Galery

1

Firstly, we do not know the reason why one of the pilots had left the cockpit nor do we know the reason why he had not been able to re-enter it. Everything that is said at this moment is speculation. We do not know whether an electrical signal with the corresponding code had been sent or if someone had been knocking on the door, because the information is controversial. It is not common for the commander to knock on the door because he can use other signalling mechanisms to indicate that he wants to come in. In addition, there is not yet a conclusion as to what had happened to the technical condition of the aircraft. It is only known that the autopilot was turned off and that the pilot who was in the cockpit did not say anything, he was just breathing until the aircraft collided with the ground. I would say that the investigation should examine all possible options and consider all possible parameters, both the human factor and what happened to the plane from a technical point of view. Nothing has been said so far and there has been no information about it. All the facts relating to the human factor must be analyzed only when all the facts about the behaviour of the aeroplane are clear. Currently, the human factor is considered in a way that should not be excluded, but other options for this behaviour, not only the psychological, mental and health aspects, should be considered as well. These early findings, a few days after the crash, are a bit hasty in my opinion. There is no final conclusion as to what had happened to the technical condition of the aircraft. It is only known that the autopilot was turned off. These possibilities are not excluded, history remembers crashes caused by human motives similar to those that are now suggested. Personally, I have read about a number of accidents caused by suicide due to emotional reasons, a relationship that had ended or due to bad relations with the employer. In one of the cases, the pilot had even crashed at the airport and destroyed two more aircraft.

Do you think the measure that requires the presence of a second person in the cockpit, i.e. a flight attendant to enter the cockpit if one of the pilots goes out, is a solution for situations like this? How could a stewardess help in the cockpit?

I am against hasty decisions in general. And what is currently happening is a hasty decision, namely to impose in the industry measures that are not sufficiently considered and do not guarantee that such a thing could not happen. For me, the introduction of this measure is very controversial. It is often uncomfortable from a practical point of view and can be difficult to implement, and it can hamper the work of pilots in another way. Similar was the situation after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, when armoured doors were introduced. Both positive and negative sides were debated and discussed for almost one year before the measure was enforced. The negative impacts of such a measure on flight safety were suggested even at that time. The armoured door breaks the connection between the passenger unit and the cockpit and we warned even then that this barrier would inevitably lead to a problem that would jeopardize safety. The armoured door breaks the connection between the passenger unit and the cockpit and we warned even then that this barrier would inevitably lead to a problem that would jeopardize safety. Well, if in the case of the Germanwings crash we accept the theory of the second pilot committing suicide we see that the armoured door was an obstacle to flight safety. The new measure for the presence of a second person in the cockpit may have another impact. There is no guarantee that the one who enters the cabin will not be intending to commit suicide. A desperate flight attendant or a desperate stewardess may also engage in something similar to a terrorist act. Therefore, there is no guarantee. If a pilot intends to crash an aircraft, a stewardess in the cockpit will hardly thwart his intention. It is hard to imagine how this will happen. For me this measure aims to reduce the tension in the public space.
 
One of the facts that has become known after the crash is the age of the aircraft. That Airbus 320 was 24 years old. Isn’t this too critical an age for such a complex machine like aircraft?