Pilot Accused of Trying to Bring Down Flight Claims he Used Magic Mushrooms
-
Update: New Information... Please share in your opinions. :sigh: Do not present arguments. Do not post technical data. It's what turned this thread into a slow-motion train wreck the first time around. I'm not posting this to immerse myself in confusion and misunderstanding. I didn't particularly enjoy it. I'm guessing you likely didn't, either. OK, moving on. I'm curious what you have to say, so please share your opinions. :) Pilot claims he took psychedelic mushrooms before Alaska Airlines flight he's accused of trying to crash[^] News Article from CBS News: Alaska Airlines flight diverted, off-duty pilot Joseph Emerson arrested for trying to cut engines midflight, officials say - CBS News[^] I'm curious about your opinion on this one. Joseph Emerson has been charged with 83 counts of reckless endangerment. That makes perfect sense. He's also charged with 1 count of endangering an aircraft. That makes sense as well. He's charged with 83 counts of attempted murder. Really? In an airliner's cockpit, you have engine fire handles. When you pull the handle, fuel is cut off to the corresponding engine. You have the ability to restart an engine provided you push the fire handle back to its inactive position. The aircraft was cruising at 31,000 ft. It had been airborne for 30 minutes. The captain and first officer deactivated the engine fire suppression system quickly enough to prevent either engine from shutting down. I don't know what happened up there, but if you're attempting to crash an airliner by activating the engine fire suppression system, you're mentally retarded. At cruising altitude, you have more than enough time to restart the aircraft's engines. Just pull out the checklist required for engine restart, and do the procedure. It's designed to be quick. At 31,000 ft. you could sit back and drink a cup of coffee and maybe eat a small snack before engine restart. You're not going to fall out of the sky if both engines lose all thrust. At such an altitude, the aircraft can glide fo
-
I think you are asking this question to the wrong group of people. You should be asking this to the 83 people on the plane. Brent
Brent
Best response in the entire thread. (the fact that I heartily agree with you notwithstanding)
Software Zen:
delete this; -
If I shoot you in the guts with .22LR (and I aim away from the liver), and you drive yourself to the hospital before bleeding to death (which will take at least 30 min) and you receive a proper surgery/treatment, the chances you die from the wound are about as high as getting struck by lightning while sitting on the toilet. BTW: At that altitude the speed ranges that will keep the airplane in the air are very narrow. With both engines on idle even a small error or delay to act from the crew could (and will) stall the plane. Which is not going to be fun for the passengers even if the pilot-flying later regain control.
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Single Step Debugger wrote:
and you receive a proper surgery/treatment,
Ha! Proper treatment at a hospital... Like that would ever happen.
Single Step Debugger wrote:
BTW: At that altitude the speed ranges that will keep the airplane in the air are very narrow. With both engines on idle even a small error or delay to act from the crew could (and will) stall the plane. Which is not going to be fun for the passengers even if the pilot-flying later regain control.
You're saying that the threshold speed of a stall decreases as altitude increases. Yes, that's true. In the event of complete engine failure, the very first action you take is to set the trim on your horizontal stabilizer to maintain as much altitude as possible. This also optimizes your glide ratio as the aircraft's airspeed slows. As an airline pilot, you know what your stall speed is at 31,000 ft. and you adjust your angle of attack to glide above that windspeed. If your airspeed becomes too low, you lower the nose. You increase your airspeed as a result, but you lose altitude, and your glide ratio changes accordingly. It's a matter of configuring the aircraft to glide at an airspeed above that of your stall threshold. If your speed increases, you bring your nose up until your airspeed slows to just above stall speed. Stalls in an airliner cruising at 31K ft. don't just suddenly happen. In the event of a stall in such an aircraft, it's rather mild. You don't stall into a dive. The loss of altitude is insignificant and the stall typically lasts a couple of seconds. If any airline pilot inadvertently stalls his aircraft, then he's not only profoundly inept, but he's neglecting his instruments. That would be sort of like a taxi driver paying no attention whatsoever, swerving onto the sidewalk, plowing down every lamp post in his path, and not giving a damn about it. You scan your instruments at intervals measured in seconds. Most of the time, you keep your eyes on your instruments. If you're in the cruise stage of the flight, you're going to be on autopilot. I've never heard of an airliner stalling in the cruise stage of the flight with autopilot on. It never happens. If you're the pilot at the controls, the aircraft will activate multiple alerts to warn you well ahead of time that you're approaching stall speed. A pilot would have to be deaf, and blind for that to happen. Once again, I refer to the taxi example.
-
I think you are asking this question to the wrong group of people. You should be asking this to the 83 people on the plane. Brent
Brent
Out of the 83 people, how many of them are lawyers specializing in criminal law? Asking a group of airline passengers a legal question, and expecting them to respond with anything but a blank stare? I don't know. I think it's a bit much to be asking of them. On the other hand, I think the chances that one of them lobs a beer can at your head is more likely. You know how airline passengers behave these days...
-
Out of the 83 people, how many of them are lawyers specializing in criminal law? Asking a group of airline passengers a legal question, and expecting them to respond with anything but a blank stare? I don't know. I think it's a bit much to be asking of them. On the other hand, I think the chances that one of them lobs a beer can at your head is more likely. You know how airline passengers behave these days...
-
Steve Raw wrote:
I don't know what happened up there,
That is a very true statement, but spare a thought for the captain and the first officer who found themselves with a 200 pounds, 6ft 1" guy who went off the rails in a confined space full of breakers, levers and handles. All that in plane with a L/D ratio of around 14 giving you probably less than 100 miles or 15 minutes before grass goes in the cockpit. I've seen bar fights that take longer than that :) In the end, with adrenaline going through the roof, they tell ATC "we have a guy that went a bit overboard". Mic drop.
Steve Raw wrote:
Should he be charged with attempted murder?
Most certainly. Sadly, this will not prevent similar incidents from happening in the future. Nervous breakdown can happen in any profession and it has happened to pilots before. See Germanwings Flight 9525 - Wikipedia[^]
Mircea
Mircea Neacsu wrote:
All that in plane with a L/D ratio of around 14 giving you probably less than 100 miles or 15 minutes
I was hoping this thread would be about opinions; not so much a discussion on the technical operations of an aircraft, but OK. I'll respond. Moving on to the technical stuff - it's a little more complex than what you're describing here. Glide ratios are affected by a myriad of variables. Keep in mind that wind speeds range between 50, and 200 mph at such high altitudes. That will affect the distance of the aircraft in terms of its range. The aircraft involved in this incident is an Embraer 175. I don't know what the glide ratio would be on this aircraft. I'd have to reference its operations manual. 30 minutes into the flight, the fuel tanks would have plenty of fuel to affect the glide ratio and rate of descent, especially at high altitudes. I can't tell you how many passengers this plane is designed to carry, but I'm guessing that 80 passengers plus 3 crew and one 210 lb. maniac is probably a pretty full flight. Not only will you need to consider their weight, but you also need to account for the luggage and any extra cargo that a third party or parties may have added to the lower cargo deck. Weight and balance would likely be centered properly. It's automated by computers. The pilot just needs to verify it in preflight. If your CG is too far forward, or too far aft, your ability to maintain the most efficient glide ratio is going to be affected. I don't have that information. OK. Moving on. I'm expressing my opinion now. I want to say that I would like this thread to be an exchange of opinions and ideas. Most importantly, remember to acknowledge a person's right to form their own opinion, and be sure to respect their opinion when you are exercising the right to express yours. :thumbsup:
-
But asking a group of programmers a legal question is different, how? I think you will not get a beer can lobbed at you - unless it is empty.
Brent
-
Mircea Neacsu wrote:
All that in plane with a L/D ratio of around 14 giving you probably less than 100 miles or 15 minutes
I was hoping this thread would be about opinions; not so much a discussion on the technical operations of an aircraft, but OK. I'll respond. Moving on to the technical stuff - it's a little more complex than what you're describing here. Glide ratios are affected by a myriad of variables. Keep in mind that wind speeds range between 50, and 200 mph at such high altitudes. That will affect the distance of the aircraft in terms of its range. The aircraft involved in this incident is an Embraer 175. I don't know what the glide ratio would be on this aircraft. I'd have to reference its operations manual. 30 minutes into the flight, the fuel tanks would have plenty of fuel to affect the glide ratio and rate of descent, especially at high altitudes. I can't tell you how many passengers this plane is designed to carry, but I'm guessing that 80 passengers plus 3 crew and one 210 lb. maniac is probably a pretty full flight. Not only will you need to consider their weight, but you also need to account for the luggage and any extra cargo that a third party or parties may have added to the lower cargo deck. Weight and balance would likely be centered properly. It's automated by computers. The pilot just needs to verify it in preflight. If your CG is too far forward, or too far aft, your ability to maintain the most efficient glide ratio is going to be affected. I don't have that information. OK. Moving on. I'm expressing my opinion now. I want to say that I would like this thread to be an exchange of opinions and ideas. Most importantly, remember to acknowledge a person's right to form their own opinion, and be sure to respect their opinion when you are exercising the right to express yours. :thumbsup:
Steve Raw wrote:
it's a little more complex than what you're describing here.
It sure is. That was just a back of the envelope calculation meant to show that crew didn't have lots of time to solve the situation. They needed to react quickly and correctly and did just that. Again kudos to a very professional crew!
Steve Raw wrote:
Most importantly, remember to acknowledge a person's right to form their own opinion, and be sure to respect their opinion when you are exercising the right to express yours.
I don't see where I failed to do that, but if you feel offended, please accept my apologies - it wasn't intentional.
Mircea
-
Steve Raw wrote:
it's a little more complex than what you're describing here.
It sure is. That was just a back of the envelope calculation meant to show that crew didn't have lots of time to solve the situation. They needed to react quickly and correctly and did just that. Again kudos to a very professional crew!
Steve Raw wrote:
Most importantly, remember to acknowledge a person's right to form their own opinion, and be sure to respect their opinion when you are exercising the right to express yours.
I don't see where I failed to do that, but if you feel offended, please accept my apologies - it wasn't intentional.
Mircea
Mircea Neacsu wrote:
I don't see where I failed to do that, but if you feel offended, please accept my apologies - it wasn't intentional.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I was talking specifically to you. It was just a reminder to everyone who may be viewing or posting to this thread. No need to apologize. I failed to specify that I was addressing everyone.
Mircea Neacsu wrote:
It sure is. That was just a back of the envelope calculation meant to show that crew didn't have lots of time to solve the situation. They needed to react quickly and correctly and did just that. Again kudos to a very professional crew!
I see what you mean now. I inferred that you were stating technical specs.
-
Update: New Information... Please share in your opinions. :sigh: Do not present arguments. Do not post technical data. It's what turned this thread into a slow-motion train wreck the first time around. I'm not posting this to immerse myself in confusion and misunderstanding. I didn't particularly enjoy it. I'm guessing you likely didn't, either. OK, moving on. I'm curious what you have to say, so please share your opinions. :) Pilot claims he took psychedelic mushrooms before Alaska Airlines flight he's accused of trying to crash[^] News Article from CBS News: Alaska Airlines flight diverted, off-duty pilot Joseph Emerson arrested for trying to cut engines midflight, officials say - CBS News[^] I'm curious about your opinion on this one. Joseph Emerson has been charged with 83 counts of reckless endangerment. That makes perfect sense. He's also charged with 1 count of endangering an aircraft. That makes sense as well. He's charged with 83 counts of attempted murder. Really? In an airliner's cockpit, you have engine fire handles. When you pull the handle, fuel is cut off to the corresponding engine. You have the ability to restart an engine provided you push the fire handle back to its inactive position. The aircraft was cruising at 31,000 ft. It had been airborne for 30 minutes. The captain and first officer deactivated the engine fire suppression system quickly enough to prevent either engine from shutting down. I don't know what happened up there, but if you're attempting to crash an airliner by activating the engine fire suppression system, you're mentally retarded. At cruising altitude, you have more than enough time to restart the aircraft's engines. Just pull out the checklist required for engine restart, and do the procedure. It's designed to be quick. At 31,000 ft. you could sit back and drink a cup of coffee and maybe eat a small snack before engine restart. You're not going to fall out of the sky if both engines lose all thrust. At such an altitude, the aircraft can glide fo
I do believe in the attempted murder charges, trying to kill the engines was probably the first step, then nose dive or stall to try and seal the deal. Quick action by the crew seems to have prevented this. A murder/suicide scenario if you will. Not too different than someone putting a gun to your head, pulling the trigger and having the gun jam, the intent was there and it was acted upon.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
-
Update: New Information... Please share in your opinions. :sigh: Do not present arguments. Do not post technical data. It's what turned this thread into a slow-motion train wreck the first time around. I'm not posting this to immerse myself in confusion and misunderstanding. I didn't particularly enjoy it. I'm guessing you likely didn't, either. OK, moving on. I'm curious what you have to say, so please share your opinions. :) Pilot claims he took psychedelic mushrooms before Alaska Airlines flight he's accused of trying to crash[^] News Article from CBS News: Alaska Airlines flight diverted, off-duty pilot Joseph Emerson arrested for trying to cut engines midflight, officials say - CBS News[^] I'm curious about your opinion on this one. Joseph Emerson has been charged with 83 counts of reckless endangerment. That makes perfect sense. He's also charged with 1 count of endangering an aircraft. That makes sense as well. He's charged with 83 counts of attempted murder. Really? In an airliner's cockpit, you have engine fire handles. When you pull the handle, fuel is cut off to the corresponding engine. You have the ability to restart an engine provided you push the fire handle back to its inactive position. The aircraft was cruising at 31,000 ft. It had been airborne for 30 minutes. The captain and first officer deactivated the engine fire suppression system quickly enough to prevent either engine from shutting down. I don't know what happened up there, but if you're attempting to crash an airliner by activating the engine fire suppression system, you're mentally retarded. At cruising altitude, you have more than enough time to restart the aircraft's engines. Just pull out the checklist required for engine restart, and do the procedure. It's designed to be quick. At 31,000 ft. you could sit back and drink a cup of coffee and maybe eat a small snack before engine restart. You're not going to fall out of the sky if both engines lose all thrust. At such an altitude, the aircraft can glide fo
I wonder if a quick blood test would verify that, and, gosh that's a good out. But he can't walk back from shrooms It's done now.
-
If I shoot you in the guts with .22LR (and I aim away from the liver), and you drive yourself to the hospital before bleeding to death (which will take at least 30 min) and you receive a proper surgery/treatment, the chances you die from the wound are about as high as getting struck by lightning while sitting on the toilet. BTW: At that altitude the speed ranges that will keep the airplane in the air are very narrow. With both engines on idle even a small error or delay to act from the crew could (and will) stall the plane. Which is not going to be fun for the passengers even if the pilot-flying later regain control.
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
"At that altitude the speed ranges that will keep the airplane in the air are very narrow." IAS(indicated airspeed) holds true at any altitude, so if the IAS is 250 knots at FL300 and say the stall speed is 150 knots they surely still have a 100 knot window of safe flight? Or are they flying at 150 knots IAS at FL300?
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
I wonder if a quick blood test would verify that, and, gosh that's a good out. But he can't walk back from shrooms It's done now.
Kind of like a drunk driver, but being drunk is not a good out.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
-
Update: New Information... Please share in your opinions. :sigh: Do not present arguments. Do not post technical data. It's what turned this thread into a slow-motion train wreck the first time around. I'm not posting this to immerse myself in confusion and misunderstanding. I didn't particularly enjoy it. I'm guessing you likely didn't, either. OK, moving on. I'm curious what you have to say, so please share your opinions. :) Pilot claims he took psychedelic mushrooms before Alaska Airlines flight he's accused of trying to crash[^] News Article from CBS News: Alaska Airlines flight diverted, off-duty pilot Joseph Emerson arrested for trying to cut engines midflight, officials say - CBS News[^] I'm curious about your opinion on this one. Joseph Emerson has been charged with 83 counts of reckless endangerment. That makes perfect sense. He's also charged with 1 count of endangering an aircraft. That makes sense as well. He's charged with 83 counts of attempted murder. Really? In an airliner's cockpit, you have engine fire handles. When you pull the handle, fuel is cut off to the corresponding engine. You have the ability to restart an engine provided you push the fire handle back to its inactive position. The aircraft was cruising at 31,000 ft. It had been airborne for 30 minutes. The captain and first officer deactivated the engine fire suppression system quickly enough to prevent either engine from shutting down. I don't know what happened up there, but if you're attempting to crash an airliner by activating the engine fire suppression system, you're mentally retarded. At cruising altitude, you have more than enough time to restart the aircraft's engines. Just pull out the checklist required for engine restart, and do the procedure. It's designed to be quick. At 31,000 ft. you could sit back and drink a cup of coffee and maybe eat a small snack before engine restart. You're not going to fall out of the sky if both engines lose all thrust. At such an altitude, the aircraft can glide fo
Steve Raw wrote:
What do you think? Did he attempt to murder 83 people?
It is called charge stacking. Myself charge stacking should not be allowed. Like filing a murder charge and also filing a discharging a gun within the city limits. Rather idiotic prosecutorial strategy these days. But, legally, certainly allowed. Doesn't matter though. The plea will be temporary insanity regardless. But he won't be flying again regardless of the outcome.
-
Kind of like a drunk driver, but being drunk is not a good out.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
I guess you've never done shrooms before. I did once. Never more said the raven. (I kid you not)
-
I guess you've never done shrooms before. I did once. Never more said the raven. (I kid you not)
Ron Anders wrote:
I guess you've never done shrooms before.
You would be correct, however knowingly ingesting something that may seriously affect your cognitive function, then using it as an excuse is BS in my book.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
-
"At that altitude the speed ranges that will keep the airplane in the air are very narrow." IAS(indicated airspeed) holds true at any altitude, so if the IAS is 250 knots at FL300 and say the stall speed is 150 knots they surely still have a 100 knot window of safe flight? Or are they flying at 150 knots IAS at FL300?
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
Means at lower altitude the airplane can fly between let say 200 and 400 knots but in higher altitude it will stays in the air only if it makes between 350 and 400 knots.
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Steve Raw wrote:
What do you think? Did he attempt to murder 83 people?
It is called charge stacking. Myself charge stacking should not be allowed. Like filing a murder charge and also filing a discharging a gun within the city limits. Rather idiotic prosecutorial strategy these days. But, legally, certainly allowed. Doesn't matter though. The plea will be temporary insanity regardless. But he won't be flying again regardless of the outcome.
Well, said. If he was in a state of a psychotic break, he was not in touch with reality. If he really pulled those engine fire handles while out-of-touch with reality, and he was being honest about stating he did it to "escape a bad dream", then he's got something to argue.