Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 26 2015, @05:19PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 26 2015, @05:19PM (#162833)

    Those are cases of negligence, not sabotage.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Thursday March 26 2015, @07:28PM

    by Nobuddy (1626) on Thursday March 26 2015, @07:28PM (#162919)

    I would disagree. The decisions involved were not just a mistake- it was deliberately allowing the dam to fail to increase profit. Sabotage for financial gain.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 26 2015, @07:52PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 26 2015, @07:52PM (#162924)

      By that logic every act of negligence is sabotage because negligence is always the result of caring about something else more.

      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday March 26 2015, @10:28PM

        by sjames (2882) on Thursday March 26 2015, @10:28PM (#162991) Journal

        Not necessarily. Negligence can be due to laziness, stupidity, or greed. Often a mix is involved but there comes a tipping point where it would be hard to NOT know a failure was the inevitable result. Once it gets to that point, it becomes sabotage.