I like that comment about crash axe vs. two quarters and a dime and a set of car keys.
However, this one I disagree slightly:
"Could this crash have been prevented if a flight attendant had been in the cockpit? “No,” is the short answer. "
The presence of a flight attendant does not make it impossible for a determined suicidal co-pilot to crash the plane. Heck, even the presence of captain doesn't. But while you can physically destroy the plane even if someone is right there, in the case of a mental disorder it is more difficult to do it. The presence of another human has an impact on you.
Agreed - In california, a lot (most?) of the gun ranges will not let you go by yourself, you need to have a buddy. Now, obviously there is zero ability for a bystander to prevent you from doing something harmful with a firearm, should you chose to do so, but the mere presence of someone else, radically reduces the chance that you will do so.
I only have an anecdote, but I had a day to kill in LA a few years back, and really fancied going to a pistol range (never tried - only used a shotgun here in the UK) - Googling and phoning all the ranges I could find within the LA area I couldn't find any that would let me go without somebody else with me (I was out there alone for work).
I have a number of friends who are huge gun fiends, who are always hounding me to go with them so they have the second person. This is just for handguns, long guns, for some reason, don't have that requirement, and allow you to go out on the range solo.
I think this statement from Mind is pretty relevant:
"The terrible loss of life in the Germanwings plane crash is tragic, and we send our deepest sympathies to the families. Whilst the full facts are still emerging, there has been widespread media reporting speculating about the link with the pilot’s history of depression, which has been overly simplistic.
Clearly assessment of all pilots’ physical and mental health is entirely appropriate - but assumptions about risk shouldn't be made across the board for people with depression, or any other illness. There will be pilots with experience of depression who have flown safely for decades, and assessments should be made on a case by case basis.
Today’s headlines risk adding to the stigma surrounding mental health problems, which millions of people experience each year, and we would encourage the media to report this issue responsibly."
Sue Baker, Director, Time to Change
Paul Farmer, Chief Executive, Mind
Mark Winstanley, Chief Executive, Rethink Mental Illness"
Yeah, Lubitz seems to have been quite an extreme case and not typical of the depressed. From the Daily Mail quoting his ex:
>"He never talked much about his illness, only that he was in psychiatric treatment," she told the paper, adding they finally broke up because she was afraid of him.
>"He would suddenly freak out in conversations and yell at me," she recalled. "At night he would wake up screaming 'we are crashing' because he had nightmares. He could be good at hiding what was really going on inside him."
>German authorities said on Friday they had found torn-up sick notes showing that the co-pilot was suffering from an illness that should have grounded him on the day of the tragedy.
I guess in the future they may check up better on the torn-up sick note stuff.
> Thus he has a child support and/or alimony order in place based on his $150,000/year pilot salary. If he can’t earn close to $150,000/year he won’t be able to pay this order, in which case he will join the roughly 1 in 7 child support payors who are imprisoned at some point for nonpayment (for not paying the court-ordered amount, Massachusetts offers the pilot a felony conviction, which means he won’t have an ATP certificate anymore and therefore won’t be able to work again, plus up to 10 years in prison).
This is sickening and horrifying. Why aren't more people speaking up against this sort of nonsense? How on earth is putting a man in prison going to help him pay child support payments?
63 comments and nobody else is shocked yet at "Airlines should be able to automatically fire divorce, custody, or child support lawsuit defendants"? (edit: sorry, one other person did mention it already)
Setting aside how shit a situation that would put every pilot in, how about when considering problems try targeting the cause not the sympton: if you think divorce/etc. is bad enough to make a pilot a suicidal murderer, argue to fix the divorce system, not stop him being a pilot.
Not that the author cited even a single example of divorce/children/etc. being the cause for an air crash...
Yes, it's kind of funny (and more than one kinds of sad) how the reaction to "sick person does something terrible because his life is miserable," is "hey let's make more people miserable".
You can be depressive or mentally ill without wanting to harm yourself or anyone else. Let's not blame the murder of 149 people on depression. The question really is, how to protect against malicious pilots?
As I was younger, it was normal to see the pilots in the cockpit from your seat while flying, if the cockpit door existed it wasn't even closed. Why are people so scared today from everything? My question is, do we even need to "protect" from everything? Accidents happen sometimes, flying in big planes is still safer than driving.
Improving the conditions for the pilots and crew is a good goal though.
Somebody has to be responsible. If the pilots shouldn't be trusted, why should those that would override them be?
Nope. You don't have to have any single person trusted - that's the whole point of having two pilots. This is just extending that basic systems architecture notion (having no SPOF) where it's lacking.
No, the point of two pilots is the possibility for them to chose who is actually controlling the plane at some given moment, optimizing their performance, not that you don't trust one of them. The current systems trust both.
And until the early 1980s we had the Flight Engineer to keep an eye on the two pilots. They drove, he managed the aircraft and made sure they didn't bend it.
It was not unusual for the Flight Engineer to be senior to the drivers.
But the airline accountants highlighted the personnel cost of Flight Engineers and eliminated them, without ever considering the operational cost savings they provided. Even in mundane matters like resolving departure issues without having to wait for the on-call engineer.
"How long to fix it, eng?" became "What's wrong with it now? Back to the gate."
The same thing happened in shipping, getting rid of the radio officers, which unlike aviation is also compounded by very lax regulation.
Modern ships are filled with fancy electronics, and it's usually poorly designed with broken software, that few know fully how to operate and nobody knows how to fix. This problem is only going to increase as they rely more and more on automation, and it's not going to stop until there is an accident severe enough to prompt aviation-style regulation and safety methodology.
Yes, but that reliability is not the one that we normally think of when we use the regular language word 'trust'.
'I trust the pilot' does not imply that I think that the pilot will have a long and healthy life. There are two pilots because one might have a medical emergency, emphatically not because one might go mad.
In fact, if one does go mad, even with the other one present, there are plenty of ways in which the 'mad' one can run the plane into the ground if they so choose to.
So the 'two pilots in the cockpit' kind of redundancy is to protect against the cases of individual pilots becoming incapacitated.
Of course having another pilot in the cockpit will probably somewhat reduce the chances of a pilot with a mental issue being able to inflict damage simply because he'd have to either get physical with the other pilot or at a minimum would have to look them in the eye. But that's nowhere near what is required to stop a plane from crashing if one of the pilots decides to do it.
Which is one reason why it doesn't really matter if a flight attendant is present in the cockpit instead of another pilot. That's mostly a psychological issue, not a practical one.
This is blown way out of proportion. Planes sometimes crash, such is life.
Pilot already is a dying profession. In a few decades there will be nobody in the cockpit to "protect against" anymore.
Until then we will see a few more of these incidents, just as we will see a few more planes used in terror attacks. It doesn't matter what feel-good measures we take. Humans are infinitely creative at circumventing[1] them.
[1] cf. the TSA security theatre vs journalists regularly smuggling all kinds of weaponry onto planes just to show they can
Aren't 150 innocent civilians dying everyday in Syria from a mentally ill dictator? That's a 9/11 every month.
Where are the hours of news coverage for that every day?
Also 30,000 people have died in Iraq since the "war" supposedly ended in 2011 and the US "left". That is a few 9/11's every year for them.
By the way, every single middle-eastern country, every one of them, is currently at war, either civil-war or externally against another country or against groups like ISIS. Shouldn't thousands of hours of news time be devoted to that, like every opening paragraph on TV and in print should be - "the ENTIRE middle-east is currently at war". It is kind of important.
By that criterion, we shouldn't talk about a murder in our neighborhood, about our children failing at maths, about unemployment... War is worse than all these.
Also, it's not news when every headline every day is "more 150 people dead in war". You think people would keep watching the news, let alone caring about some war far, far away?
BBC seems to be able to cover it almost daily. American "news" virtually never unless there is a talking point some politician is pushing.
American "news" seems to find a reason to talk every hour about the plane mass-murder, many times just saying "we have nothing new to tell you" even the reporters they turn to simply repeat in different words what the anchor JUST SAID.
So why not cover all the countries currently at war in the middle east every hour. They most definitely have news every hour on that one because more people have died. No more people are going to die in that single plane crash despite hundreds of hours of coverage.
Shall we fire all the bus-drivers and train operators too that have families and that may be headed for divorce?
If anything this will lead to planes being flown by remote control or using autonomous computers. Pilot is one of those jobs that carries some degree of respect from non-pilots because we trust our lives to them and expect them to infallibly do what's right. When an idiot decides to murder close to 150 innocents that were entrusted to his responsibility that will harm the whole institution of flight and all his colleague pilots as well.
But let's not go overboard and fire all the pilots that could be at risk of divorce, most people are perfectly normal, madmen are the exception.
Philip writes for his regular readers, and that was almost certainly intentionally absurd.
He's an "if-this-then-that" sort of rhetoricist. If this absurd thing is considered socially acceptable, then obviously this even more absurd thing which logically follows should be acceptable too.
He's working on a book about the travails of family law. He quotes from the book and the research extensively. He's deeply opposed to the calamities that are legally imposed on non-custodial parents. This would be one more thing on that list.
I couldn't possibly let my employers knows I suffer from the black dog, even though the very worst that could possibly happen is that some software would get delivered late.
It would be seen as weakness by colleagues, upper management etc - if anything goes wrong then it would be 'Oh well he's depressed, better not give him any important work to do in case he flips out.'
Will this change peoples attitudes towards fly by wire/remote pilots/drones? In theory, there should be a flight plan thats relatively straight forward and immediately upon unusual divergence from the plan you would think a remote pilot could peer in on what is going on and even override the controls... Obviously security concerns are important here.
The remote pilots fly the unmanned drones which aren't a big loss when something goes wrong. And something always goes wrong there too, just it's not a big loss and nobody reports that. "One drone crashed instead of flying around, so what? That's why they are unmanned and cheap, that's why we use them actually."
I found all of the divorce stuff terrifying. If a pilot is away 10-22 days a month for their full time job, then even if their spouse has an affair and wants a divorce they still lose everything because they are not home enough? How is that right?
Better to be raised by a liar and a cheat who is comfortable turning around and making unreasonable demands on their hard-working ex? And putting them in jail if they can't pay? NO.
I think this could be prevented by removing humans from the cockpit and let computers take over. Computers are already controlling most of the things inside an airplane. If this isn't possible, then the flight software should at least have protection against malicious pilots (this would protect against the mentally ill and also against terrorism (e.g. 9/11)). Basically, the planes could have failsafes to prevent malicious pilots from crashing them down or crashing them into things.
The question is at what point flight software can be demonstrated to have a small fraction of the failure rate that humans have.
We could certainly have software flying a plane tomorrow if we wanted to, at the cost of failure rates several orders of magnitude higher. Humans have the capacity look around, intuit what's going on and what doesn't make sense, and work around it. Software that can detect and understand what to do when 3 things that each occur only one in 1,000 flights, happen simultaneously while 3 out of 10 of the sensor networks are down for maintenance and rare weather patterns are occurring on the route.
We have 100,000 flights per day to cover. Right now, we have lethal accidents roughly monthly, but we have contingency conditions that might plausibly cause a lethal accident a thousand times more often, conditions that are caught, troubleshooted, and successfully mitigated by a human.
Unfortunately we're about 40-50 years out before an automated flight control system can reproduce the critical activities of a well-trained human team of pilots.
But yes, we'll reach a point where the liability of having human beings fly planes vs the sophistication/reliability of an automated system will reach the point where the answer is a foregone conclusion. It's just a half-century away.
The utility of autopilot to a pilot is comparable to that of cruise control to a driver, it takes away some of the drudgery. It is not robust enough to be unmonitored by a human. It can not make the many decisions that arise every day in aviation, such as if and how to avoid a thunderstorm.
Autoland needs ground equipment that is expensive to install and has stringent requirements on the surrounding topography that means many airports can not install it. It also takes 2 people's full attention to make the autoland happen in a consistently safe manner, it's not a case of pressing the LAND button and sitting back sipping tea. This video shows a bit of that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMydKAcqKCg
It is not robust enough to be unmonitored by a human.
I'm no aviation expert, but isn't that only because the systems in civilian aircraft are decades old?
The state of the art in military drones seems to be autonomous landings on aircraft carriers[1]. The safety requirements for an Airliner are of course much higher than for an UAV, but the underlying technologies seem to be rather mature already.
Landing is (as you've already noticed) the least significant reason as to why we have a human piloting team in an airplane.
If I could afford it, I would love to make a $10,000 long bet as to when we will see a major airline routinely (1/day) fly a route with > 200 passengers.
I'm saying it won't be later than 2065, but also won't be sooner than 2050.
100% agree that the tactical technologies are racing forward, and it's apparent to everyone that things like self driving cars on freeways will be available within the next two-three years, and that sensor and response technologies will make a lot of the typical flying events a lot safer - takeoffs and landings are just two of them.
Where I don't think the technology is moving is on the executive level, which is where having a highly trained and knowledgeable flight crew in the plane is invaluable.
I'm guessing that any trained and qualified pilot of a large commercial airliner (which I am not), can immediately come up with 100 different scenarios for which there is no technology apparent in the next 15 years.
Put another way, in 10 years, 99.99%+ of the time, automated systems will be doing all of the actual takeoffs/flying/landing, but that 0.01% of the time is why we'll keep a flight crew in the cockpit.
Even the amount of automation we have today leads to the very real danger of pilot boredom: what do they do to keep busy when the flight is on auto for most of the trip and they are stuck in the cockpit just monitoring things? At least if they could fly the plane, they would have something to do! Imagine if your job was just to monitor the computer program itself, you'd get paid (yeh!), but not having anything to do would take a toll!
If we automate even more, the problem just becomes worse. We could pull back on automation to keep the pilots alert, but we are increasingly relying on it to optimize resources (air space, fuel, airport take off and landing slots, and ya safety).
And...that's just it. Computers don't get bored. I suffer from some depression also (who doesn't!), but I find that my job keeps me busy enough that I can keep it in check. Imagine being a bit depressed and sitting in a cockpit doing nothing for a few hours at a time.
A comple of months ago I experienced the auto-landing system (as a passenger of course). The captain made the announcement before landing as meteorological conditions weren't that good (fog).
I must admit I felt a little uneasy...and I am an engineer (maybe that's the reason :))
Ya Get rid of the persons involved...i.e. Self flying planes. It will happen eventually, it is a much easier problem than self driving cars, and there are already planes that can take off and land themselves in certain conditions.
But this isn't really a huge frequent problem, just one that gets a lot of press.
Why stop there? The best way to get rid of persons involved is not flying the passengers.
Until then, having the human pilot capable of overriding the computer is actually a good thing, see danieldk's comment. That the computers should help the humans as much as possible is indisputable, but it's a gradual and hard process to bring the real improvements.
In the long term it's ineveitable, juist like self ddiving cars are. Computers are actually very suitable for this.
Today, ya, maybe not yet, but we are definitely close. Flying is a hard job on humans, the hours suck, the job can be very monontomous. The problem isn't that the pilots are evil/bad, just that humans are unsuited to these kinds of tasks. Like driving.
This is very easy to imagine but needs quite a bit of testing. Human sensors are taken care of 16/7 approximately, not so with mechanical ones. A pilot can always say "I feel sick." A frozen sensor cannot.
Firing pilots because they are going through a divorce, as suggested by the author, seems a little extreme. CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) crashes such as this - whether accidental or intentional - can be eliminated by technology and hopefully will be soon. Airlines can complain about the cost all they want - the direct loss projection from this single incident is $350 million [1]. The cost of doing nothing is demonstrably greater than the cost of developing and deploying a CFIT prevention system.
I agree that we can make great strides against unintentional CFIT accidents, but don't think we can rely on tech to eliminate intentional CFITs.
Cut the fuel supply to both engines; what's the computer going to do?
Now, if you protect against that, what's to prevent that system from stopping a pilot from extinguishing an in-flight fire in a situation where cutting fuel to one engine (or perhaps two/all) is the right response?
But you're implying that we can't make the aircraft smart enough to know that there is a fire and that cutting fuel is the right thing to do. I believe we can.
How can you ensure that the fire detection circuitry isn't ever mis-wired in the field (such that when engine 1 catches fire that the computer knows that it's engine 1 and not engine 2)? If that happens (and it's certainly the case that engine indicators have been crossed before in the field), the pilot now couldn't shut down the engine with the fire (theorizing that the computer wouldn't allow the discharge of fire bottles and cutoff of fuel to the only engine NOT displaying a fire alarm).
Or an engine that's streaming fuel (but not burning). Mid-ocean, you might want to cut the fuel to ensure you make landfall.
Substitute other failure scenarios as you need, realizing that any system has cases where the pax die when an alternate system would have saved them, but also vice versa.
It's not that we can't get systems that are right way more often than they're wrong, but that's still a long way to go from there to taking control from the pilot(s), IMO.
A determined suicidal pilot can find a way. If they can't, then they don't even need to be on the airplane right?
Disclaimer: I'm a [small airplane] pilot and well aware that I'm more likely to cause a crash from my own doing than from poor maintenance, but I definitely subscribe to the Boeing philosophy more than the Airbus...
Pilots really push back against this kind of safety feature. They want 100% control of their vehicles, including the ability to lift the landing gear while on the ground, because the risk of equipment failure that cannot be manually overridden is high.
Agreed. It's a very common feeling that "I am better than the automation." Even as an engineer and a fan of statistics, I share that visceral and inherent bias in my ego-laden monkey brain.
On your specific example, there's little life-safety risk in inadvertent retraction of the gear. Sure, you're going to make expensive sparks, but it is extremely unlikely that anyone will die or even suffer life-changing injuries. The only likely injuries are from the slides and evacuation process.
In contrast, being unable to raise the gear can be a life-safety emergency. Take a piston twin such as the one I fly. An engine failure with the airplane heavy and the gear down is a bona fide emergency.
Suppose I take a bird or deer strike just after liftoff that damages the propeller and the "squat switch" (the weight-on-wheels sensor that prevents the gear being raised electrically). The prop damage may force me to shut down that engine at the same time that I can't raise the gear electrically (because the squat switch says we're still on the ground). I may not be able to climb the airplane with the available power on the left side engine while manually cranking up the gear, and I'm heavy, low, and slow.
What first seems like a "duh, pilots would have to be idiots for arguing they should be able to raise the gear with weight on the wheels" is actually a tradeoff between a high likelihood of inadvertent switch mis-use with only financial consequences versus a very low likelihood of losing the aircraft an all on board.
Of course, people are both bad at math, bad at understanding low probability/high impact events, and very uncomfortable with "costing" human lives such that a tradeoff can be made across financial losses and human lives lost.
Autopilot was switched on in this case. The problem was the pilot had adjusted the target height to be inside a mountain. (He'd specifically set it to 30 ft). Technically speaking the autopilot crashed the plane, albeit on the pilot's instruction.
Forgive me, but crashing an aircraft on purpose excludes you from the sane club. The number is of mentally well people to do so is - and always will be - zero.
How can ground control know if the pilot locked out isn't being forced by someone to ask for it? If you're going to rely on his/her word, might as well give him/her direct access.
Europe will now use the same procedure as the the US never leaving less than two in the cockpit. Too late for the Germanwing passengers but at least they are implementing it after the fact.
>If he can’t earn close to $150,000/year he won’t be able to pay this order, in which case he will join the roughly 1 in 7 child support payors who are imprisoned at some point for nonpayment (for not paying the court-ordered amount, Massachusetts offers the pilot a felony conviction, which means he won’t have an ATP certificate anymore and therefore won’t be able to work again, plus up to 10 years in prison).
It doesn't help that the United States still has such medieval instruments as debtor's jail.
While more civilized countries have programs in place to help debtor's with counselling, restructuring and suicide prevention, the United States debtor's jail system makes sure you'll never get out of debt, and that you'll die in debt. Never mind that the creditor won't get what they are owed under this system. Never mind whether the creditor even exists: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2014/02/15/woman-jailed-l...
I have no idea if the USA has a debtors jail or not, but I don't think this is about going to jail for being in debt, it is about going to jail for breaking a court imposed order.
The court order could have been about a restraining order, in which case you go to jail for breaking a restraining order. This does not mean that the USA has a jail specifically for any possible violation of a court imposed order.
The US doesn't have debtor's prison per se. Only certain kinds of obligations, which are already associated with "jailable" offenses can result in something that looks a lot like debtor's prison. In some cases not being able to pay a debt really should carry a jail sentence, for example in case of clearly fraudulent behavior.
John Oliver talks about a particular kind of "debtor's jail" in a recent episode of "Last Week Tonight". It seems though that appeal courts don't look favorably on such jail terms.
Not even that, the author clearly states that being defendant in a certain kind of lawsuit should be grounds for termination. Quoth the article:
> Airlines should be able to automatically fire divorce, custody, or child support lawsuit defendants.
You really want to discriminate against pilots with families? The logical next step would be fire any pilot who gets married or has a child - because obviously the pilot's personal life is from thereon a potential cause of depression and mental problems.
Hell, why not require pilots to be eunuchs while you're at it? That way they couldn't have dangerous relationships.
Talk about slippery slopes and unintended consequences.
EDIT: looks like the post I replied to was deleted while I was composing.
> You'll notice that the child custody/support and alimony system are grotesquely biased against men
This is probably the exact reason why so many of my male American friends in the tech industry seem unhappy and depressed in their marriages. I'm guessing they want to leave, but don't want to get sued by their lower-earning spouse for half of everything they have earned so far.
There really should be a "Do this, not that" guide for people entering marriage in the US to protect their wealth from possible divorce theft by spouses who have "become accustomed to" a certain lifestyle and want to try and coast on your money for as long as possible. (In fact, if people here have gone through such experiences, I would love to hear their suggestions).
That perspective sounds a bit male. Women do give up most of their career perspectives up when deciding to raise children. And part of that even applies to women who don't ever want children, just because employers assume they COULD get pregnant at some point.
At least some bias in favor of mothers should be "fair". And keep in mind, it should not be male singles who decide what is and isn't fair in divorce law...
(1) I didn't criticize the perspective, I merely said it sounds like coming from a man... No judgement there.
(2) So much wrong there, no idea where to start. "Life mostly of leisure" is not what I and many others think of motherhood. How come stay-at-home mothers get burnout then?
(3) I explained why I think that fathers should'nt have financial incentives to walk away from families they promised to take care of. That works out to a bias in favor of mothers. Deal with it.
(4) Marriage is a contract, designed to make sure children can be raised in relative financial security. Relative at least to the situation of one parent vanishing into thin air because he stands to gain, financially. It's a very narrow interpretation to say that men "foot the bill". They married the woman, they are responsible for their children. Now is it fair for men to get a financial reward from walking away from their promises and obligations? I don't think so.
What is "disgusting" about, for example, having the father at home raising the newborn while the mother works?
Nothing. That is a very different notion from the misogynist drivel that I was replying to ("majority of women", "life of leisure", "long-term holiday paid by hubby").
(4) Why should not "male singles [...] decide what is and isn't fair in divorce law"? After all they are forced to foot the bill. Is there some metaphysical law in place that grants women exclusive rights to decide in matters of family and sexuality?
I agree, but that's already the case, since virtually all legislators are men.
According to Wikipedia, for high income earners, the divorce rate after 10 years is 23%... Or about 1 in 4.
If I understand correctly, the idea is that the separation should be equitable (which makes sense as you were building a life together). However, this varies if there are kids involved.
I fully support this if it works both ways, ie. Regardless of gender.
You are either surrounded by friends with low income (who divorce at 44%), or You are suffering confirmation bias.
None of my friends have divorced - but that's luck more than anything else.
> I fully support this if it works both ways, ie. Regardless of gender.
This will not be equitable both ways, since women elect to marry men who make more than them more often than the reverse. This NPR program (http://www.npr.org/2015/02/08/384695833/what-happens-when-wi...) says that the percentage of wives who earn more than husbands is ~38%, which I guess is an encouraging trend though.
> You are either surrounded by friends with low income (who divorce at 44%)
I specifically said that they stay in their marriages, (albeit unhappy), which is exactly the point. Low income marriages are easier to dissolve, it's harder when you have half a million in the bank.
A majority of the income disparity is due to choice of field to work in - a personal choice. Primary education pays less than software development. The first is staffed primarily by women, the second men.
There are no laws or practices in place that make these choices mandatory, and men who enter education face as many cultural hurdles as women who enter tech - for the same reasons: their gender.
That said, even within an industry there is still a disparity, between 3-10%. This still needs to be fixed.
Should individuals be punished for income disparity that is a larger function of society?
Imagine this in the context of a business relationship. You put $200k into the business every year, your (female) partner puts in $60k. If for some reason after 10 years the business goes south, will the fairest way to distribute the resulting assets and liabilities be in a 50:50 ratio because there is an income disparity in the broader society?
[Admittedly my analogy is imperfect, but hopefully there's a point in there.]
What you are in effect saying is that when 'only' 1 in 4 men get robbed in divorce court, have their children stolen, have their human rights trampled upon ... it's OK.
In England: There's no such thing as "common law wife" or "common law husband", so marriage gives the spouse important legal rights that are trickier to get if the couple remain unmarried.
> here really should be a "Do this, not that" guide ...
There should be, but this would only be doctoring the symptoms. The real solution is to abolish the ridiculous, sexist/misandric alimony laws. In the past there was some good point to them, but they have all been made obsolete by technological development (contraception, pregnancy loosing its medical dangers, societal changes). The only acceptable (default) rule is no alimony, and 50/50 shared custody of children.
In order for such a long-overdue legal change to happen, men must use their vote. The majority of women will be against such a change since the current legal arrangement benefits them so disproportionally, so men will face stiff opposition.
It's social critique under the guise of comedy. Get used to it. The more the society moves towards authoritarianism, the more subjects will be limited to this form of benign public discourse.
I love how a mentally ill European kills loads of people because the EU didn't mandate proper cockpit control and the top comment is about how bad the US is. As Europe unravels they hold on to their smugness ever tighter, but the thing is, aside from being a drag on the world economy, no one really cares what happens in Europe as long as they keep electing leaders who do the US's bidding.
And I love how you use every chance you get to harp on 'Europe disintegrating' and other bull-shit. The comment was in reference to a segment in the article which related to the situation in the US.
Please don't post comments baiting political opponents (or continents). That isn't what HN is for. When a comment is wrong, either refute it substantively or downvote it and move on.
However, this one I disagree slightly: "Could this crash have been prevented if a flight attendant had been in the cockpit? “No,” is the short answer. "
The presence of a flight attendant does not make it impossible for a determined suicidal co-pilot to crash the plane. Heck, even the presence of captain doesn't. But while you can physically destroy the plane even if someone is right there, in the case of a mental disorder it is more difficult to do it. The presence of another human has an impact on you.