At what point will pilot-lock outs have killed more people than they've saved?
If I may venture a guess, "as of last week."
Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'
51–60 of 277 posts
Re: Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'
#52Earlier 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…
>why the plane allows a pilot to take a fatal action
The plane is acting on sensor information, hardware and software, which might be flawed. That is why the pilots always need to be able to do a manual override.
Take for instance the Air France 447 crash: the first problem was freezing of pitot tubes to measure airspeed. That alone would have messed up auto-pilot. Then, the not very experienced co-pilot flying the plane also reacted wrong, and then the plane came down; the captain did not start to correct things in time.
http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.af.447/rapport.final....
Re: Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'
#53It seems clear that in this case the co-pilot's actions were voluntary, but what if a co-pilot were to have a medical emergency while (s)he's alone in the cockpit? Would the pilot be able to re-enter?
This seems like a huge risk that wasn't considered when the new strengthened cockpit doors were installed.
Re: Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'
#54Of 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.
I don't think we know enough at this point to be sure of that at all (and we don't even know if it's murder/suicide.) Also I don't think you are correct about the Egyptair flight - that was more of a sudden dive, whereas on the Silkair flight the perpetrator intentionally disconnected the flight data and cockpit voice recorders.
Just because the governments of the countries involved didn't like the outcome of the investigations (far more so in the case of the Egyptair flight) doesn't mean it was covered up by the perpetrators, this was clearly for political/religious reasons - the failure mode suggested by the Egyptian investigators was totally unsupported by evidence.
Re: Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'
#55I'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…
One! That's important!
The first officer shut the captain out who tried to break the door until the end.
Re: Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'
#56I am astonished how many hn readers do follow this theorie, even it is much too early and too many open questions are left. Hackersheeps?
Re: Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'
#57It seems clear that in this case the co-pilot's actions were voluntary, but what if a co-pilot were to have a medical emergency while (s)he's alone in the cockpit? Would the pilot be able to re-enter? This seems like a huge risk that wasn't considered when the new strengthened cockpit doors were installed.
Yes. The pilot can reenter using a numerical code, unless the co-pilot actively blocks it. Even that lock will unlock again after 20 minutes.
Re: Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'
#58These 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?
To be fair, reinforced cockpit doors is pretty much the one measure that's NOT dismissed as security theatre.
Re: Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'
#59I'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…
(Unless I misunderstood) the gentleman running the press conference actively refused to call it a suicide as the co-pilot was responsible for the lives of the >150 people onboard at the time.
Re: Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I wonder, since the plane wasnt nosediving, it was descending, and the radars could probably detect that it wasnt descending to any place to land. Couldn't a remote operator stop the descent?
No. This is not Hollywood, and A320 is not a UAV. There's no option "hack into the thing and fly it from the back seat" (do I need to explain, here on HN, why a lack of remote control is also a Good Thing? "I've got the same combination on my luggage!")