4 ms·

Lufthansa plane flew for 10 minutes without pilots

goblin89 1y ago
At this point, whenever there is an incident with neurology-related crew incapacitation or degradation (cf. the Jeju air disaster and how many professional pilots fail to make sense of crew’s actions) and the aircraft uses bleed air, I am donning tinfoil and suspecting a fume event. For a mind-boggling near miss account (actually, not even a miss, since one of the crew has died in the aftermath), see https://avherald.com/h?article=4b6eb830 https://avherald.com/h?article=4b6eb830. It quotes research estimating that in the US alone the number of air fume events is around 2000 per year, while the number of reported fume events is less than 10. Mental degradation is insidious, because you may not even be aware it is happening in the first place, so if you have arrived safely you have nothing to report. Yet the industry is silent (including FAA, which had no record of the Spirit incident). It should be straightforward to mandate a subsystem that presents mental challenges to pilots to test their awareness, and that simplifies access (e.g., disables the emergency override timeout that apparently slowed down the entry in the Lufthansa incident) if one pilot is out to pee and the one remaining is not responsive. I am curious if pilots in Spirit and Lufthansa cases exhibit similar neuro-degenerative damage.
pakigrapeparty 1y ago
[flagged]
JoeAltmaier 1y ago
Maybe ditch the pilots. Autopilots can taxi, take off, cruise, respond to tower instructions, land. And aren't (as) affected by fume events. Why put a weak link in the safety chain? Humans are so very fallible. Arguably more so than an autopilot.
- abid786 1y ago
  Autopilots don't do any of those things without human in the loop
  - apples_oranges 1y ago
    I think there are auto land systems.. at least in smaller planes there’s even a button for it.
    - therockspush 1y ago
      https://jonbeckett.substack.com/p/ils-cat-i-cat-ii-and-cat-iii-what https://jonbeckett.substack.com/p/ils-cat-i-cat-ii-and-cat-i... Real auto land, CAT iii, is what you're thinking of and it requires specific things that most airports and planes don't have equipped
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  Autopilots largely rely on the normal function of the rest of the aircraft systems.
petre 1y ago
Lufthansa at it again. Wasn't there a rule after the Germanwings Flight 9525 crash that one member of the cabin crew has to replace either one of the captain or the first officer when one of them temporarily leaves the cabin?
- apples_oranges 1y ago
  I thought so too, but it looks like They changed it shortly after and left it to airline discretion how to handle it. Lufthansa should act
snvzz 1y ago
Reminder some flight companies are trying to get rid of the 2 pilot requirement. As seen here, It absolutely wouldn't work. Safety first and foremost.

At this point, whenever there is an incident with neurology-related crew incapacitation or degradation (cf. the Jeju air disaster and how many professional pilots fail to make sense of crew’s actions) and the aircraft uses bleed air, I am donning tinfoil and suspecting a fume event. For a mind-boggling near miss account (actually, not even a miss, since one of the crew has died in the aftermath), see https://avherald.com/h?article=4b6eb830 https://avherald.com/h?article=4b6eb830. It quotes research estimating that in the US alone the number of air fume events is around 2000 per year, while the number of reported fume events is less than 10. Mental degradation is insidious, because you may not even be aware it is happening in the first place, so if you have arrived safely you have nothing to report. Yet the industry is silent (including FAA, which had no record of the Spirit incident). It should be straightforward to mandate a subsystem that presents mental challenges to pilots to test their awareness, and that simplifies access (e.g., disables the emergency override timeout that apparently slowed down the entry in the Lufthansa incident) if one pilot is out to pee and the one remaining is not responsive. I am curious if pilots in Spirit and Lufthansa cases exhibit similar neuro-degenerative damage.

pakigrapeparty 1y ago

[flagged]

JoeAltmaier 1y ago

Maybe ditch the pilots. Autopilots can taxi, take off, cruise, respond to tower instructions, land. And aren't (as) affected by fume events. Why put a weak link in the safety chain? Humans are so very fallible. Arguably more so than an autopilot.

abid786 1y ago
Autopilots don't do any of those things without human in the loop
- apples_oranges 1y ago
  I think there are auto land systems.. at least in smaller planes there’s even a button for it.
  - therockspush 1y ago
    https://jonbeckett.substack.com/p/ils-cat-i-cat-ii-and-cat-iii-what https://jonbeckett.substack.com/p/ils-cat-i-cat-ii-and-cat-i... Real auto land, CAT iii, is what you're thinking of and it requires specific things that most airports and planes don't have equipped
cosmicgadget 1y ago
Autopilots largely rely on the normal function of the rest of the aircraft systems.

petre 1y ago

Lufthansa at it again. Wasn't there a rule after the Germanwings Flight 9525 crash that one member of the cabin crew has to replace either one of the captain or the first officer when one of them temporarily leaves the cabin?

apples_oranges 1y ago
I thought so too, but it looks like They changed it shortly after and left it to airline discretion how to handle it. Lufthansa should act

snvzz 1y ago

Reminder some flight companies are trying to get rid of the 2 pilot requirement. As seen here, It absolutely wouldn't work. Safety first and foremost.