Live data from Hacker News

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

bbc.co.uk

161–170 of 277 posts

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

#161

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…

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 this stuff is rare, I bet it's not zero.

Beyond that, does not having a locked cockpit door actually save you from rogue pilots? I don't think so. There's a lot you can do to defeat other people when you're the only one belted in at the controls. A series of violent vertical maneuvers would suffice to defeat anyone trying to get back in. Imagine if, instead of locking the door, this guy had just pushed the nose over to negative two gees, then pulled up at positive three, repeat until everyone is dead? Or, pull the breakers for the higher-level fly-by-wire systems, point the nose at the ground, apply full throttle, and rip the wings off? The thinking seems to be that there was a calm 10 minutes or so in which he could have been stopped if only the door hadn't been in the way, but the only reason there was a calm 10 minutes was because the door was in the way.

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

#162

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.

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

#163
post #151
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can, using some biometric safeties on the controls.

Aren't many biometric controls trivial to defeat though? For instance, to replicate someones fingerprints all you need is a high res photo of their hand from a distance.

Yeah, iris scan isn't safe either if attackers can get the authorized person in their control. Maybe using two random people from the crew would be best, hard to find out for an attacker and still safe against "forgetting" the secret code.

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

#164
post #151
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can, using some biometric safeties on the controls.

Aren't many biometric controls trivial to defeat though? For instance, to replicate someones fingerprints all you need is a high res photo of their hand from a distance.

Or, a less high-tech solution: use the knife of your airline meal set to cut away the finger.

Then the airline will move on in the arms race by responding with a fingerprint reader that wants to have a pulse in the finger, and then it doesn't work when the user is in distress and has an extremely high pulse. And then there is an accident and we the armchair security experts come up with more bright ideas.

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

#165
post #150
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can, using some biometric safeties on the controls.

How would biometrics protect from an authorized party controlling the plane he is supposed to control ?

Overriding the override ;]. But yeah, it's kind of a race-condition. Not sure, how about some majority vote, enough members on the crew there to vote?

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

#166
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…

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 plane to a stop.

At this point, pilots are really there to take care of unusual situations that the computer can't (which do happen from time to time.)

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

#167

At what point will pilot-lock outs have killed more people than they've saved?

If I may venture a guess, "as of last week."

There's no way of telling though. Maybe a terrorist attack would have happened a week earlier if the terrorist didn't know they couldn't get past the locked door, so they didn't try it.

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

#168

I always wondered why the pilots don't wear some kind of fitbit-like bracelets or something similar that would measure (even imperfectly) their vital signs and record them as a third set of data apart from voice and flight data. There are many (although admittedly unlikely, but still) scenarios that could have happened in this case (the co-pilot might have fainted, someone else could have entered the cockpit unnotice…

Beyond breathing, it's also known that the guy commanded a descent into the ground in a way that's basically impossible to do by accident. That pretty much rules out any sort of health problem (besides the mental kind).

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

#170
post #103
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Experts are in fact skeptical against fully self-driving planes due to safety reasons.

If they are licensed to operate, why they are less secure than human driven planes? It is one more area where automation may drive human jobs away. May be self-driving planes is next stage of aviation evolution just like drones for military purposes.

Computers are not yet capable of dealing with engine failure on take off as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549 and probably some other system failures. Maybe in the future.
Post reply on HN