Will they find the plane?

[foomar]

Meant controlled from the ground by a pilot , at least they could be monitored and stopped if they went mad or deviated from flight plan.

With automated landing systems and autopilots already long in use it could probably be developed , but I agree few would trust complete automation , esp if MS had anything to do with the software.

 

[HempKat]

Well I'm not so quick to jump on the "The Pilots did it" bandwagon. I know they claim to have checked out everyone and ruled them all out but as quickly as the claim they did that came up I'm skeptical they did more then a cursory check. Were talking close to 300 people when you factor in passengers and crew. What makes me hesitate is there was nothing in the pilots background (which was checked far more closely as suspicion was focused on them early) to suggest they were suicidal or murderous both appeared to be very dedicated and skilled at their work and both seemed to have fulfilling lives outside their work.

So what about some form of takeover? I mean if this was a deliberate act carried out by some plot then it's conceivable the mastermind(s) behind said plot planned well enough to make the people who carried it out appear normal. Clearly there was deliberate actions taken with the transponders being cut off, and the course change. If the black box is discovered there will be little if anything to prove what was behind the deliberate action. The only hope would be the flight recorder but it overwrites itself every two hours and since they believe the plane flew for at least 5 more hours then the point that would have captured a takeover would have been overwritten a couple of times.

Clearly there needs to be more on board to communicate in real time specifically what is going on. I don't see why they couldn't have emergency phones a several locations throughout the plane where in the event the crew has been compromised some how they could even contact passengers, or just "listen in". I also don't see why they couldn't have some sort of surveillance equipment on board such that when anything makes ground control wonder what is going on with a particular flight the turn on cameras and what not to see, here and otherwise monitor what is going on in real time. In the event something has happen, pilots have become incapacitated, the plane has been taken over, etc. Then an override can be activated allowing someone on the ground to safely bring the plane in to the closest safe place to land.

All of these things should be very doable from a technological standpoint so what is probably needed more then anything else is an effective way to overcome the resistance to employing such safety measures. There should be some form of moral imperative that can trump a company's resistance to such measures when it comes to protecting human lives.

 

[HempKat]

Meant controlled from the ground by a pilot , at least they could be monitored and stopped if they went mad or deviated from flight plan.

With automated landing systems and autopilots already long in use it could probably be developed , but I agree few would trust complete automation , esp if MS had anything to do with the software.

Perhaps then the solution would be to have a pilot on the plane flying but should he/she deviate from the flight plan and or become non responsive to contact then an override can be activated allowing a ground based pilot to assume control?

 

[foomar]

All those mods would cost less than a set of tyres.

It was suggested to fit cockpit cameras post 911 but it was resisted by the pilot associations.

The voice recorder will be overwritten but might yield some information prior to the crash , most suicides leave a note and I would expect something to be on there if this was the case.

Have followed the speculation on an aircrew site , they have no more idea than we have.

 

[HempKat]

It was suggested to fit cockpit cameras post 911 but it was resisted by the pilot associations.

See, that's the thing I'm saying, the pilot associations shouldn't be able to resist, what are they hiding? If the pilot is doing their job properly and safely there should be no worries.

 

[Ez Rider]

See, that's the thing I'm saying, the pilot associations shouldn't be able to resist, what are they hiding? If the pilot is doing their job properly and safely there should be no worries.

It's easier to lie about/cover up your mistakes when there's no photographic record. Kind of like cops resisting dash-cam's. Who does their job properly 100% of the time?

 

[trichrider]

...they sleep on the job for starters.

 

[HempKat]

It's easier to lie about/cover up your mistakes when there's no photographic record. Kind of like cops resisting dash-cam's. Who does their job properly 100% of the time?

Well tough shit, when you potentially have hundreds of peoples lives depending on you, you shouldn't have the chance to say no to the thing that might reveal your incompetence. I mean if they can do that then how come people working for companies that do random drug screenings refuse to give a urine sample and still keep their jobs?

 

[Ez Rider]

Well tough shit, when you potentially have hundreds of peoples lives depending on you, you shouldn't have the chance to say no to the thing that might reveal your incompetence. I mean if they can do that then how come people working for companies that do random drug screenings refuse to give a urine sample and still keep their jobs?

I wasn't defending the pilot unions position, just stating the reason for it. Nobody wants to be recorded when they KNOW they're going to screw up, it's human nature.

For the rest, I'm not certain I follow your analogy.

 

[foomar]

India has decided to implement compulsory flight deck cameras.

In April, there were two instances of irresponsible behaviour from pilots. One was when two Air India pilots went off to sleep after handing over the Bangkok-Delhi flight to the attendants who inadvertently turned off the auto pilot.

The second one was when another Air India flight landed on a cross-runway in the Mumbai airport without air traffic controller's clearance. The run way was reportedly closed.

In both the cases, the passengers luckily escaped unhurt.

Pilots falling asleep is nothing new. In fact, as per a survey by the British Airline Pilots Association as much as 43 percent of its pilots fell asleep while flying.

In India too, the situation is not very different. According to the ToI report, commonly on long-haul flights one pilot goes to sleep after informing the co-pilot.

In 2008, an Air India flight plying from Jaipur to Mumbai, overshot the destination and covered half way to Goa as both the pilots were fast asleep. Passengers, however, were blissfully unaware of this.

 

[HOVAH2.0]

If someone could savage those engines, thats $8 million dollars to be made..

 

[shithawk420]

I doubt there worth that now cause of salt water erosion.could be wrong though.

 

[HempKat]

I wasn't defending the pilot unions position, just stating the reason for it. Nobody wants to be recorded when they KNOW they're going to screw up, it's human nature.

For the rest, I'm not certain I follow your analogy.

The pilot unions did successfully prevent the cockpit cameras. I already knew the reason, it's kind of obvious as there is no other possible reason for not wanting something that might help prevent a hostile takeover of a plane. So my analogy was that if pilots can block cockpit cameras to avoid being caught not doing their job competently then anyone working for a company that does random drug testing should be able to refuse without losing their job because it might show they were doing drugs. That doesn't happen though, people working for those companies are forced to submit or they can go work somewhere else. The same should be true for the pilots.

Doing drugs when you work for a company that does random drug testing could be considered a form of "screwing up" and so since it's human nature then why do they have less rights then pilots?

 

[OGShaman]

Time to call in Robert Ballard if he's not already on the case.

 

[Ez Rider]

The pilot unions did successfully prevent the cockpit cameras. I already knew the reason, it's kind of obvious as there is no other possible reason for not wanting something that might help prevent a hostile takeover of a plane. So my analogy was that if pilots can block cockpit cameras to avoid being caught not doing their job competently then anyone working for a company that does random drug testing should be able to refuse without losing their job because it might show they were doing drugs. That doesn't happen though, people working for those companies are forced to submit or they can go work somewhere else. The same should be true for the pilots.

Doing drugs when you work for a company that does random drug testing could be considered a form of "screwing up" and so since it's human nature then why do they have less rights then pilots?

See #328

 

[HempKat]

See #328

Why would I need to see #328 when that was the post that initiated the comment you're telling me to see #328 about?

As I said I already know the reason and wasn't asking for the reason. I understand not wanting to be held accountable for ones mistakes but that doesn't make it right to block something that could potentially help save lives. Workers that know they are being monitored in some way tend to be more careful of what they are being monitored for so they don't get in trouble. Perhaps if there were cameras in the cockpit pilots would do more to stay awake and alert rather then allow themselves to give into the urge to sleep?

 

[foomar]

On a modern plane with automated take off and landing on most airfields , fixed airlanes , satnav and autopilot there is little for the pilot to do most of the time , hardly matters if they sleep in turns.

Commercial jets used to have a cabin crew of four or five , navigator and flight engineer now gone and down to two , usually with a third trainee , dumbed down from the skills that used to be required.

Given the expense of training and the fact they can only work 100 hours a month , I expect the airlines to move to drones as soon as they can convince the flying public.

As half the accidents are down to pilot error it might not be a bad thing.

 

[MJBadger]

Would you seriously want to fly from the usa to heathrow without a pilot in the plane ? Fuck that , a drone is either controlled from somewhere or is automated , electronics do go wrong and sods law if they go wrong in a plane it`s usually when they are in the air .

 

[Harry Gypsna]

Would you seriously want to fly from the usa to heathrow without a pilot in the plane ? Fuck that , a drone is either controlled from somewhere or is automated , electronics do go wrong and sods law if they go wrong in a plane it`s usually when they are in the air .

I'd imagine if the airlines did move to using remote control or complete automation, there would still be a pilot on board, but it would be a role reversal, as he would be the backup system and the computer the Captain.

 

[foomar]

My daughter was on this flight , by pure luck she walked away with trivial injuries , I might be a bit biased against pilots thanks to this but they did not save this plane from a mechanical fault.

Flight 92 was on a scheduled flight from Heathrow to Belfast, Northern Ireland, having made the flight from Belfast to Heathrow earlier in the day. As the plane was climbing to reach a cruising altitude of 35,000 feet, one of the fan blades unexpectedly cracked. The pilots knew that something had happened because of the loud noise and the vibrations. Smoke poured into the cabin through the ventilation system and some of the passengers in the rear of the plane saw smoke and flames coming from the rear engine.

Due to this emergency, the plane was diverted to East Midlands Airport. The pilot disengaged the autopilot, but did not realize that this newer model of aircraft did not have the same type of air-conditioning system as he was used to on the older models. Instead of shutting down the malfunctioning left engine, the crew mistakenly assumed that the smoke was coming from the right engine and shut it down. They thought they had corrected the problem because they could no longer smell the smoke, but in effect they had left the aircraft without an engine at all.

On the approach to East Midlands Airport, the pilots followed the normal routine of pumping fuel into the engine to slow it down. They did so pumping the fuel into the malfunctioning left engine, which caused it to ignite and burst into flames. The crew tried to restart the engine by windmilling, which means they tried to use the air flowing through the engine to restart the turbine, but the plane was flying too low. When the plane hit the ground after passing over the M1 Motorway it split into three sections.

The investigation into the Kegworth air disaster determined two things to be the cause of the crash. The first was engine malfunction. The engine used in the aircraft was an upgrade of an existing engine and had not been field-tested. Human error was also at fault with the pilots shutting down the wrong engine. During the process of doing the mandatory check of the aircraft to determine where the smoke was coming from the pilot was interrupted by a message about the descent into East Midlands Airport. He forgot to continue with the check after receiving the message.

Onboard systems would be immune to pilot error , and without a flightdeck there could be no hijacking or pilot suicide.

It comes down to trust in electronics or pilots , who cause 50% of crashes.