Today's Airbus Crash or Keep Your Computer Out of My Car

[eth2]

According to the New York Times:

The crash of the Germanwings plane in the French Alps that killed 150 people most likely happened because the co-pilot crashed the jet deliberately, the prosecutor in France heading the criminal investigation said on Tuesday.

[CECAA850]

I just read an article on the crash.  It's absolutely sickening.

[LarryC]

I just read an article on the crash.  It's absolutely sickening.

For sure.  The cable networks are totally abuzz with expert commentary and analysis about this.  I very much like CNN's approach of multiple experts, which MSNBC seems to be mimicking to good effect.  Very complex subject which can't be summarized in 5-minute news reading segments.  Very bad mistake to not totally require a second person in the cockpit regardless of temptations to bend the rules, even if very briefly.

[CECAA850]

How ironic that this thread was started as a condemnation of computers.

[eth2]

How ironic that this thread was started as a condemnation of computers.

If the computer had not locked the pilot out of the cockpit, this would not have happened.

If someone outside the cockpit suspects the pilot is incapacitated, that person would normally first try to establish contact via the intercom or by activating a buzzer. If those efforts were unsuccessful, the video shows, a crew member outside the cockpit would need to enter an emergency code on the keypad.

The code activates a loud buzzer and flashing light on the cockpit control panel, and it sets off a timer that unlocks the door 30 seconds later. The person outside has five seconds to enter before the door locks again

[eth2]

It's the best argument I can come up with on short notice.

[eth2]

Forget it

Edited March 26, 2015 by eth2

[CECAA850]

Except for "Bite me, Carl."

 

 

That's the Earl that we all know and (semi) love.

[jimjimbo]

So much for early speculation.....

[CECAA850]

So much for early speculation.....

 

That's why Jack Webb prowled the first page.

[eth2]

Except for "Bite me, Carl."

 

 

That's the Earl that we all know and (semi) love.

Oh, never mind. Its not worth it.

Edited March 26, 2015 by eth2

[CECAA850]

Consistency HAS to count for something. 

[Paducah Home Theater]

All the big planes nowadays are controlled by wire. There are no mechanical devices that go from the cockpit to the rudder or engines or whatever. That being said, it's pretty dumb that we can't control them remotely. You can even hack some cars and control them remotely at least to whatever extent the computer allows. And we can't do that with a fully computerized airplane? The technology is there. No reason why we can't utilize it. It would have been TONS more effective than door locks and banning shampoo bottles after 9/11. No response from the pilot and/or you know it is hijacked and/or doing a dangerous maneuver? Fine, take the plane over remotely. You could probably land one knowing nothing but gps coordinates and an altitude.

Edited March 26, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[CECAA850]

it's pretty dumb that we can't control them remotely.

 

Then the terrorists wouldn't die when they hijack it remotely.

[Thaddeus Smith]

Would probably be better to just de-invent the airplane and go back to using ships and zeppelins for moving large groups of people.

[eth2]

There is a middle ground between complete automation and non-human intereference

[Thaddeus Smith]

you are correct. 

[eth2]

As always

[Mallette]

Then the terrorists wouldn't die when they hijack it remotely.

 

If our military, which should be the ones handling such a situation, cannot devise a hack proof system we are already much more screwed than just terrorists.

 

Dave

[CECAA850]

No one (including you big Dave) will ever convince me that something will ever be created that's 100% hack proof.  It might take an entire foreign country to do it or maybe a crazy talented whack job, but it'll be possible.