Actually at high altitude, hich mach number flight, the IAS is lower due to lower density.Just think about structural limitations in direct law of the rudder or the pitch elevator. Do you know why a 737 artificial feeling system of the elevator is so strong in manual flight at FL3.something ? Because if you put a full down input abruptly followed by a full up input - repeat if necessary -, you'll lose part of critical item of your magic plane in a finger clap. You want me to talk about the rudder, the flaps ?
For example, a fighter jet loses maneuvrability as it goes higher in the air.
So one could argue that there is a higher risk at lower altitude high speed flights, see for instance the AA A300 crash.
If anything, a full pull on the elevators at cruise speed and altitude will cause a stall.
This being said, like you and EASA, I believe that a 2 person crew still adds a layer of safety.
Then the risk is always present. If you consider that level of risk, then you don't have to wait for the other pilot to go to the can.if you are trained in martial arts, this takes 0.5 to 2 seconds: hit in the troath, break neck.
Basic procedure for anybody who has done something in that field.
Tricks: "Oh Sean, can you look here , I dropped something ?"
So Sean looks down , is hit in the neck and than twisted his neck.
so utterly basic. Distraction, execution.
In an ideal world yes. But in the reality, it's a bit naive.Agree with RTM.
What should be in place is a no-blame, no-fear work environment where pilots and other staff can report unfit without being afraid of the consequences.
How many times have I seen pilots flying when sick. Too many! Specially amongst young pilots (afraid of losing their job if reporting sick too often) and 'company men' (don't want to see a cancelled flight).
They're not doing their passengers any favour!
Depression is another kind of sickness. That Germanwings FO was probably too afraid of losing his license if he had reported his sickness.
Many airlines have this so-called no-blame policy. The reality is that managers stay managers, and these no-blame policies are there to protect them (umbrella) more than to protect safety.
As you see in this case, the LH managers have their umbrella's wide open and all blame falls on the F/O.
The reality is that once you report a mental illness or a disease like say AIDS or TB, your career is over. You are treated like garbage by management, and even by your a**-kissing colleagues. You will never fly an aircraft again.
To change this, you have to change the fundamental workings and mentality of a company. Instead of using bullies as managers, you put managers with excellent people skills who are the employees' friends first, their bosses second. This way, employees can go with their problems to their managers with their full trust, and they can talk about it and find the most optimal solution together.
But is this realistic? How many companies (can) operate like this?
In companies where there is a compromise between safety and money, money is always priority number one. Until something happens and the umbrella's go wide-open at management level, leaving all blame on the little guy.
So in an ideal world yes, but in our reality, it's impossible to implement.
