Live data from Hacker News

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

bbc.co.uk

241–250 of 277 posts

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

#241
post #159
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Apparently the other crew (flight attendants) knows that code, too. I think it’s unlikely everyone would forget it.

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

#242
post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The chance that multiple operators in a collective are actively abusing their control (and try to crash the plane) is decreasing in probability. History shows that such actions are usually performed by individuals. Even high latencies would not have prevented a successful intervention in this case (they've had a window of about 8 minutes for an intervention). Jamming is a possibility and an issue with the current com…

Multiple? One is quite sufficient: hack the control channel, and you have a plane to play with.

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

#243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also have to ask whether a lack of the door lock would have prevented the crash. Can a rogue pilot crash the plane fast enough that the door locks are irrelevant? Can he crash it while the other pilot is in the cockpit? I remember other black box recordings from another crash where one pilot was merely confused , steering the plane into a crash while the others tried to save it, and no one realized what was going…

That was the Air France flight, and it strikes me as a major UX disaster. The flight sticks' input was averaged , as if that's ever a desirable scenario! "Oh yeah, we know we want to keep it level, so you pull back on the stick a bit, I'll push it an equal amount and we'll be okay." Yeeeah.

This not how simultaneous side-stick input works. Conflicting inputs are rejected with a warning ; dual input is also indicated with a warning. Non-conflicting inputs are summed, to model the way traditional centre sticks/yokes would work, when both pilots are acting. Generally, due to procedure, only one pilot is controlling the aircraft at any time; and, there is a "hand-off" to pass the control between them. There is a priority override button on each side-stick to take control from the other pilot.

However, a potential problem with side-sticks arises because the sticks are independent -- the non-controlling stick does not mirror (i.e., no force feedback) the controlling stick movement, as would happen with the mechanically connected centre sticks/yokes. Meaning, the non-controlling pilot cannot tell what the controlling pilot is doing.

This was the problem on AF447. If you read the CVR log, one pilot was confused about how to handle the situation and, unfortunately, he took control several times during the recovery attempt. In the final seconds, he verbally states he is pulling back on the stick (attempting to climb), which revealed to the [then returned to the cockpit] captain what he was doing, but there was not enough time to correct (forward, nose down) to exit the stall before they struck the ocean surface.

(The stall warning itself was another disastrous UX problem as well, in my opinion.)

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

#244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because it's not a normal situation.

edit: plus, the other pilot was knocking on the door and asking him to open it. So... there was an audience. He also certainly knew the black box would record those moments.

But I give up, this is pointless.

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

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For purposes of prevention/screening/etc., I think it makes sense to differentiate between "pilot wants to put the plane in the ground" and "pilot wants to abscond with the plane". Apparently that's just me though.

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

#246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was the Air France flight, and it strikes me as a major UX disaster. The flight sticks' input was averaged , as if that's ever a desirable scenario! "Oh yeah, we know we want to keep it level, so you pull back on the stick a bit, I'll push it an equal amount and we'll be okay." Yeeeah.

This not how simultaneous side-stick input works. Conflicting inputs are rejected with a warning ; dual input is also indicated with a warning. Non-conflicting inputs are summed, to model the way traditional centre sticks/yokes would work, when both pilots are acting. Generally, due to procedure, only one pilot is controlling the aircraft at any time; and, there is a "hand-off" to pass the control between them. There…

Hmm, so there was no averaging? One of the pilots just took control?

Completely agreed about the stall warning as well, I just didn't mention it. Don't warn about stalls unless there's actually danger of stalling!

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

#247

2020: Airbus announces no-pilots planes 2025: All airplanes are now required to be auto-piloted 2030: It's been 5 years without a single accident

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

Did you just assume 100% reliable HW+SW...

Why would you think that the parent assumes 100% reliable SW? Having SW more reliable than humans would be enough reason to replace humans with it. This does not seem impossible to me.

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

#248
post #121
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No. The scenario is a good agent outside with a gun to his head.

In post-9/11 world a good agent would not open the door even at the threat of his life, because were the attackers gain control of the cockpit, he would die anyway, and a lot of other people too.

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

#249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except there are checks and balances in place before software gets installed on a plane.

Those don't always work. There are checks and balances in place before pilots get to fly airplanes, too.

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

#250
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also I think it would be hard to surprise a crew member in the confines of a cockpit... Most likely would result in at least some type of physical struggle
Post reply on HN