Live data from Hacker News

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

bbc.co.uk

151–160 of 277 posts

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

#151
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, using some biometric safeties on the controls.

Aren't many biometric controls trivial to defeat though?

For instance, to replicate someones fingerprints all you need is a high res photo of their hand from a distance.

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

#152
post #28

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?

Technically I believe the autopilot is a higher level in the system, and the anti-stall stuff (among others) is part of the lower-level fly-by-wire system. It's sort of like with a car and the difference between anti-lock brakes (fly-by-wire), cruise control (basic autopilot functionality), and autonomous steering to reach a certain location (advanced autopilot functionality).

In any case, you're right that the automation (by whatever name) can already override the pilot in many cases. But it's a really tricky problem because you can easily make things worse instead of better. For example, one reason that Air France 447 crashed was that one of the pilots was commanding the airplane as if it were in a fly-by-wire mode it was not actually in. The plane had already stalled, but he was flying it as if the computers would prevent him from stalling, rather than taking proper corrective action. A proper recovery maneuver would have saved it. This is ultimately pilot error, but automation is a strong contributing factor. For another example, Asiana 214 crashed because the pilot assumed the airplane was doing more for him than it really was, trusting the automation to keep his speed steady, which it wasn't set to do. Again, pilot error, but with automation as a contributing factor.

It seems likely that automation is a net gain when done right, but it requires careful consideration.

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

#153
post #47

Earlier 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?

Now you've just changed the scenario from "rogue pilot crashes airplane despite efforts of other pilot" to "rogue air traffic controller crashes airplane despite efforts of pilots."

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

#154
post #68
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'.

Maybe I'm weird, but I think I'll wait for the full forensic investigation of the crash before delving into analysis of breathing patterns of the co-pilot from the black box. To each his own, I guess.

It is not (just) the breathing patterns, but the fact that the crew CAN OPEN THE DOOR with a code if an emergency (like a sudden decompression on the cabin that render pilots unconscious) happens.

The fact that they could not, and for the voice recording it is obvious they tried, means that the pilot deliberatively blocked the door again for not letting them go in.

He also cries before hitting ground.

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

#155
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, using some biometric safeties on the controls.

That's not foolproof either. There's always a compromise to make: if you have more automation to prevent pilot from being suicidal or making mistakes, you also have more automation that prevents a pilot - or anyone - taking over when the computer control goes wrong.

Let's accept it: we may make things gradually better, but there is no silver bullet that would solve all these problems.

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

#156
post #118
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a pilot, but my father was and I have a brother who is. When my dad flew, up until the early '00s and past the WTC attacks, there were only yearly medical exams. No psych exams. Like many other pilots, my brother is an alcoholic, and this has given him trouble with some airlines, so he has taken jobs in the Arab world and east Asia (we're Mexican, from Mexico). As far as I know, the airlines have never offer…

There's actually a forum called the Professional Pilots Rumour Network: http://www.pprune.org/

Thanks, I didn't know this. There's some fascinating speculation from two days ago about what happened in this thread:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/558654-airbus-a320-crashe...

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

#158
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they are licensed to operate, why they are less secure than human driven planes? It is one more area where automation may drive human jobs away. May be self-driving planes is next stage of aviation evolution just like drones for military purposes.

There was an incident just last November where the flight systems put a A320 into a nose dive towards the ground and the pilots had to restart the board systems in order to pull the machine up.

My understanding is, the more hardware/software reliability,durability increases, the less may be the need for humans to intervene.

If we look outside, technological trends and intents of organizational leaders are in the direction of more automation and lesser human dependence.

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

#159
post #57

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.

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.

In an emergency event you are most likely to forget secret codes. Some kind of biometric sensor would be better, although then attackers could take the authorized person hostage, so it is best to have it shared among two random crew people, simply by voice recognition.

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

#160
post #26

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.

From what I understand the door can be opened from the outside.

If true, the only case where having a second person present would be one where an unrelated emergency develops that requires immediate attention at the moment the first person becomes unconscious. I think that scenario is handled by requiring both officers to be in the cockpit at the times where such emergencies are most likely to develop (take off and landing)

Also, that second person would have to be able to fly the airplane. That would mean having a 3-person crew flying the plane (something that Airbus has worked hard at getting rid of for cost reasons), or having a bathroom in the cockpit (impractical, I guess)

In this case I think a remote operator could have seen that something was wrong for minutes, and could have taken over control of the plane, but of course, having that ability carries its own risks.

Post reply on HN