Last row

A few times at check-in I've been threatened with some stupid-high overweight baggage fee, unless I was able to get the bag under the weight limit...each time I've simply opened it up and transferred a few heavier items to my carry-on to avoid the fee.

It's always been explained as a "safety" issue, but what does it matter? The same stuff is going on the plane whether it's in the hold or the overhead, right? And even if it weren't, you're telling me it's a "safety" issue, but my $75 fee magically solves said issue?
(Hell, if anything, you'd think heavier stuff would be safer in the hold / less likely to fall on someone's head when they open an overhead bin.)

So what gives? Is it really safety-related? Just a cash-grab by airlines? Just a $-deterrent because it's something that WOULD be unsafe if EVERYONE did it?

Definitely a cash grab, not at all safety related. I don't know how they say that with a straight face.

w0x0f-

I live on the coast near the CA/OR border and east-west overhead traffic is not common. North-south overhead traffic is generally sfo or lax to asia or alaska.

When I notice overhead e-w traffic I ask Siri on the iphone about airplanes overhead and so far it is only houston-tokyo or newark-hawaii. Great circle mapper shows the direct routes are several hundred miles to the north and south, respectively.

Why do I see these planes every once in a while? rerouted for weather? Some other reason?

Thanks!

It would have to be for avoidance of weather or for more favorable winds. As I've probably mentioned earlier itt, I've flown LAX to JFK by routes that sometimes go as far north as Canadian airspace and other times dip as far south as Texas.

Russkies, obv.

Going west-east (as in your example) that's presumably at least in part to variations in the jetstream (or does it not sweep far enough south to affect routes across the US?)

Crashjr's example seemed to be east-west; in that direction is it just a case of avoiding certain weather systems or are there (significant) favourable winds that might be picked up which run contrary to the jetstream? My impression was that east-west you really do fly great circles except when there's something to avoid (and I always assumed that you avoid an unfavourable jetstream by flying below it, etc)

So... Any guesses on the German flight?

Sounds like they're confirming murder-suicide by the co-pilot.

I thought that if a pilot leaves the cockpit then a flight attendant will sit in his/her seat until they come back (if there are only 2 pilots total). Is this not a (universal) rule?

It's been discussed yesterday/today either in this thread or in the one about the Germanwings crash. Sounds as though it's not a global rule.

Yeah I found from another source that it's just a rule some airlines use. I thought it was a universal rule.

It sure as hell will become one now...

I just don't see what a FA can do in that spot unless he/she has some formal combat or self-defense training. A surprise punch to the throat is likely enough to render the majority of FAs useless in such a situation.

Everything I'm seeing is drawing that conclusion. But I'm still not buying it 100%, even though the lock-out and descent look very very damning. I need to get into the co-pilot's head a bit more before I'm completely convinced.

What is the alternative ?

I don't know, but 150 murders, including babies, needs more explaining, if it's to be had.

The guy killed himself.

More information is coming out but that will obviously take a while. If you read up you can see that some things already have been posted (possible depression/pay cut).

The only safety issue is the increased likelihood of injury to the baggage handlers. But as you say, $75 isn't going to magicallly make it easier for them to lift your bag.

It's a rule for U.S. airlines, but the FAA doesn't set rules for the rest of the world. The reason for the rule in the U.S. has nothing to do with having a watchdog for the remaining pilot. Whenever the cockpit door is opened, someone in the cockpit has to visually confirm that a blocker is in place and that the person you expect is waiting to come in. If a pilot were left alone in the cockpit, there would be no way to perform this task without getting up from the controls and that's unacceptable.

WOXOF, I appreciate your willingness to share your knowledge. It must be rough for pilots to accept that this has happened. More so than for others. Don't know exactly what to say that won't tard up the thread, but I feel bad for you.

W0X0F,

With the theory that the co-pilot of Germanwings Flight 9525 set the autopilot on a fatal course, are there any limitations on the autopilot? Will it accept any course that is entered, even if it will lead to a crash/failure?

Not that it matters if the co-pilot was indeed conscious, as he could have manually flown the plane on that course, but I find it odd that the autopilot would accept an invalid course. Or is the reason that the media is assuming that it was programmed to descend to 100' because that is not technically an invalid course?

It's really not. I can easily accept the fact that there are unbalanced people in this world and occasionally these types will be found in positions where they can do harm.

There is no such thing as an invalid course. The "course" is the lateral path (usually referred to as the route). The altitude selected has nothing to do with the route and the autopilot will blindly descend or climb to the selected altitude. There will be GPWS (Ground Proximity Warning System) warnings as the plane closes in on the terrain, but human intervention is required to address these warnings.

What's the reasoning for the 5 minute delay on the door when using the emergency code? It's not like someone would say I'm going to have an emergency in five minutes so I'll enter the code now.