It is my understanding that once the code is entered and access is denied by the pilot flipping the toggle switch the person on the outside then has to wait five minutes before being able to enter the code again. If the pilot does not deny access then the door will open after 30 seconds.

As I understand it, there is a 30 second delay to allow the pilots the ability to deny entry into the cockpit. The 5 minute delay is from entering the code again to gain entry into the cockpit. I assume the 5 minute delay is so that the pilots don't have to keep denying entry every 30 seconds and to allow entry again in 5 minutes if the situation outside the cockpit was resolved or if the denial of the keypad entry was in error.

That's how it works, with the changes I've made to your post.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was aware of the GPWS and figured that was a fail-safe in case an incorrect altitude was selected.

To expand on my last question, if the altitude is changed, what determines how quickly the autopilot will reach that altitude? Is it just a standard rate of ascent/descent? Is that how they estimated that the altitude of 100' was selected by the co-pilot?

Correct. The traffic is always east to west. I haven't seen one going west to east yet. Great circle routes would have them several hundred miles away, around Seattle and San Francisco.

To change altitude, the pilot first selects the altitude on the Mode Control Panel. The airplane will not being a climb or descent until the pilot selects the type of climb or descent, either VNAV, IAS, or VS (nomenclature may vary from one type of aircraft to another, but the including flight logic is similar).

VNAV (Vertical NAVigation) will cause the plane to descend according to a programmed vertical profile in the flight management system. Unlikely that this mode was used as it will respect altitude limits on the flight plan and wouldn't achieve the rapid descent we saw in this case.

IAS mode will maintain the selected speed of the plane. To make the plane descend, power is reduced and the plane noses over to maintain the selected speed. Setting a high speed and pulling the power to idle will achieve a dramatic decent rate.

VS (Vertical Speed) lets the pilot set a desired climb or descent rate, e.g. 3000 fpm. This is not used except for small altitude changes because it provides no speed protection. So if I select a 4000 fpm climb, the plane will keep bringing the nose up in an effort to maintain this climb rate and the airspeed will bleed off until the plane stalls (the Airbus won't let the plane get to this point; it will lower the nose). If the pilot selects a 4000 fpm decent, the airplane will likely overspeed if the power isn't brought back to idle thrust.

When using IAS or VS, the first step (selecting an altitude) isn't actually required, i.e. the plane will attempt to satisfy the selected mode and fly away from the selected altitude.

It is absurd that an airline pilot must use the same lavatories as passengers.

There should be an in-cockpit lav on all airplanes so they don't have to exit their secured space. Especially on overseas flights.

I think it's fine for flight attendants to use the lavs at the back of the plane, because in most cases no one is the wiser. But when I am in 1st/Business Class, I don't want to see the guy piloting the aircraft lock in to hurl a deuce over the arctic circle.

Considering the amount of money each airplane costs, it should be a negligible sum to:

a) maintain the dignity of the pilot heaving a havana

b) maintain the security of all souls onboard

It's being reported that "Transponder data showed the autopilot was reprogrammed by someone in the cockpit to change the plane's altitude from 38,000 feet to 100 feet, according to Flightradar24, a website that tracks aviation data."

How can you tell from the transponder what final altitude the autopilot is set to?

This thread is for questions, not rants. Please take this kind of post to the GermanWings thread. It will fit in well there.

You can't.

Surprised a reporter got it wrong?

I seem to recall at some point in this thread you said that airplanes can pretty much fly themselves these days, but that you expect that pilots will continue to be employed just to deal with the rare emergency situations that the autopilot can't handle correctly. (Correct me if I have that wrong.)

Do you still feel that we might not reach a point in the next couple decades where human error from the pilots -- whether accidental or deliberate -- might not make pilots a net liability compared to operating purely a purely automated flight? Or to put more simply, that the autopilot/AI would not become good enough that human intervention would cause as many crashes as it prevents?

W0X0F, I was following the thread on PPRuNe following the crash and one cment stood out to me, from a pilot saying that mental health issues would lead to loss of license without unemployment security. Seems like quite an incentive to keep mental health issues hidden from your employer. Is this common in the airline industry?

That doesn't sound like me. The autopilot is a great convenience, but it's a "dumb" pilot (sorry George, but it's true*). It will maintain an altitude and a heading (or even fly an entire route), but it won't initiate climbs or descents and it certainly won't configure the plane for leading.

I don't doubt that it is technologically feasible to create a "self-flying" plane, but I'm glad I won't be around to fly on one. I think you'd go broke by betting against what's possible, but the autopilot of today has a complete lack of intelligence. It's a long way from what you're describing.


(*George is the traditional name given to the autopilot.)

I think that the post I'm remembering was about the autopilot being capable of doing landings. Does that ring a bell?

This may well be true, but I don't know that it is. Mental health issues might also result in a leave of absence to address the problem, much as we do with alcohol or drug abuse. I've never heard of a policy on this.

I can think of a dozen other jobs where a known mental health issue might jeopardize one's continued employment. I don't think anyone is eager to come forward and say they have a mental health issue. The social stigma alone is incentive enough to hide this. The fear of losing one's job is another reason.

As always, it's amazing how inept the media is on covering aviation. Thought you might like this article:

http://airwaysnews.com/blog/2015/03/...crash-du-jour/

Outstanding article! Thanks for pressing.

Because most of the planes in the air today were designed and built before this was ever a consideration and they're certainly not going to be modified. I'm not even sure that it would be feasible. On my plane, for example, the size of the cockpit would have to increased significantly and would require moving the main entry door aft several feet.

^^ left the answer up because maybe it will help other mouth breathers, but dont tard this thread up with stupid ****. W0X0F is the ****ing man, don't come in here being all disrespectful

as always, notify button such instances so I can flex out some metallica

<1 POST DERAIL>

I beg your pardon Alobar, but I tried to make a reasonably cogent point about keeping pilots in the cockpit at all times. I then rephrased it as a question while breathing through my nose, and W0X0F gave me a polite and somewhat reasonable answer.

I did not mean any disrespect toward W0X0F. My disrespect is for the airline industry in general.

The airline industry is so badly run (including airports, TSA, etc), it is laughable. It's as if they're trying to make everyone's experience miserable, including the pilots.

To comply with the nature of the thread: Why are the people who run the airline industry incapable of making a) a consistent profit, b) a pleasant traveling experience?

P.S. Alobar: Metallica is terrible.

This is easy. The American public insists on always taking the cheapest flight available.

This is patently false. I fly every week and it's rarely the cheapest flight. I'll even pay for F occasionally even though my upgrade percentage is around 95%. Flyertalk is filled with frequent fliers who also don't pay for the cheapest flight.

While frequent flyers might have a different agenda, what fills the plane is the occasional traveler that has cost as a driving factor.

One thing that I worry about with an incident such as the one in France this week is the "corrective action" that will be taken. Obviously the NTSB, FAA and their international counterparts have done a tremendous job over the years learning from accidents, especially those that involve aircraft, weather, airports, etc. However, I think when it comes to human factors, the balance is much more difficult to maintain.

Obviously the current incident is one example: We all know where the cockpit security changes came about, and now we are seeing an unintended consequence of that. If they now make it easier to access the cockpit, there is then an increased risk of an unwanted breach.

Another example is changing pilot age requirements, based on the very sound logic that many folks are healthier (or their health is better managed) well into the golden years, and thus why remove highly experience pilots. Of course we could expect that if there was an accident where an aircraft was trying to make an emergency landing in bad weather because an older pilot had a stroke, there would be pressure to make pilots retire earlier.

The question I have for W0X0F: How well do you think regulators balance safety against reality when it comes to human factors, and do you worry that events like the recent one will lead to rules that have unintended consequences. Also when these kinds of things are discussed, how are pilots represented in the decision-making process?

Didace,

Don't you think business travel is a significant factor? Saying, "What fills the plane is the occasional traveler" may be true in a technical sense - the plane isn't "filled" until the last seat is taken - but I think tons of seats are filled by business travel, and business travel is much less price elastic than other forms. Those ****ers just go.