Cockpit Door Discussion

[Artlav]

By the way, how exactly do you lock a door on that plane?
The report does not say anything about sounds of the copilot getting up and locking the door.
If you need to get out to lock/unlock it, then that suggests medical issues or confusion of some sort just as easily as suicide.

Then, what if we assume that the descent and locked door are two separate issues?
The pilot did something, and screwed up by setting the altitude too low or enabling the descent at all.
And the door was locked for some other reason, so the whole "flying into the mountains" thing was not expected by the pilot.
A prank, a bribe from a passenger for flying closer to the mountains.
Is there any plausible explanation under that kind of an assumption?

I.e. there was a case when the pilot let his kids steer, and didn't notice when they turned the autopilot partially off. By the time everyone figured out what was going on it was already too late to pull the plane out of a collision course.

Could some unrelated accident like that have combined with the unnoticed descent?

 

[Urwumpe]

By the way, how exactly do you lock a door on that plane?

There is a three position switch on the central pedestal between the two pilots: UNLOCK, NORM, LOCK.

UNLOCK and LOCK are spring-loaded and return to the NORM position. When you move the switch momentarily to the LOCK position, the door gets locked, the keyboard is also disabled, all alerts for the door are disabled. There is no cockpit indication that the door is locked. The door returns to NORM mode after 5-20 minutes.

 

[DeskOrbinaut]

By the way, how exactly do you lock a door on that plane?
The report does not say anything about sounds of the copilot getting up and locking the door.
If you need to get out to lock/unlock it, then that suggests medical issues or confusion of some sort just as easily as suicide.

The door is locked via a switch on the center console (lower left corner):

 

[C3PO]

Posted earlier: Cockpit door function.

 

[garyw]

Norwegian Air now has ruled that at any time, two crew members have to be in the cockpit. So, when the captain wants to go to the bath room, a flight attendant has to take his seat (or at least sit in the cockpit - not specific right now)

Also, the co-pilot had worked as flight attendant while he was waiting to resume pilot training, he was examined completely (including psychological checks) twice because of the longer pause in his training.

and this is a problem, often flight attendants don't go through the same level of screening process as a pilot. So, if you want to take over a plane you can start work as an FA. It hasn't happened yet but it might and this is the problem, for every solution there are several issues that come up.

 

[Siliconaut]

A lot of discussion about the door locking mechanism. The fact is, that there is no way to truly secure the cockpit and still allow some external way in that is infallible. Security means locked out until such time as cockpit occupants decide to unlock the door.

So, the airline industry and passengers as well are going to have to accept a trade off. Either they want secure cockpits and will trust that pilots won't be incompetent, or the airline has to accept open doors and trust the passengers not to attempt to take over the plane.

We may have reached one of those problems that doesn't have a real good active solution, and may require just reforms around the edges. In the end I think it depends more on what the consumers demand.

I'd put my faith in the pilots, despite this sad tragedy.

 

[Urwumpe]

I'm shocked but I'm still not convinced. Just two days left, no analyzed DFDR data, but they already assume pilot-suicide only based on CVR recording.

Sorry, but I have to correct you there a bit:

The media assumes it.

The investigation just has the first pieces of a puzzle and yes, these pieces more or less strongly suggest pilot suicide. But these pieces are not free of contradictions and more evidence will come.

The co-pilot has been described by co-workers and other members of his gliding club as "happy, just a bit quiet at times" and "social and well-liked by others in the club". He was still living at his parents house at 28 (which is only a bit unusual for northern Europe), but also had an apartment in Düsseldorf for his work, which is actually a pretty normal arrangement today.

The cause for the pause in his pilot training is unknown and will not be made public because of "medical secrecy", but that can mean millions of reasons.

I could imagine many reasons (but which I won't speculate on outside my brain) why such a person could decide for suicide, but I can't imagine any for also taking 150 souls with you.

 

[DeskOrbinaut]

In the end I think it depends more on what the consumers demand.

I was always willing to except open cockpit doors. Visiting cockpits always were something special. Particularly for kids. I have flown hours on the jump seat including very nice conversations with the cockpit crew. Societies/a world which needs locked cockpit doors is a very sad world if you ask me. And it doesn't increase safety really. It's just "we feel much safer now". Someone who prepares himself for taking over an airplane will do this regardless of safety measures. If you want to do something, you will always find a way to do it. 100% safety does never exist. And chances of someone doing something stupid on an airplane will always exist.

We should not limit our freedom and way of living just because of some fanatic maniacs trying to revert to the 6th century or because there could be pilot-suicide by a chance of 0,000XXX%

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noI9ay6gzyQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlLNwO8Y7Ws&feature=player_detailpage#t=371

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_oi_XZzbDg

 

[RisingFury]

A lot of discussion about the door locking mechanism.

You can remove the pilots from the equation. Have the airplane fly itself.

The technology is now becoming more reliable than humans. Number of deaths caused by human pilots as a fraction of total deaths will now only increase.

 

[kamaz]

Posted earlier: Cockpit door function.
Airbus Reinforced Cockpit Door Description and Procedure - YouTube

Observe that the pilot can inhibit emergency door open by holding the switch in LOCK possition. The door will only open if he doesn't react in time (i.e. is incapacitated).

Obviously this is designed to counter the threat of a terrorist forcing the purser to give up the code.

---------- Post added at 06:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 PM ----------

If it was suicide why the "gentle" descent which gave people 8 minutes to do something. Why not an egypt air style dive?

Because you don't have to fight envelope protection and there's a good chance nobody will notice until too late.

 

[kamaz]

You can remove the pilots from the equation. Have the airplane fly itself.

But you are dealing with hostile insiders. They will simply reprogram the computer to crash the plane... which is essentially what happened here (and arguably on MH370).

What are you going to do, add "is he trying to commit suicide" logic? And even if the computer detects a suicide attempt, what it should do next?

 

[DeskOrbinaut]

Because you don't have to fight envelope protection and there's a good chance nobody will notice until too late.

If I were first officer on a A320 and if I want to kill myself and all people on board (it's really hard for me to even imagine something like that), I would switch of the auto pilot, the flight control computers (via the corresponding push buttons on the overhead panel) and end the flight within about a minute. It's not a big deal to crash an airliner just within literally seconds.

 

[C3PO]

As long as transportation is meant for carrying humans, it will always include humans to control the transport and be responsible for sure.

I bet Gagarin would question that, and the Mercury seven had to fight hard to have any control of their craft. Self-driving cars are being tested right now. The problem is that no machine is more reliable than the person operating/maintaining it.

You have to be pretty zen to keep breathing normally with an Alp coming at you at 700+ km/h.

 

[Urwumpe]

You have to be pretty zen to keep breathing normally with an Alp coming at you at 700+ km/h.

Not just that. Also not move at all, not do any motion that requires movement of the chest.

 

[DeskOrbinaut]

I bet Gagarin would question that, and the Mercury seven had to fight hard to have any control of their craft.

Vostok and Mercury did not carry passengers from A to B. It did carry one astronaut for testing and learning space flight unter high risk and uncertainty. The people on the ground wouldn't question human responsibility.

Self-driving cars are being tested right now. The problem is that no machine is more reliable than the person operating/maintaining it.

Such cars are tested for a long time already. They work well on a test tracks. But in a city, in a daily environment in which you have to take care of the traffic, people, cyclists etc. it doesn't work. Same with drones. They work very well for observation. But in international airspace, transporting hundreds of people, nobody would like to fly it.

You have to be pretty zen to keep breathing normally with an Alp coming at you at 700+ km/h.

The breath was described as noisily lately. And it makes sense. Because I doubt you can hear a normal breath in a noisy cockpit environment.

I'm still not convinced of suicide. That the door was locked is a normal circumstance. And there could be other explanations why the pilot inside the cockpit initiated a descent and wasn't able to communicate or react anymore (health problems). It could also very well be a tragic accident.

 

[Urwumpe]

Such cars are tested for a long time already. They work well on a test tracks. But in a city, in a daily environment in which you have to take care of the traffic, people, cyclists etc. it doesn't work. Same with drones. They work very well for observation. But in international airspace, transporting hundreds of people, nobody would like to fly it.

Thats wrong - right now, current cars that are getting more and more production grade in their design (and do no longer look like early prototypes) are not worse than humans in their error rates. But also not better.

But thats also an off-topic.

 

[DeskOrbinaut]

Thats wrong - right now, current cars that are getting more and more production grade in their design (and do no longer look like early prototypes) are not worse than humans in their error rates. But also not better.

But thats also an off-topic.

Error rates while testing is one thing. Dealing with pedestrians, cyclists etc. in a daily environment is something different I think.

By the way, unmanned automobiles actually don't make sense to me (unmanned bikes and motorbikes also wouldn't make sense). But as you said it's off-topic.

 

[Urwumpe]

Error rates while testing is one thing. Dealing with pedestrians, cyclists etc. in a daily environment is something different I think.

You know where the largest German test track for unmanned cars is? Its actually the A9 between Ingolstadt (Audi) and Munich (BMW), which is coincidentially also the most frequented Autobahn in Germany.

When unmanned cars can drive in Berlin without accident... they would be perfect.

 

[DeskOrbinaut]

You know where the largest German test track for unmanned cars is? Its actually the A9 between Ingolstadt (Audi) and Munich (BMW), which is coincidentially also the most frequented Autobahn in Germany.

Yes. But traffic in a city is a difference.

When unmanned cars can drive in Berlin without accident... they would be perfect.

But for what? Empty cars just don't make sense to me.

 

[RisingFury]

In case it's not meant ironic I have to disagree. Flying an airliner depends on very fast changing situations which require humans on the ground and in the cockpit. Just think of air traffic and meteorology. Also, airplanes can't land on its own safely in all circumstances. The autopilot has its limits (crosswinds for example).

I smell BS. I think the only reason why technology is advancing as slowly as it is is because people are scared of it.

SpaceX is about to return a first stage back for reuse. Crosswind much?

The problem is responsibility. Who is responsible, when an autopilot decides wrong?

No, it isn't. Sure, failures will always happen, but a flight computer with multiple redundancy can decrease the probability of failure way lower than a human pilot can.

As far as responsibility - it's the same as it is now. There are crashes attributed to design flaws, which are covered by the manufacturer, there are crashes blamed on poor maintenance, covered by the airline and there are crashes pinned on pilot error, covered by the airline and sometimes by the pilots.



Either way, the technology will reduce the number of crashes, so whoever it is that is responsible will end up having to pay less frequently.

---------- Post added at 21:29 ---------- Previous post was at 21:23 ----------

But you are dealing with hostile insiders. They will simply reprogram the computer to crash the plane... which is essentially what happened here (and arguably on MH370).

No, you just encase the flight computers so they're inaccessible from inside the plane and can only be accessed on the ground, during maintenance.

I'm not talking about giving priority to the computer from the pilots. I'm talking about not having pilots at all.


The biggest problem right now isn't takeoff, landing or cruise, it's dealing with ATC and ground operations. Speech recognition and synthesis aren't yet reliable enough and neither is visually based computer navigation. Both are needed, so no changes in existing ATC and airport infrastructure would be needed.


We're not in the 1980's anymore. Computers are now powerful and reliable and computer algorithms are more sophisticated.