Live data from Hacker News

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

bbc.co.uk

221–230 of 277 posts

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

#221

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…

I too wondered how many where saved by this. It certainly was debated before (here a german article from a year ago, closing with the cynical words "Than you're also dead, but at least save from terrorists. How comforting." http://www.austrianwings.info/2014/05/verriegelte-cockpittue... )

Hey that article is exactly on topic. Here's an excerpt and my translation below:

"Was geschieht, wenn sich ein Pilot zur Toilette begibt, sein Kollege im Cockpit - aus welchen Gründen auch immer - das Bewusstsein verliert oder verstirbt (solche tragischen Fälle kommen durchaus vor) und der nun außerhalb des Flightdecks befindliche Pilot plötzlich keinen Zutritt mehr zur Steuerzentrale des Flugzeuges hat? "

What happens if one pilot visits the WC and his colleague in cockpit - for whatever reason - loses his consciousness (such tragic cases do happen) and yet the pilot outside of the flight deck has no more access to control center of the aircraft?

It almost foresaw what was to happen on flight 4U9525.

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

#222

This is all very premature, isn't it? It would be nice before someone is accused of deliberately killing 150 people for no reason to confirm that - the correct code was put in - there was no malfunction in the door release system - and the descent was deliberate I haven't read anything on possibly alternate scenarios causing the crash, yet they all seem more probable.

You have a point, but it's pretty telling that they could hear the guy breathing and not responding to ATC, and that he took the plane into a nosedive the second the captain left the cabin. I really want to see what the data recorder says, though.

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

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2025, Q2: Airbus remote execution vulnerability discovered. (Did you just assume 100% reliable HW+SW, on Hacker News ? That's some serious handwaving...)

You can hardly compare an embedded software running on an Airplane to an Internet facing web server.

Why not? What is the crucial difference, from the unauthorised intrusion POV? "This should not happen, therefore it cannot happen" is not an appropriate response here. http://www.infosecisland.com/blogview/16696-FACT-CHECK-SCADA...

(Note that I didn't mention anything about webservers, or Internet; are you sure the in-flight entertainment systems are separated from the control network by anything else than a firewall rule? See other embedded systems, and how secure they are. Start with...IDK, Toyota's gas pedal code, see how well such safety-critical code was written: https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman14_toyota_ua_... )

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

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or to put it in a more general way: is security theatre now costing lives?

I strongly doubt it (for the particular case of strong cockpit doors). Historically, hijackings are more deadly than rogue pilots. Neither one is a particularly big threat, but hijackings are the more important threat of the two. How many potential attacks from the past decade and a half got stopped in the planning stage because "Well gee, Bob, that sounds great, but how are we going to get into the cockpit?" While t…

> Historically, hijackings are more deadly than rogue pilots.

Is this true? I can't remember a single other plane hijacking that resulted in the deaths of passengers outside of 9/11.

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

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. This is not Hollywood, and A320 is not a UAV. There's no option "hack into the thing and fly it from the back seat" (do I need to explain, here on HN, why a lack of remote control is also a Good Thing? "I've got the same combination on my luggage!")

It is extremely scary to me that you have to point this out to individuals. How does the reasoning process work for people who think like that? It must go something like "I can share photos with my mom on Facebook, so it must be possible to remotely fly a plane! #technologythatdoesntexistyet"

Oh, the technology exists, all right (UAVs), but nobody has been insane enough to use it for commercial aviation. So far - we might see a push in this direction now.

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

#226

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…

These types of scenarios are why the U.S. requires a flight attendant to enter the cockpit when a pilot exits. I wouldn't be surprised if the agencies in Europe implement the same policy by the end of the week.

Let's hope so. Not fool-proof but this is a sound procedure isn't it? So why wasn't it implemented by European Authorities as well? I wonder what their counter-arguments were?

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

#227
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming MH370 wasn't one which it quite likely was.

Intentional crash or intentional disappearance?

I think it's fair to hand waive it as "intentional crash". Even if those people are not dead, they have been missing for over a year. I imagine it must be a fairly hellish experience if they are not dead.

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

#228
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Now you have two problems: instead of worrying about rogue pilots, you have to worry about rogue pilots and rogue remote control. Oh, and latency in remote control is also a nice thing to have. And signal loss. And jamming. So, five problems (actually, that's just a random sample).

Such a terrible idea in such a short sentence...

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

#229
post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly doubt it (for the particular case of strong cockpit doors). Historically, hijackings are more deadly than rogue pilots. Neither one is a particularly big threat, but hijackings are the more important threat of the two. How many potential attacks from the past decade and a half got stopped in the planning stage because "Well gee, Bob, that sounds great, but how are we going to get into the cockpit?" While t…

> Historically, hijackings are more deadly than rogue pilots. Is this true? I can't remember a single other plane hijacking that resulted in the deaths of passengers outside of 9/11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings

There were definitely a couple.

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

#230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

With no one to talk to in it, making it an empty room. No audience. Why is it weird that he isn't talking to nobody?
Post reply on HN