Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Thursday March 26 2015, @04:19PM   Printer-friendly
from the trust-no-one dept.

BBC reports the co-pilot of the Germanwings flight that crashed in the Alps intentionally locked the pilot out of the cabin and initiated the flight's descent into the ground:

The co-pilot of the Germanwings flight that crashed in the French Alps, named as Andreas Lubitz, appeared to want to "destroy the plane", officials said.

Marseille prosecutor Brice Robin, citing information from the "black box" voice recorder, said the co-pilot was alone in the cockpit.

He intentionally started a descent while the pilot was locked out.

Mr Robin said there was "absolute silence in the cockpit" as the pilot fought to re-enter it.

Air traffic controllers made repeated attempts to contact the aircraft, but to no avail, he said.

The story seems SN-worthy because it is an object lesson in the consequences for our lives when we put complex machines and systems into the hands of others. In this case it was a trained pilot who killed a plane full of people who were powerless to stop him. Another example could be engineers who sabotage a dam and wipe out entire communities downstream. We mostly don't think about stuff like this because there is an invisible web of trust, sometimes called a "social contract," that leads people to get on a plane, or go to work, or take their kids to school without giving it a second thought. But when that social contract unravels, all bets are off...

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Thursday March 26 2015, @04:57PM

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 26 2015, @04:57PM (#162821) Journal

    At least one airline in Europe has already announced that there must be two people in the cockpit at all times in future. It is a call that must be made by individual airlines. Of course, we will now get complaints about 'poor cabin service' for the short period of time that a member of the cabin crew has to sit in the cockpit.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by subs on Thursday March 26 2015, @07:14PM

    by subs (4485) on Thursday March 26 2015, @07:14PM (#162914)

    This is at best a "feel good" measure. Once inside the cockpit, there's nothing much preventing a most likely stronger male pilot from incapacitating an unsuspecting female member of the cabin crew using the fire axe [wired.com] that's aboard all airliners. Or even the fire extinguisher for that matter. Or and this is even funnier, what if it's the member of the cabin crew that does that - the pilot might be focused on flying the plane, after all. The measure might deter people who are a bit iffy about physical violence (although an argument could be said that you could have caught those just by using proper psychological evaluation and counseling), but it won't stop the determined asshole.
    I'm sorry for all the victims of this deranged nut job, but I don't think these kinds of feel good measures will help much, other than make the life of the air crew even more miserable. I'd be much happier with stricter psychological evaluation and generally a better managerial approach to treating your employees like human beings, rather than robots.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by vux984 on Thursday March 26 2015, @10:35PM

      by vux984 (5045) on Thursday March 26 2015, @10:35PM (#162995)

      Once inside the cockpit, there's nothing much preventing a most likely stronger male pilot from incapacitating an unsuspecting female member of the cabin crew using the fire axe that's aboard all airliners.

      In theory you are right. In practice you are dead wrong.

      Just because a person is perfectly willing to lock the door, ignore the radio, and fly a plane into the side of a mountain killing everyone on board does not mean they are willing to take an axe and kill the flight attendent next to them with it.

      Physically capable of it sure. But would he actually do it? Maybe. Maybe not. Often not. Surprisingly often not. People are funny that way.

      I expect it would be more effective as a deterrent than you'd ever think possible.

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday March 27 2015, @02:59AM

        by frojack (1554) on Friday March 27 2015, @02:59AM (#163082) Journal

        Right. Suicides may not want to kill someone fact to face.

        But further, flight attendants now get hand to hand combat training in most countries. if that pilot gets out of his seat, the stewerd/ess becomes alert, and maybe unlocks the door. And besides, the steward/ess would be closer to the fire axe than the pilot.

        I'm still betting this pilot suicide is likely the root cause of MH370, and I'm not alone in this thinking [telegraph.co.uk].

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Sunday March 29 2015, @10:37PM

          by Yog-Yogguth (1862) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 29 2015, @10:37PM (#163977) Journal

          I feel a little bit bad posting this days later (it's not like I knew this beforehand either) and it's only meant as a tiny correction: the pilot does not get up to lock the door, the door lock is a small button to the lower right on the instrument panel between the pilots (it's likely in the same general area for other models of airplanes as well). Maybe there are other ways to lock the door as well, I don't know.

          --
          Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
      • (Score: 2) by subs on Friday March 27 2015, @01:12PM

        by subs (4485) on Friday March 27 2015, @01:12PM (#163175)

        They don't necessarily need to kill. A good knock on the head with a blunt object works just as well. And they don't even need to make them unconscious. It's trivial to set the airplane up on autopilot to crash (spin the altitude selector down to zero and hit the FLCH button, done in about 2 seconds - in fact, a "flight level change" descent appears to have been the exact descent they did here, constant speed, maximum rate of descent) and then hold the weaker flight attendant down.
        At best it'll deter the most weaksauce would be psycho who acts on impulse. But the pre-meditated guy, not really.

        • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Friday March 27 2015, @06:23PM

          by vux984 (5045) on Friday March 27 2015, @06:23PM (#163267)

          They don't necessarily need to kill. A good knock on the head with a blunt object works just as well

          You are missing the forest for the trees. The type of suicide who will lock a plane door and fly into a mountain isn't necessarily willing confront another human being with any sort of violence at all. The psychology is different.

          At best it'll deter the most weaksauce would be psycho who acts on impulse. But the pre-meditated guy, not really.

          He's a depressed suicide, not a terrorist bent on taking down a plane. The psychology is completely different. You are projecting some sort of psycho act where the pilot will do anything to bring the plane down. That's simply not an accurate characterization of how most suicides would think. Simply having someone in the room would head off the event entirely in the large majority of cases. Not because he'd be unable to carry out a plan, not because he'd be unable to kill or knock out his companion, but because simply having someone there will cause him not to commit to the plan in the first place.

          Suicide attempts tend to follow a variety of patterns and the combination of a violent attack on an innocent bystander just to enable themselves to isolate themselves for the final act" isn't "a thing". If you drew a venn diagram of "pilots who would commit suicide by locking the cockpit and flying into a mountain" with "pilots who would attack the flight attendent" to find the group of pilots who would "attack the flight attendant and commit suicide by mountain" it would be a pretty small overlap. Sure it -could- happen; but simply having someone there will effectively eliminate the overwhelming majority of incidents. (And given the already low number of incidents it will be a truly freak occurrence.)

          • (Score: 2) by subs on Friday March 27 2015, @08:21PM

            by subs (4485) on Friday March 27 2015, @08:21PM (#163312)

            He's a depressed suicide, not a terrorist bent on taking down a plane.

            How do you know? Do you have access to some preliminary investigation results that us others don't? If not, then you're simply speculating. In fact, I'm not certain I'd agree that anybody with enough empathy to not wanna do personal harm would commit suicide by taking 150 people with them. He heard their screams, the shouts, the banging on the cockpit door from the back, he knew damn well ahead of time he's killing them personally. I'd wager that if you're willing to endure that, you're pretty ready to whack somebody unsuspecting over the head with a fire extinguisher first. If you just wanna die by flying, rent a freakin' Cessna single and stuff it into the ground at 170kts - death guaranteed 100%.
            Fact is, until the full report is out, we're all just speculating. The reason why this case gets under my skin is because I think it fuels a sense of paranoia and surveillance among airline employees, as has already happened between passengers since 9/11, where you get stupid cases of people being reported and planes diverted simply due to Orwellian "suspicious behavior" with no added benefit to security.

            • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Saturday March 28 2015, @08:43AM

              by vux984 (5045) on Saturday March 28 2015, @08:43AM (#163480)

              How do you know?

              I don't know. It doesn't matter to the argument one way or the other. ( But FWIW if he was a terrorist organization act they'd have claimed responsibility for it.)

              In fact, I'm not certain I'd agree that anybody with enough empathy to not wanna do personal harm would commit suicide by taking 150 people with them. He heard their screams, the shouts, the banging on the cockpit door from the back, he knew damn well ahead of time he's killing them personally.

              Its really completely different; nearly opposite extremes even. He is merely pointing the plane setting it on a crash course. From there it is his inaction to re-orient the plane that leads to the crash; and it is under his total control. The event becomes passive as he "lets it happen". Eventually the course passes the point of no return and he couldn't save them even if he wanted to any more. At the end it becomes a passive acceptance of the inevitable.

              That is entirely removed from an act of violence taken directly against someone; where each blow is actively dealt and the result immediate. There exists a possibility they will fight back, that they will even successfully overpower you. The event is uncontrolled. It couldn't be more different.

              If you just wanna die by flying, rent a freakin' Cessna single and stuff it into the ground at 170kts - death guaranteed 100%.

              Sure. But its obviously not the case that he "just wanna die by flying". Suicides are never that simplistic.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Nuke on Thursday March 26 2015, @11:25PM

      by Nuke (3162) on Thursday March 26 2015, @11:25PM (#163010)

      This [two people in the cockpit always] is at best a "feel good" measure. ......... The measure might deter people who are a bit iffy about physical violence ........., but it won't stop the determined asshole.

      This guy waited until the captain was out of the cockpit, so it looks like it was some deterrent. As someone else said, it takes a lot more bottle to attack someone with an axe, splattering yourself with brains and blood, than it does to press some buttons; the latter does not bring home the reality. Similar to it being easier to kill someone with a rifle than with a knife. Even if it did not stop the "determined asshole" there would be a significant probability of stopping an event - including this one by the sound of it.

      I'd be much happier with stricter psychological evaluation and generally a better managerial approach to treating your employees like human beings, rather than robots.

      Why assume this is to do with how the company treated its employees? Maybe his problem was at home, or with his finances, or with the world in general. I felt suicidal at a point some years ago and it was nothing to do with my employment.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 26 2015, @11:44PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 26 2015, @11:44PM (#163015)

        > This guy waited until the captain was out of the cockpit, so it looks like it was some deterrent.

        You are making an illogical assumption.

        Just because the guy took the path of least resistance does not mean he wasn't prepared to push harder to achieve his goal if he had to.

        • (Score: 2) by Nuke on Thursday March 26 2015, @11:50PM

          by Nuke (3162) on Thursday March 26 2015, @11:50PM (#163019)

          It is not an assumption, it is a probability. Note the words "it looks like".

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 27 2015, @02:59AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 27 2015, @02:59AM (#163081)

            Oh puhlease. Pedant escape hatch for the fail.

      • (Score: 2) by engblom on Friday March 27 2015, @06:31AM

        by engblom (556) on Friday March 27 2015, @06:31AM (#163116)

        I often see this with "always two in cockpit is better". I really wonder if it is better. Are the same background tests done on cabin workers as on pilots? Would it be easy for an evil person to get employed as a cabin worker, waiting for the right opportunity to enter the cockpit? Which one is having bigger probability: A bad worker in cabin or a bad pilot?

        It might be that an "always two person in cockpit"-policy takes away the protection the door is supposed to give.

      • (Score: 2) by subs on Friday March 27 2015, @01:04PM

        by subs (4485) on Friday March 27 2015, @01:04PM (#163172)

        This guy waited until the captain was out of the cockpit, so it looks like it was some deterrent.

        That doesn't follow. A much simpler explanation was that he knew he didn't have to get his hands dirty, so he waited it out.

        Why assume this is to do with how the company treated its employees?

        Because I know the working conditions for pilots at some of these low-cost airlines and they're atrocious. Many times, the likes of Ryanair don't actually employ many of the pilots that work for them. Instead, they hire them on a per-flight basis and let them go as soon as high-season ends. Considering how expensive and intensive pilot training is, the enormous responsibility that they shoulder and the sacrifices that many pilots make in terms of not having time for a personal life, that sort of additional douchebaggery from management can really mess with you.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 26 2015, @09:20PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 26 2015, @09:20PM (#162965)

    God is my co-pilot