Nutcase pilots

Phil H

Member
Messages
4,182
Perhaps RPV technology is sufficiently advanced to provide a contingency, or could at least be made so. That way you don't need a third crew member (who could be complicit in hijack anyway), and external intervention could buy valuable time if nothing else.

I don't think passengers are ready for pilotless aircraft yet so pilots' jobs are safe, though that day will undoubtedly come.

PH
 

BennyD

Sea Urchin Pate
Messages
15,006
We pilots have a phrase which seems to sum up recent events; 'sh!t happens, deal with it'.
 

zagatoes30

Member
Messages
20,991
I used to trust pilots then I met Benny and I have been nervous ever since ;)

There are no guarantees in life and pilots appear to have as many nutters as many other professions. Flying is safer than most forms of transport the only problem when they have a suicide on the job it is so much bigger. You can't wrap us all up in cotton wool all the time, life is life and it will end in death - until then live it :)
 

Phil the Brit

Member
Messages
1,499
Sorry Benny but that is way way too glib. Be there and cope.........are you serious? Someone comitting suicide and killing themselves is one thing but killing 150 innocent people, many who have families and childeren is TOTALLY unacceptable in any form. This kind of reckless total disregard for human life must be prevented at ALL cost. If airlines don't like it, tough.
 

conaero

Forum Owner
Messages
34,643
Tend to agree with Phil on this one Benny.

I hear that EJ and a few others have announced that 2 staff members must now be in the cockpit at any one time but as discussed earlier, one of the others could easily be overpowered.
 

Contigo

Sponsor
Messages
18,376
Air Marshall's on every flight then or a bouncer type who can sit in. Other than that you have only a few options like putting the galley and toilet in cockpit for pilots.
 

hoyin

Member
Messages
1,842
Why can't you trust an automated flight?

The majority of crashes are through pilot error. A lot of the flight and landing is automated already.

I personally would have no problem. I think it is the way forward.
 

drewf

Member
Messages
7,159
No thanks.

Part of my business revolves around keeping automated systems secure. The sort of computers which actually control physical kit - aircraft for instance...

Putting it very simply, nothing is secure, virtually anything can be 'hacked'.


You are right about human error causing most incidents though.
 

Parisien

Moderator
Messages
34,927
The guy had been flagged up during training with depression and had to have time off....not sure how the CAA scrutinises people with psychiatric issues currently


P
 

BennyD

Sea Urchin Pate
Messages
15,006
Settle down guys. Every field of endeavour has its idiots and aviation is just another. I'm not condoning what happened or glossing over the tragedy that has befallen the families of the murderer and his victims and the victims themselves. What I am saying is that if anyone wants to bring down an aircraft enough, they will. Having a young stewardess 'baby sitting' a body builder of a pilot with suicidal tendencies is unlikely to prevent another tragedy. There is no silver bullet to solving this problem, which isn't a particularly common one, because if you prevent the door being locked from the inside, you make it easier for terrorists to force access. Sky marshals with guns? Great idea. However, what happens if the marshal is a Muslim, (applicants cannot be rejected on religious grounds) who later becomes radicalised? Far fetched? probably. Possible? Yes. Speaking from experience, if I am faced with an emergency in the aircraft or sim, my personal motto is 'be there and cope'. That's all we can do because every situation is dynamic and different and we have to flexible to deal with whatever is thrown at us, to bring about a successful conclusion in any way we can. The situation for pilots, cabin crew and the airlines is exactly the same, whatever happens, 'be there and cope' and sort the situation out. I for one don't want to die in an aircraft crash and every pilot I know has the same attitude and we will do whatever we can to prevent it happening and the chances are, if we survive then our passengers will too. There is an inherent risk in flying and there always will be.
 

hoyin

Member
Messages
1,842
Also surely the idea of always having two people in the cockpit is flawed as well. I doubt the flight attendants are as closely vetted as pilots. So you have the danger of an unhinged or terrorist person being in the cockpit with one pilot!
 

BennyD

Sea Urchin Pate
Messages
15,006
No thanks.

Part of my business revolves around keeping automated systems secure. The sort of computers which actually control physical kit - aircraft for instance...

Putting it very simply, nothing is secure, virtually anything can be 'hacked'.


You are right about human error causing most incidents though.

How many times has human input prevented an aircraft crash? We'll never know because when it happens it's generally not recorded.
 

Parisien

Moderator
Messages
34,927
Theres an inherent risk with any human/machine interaction.........never mind those with huge responsibilities for other peoples lives.

Depsite all the laws, policies and training........as Ian says SH!T will always happen


P
 

BennyD

Sea Urchin Pate
Messages
15,006
Why can't you trust an automated flight?

The majority of crashes are through pilot error. A lot of the flight and landing is automated already.

I personally would have no problem. I think it is the way forward.

What happens at 38000 feet over the North Atlantic when there is an electrical failure that causes the computers to crash and there are no pilots 'up front'? What happens if the ground controller 'goes rogue' and turns an aircraft into a remote control missile? Feel better? Trust me, computers, yet, aren't anywhere near flexible enough to deal with complex, multi layered and dynamic emergencies and they won't be for some time. Remember Air Transat 236? If not here is a précis;

An A330 en-route over the Atlantic had a fuel leak from the right hand tank. The aircraft computer advised the pilots of a fuel imbalance and suggested the opening of the cross feed. It was at night and no fuel leak could be seen so, without considering the implications, they trusted the computer, took the advice and opened it. Consequently the computer which runs the fuel system kept pumping fuel around the aircraft to keep the tanks 'balanced'. Eventually they ran out of fuel because the computers kept doing what they were programmed to do and pumped all remaining fuel into the 'low' tank and therefore overboard. At this point the much maligned pilots successfully flew/glided the aircraft without engines nearly 100 miles and made a successful landing and saved everyone on board. A computer could not have done that.
 

2b1ask1

Special case
Messages
20,287
My asbergers usually prevents me from determining the angle people are taking in a statement but oddly I read Ian's 'Be there and cope' As a mantra.... I use a similar from the RAF: 'Adapt, amend and continue'... Basically what can you do with what you have at that moment to avert the crisis or problem you are facing. The Wings flight is exceptional and obviously not previously considered as a likely scenario - poor bu99ers!
 

drewf

Member
Messages
7,159
How many times has human input prevented an aircraft crash? We'll never know because when it happens it's generally not recorded.

Quite so, but that's not the point I was making mate. Your later posts succinctly show how much of a problem it is to rely on computers which are apparently working properly, never mind those that have gone wrong!
 

BennyD

Sea Urchin Pate
Messages
15,006
Oh, ok. I was just adding a little balance to the comment about human error being causing most incidents.
 

conaero

Forum Owner
Messages
34,643
No thanks.

Part of my business revolves around keeping automated systems secure. The sort of computers which actually control physical kit - aircraft for instance...

Putting it very simply, nothing is secure, virtually anything can be 'hacked'.


You are right about human error causing most incidents though.


^^^This
 

safrane

Member
Messages
16,896
Same could happen on any form of mass transport...

What is stopping a coach driver driving off a cliff, a train driver still doing 150 as they come into Paddington? You can only mitigate risk so far otherwise we would never leave the home, which bizarrely is one of the most dangerous places for accidents.