|
On March 28 2015 01:33 lord_nibbler wrote: zatic I am totally on your side in this. How can people not see, that bringing an 'outsider' into the cockpit introduces a whole lot of other problems? Well the US has this rule, and afaik there have been no crashes of this kind in the US? Additionally a plane is not a car. I'm not sure if someone like you or me could be able to volontarily crash a flying plane if we wanted to (apart from letting it fly until it runs out of kerosene ofc).
|
On March 28 2015 01:39 OtherWorld wrote:Well the US has this rule, and afaik there have been no crashes of this kind in the US? That is statistically unrepresentative. Till 3 days ago, no rough European pilot had ever flown into a mountain. So the European standards were perfectly safe as well.
Additionally a plane is not a car. I'm not sure if someone like you or me could be able to volontarily crash a flying plane if we wanted to (apart from letting it fly until it runs out of kerosene ofc). It's surprisingly easy, especially with the autopilot on. I am pretty sure it is just one button and turning the big knob a couple of times.
|
On March 27 2015 23:29 Maenander wrote: I find it an insult to people struggling with depression and suicidal thoughts to imply that this is a typical case of depression or that such people are in general not able to shoulder responsibility for other people. I am convinced there are many suicidal persons out there that live solely because they feel responsible for other peoples's lives.
who cares if you feel insulted, the fact of the matter is depression is a pretty dangerous thing and should be taken seriously
|
On March 28 2015 01:39 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 01:33 lord_nibbler wrote: zatic I am totally on your side in this. How can people not see, that bringing an 'outsider' into the cockpit introduces a whole lot of other problems? Well the US has this rule, and afaik there have been no crashes of this kind in the US? Additionally a plane is not a car. I'm not sure if someone like you or me could be able to volontarily crash a flying plane if we wanted to (apart from letting it fly until it runs out of kerosene ofc).
Well the thing is: If a pilot really wants to crash a plane, he can do it. Especiaqlly during start and landing.
We have to accept that there is allways a risk involved, in everything we do. Ladders fall, people do stupid/strange/unexpected things. No law will ever be able to prevent it.
I for my part will happily fly, even if they dont change a thing. Still safer than riding my bike in the city....
|
On March 28 2015 01:33 lord_nibbler wrote: zatic I am totally on your side in this. How can people not see, that bringing an 'outsider' into the cockpit introduces a whole lot of other problems? 3rd person is not an outsider, it is a company member with the same clearance level as the pilots. I would agree that an audio announcement for anyone to replace the pilot would probably not be a could idea.
Some of the older pilots in our local club remember a time (20/30 years back probably) when they could show their licence and ask to get in the cockpit, most of the time getting a tour by the pilot and sometimes their hands on the plane. Not something that would be allowed nowdays
|
Bringing more people to the cockpit does not help.
Another idea was assemble more constant crews. A more family like working atmossphere in wich problems could be admitted easier.
The fact that every major newspaper and newschannel is now mixing up "maybe being in psychological treatment" with "capable of mass murder suicide" is not helping the fact that the hardest part of having any psychological disorder is confessing it to someone and to seek help.
This makes it even harder for pilots to seek help.
|
On March 28 2015 01:51 plgElwood wrote: Another idea was assemble more constant crews. A more family like working atmossphere in wich problems could be admitted easier. But there are very good reasons to shuffle crews up! Routine sets in very quickly and fixed crews develop hierarchies and they can be detrimental. Take Korean Air for example, they had one of the worst accident records in civil aviation. I think they lost three or four planes just because of bad communication between the two pilots. They teamed up decorated Korean war veteran pilots with rookie fresh-out-of-flight-school youngsters, who would not dare to speak up and correct their captains even when the ground was getting near.
|
On March 28 2015 01:47 FFGenerations wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 23:29 Maenander wrote: I find it an insult to people struggling with depression and suicidal thoughts to imply that this is a typical case of depression or that such people are in general not able to shoulder responsibility for other people. I am convinced there are many suicidal persons out there that live solely because they feel responsible for other peoples's lives. who cares if you feel insulted, the fact of the matter is depression is a pretty dangerous thing and should be taken seriously How is depression dangerous to anyone except the sufferer? This guy obviously had more mental issues than just depression.
|
There are about 40 million flights per year worldwide. There is one suicide pilot. Now everyone thinks all pilots are suicide candidates and we need to put safety precautions in place.
The same we have seen with Elliot Rodger where people thought that every autist is a potential mass murderer.
|
On March 28 2015 01:47 FFGenerations wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 23:29 Maenander wrote: I find it an insult to people struggling with depression and suicidal thoughts to imply that this is a typical case of depression or that such people are in general not able to shoulder responsibility for other people. I am convinced there are many suicidal persons out there that live solely because they feel responsible for other peoples's lives. who cares if you feel insulted, the fact of the matter is depression is a pretty dangerous thing and should be taken seriously
what do you mean with dangerous thing?
|
On March 27 2015 18:48 WonnaPlay wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 05:51 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On March 27 2015 05:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 27 2015 05:02 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Planes today can both fly and land themselves. You could easily give ground control an override code that shuts off manual control completely and then flies to the nearest airport with an ILS or whatever auto land system the plane uses. They can take off and land themselves, but only small planes in calm conditions. There are a lot of crazy and dangerous to land airports around the world. Not to mention, what hapens in an emergency? Who gets to send the overide code? Where is the overide control placed? Who has access? Trust me what you just said is not a good idea. You know what also can't land itself? A plane that's getting crashed by the pilot. The plane doesn't have to land at a dangerous airport. It can take the best one within the fuel range it has. If it has to try because it's out of fuel it still beats 100 % chance of death because of crazy. Override control is integrated into the planes computer which has a specific encrypted code in it and the system has access to both the autopilot, FBW as well as navigation systems. In case of an emergency there's already more than one flight controller on the case. If 2 (or 3 or 4,5,6 however many you think is necessary) enter the flight number and their personal code the encrypted code is sent to the plane which activates the system. The personal codes are sent to the airports computer in order to retrieve the encrypted override code and send it to the plane. This deactivates FBW, makes the plane check which airports are in fuel range, selects one airport, plots a course in the autopilot to get there and put the plane in the correct approach angle and activates auto-landing to scan for ILS or whatever system it has. If the plane is out of radio range and doesn't have satellite communications for some reason then you can't activate the system and your fucked. Edit: I guess you could also have the override code open the cockpit door if you wanted to. I trust computers more than humans tho. Edit 2: An auto-land override also prevents hijackers if they somehow manage to get control of the plane. Sorry if I come across as a total dick, but this is probably one of the worst ideas, which should never* be implemented. In this current day and age, we have no guarantee, nor will we in the near future to guarantee such technique. Even if we are able to land that plan in the most difficult airport there is, you're opening yourself to 1.000.000 security risks. However, your train of thought is correct. I'd agree fully with you, if it weren't for the following facts; a] Anything with a network connection is hackable. b] Current radio signals are not safe at all. c] Sensors can be horribly wrong, as shown in that report from the other Airbus A320 (frozen sensors equals crazy unexpected dive from airplane). d] Hijackers can hijack 1.000 planes at the same time instead of 2-3, with the same manpower. (Force themselves into airtraffic control with 15-20 terrorists and threaten/torture the air traffic team, untill they get the codes. Crashing all 1000 planes at once. As long as these points are uncertain. It is impossible to implement such a technique. I would also want to rely on computers as you, however we just can't yet. *As long as security is behind in terms of hackability.
I don't think you quite understand the tech behind it.
You're thinking last generation tech where we had to remote control the aircraft from the ground. This has nothing to do with that at all and there's 100 % no chance of hacking the aircraft from the ground. The aircraft is NOT remote controlled. Think of it as a pilot on it's own. We have cars that can drive themselves, that's infinitely more difficult for a computer compared to flying a plane.
The plane knows where it is, all relevant navigational data, how much fuel it has, the range it has with that fuel, the programmed flight plan and it's easy to add in where major airports are in the world.
Now give the computer the following two premises which are either 0 (green, everything normal) or 1 (red, something is wrong). a) I am on the current flight plan which is 0 if navigational data suggests this is true and 1 if there is a deviation. b) Pilots can be trusted (0) unless an encrypted 10 digit code has been sent by traffic controllers.
As long as EITHER of these values are still 0 the pilots have full control of the plane. If both turn to 1 the plane does the following things.
1) Compare current range estimates to position and known airports selecting the closest available airport. 2) Send notification about selected airport to flight control. 3) Plot autopilot course towards airport that will bring it into correct approach angle for the landing system. 4) Disable FBW systems. 5) Land at airport.
This is perfectly doable with today's tech, even last generation tech could do this. Hell probably even 2 generations back could do this (like 90's) even though it might be a bit dangerous.
About your points:
a] Anything with a network connection is hackable.
Why would it have a network connection? That's incredibly stupid. The only input data from the ground would be the code. You simply cannot hack a system that doesn't have data input. Any hacking would have to be done locally on the actual plane which you could do today (just mess up the autopilot or why not plant a bomb, same result?). This kind of security is handled physically.
b] Current radio signals are not safe at all.
Civilian radio signals are not safe. But either way it doesn't matter at all. The plane has an encrypted password on board, the other one is stored in secure servers. And even if you somehow get the password and send it as long as the aircraft stays on the flight plan nothing happened and in the worst case scenario it lands safely!
c] Sensors can be horribly wrong, as shown in that report from the other Airbus A320 (frozen sensors equals crazy unexpected dive from airplane).
That is the only reason you have pilots at all today. But for this to be a problem in this scenario you need to have a sensor problem at the same time you have a pilot problem which is an unreasonably small chance.
d] Hijackers can hijack 1.000 planes at the same time instead of 2-3, with the same manpower. (Force themselves into airtraffic control with 15-20 terrorists and threaten/torture the air traffic team, untill they get the codes. Crashing all 1000 planes at once.
1) You do not force yourself into air traffic control with 15-20 terrorists. You don't even get through the front gate of the airport. It's like assaulting a nuclear plant if your target is a major airport or possibly even worse. But say the clone Bruce Willis x 15 and they get through before the system can be shut down. They transmit the code (remember it's NOT remote control) and the planes put a 1 in "can't trust pilot". But since the flight plan doesn't change nothing happens and even if the pilots take another route (which is possible considering all air traffic is diverted) the only thing that happens is that the planes land themselves. Unless the 15 Bruces got into all of the planes and locally hacked their computers as well...
|
On March 28 2015 02:17 excitedBear wrote: There are about 40 million flights per year worldwide. There is one suicide pilot. Now everyone thinks all pilots are suicide candidates and we need to put safety precautions in place.
The same we have seen with Elliot Rodger where people thought that every autist is a potential mass murderer. The reason some airlines already have safety precautions in place is because having a single "point of failure" is always a bad thing. E.g. non-depressed but rogue pilot gets sole control by locking out someone else and does something dangerous.
The fact that the rules were already in place by some airlines shows that the considerations were already there that it was dangerous to have only one person in the cockpit.Just not sufficiently dangerous that all airlines felt the need to do the same.
|
In 5 years a pilot will go to the toilet, the crewmember who has to be in the cockpit for that time hits the other pilot k.o. and the plane crashes. We will have the same discussion the other way arround "What does someone else then a pilot do there?".
There is no 100% saftey to gain.
|
On March 28 2015 05:09 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 18:48 WonnaPlay wrote:On March 27 2015 05:51 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On March 27 2015 05:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 27 2015 05:02 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Planes today can both fly and land themselves. You could easily give ground control an override code that shuts off manual control completely and then flies to the nearest airport with an ILS or whatever auto land system the plane uses. They can take off and land themselves, but only small planes in calm conditions. There are a lot of crazy and dangerous to land airports around the world. Not to mention, what hapens in an emergency? Who gets to send the overide code? Where is the overide control placed? Who has access? Trust me what you just said is not a good idea. You know what also can't land itself? A plane that's getting crashed by the pilot. The plane doesn't have to land at a dangerous airport. It can take the best one within the fuel range it has. If it has to try because it's out of fuel it still beats 100 % chance of death because of crazy. Override control is integrated into the planes computer which has a specific encrypted code in it and the system has access to both the autopilot, FBW as well as navigation systems. In case of an emergency there's already more than one flight controller on the case. If 2 (or 3 or 4,5,6 however many you think is necessary) enter the flight number and their personal code the encrypted code is sent to the plane which activates the system. The personal codes are sent to the airports computer in order to retrieve the encrypted override code and send it to the plane. This deactivates FBW, makes the plane check which airports are in fuel range, selects one airport, plots a course in the autopilot to get there and put the plane in the correct approach angle and activates auto-landing to scan for ILS or whatever system it has. If the plane is out of radio range and doesn't have satellite communications for some reason then you can't activate the system and your fucked. Edit: I guess you could also have the override code open the cockpit door if you wanted to. I trust computers more than humans tho. Edit 2: An auto-land override also prevents hijackers if they somehow manage to get control of the plane. Sorry if I come across as a total dick, but this is probably one of the worst ideas, which should never* be implemented. In this current day and age, we have no guarantee, nor will we in the near future to guarantee such technique. Even if we are able to land that plan in the most difficult airport there is, you're opening yourself to 1.000.000 security risks. However, your train of thought is correct. I'd agree fully with you, if it weren't for the following facts; a] Anything with a network connection is hackable. b] Current radio signals are not safe at all. c] Sensors can be horribly wrong, as shown in that report from the other Airbus A320 (frozen sensors equals crazy unexpected dive from airplane). d] Hijackers can hijack 1.000 planes at the same time instead of 2-3, with the same manpower. (Force themselves into airtraffic control with 15-20 terrorists and threaten/torture the air traffic team, untill they get the codes. Crashing all 1000 planes at once. As long as these points are uncertain. It is impossible to implement such a technique. I would also want to rely on computers as you, however we just can't yet. *As long as security is behind in terms of hackability. I don't think you quite understand the tech behind it. You're thinking last generation tech where we had to remote control the aircraft from the ground. This has nothing to do with that at all and there's 100 % no chance of hacking the aircraft from the ground. The aircraft is NOT remote controlled. Think of it as a pilot on it's own. We have cars that can drive themselves, that's infinitely more difficult for a computer compared to flying a plane. The plane knows where it is, all relevant navigational data, how much fuel it has, the range it has with that fuel, the programmed flight plan and it's easy to add in where major airports are in the world. Now give the computer the following two premises which are either 0 (green, everything normal) or 1 (red, something is wrong). a) I am on the current flight plan which is 0 if navigational data suggests this is true and 1 if there is a deviation. b) Pilots can be trusted (0) unless an encrypted 10 digit code has been sent by traffic controllers. As long as EITHER of these values are still 0 the pilots have full control of the plane. If both turn to 1 the plane does the following things. 1) Compare current range estimates to position and known airports selecting the closest available airport. 2) Send notification about selected airport to flight control. 3) Plot autopilot course towards airport that will bring it into correct approach angle for the landing system. 4) Disable FBW systems. 5) Land at airport. This is perfectly doable with today's tech, even last generation tech could do this. Hell probably even 2 generations back could do this (like 90's) even though it might be a bit dangerous. About your points: a] Anything with a network connection is hackable. Why would it have a network connection? That's incredibly stupid. The only input data from the ground would be the code. You simply cannot hack a system that doesn't have data input. Any hacking would have to be done locally on the actual plane which you could do today (just mess up the autopilot or why not plant a bomb, same result?). This kind of security is handled physically. b] Current radio signals are not safe at all. Civilian radio signals are not safe. But either way it doesn't matter at all. The plane has an encrypted password on board, the other one is stored in secure servers. And even if you somehow get the password and send it as long as the aircraft stays on the flight plan nothing happened and in the worst case scenario it lands safely! c] Sensors can be horribly wrong, as shown in that report from the other Airbus A320 (frozen sensors equals crazy unexpected dive from airplane). That is the only reason you have pilots at all today. But for this to be a problem in this scenario you need to have a sensor problem at the same time you have a pilot problem which is an unreasonably small chance. d] Hijackers can hijack 1.000 planes at the same time instead of 2-3, with the same manpower. (Force themselves into airtraffic control with 15-20 terrorists and threaten/torture the air traffic team, untill they get the codes. Crashing all 1000 planes at once. 1) You do not force yourself into air traffic control with 15-20 terrorists. You don't even get through the front gate of the airport. It's like assaulting a nuclear plant if your target is a major airport or possibly even worse. But say the clone Bruce Willis x 15 and they get through before the system can be shut down. They transmit the code (remember it's NOT remote control) and the planes put a 1 in "can't trust pilot". But since the flight plan doesn't change nothing happens and even if the pilots take another route (which is possible considering all air traffic is diverted) the only thing that happens is that the planes land themselves. Unless the 15 Bruces got into all of the planes and locally hacked their computers as well...
Blah blah blah. There's only one thing needed to refute all of that, and that is that planes can't actually land themselves. All autoland procedures are based on human input and supervision.
|
On March 28 2015 05:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 05:09 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On March 27 2015 18:48 WonnaPlay wrote:On March 27 2015 05:51 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On March 27 2015 05:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 27 2015 05:02 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Planes today can both fly and land themselves. You could easily give ground control an override code that shuts off manual control completely and then flies to the nearest airport with an ILS or whatever auto land system the plane uses. They can take off and land themselves, but only small planes in calm conditions. There are a lot of crazy and dangerous to land airports around the world. Not to mention, what hapens in an emergency? Who gets to send the overide code? Where is the overide control placed? Who has access? Trust me what you just said is not a good idea. You know what also can't land itself? A plane that's getting crashed by the pilot. The plane doesn't have to land at a dangerous airport. It can take the best one within the fuel range it has. If it has to try because it's out of fuel it still beats 100 % chance of death because of crazy. Override control is integrated into the planes computer which has a specific encrypted code in it and the system has access to both the autopilot, FBW as well as navigation systems. In case of an emergency there's already more than one flight controller on the case. If 2 (or 3 or 4,5,6 however many you think is necessary) enter the flight number and their personal code the encrypted code is sent to the plane which activates the system. The personal codes are sent to the airports computer in order to retrieve the encrypted override code and send it to the plane. This deactivates FBW, makes the plane check which airports are in fuel range, selects one airport, plots a course in the autopilot to get there and put the plane in the correct approach angle and activates auto-landing to scan for ILS or whatever system it has. If the plane is out of radio range and doesn't have satellite communications for some reason then you can't activate the system and your fucked. Edit: I guess you could also have the override code open the cockpit door if you wanted to. I trust computers more than humans tho. Edit 2: An auto-land override also prevents hijackers if they somehow manage to get control of the plane. Sorry if I come across as a total dick, but this is probably one of the worst ideas, which should never* be implemented. In this current day and age, we have no guarantee, nor will we in the near future to guarantee such technique. Even if we are able to land that plan in the most difficult airport there is, you're opening yourself to 1.000.000 security risks. However, your train of thought is correct. I'd agree fully with you, if it weren't for the following facts; a] Anything with a network connection is hackable. b] Current radio signals are not safe at all. c] Sensors can be horribly wrong, as shown in that report from the other Airbus A320 (frozen sensors equals crazy unexpected dive from airplane). d] Hijackers can hijack 1.000 planes at the same time instead of 2-3, with the same manpower. (Force themselves into airtraffic control with 15-20 terrorists and threaten/torture the air traffic team, untill they get the codes. Crashing all 1000 planes at once. As long as these points are uncertain. It is impossible to implement such a technique. I would also want to rely on computers as you, however we just can't yet. *As long as security is behind in terms of hackability. I don't think you quite understand the tech behind it. You're thinking last generation tech where we had to remote control the aircraft from the ground. This has nothing to do with that at all and there's 100 % no chance of hacking the aircraft from the ground. The aircraft is NOT remote controlled. Think of it as a pilot on it's own. We have cars that can drive themselves, that's infinitely more difficult for a computer compared to flying a plane. The plane knows where it is, all relevant navigational data, how much fuel it has, the range it has with that fuel, the programmed flight plan and it's easy to add in where major airports are in the world. Now give the computer the following two premises which are either 0 (green, everything normal) or 1 (red, something is wrong). a) I am on the current flight plan which is 0 if navigational data suggests this is true and 1 if there is a deviation. b) Pilots can be trusted (0) unless an encrypted 10 digit code has been sent by traffic controllers. As long as EITHER of these values are still 0 the pilots have full control of the plane. If both turn to 1 the plane does the following things. 1) Compare current range estimates to position and known airports selecting the closest available airport. 2) Send notification about selected airport to flight control. 3) Plot autopilot course towards airport that will bring it into correct approach angle for the landing system. 4) Disable FBW systems. 5) Land at airport. This is perfectly doable with today's tech, even last generation tech could do this. Hell probably even 2 generations back could do this (like 90's) even though it might be a bit dangerous. About your points: a] Anything with a network connection is hackable. Why would it have a network connection? That's incredibly stupid. The only input data from the ground would be the code. You simply cannot hack a system that doesn't have data input. Any hacking would have to be done locally on the actual plane which you could do today (just mess up the autopilot or why not plant a bomb, same result?). This kind of security is handled physically. b] Current radio signals are not safe at all. Civilian radio signals are not safe. But either way it doesn't matter at all. The plane has an encrypted password on board, the other one is stored in secure servers. And even if you somehow get the password and send it as long as the aircraft stays on the flight plan nothing happened and in the worst case scenario it lands safely! c] Sensors can be horribly wrong, as shown in that report from the other Airbus A320 (frozen sensors equals crazy unexpected dive from airplane). That is the only reason you have pilots at all today. But for this to be a problem in this scenario you need to have a sensor problem at the same time you have a pilot problem which is an unreasonably small chance. d] Hijackers can hijack 1.000 planes at the same time instead of 2-3, with the same manpower. (Force themselves into airtraffic control with 15-20 terrorists and threaten/torture the air traffic team, untill they get the codes. Crashing all 1000 planes at once. 1) You do not force yourself into air traffic control with 15-20 terrorists. You don't even get through the front gate of the airport. It's like assaulting a nuclear plant if your target is a major airport or possibly even worse. But say the clone Bruce Willis x 15 and they get through before the system can be shut down. They transmit the code (remember it's NOT remote control) and the planes put a 1 in "can't trust pilot". But since the flight plan doesn't change nothing happens and even if the pilots take another route (which is possible considering all air traffic is diverted) the only thing that happens is that the planes land themselves. Unless the 15 Bruces got into all of the planes and locally hacked their computers as well... Blah blah blah. There's only one thing needed to refute all of that, and that is that planes can't actually land themselves. All autoland procedures are based on human input and supervision. Military UAV's land themselves.
|
On March 28 2015 05:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 05:09 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On March 27 2015 18:48 WonnaPlay wrote:On March 27 2015 05:51 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On March 27 2015 05:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 27 2015 05:02 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Planes today can both fly and land themselves. You could easily give ground control an override code that shuts off manual control completely and then flies to the nearest airport with an ILS or whatever auto land system the plane uses. They can take off and land themselves, but only small planes in calm conditions. There are a lot of crazy and dangerous to land airports around the world. Not to mention, what hapens in an emergency? Who gets to send the overide code? Where is the overide control placed? Who has access? Trust me what you just said is not a good idea. You know what also can't land itself? A plane that's getting crashed by the pilot. The plane doesn't have to land at a dangerous airport. It can take the best one within the fuel range it has. If it has to try because it's out of fuel it still beats 100 % chance of death because of crazy. Override control is integrated into the planes computer which has a specific encrypted code in it and the system has access to both the autopilot, FBW as well as navigation systems. In case of an emergency there's already more than one flight controller on the case. If 2 (or 3 or 4,5,6 however many you think is necessary) enter the flight number and their personal code the encrypted code is sent to the plane which activates the system. The personal codes are sent to the airports computer in order to retrieve the encrypted override code and send it to the plane. This deactivates FBW, makes the plane check which airports are in fuel range, selects one airport, plots a course in the autopilot to get there and put the plane in the correct approach angle and activates auto-landing to scan for ILS or whatever system it has. If the plane is out of radio range and doesn't have satellite communications for some reason then you can't activate the system and your fucked. Edit: I guess you could also have the override code open the cockpit door if you wanted to. I trust computers more than humans tho. Edit 2: An auto-land override also prevents hijackers if they somehow manage to get control of the plane. Sorry if I come across as a total dick, but this is probably one of the worst ideas, which should never* be implemented. In this current day and age, we have no guarantee, nor will we in the near future to guarantee such technique. Even if we are able to land that plan in the most difficult airport there is, you're opening yourself to 1.000.000 security risks. However, your train of thought is correct. I'd agree fully with you, if it weren't for the following facts; a] Anything with a network connection is hackable. b] Current radio signals are not safe at all. c] Sensors can be horribly wrong, as shown in that report from the other Airbus A320 (frozen sensors equals crazy unexpected dive from airplane). d] Hijackers can hijack 1.000 planes at the same time instead of 2-3, with the same manpower. (Force themselves into airtraffic control with 15-20 terrorists and threaten/torture the air traffic team, untill they get the codes. Crashing all 1000 planes at once. As long as these points are uncertain. It is impossible to implement such a technique. I would also want to rely on computers as you, however we just can't yet. *As long as security is behind in terms of hackability. I don't think you quite understand the tech behind it. You're thinking last generation tech where we had to remote control the aircraft from the ground. This has nothing to do with that at all and there's 100 % no chance of hacking the aircraft from the ground. The aircraft is NOT remote controlled. Think of it as a pilot on it's own. We have cars that can drive themselves, that's infinitely more difficult for a computer compared to flying a plane. The plane knows where it is, all relevant navigational data, how much fuel it has, the range it has with that fuel, the programmed flight plan and it's easy to add in where major airports are in the world. Now give the computer the following two premises which are either 0 (green, everything normal) or 1 (red, something is wrong). a) I am on the current flight plan which is 0 if navigational data suggests this is true and 1 if there is a deviation. b) Pilots can be trusted (0) unless an encrypted 10 digit code has been sent by traffic controllers. As long as EITHER of these values are still 0 the pilots have full control of the plane. If both turn to 1 the plane does the following things. 1) Compare current range estimates to position and known airports selecting the closest available airport. 2) Send notification about selected airport to flight control. 3) Plot autopilot course towards airport that will bring it into correct approach angle for the landing system. 4) Disable FBW systems. 5) Land at airport. This is perfectly doable with today's tech, even last generation tech could do this. Hell probably even 2 generations back could do this (like 90's) even though it might be a bit dangerous. About your points: a] Anything with a network connection is hackable. Why would it have a network connection? That's incredibly stupid. The only input data from the ground would be the code. You simply cannot hack a system that doesn't have data input. Any hacking would have to be done locally on the actual plane which you could do today (just mess up the autopilot or why not plant a bomb, same result?). This kind of security is handled physically. b] Current radio signals are not safe at all. Civilian radio signals are not safe. But either way it doesn't matter at all. The plane has an encrypted password on board, the other one is stored in secure servers. And even if you somehow get the password and send it as long as the aircraft stays on the flight plan nothing happened and in the worst case scenario it lands safely! c] Sensors can be horribly wrong, as shown in that report from the other Airbus A320 (frozen sensors equals crazy unexpected dive from airplane). That is the only reason you have pilots at all today. But for this to be a problem in this scenario you need to have a sensor problem at the same time you have a pilot problem which is an unreasonably small chance. d] Hijackers can hijack 1.000 planes at the same time instead of 2-3, with the same manpower. (Force themselves into airtraffic control with 15-20 terrorists and threaten/torture the air traffic team, untill they get the codes. Crashing all 1000 planes at once. 1) You do not force yourself into air traffic control with 15-20 terrorists. You don't even get through the front gate of the airport. It's like assaulting a nuclear plant if your target is a major airport or possibly even worse. But say the clone Bruce Willis x 15 and they get through before the system can be shut down. They transmit the code (remember it's NOT remote control) and the planes put a 1 in "can't trust pilot". But since the flight plan doesn't change nothing happens and even if the pilots take another route (which is possible considering all air traffic is diverted) the only thing that happens is that the planes land themselves. Unless the 15 Bruces got into all of the planes and locally hacked their computers as well... Blah blah blah. There's only one thing needed to refute all of that, and that is that planes can't actually land themselves. All autoland procedures are based on human input and supervision.
A UCAV can be controlled by a human somewhere in Marryland while killing people somewhere in middle east. Technically it cannot be too hard to do the same with landing a plane via remote controll.
But still this would open new routes of highjack and not gain 100% safety at all for a high price.
|
On March 28 2015 05:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 05:09 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On March 27 2015 18:48 WonnaPlay wrote:On March 27 2015 05:51 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On March 27 2015 05:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 27 2015 05:02 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Planes today can both fly and land themselves. You could easily give ground control an override code that shuts off manual control completely and then flies to the nearest airport with an ILS or whatever auto land system the plane uses. They can take off and land themselves, but only small planes in calm conditions. There are a lot of crazy and dangerous to land airports around the world. Not to mention, what hapens in an emergency? Who gets to send the overide code? Where is the overide control placed? Who has access? Trust me what you just said is not a good idea. You know what also can't land itself? A plane that's getting crashed by the pilot. The plane doesn't have to land at a dangerous airport. It can take the best one within the fuel range it has. If it has to try because it's out of fuel it still beats 100 % chance of death because of crazy. Override control is integrated into the planes computer which has a specific encrypted code in it and the system has access to both the autopilot, FBW as well as navigation systems. In case of an emergency there's already more than one flight controller on the case. If 2 (or 3 or 4,5,6 however many you think is necessary) enter the flight number and their personal code the encrypted code is sent to the plane which activates the system. The personal codes are sent to the airports computer in order to retrieve the encrypted override code and send it to the plane. This deactivates FBW, makes the plane check which airports are in fuel range, selects one airport, plots a course in the autopilot to get there and put the plane in the correct approach angle and activates auto-landing to scan for ILS or whatever system it has. If the plane is out of radio range and doesn't have satellite communications for some reason then you can't activate the system and your fucked. Edit: I guess you could also have the override code open the cockpit door if you wanted to. I trust computers more than humans tho. Edit 2: An auto-land override also prevents hijackers if they somehow manage to get control of the plane. Sorry if I come across as a total dick, but this is probably one of the worst ideas, which should never* be implemented. In this current day and age, we have no guarantee, nor will we in the near future to guarantee such technique. Even if we are able to land that plan in the most difficult airport there is, you're opening yourself to 1.000.000 security risks. However, your train of thought is correct. I'd agree fully with you, if it weren't for the following facts; a] Anything with a network connection is hackable. b] Current radio signals are not safe at all. c] Sensors can be horribly wrong, as shown in that report from the other Airbus A320 (frozen sensors equals crazy unexpected dive from airplane). d] Hijackers can hijack 1.000 planes at the same time instead of 2-3, with the same manpower. (Force themselves into airtraffic control with 15-20 terrorists and threaten/torture the air traffic team, untill they get the codes. Crashing all 1000 planes at once. As long as these points are uncertain. It is impossible to implement such a technique. I would also want to rely on computers as you, however we just can't yet. *As long as security is behind in terms of hackability. I don't think you quite understand the tech behind it. You're thinking last generation tech where we had to remote control the aircraft from the ground. This has nothing to do with that at all and there's 100 % no chance of hacking the aircraft from the ground. The aircraft is NOT remote controlled. Think of it as a pilot on it's own. We have cars that can drive themselves, that's infinitely more difficult for a computer compared to flying a plane. The plane knows where it is, all relevant navigational data, how much fuel it has, the range it has with that fuel, the programmed flight plan and it's easy to add in where major airports are in the world. Now give the computer the following two premises which are either 0 (green, everything normal) or 1 (red, something is wrong). a) I am on the current flight plan which is 0 if navigational data suggests this is true and 1 if there is a deviation. b) Pilots can be trusted (0) unless an encrypted 10 digit code has been sent by traffic controllers. As long as EITHER of these values are still 0 the pilots have full control of the plane. If both turn to 1 the plane does the following things. 1) Compare current range estimates to position and known airports selecting the closest available airport. 2) Send notification about selected airport to flight control. 3) Plot autopilot course towards airport that will bring it into correct approach angle for the landing system. 4) Disable FBW systems. 5) Land at airport. This is perfectly doable with today's tech, even last generation tech could do this. Hell probably even 2 generations back could do this (like 90's) even though it might be a bit dangerous. About your points: a] Anything with a network connection is hackable. Why would it have a network connection? That's incredibly stupid. The only input data from the ground would be the code. You simply cannot hack a system that doesn't have data input. Any hacking would have to be done locally on the actual plane which you could do today (just mess up the autopilot or why not plant a bomb, same result?). This kind of security is handled physically. b] Current radio signals are not safe at all. Civilian radio signals are not safe. But either way it doesn't matter at all. The plane has an encrypted password on board, the other one is stored in secure servers. And even if you somehow get the password and send it as long as the aircraft stays on the flight plan nothing happened and in the worst case scenario it lands safely! c] Sensors can be horribly wrong, as shown in that report from the other Airbus A320 (frozen sensors equals crazy unexpected dive from airplane). That is the only reason you have pilots at all today. But for this to be a problem in this scenario you need to have a sensor problem at the same time you have a pilot problem which is an unreasonably small chance. d] Hijackers can hijack 1.000 planes at the same time instead of 2-3, with the same manpower. (Force themselves into airtraffic control with 15-20 terrorists and threaten/torture the air traffic team, untill they get the codes. Crashing all 1000 planes at once. 1) You do not force yourself into air traffic control with 15-20 terrorists. You don't even get through the front gate of the airport. It's like assaulting a nuclear plant if your target is a major airport or possibly even worse. But say the clone Bruce Willis x 15 and they get through before the system can be shut down. They transmit the code (remember it's NOT remote control) and the planes put a 1 in "can't trust pilot". But since the flight plan doesn't change nothing happens and even if the pilots take another route (which is possible considering all air traffic is diverted) the only thing that happens is that the planes land themselves. Unless the 15 Bruces got into all of the planes and locally hacked their computers as well... Blah blah blah. There's only one thing needed to refute all of that, and that is that planes can't actually land themselves. All autoland procedures are based on human input and supervision.
Just quoting wikipedia since it's easier.
"Tests of the ILS system began in 1929 in the United States.[14] The Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) authorized installation of the system in 1941 at six locations. The first landing of a scheduled U.S. passenger airliner using ILS was on January 26, 1938, when a Pennsylvania Central Airlines Boeing 247D flew from Washington, D.C., to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and landed in a snowstorm using only the Instrument Landing System.[15] The first fully automatic landing using ILS occurred in March 1964 at Bedford Airport in UK.[16]"
"Autoland is highly accurate. In his 1959 paper [2] John Charnley, then Superintendent of the UK Royal Aircraft Establishment's (RAE) Blind Landing Experimental Unit (BLEU), concluded a discussion of statistical results by saying that "It is fair to claim, therefore, that not only will the automatic system land the aircraft when the weather prevents the human pilot, it also performs the operation much more precisely"."
Edit: Predator drones are landed locally even if all other controls are from the US. But lag is to big over those distances. But there are drones that land themselves and normal aircraft has had the ability for a long time.
|
1) Remote control is not the same thing as an automated landing system. One has total human control, the other does not. It's a big distinction.
2) Autoland is basically only ever used for low vis conditions in low wind conditions with much of the landing work already done. Autoland basically involves the pilot doing the vast majority of the decision making in landing before switching on that button. You basically have no idea what you are talking about and probably quoted crap off wikipedia or whatever.
|
On March 28 2015 06:32 Dangermousecatdog wrote: 1) Remote control is not the same thing as an automated landing system. One has total human control, the other does not. It's a big distinction.
2) Autoland is basically only ever used for low vis conditions in low wind conditions with much of the landing work already done. Autoland basically involves the pilot doing the vast majority of the decision making in landing before switching on that button. You basically have no idea what you are talking about and probably quoted crap off wikipedia or whatever.
The issue for hacking is gaining access to the network through entertainment systems (satellite tv/internet) then compromising the flight control systems once in the network. Since the controls are all fly by wire, once you control the computer system you can do things like alter the auto pilot/course or just outright fly the plane. One could also hack the instruments so that they couldn't be used correctly to orient the plane. I'm not sure if manual inputs can override the computer or if the controls can be essentially locked out.
So while the planes aren't intended to be controlled from the ground, they have systems which would allow such an event to happen.
|
Interview with a Lufthansa pilot German article (shortened by me):
"Anything else I could handle better. A technical defect, a human error, a ruptured window, the pilots reacting incorrectly. But a self-induced deliberate crash? That was outside the power of my imagination. I'm sitting in the same seat as him, we have the same education. That he sat there eight minutes watching the mountains come closer, while behind him more than a hundred people, including babies, students, colleagues ... people who start to cry at some point. This is madness.
We pilots know, he could have changed his mind until the very end. Even seconds before the impact he could have altered the autopilot, pull the stick back and engage full throttle.
Also, why the long decent and the locking of the door in the first place? For what? It takes me ten seconds in the cockpit to force the plane into a guaranteed crash. No matter what the captain would try after, he would not be able to save it. This would not be a gentle descent then of course, but a fast dive down."
|
|
|
|