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

31–40 of 277 posts

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

#31

Post by saalweachter »

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?

It's a question of your threat model. Do you worry more about the cases where someone getting into the cockpit is a problem, or someone not getting into the cockpit is the problem? You can make provisions for both, but your final layer of security can only target one or the other. If you have an 'ultimate override code', eventually an attacker compromises it (hell, it'd probably be 1234 on most planes). If you have an 'ultimate lockout', eventually the wrong person locks everyone out.

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

#32

Post by monksy »

celticninja wrote: post #4
znt wrote: post #2

Can someone with aviation experience share how often pilots receive psychological evaluation? I just asked a friend who used to be a pilot for Ryan Air and he said he had never received one.

Ryanair may not be indicative of the wider airline industry but germanwings was a budget carrier so I reckon it would be similar to Ryanair.

GermanWings is the off shoot of Lufthansa. They're cheaper .. but they aren't exactly RyanAir.

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

#33

Post by falcolas »

celticninja wrote: post #19
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.

It seems pretty far from stray speculations. It is assumed after a check of the black box. That is ultimately what we rely on for an after the fact analysis. If we can't use that what do we use? And you want to wait a year to find out what happened to your loved ones?

> And you want to wait a year to find out what happened to your loved ones?

"Your loved ones" died in an aircraft crash. They why of it matters less, and can wait for an accurate answer instead of rampant speculation.

As for the year time frame, it really can take up to a year to figure out. As you say, they're working from an incomplete puzzle. Perhaps the black box does say XYZ, but is that the whole story? They added a lot more security hardware to cockpit doors of late, was it suffering a malfunction? Or perhaps the copilot was panicking trying to figure out how to work around a malfunctioning button and froze up? Or he was knocked unconscious by the sudden descent? Many of these aircraft are 15+ years old at this point, an electrical fault is certainly not out of the question.

Speculation helps nobody but the press at this point.

PS. To the downvoters, please remember that we're barely two days into the investigation, and we're relying on "silence" and a third party report on very preliminary findings to jump to these conclusions.

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

#34

Post by huuu »

celticninja wrote: post #19
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.

It seems pretty far from stray speculations. It is assumed after a check of the black box. That is ultimately what we rely on for an after the fact analysis. If we can't use that what do we use? And you want to wait a year to find out what happened to your loved ones?

Well my first thought was: if the pilot was unconscious he still was breathing.

So we just have to wait a little longer and must take into account the answer will never be found.

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

#35

Post by koyote »

mg1982 wrote: post #23

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, pe…

As there have been quite a few incidences of a pilot intentionally crashing a plane, It would be interesting to see if the ratio of mass-murdering pilots to pilots is larger than mass-murderers vs the adult population.

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

#36

Post by vixen99 »

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.

The co-pilot was breathing normally for ten minutes while the door was being hammered repeatedly. Interpreting this as 'deliberate' inaction is hardly 'stray speculation'.

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

#37

Post by Anderkent »

lsadam0 wrote: post #22
larrydag wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 believe it doesn't (not an expert though), as it'll assume you've lost control of the airplane and will try to recover. However in this case the descent was at a fairly standard speed. But yeah the autopilot will not override the pilot if the airplane seems under control.

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

#38

Post by cotillion »

lsadam0 wrote: post #28
celticninja wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It can, depending on the flight control mode.

But a pilot with time alone in the cockpit can most likely trick the flight computers into whatever mode he wishes.

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

#39

Post by mjburgess »

verytrivial wrote: post #17

These doors very effectively mean that control of the plane would be put into the hands of the cabin crew, but magnifies the cost of a rogue operator -- I am certain the risks were evaluated and the challenge of a determined suicidal pilot was ruled outside scope. And yes, there are emergency override codes, but there are also time override-overrides from within the cabin. Even if the protocol where two members of st…

Or to put it in a more general way: is security theatre now costing lives?

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

#40

Post by johnchristopher »

koyote wrote: post #35
mg1982 wrote: post #23

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, pe…

As there have been quite a few incidences of a pilot intentionally crashing a plane, It would be interesting to see if the ratio of mass-murdering pilots to pilots is larger than mass-murderers vs the adult population.

But mass-murdering pilots wouldn't necessarily use their planes to mass murder so that rules out pilots as a distinctive group. /armchair-whatever
Post reply on HN