Germanwings flight 4U 9525

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

You don't happen to be a Shock Jock for a Radio station do you?

Alan Jones
Ray Hadley

Maybe even a columnist?

Andrew Bolt?

[Eaturbo]

Easy just stop the cockpit door from being able to be locked from the cabin and have the keypad live and be abled to be opened at all times from the outside via its code. Than any staff member can access it. What if the 2 in the cabin pass out and need oxygen or help and the door is isolated, what you just wait until the plane runs out of fuel and crash. Sounds very strange to me.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

You don't happen to be a Shock Jock for a Radio station do you?

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).

[2011G6E]

Good one doing the rounds on Facebook...very true...

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by Eaturbo

Easy just stop the cockpit door from being able to be locked from the cabin and have the keypad live and be abled to be opened at all times from the outside via its code. Than any staff member can access it. What if the 2 in the cabin pass out and need oxygen or help and the door is isolated, what you just wait until the plane runs out of fuel and crash. Sounds very strange to me.

The idea of the reinforced door and associated security is to stop the wrong people getting onto the flightdeck. Under your scenario a crew member in the cabin could be forced by others with the wrong intentions to enter the access code. Having the keypad override available to the pilots helps prevent that.
It's about stopping another 911 but sadly if one of the tech crew wants to then of course they can still do the wrong thing. Look at the rogue FedEx pilot years ago, it's impossible to prevent all situations.

[mik]

There was an episode on air crash investigation where one of the crew...... I can't recall which,
decided he was going to take down the aircraft, he took a claw hammer to work in his travel bag, and when the aircraft was settled and cruising and the crew was relaxed he pulled out the hammer and bashed them from behind...... True story....... from memory one of the crew managed to put up a fight even though his skull was caved in.
I don't remember if they managed to subdue him and save the plane or not,
So this other bloke was not the first bloke to have evil intent to crash an air liner and probably won't be the last.
This is another reason I don't fly.

[wozman]

Originally Posted by mik

There was an episode on air crash investigation where one of the crew...... I can't recall which,
decided he was going to take down the aircraft, he took a claw hammer to work in his travel bag, and when the aircraft was settled and cruising and the crew was relaxed he pulled out the hammer and bashed them from behind...... True story....... from memory one of the crew managed to put up a fight even though his skull was caved in.
I don't remember if they managed to subdue him and save the plane or not,
So this other bloke was not the first bloke to have evil intent to crash an air liner and probably won't be the last.
This is another reason I don't fly.

that's the one xxxooo is talking about and they made it down safely

[mik]

Thanks , it was ages ago I saw it but the claw hammer thing stuck in my mind.

[Franco Cozzo]

I guess we're talking about people with high level of control can turn around and decide to make a political statement with 150+ innocent lives.

Makes you wonder if its worth trying to address these issues by having pilots attend regular counselling/psychology assessments etc so you can identify these issues before they decide to run a plane into mountains.

[Eaturbo]

Originally Posted by xxx000

The idea of the reinforced door and associated security is to stop the wrong people getting onto the flightdeck. Under your scenario a crew member in the cabin could be forced by others with the wrong intentions to enter the access code. Having the keypad override available to the pilots helps prevent that.
It's about stopping another 911 but sadly if one of the tech crew wants to then of course they can still do the wrong thing. Look at the rogue FedEx pilot years ago, it's impossible to prevent all situations.

Sorry don't agree with you, what are they going to force them with. A gun, a knife? If they have a gun than that's near impossible and if they do than they can bring down the plane or try shooting the door locks open. More likely a knife or sharp object and this at least gives passengers a chance to over power the person. What if both pilot and co pilot go nuts than under the current scenario like 911 where the terrorists locked themselves in the cabin, the passengers where unable to get into the cabin as the cabin crew didn't have an excess code. Sorry but I still believe that all crew should have the code and the door should not be able to be locked to disable the keypad.

[JAJH]

It has been a real possibility for quite some time now that modern planes are capable of takeoff, cruising and landing without any human intervention but it begs the age old question, "Who would fly as a passenger in a plane with no-one at the controls?"
It seems most of us would answer the same way and we would feel uncomfortable if this was the case, but it has also been proven many times over that most air crashes are not due to mechanical error, they are due to pilot error, so it begs another question, "doesn't it make more sense to remove the element of human error?
How many of us have flown and not given one bit of thought as to who is flying the plane? Or whether the pilot is suffering some form of mental disease or suicidal or whatever? I, for one wouldn't care less if the plane was on auto-pilot from the moment I boarded, as long as I am safe and we get to our destination without incident. I think it is inevitable as with many others things in life that have become automated.
In today's age of technology, if a plane was fully automated, there would be no need for a cockpit, no way to access it or the need for anti terrorist measures such as steel doors or access codes. I have no doubt this could be done relatively easily, with technology controlling the outcome and removing a greater degree of risk from humans. There may be a risk of computer failure but the risk of that would be considerably less than human failure.

[cheap]

Technology has generally made flying safer, but sometimes it makes things worse. When the engine blew up on QF32 (an A380) the computers/technology/safety features made the crew's job to recover a tad harder.

As they say, Airbus designed by morons requiring genius to fly them, Boeing designed my genius so that morons can fly them.

[mik]

The only way i can see to lessen the chance of a looney taking a plane down is to have more dudes in the pilot area.

[Lotte]

It's become pretty apparent the bloke had psychological issues, and there's indications he was in a messy relationship.

He was also at work against the orders of the doctor (torn up sick note).

Quite simply, mental health, and we have no idea if he tore up the sick note because he wanted to kill himself with a plane, or if he thought he was fine and could go to work, which is just as, if not more likely a scenario. Who knows. All we can do is speculate, and is that really doing anything? The more speculation that goes around, the more potential pain for the families involved.

This is tragic, I know friends of some of the passengers, but it highlights a few things:

- Mental illness isn't easy to see, it isn't easy to deal with and it isn't easy to treat.

- Workplaces, especially high risk work places such as this should be doing mandatory FFW checks on at least an annual basis, including psych assessments.

-Airlines should be seriously considering changes to the cockpit rules - at the very least there should always be two people in the cockpit at all times OR there needs to be something done with the override code denial (what, I don't know, there's pros and cons for all of the options, and I'm not a risk engineer in the flight industry).

[SM1DY]

Originally Posted by mik

There was an episode on air crash investigation where one of the crew...... I can't recall which,
decided he was going to take down the aircraft, he took a claw hammer to work in his travel bag, and when the aircraft was settled and cruising and the crew was relaxed he pulled out the hammer and bashed them from behind...... True story....... from memory one of the crew managed to put up a fight even though his skull was caved in.
I don't remember if they managed to subdue him and save the plane or not,
So this other bloke was not the first bloke to have evil intent to crash an air liner and probably won't be the last.
This is another reason I don't fly.

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

[Yellow_Festiva]

What about this option?

Make planes able to be overridden remotely.

Go off course without cause or fail to respond and the controls can be over ridden and they can sort it out later as to the blame.

As out there as it sounds this idea would have saved several planes like this one as well as 370 and the Helios jet that crashed.

Will need a lot of thinking and hardware modification but what other options are there?

[JAJH]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

What about this option?

Make planes able to be overridden remotely.

Go off course without cause or fail to respond and the controls can be over ridden and they can sort it out later as to the blame.

As out there as it sounds this idea would have saved several planes like this one as well as 370 and the Helios jet that crashed.

Will need a lot of thinking and hardware modification but what other options are there?

I think this idea has some practicality. The military fly drones either autonomously or by someone sitting in a room on the ground often thousands of miles away. The technology is already available to have planes flown remotely, why not adapt it to commercial airlines?

[Road Games]

Knock Knock :

Who's there ?

The Pilot ...
















Boom Tish !

[stazza]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

If there is a pre-existing rule in place they will always find a way.

What if they are both in on it?

There is no fool-proof solution. You can only hope that it isn't you on the next plane.

Bloody hell, there were a bunch of school kids on that plane...

And they can screen all they want - people will just train up on how to behave and what to say when prompted.

If they are intent on doing this they will always find a way. Every system has a weakness.

Why can't the air traffic control be able to remotely take over the plane if they are recieving no reply from the cockbit and the autopilot is turned off? Surely they could freeze-out the controls and take over remotely until clear communication is established and foul play is ruled out?

[stazza]

Originally Posted by JAJH

I think this idea has some practicality. The military fly drones either autonomously or by someone sitting in a room on the ground often thousands of miles away. The technology is already available to have planes flown remotely, why not adapt it to commercial airlines?

Simple - PROFITS ABOVE SAFETY.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by DAZZLR

Knock Knock :

Who's there ?

The Pilot ...
















Boom Tish !

"Not thanks."

Poor form there, grow up.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

"Not thanks."

Poor form there, grow up.

How about you find a sense of humour?

Remote controlled plane sounds like a good idea, surely it could be implemented given the technology in planes already.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by DAZZLR

Knock Knock :

Who's there ?

The Pilot ...
















Boom Tish !

Doesn't take Australians long to make a joke out of things..it's the way we deal with things...I heard my first "Space Shuttle Challenger joke" on the same morning it broke on the news...the one with the punchline that said "NASA" stands for "Need Another Seven Astronauts".

[superyob]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Doesn't take Australians long to make a joke out of things..it's the way we deal with things...I heard my first "Space Shuttle Challenger joke" on the same morning it broke on the news...the one with the punchline that said "NASA" stands for "Need Another Seven Astronauts".

Or where did the space shuttle crew go for their holidays?

All over Florida...

[chamb0]

The idea of remote control backup sounds appealing on the surface but I doubt it will be considered seriously. It introduces whole new layers of risk by giving a great many more people cockpit access, any of whom also have the potential to go rogue. Not to mention cyber vulnerability. Ground controllers can't see everything that the pilots on board can see. How many pilots would feel happy knowing they could be overridden at any moment? A solution which creates new risks is no solution at all. It's worth remembering that the exact nature of the problem hasn't definitively been identified yet. What precisely caused the pilot to take those actions, what exactly happened on the flight deck of MH 370? Until those questions can be answered, how do we know what to fix, and the best way to fix it? How can this be prevented proactively rather than reactively?

The captain couldn't force his way into the cockpit because the door had been toughened to help prevent another 9/11 style attack. Maybe, this time, something will be implemented which won't help contribute to a future tragedy.

Air travel is becoming statistically safer, with tens of millions of uneventful commercial flights every year. Owing to a handful of high profile incidents, is it worth introducing radical and risky "quick fixes"?

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by chamb0

The idea of remote control backup sounds appealing on the surface but I doubt it will be considered seriously.

It should be. It is an option that can be used for a variety of other incidents like loss of cabin pressure or the in-ability of the captain / co pilot to to their job.

It introduces whole new layers of risk by giving a great many more people cockpit access, any of whom also have the potential to go rogue. Not to mention cyber vulnerability.

True - but it also has the ability to remove the greatest weapon a hijacker / suicide pilot has access to - the plane. Drones were mentioned in another post. If the US and other countries can fly these things remotely around the world for spying / defense purposes then there MUST be a way to do this securely for civilian purposes.

Ground controllers can't see everything that the pilots on board can see. How many pilots would feel happy knowing they could be overridden at any moment?

What would the pilots care? If they are doing nothing wrong they would carry on with 'business as usual'. How many here work in an environment where they are closely monitored, tracked and scrutinized? In actual fact, I think passengers would feel better knowing that this sort of security is in place - I know I would.

Sight is not needed at the onset. Many planes are equipped with external cameras that passengers can use, no reason why they can't have internal cameras as well. No reason why these can't be viewed remotely either. Hell, many planes are now offering Wifi to passengers.

Ground controllers also see planes as a dot on a screen. There is a lot of space up there and setting a course for the plane to fly high and straight while asking surrounding planes to keep clear is easily done.

Fighter Jets can the be scrambled from the closest base and they can observe the plane from the outside. A 2 person team in a jet can then take over the flying. One for the jet and 1 for the plane.

This happened with the Helios plane I mentioned earlier. Jets were scrambled and they observed a plane full of passed out people and pilots. The plane just crashed to the ground when the fuel ran out.

A solution which creates new risks is no solution at all. It's worth remembering that the exact nature of the problem hasn't definitively been identified yet.

Well, by reenforcing the cockpit door this has been allowed to happen. Great if the threat is outside, death if the threat is flying the plane and intent on death.

The current solution to threats of flying didn't help the 149 poor souls on this flight. Great lot of good it is to ask me to surrender my bottle of Mt Franklin and my scissors at check-in. What procedures are in place for the pilots? Mistakes are there to be learnt from.

What precisely caused the pilot to take those actions, what exactly happened on the flight deck of MH 370? Until those questions can be answered, how do we know what to fix, and the best way to fix it? How can this be prevented proactively rather than reactively?

Cause isn't the issue. Humans are imperfect beings and are bound to make mistakes. Some by accident, some intentionally, some for profit, some for God. The question is, how can we try and solve them before they happen again?

So many accidents have been caused by human error. Look at what has happened even after this crash - policies are procedures are now under review in the hope that something similar doesn't happen again.

How many people are saying "If we had did this / implemented that a little earlier then there was a good chance this wouldn't have happened"???

The captain couldn't force his way into the cockpit because the door had been toughened to help prevent another 9/11 style attack. Maybe, this time, something will be implemented which won't help contribute to a future tragedy.

And here is the problem. What can you do? have an external over-ride within the plane? Ask the head hostess to carry a spare key? All can be compromised easily by some nut case(s) with a will to die in a blaze of glory. When you are 10km up and in trouble you are on your own. My idea can change that.

Originally Posted by chamb0

Air travel is becoming statistically safer, with tens of millions of uneventful commercial flights every year. Owing to a handful of high profile incidents, is it worth introducing radical and risky "quick fixes"?

Yes, it is worth it.... The costs involved when a plane goes down are astronomical.. how many Billions do you think was spent last year on the 2 Malaysian planes alone??

* Loss of plane hardware
* Loss of trust / credibility
* Insurance payouts to passengers
* Cancellations of other passengers from fear
* Cancellations of hotel / activity bookings
* Recovery of everything
* Searching for what isn't recovered
* Investigation
* Clean up of impact site
* Re-building of ground damage
* Loss of innocent LIFE

etc etc etc etc etc

That stuff isn't cheap.

The aftermath of the 9/11 attacks are, in many cases 'risky and radical quick fixes'..

When you look at all options available, I can't think of an alternative. Remove the weapon from the equation and reduce the impact of the incident.

I'm not having a go at you Chamb0. The real answer is that there is no final answer. As a person who flies quite a bit with a Design degree I just like to 'over think' solutions to problems.

[gcg2503]

Originally Posted by DAZZLR

Knock Knock :

Who's there ?

The Pilot ...
















Boom Tish !

You have more issues than Parliament if you even think that is remotely funny.

[Yellow_Festiva]

More interesting reading....

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/...id=mailsignout

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/german...id=mailsignout

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/...id=mailsignout

[Road Games]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

"Not thanks."

Poor form there, grow up.

Heads up , i don't care what anyone has to say in relation to whatever I type on the internet...

You grow up , and learn not to reply if you don't agree with something

[Road Games]

Originally Posted by gcg2503

You have more issues than Parliament if you even think that is remotely funny.

Glad I don't care what you think then George

Don't like something i type then report it or don't comment....

I have reported heaps of things that were not removed , hence now I type what I want ..

But within reason and the T&C's