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

111–120 of 277 posts

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

#111

Post by caf »

diminoten wrote: post #79
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.

My initial reaction to this is the fact that the co-pilot didn't attempt to seize the plane from the pilot or other crew, but only took advantage of an opportunity. In this specific case, it may be possible that the co-pilot would not have forced the situation where he was in sole control of the plane. The emotional side of me wants to call the man a coward, and a coward wouldn't be openly aggressive towards a flight…

Indeed in the MI185 case it's thought that the pilot killed the co-pilot with a fire axe before bringing down the aircraft.

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

#112

Post by willvarfar »

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…

If the attackers enter the cockpit they can doom the plane;

If they are outside trying to get into the cockpit, there may be time for passengers to react and neutralize them?

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

#113

Post by followers »

Is leaving for toilet the only reason for the pilot to leave the cockpit? I seen some comments on having a third person with the co-pilot if the pilot leaves, but is not another "simplistic solution" to have a toilet for pilots within the cockpit lock doors? I understand it is not as simple as "just add a toilet" but I was thinking for of future designs.

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

#114

Post by panarky »

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

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

#115

Post by mavhc »

Piskvorrr wrote: post #45
lsadam0 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is true. What I'm wondering about is why the plane allows a pilot to take a fatal action. For example, why would an auto-pilot system allow a jetliner to nose dive? Maybe it does not. I'm certain these scenarios have been considered, and I'm sure the developers had very solid reasons as to why something like this doesn't exist (if it actually does not). I'm curious if the plane has enough input to determine "if…

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

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

#116

Post by frevd »

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?

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

#117

Post by willvarfar »

arethuza wrote: post #29
celticninja wrote: post #7

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.

So make the cockpit a "No-lone zone" - makes sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-man_rule#No-lone_zone

See 'caf's comment above: "in the MI185 case it's thought that the pilot killed the co-pilot with a fire axe before bringing down the aircraft."

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

#118

Post by caf »

jordigh wrote: post #95
znt wrote: post #2

Can someone with aviation experience share how often pilots receive psychological evaluation? I just asked a friend who used to be a pilot for Ryan Air and he said he had never received one.

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/

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

#119

Post by Tomte »

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?

Using the override. An unconscious pilot does not override the override.

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

#120

Post by ptaipale »

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?

There's procedure for that. Just read the comments in this thread, and watch the video.
Post reply on HN