Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Germanwings A320 on BCN-DUS flight crash near Nice, France

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Highkeas View Post
    Aircraft can be modified to fly without pilots sitting in the aircraft; it has been done with a 707 and a 727, and aging military fighter aircraft are modified for use as targets (in the latter case my former company proposed putting the control electronics on the ejection seat so that they could be recovered and reused - proposal was unsuccessful due to "lack of funds").
    For example see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...war-games.html
    Modify an airliner to be remote controlled is one thing. That's quite piece of cake.
    Modify an airliner to be remote controlled AND so that a willful pilot inside the cockpit of said plane can't crash it, not so easy.
    It can be "designed" in that way from scratch, though. Basically, about every switch, knob, lever, button, wheel, handle etc must be an electronic remote control of the interrupter, valve, rheostat, etc really performing the function. And there must be a second "remote control" which can be ground operated, and the in-cockpit one can be isolated.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

    Comment


    • .... Just heard the words "pilotless planes" on the 10:00 PM news.
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        Modify an airliner to be remote controlled is one thing. That's quite piece of cake.
        Modify an airliner to be remote controlled AND so that a willful pilot inside the cockpit of said plane can't crash it, not so easy.
        It can be "designed" in that way from scratch, though. Basically, about every switch, knob, lever, button, wheel, handle etc must be an electronic remote control of the interrupter, valve, rheostat, etc really performing the function. And there must be a second "remote control" which can be ground operated, and the in-cockpit one can be isolated.
        should be fairly simple to do in an airbus, since it is merely "interpreting" the pilots' physical inputs and already overrides what IT determines to be wrong or dangerous.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
          .... Just heard the words "pilotless planes" on the 10:00 PM news.
          You will not see a plane with full take-over capability until at least 2025, not to mention a pilotless one.

          It will happen, but don't hold your breath.

          How do I know? I don't. It's my forecast based in that we pretty much have the plane designs that we'll be building until 2025, and they don't include full take-over capability.

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
            should be fairly simple to do in an airbus, since it is merely "interpreting" the pilots' physical inputs and already overrides what IT determines to be wrong or dangerous.
            Yet, if the pilot dumps fuel, there is nothing in the middle to interpret. The same if they shut the fuel off, or if they unpressurize the plane, or turn the ADRs off and go into direct law. Just to mention a few.

            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
              You will not see a plane with full take-over capability until at least 2025, not to mention a pilotless one.

              It will happen, but don't hold your breath.

              How do I know? I don't. It's my forecast based in that we pretty much have the plane designs that we'll be building until 2025, and they don't include full take-over capability.
              I only said that it would receive some consideration, TV time and several discussion forum posts.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                should be fairly simple to do in an airbus, since it is merely "interpreting" the pilots' physical inputs and already overrides what IT determines to be wrong or dangerous.
                As a side note, every single new airplane type introduced by both Boeing and Airbus since the A320 is fly-by-wire and there is a computer "interpreting" the pilot's physical inputs. A320, A330, A340, A350, A380, B-777, B-787.

                The difference (ok one of them) is that the Boing gives more authority to the pilot. The computer will "fight" the pilot inputs that would result in dangerous flight conditions, but it will let the pilot win the fight. Airbus will not let the pilot win the fight unless the pilot degrades or disconnects the computer.

                But if you wanted to add a "remote control" to the Boeing where the plane just ignores the control inputs of the pilot, that's quite easy. Just a few lines of code.

                But in any event, that goes only for the yoke or sidestick. Not the rest of the knobs and buttons. And for example in the A320 the rudder pedals are not FBW. And you (and rogue pilots) know what happens if you press them in synch with the airplane's yaw, no?

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                  But I don't see how that would stop the rogue pilot. Neither screening the pax nor the armed guard.

                  Oh, and I experienced it. Flew with El Al 4 times. In one occasion I was with my brother and we were in the line, short of being screened, an El Al security guard and requested our passports and asked us a few questions. Then he returned us our passports but crossed, and told us that the person who would screen un was in training and asked show our "mixed" passport. She didn't catch it.
                  Do you and your brother look alike at all? I don't think you are getting the point.

                  And when a flight deck crew member leaves the cockpit, the security officer enters and stays until he/she returns. Big difference from a flight attendant!

                  I have a feeling that if I said the sky were blue you would have a different opinion. I live this shit 17 days every month. You just read and dream about it. You REALLY have no F*****G idea at all!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                    I only said that it would receive some consideration, TV time and several discussion forum posts.
                    I plead guilty as charged!

                    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                      Do you and your brother look alike at all? I don't think you are getting the point.

                      And when a flight deck crew member leaves the cockpit, the security officer enters and stays until he/she returns. Big difference from a flight attendant!

                      I have a feeling that if I said the sky were blue you would have a different opinion. I live this shit 17 days every month. You just read and dream about it. You REALLY have no F*****G idea at all!
                      Cool down, yes? I thought we respected each other.

                      You mentioned the El Al screening that is much "intense" than the TSA's and I don't see how it would help.

                      I specifically asked if you were talking about the pre-boarding screening (and you confirmed it), because perhaps it was about pilot screening.

                      The armed guard in the cockpit would definitively help. The would require the armed guard to disclose its identity, which is not how it works today. Everybody knows that someone is an armed guard but nobody knows which one, not even the crew. If the identity was known to some, it could be leaked and then the terrorist knows who is the first one to kill at his first terrorist move before even opening his mouth to make any claim or threat.

                      And in the United States you need to get rid of the FDO program first, or the armed guard would never make it to the cockpit in the first place.

                      That is my opinion and if you don't agree, I am fine.
                      And 27 hours per day 35 days a month 433 days a year living this during the last 157 years don't make you necessarily right. It gives you credibility and that's a start, but that's all. Period.

                      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                        The would require the armed guard to disclose its identity, which is not how it works today. Everybody knows that someone is an armed guard but nobody knows which one, not even the crew.
                        See hotshot you don't know nearly as much as you think you do. All armed personnel, air marshals, law enforcement, and FFDO's not FDO's must inform the captain on the flight and show their credentials.

                        Again, I live it, you read about it and believe all the crap you read on the internet as the gospel. You are aware that just because it is on the internet it is not always right?

                        Comment


                        • maybe the answer is as simple as this:

                          1. get rid of the mechanical deadbolt
                          2. provide a satphone outside of the cockpit that CANNOT be shut down from inside the cockpit.
                          3. allow ground to override the lock remotely.

                          voila! psycho/asshole/deranged pilot is not alone anymore.

                          of course, the fight will still ensue, and one could always put the nose down and be down with it quick-like...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                            See hotshot you don't know nearly as much as you think you do. All armed personnel, air marshals, law enforcement, and FFDO's not FDO's must inform the captain on the flight and show their credentials.

                            Again, I live it, you read about it and believe all the crap you read on the internet as the gospel. You are aware that just because it is on the internet it is not always right?
                            Oh yes, I am, including when coming from you, or from me.
                            And I didn't know that you worked for El Al.
                            And sorry for forgetting to mention that the Flight Deck Officer program was a Federal one.

                            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                              maybe the answer is as simple as this:

                              1. get rid of the mechanical deadbolt
                              2. provide a satphone outside of the cockpit that CANNOT be shut down from inside the cockpit.
                              3. allow ground to override the lock remotely.

                              voila! psycho/asshole/deranged pilot is not alone anymore.

                              of course, the fight will still ensue, and one could always put the nose down and be down with it quick-like...
                              While I see your point, I think that you are making things more complex, not simpler.

                              You would need to modify the lock system to allow ground override.
                              Then you need some protocol for the ground operator to validate the request.
                              Then you add the risk of a rogue ground operator arranging with a rogue passenger to unlock the door at X time.

                              All this can be solved.
                              The door system can be modified to be opened from ground, but it also can be modified to be opened from the cabin.
                              The protocol can be established. The crew member can have a secret password to relay over the satphone. But also the code could be input in the access keyboard.
                              The rogue ground operator can be neutralized with an ADN logic that includes the operator and some code entered from inside the plane. Or you can request two secret codes (at least one from one flight crew member) entered directly in the access panel.

                              I think it's simpler to modify the lock system eliminating the deadbolt and making a "normal code" + cabin crew PIN + flight crewmember PIN not overridable.

                              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                                Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                                (...)Again, I live it, you read about it (...)
                                And I didn't know that you worked for El Al.
                                (...)
                                I always wondered

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X