yellow_lead 3y ago
It depends. > In airplanes, jump seats—which are officially termed auxiliary crew stations—can be located in the flight deck. In cockpits, jump seats are provided for individuals who are not operating the aircraft. These might include trainee pilots, off-duty crew members in transition to another airport (see deadheading), government officials (such as Federal Aviation Administration staff), or airline staff. > Some airplanes do not have jump seats in the cockpit, while others have one or two. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jump_seat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jump_seat
skort 3y ago
From the article > Alaska Airlines said the off-duty pilot was sitting in the flight deck jump seat -- which is in the cockpit
inoffensivename 3y ago
Commuting pilots will often sit in the flight deck if there is no room in the back.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  This is the reason. The airlines do it so they don't lose a revenue seat in the passenger area. Allowing the deadheading crew to ride in the jumpseats (which never earn revenue) they can still sell all their passenger seats.
  - adrianmonk 3y ago
    And this flight was probably completely or almost completely full. Based on airline, cities, and time, you can guess this is Alaska Airlines flight 2059. From there, it's easy to confirm it was diverted to Portland. Both these sites show it was diverted to Portland yesterday: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/as2059 https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/as2059 https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/ASA2059 https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/ASA2059 So, it is an Embraer 175. The airline and SeatGuru have seat maps: https://www.alaskaair.com/content/travel-info/our-aircraft/e175 https://www.alaskaair.com/content/travel-info/our-aircraft/e... https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Alaska_Airlines/Alaska_Airlines_Embraer_E175.php https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Alaska_Airlines/Alaska_Air... Those only show 76 passenger seats, so the numbers don't quite add up, but the point is it's a smaller passenger jet. Tangent: why don't the numbers add up? Could be they reconfigured the seats and added a row. Could be reported wrong. Could be children under 2 who don't require a seat. (See https://www.alaskaair.com/content/travel-info/policies/traveling-with-lap-infants https://www.alaskaair.com/content/travel-info/policies/trave... .)
    - inoffensivename 3y ago
      It's common to have a few lap infants in the plane, so you could have 76 passengers, 3 lap infants, 4 crew, 1 crazy jumpseater. We often fly with 80+ people on board. Source: I am a E175 pilot.
BlandDuck 3y ago
Pilots need to be allowed in the cockpit during flight, for very obvious reasons. The fact that he was off-duty doesn't really change the security calculation. It might as well have been an on-duty pilot that had pulled this stunt. I am just grateful that it didn't turn into a disaster.
- qup 3y ago
  If the pilot and copilot are in the cockpit, and a third off-duty pilot is traveling, what is the "very obvious" reason he needs to be in the cockpit?
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    Makes life easier if one of the pilots needs to visit the loo or eat something, as long as the third pilot is type rated. And besides that, it can also be useful in the case of a serious incident to have a third capable person at hand to run checklists, communicate with engineering, navigation or whatever else.
  - function_seven 3y ago
    It's not obvious that he needs to be in the cockpit, rather it's obvious that there is no security threat to allowing a pilot to occupy the jump seat. The trust they're given to fly the plane is a superset of the trust required to be in the cockpit at all.
  - imglorp 3y ago
    In addition to training etc, yes there are positives to having a certificated third person for "crew resource management". They are expected to observe and speak up if the PIC and SIC miss something, and to help in an emergency. In UA232 for example, a third pilot was instrumental in saving lives; it took six hands to make the airport. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232
    - mattpallissard 3y ago
rtkwe 3y ago
Airlines need to move pilots without planes from place to place and can't always get them a regular cabin seat so it's clear sometimes they'll need to be in one of the jump seats. Most of those in the main cabin are already dedicated to flight attendants so it's just down to the cockpit jump seat. As pilots they're already in the ultimate position if they wanted to do anything malicious with a plane so it's not really an additional security problem to have them up there.

Side note: Anyone in the greater area north of Seattle, Paine Field is a breath of fresh air compared to SeaTac. Small airports rock if they fly direct to where you want to go.

SkyPuncher 3y ago
I’ll take a layover out of a small airport. Security is sooooo much easier.
sophacles 3y ago
Depending on details they also can rock if they don't have direct flights. My local airport only has 2 direct flight destinations, both of which are major hubs. So almost all trips have a layover. We're located a 2-4 hour drive from 4 much larger airports. By the time you factor in our tiny airport never having a security wait and the 10 minute drive to get there, it takes a lot of layover time to match driving to a bigger city and arriving there 2 hours early. By the time you factor in gas, parking, etc - the price is about the same too (that is tickets cost more, but overall trip cost is equalish). Definitely worth it for everyone to look at though - just because the flight itself may be cheaper from a bigger airport doesn't mean the overall trip cost will be less, and the small airport experience is generally much nicer than the large airport one for ticketing and security.
ciscoriordan 3y ago
Cheap flights, expensive parking. Paine Field doesn’t have massive garages like SeaTac. I’ve taken the flight from the article and my airfare was lower than my parking costs for just a weekend trip. Ubers are expensive but only ~20% more than SeaTac with a Cap Hill starting point. All things considered, Paine Field is my first choice airport for the area.
- bruceb 3y ago
  SeaTac can go directly from Capitol Hill via the rail and not worry about traffic. Can't do that with Paine Field.

bandyaboot 3y ago

Anyone have any knowledge of what would have happened had he successfully pulled the fire extinguisher handles? I have to imagine it would still be recoverable? Though I do understand that you’d be having to deal with recovering the engines at the same time as dealing with a hostile individual in the cockpit.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
oh_sigh 3y ago
Depends what stage of flight they were in. The engines will shut off as the extinguishing system is activated, so if they were shortly after takeoff, they might not have enough time or enough energy to do an emergency landing back at the airport.
bombcar 3y ago
In a worst-case scenario, your plane becomes a glider (see some famous fuel-starvation incidents which result in flare-out). I suspect the jets have restart procedures available and can "flush" the fire extinguisher "juice" out.
aschobel 3y ago
At FL360 (36,000') the plane has a glide ratio of 20:1; so they would have been able to glide 136 miles.
- hmaxwell 3y ago
  the only problem is that if there is no running jet engine, there is no more oxygen (produced from bleed air) and the oxygen masks last for 10-20 minutes...
  - mmart 3y ago
    The APU would still be able, to an extent, to provide pressurisation even if both engines are disabled.

kemiller2002 3y ago

That's scary, now let me add to that. Imagine if he was one of the pilots allowed to carry firearms on the plane. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43377461 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43377461

aschobel 3y ago
He was commuting to be crew on a 737 flight. No need for a weapon to kill a lot of people when you are at the controls of the plane.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Spooky23 3y ago
  When you’re a passenger in the jump seat, not being able to shoot the pilots made it more difficult to kill said people.
- zzzeek 3y ago
  the pilot and first officer subdued him. if he had a gun he could have shot them both first and been successful.
  - MauranKilom 3y ago
    The point being made is that he could've just crashed his next own flight.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      From what I understand these things can happen on the spur of the moment without any logic to it.
    - JCharante 3y ago
      He's a 737 pilot, he could wait until he's jumpseating on a widebody plane and strike then.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago

After the Germanwings disaster[0] and the near miss here, I wonder if it is time to re-evaluate the reinforced cockpit doors. Basically, every single passenger on an airplane knows that if someone is trying to attack the doors or otherwise hijack the plane, you have to stop them no matter what. Even if the hijackers have guns or knives, you still have a better chance trying to fight them. On the other hand, a single pilot behind a reinforced cockpit door can bring down the entire aircraft. 0.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525

FabHK 3y ago
Agreed. The difficulty of the trade-off to me indicates that we are near the optimum in aviation security (at least concerning cockpit doors).
United857 3y ago
Unlike Germanwings, this incident thankfully didn’t involve a single pilot behind a cockpit door. Most airlines banned such a scenario after Germanwings. Here, the flight deck was occupied fully and the two on-duty pilots were able to overpower the assailant successfully.
sokoloff 3y ago
Even without reinforced doors, blowing the fire bottles on all engines or nose-downing the aircraft at the end of the runway will bring down an aircraft if a pilot is intent on suicide, despite there being another pilot right next to you.
mschuster91 3y ago
> After the Germanwings disaster[0] and the near miss here, I wonder if it is time to re-evaluate the reinforced cockpit doors. And while we're at it, a host of other aviation "security" rules as well, particularly the liquids rule, the insanity of confiscating nail clippers, or the power-trips that TSA or its sometimes just as nuts European counterparts pull off.
- 3y ago

RankingMember 3y ago

Do we have any word yet on motive?

klinquist 3y ago

Already on VASAviation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbU6E6VJx30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbU6E6VJx30

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
The fact that these pilots always (seemingly) remain cool as a cucumber, despite the fact that someone just tried to murder them and 82 other people, always amazes me.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  They probably got the shakes after they landed. When your life depends on getting a job done, adrenaline kicks in and you get it done. Plus flying is a very standardized, checklist-oriented task. They can fall back to their routines as a distraction from what just happened.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  It's absolutely incredible. You can listen to pilots moments before they are about to die and they are nearly universally calm and collected. I like to remember that when things are figuratively on fire.
- SkyMarshal 3y ago
  They’re both selected and trained for that quality, as are the rest of the flight crew.
thamer 3y ago
When asked by ATC, the pilots mention the threat level escalated to a 4 (at 2:39). I wasn't familiar with this scale so I looked it up, it's from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO): Level 1 — Disruptive behavior (verbal) Level 2 — Physically abusive behavior Level 3 — Life-threatening behavior (or display of a weapon) Level 4 — Attempted or actual breach of the flight crew compartment

gleenn 3y ago

Not in the article but what was the int? To actually kill everyone?

d1str0 3y ago
Too soon to know. Could be another undiagnosed mental issue.
sva_ 3y ago
It seems like he was on his way to be on duty in a 737 [0], so if he wanted to crash a plane, he'd probably been more successful a couple hours later. But who knows, people have episodes. It sounded to me like they had a fight, but no details so pure speculation. 0. https://abcnews.go.com/US/alaska-airlines-flight-diverted-after-credible-security-threat/story?id=104223059 https://abcnews.go.com/US/alaska-airlines-flight-diverted-af...
kayfox 3y ago
Somewhere buried in the reporting he had said he thought he was asleep and wanted to wake up. He had been up for 40 hours without sleep at that point, so he was definitely messed up.

singleshot_ 3y ago

Do you figure an airplane counts as a “dangerous weapon” for the purposes of the sentence enhancement at the end of 49 U.S.C. 46504?

tantalor 3y ago

why-do-we-even-have-that-button.gif

MauranKilom 3y ago
Engine fires.
aaronmdjones 3y ago
When an engine catches fire, you need to extinguish it. These are usually very large overhead red handles (or black handles with red illumination) that, when pulled, will shut off the fuel supply to that engine and flood it with extinguishing agents. This reliably kills the engine, with the hope of preventing the spread of fire.
- phendrenad2 3y ago
  Seems like it should be a "insert two keys" kind of thing then. And/or just one button plus some kind of automated system that won't let you do it unless there's some sensor confirmation that it's necessary. Also, I wonder why we don't have electric planes. Sure, batteries aren't there yet. But we could have a jet turbine used as a generator (actually done quite often as a portable ground-based power source, it's really cool), a series of batteries to store the power temporarily, and electric fans to move the plane forward.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > Seems like it should be a "insert two keys" kind of thing then. So if the plane's engine is actually on fire, you want to lengthen the process the flight crew has to go through to extinguish it? Remember that "engine fire" actually means "plane could be seconds away from a jet fuel explosion".
    - phendrenad2 3y ago
      Possibly, or possibly it would have a tiny effect in the event of a real emergency, and would completely stop what was attempted here. I'm sure I'm not the first to think of it, so I assume that it was dismissed for good reason.

ChoHag 3y ago

Back in the days when you could go into the cockpit for a chat, the pilots turned the engines of our 747 off (well, idle) over the middle of the Atlantic to show my brother and I how the autopilot worked.

hn8305823 3y ago
747's have an interesting feature called "drive disconnect", which mechanically disconnects the engine accessories like electrical generators and hydraulic pumps. If you're APU isn't running and you hit the disconnect on all four engines you have no electrical or hydraulic power and there is no way to fix it in the air! https://www.angelfire.com/ct3/ctenning/electrical_essays/747dash400elec/747dash400elec.html https://www.angelfire.com/ct3/ctenning/electrical_essays/747... > The pilots control module for the electrical power generation system is in the pilots overhead panel (P5, Figure 3). There are four drive disconnect switches at the bottom of the module. These are guarded switches. Lifting the guard and pressing the switch will cause the IDG shaft to mechanically disconnect from the engine gearbox. This would only be done in the event of an overheated IDG or low IDG oil pressure. Once disconnected, the IDG cannot be reconnected in flight.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 3y ago
  You can't get the IDG's back but couldn't you still start the APU using battery power? Also, the disconnect seems to be only for the IDG's, wouldn't that still leave you with bleed air and hydraulics?
  - hn8305823 3y ago
    Also a quirk of the 747: you cannot start the APU in flight!

not-my-account 3y ago

Without motive, this is just speculation. But, mental health / stability of pilots is not an easy thing to track, as the GermanWings crash taught us[0]. [0] https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/the-madness-in-our-methods-the-crash-of-germanwings-flight-9525-and-our-broken-aeromedical-system-5b95abd4fe6d https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/the-madness-in-our-metho...

djohnston 3y ago

How do you fix the mental health issue with pilots? My understanding is that as soon as you self report you’ve basically jeopardised your career and you’re grounded for a minimum of 6 months while you wait for FAA physicians.

thriftwy 3y ago
Imagine if eyesight or cardiovascular tests depended on self-reporting.
- nradov 3y ago
  Imagine if eyesight or cardiovascular tests were as subjective and unreliable as psychological assessments.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
    That and eyesight test may result in glasses, but not in a wholesale ban from the working population. Wife currently works in an institution that caters to mental disorders and system in US mostly sucks ( at least with regular healthcare, you can argue that it works for the well off ).
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      It can be a ban from being a pilot though.
tpmx 3y ago
Current regulations: https://www.faa.gov/pilot-mental-fitness https://www.faa.gov/pilot-mental-fitness The FAA’s regulations require airline pilots to undergo a medical exam with an Aviation Medical Examiner (AME) every six months to five years, depending on the type of flying they do and their age. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-67/subpart-B/section-67.107 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-D... Mental standards for a first-class airman medical certificate are:

hedora 3y ago

It’s strange that he did this when in the jump seat, and with other crew members present. Post 9/11, it is more common to wait for pilots to wait for the other pilot to use the restroom, then lock the anti-hijacking door. At that point, there’s effectively unlimited time to down / hijack the plane.

bin_bash 3y ago
it is, but I suppose it points to not being premeditated
hn8305823 3y ago
For this reason US airlines are required to have a minimum of two crew members inside the cockpit at all times. When a working pilot needs to use the restroom a flight attendant will temporarily take their place inside the cockpit. If you sit up front its not unusual to see them go through this dance which involves barricading the front galley area with drink carts first.
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  I wish barricading the front galley with a cart was mandatory practice. It would've saved me the embarrassment of a suspected hijack by me. I remember one time on Delta sitting upfront in first and needing to use the bathroom immediately after waking up from a short snooze. A flight attendant was standing in front of the galley and started barking at me that I needed to sit down when I started to get up. Baffled by this, I checked the seatbelt light, which was off, and tried to explain that I needed to go the restroom, only for her to repeat that I needed to sit down. Only afterward, after I saw the pilot sneek out of the bathroom, did I put two and two together. I understand the need to be vigilant, as well as the fact that you don't want to indicate an opportunity for malice by telling passengers that the pilot is outside of the cockpit. So I’m sure there's no easy way of dealing with this. But blocking the way with a cart will have many, myself included, unconsciously waiting for the cart to be out of the way. Whatever the case, I don't think barking orders is the smartest thing to do, as it risks escalating the situation by evoking a response of equal weight.

yadaeno 3y ago

I was on this flight, I sat in the back and did not witness the initial events however I heard the pilot say we were diverting the flight to PDX and shortly after the jumpseat pilot was led to back of the plane. I thought he was having a heart attack, or possibly diabetic because the flight attendants were telling him it was "going to be okay" and to "take deep breaths", the guy was acting scared and non-violent. The flight attendant later announced it was a "medical emergency" which I thought it was weird because they never asked if there was a doctor on board. The pilot later explained that there was a "disturbance in the cockpit and we will likely board a new plane". Finally after we landed he was escorted by police.

jacquesm 3y ago
Wow. That must have been super unnerving and retrospectively a lot more scary than you must have thought at the moment.
- yadaeno 3y ago
  Honestly I kind of feel bad for the guy. He didn’t put up much of a fight and he sounded very shocked and sad at what he did. Now his career is over and as he’s a plane hijacker as far as the law is concerned. If he really wanted to crash the plane I imagine he would have succeeded.
  - lamontcg 3y ago
    It kinda makes more sense to me that he was taking something like Ambien and had an episode.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Apparently he was experimenting with mushrooms and had a psychosis. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/24/us/alaska-airlines-off-duty-pilot-arraignment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/24/us/alaska-airlines-off-du...

bogota 3y ago

No idea what you do about this but it’s one of my biggest fears when flying. Fortunately you have two pilots but I don’t like seeing one step out to use the restroom ever.

FanaHOVA 3y ago
A flight attendant has to get in the cockpit if one goes to the restroom, they cannot be left alone.
- rwc 3y ago
  *In the US
- ZeKK14 3y ago
  In Europe, EASA recommends this since the Germanwings accident but it's not an actual rule, each company decides what they want to do. https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/74912/what-is-the-two-person-cockpit-rule-as-of-february-2020 https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/74912/what-is-t...

f233f2 3y ago

>Federal officials allege Joseph David Emerson tried to shut down the engines in midflight and had to be subdued by the two pilots. Why couldn't he? Does it take a long time to press the button, do you need several people to press it at once...?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
linhns 3y ago
I think First Officer can override the decision in these situations
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- t0mas88 3y ago
  No. There are two fire handles in the overhead panel, one for each engine (and a similar one for the APU on some types). You pull it, that immediately shuts off fuel, hydraulics, generators etc on that engine. Twist it to discharge the fire extinguishers on that engine. No override, no extra steps. In case of an engine fire the procedure is to put a hand on the handle, the other pilot checks and confirms, and then you pull it.
subw00f 3y ago
Even if he could shut down the engines, the plane doesn’t fall immediately from the sky. They would have plenty of time to turn them on again.
- mwint 3y ago
  Discharging the fire bottle into the engine complicates things a bit.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

fasteddie31003 3y ago

Can you restart the engines after the fire extinguish handles are pulled?

t0mas88 3y ago
If just pulled, on most types you can push them back in and that would reconnect hydraulics and generators etc. A restart should be possible. If you push and then twist to discharge the fire bottles I'm not sure you can restart, given that the discharge could cause damage.
kayodelycaon 3y ago
Sure, if you have enough altitude after you start the APU and reset the engines. The extinguishers contain halon or something equivalent, which will be cleared out when you spin up the engine. But I doubt there's a procedure for it. If you have enough altitude to restart, you have enough altitude for an emergency landing. It's better to follow the checklist and land on a runway with no engines, where emergency equipment is available. Rather than getting creative and crashing in a field because you failed to restart them.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  It's much safer to land with engines running than dead stick. The crew is going to try to get the engines running if at all possible.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  > It's better to follow the checklist Indeed it is. The checklist will have you attempt a restart.
- gymbeaux 3y ago
  Landing a jet without engines means landing a jet without hydraulics, which is difficult. The emergency power from the Ram Air Turbine (drops from under the plane when engines fail to maintain some hydraulic pressure) runs out when the plane is about to land/crash as its airspeed is relatively low- then the hydraulics are barely working and you don’t have “power steering” anymore. In past incidents, pilots plot a course for a glide landing, and then work to get the engines started.

chimeracoder 3y ago

I'm confused why a pilot on a deadhead flight[0] was in the cockpit in the first place? The one (and perhaps only) significant safety change to air travel after 9/11 was the decision to keep the cockpit doors locked (and unopenable except from the inside) and to forbid passengers inside the cockpit between takeoff and landing. [0] https://abcnews.go.com/US/alaska-airlines-flight-diverted-after-credible-security-threat/story?id=104223059 https://abcnews.go.com/US/alaska-airlines-flight-diverted-af...

bennyg 3y ago
From the article: "When the jump seat, a third seat in the cockpit, is occupied, it’s often filled by an off-duty pilot, but the seat can be used by other airline employees or federal safety inspectors." Maybe these rules will change a bit going forward.
- chung8123 3y ago
  This doesn't seem to be a safety issue you can plug by not allowing them in the cockpit off duty if you allow them in the cockpit on duty.
Johnny555 3y ago
Is it really a safety issue having another pilot from the same airline in the cockpit? Does allowing a third pilot in the cockpit increase the chance of having a mentally unstable pilot in the cockpit, or decrease? What if it was the on-duty copilot that tried to down the plane?
- t0mas88 3y ago
  It's done thousands of times every day. Not just the same airline, nearly all airlines are part of the CASS system, which authorizes this. There are multiple examples of an additional crew member (an "off duty" pilot on the jumpseat is a crew member by the rules) being helpful in an emergency situation.
francisofascii 3y ago

jacquesm 3y ago

There are quite a few of these instances, a Germanwings pilot, this one and MH370 is suspected to be a suicide case as well, and many more (see Wikipedia page linked below). There may well be more than that where the truth will never come out. Pilots are not immune to suicidal ideation, the problem is that they have a unique combination of responsibility, means and opportunity. Roughly 4% of all adults consider suicide at some point in their lives and this isn't any different for pilots. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_pilot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_pilot

AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
The FedEx spear gun one always stands out to me too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Express_Flight_705 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Express_Flight_705 The story, in particular the Mayday episode of it, is really harrowing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxDxwXE_Tv0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxDxwXE_Tv0
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Holy crap just reading the wikipedia page has my heart pounding. The sheer evil of planning to murder three of your co-workers so your ex-wife can pocket the insurance money.
- Doxin 3y ago
  For anyone not yet motivated to watch the above: as I recall the sentence "bloody footprints on the ceiling" is involved.
Jach 3y ago
Learned something new today, I'm surprised it's as low as 4%. Guess that explains some of the comments here.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  I was actually surprised it was as high as 4%.

gigatexal 3y ago

One plausible reason as some have mentioned below is some mental health episode... my question is why do 83 people have to die because someone in a priviledged position can't handle their issues? The answer is they shouldn't. Just like the mentally unstable or those with violent histories shouldn't have access to guns folks who need this kind of help shouldn't have the lives of people in their hands.

shadowgovt 3y ago
You're not wrong, but the issue one runs into is that if that's the approach the FAA takes to solving the issue, pilots will react predictably: they'll self-defend their careers and be extremely untruthful in mental health analysis screenings. So, "problem solved" as long as nobody believes anything self-reported in those screenings isn't lies-on-lies.
- 0xBDB 3y ago
  It pretty much is the approach the FAA takes. It's extremely difficult to get a private pilot's license if you have a history of ADHD, never mind more severe mental illness, never mind again a commercial license.
some_random 3y ago
The question here isn't if this pilot should have been suspended or if a 6 time murderer should be allowed to buy a gun, it's how to deal with that AND prevent people who aren't going to take their own life much less the lives of others from having their jobs and rights taken away.

Blackthorn 3y ago

And just like that, special issuance for mental health will become that much more impossible.

t0mas88 3y ago
Which in the long run causes more issues since nobody when a career in aviation will ever seek professional help.

trollied 3y ago

AVHerald page. Will get updated as more information becomes available: http://avherald.com/h?article=510218dd&opt=0 http://avherald.com/h?article=510218dd&opt=0

xwdv 3y ago

I’m tired of people citing “mental health” issues as a way to soften any wrong doing by people who should otherwise be thought of as murderers with criminal intentions and no regard for human life. These people should be locked up and kept far away from civilized society, not sympathized. Plenty of people with mental issues get through life without wanting to kill others off. And a lot of people who want to kill others don’t even have mental health issues, they’re just evil or apathetic.

paulddraper 3y ago
I don't think that's the intent. I think the intent is to analyze it in a way to avoid other potentially harmful incidents.
sterlind 3y ago
psychopaths often have brain abnormalities, both in terms of activation (seen from fMRI studies) and actual physical white matter structure. [0] psychopaths are also evil. it's a personality disorder. it's not separable from the self like depression or schizophrenia, it's a disease of the self. we're just learning the physical aspects that lead to what we condemn. 0. https://www.med.wisc.edu/news-and-events/2011/november/psychopaths-brains-differences-structure-function https://www.med.wisc.edu/news-and-events/2011/november/psych...

yadaeno 3y ago

(duplicated from non-main thread) I was on this flight, I sat in the back and did not witness the initial events however I heard the pilot say we were diverting the flight to PDX and shortly after the jumpseat pilot was led to back of the plane. I thought he was having a heart attack, or possibly diabetic because the flight attendants were telling him it was "going to be okay" and to "take deep breaths", the guy was acting scared and non-violent. The flight attendant later announced it was a "medical emergency" which I thought it was weird because they never asked if there was a doctor on board. The pilot later explained that there was a "disturbance in the cockpit and we will likely board a new plane". Finally after we landed he was escorted by police.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
pvg 3y ago
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20copy%20paste%20mege&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

paxys 3y ago

The scary part is that he could very well have had this mental episode while in full control of his own aircraft, and at that point no one could have done anything to stop him.

frizkie 3y ago

Yikes. This is the flight I take home from visiting family usually multiple times per year. Love PAE as an airport.

Racing0461 3y ago

Any info on whether this guy was married or had a family? The other guy that crashed the plane from seatac didn't. just wanted to see if there was a correlation.

nat0704 3y ago

Shouldn't pilots, as a matter of course, have to undergo regular emotional checkips to ensure they're emotionally stable?

eightysixfour 3y ago
Painfully, as I understand it, it is the other way around. Pilots can’t see psychiatrists/therapists because if they get diagnosed with anything they lose their license.
- Agree2468 3y ago
  [dead]
- nat0704 3y ago
  That's really harsh.
- arcastroe 3y ago
  Is there a special insurance to protect income for pilots in case they are diagnosed for mental health? Similar to how surgeons can get their hands ensured. (Not sure if this surgeon piece is even true, or just an idea that goes around)
Agree2468 3y ago
[dead]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

lr1970 3y ago

Mental breakdown or attempted terror attack. These days anything is possible.

jerlam 3y ago

The Seattle Times adds a detail that isn't in other articles: the off duty pilot had successfully shut off fuel flow using the same handles: ---- To activate they must reach up and pull the handle down and turn it to lock it in place. Pulling the handle cuts electrical and hydraulic power to the engine and closes the fuel line. Turning the handle then releases a pressurized bottle of fire-suppressing halon gas. Alaska Air spokesperson Alexa Rudin said via email that “fortunately some residual fuel remains in the line, and the quick reaction of our crew to reset the handles restored fuel flow and prevented fuel starvation.” https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/alaska-air-off-duty-pilot-tries-to-shut-off-engines-on-flight-from-everett/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/alask...

AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
I'm not surprised he was successful (in pulling the fire handle -- not in taking down the aircraft). They are designed to be quick (but deliberate), because, if you're pulling one (or god forbid two) you're already in a serious situation where you have 50 other things going on. He probably was done before they even realized what he was doing. Fortunate that they were able to restore fuel flow before the engine was starved for fuel, but, it would have very unlikely been a catastrophic situation had they lost both engines. Modern airliners are designed to restart their engines in flight through various means and can glide for many many miles from cruise altitude giving the crew ample time to do an orderly restart. See: Gimli Glider. I say this not to excuse or minimize his actions but to emphasize to nervous flyers (like myself) exactly how redundant and safe modern aircraft are and how well trained modern crews are. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZWjSUDTpOg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZWjSUDTpOg

lostmsu 3y ago

I wonder if drugs were involved.

lostmsu 3y ago
Well, that was a good guess: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/alaska-air-pilot-in-aborted-flight-said-he-used-magic-mushrooms-documents-show/ar-AA1iOvnW https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/alaska-air-pilot-in-aborte...
- lostmsu 3y ago
  At this point my guess would be the pilots who let him in did know about him consuming mushrooms and still let him in the cockpit. So basically they are almost just as responsible, or at least must be investigated as such.