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

171–180 of 277 posts

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

#171

Post by jcfrei »

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #104
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…

This responsibility is to great to leave it to humans. Automate this stuff.

I think in the near term a possible remote override from air traffic control would make more sense.

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

#172

Post by Htsthbjig »

TillE wrote: post #46
koyote wrote: post #26

Earlier 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.

It's not an absolute solution, but it makes such a crime both psychologically and physically much more difficult. Turning a knob is impersonal and easy, but killing someone with your hands is neither.

"Turning a knob is impersonal and easy, but killing someone with your hands is neither."

Killing someone is extremely easy if the other person trust you. You get behind her and hit her with a heavy object in the head or in the nape.

If the pilot is busy doing something like piloting the plane, it is very easy for a copilot to get rid of her.

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

#173

Post by RobertoG »

ArturSoler wrote: post #83
koyote wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You could check against bus drivers for instance.

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

#174

Post by [deleted] »

frevd wrote: post #143
probably_wrong wrote: post #86

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.

[deleted]

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

#175

Post by mikeash »

toyg wrote: post #145
VLM wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my memory of taking my 3rd class medical its trust based, if you don't have a written record in your med file of mental problems or tell the doc you have problems then there's no way for them to know. Also from memory a 1st class was pretty much a 3rd class with stricter limits and an electrocardiogram which is why it costs microscopically more. At least in the old days if you got a 1st after it expired, it acte…

Could a rise in this sort of accidents (4 in 20 years, unheard-of before) mirror the rise in number of pilots, and the parallel loss of social status? As flying becomes "just another job", you will naturally get a normalized number of whacko pilots. Rather than banning what we cannot see, maybe we should just start seriously considering scenarios where one pilot is a malicious actor.

Was it actually less common before, or just less noticed?

Air travel used to be substantially less safe. Improvements in safety have all but eliminated crashes due to mechanical failure, weather, mid-air collisions, etc. They've done nothing to prevent crashes due to rogue pilots, though. If the rate were constant, they'd be much more visible now because they'd make up a much larger proportion of the much smaller number of crashes.

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

#176

Post by ksherlock »

frevd wrote: post #116
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…

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?

§135.89 Pilot requirements: Use of oxygen.

(4) If one pilot leaves a pilot duty station of an aircraft when operating at altitudes above 25,000 feet MSL, the remaining pilot at the controls shall put on and use an approved oxygen mask until the other pilot returns to the pilot duty station of the aircraft.

Additionally, it's either US airline operating procedure (or perhaps FAA regulations, I couldn't find it though) for a second crew member to stay in the cockpit when one of the pilots has to leave.

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

#179

Post by Cthulhu_ »

VLM wrote: post #91
mrec wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, reinforced cockpit doors is pretty much the one measure that's NOT dismissed as security theatre.

I can't imagine a more false statement, as the business model before 9/11 was do nothing and cooperate and everyone will be safe, and the business model after 9/11 is every person on the plane must rush the hijackers or thousands will be killed. So the reinforced door is a response to a problem that no longer exists. Ideally you'd have a door that is strong enough to be "people proof" for long enough for the entire p…

But then how long would it take to break open the door in this case? I haven't read about the time between when the descent was set in, the pilot returning and realizing he was locked out - I'm sure someone that deliberately wants to crash the plane can do so within a minute (dump fuel, start a nosedive at max speed and start spinning, etc). You can't break open a door when your plane is upside-down.

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

#180

Post by gadders »

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…

Another BBC story mentioned that some airlines (but not Lufthansa) have a policy where there has to be two people in the cockpit at all times. When the pilot/co-pilot leaves another member of the crew takes their place.

Seems like a sensible idea with hindsight.

Post reply on HN