Germanwings flight 4u9525 CVR. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 04:05:10 pm
content: Have anyone seen inside this type off CVR. It seems to me it is in good shape after the crash. I don't understand why they can't extract data.Alexander.

author: Towger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 04:39:40 pm
content: There was an unconfirmed report that the chip was 'missing'

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 04:46:55 pm
content: I think the chip missing is for the Flight Data Recorder. Not the voice recorder. I don't even know if CVR uses solid state chips or a magnetic tape.Alexander.

author: HighVoltage
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 04:50:43 pm
content: German news just reported that they think the data from the CVR can be retrieved but it is not confirmed.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 08:28:18 pm
content: Just did some googling. The CVR file is recovered, and an official has listened to it. Voices and sounds, they didn't make any further comment, as you'd expect.With the FDR, they found the heavily damaged casing, but the circuit card is missing, not yet found. Not 'the chip' missing, that story was just someone being imprecise.

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 08:51:36 pm
content: I find it difficult to believe that the enclosure cracked open and the card is gone. I find it more possible for the hole enclosure (the orange cylinder) to be missing.Alexander.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2015, 09:33:50 pm
content: QuoteI agree. Supposedly this thing can sustain 3000+g. And if the case is disintegrated, there is a severe design issue here.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 04:46:00 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on March 25, 2015, 09:33:50 pmIt could be something close to it that caused the damage - there's lots of metal pieces around to act as projectiles/cutting surfaces, and the forces areextreme...I believe mikeselectricstuff has an FDR teardown video.

author: dexters_lab
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 09:28:29 am
content: from what i understand the voice recorder has been listened to, apparently one of the pilots was locked out of the cockpit during the descent to the crash site and can be heard trying to break the door down.i think the data recorder is still missing, there were reports that the 'casing' had been found but what they mean by that i dont know

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 10:36:07 am
content: Scary.

author: Richard Head
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 11:26:59 am
content: If that's true the "locked-cockpit-door" policy is coming back to haunt us.

author: Artlav
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 11:32:35 am
content: Most up to date info is here -http://avherald.com/h?article=483a5651&opt=0The "pilot banging on the door" story is unconfirmed yet, and does not sound realistic - there are override codes to open the door from outside, and there is a buzzer sound when they are used.Unless everyone on board was confused, i.e. by a depressurisation event.AFAIK, the FDRcasewas found, but the armoured capsule wasn't inside. Nothing too strange, since the case is not designed to stand the stress.

author: mzzj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 11:42:22 am
content: Quote from: Artlav on March 26, 2015, 11:32:35 amSomewhere in the Pprune.org 1000 pages long gossip thread was A320 door functions explained. If I remember correctly there was silenced option for the buzzer and "double-locked" for the door so that it wont open with the code keypad.

author: Artlav
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 12:04:20 pm
content: As far as i know, the door can be opened from outside by entering a code. The the buzzer sounds, and if the ones inside the cockpit do nothing, then the door unlocks 10-30 seconds later.If the ones inside the cockpit block the override, then the door won't open and the code won't work again for several minutes.This way if the door gets locked on an empty cockpit or incapacitated pilot, it can be reopened, but at the same time if terrorists force the code from the crew, it won't do them much good.Haven't heard of any silent override.EDIT: Now, there have been a press conference a few minutes ago:Quote

author: HighVoltage
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 12:11:44 pm
content: This is how the door system works on an Airbus:Allegedly now it is said, that the copilot closed the door from the inside mechanically, so it could not have been opened by the pilot from the outside.

author: dexters_lab
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 01:18:13 pm
content: Quote from: HighVoltage on March 26, 2015, 12:11:44 pmsome hammy acting there!so, its looking deliberate then?would they have been on autopilot at that stage? guessing the first officer would have to disengage to make a descent?hopefully they can find the data recorder and get some more answers

author: ElektroQuark
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 03:15:06 pm
content: It looks like the copilot changed the autopilot from 38000 to 100 feet altitude.

author: Kevman
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 08:27:31 pm
content: Quote from: Artlav on March 26, 2015, 12:04:20 pmUgh, I do not envy those that have listened to that tape. That's horror story stuff.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 08:50:20 pm
content: I read about the voice recorder revelations at work today... scary stuff.However, I did try and come up with a more innocent and tragic explanation for the curious chain of events. It's probably totally wrong but here it is anyway..The voices indicate the copilot was sociable and chatty before the pilot left the cockpit. So things appeared very normal up to this point.Suppose the copilot had a funny turn after the pilot left the cockpit. They are trained to spot the signs and symptoms of decompression sickness and maybe he (wrongly) thought there was decompression elsewhere in the plane and this was why he felt ill.He would know he would only have a few seconds to act so maybe he hit the descent button (in case he passed out but would hope to recover conciousness at a lower altitude). He would have also donned his oxygen mask.But maybe he also made a fatal decision to try and preserve oxygen levels in the cockpit. Maybe he thought he should lock the cockpit door to prevent the crew from opening it and losing his dwindling oxygen stash. Maybe he assumed total resposibility for the plane and assumed the pilot would be unconscious back in the toilet or main fuselage area. So he was the only vital cog in the whole plane.But then he passed out for real and this would explain his total silence from then on. Otherwise, someone disturbed enough to commit an act like this would surely be muttering 'something' in their final moments. Maybe not "goodbye cruel world" but maybe some depressed rambling with a few obscenities thrown in?There's probably a few flaws in the above but maybe there is a similar scenario that fits the evidence better. It just seems so odd that he would just sit there quietly and not speak at all for the whole episode...

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 09:31:01 pm
content: Quote from: firewalker on March 25, 2015, 08:51:36 pmIt appears the co-pilot willingly flew the airplane into the face of a mountain at full speed. If you look at pictures from the crash site you'll see the airplane has been shattered into millions of small pieces. I'm not surprised the data recorder got damaged from that much violence.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 09:32:27 pm
content: I don't think breathing from an oxygen mask would sound the same as "normal breathing", not to mention a microphone sensitive enough to pick up sounds of breathing would hear sounds of a mask being put on.A scary series of events indeed... the pilot would've known something was wrong the moment he couldn't get back into the cockpit.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 09:41:07 pm
content: QuoteYes, you are probably correct. But no explanation so far seems to be totally plausible. It's the total silence from the copilot that I can't fathom. Would he really just sit there calmly breathing (and ignoring the pilot) whilst he ploughed into a mountain at 400mph? I'd expect there to be some clues in the way he was breathing. Maybe he could have been chuckling as well as just breathing if he really was trying to crash the plane.It must have been awful for the pilot. He must have known the door wouldn't break open and he would know he was doomed when the low altitude warning sounded... scary stuff indeed.

author: AG6QR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 10:08:34 pm
content: Quote from: G0HZU on March 26, 2015, 08:50:20 pmDecompression, as in a flaw in the fuselage that allows pressure to reduce to ambient at 38,000 feet, isn't hard to diagnose. Eardrums bursting, sudden cold due to adiabatic expansion of the air, and immediate fog would be clues, as well as the gauge on the panel showing the cabin altitude increasing (the cabin pressure is indicated as an equivalent altitude, not directly as a pressure). The noise of decompression would have been heard on the CVR.QuoteClosing the door would do absolutely nothing for oxygen levels, and a pilot knows that. The air at altitude is about 80% nitrogen, 20% oxygen, the same as at sea level. The difference is that the pressure is reduced. Closing the door doesn't increase the pressure. Your lungs require a certain minimum partial pressure of O2 in order to keep the blood oxygenated. When the overall atmospheric pressure is reduced, the way the partial pressure of O2 is maintained is through the use of the oxygen mask, and the way it increases the concentration of oxygen delivered to your lungs.His oxygen would be delivered by the tank in the pilot's O2 system, regardless of whether the door was open or closed. The system is certified to keep two pilots breathing for far longer than needed to make the descent. With one pilot absent, it would last twice as long, and would be very much more than sufficient.Furthermore, the pilot has memorized the checklist for use in case of sudden decompression (pilots are required to consult and use a written checklist for procedures which they do every single day, but they must have memorized the checklists for procedures which probably won't be needed during an entire career.) The decompression checklist does not include locking the cabin door.QuoteBut he wouldn't pass out if he had the O2 mask on. He also wouldn't pass out if there had been no genuine decompression, and the evidence suggests no genuine decompression. Finally, the CVR indicates the sounds of people banging on the door to try to break it down, and people screaming. If the air were insufficient for a seated pilot to maintain consciousness, it would be much less sufficient for someone standing and moving around, with the kind of exertion required to bang on the door like that.QuoteHow can you predict the behavior of "someone disturbed enough to commit an act like this?". Do such disturbed people always act rationally and predictably?

author: manzini
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 10:25:02 pm
content: Some off topic question about suicide quick theory:About the suicide theory (or conspiracy), it is revealing that if he really was a suicide without negligence of the company, compensation, according to European standards of € 300,000 per victim, would be the minimum.Non negligence can be considered if the company certified that the suicide pilot met all assessments, regulatory requirements and psychological checkups to fly.I believe that when pass the shock, the question is purely monetary and lawyers battle. The widow's of two close business colleages that I have lost, will have a long legal battleMeanwhile, thousands of planes fly every day, without sending data online, even as a backup measure. I think (not sure) that Rolls Royce engines send telemetry online around de world. I ignore and my geek sense don't understand why in 2015, this is not yet done or why the door control is not allowed from the control center, while we are able to manage military drones or activate martian probes. It is the safest transport, ok, but people die. Maybe a Martian probe cost more than all material losses and compensations that in 2,4, 5 or 10 years of civil air crashes.Excuse my bittersweet but I still don't understand the technical limits to do this. I keep seeing these devices as anachronistic as 5 1/4 floppy disks to store vital data.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 10:42:17 pm
content: QuoteCost.QuoteYou have to figure out the benefits and costs of everything you do. We are not in the risk avoidance business - ie. no matter how thorough you are, someone somewhere somehow will figure out a way to defeat it.

author: manzini
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 11:00:08 pm
content: Yes cost, In plain, this is my first justification, but the cost of any replacement, or aprovisioned piece by operative regulations is huge.A simple whell-screw costs 300€. The parts used for progressive braking the plane, 3,500€ per unit. Each wheel have 11 of these.I believe that using the current infrastructure for in flight mobile or internet, used to monitor the aircraft would cost less than the entire set of wheels.A wheel is vital piece. From today, also the remote door control.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 11:04:24 pm
content: Quote.decompression doesn't have to be sudden. I've seen documentaries on the TV where people are deliberately flown up to higher altitudes in an unpressurised plane and they sit there without an oxygen mask as an experiment. They begin to suffer subtle symptoms as the pressure slowly decreases and eventually they can't even do simple tasks like write their own name down on a piece of paper. Their blood oxygen levels begin to fall yet they are still awake and unaware how ill they are. I seriously doubt that their eardrums burst at any point. I guess it must be similar to a diabetic going a bit hypo.QuoteYes he could if he was genuinely ill. I'm not sure you understood the reasoning behind my post. I proposed that he fell ill and wrongly 'thought' he was suffering from decompression symptoms.i.e. in my scenario there never was a decompression. If someone had a partial stroke or seizure then putting a mask on isn't going to help much is it? They can still pass out eventually if they have a seizure.QuoteI wasn't referring to the relative composition of the air, rather than the qty of air molecules. I assume (wrongly?) that the cockpit would be designed such that with a closed and sealed door it would be able to maintain pressure longer than if the door was opened whilst there was a degree of pressure loss in the main fuselage? It would make sense to me at least to keep the cockpit door closed in that scenario.However, I've now seen some more information that has been released that suggests the copilot became less sociable to the pilot as the flight reached cruising altitude. So maybe they had a few words and the copilot then planned to crash the plane?

author: AF6LJ
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 11:17:32 pm
content: Quote from: Towger on March 25, 2015, 04:39:40 pmSomeone might get fired over that one.

author: AF6LJ
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 11:25:45 pm
content: Quote from: HighVoltage on March 26, 2015, 12:11:44 pmThanks to 9/11 mass paranoia 150 or so people are now dead.You can't make the world safe, people who want to be safe should live in the nearest maximum security prison, they can find the best safety there.The second lesson of this tragic accident is the assumption that you can stop a deranged person from gaining access to an airplane to fly into the ground, a building of a school full of children. History has shown that mad men (and woman) have made their way into trusted positions, including the highest of government positions (they seem to be able to access those positions much easier than the flight deck of an airliner).So what have we learned from this lesson?No matter how large the Government institution, it is unreasonable to expect them to maintain your safety, that is the job of the individual.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2015, 11:46:41 pm
content: Apparently the US, but not Europe, have a rule that if flight crew leaves the cockpit, a member of cabin crew must replace them while they are out.Seems sensible.

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 03:42:51 am
content: It will probably be implemented shortly. It should have been made a requirement much earlier, after a string of incidents involving the locked cockpit door and suicidal personnel. Some people in high places will be highly embarrassed.In retrospect, a security system that can lock the captain out of his cockpit, seems like a dumb idea. At least, give him a personal security code to immediately override the door locking mechanism.

author: AG6QR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 05:12:50 am
content: Quote from: G0HZU on March 26, 2015, 11:04:24 pmPilots are taught very early in training to trust their instruments more than their subjective feelings. There is a gauge in the cockpit that displays the effective cabin altitude. If a pilot were feeling a bit ill and suspecting hypoxia, but not seeing obvious signs of explosive decompression, the pilot would check the cabin altitude and don his oxygen mask before starting an emergency descent.

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 05:56:00 am
content: Quote from: Wytnucls on March 27, 2015, 03:42:51 amGiven them a code such as that could allow a terrorist to obtain the code and defeat the door lock with no means of the flight crew stopping them. The pilot might forget or otherwise write the code down somewhere. Under severe stress they may give up the code.I think a multi-crew system where each cabin crew member has a simple key device which contains the cryptographic code which they all need to use together to override the door. To prevent terrorists from abusing this mechanism each crew member can erase their key in the event of a serious situation. This way the cabin crew can override the door if needed without risking a door override that is malicious.A pilot who wants to commit suicide will have to attack other crew members outside the cockpit to disable this mechanism which would allow the crew to lock down the cockpit by having the remaining pilot lock the door and the crew erase their keys. Trapping the attacker outside.If the malicious user is in control of the flight deck the crew outside can all use their devices to gain access to fight back.

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 06:00:44 am
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on March 26, 2015, 11:46:41 pmThis doesn't actually fix the whole door lock override problem as a suicidal person could just kill or otherwise incapacitate the person with them and then we are back to square one. Assuming someone is willing to commit suicide and kill everyone with them it certainly is possible. A fellow co-worker would not expect to be attacked/murdered so there is the element of surprise which is bad.Having a multi-part override fixes the door lockout problem while not compromising the door security as crew outside can erase their keys and getting all of them without this occurring would be very difficult unless everyone was working together.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 06:25:01 am
content: Any speculation regarding a decompression, either catastrophic or gradual, is NOT supported by the evidence provided by the CVR (assuming the reports are correct). A catastrophic decompression makes a heck of a racket and so do the cockpit alarms when a gradual decompression occurs. None of these noises have been reported.Also, if a pressure differential is detected between the cockpit and the cabin, the electrical door locks disengage allowing the door to open freely to equalise the pressure differential. If this didn't happen, the door and or bulkhead structure could easily be damaged by the 8.5psi pressure. That force could total several dozens to hundred tonnes over the area of the door/bulkhead.Relevant info directly quoted from the A320 flight crew manual:A forward-opening hinge door separates the cockpit from the passenger compartment. It has threeelectric locking strikes, controlled by the flight crew. In normal conditions, when the door is closed,they remain locked. When there is a request to enter the cockpit, the flight crew can authorize entryby unlocking the door, that remains closed until it is pushed open.When the flight crew does not respond to requests for entry, the door can also be unlocked bythe cabin crew, by entering a two to seven-digit code (programmed by the airline) on the keypad,installed on the lateral side of the Forward Attendant Panel (FAP).The door is bulletproof and fully compliant with rapid decompression requirements.A mechanical override enables the flight crew to open the door from the cockpit side.A deadbolt is installed at the level of the center latch area of the cockpit door. This deadbolt bolts thedoor from the cockpit side, in the event that more than one locking latch strike fails, or in the case ofa total CLS failure.*** (Note - this deadbolt is NOT on ALL A320 aircraft, just a specified serial number block. I have not been able to ascertain if the Germanwings aircraft was so equipped)The Cockpit Door Locking System (CDLS) provides a means of electrically locking and unlocking thecockpit door. This system is mainly composed of :- A keypad, located in the forward cabin, near the cockpit door,- A toggle switch, located in the center pedestal’s Cockpit Door panel,- A control unit and its CKPT DOOR CONT normal panel, located on the overhead panel,- A buzzer.The keypad enables the cabin crew to request access to the cockpit. There are two different accessrequest types : “Routine” and “Emergency” access request(The routine code is known by all crew in the airline, the emergency code is known by all flight crew and senior cabin attendants.)The toggle switch enables the flight crew to lock or unlock the cockpit door, following an accessrequest, thereby allowing or denying the entry to the cockpit.The cockpit door control unit is the system controller, in charge of :- Locking or unlocking the door latches, upon flight crew action.- Unlocking the door, in case of cockpit decompression (the door then opens towards the cockpitunder differential pressure).- Indicating system failures of electrical latches and pressure sensors.- Activating the access request buzzer and turning on the keypad LEDs.The buzzer sounds in the cockpit for 1 to 9 s to indicate that a routine access request has beenmade, or sounds continuously if an emergency access procedure has been initiated.CENTRAL PEDESTAL COCKPIT DOOR PANELThe secured cockpit door opening is controlled by a toggle switch, located on the central pedestal.COCKPIT DOOR toggle switch:UNLOCK position : This position is used to enable the cabin crewmember to open the door. The switch must be pulled and maintained in the unlock position until the door is pushed open.NORM positon : All latches are locked, and EMERGENCY access is possible for the cabin crew.LOCK position : Once the button has been moved to this position, the door is locked ; emergency access, the buzzer, and the keypad are inhibited for a preselected time (5 to 20 min - as defined by the airline).(Use of the emergency code will unlock the door unless the LOCK position is selected on the control panel.)I hope this information is useful.

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 06:38:10 am
content: Also there is a video that describes the system.https://youtu.be/ROIH3KCEIvsIt is pretty stupidly one sided. Anyone in the cockpit can forever lock out the door with no secure method to override it from the outside.

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 06:57:25 am
content: I don't see any scenario where a captain would reveal his door code to anyone, knowing that it would mean death for all on board.Your procedure is far too cumbersome when time is of the essence.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 07:00:29 am
content: Quote from: Wytnucls on March 27, 2015, 06:57:25 amThe codes are not personally assigned. The emergency code is the same for the entire airline and could well be known by 'bad actors' through social engineering methods, etc.

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 07:03:01 am
content: Quote from: Wytnucls on March 27, 2015, 06:57:25 amHe doesn't have to give it up, I doubt they could change the codes constantly. The existing system's only protection against that is that the cockpit can always lock out the outside.The override code being remembered by one person is extremely risky as it is a fixed number a human remembers. He may accidentally give it up or have it stolen. Worse the suicidal person just has to kill or incapacitate the other pilot which could easily occur by surprise when they try to re-enter.MH370 took hours to crash and is likely some suicide (CVR would be useless, crash in the middle of nowhere, turn off all transponders)Germanwings people had minutes to unlock the door this is plenty of time to get the crew to use their access card on a door.Airbus planes have flight control laws that prevent a direct unsafe nosedive and with improved systems that do forward looking terrain avoidance automatically you give your cabin crew plenty of time.A multi-key system is not that complex it is just a bit slower but that is the point.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 07:03:12 am
content: Quote from: a210210200 on March 27, 2015, 06:38:10 amIf you consider a terrorist taking the flight attendants hostage and torturing them until they open the door, a fit pilot can refuse to allow the door to open. That's what the 30s of beeping is for. Its the pilot's situation evaluation time.

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 07:07:35 am
content: Quote from: coppice on March 27, 2015, 07:03:12 amI do consider that in my idea. If they attempt that any one cabin crew member could erase their key device rendering the door safe and the terrorists unable to override the door. This action could be done without them noticing as the flight attendants don't actually know the code the devices they hold do. If they erase them the terrorists would not be able to tell this and they could be "forced" to hand over a useless key.The system requires all the crew members in the cabin to be simultaneously taken hostage and tortured with everyone giving up without erasing their key device covertly.If anything a terrorist could use human factors to cause the door to open by recording a message with the flight attendants voice that is normal and playing to back through the intercom to request access. Once they do so they gain control of the flight deck and the crew have no method to override the door locking system.

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 07:28:13 am
content: There is no card reader on the door. Codes are memorized.You are mistaken. Time is limited. A few seconds only. Any Airbus pilot knows how to override control law computers and fly the aircraft in a steep dive.

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 07:31:31 am
content: Quote from: Wytnucls on March 27, 2015, 07:28:13 amI know there is no card reader I'm proposing a override system.The Germanwings flight did not nosedive it would take some time to override the computer systems not to mention if it was a terrorist they may want to hit a nearby target and not immediately nose dive. This proposed change would provide people a fighting chance at saving their flight. Suicide is a bit complex and in both this case and MH370 the flights did not immediately nosedive.A person abusing the door locking system may not even be a pilot so may not know how to override the flight control system. (It could very well be the second person they are now mandating)

author: sleemanj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 07:38:52 am
content: I guess bus drivers are always just perfectly balanced happy people who would never consider driving off the side of a mountain or bridge, because I don't remember ever seeing a dual control bus with two drivers in the cabin at all times :-/

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 07:55:04 am
content: It takes one second to disable the computers. Your best chance of survival with a suicidal pilot is by letting the other one in again asp, not by pooling multiple security cards.A 'second person in the cockpit' rule will reduce the threat to a large extent.

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 08:17:12 am
content: Quote from: Wytnucls on March 27, 2015, 07:55:04 amA pin code that cannot be locked out is a very large security hole a terrorist only needs to get this code by some means (i doubt anyone can remember a constantly changing high security code).It does not take one second to disable the computers and suicidal people usually want to hid their suicide from being discovered and previous plane crashes where this happened has indicated this.By your logic if they can throw the plane into such a severe condition in one second then there is nothing you can do as you wouldn't be able to enter the code in any case let alone open the door.A second person in the cockpit rule does absolutely nothing against a suicidal crew member. The person committing suicide could very well be that second person.An instant use override code that a pilot remembers is useless too because other crew/pilots know about this system and just have to kill or incapacitate that person inside the cockpit.Pooling multiple security cards allows people to stop the Germanwings, MH370 type situations and any other copycat that want to hid their suicide attempt.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 08:35:11 am
content: Quote from: a210210200 on March 27, 2015, 08:17:12 amAnd that has happened.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Express_Flight_705A cargo aircraft (no pax), but a deadheading pilot went ape-shit with hammers and a spear gun.The only way to mitigate against flight crew suicide attempts is to remove them entirely. The technology IS already there, the only part of a typical flight that actually requires a human is taxying (assuming no systems failures occur).BUT - how many of the travelling public would accept being self-loading cargo inside a drone?

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 08:35:54 am
content: It might take three seconds to disable the computers, if you're slow. I said a quick crew re-entry is you best change of survival, not a 100% certainty.Previous accidents are irrelevant as rogue actions would have been modified to defeat your card pooling.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 08:40:30 am
content: Just add a small toilet to the cockpit, and some ways that the pilots can make their own hot/cold beverages and food, problem solved.If you take a step that the cockpit should so extremely be protected as it is at the moment, than there should also never have to be a reason why one of the two pilots have to leave the cockpit in the first place or any other cabin personell have to enter the cockpit.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 08:50:47 am
content: Quote from: Kjelt on March 27, 2015, 08:40:30 amA380 aircraft already have a dedicated flight crew rest area (bunks) and a toilet on their side of the secure door. All they need is a microwave oven? (Or maybe the hosties can give them a meal tray through a slot in their cell door?)But on smaller aircraft, the weight penalties would be prohibitive.

author: HighVoltage
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 09:14:32 am
content: It seems the Co-Pilot was suffering from depression, but nobody noticed.The Flight Data Recorder has not been found, but the news are talking about conclusive evidence.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 09:26:13 am
content: Quote from: cimmo on March 27, 2015, 08:50:47 amSo what, if there is a decision made (which is going to be again reviewed) that the cockpit should be a fortress than the consequences should be taken to make it a fortress.Back on topic, the co-pilot could not have known when the pilot was going to take a piss, this time it was luckily over uninhabited country.I must not think of what would have happened if the pilot had taken that piss when they were flying over some major cities.

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 09:37:35 am
content: Quote from: Wytnucls on March 27, 2015, 08:35:54 amQuick crew re-entry is the same thing as quick terrorist entry. It doesn't work for terrorist or suicide.How would they defeat the card pool, the cards are updated when the enter the plane and only the plane computer controls the keys generated and they use standard cryptography to ensure security. You would have to control the door hardware and avionics to bypass the door mechanism. Or attack crew members inside the passenger cabin.

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 09:40:41 am
content: Quote from: cimmo on March 27, 2015, 08:35:11 amThe problem is that what happens when the computer gets confused or its data link is jammed or fails. Humans are useful in exceptional situations but of course they too can cause exceptional situations to occur but engineering controls with human factors analysis can account for that. Worse I don't think we have an encrypted GPS that civil aviation can use so GPS spoofing could also occur.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 09:41:50 am
content: Quote from: Kjelt on March 27, 2015, 09:26:13 amOnce we go down that road, then it gets silly. Would we end up with a requirement for an armed security guard (renta-cop) in the cockpit, with orders to shoot any pilot that appears suicidal?The fact of the matter is that society requires trust. Every time you drive, you trust the oncoming traffic will remain on their side of a painted line. For whatever reason, sometimes that trust fails and people die.But statistically, flying is still safer than any other mode of travel - even when the deaths are due to deliberate actions.

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 09:42:50 am
content: More to do with a low self-esteem individual finding solace in the short-lived dominating feeling and adrenalin rush derived from the murder of a hundred plus strangers and crew, unhindered. Luckily, a rare trait amongst aircrew personnel. Just wished the shrinks would be able to detect those tendencies at the initial interview.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 09:46:21 am
content: Quote from: a210210200 on March 27, 2015, 09:40:41 amI was not suggesting a drone-airliner as a serious alternative (that's why I made that final comment). I was trying to point out that there really is no alternative but to trust the pilots and occasionally die due to their human frailties.No system is perfect.

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 09:48:36 am
content: Quote from: cimmo on March 27, 2015, 09:46:21 amYou can also trust the cabin crew as a pool (the pooled key system) and improve overall safety. You still trust the pilots you just make the door logic better. Just because it isn't perfect doesn't mean we can't improve it.

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 10:02:40 am
content: Card pooling is easily defeated by a rogue pilot destroying the aircraft within seconds.The current system works in case of an attempted hijack. Nothing is 100% proof. An unrealistic scenario can always be found to undermine any procedure.All airlines are moving towards the '2 people in the cockpit rule' as the best solution.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 10:11:49 am
content: Quote from: Wytnucls on March 27, 2015, 10:02:40 amIn the early days of cockpit automation and removal of flight engineers and navigators, the joke was that a future cockpit would have two pilots and a dog.The dog's job was to bite any pilot who attempted to touch the controls.The pilots jobs were to feed the dog.

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 10:15:30 am
content: Quote from: Wytnucls on March 27, 2015, 10:02:40 amIf a rouge pilot manages to do it within seconds then yes you are screwed. But MH370 was 7+ hours, Germanwings had many minutes. The current system doesn't work because it has clear flaws in its control logic. Also airbus planes have flight control laws which increase the number of seconds it takes and if the person isn't a pilot then they wouldn't be able to disable it easily.2 people in the cockpit and 4 in the cabin is the best solution. It would be very hard to get the keys from the rear of the plane to the front without causing a riot in a hijack situation.In a suicide scenario or terrorist pilot you may have time to save the plane depending on their objective and this pooled key system offers that possibility so instead of having 100's of people screaming and banging on a door for minutes in vain they have a chance at taking back control.Nothing is 100% proof but we can make it safer still, otherwise what is the point of increasing air safety rules as planes don't crash much anyway. Tell that to the families of Germanwings 4U9525.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 10:51:23 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on March 25, 2015, 09:33:50 pmThis is what happens to a plane that hits an immovable object at 500MPH, supposedly not that much faster than this flight hit at.I'm surprised the recorders survive at all in these types of crashes. Being in the tail would have a lot to do with that.In this case it appears as though the plane hit an angled slope, so that also takes a lot of energy out on the impact, but still massive.

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 11:01:37 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 27, 2015, 10:51:23 amIf the FDR data unit is damaged/lost we are very lucky it wasn't the CVR data unit that was lost/damaged as that was pretty much instantly conclusive. The suicidal pilot may have been trying intentionally to cause a crash that would test the physical limits the data recorders in an attempt to hide his actions.

author: Gixy
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 11:07:20 am
content: Fighter aircraft often have ejectable recorders in the tail. Upon detection of an abnormal acceleration (deceleration), the recorder is automatically ejected. This will be mandatory on commercial airplane soon, allowing to recover earlier recorders in case of ocean dive (the recorders will float). This is already used on the last Airbus A350.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 11:07:43 am
content: Quote from: a210210200 on March 27, 2015, 09:37:35 amPerhaps. But people now know terrorists are going to kill them either way so they might put up a fight with the terrorists before they can even reach the cockpit. I'd vote for putting the good old curtain which seperates the cockpit from the rest of the plane back.

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 11:15:02 am
content: Quote from: Gixy on March 27, 2015, 11:07:20 amI doubt you could make everyone install one on every existing plane though it would be an expensive modification if done after mfg.Quote from: nctnico on March 27, 2015, 11:07:43 amSecondary barriers exist but they add a not insignificant weight and cost the secure door probably has stopped hijackings for happening because it is very secure (probably too secure from even a legitimate attempt to access). With a cabin crew override system the passengers would not impede its use. In a terrorist situation it allows the entire cabin to fight over all areas to prevent terrorists from getting to the keys the cabin crew hold before they erase them.This would provide the passengers and cabin crew a chance of taking back control in this case while not allowing terrorists easy access.

author: Gixy
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 11:25:50 am
content: And what about no door at all between cabin and cockpit? Dedicated outdoor access, private lavatories, completely isolated cockpit with all the crew always present.

author: rr100
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 12:22:36 pm
content: Not only you need the extra door (if even possible do "cut" for existing airplanes), plus lavatories but you also need food and drink for the pilots (all both one-time and ongoing costs - access, bringing food/drinks and taking out the trash/cr*p would cost extra).You might also need extra people and/or extra trainings because you have everything segregated, extra first aid kits.And even with that there's still the possibility to have next year (or in 5 or in 20 years) a situation where the plane crashes because the pilots are confined to their cabin.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 12:23:19 pm
content: Oh, the co-pilot was depressed? Breathed evenly all the way down, till the plane hit a rock wall at 600mph, while also ignoring the pilot trying to smash the door down, and not even saying anything in response?Let's call that one the 'suddenly suicidal AND robotic-insane co-pilot' version.I think I'll reserve judgment on that one for a while.My guess: If the co-pilot caused it, then he'd had a stroke or brain aneurism.I saw a graphic of the descent profile. It was remarkably even - a straight line really. I find it hard to believe a suicidal person would maintain a nice even flight path the whole way down under manual control. Especially with a door being hammered behind them. If it was human action, it had to be something like an initiating action at the start, then no further action. Such as because he couldn't do anything due to stroke. Finding the FDR guts would be good.The problem with some brain accident that caused a weird 'set descent' action, then prevented any further action (just sitting there breathing), is that seems to require the plane to be still flying in autopilot mode. But is there a ground avoidance system? Or does it just sound a warning and keep descending anyway? Or maybe, flying into a steep mountainside exceeded the avoidance system abilities? Actually, thinking about it I'm pretty sure airliners do NOT have ground avoidance. Just a terrain proximity alarm.So, copilot starts to have a brain accident, his last action is to set a steady descent rate. After which he's completely incapacitated.Alternatively there's the possibility of 'software intervention', combined with some means of rapid incapacitation of cockpit crew. And depressurisation is not in the running, since the alarms would have been sounding, and apparently they weren't.Wrong gas mix might do it. But I don't think planes have any means for reducing the O2 percentage in the air, let alone in the cockpit exclusively. It's just outside air, increased in pressure as necessary.Adding a knockout gas to only the cockpit air? With the pilot being outside at the time an unexpected complication.There's fundamentally no way to make a plane safe from pilot choices. It's essential to be able to be able to switch the flight computers off (normal law to direct law), and fast, for cases where the sensor instruments go AWOL/iced-up/whatever. But in direct law the pilot can tear the plane to pieces in seconds if he wants to. For instance, just engage reverse thrust deflectors on one engine. No more wing. Just as fundamentally, having anti-hijack software built into flight computers, with an external command link via the transponder (a radio modem) is just asking for trouble. There's no such thing as 100% security in digital systems. Especially when it's the people holding the keys, who are the least to be trusted.Questions:Is the cockpit door lock ultimately under software control by the engineering computer?I wonder why this news article was edited to remove mention of fighter jets present at the time of impact?

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 12:36:48 pm
content: Quote from: Gixy on March 27, 2015, 11:25:50 amThen your totally screwed if a pilot takes over as there is no way at all (not even a door).

author: Gixy
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 01:23:22 pm
content: @ TerraHertz- Stable descent has probably be done by automatic pilot ; anyway the scale of available documents isn't precise enough to see any pilot inputs- Cockpit door is an autonomous system, independant from the flight computers- there are 3 levels of protection (including mechanical) to avoid thrust reverse extension in flight- a fighter took off when the Air Traffic Control launched the alert and overflew the site just after the crash, not before. This allowed to find rapidly the wreckage.

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 01:29:33 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 27, 2015, 10:51:23 amSo how do they recover the bodies if they are pulverised to dust?The only hope for survival would be to open the door at 10,000 feet and jump out, tying a heap of clothes to yourself as a parachute tail. This would slow you down somewhat, and then hope you hit the steep side of a snow packed mountain.How about falling out at 33,000 feet and living?en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi?A side comment... the video obvious shows a sophisticated but flawed door lockout system. Calling a French air hostess "Sally" on the video is a bit insulting. I have never heard of a Sally who is a French national of French ancestry.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 01:45:13 pm
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on March 27, 2015, 12:23:19 pmYeah right and then each minute over and over again manually overrule the first pilot emergency access code by using a switch, each minute again and again , don't think so.

author: Artlav
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 01:54:33 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 27, 2015, 11:07:43 amDon't be so sure. Everyone will be thinking "someone else would attack them first", or something to that effect.It's actually a bit sad how a couple people with guns in cramped space can completely overwhelm hundreds of people.Quote from: Gixy on March 27, 2015, 11:25:50 amThat is an interesting approach. There is no good reason for the pilots to leave the cockpit, give or take various emergency situations.One big question is communications - should the cabin crew be able to contact the pilots at all?If yes, then the terrorists would be able to threaten the pilots.If no, someone getting sick on board would have to wait till landing.Quote from: TerraHertz on March 27, 2015, 12:23:19 pmCertainly, and as far as we know the speed is consistent with the autopilot being in rapid descent mode. All he had to do is flip a switch and turn a knob.One possibility i seen discussed a lot is that the pilot felt the approach of sickness, mis-identified it as decompression in progress and tried to set the plane to go back into the thick air, then passed out.Only problem is, to quote the police: "the States Attorney in Dusseldorf confirmed that the two homes of the first officer have been searched in order to find clues to the motives of the first officer. A medical certificate requiring sick leave has been found during those searches, the certificate was found torn, the first officer reported for the flight nonetheless."They don't specify what kind of certificate it was - psychological or physical, so it can mean either scenario.Quote from: TerraHertz on March 27, 2015, 12:23:19 pmNo such thing. The autopilot is basically a fly-straight-and-level device, with an ability to maintain a set altitude and heading.Quote from: TerraHertz on March 27, 2015, 12:23:19 pmLess than likely. The cockpit is not that isolated from the rest of the plane, controlled decompression takes a while and would affect everyone (and be audible in the pilot's breathing), knockout gasses are nowhere to be obtained from, gas mixture can not be controlled (it's just outside air).And any logical intervention will be in the form of making autopilot fly somewhere, not disabling the crew - it is a fly-by-wire plane, without computer cooperation it can't be controlled at all.Quote from: TerraHertz on March 27, 2015, 12:23:19 pmHappened once. Wings stayed intact, but the plane rapidly lost speed, stalled and fell. They added a lot of interlocks to prevent it in flight since then.

author: ElektroQuark
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 01:56:34 pm
content: "I saw a graphic of the descent profile. It was remarkably even - a straight line really. I find it hard to believe a suicidal person would maintain a nice even flight path the whole way down under manual control."It wasn't under manual control. He changed autopilot altitude to 100 feet.

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 02:10:17 pm
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on March 27, 2015, 01:29:33 pmThe designers incorrectly assumed the flight deck would never possibly be under malicious control and trusted that side of the door entirely. The flaw is that to prevent duress situations where the cabin crew are forced to give up their remembered access codes (Which likely don't change very often and are probably re-used a lot, which is horribly for security, not to mention tons of people probably know the code by heart and it probably sits in a printed manual somewhere for ultra facepalm) they made it so the lockdown cannot be overridden.Making a secure door override that relies on the entire cabin crew to cooperate makes much more sense and eliminates having to remember anything or have something to give up by using a electronic card which gets cryptographic secrets when they sign into the flight. The combined keys would be needed to override the lockdown and if a terrorist tries to get all the keys the crew members individually can erase their keys and passengers would also be able to resist as the crew would be spatially spread out so that there would be enough time to covertly erase their keys in a terrorist situation.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 02:24:27 pm
content: QuoteI still don't think I've explained my first post to you enough. I suggested that maybe the copilot had a funny turn (could be a stroke or seizure or a reaction to something) and then he passed out. During the phase where he was just feeling unwell and starting to feel dizzy or disorientated he may have incorrectly thought he was suffering decompression. You can't train 'semi conscious' people not to be delusional and you can't train sick/fainting people to be able to read instruments accurately and to make rational decisions during those few seconds before they pass out.But it looks like a moot point anyway because there is mounting evidence to suggest he did plan and do it all deliberately

author: richard.cs
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 02:30:47 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on March 27, 2015, 01:45:13 pmHe'd only have to do that once, if he sets it to locked the first time (or prior to that) there's a 5-20 minute timer (selectable by the airline) before it can be retried. There are concievable situations in which he might become disorientated, etc and intentionally do something for reasons that only make sense in a dying/damaged brain. That's not just medical things like strokes but also environmental factors - there are unlikely but possible means to get carbon monoxide in the air for example though most of those would affect the cabin too. There are also reasons an entirely rational non-suicidal person might crash a plane, perhaps I'm in danger of straying into consipracy theory teritory here but consider if some external agent threatened his familiy or similar in an attempt to assasinate one particular passenger.I'm not saying it wasn't suicide, but it's a little odd in quite a few ways. I have a suspicion that it will be recorded as "deliberate pilot action" anyway because there just isn't enough evidence to prove if he had a stroke, etc. That or hard evidence will be found that it was pre-planned.At the moment we have no evidence he didn't change the altitude to hide from the invisible flying monkeys he thought were banging on the door. If he was delusional for any reason then it doesn't have to make sense or be anything as "rational" as suicide.

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 02:34:15 pm
content: Mmmm...12 cabin crew on a flight, some sleeping in pajamas in the crew rest compartment during most of the flight. Cards that don't work, wrong scan sequence, lost cards, crowding in front of the safety door. How long is this going to take?Major modifications to cockpit door interface. This isn't going to happen just to cater for some far-fetched scenario.Take your scheme to pprune and see what the professional pilots think of it. Yes, there are a few left on the site.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 02:56:35 pm
content: When I hear those big-media stories, and 'official' investigation results, I sometimes ask myself:What if it is all a lie?Without wanting to take the conspiracy-route, everything I hear about it comes from the media that other days mostly tell lies, gives wrong or misinterpreted data, or lazyly publishes media-reports from companies without even editing.Who checks the facts? Are there multiple organisations checking on eatchother? Or is the investigation in the hands of just one de-facto big organisation that gives info top-down? Is all data classified?

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 03:11:46 pm
content: Quote from: Artlav on March 27, 2015, 01:54:33 pmInteresting speculation. But it does require some explanation as to how the emergency access code failed to open the door.Since the emergency access code (that will automatically release the door locks unless overridden) is apparently only known to tech crew and the senior cabin attendant (3 people), perhaps the captain and the senior FA simply forgot the code?Alternatively, perhaps that part of the Cockpit Door Locking System simply failed?

author: rr100
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 03:26:08 pm
content: Quote from: cimmo on March 27, 2015, 03:11:46 pmThose are really good points. The youtube video demonstrating the system shows that the emergency code is used only for (doh) emergencies so it is easy to forget (even worse if they just changed it, I assume they do change it now and then).Also it would be interesting to know how/often the emergency unlock is checked, on which checklist it is, etc.

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 03:28:34 pm
content: Quote from: Galenbo on March 27, 2015, 02:56:35 pmFrench and German government aviation investigators release information as they see fit, in preliminary reports.The formal final report and recommendations will take months to complete before publication.As officials suspect foul play, respective police forces are involved too and may conduct press briefings on a regular basis.

author: Artlav
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 03:29:38 pm
content: Quote from: Galenbo on March 27, 2015, 02:56:35 pmNot the media.Compare the language in the reports from investigators:Quote"We have the CVR, it's content is such and such, specialists derive this and that from it."Hard facts and working theories.Compare with the language in the media:Quote"So, there was an axe on board, therefore the axe was used to try to open the door. It sounds nice, let's print it.No, i don't care that the axe is stored INSIDE the cockpit, on the other side of the door in question. It sounds nice, let's print it."That's all the media circus in one quote.Quote from: cimmo on March 27, 2015, 03:11:46 pmMaybe locking the door is standard procedure? First pilot walks out, the one that is left locks the door, then whatever happened happens, the first comes back and knocks on the door to be let back in, having no idea that something is wrong. By the time people outside realise something is up, it's already too late.I don't know if the timing of events fits this scenario, they didn't release the detailed transcripts of the CVR yet.

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 03:37:47 pm
content: Quote from: rr100 on March 27, 2015, 03:26:08 pmThe whole crew knows the emergency code. In my experience, it doesn't change that often (yearly perhaps, depending on company SOPs). The door emergency release mechanism is checked before every flight and is unlikely to fail.Lowest altitude set in the FCU window for depressurization is 10,000 feet, not 100ft, like he did.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 03:45:52 pm
content: Quote from: Artlav on March 27, 2015, 03:29:38 pmNo. The door automatically locks whenever it is closed, but the locks can be over-ridden if the emergency access code is used. However, if that is attempted, then during the 30 sec wait period before the door can be opened, the cockpit switch can be put in lock (it is a momentary toggle) and this will prevent the locks from releasing and disable any further attempts at using the emergency code for several minutes.IF the flying pilot was incapacitated and did NOT manually select the LOCK switch at the appropriate time (during the 30 sec wait period), then this needs an explanation as to why the door couldn't be opened.As to how often this system is checked, apart from observation of the inbuilt FAULT light that would be part of a pre-flight cockpit checklist, I do not think this system is actually functionally checked on a routine basis at all. If it failed in such a fashion that it's built in test capability did not recognize, then it could have failed days or weeks before this flight. Remember, this was a very old aircraft (for an A320).

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 03:48:35 pm
content: Quote from: Wytnucls on March 27, 2015, 03:37:47 pmAn actual functional test? Or just an observation of an absence of the FAULT light?Unlikely does not mean impossible.

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 03:52:15 pm
content: Functional test with the proper code. As likely to fail as your car brakes at the next red light; not impossible.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 03:57:57 pm
content: Quote from: Wytnucls on March 27, 2015, 03:52:15 pmEven if it was functionally tested before flight, perhaps it spontaneously failed when it was used in anger?Aviation safety is such that a single failure rarely has consequences any more, BUT there have been plenty of accidents that required multiple failures to happen, and unfortunately, they did (sometimes as many as three or more).In this case, failure one - pilot incapacity, failure two - door lock system.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 04:12:10 pm
content: It has just been reported that he tore up a doctors sick note for the morning of the crash. The autopilot and flight computers should be made in such a way that they will not obey commands that jeopardise the plane, such as being set to fly at 100 feet or Meters the plane should not be able to descend to low altitude until they receive a radio command from the airports ILS.

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 04:20:29 pm
content: Failure 3: Setting 100ft on the FCU, which requires an extra switch movement, never done at 38,000 feet.Too far-fetched. Occam's razor.Investigators have access to the CVR and would have heard all the noises from switches and chimes from the security door. They are following the suicide lead and I believe them.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 04:24:01 pm
content: Copilot pops an artery in his brain, and in this confused state he selects a low altitude, for some reason that the dying region thought was rational. Warning buzzer sounds, and his brain has enough remaining capacity to recognise, and as a response to press cancel for the alarm. Not enough left to fully respond, and as it is high brain failure breathing is unaffected by this, midbrain is still fine and controlling the body. Autopilot is doing the job and doing a descent to 100ft, and it is a very well known thing that the autopilot is not capable of doing terrain following, as the typical usage is in free airspace in a defined flight lane, it will use collision avoidance as an emergency for planes equipped with the system to avoid other aircraft. Approaching set altitude and rising terrain, it does a "controlled descent into terrain", though at flight speed very little survives.Having the autopilot not allow descent unless at an airport is suicide, as often airport ILS beacons are off for a fault, or they are not present at smaller airports the plane is capable of landing at. Adding the requirement will make the autopilot very brittle design wise, as then any failure of the nav system, or any nav error ( GPS loses lock in heavy storms, and lightning can overwhelm the receiver so it loses lock until it does a full reacquire) means the plane cannot land, and then will fly till it runs out of fuel and then crashes. Do you want to be in the area of the airport approach when a plane in the holding pattern can run out of fuel in addition to a nav fault, and fly into the ground with the cockpit having the following repeating warnings " Fuel, Pull Up, Terrain, Attitude" with the pilots last words being a curse on you and all your descendants.Identifying the remains is typically done with use of dental records ( teeth and jaw survives the crash quite well, and often even survives the fire somewhat intact) or by personal effects ( sim/sd card/IMIE label of the phone that was in pocket, or the remains of the clothing or wallet and passport) and as a last resort using DNA.

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 04:32:50 pm
content: Auto-pilot doesn't avoid other aircraft yet, but it is coming soon.

author: Neganur
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 04:48:22 pm
content: Quoteseriously.....and people complain over audiofoolery

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 04:48:39 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on March 27, 2015, 04:12:10 pmIt is now also reported that due to this note that he tore up he was not fit and not allowed to fly that day.His flight brevet had an attachment that he needed regular medical checkups.Speculation from my part: his doctor told him he was not fit to fly and probably told him he would never ever be able to fly anymore.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 04:53:12 pm
content: Quote from: Wytnucls on March 27, 2015, 04:32:50 pmI vote the first aircraft to implement that must be named "Gay Deceiver".http://www.gaydeceiver.com/what.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Number_of_the_Beast_%28novel%29

author: ConKbot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 04:59:48 pm
content: Having the autopilot not be able to descent unless xyz parameters are met sounds ok at first, but then there's the whole problem of the person thats holding a control stick can just push it forwards... If you cant trust the flight crew, you're hosed. If a person with bad intentions has unrestricted physical access to the cockpit, youre hosed. Just like there is no "unhackable" security if someone has physical access.If you want the cockpit to be able to be secured totally from the inside, unable for bad guys in the back to gain access under any circumstance, then youre going to have to be able to trust the pilots. Otherwise youre going to get lost in a case of what-if scenarios.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 05:38:25 pm
content: Quote from: ConKbot on March 27, 2015, 04:59:48 pmModern aircraft are fly by wire, the pilot is more in the regime of giving suggestions to the flight computer. That is at least until the flight computers decide they no longer can cope, and toss full control back with only minimal sanitising of the control surface inputs, which was the cause of the Air France crash.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 06:35:17 pm
content: There is a report out in Germany that the co pilot was a recent convert to muslim and that he had a muslim girlfriend.http://www.tpnn.com/2015/03/27/breaking-germanwings-co-pilot-was-muslim-convert/Most likely rubbish but you never know these days.

author: Neganur
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 07:00:51 pm
content: Maybe he was a Nazi. Or worse, from Mars. You never know!Seriously, I think it's time to stop looking for bullshit.

author: XFDDesign
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 07:25:06 pm
content: As a total moron, from the outcomes of 9/11 to this, why hasn't there been an emergency panic option that crew would trigger for "compromised plane" which just throws on Emergency Autopilot which gets routed to the nearest airport? (Even if it's something where the system takes control, flies level and begins some comms transaction to get emergency flightplan data) I get that Autolanding systems are still buggy, but between a kamikaze and a computer, I'll hedge my survival bets on the computer.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 07:29:26 pm
content: Just on the news, he was seeing a psychiatrist and this doctor was the one who told him to call in sick and not to go to work. There is a doctor patient confidentiality if that was not the case the psychiatrist could have warned his employer and 149 people would still be alive.We may also have to look at this if this is what society wants and needs.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 07:38:36 pm
content: Automated plane instead, but you would find it hard to get passengers onto what is basically an elevator that flies. You get enough nervous people already in regular offices who will walk between floors because of that. In addition elevators do not kill the occupants ( at least not often) if they go wrong.

author: AF6LJ
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 08:04:26 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on March 27, 2015, 07:38:36 pmIn a word Hacked.This is in my opinion the worst of a thread full of bad ideas.Why not just accept that there is a level of risk attached to getting out of bed every morning and move on.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 08:05:56 pm
content: QuoteBingo!

author: AF6LJ
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 08:11:47 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on March 27, 2015, 08:05:56 pmThe dumbest thing every done to an aircraft was to make the door to the flight deck lockable from the inside. Arm the crew or provide an air martial on each flight. All this other stuff is over thinking a simple problem. People behave when armed people are around as a general rule.Oh and before I see a hundred replies regarding bullets on planes, they make special bullets that won't penetrate the skin or windows of the plane, but they do enough damage to flesh to provide a good amount of stopping power.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 08:25:14 pm
content: Quote from: AF6LJ on March 27, 2015, 08:11:47 pmYou're from the US of A I assume. This time it was a psyched out co-pilot but what keeps in your case a psyched-out air marshall from doing the same thing? Besides you don't want guns on a plane, not on anyone it does more harm than good and you can't shoot anyway without risking damaging a window and loosing the compression which makes it totally useless in the hands of the good guys and a way to create havoc in the hands of the bad guys.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 09:05:18 pm
content: Quote from: AF6LJ on March 27, 2015, 08:04:26 pmIn the space of two posts you go from promoting the 'accept the risk and do nothing' approach to promoting the use of guns on a plane.

author: AF6LJ
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 09:14:10 pm
content: Quote from: G0HZU on March 27, 2015, 09:05:18 pmYou should re read what I wrote.The guns are to stop the crazies. Like the co-pilot on SSRI drugs who has flipped out and wants to fly a plane into a mountain, a school or some such target in order to go out with a Bang and immortalize his place in history.There is no inconsistency in what I post.I do find that some people in some localities have gun-phobia.Since I grew up around guns, lived in the gun culture most of my life I see them as harmless as a soldering iron.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 09:21:15 pm
content: QuoteSo you would be happy to have issued that copilot with a gun? Who do you think he would shoot first and why?(take your time over this one if you need to...)

author: economist
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 09:32:15 pm
content: Quote from: G0HZU on March 27, 2015, 09:21:15 pmThe obvious answer to the hypothetical is "who cares?". The co-pilot demonstrated quite clearly that he had the ability to kill everyone on the plane using the plane itself. If you can't trust him, then you are screwed. So it seems a little silly to worry about him having a gun or not. He already controls the most deadly weapon possible if you happen to be on the plane (or even on the ground if such a pilot were to target your area in a crash).Just another crazy gun owning American here...

author: AF6LJ
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 09:33:15 pm
content: Quote from: G0HZU on March 27, 2015, 09:21:15 pmI certainly would be happy to see the crew armed. I have flown for a long time, there was a time in this country (the US) when you could carry your hunting rifle on and stow it in the overhead. I should point out this was before the rash of hijackings in the late sixties that went though the seventies. There were air materials on board during the late seventies which put an end to the hijackings here in the US. Unfortunately that practice went by the wayside and then we had 9/11. One thing I might point out; after the 1972 Thanksgiving day hijacking here on the west coast (Google D. B. Cooper) we had for a short time armed national guard in California airports. You would think we were in Israel, unfortunately now we have those legalized molesters known as the TSA.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 09:35:02 pm
content: QuoteStatistically, that's still the wiser decision.QuoteDon't know about that. Too much downside risk in my view.

author: AF6LJ
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 09:35:50 pm
content: Quote from: economist on March 27, 2015, 09:32:15 pmSo going by your logic other crew members would be paralyzed in fear if a co-pilot with a gun decided to use the plane as a weapon.Sorry no crazies here, gun owner, yes. Gun owning Female YES. (that is called empowerment).

author: AF6LJ
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 09:38:13 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on March 27, 2015, 09:35:02 pmWhere are you getting your stats from?Lets see commercial flight has been going on since the 1930s or before.Until late 2001 the flight deck doors have been locked.Seventy years VS fourteen years...Please do the math and post it supporting your claim.I would love to see it.

author: economist
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 09:41:05 pm
content: Quote from: AF6LJ on March 27, 2015, 09:35:50 pmNo, sorry if I was being unclear. I would arm the crew. If they can't be trusted with guns they can't be trusted flying the plane in the first place.

author: AF6LJ
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 09:48:02 pm
content: Quote from: economist on March 27, 2015, 09:41:05 pmIt makes sense to arm the crew.When the rash of hijackings took place in the 60's and 70's I was surprised to find out the crew was not armed. It wouldn't bother me at all to see a federal agent on board also. This won't cover every possible but the cost is relatively low and beats the hell out of a locked door that can be used against the crew.The US practice of having two crew members on the flight deck at all times is good and truthfully I am somewhat surprised the rest of the world has not adopted this procedure after 9/11 as well. I guess it will be more popular now.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 10:00:21 pm
content: QuoteIt makes a lot more sense to have no guns anywhere on the plane. If this copilot had a gun then he could have conveniently shot the pilot at a critical moment where nobody would then have the reaction time to stop him crashing the plane even if there was a way to open the cabin door.Hopefully, lessons will be learned from this episode and there will be extra safeguards put in place to make it harder for a single crew member to deliberately crash a plane.Giving the crew guns and givin gun totin' marshalls a seat on every plane isn't going to be the solution...

author: AF6LJ
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 10:07:15 pm
content: Quote from: G0HZU on March 27, 2015, 10:00:21 pmWe all are entitled to our opinions.In that vain...Putting a lock on that flight deck door was in plain English; Beyond Stupid.

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 10:10:38 pm
content: Quote from: Wytnucls on March 27, 2015, 02:34:15 pmYou can control how many keys are needed to operate the door override the purpose is to just require more than one key so that you don't allow easy access. Cards work, there is no sequence, you really shouldn't drop your ID card and why would the reader be on the door the pin pad is not on the door it is on the front cabin control screen which has plenty of room around it.Minor modifications to the pin pad and software not the door.

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 10:16:12 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on March 27, 2015, 07:29:26 pmIn the UK, at least, it is recognised that public safety outweighs doctor-patient confidentiality. So, for instance, if a patient admits they drink and drive but won't do anything about it, then it is acceptable for a GP to report them to the DVLA.I suspect the problem here is that the psychiatrist (if that is indeed the speciality of the doctor issuing the sick note) thought that he would actually take time off work.

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 10:18:22 pm
content: Quote from: grumpydoc on March 27, 2015, 10:16:12 pmFrom what I'm hearing on the news it isn't really certain the sick note was for a mental issue.“A German hospital said it had evaluated Mr. Lubitz twice in the past two months but added that he had not been there for assessment or treatment of depression.”http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/mar/27/germanwings-crash-details-emerge-of-the-co-pilot-who-crashed-his-plane-live-updates

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 10:39:40 pm
content: Quote from: AF6LJ on March 27, 2015, 10:07:15 pmit looks like all airlines will now not allow a single member of crew to be alone in the cockpit at any one time. I think we can all agree that it's amazing (frightening?) that this was not already accepted policy on all airlines.Hopefully, the door locking protocol will be reviewed as well. This would hopefully deal with problems caused by suicidal crew members as well as ones that suddenly fall ill and maybe operate the controls in error as they lose their judgement and reasoning as they pass out. But always having two people in the cockpit would help here too.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 10:45:14 pm
content: An AME (aviation medical examiner) can revoke your medical at any time, and they will know who you doctor is as part of your regular medical, and they will confer. However, other than the annual class I medical by an AME, the onus is often on the individual to make the decision whether or not to disclose interim health issues to their AME. As part of pilot training, it is made clear that any change in your health that may affect your flying must be referred to your AME.The problem is that for many pilots, particularly in the low cost carrier segment, if you have no medical, you have little or no income so there is a financial penalty to disclosing any medical issues. In addition, the amount of debt a pilot can incur as part of their training is enormous, and can make the average student loan look like a drop in the ocean.I did find it interesting that the P2 had only 630 hours despite being with the carrier for two years, there were questions to be answered there, and it seems he had been on extended medical leave if the reports are to be believed. i would nt say a pilot with 630 hours is particularly well experienced, as initial reports stated. We should be very wary of any reports other than the BEA's own. The BEA have a mandate to provide a factual report free from subjectiveness and assumption, and that should be the primary, if not the only guide as to what happened.(Completely coincidentally my own AME was on the BBC News just now as part of a report.)

author: economist
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 10:46:06 pm
content: The problem with the locked cockpit door, regardless of how many crew are required to be behind it, is that it accepts the premise that the passengers' lives don't matter. The whole point is to allow the crew to land the plane safely (i.e., to avoid an event like 9/11) all while terrorists/criminals do as they will with the unarmed and defenseless passengers.

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 10:55:28 pm
content: Quote from: G0HZU on March 27, 2015, 10:39:40 pmIt is more frightening that no one said the door lock logic was stupid in the decade+ it existed because even with two people either one could be the attacker and since they are already on the secure side and if they win the struggle the cabin crew can do nothing to fight back because of the door lockdown as it currently exists cannot be overridden. Pilot suicide isn't exactly unknown it is rare but no one bothered to think well this door is so secure if a pilot ever did try to commit suicide or worse target a building there is nothing the cabin crew could do with this lockdown logic.With a cabin crew key pool hijackers would still have an extremely hard time obtaining all the keys without them being first erased and in a takeover by crew/person inside the cockpit already the cabin crew just has to use their keys together to override the door lock. The numbers of crew required and keys erased before the override is rendered in operable can be adjusted based on the crew and plane layout to optimize the balance of security.Quote from: economist on March 27, 2015, 10:46:06 pmThis is why I propose a cabin crew key pool, the passengers clearly can also rise to the occasion as in United Flight 93 just have it as part of the safety training that if terrorist attack a crew member you should help and the key devices are the target and how they are erased. It allows passengers/cabin crew to have a fighting chance even if someone on the flight deck side is malicious.The problem with the assumption that passenger's and cabin crew don't matter fails catastrophically when the terrorist/suicidal person is already on the secure side. Your totally screwed as demonstrated in Germanwings and probably MH370 (if we ever do recover anything).

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 10:58:56 pm
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on March 27, 2015, 01:29:33 pmThe chances of survival are very slim. You probably break several bones in your body the second you step out of an airplane in an airstream going 700km/h. And then you have to manage to avoid colliding with the wings, stay out of the engine exhaust stream and avoid the tail. After that it's about 3000 meters of free fall. Dropping into a lake is like landing on a piece of concrete so a steep snowy hill could be the best case scenario IF you don't start an avalanche.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 11:00:42 pm
content: QuoteAny mechanism would not be perfect and someone will figure out a way to explore it.If you look at the number of aircraft-assisted suicides, the ones done by pilots are in the minority. So their primary goal is to keep out the bad guys - assuming that the pilots are trustworthy.Not a perfect assumption but not a bad assumption either.

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 11:06:11 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on March 27, 2015, 11:00:42 pmJust because you can't make it perfect doesn't mean you shouldn't change it when it is clearly logically flawed. Exploit I believe is what you mean to say and that is considered as part of the design of the key pool. People are already exploiting the existing system and crashing planes with it and if it isn't changed people will keep abusing it even more.With the two person rule either could be the attacker or even a terrorist. You cannot assume the flight deck will never be under malicious control it is clearly a totally invalidated assumption. The weakness is now very obvious and widely spread in the press.

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 11:08:18 pm
content: Quote from: economist on March 27, 2015, 10:46:06 pmIt is true, the locked door policy is not directly forpassengersafety. It is to prevent terrorists using the plane as a weapon and killing people on the ground, in addition to those in the airplane. Although, deterring hijacking in general helps reduce risk for airline passengers. If terrorists just want to kill passengers or general public there are many easier targets.Other measures are implemented to improve safety for the aircraft passengers and flight crew outside the secure flight deck, and arguably they have been successful.Preventing attack from air crew themselves is just something that has never been addressed, nor really even recognised as a problem. It's happened on a few occasions. The locked door policy is one of those unintended consequences. In one case, the FO used the door lock to prevent access by his Captain who was behaving irrationally, so it works both ways.

author: Neganur
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 11:10:32 pm
content: Just fyi.It has absolutely not been said that the doctor that gave sick leave for that day was a psychiatrist. Just thatin the pasthe had been treated by various doctors.Severaltorn sick leaves have been found is what one newspaper claims,amongthem is one from a neurologist/psychiatrist another from the university hospital in the town where he lived.Also All the interviews I have seen with a psychiatrist were just some random expert and not the actual doctor who gave the sick leave. Where are you getting all this from? It seems you're not reading the news properly.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 11:12:54 pm
content: QuoteI think that's in dispute.

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 11:15:19 pm
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on March 27, 2015, 11:08:18 pmWhen the Captain is behaving irrationally the cabin crew could evaluate this and ask the FO what is going on and for him to explain what is going on. In my system the crew would need to use their keys together so many people would have to think the Captain is not behaving insane to override the door for him. If he is crazy and tries to attack the cabin crew to get all of there keys then the hijack scenario plays out where by they fight back and it takes only a few to erase their keys to keep the door secure.If the captain was locked out and is sane but the FO is not responding to calls or anything but is locking out the door control then they would be able to determine he is likely insane/suicidal and would use the door override as a group.Quote from: dannyf on March 27, 2015, 11:12:54 pmIf your going to dispute it you have to say why otherwise your providing no counterpoint.

author: economist
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 11:25:17 pm
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on March 27, 2015, 11:08:18 pmAgreed. Any collection of unarmed and helpless people would do.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 11:32:54 pm
content: QuoteI agree that the existing door lock protocol is a bit scary and needs to be reviewed.I still can't quite fathom why some gun lovers in the USA think that giving each of the crew a gun would have helped in this case. It's hard to argue any case where it would be justifiable to give the crew a gun. Do they think the pilot or copilot would leave the cabin with some form of runted gun to sort out terrorists? Walking past 100 suspects down a cramped cabin aisle when armed only with some form of runted gun doesn't seem like a good plan. Maybe I need to watch more movies to see how Bruce Willis would do it

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2015, 11:57:42 pm
content: Quote from: Wytnucls on March 27, 2015, 07:55:04 amProcedural changes always win over hardware. They can be implemented system wide quickly with minimal cost.

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 12:03:58 am
content: Quote from: pickle9000 on March 27, 2015, 11:57:42 pmProcedural changes don't always work, can you procedurally change a non-FBW system to include FBW technology. Nope. Planes are a big blob of technology so making the door lock a bit smarter with a new pin pad isn't exactly a significant cost component of the plane.Knee jerk procedural changes are commonly associated with this thing called security theatre, it is a false sense of security with the root technological fault un-addressed. Second person could be the attacker and either person still has the element of surprise and can totally lockdown the flight deck after.The door lock system itself was designed in a hurry without consideration for what consequences it might have, I am proposing to fix it by altering the pin pad to accept a cabin crew key pool.

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 12:08:22 am
content: I guess we need the reverse Turing test. The autopilot should test the pilots to see if they are fit to be allowed in the cockpit. The autopilot is named HAL, of course.The pilots have the ability to crash the plane on any flight they want, even with the other pilot or flight crew sat in the other seat. Near the ground, it would happen to quick for the other pilot to regain control.Trying to devise a system with pilots to prevent that is just impractical, although it is conceivable that ground or automatic control would do it. Are people prepared to fly pilot-less planes? Would it just open another source of failure or terrorist attack?Ideally, medically unfit pilots would not be allowed on the flight deck. Unfortunately, mental health screening is very bad at predicting who will become a risk sometime in the future. The only option for the airline would be to permanently ground anyone suspected of risk. Pilots would then just cover up MH health issues, which is a lot easier than hiding physical health issues.In the end though, all activities in life carry some risk. The risk of death by suicidal pilot is tiny, so is it even worth worrying about?

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 12:48:22 am
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on March 28, 2015, 12:08:22 amWell technically automatic ground collision avoidance,http://aviationweek.com/defense/ground-collision-avoidance-system-saves-first-f-16-syriawould help stop CFIT.And normal law on Airbus also provide a number of protection against dropping out of the sky. Sure the pilots could try to bypass, trick, disable these systems but at least you have some more time to take back control. Pilot-less planes passenger planes are dangerous because either the remote link could be hacked/disabled or if stand alone once there is a computer failure and the voting logic system has not enough votes to reach majority then your screwed. With a drone it has no one on it so if it crashes due to any of those failures it is just a monetary/time/physical resource loss. If a passenger jet say like an A380 crashes because the voting logic screwed up then your going to get ultra-sued out of the water. (Pilots also help individualize liability to some degree)

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 01:03:35 am
content: Quote from: a210210200 on March 28, 2015, 12:03:58 am- Even if a better hardware solution exists it may not be implemented or implemented in a timely fashion. This can be cost related, country, manufacturer issues. The majority of airliners are in service not on a production line.- Crash investigators are concerned with safety. If they suspect an issue (such as having an extra person in a cockpit) to be beneficial they will state it early on so airline can inform pilots. Even if the issue proves to be false in the future.- There are many things that could be added to increase safety. Video under belly, on tail, on cockpit door, in cockpit for example. If stored on a flight recorder would be an exceptional benefit.

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 01:34:06 am
content: Quote from: pickle9000 on March 28, 2015, 01:03:35 amSo your saying unscrewing two cabin accessible units which just control three electronic strikes and updating their software and sticking the back with a hardware modification is too onerous, expensive, ...They replace units and modules all the time on a plane I'm pretty sure the membrane pad on the pin pad breaks too the unit is easily replaced and is not an integral system. It was added after the fact to most planes and is a door strike control not a flight control computer.It has two modes of operation, unlock and lock. We just need to make the control logic of those two states better.It is nowhere even remotely similar to the cost/weight of wiring and installing a video data recorder.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 01:51:19 am
content: *** Conspiracy stuff again from TerraHertz deleted by moderator. This stuff does not belong here ***

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 02:04:32 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on March 28, 2015, 01:51:19 amI'm just going to ignore all that conspiracy mumbo jumbo and focus on what you talk about the door and safety.It is impossible to make flying absolutely safe but flying only become as safe as it is through continuous improvement in technology, procedures, techniques, design, human factors study. And its just a door control unit this isn't rocket science. The fix I propose of a pooled cabin crew key system allows for crew to override in the clearly it can happen situation where the cockpit is under malicious control.Improved door logic through a pooled cabin crew override system is a simple cheap fix that doesn't compromise security.

author: rolycat
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 02:57:07 am
content: Quote from: AF6LJ on March 27, 2015, 09:14:10 pmThe primary purpose of a gun is to inflict harm - seeing them as harmless is delusional.Unless the soldering iron mortality rate in the USA is in the tens of thousands per annum?

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 03:15:07 am
content: Egypt Air Flight 990 was nuts.http://news.aviation-safety.net/2013/12/22/list-of-aircraft-accidents-caused-by-pilot-suicide/

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 03:21:55 am
content: A thought about the locked door, and the entry code.Everyone assumes that the pilot outside could enter the correct code, and therefore the copilot had to have been entering over-rides. Therefore was conscious, and all that implies.But, there's a very simple electronic fault that could change that scenario radically. Suppose one of the code entry keypad buttons went flaky?I doubt there's a display showing the code numbers as they are entered. So, a faulty button in the keypad would result in the pilot entering his code, the code failing, and possibly he doesn't even know why.I wonder if the code entry pad even makes a beep or something as the keys are pressed? Even if so, there are some keypad circuits that use resistor dividers so that each key produces a distinct output voltage, then a micro works out which button was pressed by doing an AtoD. If it was that kind of keypad, a component fault or even a bit of conductive dirt could give wrong numeric button values, while seeming to work/beep, etc.What's the bet the cockpit door security keypad wasn't designed to the same failsafe standards as the flight instrumentation?If what happened was something like copilot has brain aneurysm, then pilot can't get back into cockpit due to faulty keypad button, that would have to be a record for the cheapest part failure causing the worst accident.

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 03:44:58 am
content: Unlikely. The keypad is used often through the flight and is very reliable. Each press of a key is registered with a beep and the full code triggers a chime in the cockpit that can be heard through the door.There is now an interview of the copilot's former girlfriend, who described an individual of unstable character, with suicidal tendencies.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 03:51:53 am
content: Again, I think making it mandatory to have two persons in the cockpit at all times good.I used to work on some semi-automated railway equipment. At times I need to get to the sensors located on the workheads. The accepted procedure was to put a lockout tag on the equipment and get at it. I was a contractor and no way was I crawling in that area without the batteries disconnected, and a lookout on hand to keep people off the machine. Even just a momentary power up and I'm in three pieces. I see no reason an airline should not have the same belief. A second person, unskilled or otherwise will add greatly to the safety of the aircraft.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 04:01:20 am
content: Quote from: Wytnucls on March 28, 2015, 03:44:58 amGood. So the CVR will register those chimes several times, presumably. I hope it is released eventually. If the chimes are absent, then either the keypad was faulty, or code changed/forgotten (by everyone.)QuoteWell that certainly changes things.If his medical condition was psychological, of that nature, and known, then it's a clear failure of the airline's medical screening. Wonder what the lawyers will make of that?

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 04:23:22 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on March 28, 2015, 03:21:55 amAs per the images in the flight crew manual and the video, there is no digital display either on the access panel or in the cockpit to confirm data entry. Also, it very much appears as if the keypad uses capacitive touch technology. This technology is far from perfectly reliable.FWIW, to some extent I concur with your thoughts on the 'bigger picture'. There are so many ways for any genuine and resourceful 'bad guys' to stuff up our daily lives and if they existed in the numbers that we are told, then we would know about it the hard way. I will not go into details for fear of raising a flag or two, but our highly intertwined tech based western society has hundreds of easily exploitable weak points.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 05:40:47 am
content: Probably not capacitive but still highly reliable "old-school" ruggedized low-travel switch contacts (like those found on ATMs.)

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 08:09:53 am
content: Another big flaw in the "arm the cabin crew" plan:In order for it to work The cabin crew should have regularly and extensive combat and shooting training to the level of special forces skills or what you achieve is that real terrorist passengers will simply overpower the crew and take their guns as an adult takes a bike from a kid.So the thing you will have achieved with that great plan is that you arm terrorists on a plane, what a great plan

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 08:20:50 am
content: Quote from: Kjelt on March 28, 2015, 08:09:53 amJust give everyone a machine gun and fireworks...But seriously just have a key pool that the cabin crew have so they have a method of opening the cockpit door. In addition the duress erase capabilities you can have a poison pill pool where 0, 2 or more cabin crew members are told by the system that their cards are only to be used to disable the lock override. In this manner terrorists can't tell which card will work while still needing to use many. The crew members don't know who else has a poison card and can't reveal the number because it would be randomly controlled, and lying would be undetectable on an individual level.It would take an entire insane malicious crew to abuse the system at which point you are definitely screwed.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 12:11:47 pm
content: Quoteby inflicting harm on those who are inflicting harm on you is probably more than harmless?It is not rocket science.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 12:52:40 pm
content: Gun control is a tough issue.If we could eliminate all guns, we would have, by definition, eliminated gun violence.But the reality is that we cannot eliminate all guns. In that case, all gun control laws do is to deprive the law-abiding citizens the right to self defense. And it is not that difficult to envision a scenario where having more citizen gun owners helps deter potential gun violence.But on a flight, the ability to stripe anyone of guns is much better and the risk of a malfunctioning gun is much higher so I am not sure if it is a good ideal.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 01:30:34 pm
content: Any gun debates end right now folks.

author: Biff383
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 02:08:21 pm
content: Trust your pilot or don't fly. I've been up in a plane around 200 times. I've landed in a plane about 10 times. Every plane I have been in I have trusted the pilot.....even if I don't complete the ride.I have found most pilots to be extremely component. If I didn't I wouldn't have gone up with them.If you can't trust a pilot.....take a boat and hope for no icebergs.

author: Biff383
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 02:12:42 pm
content: Compitent. ....d <>( auto spell )

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 02:21:04 pm
content: Quote from: Biff383 on March 28, 2015, 02:08:21 pmI agree. Any time a flaw is found in a current working practice, lots of people propose ways to fix things. The snag is most have side effects much worse than the flaw. You can't eliminate every problem. You need to live with that reality and be VERY VERY VERY VERY cautious about changing anything which has a low a serious problem rate as modern passenger flight.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 02:27:54 pm
content: Quote from: G0HZU on March 27, 2015, 11:32:54 pmI agree. Once a terrorist is inside the cockpit he/she can lock the door and execute any evil plan. On most bigger airplanes there is some space between the cockpit and the passenger compartment. I think they should re-arrange airplanes to have passengers sitting up to the cockpit door (which cannot be locked from the inside) so terrorists can't get into the cockpit unseen and people can pull a terrorist from the cockpit if necessary. The biggest force on a plane are the passengers; if they don't act then they deserve their Darwin award.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 02:32:31 pm
content: Quote from: Biff383 on March 28, 2015, 02:08:21 pmPractically no one knows the pilot who is flying their plane, majority of the time you will never see who was in charge of your life.Instead you have to trust the airline, and the industry, and their procedures etc.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 02:41:59 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 28, 2015, 02:32:31 pmYou shouldn't really trust the airline. They are surprisingly casual about the handling of their very expensive machines. You need to trust a regulatory system that licences and continuously monitors those allowed to fly aircraft.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 02:47:38 pm
content: If you automate the plane what about the service techs, the ATC and then the airport service personnel, all who will then have to be checked as well as they have access to the aircraft and it's navigation systems. Then the designers, who might have included either accidental logic bombs or even deliberate ones that are not discovered during testing and certification.You can go down a rabbit hole forever doing that.

author: Biff383
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 02:53:41 pm
content: I've met all of mine.....but I don't need to travel much. No answer by me to those of you that do.I still believe that most pilots are way over the top as far as safeties goes.And chute or no chute, I appreciate that.I suppose that if you really want to be safe you could dig a bunker and huddle down till you die from something else. I'll keep doing what I'm doing.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 03:10:09 pm
content: Quote from: Biff383 on March 28, 2015, 02:53:41 pmI only really wanted a parachute one time, but got to know the flight engineer **Very** well, seeing as I was holding him by his web belt with one arm, with the other around a chair, while we were both leaning out of the C47 door looking under the wing, with me being the human intercom. Luckily it was just the &^@% switch acting up. But the best landing ever in a Dakota, somewhat marred by the Pathfinder cruising on the grass next to the runway with a foam cannon armed.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 03:25:50 pm
content: At some point, you just have to make a decision for yourself if a particular risk is worth taking. Hopefully (for you), the collective actions of like-minded people will change the market place in your favor.Government regulation or knee-jerk actions are not the solution to anything.

author: ConKbot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 03:48:00 pm
content: It's amazing the mental gymnastics that people will go though to find a possible situation where the act wasn't intentional, and try to refute new pieces of evidence.And then go through more mental gymnastics to come up with schemes to change the cockpit door lock. Either you the cockpit is secure from themeatpassenger compartment, or it's not. You can't trust the general public to make the right decision as a whole in an emergency. A few will rise to the occasion, the rest are idiots. If there is some sort of override code or codes, that's relying on the flight crew to potentially resist torture, or other deception. Or some sort of majority system involving passengers? 6 people with guns, stand up on a plane, grab 6 children, say they are only interested in taking over a plans for negotiating the release of some prisoner, and aren't trying to crash the plane, can you count on a majority of the people to make logical, non emotionally compromised decisions?2 man rule to prevent rogue incidents like this, lock it down so there is zero chance for unintended access to the cockpit. That way there are only 3 parties that need to be trusted. Also, how about not over working and under paying pilots so much, I mean really, how many people per week do they move, even $0.50 per ticket extra divided between pilot and copilot would be significant.Is there still risk? Yes, but you did drive to the airport that morning, so you must not be *that*adverse to risk.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 04:00:31 pm
content: Yes, new pilots are poor. Airlines want bonuses for the top, and want to pay the workers peanuts or less.

author: Neganur
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 04:14:34 pm
content: Quote from: Wytnucls on March 28, 2015, 03:44:58 amMight want to add that the newspaper being quoted is the German BILD Zeitung, i.e. a gossip magazine like the Sun or daily mail.Chance is, they interviewed one of the victims too - they've done it before.

author: Biff383
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 04:36:26 pm
content: I think that if you ever rode with my SHMBO....a terrorist might just be a better option.

author: Artlav
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 04:50:01 pm
content: Some flight data, compiled from flightradar24.com.Looks like there were 10 minutes between the start of the descent and impact.Now, it would be nice to find when exactly did the captain came back and knocked on the door...

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 04:55:33 pm
content: He would have tried to reenter the cockpit as soon as the unexpected descent started.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 04:55:41 pm
content: The answer is to only ever fly with the main airlines and never one of the low cost or third world airlines, I wont fly with Ryanair as a matter of principal, its either BA or KLM or not at for me.

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 05:09:37 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 28, 2015, 02:32:31 pmTrusting a group of people is much easier than trusting a single individual. You can never predict what a single person might do they could be insane, suicidal, terrorist, ... but as a whole the people on a plane most would not want to die and would do anything to prevent that from happening to themselves.Having a method of entrusting the plane's security to the entire crew as a pool of people would provide a good method of ensuring that no one bad actor amongst even the crew could use the secure door system inappropriately.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 05:12:16 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on March 28, 2015, 04:00:31 pmCapitalism in a nutshell.There is a reason why aviation IS one of the most heavily regulated industries (at least in the western world) - it has to be, the lure of short term profits is too great to rely on self-regulation in an industry that is so unforgiving of error.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 05:14:09 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on March 28, 2015, 04:55:41 pmWho owns KLM these days..........Cathay Pacific, Singapore airlines, SAA, El Al are all airlines with a good safety record.

author: PA0PBZ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 06:17:24 pm
content: Quote from: Artlav on March 28, 2015, 04:50:01 pmI've seen the "set autopilot to 100 ft" a couple of times in this thread and I wonder where does this information come from?

author: a210210200
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 06:20:16 pm
content: Quote from: PA0PBZ on March 28, 2015, 06:17:24 pmI think as part of the ADS-B or some other data announcing link the plane says both what it's current altitude is and what its set "desired" altitude is. Flight tracking website software probably just discard that info because you only need to plot the actual to make the map work. From what I know they still have not found the FDR memory unit. But ATC logs or the websites raw logs may have that info which is how they can graph it.

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 06:23:16 pm
content: See below:

author: IO390
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 06:52:03 pm
content: The Enhanced Mode-S transponder transmits autopilot settings and some other data. (Which is how we know that the autopilot was set to 100ft preselect)

author: IO390
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 06:54:59 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on March 28, 2015, 03:10:09 pmThat's a pretty awesome story. Could you elaborate perhaps?

author: PA0PBZ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 07:55:36 pm
content: Quote from: IO390 on March 28, 2015, 06:52:03 pmThanks to all who answered my question.

author: Biff383
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2015, 09:55:35 pm
content: I only really wanted a parachute one time, but got to know the flight engineer **Very** well, seeing as I was holding him by his web belt with one arm, with the other around a chair, while we were both leaning out of the C47 door looking under the wing, with me being the human intercom. Luckily it was just the &^@% switch acting up. But the best landing ever in a Dakota, somewhat marred by the Pathfinder cruising on the grass next to the runway with a foam cannon armed.That does sound like a great story. The best I can do is plummeting thru clouds to dock with a fellow diver.I guess that when your body is the plane you don't really have to worry about hijacking.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2015, 12:39:28 am
content: Quote from: G7PSK on March 28, 2015, 04:55:41 pmISTR some stats on the radio last week that Easyjet & Ryanair have a better safety record than BA & other big airlines.Although renowned as cheapskates, I think they are smart enough to know that bad publicity from a single serious incident could have a devastating effect on their business, and that any unscheduled downtime would cause chaos to their operation due to the tight scheduling.BTW they also mentioned there have been a total of 8 incidents like this in the history of aviation - too far below the noise floor to be feasible to do anything meaningful about it - there are so many possible variations that you couldn't hope to cover them all.On the subject of unlikely events, I just watched "Snakes on a Plane" last week....

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2015, 12:54:42 am
content: To demonstrate just how (security, fire, safety) risk management has changed since the 1960s and 1970s so I can remember being about 3 or 4 yrs old and our family flew to France on a holiday. Not only were there no real baggage checks you could even take the family car on the plane! There must have been a few checks on the car in terms of leaks etc but they just drove our car into the plane via a door in the nose section along with several other cars and we all got in the plane and flew to France! Crazy!

author: IO390
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2015, 01:34:28 am
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on March 29, 2015, 12:39:28 amGermanwings is owned by Lufthansa, which is far from a budget carrier. The maintenance is carried out by Lufthansa (as far as I'm aware), and they are known for carrying out EVERY Service Bulletin issued. (SBs are optional, Airworthiness Directives, ADs, are mandatory.)Also, airliners (GA aircraft aside) are basically all maintained to the same standard. There are some exceptions, of course, like Nepal Airlines who once sacrificed a goat to attempt to fix an issue on a 757. Note also that the statistic of BA having a worse safety record is a little ambiguous, over what time period is this? If it's counting the total number of crashes of each airline, then yes BA will have a worse safety record as they've been around much longer, and were operating back in the days when airline safety was quite a bit worse. On the other hand, Ryanair and most other budget carriers operate only very young fleets of aircraft, which are less likely to have safety issues anyway.Quote from: G0HZU on March 29, 2015, 12:54:42 amWhat A/C was that? Sounds like a Bristol Freighter or something - cool!

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2015, 02:31:39 am
content: It must have been the mid-late 1980s when we flew round-trip from London to Luxembourg aboard a Luxair Caravelle(?). We asked for the "No Smoking" section which turned out to be the right side of the cabin(!).Of particular note was that there was only a curtain between the cabin and the cockpit, and it was only partly drawn. It was the first (and only) time I have ever been able to see forward on a commercial flight.On the return flight we were stacked up waiting to land at Gatwick and for some reason we made so many loops around the Isle of Wight that I feel I have visited there.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2015, 06:17:42 am
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on March 29, 2015, 02:31:39 amI flew to Cape town in the 1990's with the family, and we were in a MD11 where there was only a curtain. Dad went up after take off, and spent most of the flight in the cockpit chatting to the pilots, who were both ex SAAF and ex SAA pilots. They even put him in the co pilot seat and let him land the plane, assisted by the automation systems and backed up by the pilot. He loved that, first plane he had landed in 20 years and the first jet he had ever flown.As to the parachute, it was in 1992, flying to my work after going away for the weekend. Drove up on the bus to the airport, and then slept till sunrise in the airport waiting room, then got on the plane at 07H30. Took off and we were on the way to our first stop when we had an undercarriage warning light during descent, with there being 2 green and one red light on the centre console. The pilot cycled the gear a few times, then the flight engineer came back and opened the side door, and I held him there while we both leaned out to see under the wing. Cycled the gear while looking at the lock mechanism, and we could see it going over into the lock position, so eventually as we burned off Jet A1 we got to the point where we were empty so finally landed very gently. Circled for close to 3 hours burning off fuel, and after we landed and did some percussive maintenance and adjustment of the switch we refuelled, got back in ( the dozen or so that were due for the second leg) and flew to our second stop. Landed and walked into the office at 3PM, instead of at 10AM. They asked why I was late and I joked the Flossie broke down and we had to push it. Only worry was that I hoped they still had that IATA insurance form I had signed about 3 years ago, just in case.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2015, 03:17:21 pm
content: QuoteI can't remember for certain... I have a picture of it somewhere but can't find it. I suspect it was a Bristol Superfreighter although these are really old and may have been out of service when I flew. But I remember that it took at least 3 cars and quite a few passengers and had propellers. I think the reason I remember it so well was because I sat with my dad waiting to see our car get loaded into the front of it. He was more excited than I was and I think that's why I remember this ocassion so well despite being so young.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_SuperfreighterBack in the 60s and 70s there was a company called British Air Ferries that ran this service.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2015, 04:08:17 pm
content: We used to put the Datsun 680 pick up inside the Super Frelons, driving it in through the rear door. Only one guy was small enough to get out of the driver side window, wind his way onto the roof and step off again onto the floor again when it was in and the brakes were on. Then tie it down with cargo straps and away you go with it.Then the police were using one to go burn the fields, and brought back a sample for evidence, all 3 tons of it. They took off with 5 205l drums of jet fuel and 50l of petrol as a start aid, and a lot of scythes, rakes and spades as well. Thankfully I was not drafted as tog labour as well. The one smoker was initially not too willing to be the offloader till he saw the cargo, then he was very willing. Went from skinny to the Michelin man though during the process.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2015, 07:26:14 pm
content: Quote from: G0HZU on March 29, 2015, 03:17:21 pmI've always thought of them as pretty darned ugly aeroplanes. The selling point that it would be commercially viable to use it as a roll-on roll-off ferry in the air didn't work then. But these days, judging by the number of middle eastern plates on supercars clogging up the roads in West London particularly in the summer, there appears to be a market for this these days.

author: HighVoltage
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2015, 10:10:07 am
content: Today the German news reported that the impact at 800 km/h may be was too much for the FDR and they may never find it.And I thought the FDR was built to survive almost any impact, that is why it is sitting in the back of the plane.

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2015, 10:39:16 am
content: Quote from: HighVoltage on March 30, 2015, 10:10:07 amBased on what has been published re: the voice recorder it might not add much. It would confirm the autopilot was set to 100ft, then presumably systems would be normal until a very sharp, brief, decelleration.However, yes, you'd think that they should survivve even being thrown into a mountainside at 600mph - after all there no reason to suppose an accedental, rather than deliberate crash would expose the FDR to a less harsh deceleration.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2015, 11:07:11 am
content: In what year was the previous pilot/copilot himself a suicider/murderer/massmurderer/terrorist?Every system or procedure has it's flaws, 100% uptime is a sales-expression.Looks like a good system and a good procedure.

author: HighVoltage
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2015, 11:20:20 am
content: Quote from: grumpydoc on March 30, 2015, 10:39:16 amI would also not expect too much news coming out of the FDR that will change what we already know. My question was more in regards to the FDR itself.The FDR is mounted in the tail section of the plane and if the nose hits the mountain wall first, the rest of the plane will slow down and the impact for the tail will be somewhat slower and the g-force is damped. May be this was the harshest test ever done to a FDR?From Wikipedia:"FDR and CVR may be combined in a single unit. The two recorders are required by international regulation to be capable of surviving the conditions likely to be encountered in a severe aircraft accident. For this reason, they are typically specified to withstand an impact of 3400 g and temperatures of over 1,000 °C (1,830 °F) as required by EUROCAE ED-112. They have been required in commercial aircraft in the US since 1967."Its hard to believe that a nose first impact would cause 3400 g at the tail end of the plane for the FDR.

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2015, 12:40:31 pm
content: I don't know much about aircraft crash testing but there will be more ways to destroy the FDR than high g.It could get crushed or something sharp could penetrate it or it could get exposed to tremendous heat.I've designed products that have to meet certain g tests and seen them tested at places like Cape/Trac Engineering here in the UK and there's different ways to specify g testing (and also shock and vibration)Sometimes the g test is very brief (milliseconds) and it's a sinusoidal test. Some tests are longer and have random/erratic patterns and these can be very destructive.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2015, 01:46:54 pm
content: AFAIK the CVR and FDR are relatively close to each other, and the CVR survived with only a mangled mounting frame, so I doubt the FDR was destroyed. To achieve 3400G from the ~200m/s it was moving at when it hit, it would have to decelerate from that speed to 0 in a distance of 0.6m - far shorter than the length of the plane itself. I think they're probably still looking for it.On the other hand, there won't be much left of the copilot. Think of jello hitting a wall...

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2015, 03:28:20 pm
content: Quote from: amyk on March 30, 2015, 01:46:54 pmI don't understand this, in the missing Malaysian airplane they were looking for a beacon signal.So if they can not find the beacon signal does that not automatically say it is at least broken beyond the design parameters ?

author: PA0PBZ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2015, 03:29:54 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on March 30, 2015, 03:28:20 pmAFAIK the beacon is turned on when submerged into water. Mike has a nice teardown.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2015, 03:35:55 pm
content: That thing doesn't look like something that can sustain 3000g+. there aren't that much stuff beyond where this thing is mounted - the APU is above it.I think those specs are exaggerated.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2015, 04:09:40 pm
content: The recorder itself does not have to survive, just the data capsule. That they have not found it is not difficult, it probably is buried in the ground, and you will have to basically go looking for it with a metal detector to get it, and pick up a half million little bits of mangled plane as well.The pinger is located on the recorder frame, and the design there is it will activate in water, though it may not be attached to the recorder itself and have torn off. It too will survive the impact, but is not designed to survive the cooking, seeing as it operates with water so if it burns on ground it is not needed. It tells you where the back end is so you can search for the drowned plane.I have seen plane crashes where large items tore out of the frames they were in, and went through very substantial aluminium castings after making a somewhat mangled box shaped hole in it.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2015, 05:37:07 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on March 30, 2015, 04:09:40 pmAk ok well lets wait for the rain then.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2015, 05:39:57 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on March 30, 2015, 04:09:40 pmDon't forget, sometimes even a 3.4 tonnes lump of metal can go missing (so far for nearly six decades):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Tybee_Island_mid-air_collision

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2015, 06:14:11 pm
content: An unconfirmed report I saw was that parts of the FDR had been found, but the memory module was missing. So now they may have to search for a potted PCB among all the debris and body parts on a steep mountainside. A tough job for those people.I can't see that the FDR can add any more information than the CVR though, it may confirm the Altitude setting was deliberately set to 100 ft. It probably won't have information on the door lock actions, nor could it provide any clues to the state of mind of Lubitz.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2015, 08:12:34 pm
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on March 30, 2015, 06:14:11 pmNo but the onofficial stories now leaked to the press (girlfriend, doctors, friends) give enough clues to the state of mind, though it will always be part speculation.In the meanwhile it is clear that the co-pilot was having psychiatric assistance and medical examinations. The latter finding that his retina was getting loose which was a reason for the doctor to declare him sick and unfit to fly and probably would cost him his license foregood.If the aircarrier was aware of his medical situation he would have been grounded and probably fired in a short term.Now in Germany and the rest of Europe there is a discussion ongoing if doctors in such cases should not be allowed to break their doctor patient confidentiality and make an (anonymous) report to the proper authorities.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2015, 11:08:53 am
content: QuoteIf I were a doctor, I would oppose that - as it puts tremendous amount of pressure on me to assess if someone is good for a particular job. If I made a mistake (either way), the repercussion (and career / financial damages to me) could be huge.From my perspective it is best that the burden be on the patient.

author: JoeO
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2015, 04:14:05 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on March 31, 2015, 11:08:53 amDoctors make life and death decisions all the time.Secondly, where would you put a psycho patient? Teacher? Cop? Soldier? Father?The only place left for them would be as a politician!

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2015, 04:19:52 pm
content: We used to hospitalize people who had mental problems.But then it became not "socially acceptable".So now they roam our streets (and apparently fly our planes).Anyone who goes into politics has a form of mental illness by definition.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2015, 05:07:35 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on March 31, 2015, 11:08:53 amI totally understand where you're coming from, but the pilot's Aviation Medical Examiner does already discuss their general health directly with the pilot's General Practitioner (not sure how international that term is, but a GP is the doctor you see when you have a non-emergency ailment) to assess their health history as part of their annual aviation medical. In the UK at least, this is all computerised directly with the AME logging onto the CAA's system, and medicals are issued and cancelled immediately. You simply won't get your medical if you refuse to allow the third party discussion to take place. It's only a small step for the pilot to agree further to allow interim reports, as deemed necessary, to be discussed too.I'm seeing my AME tomorrow to renew my own medical, I'll ask him what he thinks.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2015, 06:22:48 pm
content: QuoteThe left stigmatized the care system we had for the mentally ill. Now, they receive no care and are killing themselves and others in the process.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2015, 07:51:31 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on March 31, 2015, 06:22:48 pmThat's what they call "Progressive".

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2015, 09:50:08 pm
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on March 31, 2015, 04:19:52 pmThe primary reason for psychiatric "deinstitutionalization" as it occurred in the 1950s and 1960s was the development of antipsychotic drugs. Before then there wherenoeffective treatments for psychotic disorders (schizophrenia, bipolar 1, etc). The fact that many of the state psychiatric hospitals at the time were pretty inhumane in their treatment of such individuals is a separate issue. Without the new drugs those patients would have stayed locked up.Like most things the pendulum swang too far in the opposite direction. The psychiatric hospital system withered into almost nothing. Since many patients with psychotic disorders do not consistently take their meds they often end up homeless, on the street, acting "nucking futs".Despite the acknowledged needs, no one wants to fund (taxes!) psychiatric hospitals. I live in a county of 60k people. We have no psychiatric hospital nor does the adjoining county. The nearest one is an hour and a half away and rarely has open beds.Most psychiatric problems are not psychotic disorders. Depression and anxiety are extremely common in our society and this has nothing to do with deinstitutionalization of psychotic patients. Even prior to deinstitutionalization only the most extremely depressed were hospitalized. Suicides rates are similar or lower now than they were pre-deinstitutionalization.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2015, 06:46:10 pm
content: The missing flight recorder has been found.Also a lot (tens) of smartphones that will be investigated.They already have found some video a passenger had made privately the last minutes of the flight so they hope to find more evidence.

author: rolycat
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2015, 07:17:47 pm
content: From BBC News:QuoteWhich confirms that this heinous murder-suicide was entirely premeditated.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2015, 08:22:09 pm
content: That's the price we (mentally ill + the rest of the society) pay for being politically correct.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2015, 09:09:01 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on April 02, 2015, 08:22:09 pmI contend that this person would have slipped through the system regardless.His doctor would have had to have said something, which is not currently permitted & as stated previously, may not necessarily be what is desired by doctors themselves.I think this is unfortunate, but it's going to happen. It's a very rare event because pilots of commercial airlines go through very strict psychoanalysis to weed out these kinds.But what if he was caught, anyway? I'm not really sure what you can do about a person who decides to kill 150 people along with himself. In my eyes, that person is clearly "broken" - they are not functioning like a normal human being. And, even the best treatments cannot cure some differences like that. So what do you do? Hospitalisation is probably the only reasonable thing.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2015, 01:58:43 am
content: Quote from: rolycat on April 02, 2015, 07:17:47 pmWhy would a pilot have to search for information about cockpit doors? Aren't they supposed to know how they work already...?The FDR has been found... and while extremely dirty, appears to be intact:http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.gwi18g/images/photo.fdr.3.jpg

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2015, 02:20:33 am
content: When I had my own aviation medical exam a few days ago, I provided the details of my own doctor on the form as usual. Also on the form there are about forty yes/no questions on various illnesses, and if necessary there's a free form text area to describe any that you've answered yes to. The examiner (a doctor in their own right but with aviation medical training) can then go and get further details from the GP if s/he feels it necessary to do so, but due to patient confidentiality, this has to be done in a very controlled way, the examiner can't just pick up the phone to the pilot's quack and get his/her entire medical history sent to them.You can see the form we use in the UK herehttp://www.caa.co.uk/docs/49/Medical%20Certificate%20Application%20MED160.pdfThis is of course totally dependent on the examinee to provide truthful information at the outset.In addition, any subsequent changes to one's medical circumstances must be discussed with the medical examiner, but again this is dependent on the pilot divulging that information in the first place.By the way, my examiner's view (also a pilot) is simply that there should always be two crew in the cockpit. To have a form of automatic disclosure would be against patient confidentiality.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2015, 11:26:23 am
content: QuoteSeems to be in excellent shape.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2015, 11:32:50 am
content: Wonder how deep it was buried.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2015, 07:14:20 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on April 05, 2015, 11:32:50 amWhat I read is that it was not buried, it was found while searching a pile of clothes and other items, but the reason they had difficulty to spot it at all was because it was exactly the same colour as the rock it was laying on/between.So since this is real proof that the FDR can exit the orange/red box it is mounted in as a cause of an accident it could be wise to also colour the inside boxes/electronics with a distinct non natural colour.

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 05, 2015, 07:37:05 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on April 05, 2015, 07:14:20 pmThe protective enclosure of the FDR recording module, as shown in the photo from BEA as linked above,is notthe condition in which the FDR was found on location. The recording module did not exit the FDR. BEA already separated the recording module from the remains of the FDR box before making that photo.The mess of an FDR as found on location can be seen on theAviation Herald, or from another perspective onAIN Online. Especially on the photo as posted on AI Online (also shown below) you can easily identify the recording module on the right-hand side of the hunk of mangled metal that was once an FDR... You might also notice that there is nothing left of the shiny red color on the remains of the FDR - the paint has been thoroughly burned(?) off the metal box. Another layer of paint would not have helped at all in such a situation as this...

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2015, 07:37:54 pm
content: Could a radioactive substance be used to tag this part? Would a non hazard particle emitting material be detectable?Alexander.

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 05, 2015, 07:54:38 pm
content: Quote from: firewalker on April 05, 2015, 07:37:54 pmWhat are you talking about? "Radioactive" and "non hazard particle emitting material"? What? You mean radioactivity that is still strong and detectable across reasonable distances while at the same time not being really radioactive/harmful? Unfortunately, radioactivity is generally harmful unless you limit its intensity to an amount that is only reliably detectable over very short distances...What do you think would passengers and crew do if they would have to endure radioactive showers from the flight recorders during the time of a flight?

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2015, 08:02:08 pm
content: NOTE: This message has been deleted by the forum moderator EEVblog for being against the forum rules and/or at the discretion of the moderator as being in the best interests of the forum community and the nature of the thread.If you believe this to be in error, please contact the moderator involved.An optional additional explanation is:

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2015, 10:06:50 pm
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on April 05, 2015, 08:02:08 pmYup, things are black or white. No room for a sensible continuum here.

author: PeterFW
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2015, 10:18:31 pm
content: Quote from: elgonzo on April 05, 2015, 07:54:38 pmThey allready get a "radioactive shower" during flight... i might be totally of since i do not want to ask google to confirm but iirc a stuitable lengh flight delivers the same dose as an xray. Not including the dose from the body scanner at the airport if they have one.

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 05, 2015, 10:31:09 pm
content: Quote from: PeterFW on April 05, 2015, 10:18:31 pmYes, they do. Tell them that and then ask them what they would think about adding some more gamma radiation on top of that...

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2015, 10:42:54 pm
content: QuoteThere is some value in that. Some trace amount of radioactive materials would make locating the device in a land crash quite helpful.

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 05, 2015, 10:47:59 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf_who_cannot_quote_properly on April 05, 2015, 10:42:54 pmYou know, you could just also use a good old-fashioned metal detector. Not only less dangerous (because no hazardous materials involved), but also better chance of success unless you choose some big "trace" amount of radiation that is able to penetrate layers of (moist) soil or something similar...

author: cosmicray
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2015, 11:02:34 pm
content: Quote from: PA0PBZ on March 28, 2015, 06:17:24 pmThe ADS-B squitter is emitting enhanced information (on some so equipped aircraft). This was first noticed by one of the web sites, that tracks aircraft movements. thru a cooperative network of ADS-B receivers. They had the data, but did not know to even look at it until the crash occurred. Then they discovered that the settings on the airbus had been deliberately changed. Once they saw that, they notified LH of the data.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2015, 11:29:46 pm
content: Quote from: cosmicray on April 05, 2015, 11:02:34 pmI wonder if they will ever bounce back information like that automatically to air traffic control? Of course then you'd have to decide what information is important. Cabin pressure, fire alarm would be easy enough though.

author: cosmicray
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2015, 11:55:34 pm
content: Quote from: pickle9000 on April 05, 2015, 11:29:46 pmIn this case, the data is sent so that air-traffic control can note that an aircraft is about to change flight levels, and if moving to a non-approved level, they can query the crew about intentions (and/or alert other aircraft of a potential problem).

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2015, 07:46:59 am
content: How about a UV fluorescent paint bomb that is discharged one minute after the crash.At night you can detect it easily with uv from a chopper

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2015, 11:31:45 am
content: Quote from: Kjelt on April 06, 2015, 07:46:59 amJust have the heavy glass bottle there, it will disperse itself. Most accidents if you find the wreckage you will eventually find those recorders, there have been very few where they were totally destroyed, but quite a few where the recorders were inoperative either from failure during flight or even from having failed a while ago. They are not considered as flight critical systems.BTW the engine management units also have some data storage, which might also be readable. You might have to decap the chips and use a probe station to read them though.

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 06, 2015, 01:42:20 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on April 06, 2015, 11:31:45 amNah, you don't need to decap and probe the silicon when you want to readout the NVM of an aircraft component. If you don't already have the information of (A) where NVM is located inside the device or (B) how to read out the NVM, you simply request this information from the manufacturer of the respective device. Remember, "you" are an authority responsible for (safety) investigations of aviation incidents...

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2015, 01:48:21 pm
content: ECM parts do not have to survive the crash intact, though as they typically are in the engine nacelle and break off first they often do survive the ensuing fire. The decap is because typically you get parts of PCB's only, slightly twisted and mangled. the chips themselves do survive in many cases, just not in an intact and plug in and read manner.

author: Wytnucls
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2015, 01:59:42 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on April 06, 2015, 11:31:45 amNowadays, either the DFDR or the CVR has to be operating normally before flight and the faulty unit has to be repaired within 25 flight hours.

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 06, 2015, 01:59:48 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on April 06, 2015, 01:48:21 pmAh, yes. I was forgetting that the chip packages or their leads/pads could be broken due to mechanical forces occuring during impact... Doh!