Airbus A320 Crashes in Alps

Seeing as we are discussing preventative measures we could have a system that locks in a vertical envelope for a pre-programmed portion of the flight path. A 2 of 3 codes system could be used for the unloc codes with pilot co-pilot and groundside having codes. Outside the locked portion the pilots have full control but it can be organised that both are in before then.
 
do_ron_ron said:
Surprisingly easy to avoid this disaster according to on air crew from an American airline. They said they have a three person rule, on trans-Atlantic flights they have three crew .. one on rest and two operational. If one wants to leave the flight deck the third must be there before the other leaves. If a short haul then a flight attendant is used instead so there is no chance of one person gaining total control.
Click to expand...

Someone made a good point elsewhere. This may act as a good deterrent as it makes it harder as it becomes more personal, but if someone is committed an unaware flight attendant isn't a massive barrier to overcome.

Some articles are suggested that the person inside the cockpit can block a pin code re-entry into the cockpit. There is probably a good reason for this, but why have that as a feature?
 
Jokester said:
Have to say, might be better to completely do away with the door altogether. Passengers are pretty clued up these days to tackle hijackers, especially if they can't get weapons on board. Safety in numbers and all that.
Click to expand...

Just removing the door would bring us back to the pre-9/11 problem of easy access for hijackers. A solution is needed which allows the crew to access the cockpit but doesn't allow the passengers to do so

My (probably quite expensive) suggestion would be to have the area behind the cockpit dedicated to pilot facilities, so that no one would have to leave the pilot area for rest breaks or toilet breaks or drinks or anything. The door between the cockpit and the crew area could be a very simple door, even without a lock, and the door between the crew area and the passenger area could have all the fancy reinforcements and locks of current cockpit doors. This would enable any of the crew to keep unwanted guests out of the crew area and cockpit, but would prevent anyone from locking crew out of the cockpit.
 
muon said:
Someone made a good point elsewhere. This may act as a good deterrent as it makes it harder as it becomes more personal, but if someone is committed an unaware flight attendant isn't a massive barrier to overcome.
Click to expand...

i dunno beating a woman half to death is a lot harder than just taping away att he computer.

Some articles are suggested that the person inside the cockpit can block a pin code re-entry into the cockpit. There is probably a good reason for this, but why have that as a feature?
Click to expand...

so that a terrorist cant force the code out of one of the crew open the cockpit door throw the pilot out and take the aircraft.
 
What a dick, just read about this, if he wanted to kill himself why not jump off a bridge instead of murdering 150 people or what ever it was. They said they could here peoples screams just before the crash :(
 
Reaper 392 said:
Just removing the door would bring us back to the pre-9/11 problem of easy access for hijackers. A solution is needed which allows the crew to access the cockpit but doesn't allow the passengers to do so

My (probably quite expensive) suggestion would be to have the area behind the cockpit dedicated to pilot facilities, so that no one would have to leave the pilot area for rest breaks or toilet breaks or drinks or anything. The door between the cockpit and the crew area could be a very simple door, even without a lock, and the door between the crew area and the passenger area could have all the fancy reinforcements and locks of current cockpit doors. This would enable any of the crew to keep unwanted guests out of the crew area and cockpit, but would prevent anyone from locking crew out of the cockpit.
Click to expand...

Have a crew convenience is a matter of space. The 747 (in both -400 and -8i guises) has a lavatory in the cockpit for the crew meaning they don't need to leave. But the 747 is huge, compared to a single aisle A320.
 
Pee in a bottle, poo in a bucket or adult pampers - Problem solved and for less than £5 per aircraft!







(only semi-serious suggestion obviously :D)
 
What's to stop one of the pilots incapacitating/killing the other pilot while they're seated and ploughing the plane into the ground at the earliest opportunity?

This kind of scenario is going to be hard to avoid, if someone wants to pull it off, they will.
 
Would it not be logistically possible to put toilet facilities within the cockpit area (with a door which does not lock) so one of the pilot's does not need to leave the area. That would appear to be the most cost effective solution.

Of course there's the incredibly rare possibility both pilots would be in on carrying out a deliberate crash. But remote access, while probably being incredibly expensive, would lead whole other can of worms of the potential of cyber attacks/hacking.
 
Last edited:
Already been mentioned several times, bigger aircraft have them, would be hard to retrofit on smaller lines
 
2 Crew wouldn't even stop this occurring, they could just hit the other guy over the head with a blunt object. There's really not much you can do apart from have Planes flown by computers
 
scorza said:
Maybe, but it also introduces a potential new attack vector - hacking or physically taking over a ground station. I for one would still prefer a human being in charge of a plane I was travelling on, even with this incident.
Click to expand...

Computers essentially fly planes anyway these days, especially modern airframes such as the A320 in this incident. I am an advocate of giving even more control to computer systems, it would prevent terrible events like the one we currently see on the news.

The software systems on these modern aircraft are incredibly intelligent already, it would definitely be possible to program cases to avoid anomalous/malicious input from a pilot in a non-emergency situation; and the sooner such improvements are made the better.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom