NYT: Pilot was locked out

[Bereta_Eder]

That's just reason talking and a way to save lives.

[Proteus_MST]

Actually, according to what the police found when they searched the residence of the copilot he shouldn´t have flown at this day.
He had a sick leave slip from the doctor which he had torn apart (and which (sick leave slip as well as the illness for which he got it) he kept secret from Lufthansa/Germanwings)

Also:
Seems like the 2 persons rule now is getting implemented for german airlines

http://www.derwesten.de/liveticker/staatsanwalt-co-pilot-zerriss-krankschreibung-fuer-flugtag-id10505202.html

[Bereta_Eder]

Germanwings knew about his depression and he was on close watch they said as much.
They probably just didn't know about that particular sick leave.

linky

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4394423.ece

[Donegeal]

With regards to the germanwings plane, Donegals idea probably wouldn´t have saved the plane.

From the press conference of the french attorney we know that it took 8 minutes from the begin of the descent to its collision with the mountain.
We also know that the copilot began to alter the flight level settings as soon as the pilot left the cockpit, so it was 8-9 minutes from the pilot leaving to the collision.
I guess that he first normally went to toilet and aftrrwards returned ... perhaps with 3-4 minutes till collision remaining and also first knocked at the door and waited a little bit till he (probably) tried to enter the door code and had to wait half a minute after the system would open the door (after all he probably was as unsuspecting as eevryone else, that the copilot was up to something) ... and only when this didn´t work (probably in the last minute before collision) tried to get entry by force.

Considering that in Donegals scenario ATC would first have to notice the door code override and then try to communicate with the copilot about his reasons for overriding the door code unlock (meaning probably 2-3 attempts at communication together with waiting if an answer comes) before they would remotely unlock the cockpit door, this may already be too much time lost (i.e. too low flight level) (and may also persuade the copilot to increase the rate of descent) to get it back on altitude in time

Very well reasoned.

[rah]

But the two persons in the cockpit rule would have had a high chance to stop it.
And that doesn't really cost anything to implement.
Which is why it will be standard practice at almost all airlines in the next few months.

[Hauldren Collider]

Airline travel is so incredibly safe that there is no possible way any improved safety procedures could have a meaningful marginal benefit.

A lot of people died and this is a terrible disaster but the risks of air travel are still so marginal that there really is no point in trying to improve the safety. It's already safer than riding a bike.

[rah]

That's just silly. Making a change that costs nothing but could change the safety by even .9999999 of a percent has value.

[C0ckney]

i broadly agree with that, though perhaps some more rigorous mental health screening for pilots is in order. i remember reading about a similar occurrence in 2013.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAM_Mozambique_Airlines_Flight_470

LAM Mozambique Airlines Flight 470 was a scheduled international passenger flight from Maputo International Airport, Mozambique that crashed on 29 November 2013 into the Bwabwata National Park in Namibia en route to Quatro de Fevereiro Airport, Angola. The aircraft operating the flight, an Embraer 190, departed Maputo at 11:26 CAT (09:26 UTC) and was due to land at 14:10 WAT (13:10 UTC), but failed to arrive at its destination.[1][2] The wreckage of the aircraft was found the following day on 30 November 2013 at the Bwabwata National Park in northern Namibia, halfway between its departure and scheduled arrival airport. All 27 passengers and six crew members were killed. Preliminary findings showed that the pilot intentionally crashed the jet.

[DinoDoc]

Airline travel is so incredibly safe that there is no possible way any improved safety procedures could have a meaningful marginal benefit.

There's about a 149 families that would disagree with you on the value of a cost free rule change that might have prevented the incident.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How so? Is there any indication they knew about the man's mental state and still put him in a cockpit?

Usually doesn't matter; they'd be liable under Respondeat superior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior

[DinoDoc]

Usually doesn't matter; they'd be liable under Respondeat superior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior

Fair point.

[Bereta_Eder]

Company compensation to the victims goes down if everything is pinned on the pilot being crazy because some chick left him.

[Hauldren Collider]

That's just silly. Making a change that costs nothing but could change the safety by even .9999999 of a percent has value.

It never costs nothing.

[FlameFlash]

It never costs nothing.

Econ jokes aside, the cost is much closer to 0 than to 1 for an airline to have one of their other employees wait to do whatever it was they were going to do while the pilot uses the bathroom and therefore keeps two people in the cabin.

[rah]

While true that most things are not free, this one looks like it is.