Slashdot Mirror


Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

HughPickens.com writes: Jad Mouawad And Christopher Drew write in the NY Times that although airplane cockpits are supposed to be the last line of defense from outside aggressors, airlines have fewer options if the threat comes from within. One of the major safety protocols that actually made planes safer in the past 15 years was that the cockpits were turned into fortresses. Unfortunately, that exact advantage was exploited by the co-pilot of the Germanwings plane on Tuesday to crash it intentionally. "It is shocking to me that there was not a second person present in the cockpit," says Mark Rosenker, a former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. Access to the cockpit is strictly regulated in the United States. Passengers are not allowed to congregate near the cockpit door, and whenever the door is open, no one is allowed in the forward bathroom and flight attendants usually block aisle access, sometimes using a food cart. The Federal Aviation Administration mandates that a flight attendant must sit in the cockpit when either pilot steps into the passenger area; European regulations do not have a similar two-person rule, but they're now talking about creating one.

The Germanwings accident also points to potential shortcomings in how pilots are screened for mental problems, a recurring concern for an industry that demands focus and discipline in an increasingly technical job, often in stressful situations. In 2012, a well-regarded pilot with JetBlue, one of the airline's earliest employees, was physically restrained by passengers on a flight from New York to Las Vegas after displaying erratic behavior. In that case, the co-pilot locked the pilot out of the cabin and made an emergency landing in Amarillo, Tex. "Aircraft-assisted pilot suicides," as the Federal Aviation Administration calls them, are rare. They include the November 2013 crash of a Mozambique Airlines plane bound for Luanda, Angola, which bears an eerie resemblance to the Germanwings plane's demise. When the flight's co-pilot left to use the lavatory, the captain locked him out of the cockpit and manually steered the aircraft earthward. The crash of Egypt Airlines Flight 990 off Nantucket, Mass., in 1999, which killed all 217 people on board, was also caused by deliberate action, a National Transportation Safety Board investigation concluded. Experts on suicide say that the psychology of those who combine suicide with mass murder may differ in significant ways from those who limit themselves to taking their own lives.

12 of 385 comments (clear)

  1. Ummmm ... duh? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, after 9/11 they rushed to put door locks on the damned things.

    And, now, to the utter shock and amazement of everybody ... someone in the cockpit can lock people out of it. Exactly as they designed it.

    I'm stunned, I tell 'ya.

    Of course, now when the pilot has to take a leak there is one less cabin crew, which I'm sure you can construct a scenario in which that's not a good idea.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Ummmm ... duh? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And, of course, we can construct the scenario in which the co-pilot and one of the cabin crew conspires so that when the pilot has to take a leak it's the two of them in the cockpit, and then they can do the same damned thing.

      There's really no way you can 100% prevent this kind of thing.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Ummmm ... duh? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I guess they thought narcissistic arseholes were more of a problem in the US.

      Then they'd obviously never been to Paris.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:Ummmm ... duh? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Gee, and one wonders why people might not be forthcoming with their doctors.

      As soon as you say "fuck doctor patient confidentiality" then WTF would you expect people to tell doctors anything for?

      So then the next thing you'd say is priests and lawyers should also not have confidentiality, because that would be inconvenient.

      Essentially, you are saying "it should be illegal to have secrets from the state".

      Think hard about what you're actually saying.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Ummmm ... duh? by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It appears this German guy knew that, and was hiding his problems from his employer and the regulatory agencies that license his operation of giant passenger aircraft.

      So what happens when you remove doctor patient confidentiality? The other depressed people will not see them and will still fly, only without having received psychiatric help or medication. That makes the risk larger, not smaller.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    5. Re:Ummmm ... duh? by AlejoHausner · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I might agree with you, if mental-health diagnoses had any predictive power. But suicides are pretty much impossible to predict. Just because someone is diagnosed as clinically depressed does not tell you that they will commit suicide tomorrow. And there are perfectly well-adjusted people who kill themselves because, say, they have a terminal illness.

      You also can't, in any reliable way, predict that someone will kill others.

      Not to mention unconscious forces. The typical murderer doesn't know that he will kill tomorrow. But some violent rage may arise, triggered by some unforeseen incident. Sure, there are pre-meditated murders, but they are rare, and their very rarity makes the justice system punish them more severely.

      Doctors can't predict that you will cause harm tomorrow. You yourself can't predict it, because you don't know what's really going on in your head. So let's not make everyone's life a pain by trying to prevent the unpredictable.

      The next thing you know, they're going to make us take our shoes off at the airport because someone put a bomb in his shoe, or make us buy tiny bottles of shampoo because someone maybe planned to make explosives from liquid reagents in flight. Oh wait, such over-reactions have already taken place!

    6. Re:Ummmm ... duh? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The very lack of them finding the plane (MH370) at all means that it more than not it did not crash

      No - They haven't found the plane because of the size of the search area.

      I'm surprised how few people seem to get this.

      The search area is choppy, stormy ocean and is the size of Australia. To put that in perspective, here's a map of Australia overlaid on the USA:

      http://keithooper.smugmug.com/...

      So imagine you're looking for a seat cushion in Nevada that's bobbing on the water in Illinois.

  2. Pilots must remain in control by bughunter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unfortunately, if one of the pilots wants to take the aircraft somewhere (be it into the side of a mountain, or to Cuba, or wherever) there's little the engineers, airlines or ATC can do about it. Any security measure will have a gap.

    And also, the pilots must have control of the aircraft. It's far more likely that an exception to protocol or security will be required to save lives than to endanger them.

    --
    I can see the fnords!
  3. Re:A Bit Fishy by itzly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Planes need to be able to do emergency landings, so it makes sense there's an override switch for landing in the terrain.

  4. The Jet Blue incident by Latent+Heat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I believe it was mentioned that it was a Good Thing when a co-pilot locked out a captain who was freaking out, allowing the co-pilot to make and emergency landing and save the passengers.

  5. Re:A Bit Fishy by itzly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The computers aren't in complete control. If a pilot wants to do an emergency landing, he must have that option. The computers prevent some things, and they warn for others, but it's impossible to have a computer judge all kinds of complex situations, including various kinds of mechanical or sensor problems.

    Also, look at United 93. In some cases, it is preferable to have a plane crash into the terrain at high speed instead of having a hijacker control it into an office building.

  6. Re:A Bit Fishy by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Also, look at United 93. In some cases, it is preferable to have a plane crash into the terrain at high speed instead of having a hijacker control it into an office building.

    Or with US Airways Flight 1549 (which was an Airbus A320-200) it was preferable to plop it into a river.

    Sully and the flight crew made a judgment call that they weren't going to reach any of the possible landing fields, so they turned the plane around and dropped it into the Hudson. It's unlikely the Airbus computers thought that was an appropriate action...

    --
    #DeleteChrome