Admiral Cloudberg (Kyra Dempsey) writes detailed, thoughtful analyses of airline disasters. In many cases, subsequent improvements have made a disaster type unlikely to recur. This one (the suicide/mass murder of Andreas Lubitz on Germanwings flight 9525) is an exception, and the article makes a strong case that significant changes are needed but are not being pursued. The archive is full of fascinating, riveting accounts of what happened, why, and how for many different tragedies.
> In the aftermath of the crash, experts proposed various measures intended to reduce the risk of pilot suicide, including a rule that there must be two crewmembers in the cockpit at all times. …] Shortly after the crash of flight 9525, the European Aviation Safety Agency began encouraging the policy in Europe in order to gather data about its effectiveness, but after the trial period was over, the results were not encouraging. […] the policy leaves the cockpit door open for longer periods of time, increasing the risk of hijackings, which historically have been much more common than pilot suicides anyway.
This seems to be the crux of the matter.
I’ve seen it argued that the only sensible post-9/11 security measure was reinforcing the cockpit door. Extra screenings, shoes off, no liquids - all this seems secondary at best, security theatre at worst, when compared to denying an adversary control of an airplane.
Having said that, I’ve also heard the theory advanced that even a reinforced door isn’t needed: passengers mental models have shifted from compliance to active resistance, and 9/11 may be impossible to repeat as a result.
If this is the crux of the matter you took away from this, you probably missed the point by a lot...
Can i recommend a rereading of the last 3 part, the one about medical conditions killing pilots careers and how it incentivise them to hide a lot of conditions?
Pilot suicides leading to death of flyers is incredibly rare, as even the article indicates. But I’m not qualified to say what impact an intervention - even one that appears outwardly positive - could have.
I actually used the fire extinguisher I used to carry in my ‘79 Buick LeSabre to put out a fire but I ended up regretting it.
Smoke started pouring out from under the hood, so I pulled over and popped the hood and saw a blazing fire. I ran in a panic to the trunk, got the extinguisher, and put out the fire.
It turned out that the air conditioner compressor had seized up and stopped turning, causing the belt to overheat and catch fire. The fix was simple: remove the remains of the belt and everything was fine. Roll down the windows when it’s hot.
If I had let the car burn out and be totaled I would have saved a lot of trouble, including endless transmission leaks and a busted U-joint which led to my coasting to the side of the road with the driveshaft (connected only at the front) dragging and bouncing and throwing up showers of sparks down the freeway.
Yeah. I started carrying the fire extinguisher because my parents’ full-size Chevy van burned up with all of their camping supplies, clothes, guns, etc. from a three-month roadtrip. Also melted the front of their trailer before the highway patrol arrived. Brave/insane CHP officer pulled the propane tanks off of the trailer before they blew.
I had nothing of value in the Buick.
Ironic, as Ms. Morissette would say.
My parents bought the Buick from my grandmother to drive home to Virginia after the van fire, and they gave it to me for my senior year of college. My fire was a couple of years after graduation.
I was just blown away. So many lovely, uplifting, funny, true-feeling storylines, balanced so well, leading to a satisfying and greater-plot-relevant conclusion and an absolutely perfect musical finale singalong (Bob Marley’s “Three Little Birds”) to wrap it in a bow.
And (spoiler) no sex or drugs, teases to the contrary notwithstanding (not that there’s anything wrong with sex or drugs, but that’s not what this show is about).
