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

81–90 of 277 posts

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

#81

Post by jerf »

mjburgess wrote: post #39
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?

It's difficult to look into an alternate universe, but it's not out of the question that the only reason we still have air travel at all is reinforced cockpit doors. Prior to that, the risk/reward profile was distressingly in favor of the attacker, and as asymmetric warfare continues its likely decades-long ascendancy, using airplanes as weapons was likely to become ever more popular, with corresponding unpleasant second-order effects which would be a distraction to enumerate here, but in summary, "really bad for the global economy".

As is the way of things, the current manifestations of asymmetric warfare can muddy up the discussion with modern-day politics, so please allow me to remind you that science fiction authors have been predicting the rise of it since at least the 1980s, just due to the ever-rising destructive power any one individual can wield. Who or what cause happens to pick it up is an accident of history, but you can be guaranteed someone will try. This is an incentive structure that those of us on the side of civilization are going to be doing continuous battle with for a long time.

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

#83

Post by ArturSoler »

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.

This would have to be adjusted to the fact that most people is not usually in a position to easily kill this many people, while pilots are in a mostly daily basis.

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

#84

Post by BuildTheRobots »

uptown wrote: post #14
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?

The NY Times article has a good description of the cockpit door override procedures. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/27/world/europe/germanwings-c... In the best-case scenario, if someone in the cockpit wants to keep people out, it sounds like the security mechanisms provide a way to do for for at least five and a half minutes.

Thanks for the link -though I'm baffled why NYT seems to think when I double click I want the page to change zoom levels rather than highlighting the word I'm interested in o_0

edit: oh, they just make it impossible to select text at all... nice.

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

#85

Post by wolfgke »

danepowell wrote: post #53

It 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.

> It 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?

That's what I thought, too. Does the pilot also (always?) have a key to the cockpit door in his pocket (risk, because than a terrorist could steal it while the pilot goes to toilet) so that he could reenter the cockpit? So for me a plausible explanation is the the co-pilot had a medical emergency while alone in the cockpit. Now comes the question:

Would pressing the descent button in this case perhaps even increase the chance of survival (in this case the co-pilot was doing a quick-witted decision) or not?

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

#86

Post by probably_wrong »

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…

Bruce Schneier has said several times that reinforced doors are one of the very few improvements when it comes to airplane security[1]. I think the deeper question would be, if your pilot is compromised, can you really do anything?

If the pilot of the EgyptAir Flight 990[2] could not keep his co-pilot from crashing the plane, what could a mob of random passengers realistically do? It seems to me like the DRM problem - you can't protect the pilot and keep them from hijacking the plane at the same time.

At least the doors will prevent any of the other random 150 passengers from taking the plane. That does seem to me like an improvement.

[1] https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2005/12/airline_sec...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990

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

#87

Post by lstroud »

koyote wrote: post #26
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.

The flight attendant also wedges the door open (and blocks entry/exit with a cart during this time. Yes, they could incapacitate, but it would take time to do this, get the door closed, and dead bolted. One would hope that the commotion would bring help before all of that could be accomplished.

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

#89

Post by pwnna »

prawn wrote: post #41

Is it realistic that we see human controls largely removed from passenger plane pilots? Or ground-based group overrides? I know that for the largest jets, pilots already operate within some sort of computer-decided 'envelope' (I think it's called) of reasonable decisions. 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 ou…

What if the plane flies out of that "envelop", where the computer can't make the correct judgement to control the plane?

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

#90

Post by ptaipale »

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.

>What happens when a pilot has had a heart attack and there is only a co-pilot

The co-pilot flies. That's why there is a co-pilot.

(On really long flights there can be two co-pilots so that pilots can work in shifts, but medium-range flights like this can physically be flown by one pilot, two are there for safety).

Post reply on HN