Passenger Jet Carrying 200 Flies for 10 Minutes with No Pilot After Copilot Faints in Cockpit: Report
A Lufthansa plane flew without a pilot for 10 minutes with over 200 people on board after the copilot fainted while alone in the cockpit, a report has stated
The incident occurred while the Airbus A321 aircraft was traveling from Frankfurt, Germany, to Seville, Spain, on Feb. 17, 2024
The report from Spain's Civil Aviation Accident and Incident Investigation Commission (CIAIAC) stated the aircraft "landed without incident," with the pilot diverting to Madrid, where the copilot received medical attentionA Lufthansa plane flew without a pilot for 10 minutes after the copilot suffered a medical issue while alone in the cockpit, a report has stated.
The incident occurred on Feb. 17, 2024, while the Airbus A321 aircraft was traveling from Frankfurt, Germany, to Seville in Spain, per the translated report from Spain's Civil Aviation Accident and Incident Investigation Commission (CIAIAC).
The report stated six crew members and 199 passengers were on board at the time.
According to the Associated Press, the copilot fainted after the pilot got up to use the bathroom, citing German news agency Deutsche Presse-Agentur (dpa).
Per the report, the copilot "suffered a sudden and severe incapacitation" while "alone on the flight deck," however, the aircraft "landed without incident" and the copilot was taken to the hospital upon landing.
"The aircraft continued flying for approximately 10 minutes, in the cruise phase with the autopilot engaged, but without additional supervision from either pilot," the translated report stated.
"The captain decided to land at the nearest airport given the emergency situation. This allowed the copilot to receive medical attention as quickly as possible," the report added.
The AP stated the pilot made an "unplanned landing" in Madrid, with the report listing the Spanish city as the incident location.
"The copilot's sudden and severe incapacitation was a symptom of an illness that was not detected either by the pilot or during the aeronautical medical examination," the translated report stated.
It also noted, "The incident has highlighted the benefit of having another authorized person in the flight deck when one of the two pilots leaves for physiological or operational reasons. It has been deemed appropriate to issue an operational safety recommendation to [European Union Aviation Safety Agency] EASA in this regard."
The report also claimed that "moments before" the medical issue, "Both pilots had a conversation about the weather situation and the operation of the aircraft, with the captain not noticing anything unusual in the copilot's behavior."
The findings stated that "the autopilot and thrust system remained engaged, maintaining the flight path" during the incident.
The report added, "During his incapacitation, the copilot inadvertently activated switches and acted on the flight controls."
Per CNN, the pilot attempted to open the door "with a regular opening code, which chimes the cockpit" five times, while a cockpit crew member also "placed an intercom call to the flight deck." Sounds consistent with the medical findings were discovered on the voice recorder following the copilot's 'sudden and severe incapacitation,' per the outlet.
An air-traffic controller also reportedly tried to reach the copilot up to three times, but didn't receive a response, the outlet stated.
The pilot eventually managed to gain access to the flight deck using an "emergency access code," the report claimed.
Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.
Lufthansa said its flight safety department had also conducted an investigation into the incident, the AP reported, citing dpa, but the company didn't disclose the results. The airline said it was aware of CIAIAC's report, the news agency stated.
Lufthansa didn't immediately respond when contacted by PEOPLE for additional information.
Read the original article on People
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Quipu: The Inca's Mysterious Recording Device
Long before Spanish colonization, the indigenous people of Peru kept track of important dates and numbers, and perhaps even stories, using a mysterious coding system of strings and knots called a quipu. When the Spanish invaded, they decided these bundles of strings and knots were idolatrous and pagan, in opposition to the Catholic Church. They burned them, hoping to quell any thought of resistance. Quipu means knot in Quechua, the dominant indigenous language in the region. You might mistake a quipu for a brightly colored necklace or headdress, but it is a communication device. Unlike their Mayan and Aztec counterparts, the Incas had no written language. They used quipu instead. Quipus consist of a series of colored, knotted cords made from cotton, wool, or other animal fibers. The knots and their placement on the cords represented numerical values. In some cases, it carried other information, such as dates or records of events. The use of the quipu dates back to 2500 BCE, long before the Inca Empire emerged. We still don't know how it originated. Deciphering quipus is tough. Its purpose and meaning can change depending on the length of the cord, the number of knots, the color, the way the cords are twisted and woven, the material, and the arrangement. While some historians think they were used almost exclusively to communicate numbers, others believe they were capable of storytelling and poetry. Certainly, the main purpose of the quipu was to track and manage the data of populations, goods, resources, and taxes. It was the administrative tool of the empire. Each knot on the cord had a specific value depending on its position, with different knot types (such as single knots, long knots, or figure-eight knots) representing different values. The Incas used the decimal system and knots to record 1s, 10s, 100s, 1000s, and so on. The colors of the cords could indicate categories like resources, people, or geographical locations. For example, red represented warriors or war, white represented silver, and yellow symbolized gold. The quipus were managed by quipucamayocs, which means "quipu authority." These administrators were the record keepers, accountants, bookkeepers, mathematicians, census takers, and historians of the empire. The smooth running of the empire rested almost entirely on their shoulders. The Incas had a complex road network called the Qhapaq Ñan. All these roads led to the capital of Cusco. Endurance runners called chasquis transported quipus along these roads, resting or passing them to other runners in supply stations called tambos posted every few kilometers. Messengers could quickly carry news of an Incan victory, the death of an emperor, or details of an enemy attack from province to province. After smallpox had killed the ruler Huayna Capac, his sons, Atahualpa and Huascar, battled for the throne. Atahualpa triumphed and killed his brother. To further legitimize his ascension, Atahualpa had all records destroyed. This meant burning quipus that recorded anything to do with his brother. Atahualpa even killed the quipucamayocs. "[It was] a total renewal, what the Incas called a pachakuti or a turning over of time and space," historian Mark Cartwright wrote. Later, a Spanish governor of Peru, Vaca de Castro, tried to find quipucamayocs to teach him about the land. Eventually, he came across two who had survived the purge. "They found them wandering in the mountains, terrorized by the tyrants of the past," according to historian John A. Yeakel. Though the Spanish destroyed many quipus, some chose to study them. Inca Garcilaso de la Vega was the son of a conquistador and an Incan prince, and acted as an intermediary between the two peoples. He learned about the quipu as part of his upbringing and wrote extensively about them: When my father's Indians came to town on Midsummer's Day to pay their tribute, they brought me the quipus; and the curacas [local leaders] asked my mother to take note of their stories, for they mistrusted the Spaniards, and feared that they would not understand them. I was able to reassure them by re-reading what I had noted down under their dictation. Likewise, a rogue Jesuit priest named Blas Valera advocated for learning from the quipus. Also half Spanish and half Inca, Valera proclaimed that the Incas were the real rulers of Peru. He died under house arrest in 1597. In 2015, anthropologist Sabine Hyland got a call from the remote Andean village of San Juan de Collata. This little village held some of the last remaining quipus. Villagers granted Hyland access to two quipus from the 18th century. They told her that for years, guarding the quipus was a coming-of-age ritual for local adolescent boys. After seeing one of Hyland's documentaries, the village elders had reached out, hoping she would visit. "Over the next couple days, we would learn that these multicolored quipus, each of which is just over two feet long, were narrative epistles created by local chiefs during a time of war in the 18th century," Hyland wrote. The elders recounted the story of a failed rebellion against the Spanish. A leader, betrayed by his associates, was imprisoned and eventually executed. He had used the quipu to tell his countrymen that he was the ruling Inca Emperor. Not far from the village of San Juan de Collata, Hyland was invited by a local schoolteacher to examine a hybrid quipu. The hybrid was set on a wooden board containing a ledger of names and multicolored quipu threads. "The board bears the names of villagers, while the quipu cord associated with each name indicates the contribution of labor and/or goods that the individual was expected to provide in a community ceremony," Hyland wrote. Much to Hyland's astonishment, quipus were used in the village until the 1940s for communal, administrative, and record-keeping purposes.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘Keep Beaufort Beaufort' is a reminder and a rallying cry for us all
'Keep Beaufort Beaufort.' What beautiful marching orders from Cynthia Jenkins, who stepped down this month as the director of the Historic Beaufort Foundation after a-14 year tenure there. You'd think this is a group that looks back in time, sometimes to an aggravating degree, and it does. But since 1947, it has looked forward by doing its best to keep Beaufort Beaufort. I hope the foundation is the first one to capitalize on the 'Keep Beaufort Beaufort' T-shirts, if they haven't done so already. But really, that is the cry of our times all over the South Carolina Lowcountry — 'Save us, dear God, from ourselves.' And we're not the only ones in the fight. The most famous municipal rallying cry is probably 'Keep Austin Weird' in Texas, but it's easy to imagine a lot of T-shirt wishes closer to home. Keep Bluffton Eccentric. Keep St. Helena Gullah. Keep Hilton Head Over There. Keep Columbia Hot. Keep Myrtle Beach Kitschy. Keep Charleston From Sinking. A real one today is 'Keep Chelsea Rural,' a grassroots reaction to the kudzu vine of growth that is now reaching beyond Bluffton and Hardeeville to overtake Highway 462 in rural Jasper County. A similar new plea is 'Save the Euhaw.' As Hilton Head Island has grown from a few thousand residents to around 40,000 while luring 3.5 million visitors a year, some people even marched in the streets trying to 'save' things. We've had: Save Our Trees. Save the Sea Pines Deer. Save the Forest Beach Chickens. Save the Tiki Hut. Have all these people over all this time been asking too much? Cynthia Jenkins was in the best position to know what it means, and understand what it will take, to keep Beaufort Beaufort. All of these grassroots wishes implore us to know who we are. What is our soul? And why would we sell it to the devil? What is our birthright? And why would we sell it for a bowl of lentil stew? 'Keeping' and 'saving' our soul implores us to know who it is that is defining who or what we are. Is it the travel brochure or the poet? The Big Mac or the shrimp burger? Trader Joe's or Harold's Country Club? Beaufort can tell her own story, if we'll but have the sense to listen. It is older than the United States of America itself, and has somehow rolled with the tides and the times under six different flags. It serves today a feast of flavor brought by the Africans, Huguenots, Spanish, English, Scots, and, yes, plenty of damn Yankees. Best-selling author Pat Conroy, who was adopted by the people of Beaufort when he was just a sniveling Marine Corps dependent, came as close as anyone to capturing the allure of Beaufort in mere words. In 'The Prince of Tides,' Conroy wrote, 'To describe our growing up in the low country of South Carolina, I would have to take you to the marsh on a spring day, flush the great blue heron from its silent occupation, scatter marsh hens as we sink to our knees in mud, open you an oyster with a pocketknife and feed it to you from the shell and say, 'There. That taste. That's the taste of my childhood.'' Countless others have savored it over 400 years. We can thank Cynthia Jenkins for her years of attention to every detail of her unique home town. But we can also thank her for reminding us how important it is to 'Keep Beaufort Beaufort.' David Lauderdale may be reached at lauderdalecolumn@
Vox
13 hours ago
- Vox
First comes marriage. Then comes a flirtatious colleague.
is a senior reporter for Vox's Future Perfect and co-host of the Future Perfect podcast. She writes primarily about the future of consciousness, tracking advances in artificial intelligence and neuroscience and their staggering ethical implications. Before joining Vox, Sigal was the religion editor at the Atlantic. Your Mileage May Vary is an advice column offering you a unique framework for thinking through your moral dilemmas. To submit a question, fill out this anonymous form or email Here's this week's question from a reader, condensed and edited for clarity: My husband and I have a good relationship. We're both committed to personal growth and continual learning and have developed very strong communication skills. A couple of years ago we were exposed to some friends with an open marriage and had our own conversations about ethical non-monogamy. At first, neither of us were interested. Now, my husband is interested and currently is attracted to a colleague who is also into him. She's married and has no idea that he and I talk about all of their interactions. He doesn't know what her relationship agreements are with her husband. I'm not currently interested in ethical non-monogamy. I see things in our relationship that I'd like to work on together with my husband. I want more of his attention and energy, to be frank. I don't want his attention and energy being funneled into another relationship. I don't have moral issues with ethical non-monogamy, I just don't actually see any value-add for me right now. The cost-benefit analysis leaves me saying 'not now.' My husband admitted that he's hoping I will have a change of mind. I don't want to force his hand, although I am continuing to say very clearly what I want in my relationship. How do we reach a compromise? If he cuts ties with this woman, he has resentment towards me. If he continues to pursue something with her, I feel disrespected, and while I don't want to leave him I would feel the need to do something. Dear Monogamously Married, I want to start by commending you for two things. First, for your openness to discussing and exploring all this with your husband. Second, for your insistence on clearly stating what you actually want — and don't want. I think Erich Fromm, the 20th-century German philosopher and psychologist, would back me up in saying that you'd do well to hold tight to both those qualities. For starters, radical openness is important because, according to Fromm, the basic premise of love is freedom. He writes: Love is a passionate affirmation of its 'object.' That means that love is not an 'affect' but an active striving, the aim of which is the happiness, development, and freedom of its 'object.' In other words, love is not a feeling. It's work, and the work of love is to fully support the flourishing of the person you love. That can be scary — what if the person discovers that they're actually happier with somebody else? — which is why Fromm specifies that only someone with a strong self 'which can stand alone and bear solitude' will be up for the job. He continues: This passionate affirmation is not possible if one's own self is crippled, since genuine affirmation is always rooted in strength. The person whose self is thwarted can only love in an ambivalent way; that is, with the strong part of his self he can love, with the crippled part he must hate. So far, it might sound like Fromm is saying that to be a good lover is to be a doormat: you just have to do whatever's best for the other person, even if it screws you over. But his view is very much the opposite. In fact, Fromm cautions us against both 'masochistic love' and 'sadistic love.' In the first, you give up your self and sacrifice your needs in order to become submerged in another person. In the second, you try to exert power over the other person. Both of these are rooted in 'a deep anxiety and an inability to stand alone,' writes Fromm; whether by dissolving yourself into them or by controlling them, you're trying to make it impossible for the other person to abandon you. Both approaches are 'pseudo-love.' Have a question you want me to answer in the next Your Mileage May Vary column? Feel free to email me at or fill out this anonymous form! Newsletter subscribers will get my column before anyone else does and their questions will be prioritized for future editions. Sign up here! So although Fromm doesn't want you to try to control your partner, and although he suggests that the philosophical ideal is for you to passionately affirm your partner's freedom, he's not advising you to do that if, for you, that will mean masochism. If you're not up for ethical non-monogamy — if you feel, like many people, that the idea of giving your partner free rein is too big a threat to your relationship or your own well-being — then pretending otherwise is not real love. It's just masochistic self-annihilation. I'm personally partial to Fromm's non-possessive approach to love. But I equally appreciate his point that the philosophical ideal could become a practical bloodbath if it doesn't work for the actual humans involved. I think the question, then, is this: Do you think it's possible for you to get to a place where you genuinely feel ready for and interested in ethical non-monogamy? It sounds like you're intellectually open to the idea, and given that you said you're committed to personal growth and continual learning, non-monogamy could offer you some benefits; lots of people who practice it say that part of its appeal lies in the growth it catalyzes. And if practicing non-monogamy makes you and/or your husband more fulfilled, it could enrich your relationship and deepen your appreciation for each other. But right now, you've got a problem: Your husband is pushing on your boundaries by flirting with a woman even after you've expressed that you don't want him pursuing something with her. And you already feel like he isn't giving you enough attention and energy, so the prospect of having to divvy up those resources with another woman feels threatening. Fair! Notice, though, that that isn't a worry about non-monogamy per se — it's a worry about the state of your current monogamous relationship. In a marriage, what partners typically want is to feel emotionally secure. But that comes from how consistently and lovingly we show up for and attune to one another, not from the relationship structure. A monogamous marriage may give us some feeling of security, but it's obviously no guarantee; some people cheat, some get divorced, and some stay loyally married while neglecting their partner emotionally. 'Monogamy can serve as a stand-in for actual secure attachment,' writes therapist Jessica Fern in Polysecure, a book on how to build healthy non-monogamous relationships. She urges readers to take an honest look at any relationship insecurities or dissatisfactions that are being disguised by monogamy, and work with partners to strengthen the emotional experience of the relationship. Since you feel that your husband isn't giving you enough attention and energy, be sure to talk to him about it. Explain that it doesn't feel safe for you to open up the relationship without him doing more to be fully present with you and to make you feel understood and precious. See if he starts implementing these skills more reliably. In the meantime, while you two are trying to reset your relationship, it's absolutely reasonable to ask him to cool it with the colleague he's attracted to; he doesn't have to cut ties with her entirely (and may not be able to if they work together), but he can certainly avoid feeding the flames with flirtation. Right now, the fantasy of her is a distraction from the work he needs to be doing to improve the reality of your marriage. He should understand why a healthy practice of ethical non-monogamy can't emerge from a situation where he's pushing things too far with someone else before you've agreed to change the terms of your relationship (and if he doesn't, have him read Polysecure!). It's probably a good idea for you to each do your own inner work, too. Fern, like Fromm, insists that if we want to be capable of a secure attachment with someone else, we need to cultivate that within ourselves. That means being aware of our feelings, desires, and needs, and knowing how to tend to them. Understanding your attachment style can help with this; for example, if you're anxiously attached and you very often reach out to your partner for reassurance, you can practice spending time alone. After taking some time to work on these interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, come back together to discuss how you're feeling. Do you feel more receptive to opening up the relationship? Do you think it would add more than it would subtract? If the answer is 'yes' or 'maybe,' you can create a temporary relationship structure — or 'vessel,' as Fern calls it — to help you ease into non-monogamy. One option is to adopt a staggered approach to dating, where one partner (typically the more hesitant one) starts dating new people first, and the other partner starts after a predetermined amount of time. Another option is to try a months-long experiment where both partners initially engage in certain romantic or sexual experiences that are less triggering to each other, then assess what worked and what didn't, and go from there. If the answer is 'no' — if you're not receptive to opening up your relationship — then by all means say that! Given you'll have sincerely done the work to explore whether non-monogamy works for you, your husband doesn't get to resent you. He can be sad, he can be disappointed, and he can choose to leave if the outcome is intolerable to him. But he'll have to respect you, and what's more important, you'll have to respect yourself. Bonus: What I'm reading This week's question prompted me to go back to the famous psychologist Abraham Maslow, who was influenced by Fromm. Maslow spoke of two kinds of love : Deficit-Love and Being-Love. The former is about trying to satiate your own needs, while the latter is about giving without expecting something in return. Maslow characterizes Being-Love as an almost spiritual experience, likening it to 'the perfect love of their God that some mystics have described.' In addition to Polysecure, which has become something of a poly bible in the past few years, I recommend reading What Love Is — and What It Could Be , written by the philosopher Carrie Jenkins. I appreciated Jenkins's functionalist take on romantic love: She explains that we've constructed the idea of romantic love a certain way in order to serve a certain function (structuring society into nuclear family units), but we can absolutely revise it if we want.
