Germanwings flight 4U 9525

[xxx000]

In the case of the Helios flight the passengers and crew observed by the fighter jet weren't passed out, they were dead

one person was still alive, just, but probably suffering brain damage already

[Windsor220]

They should be able to build a system that stops a plane crashing into the ground. Similar to what cars have now which make them brake automatically before hitting a wall or car. As soon as the plane gets too close it automatically pulls up or levels off.

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by xxx000

In the case of the Helios flight the passengers and crew observed by the fighter jet weren't passed out, they were dead

one person was still alive, just, but probably suffering brain damage already

This can't be stated as fact. Yes, some may have been dead, but some may have been simply passed out.

From Wikipedia:

Many of the bodies recovered were burned beyond recognition by the post-impact fire. Autopsies on the crash victims showed that all were alive at the time of impact, but it could not be determined whether they were conscious as well.

The fact that someone was still observed moving means that the oxygen levels were very low, and hadn't been like that for all that long prior.

Had the plane landed some may have been saved (long shot). The families would have had intact bodies to bury and the plane could have been investigated and the reason found.

10's of millions would have been saved at a quick guess.

It was a while since I read up on this. Full explanation here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522

[gcg2503]

Originally Posted by xxx000

In the case of the Helios flight the passengers and crew observed by the fighter jet weren't passed out, they were dead

one person was still alive, just, but probably suffering brain damage already

Autopsies showed most were still alive.

[MITCHAY]

Remotely controlling planes opens up another avenue of vulnerability. As far as risks are concerned this is of the low risk, high consequence variety.

A second person at all times in the cockpit I think is enough to mitigate the risk. The cockpit does need the ability to lockout people but with another person in there it is highly unlikely to lockout the good guys.

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

Remotely controlling planes opens up another avenue of vulnerability. As far as risks are concerned this is of the low risk, high consequence variety.

A second person at all times in the cockpit I think is enough to mitigate the risk. The cockpit does need the ability to lockout people but with another person in there it is highly unlikely to lockout the good guys.

I think that was already an existing rule on this carrier???

Rules like this are always broken, because most would think that there will be no harm from it.

2 guys in the cockpit, probably good mates. One wants to go to the John.. as if the other guy is going to say 'Noooo... we need to call the stewardess to come here first to watch over things 'caus them's the rules'. Course not. You both think deep down that the rule is a joke and that co workers respect and trust each other... So both don't bother to follow it (and probably did this dozens of times before without incident). I bet that's a similar situation to what happened here.

Remember the cockpit shots from the other Malaysian plane with the attractive ladies and the pilot? That was never meant to happen as well.

We shouldn't speed, we shouldn't over claim on our tax, we shouldn't eat food that has been left out or in the fridge for too long, we shouldn't ignore health issues etc etc.

Yes, we shouldn't, but we all do - all the time.

Then we have cultural issues where a junior is to ALWAYS obey and respect a senior no matter the 'rules'... I think this happened in the Egyptian Air crash.

Rules are great when we all stick to them.

[NTF6]

Originally Posted by Windsor220

They should be able to build a system that stops a plane crashing into the ground. Similar to what cars have now which make them brake automatically before hitting a wall or car. As soon as the plane gets too close it automatically pulls up or levels off.

How would it ever land?

[Windsor220]

Originally Posted by NTF6

How would it ever land?

Make it recognise runways or open areas or as long as the departure angle and speed is ok it should allow it to land. With the technology we have these days the plane should be able to protect itself from stupid stuff like this.

[Charliewool]

Originally Posted by NTF6

How would it ever land?

On a conveyor belt of course!

[GasoLane]

As far as controlling Aircraft from the ground, England's Daily Mail has this report...................


The ability to direct pilotless aircraft from the ground is well established – military drones have long been used for surveillance and targeted missile attacks.

In 2013, a 16-seater Jetstream airliner became the first passenger plane to fly ‘unmanned’ across UK civilian airspace.
It was controlled remotely from the ground for the 500-mile journey, though a pilot on board handled the take-off and landing.

But the idea of flying a plane carrying hundreds of passengers without any human intervention continues to worry experts.
Britain’s Civil Aviation Authority said there was no remote control system currently available that could cope with navigating the country’s crowded skies.

A spokesman added: ‘There are companies working on it, but the technology doesn’t exist in a practical or useable form yet.’
Pilots’ union Balpa fears using pilotless planes or allowing authorities to remotely take control of a stricken or hijacked aircraft – and believes it could leave planes in danger of being ‘hacked’ from afar.

A spokesman said: ‘Having at least two pilots on the flight deck has helped make flying an incredibly safe form of public transport. The focus in the wake of this tragic accident is likely to be on ensuring that both pilots always have access to the cockpit and cannot be prevented from re-entering.

‘With this and any other measures we must act with careful consideration to ensure we don’t create new safety risks or concerns such as those raised by the vulnerability of any form of remote control of a passenger aircraft.’

Aviation safety analyst Chris Yates said there had been frequent calls for remote-controlled aircraft takeover systems since 9/11. But he also argued that this could pose more risks to passengers, with ground controllers unable to see all that a pilot on board could see.
There is also a danger the technology would allow cyber-terrorists to hack into an airliner’s controls.

Mr Yates added: ‘There has always been a desire to have the ability to control planes from the ground … But the ground element of that was entirely pooh-poohed by the aviation industry for a whole variety of reasons, not least of which is aircraft safety.

‘Questions will always be posed as to whether pilots should be taken out of the equation in the event of something like this so ground control would take over … I personally would not feel comfortable getting on any airliner where control could be taken away from the pilots and co-pilots.’


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz3VrUO5wRa

[mik]

Originally Posted by SM1DY

Based on this rationale, no-one should ever leave their house.

You might be right, but the thought of being strapped into a aluminium can that relys on so many things going right to reach your destination scares the **** out of me.
I'll take a boat or a train or a car or a bus any day .

[JAJH]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

As far as controlling Aircraft from the ground, England's Daily Mail has this report...................


The ability to direct pilotless aircraft from the ground is well established – military drones have long been used for surveillance and targeted missile attacks.

In 2013, a 16-seater Jetstream airliner became the first passenger plane to fly ‘unmanned’ across UK civilian airspace.
It was controlled remotely from the ground for the 500-mile journey, though a pilot on board handled the take-off and landing.

But the idea of flying a plane carrying hundreds of passengers without any human intervention continues to worry experts.
Britain’s Civil Aviation Authority said there was no remote control system currently available that could cope with navigating the country’s crowded skies.

A spokesman added: ‘There are companies working on it, but the technology doesn’t exist in a practical or useable form yet.’
Pilots’ union Balpa fears using pilotless planes or allowing authorities to remotely take control of a stricken or hijacked aircraft – and believes it could leave planes in danger of being ‘hacked’ from afar.

A spokesman said: ‘Having at least two pilots on the flight deck has helped make flying an incredibly safe form of public transport. The focus in the wake of this tragic accident is likely to be on ensuring that both pilots always have access to the cockpit and cannot be prevented from re-entering.

‘With this and any other measures we must act with careful consideration to ensure we don’t create new safety risks or concerns such as those raised by the vulnerability of any form of remote control of a passenger aircraft.’

Aviation safety analyst Chris Yates said there had been frequent calls for remote-controlled aircraft takeover systems since 9/11. But he also argued that this could pose more risks to passengers, with ground controllers unable to see all that a pilot on board could see.
There is also a danger the technology would allow cyber-terrorists to hack into an airliner’s controls.

Mr Yates added: ‘There has always been a desire to have the ability to control planes from the ground … But the ground element of that was entirely pooh-poohed by the aviation industry for a whole variety of reasons, not least of which is aircraft safety.

‘Questions will always be posed as to whether pilots should be taken out of the equation in the event of something like this so ground control would take over … I personally would not feel comfortable getting on any airliner where control could be taken away from the pilots and co-pilots.’


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz3VrUO5wRa

This seems to be a typical answer from so-called "industry experts". Now, whilst not making light of their credentials it all comes down to one simple argument.....no-one has come up with a viable way to overcome the problem of unmanned flights.
I remember many years ago when we were going through the oil crisis, someone coined the phrase, "we don't have an oil crisis, we have an idea crisis!" and I think this sums it up. It's like many, many things over the years when people would say, "you can't do this or that or that won't work", all it means is the solution wasn't available at the time.
In due course someone will develop an idea which will solve the problem. As they say, "necessity is the mother of invention".

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by NTF6

How would it ever land?

Probably be able to program it so that it knows where it can touch the ground such as airports etc.

[Dash_XR]

I don't think unmanned passenger flights will ever be viable. As it stands more planes are brought down by computer error then people.

No need for knee jerk reactions just better monitor pilot mental health and enforce the two in the cockpit rule.

[JAJH]

Originally Posted by Dash_XR

I don't think unmanned passenger flights will ever be viable. As it stands more planes are brought down by computer error then people.

No need for knee jerk reactions just better monitor pilot mental health and enforce the two in the cockpit rule.

No, this information is incorrect, about 70% of plane crashes are due to pilot error.

[mik]

you ladys and gents might have an interest in this , just load the page and wait a minute.

http://www.flightradar24.com/19.24,24.85/4

Edit: how cool is that ???? you can click on a plane and air speed , height, flight no/details . all comes up on the screen.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by mik

you ladys and gents might have an interest in this , just load the page and wait a minute.

http://www.flightradar24.com/19.24,24.85/4

Thats a LOT of planes, but looks like they've learned their lesson about flying over Ukraine, everyone is avoiding it.

[mik]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Thats a LOT of planes, but looks like they've learned their lesson about flying over Ukraine, everyone is avoiding it.

AS above edited post Big Damo , click on a plane .

[CoupeKing]

Thing is, even if we didn't fly around the globe and chose a boat instead, then there'd be more sinkings, collisions etc etc from the sheer volume of extra ships. Rogue/Incompetent Captains can sail ships too!

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by CoupeKing

Thing is, even if we didn't fly around the globe and chose a boat instead, then there'd be more sinkings, collisions etc etc from the sheer volume of extra ships. Rogue/Incompetent Captains can sail ships too!

Costa Concordia lol

[aussiblue]

you ladys and gents might have an interest in this , just load the page and wait a minute.

http://www.flightradar24.com/19.24,24.85/4

Edit: how cool is that ???? you can click on a plane and air speed , height, flight no/details . all comes up on the screen.

Been using it ( I also have their app on my phone) and other similar flight trackers for some years but you will find that some aircraft don't transmit tracking data and worse :

a) some pilots seemingly randomly turn this system off; and
b) some areas seem to block the signal or don't have tracking monitors in place.

so you unnecessarily stress out when a aircraft a loved one is on suddenly vanishes from the screen without explanation.

[aussiblue]

and if you are interested there is also a similar shipping tracker: http://shipfinder.co/

[aussiblue]

I guess some aircraft don't use it or turn it off so terrorists and the like can't use it as a means to help target aircraft with surface to air missiles. Some systems for the same reasons (or perhaps so they can hide aircraft that fly too low breaching noise related regs) have a built in delay on what is displayed e.g. http://webtrak5.bksv.com/per3

[FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0]

Originally Posted by mik

you ladys and gents might have an interest in this , just load the page and wait a minute.

http://www.flightradar24.com/19.24,24.85/4

Edit: how cool is that ???? you can click on a plane and air speed , height, flight no/details . all comes up on the screen.

A great resource. I tracked my mum on her flight to Amsterdam last year, saw that the aircraft had touched down and could even work out which gate they disembarked at

Sent her a "welcome to Amsterdam" text that she received as she was walking through the terminal concourse. She replied "how the heck did you know that!".

Also found it to be very accurate, timing wise. Had an ex-RAAF King Air B300 pilot over for a bbq one night and showed him this site. We then noticed a King Air making its way back to East Sale from a round trip to Launceston (to carry out ILS approaches, according to my pilot friend). We tracked it back to East Sale, and as it approached Sale, we heard it overhead. I estimated about 10 - 20 second difference!

Craig H

[aussiblue]

Sent her a "welcome to Amsterdam" text that she received as she was walking through the terminal ....

Nice when you can do that but I tracked a REX flight from Adelaide to Whyalla on Sunday with my son on board and it "vanished" half way there so I was left wondering and googling "air crash South Australia" for half an hour.

[aussiblue]

.. and sometimes something else goes wrong with the system so it an aircraft location is displayed as 90, 180 or 360 degrees off course. So the Melbourne to Perth flight seems to be hijacked and heading to Antarctica, disappears over the Southern Ocean then reappears on course near Kalgoorlie.

[Dash_XR]

Originally Posted by JAJH

No, this information is incorrect, about 70% of plane crashes are due to pilot error.

Yeah if what I said got out no one would fly lol.

[Bill M]

Originally Posted by cheap

If I was, I would not be hanging out here on putting up with a bunch of rabit nonsensical left wing comments and the pathetically useless ideologue that comes from certain peoples (you're excluded from that group of course).

Yep shock jock!

[Bill M]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

This can't be stated as fact. Yes, some may have been dead, but some may have been simply passed out.

From Wikipedia:


The fact that someone was still observed moving means that the oxygen levels were very low, and hadn't been like that for all that long prior.

Had the plane landed some may have been saved (long shot). The families would have had intact bodies to bury and the plane could have been investigated and the reason found.

10's of millions would have been saved at a quick guess.

It was a while since I read up on this. Full explanation here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522

Thanks for sharing, that was a sobering read.
Bill

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by gcg2503

Autopsies showed most were still alive.

No doubt suffering severe brain damage so as good as dead.