Germanwings A320 crashed in France :(

[M4cruiser]

Ayahuasca said:

Is it not possible to program the flight control computers in such as way as to prevent a controlled descent into the ground?

?

This has occurred to me as well. So, we currently have a manual override to the automatic flying plane. Now we need an automatic override to the manual override. And why not? The A320 in the alps would have known it was about to crash, so why didn't it take action?

The automatic override would kick in only if the aircraft's systems were working normally, which I think they were in this case. The manual override is there for when the aircraft goes wrong (as it did with AF447) but should go back to auto once the aircraft fixes itself (AF447 pitot tubes fixed themselves but the aircraft continued to allow the pilots to crash it).

[Blaster72]

M4cruiser said:

Ayahuasca said:

Is it not possible to program the flight control computers in such as way as to prevent a controlled descent into the ground?

?

This has occurred to me as well. So, we currently have a manual override to the automatic flying plane. Now we need an automatic override to the manual override. And why not? The A320 in the alps would have known it was about to crash, so why didn't it take action?

The automatic override would kick in only if the aircraft's systems were working normally, which I think they were in this case. The manual override is there for when the aircraft goes wrong (as it did with AF447) but should go back to auto once the aircraft fixes itself (AF447 pitot tubes fixed themselves but the aircraft continued to allow the pilots to crash it).

Ok, so build in safeguards to prevent the aircraft from allowing the pilots to deliberately fly into buildings or terrain.

I don't think its possible to build in these safeguards without ending up in a 2001 HAL type situation some way down the line.

I'd rather risk the billion to one chance that my pilot is a crazed killer than risk a lazy coder preventing my pilot from recovering the aircraft from some unusual situation.

Just like the cockpit door has turned out to be the reason he got away with his plan rather than prevented it, having the aircraft take control from the pilot could easily cause hundreds of deaths also.

To show what can happen when pilots get over confident with automation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296

Didn't end well but would never have been attempted on a conventional aircraft to begin with.

Edited by Blaster72 on Sunday 5th April 17:12

[croyde]

There was an Airbus crash years ago at a demo when the pilot took the aircraft for a very low flypast over the runway.

Trouble was the aircraft thought it was landing so wouldn't allow the pilot to increase power and ascend at the end of the runway so it just ploughed into a wood and all the crew were killed.

[peterperkins]

I suggest program the software to prevent pilot plunging it into ground but include an overide similar to those used in old nuclear silos.

So if a problem develops and automatic systems are hindering the recovery, both pilots have a keypad into which a number has to be simultaneously entered to regain full manual control, inc ability to fly plane into the ground.

The number is not secret but the cockpit layout and timeouts must mean that a single person cannot physically enter the numbers. Two people have to do it at the same time or within half a second or so.

That would seem to negate that issue. The number can be 123 it doesn't matter.

I also suggest if software detects a pilot commanding a crash scenario it automatically opens the cockpit door.

Manual controls could all be locked out as a matter of course unless in the take off and landing phase when both pilots have to be present and seated in the cockpit.

Manual overide could also be dependent on both seats being occupied (weight sensors).

[bitchstewie]

I don't think some of you understand how an aircraft works.

I don't claim to understand tbh, but I do understand that so long as you have someone on one of the seats putting inputs into the aircraft and having it react on those inputs, you'll be able to crash it.

You'll lose more aircraft through automating the pilots out of the loop than you ever would to pilot suicide - it's nuts to think otherwise.

[Crafty_]

peterperkins said:

stuff

Its not anywhere near as simple as you suggest unfortunately.
Even if such a system that you describe was put in place there are many ways to make an aircraft crash if you are determined enough, which this guy obviously was.

[anonymous-user]

Crafty_ said:

Its not anywhere near as simple as you suggest unfortunately.
Even if such a system that you describe was put in place there are many ways to make an aircraft crash if you are determined enough, which this guy obviously was.

And been explained numerous times over the last few pages already.

[Crafty_]

must admit I didn't read the entire thread.

As NDA says the whole thing is just a horrible tragedy, goodness knows what it must be like to be caught up in it.

[lazyitus]

Crafty_ said:

must admit I didn't read the entire thread.

As NDA says the whole thing is just a horrible tragedy, goodness knows what it must be like to be caught up in it.

I don't know but I've played the scenario and imagined it happening in my own mind, not for too long mind, I must say.

Makes me feel sick, sad and removed.

I wonder if the panic might perhaps trigger some kind of primal instinct where it becomes less worse than one imagines if it's actually happening.

fk knows. I hope there's some part of our brain that can deal with this as and when and if it happens.

God bless those on that plane. Truly

[trashbat]

croyde said:

There was an Airbus crash years ago at a demo when the pilot took the aircraft for a very low flypast over the runway.

Trouble was the aircraft thought it was landing so wouldn't allow the pilot to increase power and ascend at the end of the runway so it just ploughed into a wood and all the crew were killed.

FWIW, most of this is incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296

[Crafty_]

I was thinking for everyone involved - the poor passengers & crew, their families, the investigators/services that have been at the crash site and so on.

Being on board would be hell, 8 minutes would be a very, very long time.

[SpeedMattersNot]

lazyitus said:

I hope there's some part of our brain that can deal with this as and when and if it happens.

God bless those on that plane. Truly

I hope the same.

I heard ages ago that apparently drowning is meant to be quite tranquil? However, the thought of that terrifies me. Doesn't bare thinking about.

[M4cruiser]

peterperkins said:

I also suggest if software detects a pilot commanding a crash scenario it automatically opens the cockpit door.

.

This ^

I hadn't thought of that, but it would have prevented the Alps crash?

[HoHoHo]

croyde said:

There was an Airbus crash years ago at a demo when the pilot took the aircraft for a very low flypast over the runway.

Trouble was the aircraft thought it was landing so wouldn't allow the pilot to increase power and ascend at the end of the runway so it just ploughed into a wood and all the crew were killed.

No they weren't, three passengers were killed but not lets's confuse facts eh

[Nardies]

HoHoHo said:

croyde said:

There was an Airbus crash years ago at a demo when the pilot took the aircraft for a very low flypast over the runway.

Trouble was the aircraft thought it was landing so wouldn't allow the pilot to increase power and ascend at the end of the runway so it just ploughed into a wood and all the crew were killed.

No they weren't, three passengers were killed but not lets's confuse facts eh

Indeed, it did increase power too, but there was a delay between flight idle power and the power requested, ~4 seconds which was by design.

[Crafty_]

That was Air France 296, a demo flight of the (then new) A320. The flight control system was a big advancement at the time.

As far as I see it the way the aircraft was designed and what the pilot expected were not the same thing, leading to the crash.

[TTmonkey]

To me there is another point that is being missed here. It's the instant global media via the Internet that gives this guy the gratification of knowing that he's made himself famous for ever. He's ensured that his deed has it his name in human history for ever. The very thing we talk about is keeping his name and his deed alive.

They used to call it "15 minutes of fame" but now the Internet makes it live forever. He will always be referred to. His name will live on forever. It shouldn't. His Wikipedia page no doubt was created within minutes of his crime.

He should be a assigned a 16 digit random letter/number combination. His name should be erased from the history of the planet. As should all people that seek this kind of notoriety. They should know before death that their deeds whilst recorded will not be attributed to them. Their name will not live on. They should be erased.

[croyde]

HoHoHo said:

No they weren't, three passengers were killed but not lets's confuse facts eh

Sorry. I didn't look it up as it was a dimly remembered memory. I only remember the aircraft with its nose up ploughing into the trees.

I didn't realise there were passengers aboard. Amazed that so many survived.

Just an example of the computer not doing what the human captain wanted to do.

[JuniorD]

I'd wonder what age some of the more recent posters on this thread are. Either they are aged under 11, or just balloons.

[DamienB]

croyde said:

Sorry. I didn't look it up as it was a dimly remembered memory. I only remember the aircraft with its nose up ploughing into the trees.

I didn't realise there were passengers aboard. Amazed that so many survived.

Just an example of the computer not doing what the human captain wanted to do.

But it wasn't an example of that. It was - yet another - example of a human crew fking things up.

The computer ignored their pulling back on the stick, as the aircraft was already on the edge of controlled flight and any further nose-up pitch would have stalled the aircraft and crashed it far more dramatically, and likely with far more casualties, than happened a few seconds later. It did respond to their take off/go-around power request, the engines spooled up, they simply couldn't spool up fast enough given how late the crew had recognised that there was a bloody forest in front of them and they had got too low.

100% human failure.