GRBear Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Yeah seems he was knocking to get in to the cockpit and the other pilot wasn't responding to him knocking for some reason or another... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Aye just heard on the radio. Seems strange. Deliberate or not that's the question now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewelk Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 No matter how well maintained the plane is it's hard to deal with a flawed human. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonnyTJS Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) No matter how well maintained the plane is it's hard to deal with a flawed human. Not really. Have a rule that there must always be two individuals in the cockpit. If one of the pilots has to nip out for a couple of minutes, he or she is replaced by another member of the cabin crew. If the other pilot is medically incapacitated, the second pilot won't be locked out (and it would make it tougher in cases of suicide / mass murder by plane). Edited March 26, 2015 by DonnyTJS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 That is a chilling scenario. The passengers would've been able to see what was unfolding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewelk Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Not really. Have a rule that there must always be two individuals in the cockpit. If one of the pilots has to nip out for a couple of minutes, he or she is replaced by another member of the cabin crew. If the other pilot is medically incapacitated, the second pilot won't be locked out (and it would make it tougher in cases of suicide / mass murder by plane). Yeah but in this case even that rule didn't help. Human error us normally the cause for most kinds of accident. Especially for cars. Need to remove humans from the equation. It's not far off... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonnyTJS Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Yeah but in this case even that rule didn't help. Human error us normally the cause for most kinds of accident. Especially for cars. Need to remove humans from the equation. It's not far off... I don't think there is currently such a rule for a two-person cockpit, I'm just suggesting there should (and now probably will) be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristolhibby Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Not really. Have a rule that there must always be two individuals in the cockpit. If one of the pilots has to nip out for a couple of minutes, he or she is replaced by another member of the cabin crew. If the other pilot is medically incapacitated, the second pilot won't be locked out (and it would make it tougher in cases of suicide / mass murder by plane). I was chatting about this exact scenario to my father in law last night. His neighbour is a Cathay Pacific pilot and his theory on the missing Air Malasyia is exactly that. Co pilot went out for a piss, pilot on some sort of suicide plan, switched off transponders, circled his home town twice, before setting course for the South Atlantic. Very similar theory to what might have happened. If this the case the industry need a standard operating procedure to swap a cabin crew member for a pilot in those situations. Also, regular Psyc tests for pilots. J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Just been announced that one pilot was locked out of the cockpit as the plane was going down. Which of course is complete bollocks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairbairn Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Which of course is complete bollocks. Why's that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deecie Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Not really. Have a rule that there must always be two individuals in the cockpit. If one of the pilots has to nip out for a couple of minutes, he or she is replaced by another member of the cabin crew. If the other pilot is medically incapacitated, the second pilot won't be locked out (and it would make it tougher in cases of suicide / mass murder by plane). That's Lufthansa policy anyway, so something else has also happened here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maq Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Which of course is complete bollocks. Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 If you toss a coin there is a 50% chance that it will land on heads. Even if you land 99 heads in a row, the probability that the 100th toss will be heads is still 50%. The previous coin tosses have no impact on the outcome. The fact that a plane crashes today has no impact on the probability of a plane crashing tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 If you toss a coin there is a 50% chance that it will land on heads. Even if you land 99 heads in a row, the probability that the 100th toss will be heads is still 50%. The previous coin tosses have no impact on the outcome. The fact that a plane crashes today has no impact on the probability of a plane crashing tomorrow. You might have responded to the wrong quote then, as you said one of the pilots being out of the cockpit is complete bollocks not the non-dependence of chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 You might have responded to the wrong quote then, as you said one of the pilots being out of the cockpit is complete bollocks not the non-dependence of chance. Good spot, useless iPad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GRBear Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Everyone hanging in suspense there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 If you toss a coin there is a 50% chance that it will land on heads. Even if you land 99 heads in a row, the probability that the 100th toss will be heads is still 50%. The previous coin tosses have no impact on the outcome. The fact that a plane crashes today has no impact on the probability of a plane crashing tomorrow. That is only correct if you assume plane crashes are independent events. If somebody tossed a coin and got 99 consecutive heads I would have to suspect that those coin tosses were not independent events and that some trickery was going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALBANACH Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Yeah seems he was knocking to get in to the cockpit and the other pilot wasn't responding to him knocking for some reason or another... I find this hard to believe A) I don't think such info could so quickly be ascertained from the CVR that the airline and authorities would be so bold as to release such emotive info Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auld_Reekie Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 I find this hard to believe A) I don't think such info could so quickly be ascertained from the CVR that the airline and authorities would be so bold as to release such emotive info It's apparently been leaked so is unconfirmed. But the detail sounds plausible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 That is only correct if you assume plane crashes are independent events. If somebody tossed a coin and got 99 consecutive heads I would have to suspect that those coin tosses were not independent events and that some trickery was going on. Well it would look iffy, especially if there was money involved but there is as much chance of 100 heads coming up as any other combination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Which of course is complete bollocks.Just as well I went on to read your further posts! :-D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maq Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 I find this hard to believe A) I don't think such info could so quickly be ascertained from the CVR that the airline and authorities would be so bold as to release such emotive info Wouldn't be the 1st time this has happened: Embraer 190 incident intentionally caused by pilot Further info here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Well it would look iffy, especially if there was money involved but there is as much chance of 100 heads coming up as any other combination. Do you think the probability of 100 heads in a row is the same as 50 heads and 50 tails? If that's your understanding of probability, I suggest you steer clear of the bookies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Do you think the probability of 100 heads in a row is the same as 50 heads and 50 tails? If that's your understanding of probability, I suggest you steer clear of the bookies. No he is saying if you've already thrown 99 heads in a row, the next throw still has a 50/50 chance of being heads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) The probability of 100 heads in a row is the same as 50 heads then 50 tails in a row. It's not the same as having 100 heads as opposed to 50 heads and 50 tails in any sequence. Two completely different things. Any sequence of 100 coin tosses has the same probability as any other sequence. However a random distribution of 50 heads and 50 tails has a much lower probability as there are more sequences that will give that result. Edited March 26, 2015 by aaid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.5eeaf0fbe501ba3c868c32fd77caef1f.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.