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

181–190 of 277 posts

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

#181

Post by krschultz »

probably_wrong wrote: post #86
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…

I think it's the same thing as intelligence (in the national security sense). You can do lots of things to prevent outsiders from getting in, but if the insiders want to circumvent the protections, they can. Someone has to have "root" access, when you can't trust that person, you are done.

About the only thing I could think of is some way for people to report a problem like this and air traffic controllers on the ground having a way to take over control of the plane from people inside the plane. But that too could have problems (what if the air traffic controller on the ground is the murderous one, and now he is crashing planes that the pilot can't control).

I think it's a near impossible problem to fully solve. The closest thing I can think of is positive train control (PTC) which sets safe boundaries and overrides the operator if the train exceeds those boundaries. In this case maybe the plane simply can not be flown into the airspace around the Alps no matter how much the pilot wants to.

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

#182

Post by [deleted] »

quonn wrote: post #142

Any ideas for future improvements to the current mechanism? A possible idea is to release the lock (allowing entry using the PIN) if the board computer determines that a crash is likely. (This is safe, because it's unlikely that there is an attacker who wants to enter the cockpit and at the same time a situation likely to result in a crash.) This clearly only helps against the problem with the locked door, but it see…

[deleted]

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

#183

Post by Piskvorrr »

mavhc wrote: post #115
Piskvorrr wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Damn those ancient 9 bit aeroplane computers

LOL.

But seriously, stuff like that already happened, multiple times. Most famously, http://www.dailytech.com/Lockheeds+F22+Raptor+Gets+Zapped+by...

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

#184

Post by CPLX »

jwalton wrote: post #166
msandford wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The autopilot on modern aircraft is more than capable of landing the plane. I have a friend who flies for Air Canada who tells me that Air Canada requires pilots to be in manual control of the aircraft from takeoff to 500 feet, but after that the pilot can put the plane in autopilot and not touch anything until they're on the ground if she wants to. The plane will even apply breaking thrust after touchdown and bring…

The idea that a pilot could put a plane on autopilot soon after takeoff and then "not touch anything" and end up landed on the ground again is patently ludicrous. There are certainly things that automatic controls can do to make flying and landing a plane easier but they don't resemble your description at all.

Source: I have a pilots license.

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

#185

Post by damon_c »

quonn wrote: post #142

Any ideas for future improvements to the current mechanism? A possible idea is to release the lock (allowing entry using the PIN) if the board computer determines that a crash is likely. (This is safe, because it's unlikely that there is an attacker who wants to enter the cockpit and at the same time a situation likely to result in a crash.) This clearly only helps against the problem with the locked door, but it see…

Self driving planes... Sorry.

Honestly, I wanted to help with something constructive here but I don't think we will ever solve the problem of crazy people in the cockpit.

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

#187

Post by shin_lao »

id wrote: post #139
shin_lao wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Please document yourself: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/impuls...

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

#188

Post by johnchristopher »

ceejayoz wrote: post #72
johnchristopher wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that a little bit off he didn't mutter any words after seizing the opportunity of his co-worker's unplanned leaving of the cockpit ?

Why would that be a little off? Not everyone mutters to an empty room.

This is not any `empty room`. This is the front seat of a machine with high velocity hurling itself against the ground.

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

#189

Post by Piskvorrr »

icebraining wrote: post #137
Piskvorrr wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course they are - in most situations, and this is one of the things that makes commercial aviation so safe.

Except when something very unexpected happens (e.g. not all sensor malfunctions can be distinguished from a reading that's outside of the usual range, yet plausible); in such situations, automatics disengage and people need to step in.

In other words, you can only get so many reliability nines and still be profitable for mass transport (as opposed to, for example, Space Shuttle).

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

#190

Post by gadders »

panarky wrote: post #114
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…

How To Lock and Unlock Airbus A320 Cockpit Door - Description and Procedures https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixEHV7c3VXs

The acting in that video is first class.
Post reply on HN