How is it that each pilot doesn't have a key of their own, so as not to be locked out. No body saw this coming?
Maybe the lock was somehow jammed from inside?
Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'
131–140 of 277 posts
Re: Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about the much less hypothetical case that one of the pilots becomes unconscious while the other is out of the cabin. How is he supposed to get back in, ever?
Using the override. An unconscious pilot does not override the override.
True, neither does he descend the plane.
Re: Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'
#133I'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…
This responsibility is to great to leave it to humans. Automate this stuff.
There's always going to be a human involved at some point (at least until the machines take over, but then they probably won't be flying us around). If it's all automated, then instead of a crazy pilot killing everyone on his airliner, it might be a crazy programmer killing everyone on every airborne airliner.
Re: Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'
#134I'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…
You remind me of efforts in the past of renaming suicide bombers to homicide bombers.
Re: Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'
#135These 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…
Do you know the rational behind having override-overrides from the cockpit? For me, this only makes sense under the assumption that Prob(malicious agent who knows emergency codes in cockpit and good agents knowing codes outside ) is much smaller Prob(good agent knowing codes in cockpit and malicious agents knowing codes outside). How is this assumption justified? Under current regulations, the latter is becoming more…
I think that's the only possible counterpoint, really. But the override should be constructed so that it can only put the plane onto a "safe" autopilot route. And even then, I'm not really sure if that's actually safe without giving the plane collision avoidance, because it's entirely conceivable that in some urban airports just reverting to straight and level could cause a crash.
If you're descending into an airport near NYC it's possible that you need to fly towards the city, turn and then continue descending to land. If you hit the autopilot external override at the right time you could be lower than the tallest buildings and get locked into flying into them without enough time to react.
The real solution would seem to be what other people in the thread are suggesting; you must always have two people in the cockpit. At least one pilot and possibly another crew member.
Re: Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'
#136Earlier 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?
Re: Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Two reasons, legal and technical. 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 manuall…
I think (2) is overrated. Software used in critical situations already detects faulty readings based on various models that simulate the range of plausible values. It's only a matter of time until they're vastly more accurate than humans - if they aren't already.
Re: Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'
#138I always wondered why the pilots don't wear some kind of fitbit-like bracelets or something similar that would measure (even imperfectly) their vital signs and record them as a third set of data apart from voice and flight data. There are many (although admittedly unlikely, but still) scenarios that could have happened in this case (the co-pilot might have fainted, someone else could have entered the cockpit unnoticed etc), and all we have is the sound recording telling us that he "breathed normally".
Re: Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If this is a suicidal flash, the presence of another person might be enough to prevent that from appearing.
Suicide is very rarely impulsive. Especially murder-suicide.
Re: Germanwings plane crash: Co-pilot 'wanted to destroy plane'
#140Honest question. Is this act of terrorism? If not why?
1) No. 2) Because it does not attempt to advance any political agenda.
So this means that his reason must be personal and important only to himself. That leaves me wondering, what personal reason can one have to do such a thing?