41–50 of 277 posts
I think we will see personal driving banned in some cities (CBDs at least) or routes in the coming decades as self-driving cars come to dominate our roads.
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…
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…
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…
1. the legal responsibility lies with the pilot(s); therefore there always needs to be an option to override or even shut down the computer
which is partly caused by
2. computers and their programs are anything but perfect; computer-assisted issues are usually resolved by human input ("speed is 253...254...255...oh look we're actually moving backwards, now what?!" "now we fly manually, you dumb toaster, because we're obviously not in the situation you think we are.").
In other words, "take control completely away from people and give it to automatics" is a recipe for a far more frequent trouble than an unpredictable outlier event.
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.
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 progr…
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…
It certainly was debated before (here a german article from a year ago, closing with the cynical words "Than you're also dead, but at least save from terrorists. How comforting." http://www.austrianwings.info/2014/05/verriegelte-cockpittue... )
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'.
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.