Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Access Codes For United Cockpit Doors Accidentally Posted Online (techcrunch.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the whoopsie-daisy dept.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the access codes to United's cockpit doors were accidentally posted on a public website by a flight attendant. "[United Continental Holdings], which owns United Airlines and United Express, asked pilots to follow security procedures already in use, including visually confirming someone's identity before they are allowed onto the flight deck even if they enter the correct security code into the cockpit door's keypad," reports TechCrunch. From the report: The Air Line Pilots Association, a union that represents 55,000 pilots in the U.S. and Canada, told the WSJ on Sunday that the problem had been fixed. The notable thing about this security breach is that it was caused by human error, not a hack, and illustrates how vulnerable cockpits are to intruders despite existing safety procedures. The Air Line Pilots Association has advocated for secondary barriers made from mesh or steel cables to be installed on cockpits doors to make it harder to break into, but airlines have said that they aren't necessary.

11 of 109 comments (clear)

  1. In case you wondered... by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 4, Funny

    It is 0000

    1. Re:In case you wondered... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You joke, but you'd be surprised how much critical infrastructure is insecure simply because "Hey, nobody can get here anyway".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:In case you wondered... by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Informative

      The code doesn't matter that much. There are two codes, a normal one and an emergency one.

      The normal code just makes an audible signal in the cockpit. The pilots then look at the camera screen to make sure that it's a crew member with no terrorists behind him/her. If all looks OK, they flip a switch to unlock the door. So what if a terrorists knows the code? The pilots will see "hey, that person's not supposed to enter" and keep the door shut. And yes, we do always check the camera. Our life could depend on it.

      Then what about the emergency code? It causes a similar sound that goes on for 30 seconds. If no action is taken by the pilots during those 30 seconds, the door is briefly unlocked so it can be pushed open. However, the pilots can simply block entry with a single switch. Since they have 30 seconds to do so, this is not really a big security risk either. The purpose is just to allow a crew member to enter if the pilot(s) are incapacitated.

      People get freaked out "OMG they have the access codes to the cockpit" but in reality this really is a non-issue. We had the same problem in my company, some comedian said the codes on a radio show and we got all these memos changing the codes and reminding us how vitally important it supposedly was that they were kept secret. Big deal. They might as well install a simple button instead of a keypad, it wouldn't make a difference.

    3. Re:In case you wondered... by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, if the terrorists are already in the cockpit, all bets are off. Obviously. Do you have a better idea?

    4. Re:In case you wondered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Look, this is Slashdot. Without fail some guy will spend maybe three seconds thinking and then post his pin-headed conclusion about what's wrong with something, as if everyone else in the world is an idiot and can't consider even the simplest things. That guy is always wrong.

    5. Re:In case you wondered... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Funny

      They might as well install a simple button instead of a keypad, it wouldn't make a difference.

      Unless the pilots are incapacitated and there's a terrorist onboard! Are you trying to get us all killed?!

      What if they put a call out for a doctor to treat the pilots and the online doctor onboard is a terrorist... wait, forget I said that, it's copyrighted and you can't have it because it's my screenplay now.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  2. The access code is by PSXer · · Score: 3, Funny

    1... 2... 3... 4........ 5

  3. Strong door have a downside... by Bearhouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    According to French and German prosecutors, the crash was deliberately caused by the co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz.[29][97][98] Brice Robin said Lubitz was initially courteous to Captain Sondenheimer during the first part of the flight, then became "curt" when the captain began the mid-flight briefing on the planned landing.[99] Robin said when the captain returned from a probable toilet break and tried to enter the cockpit, Lubitz had locked the door.[29][97] The captain had a code to unlock the door, but the lock's code panel can be disabled from the cockpit controls.[7][100] The captain requested re-entry using the intercom; he knocked and then banged on the door, but received no response.[101] The captain then tried to break down the door.[16][77][102] During the descent, the co-pilot did not respond to questions from air traffic control and did not transmit a distress call.[103] Robin said contact from the Marseille air traffic control tower, the captain's attempts to break in, and Lubitz's steady breathing were audible on the cockpit voice recording.[97][104] The screams of passengers in the last moments before impact were also heard on the recording.[99]

    After their initial analysis of the aircraft's flight data recorder, the BEA concluded that Lubitz deliberately crashed the aircraft. He had set the autopilot to descend to 100 feet (30 m) and accelerated the speed of the descending aircraft several times thereafter.[105][106] The aircraft was travelling at 700 kilometres per hour (430 mph) when it crashed into the mountain.[99] The BEA preliminary report into the crash was published on 6 May 2015, six weeks later. It confirmed the initial analysis of the aircraft's flight data recorder and revealed that during the earlier outbound Flight 9524 from Düsseldorf to Barcelona, Lubitz had practised setting the autopilot altitude dial to 100 feet several times while the captain was out of the cockpit.[107][108]

    1. Re:Strong door have a downside... by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

      cockpits should have their own loo. airlines would be against this, too. surprise surprise. that's even more expensive than reinforcing the doors even more than they have been already. that extra 10 square feet of cabin space could hold at least 6 paying passengers!

      I'm sure they could have made some kind of double-entry toilet, the question is how much of a difference it'd make. Even if we assume he was too cowardly to directly assault the other pilot, he could have drugged his food, blocked the toilet door, created some kind of pretext to get the captain to go to the passenger/cargo area or whatever. Even getting him to the doorway would be enough if you can just push/throw/kick him out and slam the door shut behind you. It's a trusted co-worker, not someone you'd suspect being a potential hijacker/terrorist so he wouldn't see it coming.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Strong door have a downside... by jittles · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We dont really have any way to protect against the possibility that the pilot may be not want to live..

      That's not remotely true. The actions of that GermanWings pilot would have never worked in the US. When a pilot leaves the cockpit, someone else from the crew takes his place. If you watch you'll see that they notify the flight attendants that someone is planning to leave the flight deck. Two flight attendants come forward. One blocks the aisle with a cart and the other goes into the cockpit before the pilot leaves. The US requires there to be at least two people inside of the cockpit at all times. So unless you find a rare situation where both pilots want to die, or one pilot is willing to have a physical altercation with the other prior to killing the entire flight, you'll be okay. They are not allowed to eat the same meals. One would not be messing with the others meals to drug them. Perhaps they could drug them through their coffee, but otherwise there are no real situations where a pilot can destroy the other plane without some sort of physical struggle.

  4. Re:Seems we are a good path. by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Technology for remote (or alternatively autonomous) operation is existing, it 'only' needs certification for passenger transport.

    It would need a little more than just certification.

    People always go "80% of crashes are due to pilot error, so let's get rid of the pilots, the autopilot can fly the plane by itself anyway". What they don't know, is how often automation screws up and no crash occurs because the pilots were there to prevent it. In 20 years of flying I've had quite a few of those.

    In fact, a lot of "pilot error" crashes were really due to automation failures where the pilots were (rightfully) blamed for not having intervened. Autothrottle pulls the throttles back to idle at 1000 ft because a failing radio altimeter said the plane was about to touch down? Pilot error, they should have seen the throttles move backward and the speed decrease, and should have immediately reacted by taking manual control. As other pilots have on numerous occasions.

    Another example, the Air France flight from Rio that stalled and crashed into the Atlantic. Yes, the pilots stalled the airplane. But the only reason they were flying manually was because the automation had already given up. The same situation had already occurred with other crews and they had corrected the situation without crashing.

    Take the pilots out, with the current state of technology, and you'll see two orders of magnitude more crashes.

    How many military drones do they have flying around? Only a few, a ridiculously small number compared to passenger aircraft, yet drone crashes are a pretty frequent occurrence. Even though their missions are usually extremely simple: take off in good weather, fly a predetermined GPS trajectory, come back along a fixed trajectory and land in good weather. And they are vastly simpler mechanically because they don't need things like air conditioning, seats, etc. Yet they crash all the time.

    Come on, we can't even write a word processor or spreadsheet that doesn't crash occasionally, and you want to make automatic planes?