Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Correct designation for this types of "accidents"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Correct designation for this types of "accidents"

    we had an argument what germanwings (and MH350 maybe?) really should be designated as, even if a bit morbid.
    In an industry as aviation which prides itself on designations for everything I have not seen anything for these types?

    Some said it was an CFIT but I think that name implies normally loss of situational awarness which certainly was not the case with germanwings.

    Was it a hijacking but that name suggest a 3rd party takes control of the airplane which is wasn't either. Is there such a thing as Crew Hijacking designation out there already?

    Perhaps better is PiS or CiS (Pilot induced Suicide/Crew induced Suicide) or PiM or CiM P(ilot induce Murder/Crew induced Murder) ??

    Hmmmm...

  • #2
    Pilot Insanity.

    Comment


    • #3
      If someone deliberately crashes a plane, I wouldn't consider that an accident. Just as a plane being shot down is not an accident. Let's call those events what they are - or what they turn out to be: expanded suicide, pilot insanity, amok, terrorist action,...

      Comment


      • #4
        I would not sweat it.

        The words controlled flight into terrain (as taken from a dictionary) are accurate...the plane was in control of the autopilot at least, and flew into the ground.

        But indeed, the semantics and the cause lead us to add different categories.

        There is a repeating problem with folks messing up while on instruments and UNINTENTIONALLY flying into the ground while in controlled flight and the acronym CFIT is used. So I guess UCFIT (unintentional) might be better for the messed up instrument flying and ICFIT (intentional) for Germanwings.

        Since folks want to solve the problems- the underlying cause tends to be the focus.

        Did I say that I really don't care for acronyms?
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #5
          In one word...

          Murder.
          If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

          Comment


          • #6
            Suicide with collateral damage. We will never know if his intent was to induce terror and it sounds like he was probably apathetic to the passenger and crew feelings, unless something emerges in writing or from notes from his shrink.
            Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by guamainiac View Post
              Suicide with collateral damage. We will never know if his intent was to induce terror and it sounds like he was probably apathetic to the passenger and crew feelings, unless something emerges in writing or from notes from his shrink.
              Here we go again....

              As far as I know, apathetic is not admissible for insanity in court.

              It's not important if you cared or not for the fate of the victims. it's important if you understood that fate or not.

              I tend to think that he knew that he was killing a bunch of people, and that it was a bad thing for them.

              IF that's the case (note the IF), this is murder as Brian said.

              Now, if he was in a mental state that didn't allow him distinguish fantasy from reality, or thing like that, then poor guy. Now, I will want to understand if a person in that state would tell his girlfriend, time before the fact "I will do something big that will change the way we work and my name will be remembered", encourage the captain to leave the cockpit to go to the toilet, answer "we'll see" when the captain asks him to plan the landing, re-program the AP to make the plane crash, and actively deny access to the cockpit a couple of times.

              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                Here we go again....
                ...and we still don't have a cockpit thought recorder.
                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                  ...and we still don't have a cockpit thought recorder.
                  I acknowledge that.

                  But please don't put the threshold for crime in terms of empathy or how much he did care about the fate of the victims.

                  Most serial killers don't care about the health and prosperity of their victims.

                  A person driving a Ferrari at 200 MPH in a school zone and hitting and killing a bunch of kids is a criminal and will be convicted for murder even if he really didn't have the intention of that happening and if he really tried to avoid the kids and if he honestly had not thought that this was a potential outcome of his acts.

                  --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                  --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X