Cockpit Door Discussion

[Artlav]

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.

If you mean google cars, then that is plain wrong.
They only work in a relatively clean environment that is pre-scanned to absurd detail.

Ability for unconstrained navigation of the real world is one of the definitions of general artificial intelligence.
You'd have to get pretty close to that for planes to fly themselves with error rate similar to human pilots.

If you say "it doesn't make any sense why someone would bring down 150 people with them" you aren't thinking like a depressed person because you're applying logic to the situation.

Depression have it's patterns. One of them is that depressed-suicidal people often try hard to avoid hurting other people's feelings, much less hurting or killing them.
The exception is if the depression is (or perceived to be) caused by other people. That can end up massively deadly.

---------- Post added at 23:38 ---------- Previous post was at 23:30 ----------

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.

Computers as we know them suffer from GIGO problem - Garbage In, Garbage Out.
They don't make mistakes in their calculations, but they won't give you a correct answer from wrong figures.

But a human often can.
Because a human have a much greater map of the world than we currently can describe to a computer, and a pathfinding core that we don't really understand yet.
Summarily known as intelligence.

A human pilot can cross-reference multiple very noisy signal sources (eyes, ears, gauges n the plane, smell, "seat of your pants" and so on) and determine what is going on and how to get out of the situation.
A computer won't be able to solve an arbitrary sensor issue - if one gauge shows 10000 feet and the other shows 20000 feet, how would it know which is right?

The big problem is not to define the algorithm of flying a plane - that is trivial.
The problem is in determining where the plane is in the grand scheme of things, what state is it in, what works, what doesn't, what is going on, where to go, and so on.

 

[DeskOrbinaut]

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

I don't think technology is advancing slowly. When I compare the flight deck of a 747-300 with a A320 and A380 it's an awesome progress.

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

Very much. I doubt SpaceX would test and actually return a first stage after a launch under stormy conditions. Would be a very stupid way to deliberately destroy your hardware. Space flight has even narrower limits for launch and landing than aviation.

 

[TachyonDriver]

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)

At least before technology advanced there used to be a Flight Engineer in the cockpit too

It is a worry when anti-terrorist measures (locked, armoured doors) contrive to doom aircraft anyway

Hopefully time will reveal what occurred so we won't have to speculate, as interesting as the discussions might be.

---------- Post added at 10:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 PM ----------

Yes, 630 hours since he transferred from Lufthansa Training Bremen to Germanwings in 2013.

Sorry, only just back-tracked in the thread to read this. Well, as a layman, I'd say the co pliot hadn't just stepped out of a Cessna 172 and was certainly not inexperienced. I doubt the airline would have allowed him to even be a copilot of the 320 if he couldn't meet certain standards.

---------- Post added at 10:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 PM ----------

I have no doubts that maybe a muslim or two go fast tracked in as an outreach measure.

...let's be clear here: Well, clear in the UK anyway. NORMAL muslims & people following Islam disown the likes of ISIS scum because ISIS is just hiding behind a pretence of following Islam - they aren't muslims. Fundamentalist extremist nutters can happen in many walks of life, but it seems the majority claim to follow Islam.
I'm not a muslim, just a white Englishman brought up in a Christian home.

Anyway - I digress, this is probably getting too far away from this thread.. sorry.

 

[DeskOrbinaut]

...let's be clear here: Well, clear in the UK anyway. NORMAL muslims & people following Islam disown the likes of ISIS scum because ISIS is just hiding behind a pretence of following Islam - they aren't muslims.

What is a "normal" muslim? What is the "right" or "true" Islam and what not? Who understands the Koran "correctly" and who not?

Already the distinction between Islam and Islamism and all its gradations is absolutely arbitrary and often used to silence debates and valid concerns. Something that only happens since the 1990s. It's probably an equal bunch of "smart" social scientists who deny gender differences.

Fundamentalist extremist nutters can happen in many walks of life, but it seems the majority claim to follow Islam.

Because it's still prone to extremism in the 21st century. There is almost no democracy and women's rights in the Islamic world. There was no Age of Enlightenment. There is one Nobelist for chemistry, one for physics and two for literature in the entire Islamic world and not even 100 patent applications each year in the entire Arabic world. Pervez Hoodbhoy, a Pakistani atomic physicist, says that Islamic societies are collectively stranded. And that's the point. But one can not discuss it these days because immediately someone comes rushing in and distributes his muzzles against uneducated and all stupid "populists".

But yes, it's getting too far away from this thread. This accident hasn't any Islamic background so it doesn't matter anyway.

 

[DeskOrbinaut]

Sorry - but first of all, women are a whole lot tougher than men. You never got into a fight with a women yet, right? One advice: Don't. Don't even think about it.

Somehow I smell gender mainstreaming

You know why football teams or boxer aren't mixed for example?

[ame="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=01d_1424552326"]LiveLeak.com - Caught On Body Cam: Handcuffed Man Brutally Attacks Female Cop![/ame]

Just took 30 seconds to knock Mrs. super strong female officer off while even hand cuffed. Without hand cuffs it likely would be a matter of just a very few seconds.

Especially stay away from female Israeli soldiers.

There won't be trained female/Israeli soldiers as a second person in the cockpit

Next: Knocking somebody out is still much harder than not having to knock somebody out at all.

If someone is very ill and goes medieval, he will knock out somebody. If someone does not expect to be knocked out, he/she will be a very easy victim and not even remember the punch.

And finally: Get your head free of the stupid suicide theories. Just think about heart attacks or strokes. Or fumes. Having a second reliable person, even if its no pilot, in the cockpit is IMHO a great improvement of safety.

I would also feel perfectly safe when the cockpit door would not be locked at all but even open at times so that passengers and kids can visit the cockpit even in flight. Would have likely prevented the crash of 4U9525.

Safety certainly is nice to have. But with each new safety feature you also get a new potential hazard feature.

 

[Urwumpe]

You know why football teams or boxer aren't mixed for example?

Fairness.

Seriously - you should not mistake Strength (for which men have better aptitude by genetic reasons) with toughness or the ability to fight.

(And especially not football teams. I am not sure if the male German national team would win against the female German national team in football.)

Also your video is a pretty nice example of "reinforcing prejudice" - a male cop would not have looked any µ better in that situation. Especially if we are talking about drug addicts, who are one special category in terms of pain resistence and aggressivity. Tasering the guy would have been an option.

 

[DeskOrbinaut]

Also your video is a pretty nice example of "reinforcing prejudice" - a male cop would not have looked any µ better in that situation. Especially if we are talking about drug addicts, who are one special category in terms of pain resistence and aggressivity.

Maybe, maybe not...

There are also enough examples on the internet which show why better not fool with a (male) cop. Especially in the US and in Russia. As long as you don't use a gun you will have bad moments.

Tasering the guy would have been an option.

I agree. Better than pulling the gun.

---------- Post added at 02:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:34 PM ----------

If a doctor "certifies" fitness, you would think that would be reported to the employer and to the responsible government agencies.

Bob Clark

Actually it's quite easy to not let your airline or aviation examiner know that you suffer from something and you are actually unfit. There is no overall "monitoring". You are free to chose any doctor to go to. All he needs is the card of your health insurance for billing the treatment. He might not even ask for your job (even if he does, you can tell him anything). He might just ask if you need an incapacity certificate. You just can say: no thanks, and just get a prescription for any medicine. But even if you get an incapacity certificate, nobody cares. You don't have to show it your employee.

You can even get medication for asthma treatment, for example containing systemic steroids which by JAR-FCL ends your airworthiness. When you apply for medical checks for airworthiness for the first time you have to provide the name of your family doctor. And you don't have to have one and only family doctor. You can enter in the field whomever you want so they won't know your medical records.

You can hide almost anything. Even a stay in the hospital if it does not interfere with your duty roster. You have to inform your aviation examiner when you stay in the hospital for more than 12 hours. But if you don't, he won't really know.

 

[ISProgram]

For everyone saying that one should leave the cockpit door open to the cabin, I would like to know why...

Pilot suicide is rare; even if such incidents involved one of the pilots locking the other out of the cockpit (so he couldn't interfere), it still pales in comparison to the number of incidents that happen in where people (terrorist or otherwise) try to get into the cockpit to do something malicious.

So now there's a tradeoff. Would you rather have a locked door, so that people can't go in and interfere with the pilot(s), such that one pilot can LOCK the other out and do something malicious?

Or would you rather have an open door, so the above can't happen, but now just about anyone can stroll into the cockpit and do something (like, say, use an axe to incapacitate the pilots, and then put the aircraft into a unrecoverable situation)?

 

[Urwumpe]

There are also enough examples on the internet which show why better not fool with a (male) cop. Especially in the US and in Russia. As long as you don't use a gun you will have bad moments.

Depends on who you are at. If you see police officers with the eyes of a soldier, quite a few of them will get the label "first class victim". A fool with a gun is still a fool, just a more dangerous one.

But that does not really contribute to the discussion here.

Especially if women have some bit of self-defence training, its really hard to get them out of the way - which most flight-attendants have.

 

[DeskOrbinaut]

For everyone saying that one should leave the cockpit door open to the cabin, I would like to know why...

Pilot suicide is rare; even if such incidents involved one of the pilots locking the other out of the cockpit (so he couldn't interfere), it still pales in comparison to the number of incidents that happen in where people (terrorist or otherwise) try to get into the cockpit to do something malicious.

So now there's a tradeoff. Would you rather have a locked door, so that people can't go in and interfere with the pilot(s), such that one pilot can LOCK the other out and do something malicious?

Or would you rather have an open door, so the above can't happen, but now just about anyone can stroll into the cockpit and do something (like, say, use an axe to incapacitate the pilots, and then put the aircraft into a unrecoverable situation)?

Flying was not less safe before 9/11 only because cockpit doors were open. cockpit doors could be locked already before 9/11. They reinforced the doors after 9/11 and applied new rules. So what? Evil things can always happen no matter how much safety measures you add. If a group of people plans to do stupid things like on 9/11 they will do so. Kevlar doors won't stop them. They will find a way. And it's only a matter of time when the next hijacking will happen.

I'm not a friend of locking away and prohibiting everything in general just because there are idiots on this planet. The last consequence would be not to leave the house - something evil could happen. We have to be careful. Otherwise we won't live in free societies anymore in the future.

 

[Frilock]

We have to be careful. Otherwise we won't live in free societies anymore in the future.

Some might argue we don't right now.

 

[Urwumpe]

Some might argue we don't right now.

Some might be right about it. But still, some have more degrees of freedom and others have less.

But in terms of an airliner cockpit "freedom" isn't the right concept. I see it like that:

ACHTUNG!​

ALLES TURISTEN UND NONTEKNISCHEN LOOKENPEEPERS!​

DAS KOMPUTERMASCHINE IST NICHT FÜR DER GEFINGERPOKEN UND MITTENGRABEN! ODERWISE IST EASY TO SCHNAPPEN DER SPRINGENWERK, BLOWENFUSEN UND POPPENCORKEN MIT SPITZENSPARKEN.​

IST NICHT FÜR GEWERKEN BEI DUMMKOPFEN. DER RUBBERNECKEN SIGHTSEEREN KEEPEN DAS COTTONPICKEN HÄNDER IN DAS POCKETS MUSS.​

ZO RELAXEN UND WATSCHEN DER BLINKENLICHTEN.​

 

[Frilock]

9-11 style attack can no longer be repeated.

:thumbup:

ETA: Part of 9/11 itself didn't happen because the passengers on the fourth plane heard what happened to the other 3.

 

[Codz]

Also your video is a pretty nice example of "reinforcing prejudice" - a male cop would not have looked any µ better in that situation. Especially if we are talking about drug addicts, who are one special category in terms of pain resistence and aggressivity. Tasering the guy would have been an option.

That was a good example of why suspects are never handcuffed from the front in North America.

 

[Codz]

Maybe, maybe not...

There are also enough examples on the internet which show why better not fool with a (male) cop. Especially in the US and in Russia. As long as you don't use a gun you will have bad moments.



I agree. Better than pulling the gun.

Unless she was a firearms unit member, she didn't have a gun. She probably didn't even have a taser, given that the majority of British police still don't. Although, had she been armed, she would have been more than justified in shooting him, because the very real threat of being killed during that struggle was present.

 

[Urwumpe]

Unless she was a firearms unit member, she didn't have a gun. She probably didn't even have a taser, given that the majority of British police still don't. Although, had she been armed, she would have been more than justified in shooting him, because the very real threat of being killed during that struggle was present.

In the USA, yes. Even though she or somebody else contributed to the situation as well, it is clear that the decision to attack comes from the suspect.

But usually - outside complex emergency situations - you are expected to slowly escalate use of force. Shooting somebody, when you have other options and the time and ability to do so, especially against contrary orders, is only legal in the USA.

But still... even in the USA, innocent until proven guilty should apply. And this does no longer apply here. Spiegel Online falsely already decided to publish L. full name because "He is guilty of the crash and thus now a person of history." Should the investigation prove them wrong, I would be willed to donate for the lawyer for the parents of L. to sue Spiegel Online and other media for libel - just to make sure that fast news must also be correct news.

 

[Codz]

In the USA, yes. Even though she or somebody else contributed to the situation as well, it is clear that the decision to attack comes from the suspect.

But usually - outside complex emergency situations - you are expected to slowly escalate use of force. Shooting somebody, when you have other options and the time and ability to do so, especially against contrary orders, is only legal in the USA.

There didn't appear to be any time to slowly escalate UoF. At that point, it's either potentially kill the suspect with a gunshot, or risk being bludgeoned to death, before or after being knocked down. But yes, it should never have reached that point in the first place.

---------- Post added at 09:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 PM ----------

But still... even in the USA, innocent until proven guilty should apply. And this does no longer apply here. Spiegel Online falsely already decided to publish L. full name because "He is guilty of the crash and thus now a person of history." Should the investigation prove them wrong, I would be willed to donate for the lawyer for the parents of L. to sue Spiegel Online and other media for libel - just to make sure that fast news must also be correct news.

Even if it's found that the suicide/intentional crash theory is correct, that's a gross breach of journalistic conduct and privacy.

 

[Urwumpe]

There didn't appear to be any time to slowly escalate UoF. At that point, it's either potentially kill the suspect with a gunshot, or risk being bludgeoned to death, before or after being knocked down. But yes, it should never have reached that point in the first place.

Thats what I mean - if you are already in such situations, self-protection is your right thing to do. But you should also be prepared to accept the consequences, should your own negligence and/or aggression have resulted in the emergency situation.

Is the same with a fire fighter: If you don't rescue a family from the flames, because you had to protect your own life, its correct to act that way. Even if it is heavy on your conscience.

Much different, if you moved the family into the situation in first place and then fled to save your own life.

---------- Post added 03-28-15 at 01:05 AM ---------- Previous post was 03-27-15 at 10:48 PM ----------

Current website of the German press council, a NGO responsible for journalism ethics in Germany, as defined by the German press codex (and carried together by Bartholemew and ....sorry) .

http://www.presserat.de/presserat/

They are currently prominently citing article number two of the codex:

Zur Veröffentlichung bestimmte Informationen in Wort, Bild und Grafik sind mit der nach den Umständen gebotenen Sorgfalt auf ihren Wahrheitsgehalt zu prüfen und wahrheitsgetreu wiederzugeben.

Informations intended for publication in words, images and graphics are required to be checked for veracity with the necessary care as dictated by the circumstances and to be reproduced faithfully.

 

[Siliconaut]

Wow. Since I rebuilt my PC, I decided I wanted to restock my Flight Sim collection so I was grabbing all the favorites and I saw that Steam had FSX on sale for a mere 5 dollars. I thought WTH and grabbed it, then I scrolled down and saw all the comments.

Well, apparently the sale going on this weekend and the trailer video for the game are offensive to some Germans and many people are demanding the sale of the game be postponed or banned for a few weeks until no one is offended. That somehow steam instantly decided to throw out flight sim for 5 bucks so curious people could crash German Airbuses into Alps.

The controversy even sparked a thread requesting a September 11th, 2001 WTC attack scenario as a troll. I guess emotions are running pretty high over there in Europe right now over this thing.

 

[DeskOrbinaut]

I guess emotions are running pretty high over there in Europe right now over this thing.

[off topic rant]

Oh, well, that's just the daily bullsh... going on over here. Especially in Germany. Feminists, moralists and the language police rule the media and even politics these days. They don't even spare for children's books and brochures. For example, they count how often males and females are imaged on photos, and as soon as there are less females than males you immediately get a "sexism" debate. And, of course, there must not be only Germans on photos! It's a no-go! There must be, of course, also: black people, Chinamen (oh, excuse me: and Chinawomen of course) and just don't dare to forget women with headscarves or otherwise you are considered a radical right-wing. It must look multicultural. In Great Britain they recently demand to remove images of pigs in children's books out of consideration for our Muslim fellow citizen. And black characters? Man, that's one of the biggest no-gos these days. Like for example Jim Knopf http://www.nmz.de/files/Knopf_0.jpg or the Zwarte Piet from Netherlands http://mikestravelguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/sint-11.jpg

Oh, and a traffic-light "man"? That's a no-go as well. Because it's sexism! It has to look like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Ampelmädchen_-_Dresden.jpg
I'm just wondering why they don't suggest traffic-light girls wearing headscarves...

And of course, you can't sell a flight simulator right now. It's just another no-go! And please: don't use a flight simulator right now out of consideration for the bereaved of flight 4U9525.

Tourist guide for Europe in 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz4HEEiJuGo

[/off topic rant]