Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 277 posts

Re: Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'

#21

Post by maxerickson »

herge wrote: post #8

First, remember the Breaking News Consumer's Handbook: Airline Edition ( https://media2.wnyc.org/i/620/620/l/80/1/BNCHAE.jpg ). Second, I'm sure that Mr. Robin is a nice guy, but there's no need to publish his stray speculations just two days after the crash.

I'm under the impression that he is speaking for the French Investigation of the incident. His statement is reasonably measured:

The most plausible interpretation is that the co-pilot through a voluntary act had refused to open the cabin door to let the captain in. He pushed the button to trigger the aircraft to lose altitude. He operated this button for a reason we don't know yet, but it appears that the reason was to destroy this plane.

Re: Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'

#22

Post by lsadam0 »

larrydag wrote: post #10
maaarghk wrote: post #5

Is it the case on all modern planes that a co-pilot could lock out a pilot? Is there any proposal or precedent for a key-code override on the door lock?

I may be mistaken but I believe airline cockpits were made to be able to lock out people from entering in the event of a terrorist activity to take over the plane. This was initiated after 9/11.

That is true. What I'm wondering about is why the plane allows a pilot to take a fatal action. For example, why would an auto-pilot system allow a jetliner to nose dive? Maybe it does not. I'm certain these scenarios have been considered, and I'm sure the developers had very solid reasons as to why something like this doesn't exist (if it actually does not).

I'm curious if the plane has enough input to determine "if we continue this course we will crash into the mountain range", and if it does, why can't it take automatic corrective action and override the pilot?

There's a good chance someone commenting here has worked in this area and could provide a very insightful response.

Re: Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'

#23

Post by mg1982 »

I'm struck by how these pilots (chilling in itself that it's happened enough times to count as its own group) are described as being suicidal. While technically true, it detracts from the greater truth that they are mass-murderers. If someone shot up a mall and killed 150 people then ate a bullet, would we describe them as suicidal?

I don't have a greater point I suppose, but it seems worth thinking about. Except, perhaps-- how do you go about 'screening' for inclination to mass-murder?

Re: Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'

#24

Post by jackweirdy »

whizzkid wrote: post #20

Does anyone know if there are any authorization levels implemented in airplane software ? If Pilot had a root pass for the door lock, this could have ended up differently. My sincerest condolences to families of passengers..

Only unless pilot/co-pilot roles were the same. If it were the pilot trying to crash the plane - there’d still be a problem

Re: Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'

#25

Post by eik3_de »

lolo_ wrote: post #16

Of course it's really early so you have to be very careful as to making judgements at this point, but if it really is pilot murder/suicide there is some (limited) precedence:- * An EgyptAir flight in 1999 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990 * A Silkair (Singapore airline) flight in 1997 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SilkAir_Flight_185 There is debate in both flights as to whether it was murder/suicide…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAM_Mozambique_Airlines_Flight_...

Re: Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'

#26

Post by koyote »

celticninja wrote: post #7

Germanwings did not have a policy of requiring a second person in the cockpit in situations where the captain leaves the cockpit. I imagine this is going to become fault standard in aviation from now on.

I wonder how much that would have helped in this case though.

Someone determined to crash a plane would not have too much of a problem incapacitating any cabin crew member (by surprise most likely) before his attempt. I believe that having a second person in the cockpit is more useful (and seemingly essential) if the Pilot/Co-Pilot loses conciousness in order for the door to still be opened.

Re: Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'

#27

Post by laurencei »

lolo_ wrote: post #16

Of course it's really early so you have to be very careful as to making judgements at this point, but if it really is pilot murder/suicide there is some (limited) precedence:- * An EgyptAir flight in 1999 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990 * A Silkair (Singapore airline) flight in 1997 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SilkAir_Flight_185 There is debate in both flights as to whether it was murder/suicide…

The thing about those two flights is the pilots tried to make it look like an accident - but was ultimately determined to be intentional.

In this case it would seem that no effort was made to hide the fact it was intentional.

Re: Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'

#28

Post by lsadam0 »

celticninja wrote: post #11
lsadam0 wrote: post #3

Is there any good reason that auto-pilot could not be enabled to override suicidal actions of a pilot? Perhaps a system that requires input from both pilot and co-pilot to override?

What happens when a pilot has had a heart attack and there is only a co-pilot? Averting and intentional maneuver could also hamper the ability to fly the aircraft and given that these incidents, while they result in huge loss of life, are incredibly rare. As such the cost/benefit is not there. But fuck that co-pilot.

I think auto-pilot already can override intentional actions of the pilot. It's my understanding that auto-pilot will prevent a pilot from many actions that would result in a stall?

Re: Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'

#29

Post by arethuza »

celticninja wrote: post #7

Germanwings did not have a policy of requiring a second person in the cockpit in situations where the captain leaves the cockpit. I imagine this is going to become fault standard in aviation from now on.

So make the cockpit a "No-lone zone" - makes sense:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-man_rule#No-lone_zone

Re: Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'

#30

Post by hydrogen18 »

lsadam0 wrote: post #3

Is there any good reason that auto-pilot could not be enabled to override suicidal actions of a pilot? Perhaps a system that requires input from both pilot and co-pilot to override?

Newer planes are fully fly-by-wire, so you could build software to attempt to address the issue. The problem is identifying a suicidal action. A descent is not suicidal. There are many cases that make a sudden descent a life-saving procedure. For example, cabin depressurization. Alternately, an ATC could require a plane to descend rapidly to clear airspace for another flight that is disabled.

Now, consider that programmers make mistakes (even in aerospace) much more frequently than pilots decide to commit suicide. If a software system is given first-authority instead of a pilot you'll have more deaths due to the system than due to pilots intentional attempt to destroy a plane. The problem of suicidal pilots can be addressed by a number of known mechanisms, none of which jeopardize the safety of a flight. Pernicious problems of software quality are still incredibly difficult to address in any context.

Post reply on HN