BEA release investigation findings of Germanwings crash

[Jabiru Phil]

http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2015/d-px150324.en/pdf/d-px150324.en.pdf

 

This report explains the workings and security of the cockpit door that we were in the dark about.

 

PHIL.

 

 

[gandalph]

Thanks Phil. Very sober reading indeed. The revelation that there were 8 similar incidents, even if they were recorded over a 35 year period, is disturbing.

 

 

[winsor68]

A good reason to take the human out of the equation...? ...and the cockpit?

 

 

[dutchroll]

You take the human out of the equation in the air and you'll still have to deal with the human in the equation on the ground.....even more so.

 

 

[gandalph]

A good reason to take the human out of the equation...? ...and the cockpit?

Well maybe, but then you have automation doing this to a leading brand.

http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100218/2015-09-07.pdf

 

 

[Maritime_Ev]

When this had just happened and it was speculated that it was a computer generated upset the big media were clamoring about too much automation on aeroplanes, then overnight they changed the tune to "let's get rid of all humans". I reckon pilots have saved an order of magnitude more people from faulty electronics than the other way around.

 

 

[Ultralights]

8 incidents in 35 yrs? should read 8 incidents in how many individual flights?

 

 

[SDQDI]

8 incidents in 35 yrs considering the amount of flights that there are is IMHO not too bad at all. Yes 1 is too many but how many technical/mechanical failures have pilots corrected/compensated for in that time?

 

IMHO a pilot on the plane is a must.

 

Maybe there is a generation coming who would be comfortable with pilotless aircraft, but I don't think everyone will be comfortable with that. A driverless car is totally different and I can certainly see a benifit there but up in the air I like real people

 

 

[shags_j]

Technology needs humans and vice versa when it comes to aircraft. I don't think either can operate in isolation. Certain Shit hits fan scenarios will require the help of either or both.

 

 

[winsor68]

When this had just happened and it was speculated that it was a computer generated upset the big media were clamoring about too much automation on aeroplanes, then overnight they changed the tune to "let's get rid of all humans". I reckon pilots have saved an order of magnitude more people from faulty electronics than the other way around.

I'd call it even. The very vast majority of accidents are caused by humans.

 

 

[winsor68]

8 incidents in 35 yrs considering the amount of flights that there are is IMHO not too bad at all. Yes 1 is too many but how many technical/mechanical failures have pilots corrected/compensated for in that time?IMHO a pilot on the plane is a must.

 

Maybe there is a generation coming who would be comfortable with pilotless aircraft, but I don't think everyone will be comfortable with that. A driverless car is totally different and I can certainly see a benifit there but up in the air I like real people

I think a generation is here that will accept pilotless planes (or cares trains and the rest)...

 

 

[winsor68]

[dutchroll]

Try suggesting to the crew who were on the QF72 in an A330 enroute to Perth a few years back that pilotless aircraft would be a good idea!

 

 

[Ultralights]

as long as there is a human up the front, there will always be that fear of death to help ensure the pilot does everything possible to prevent that death.... machines in the past, and just as recently, have happily flown themselves into oblivion..

 

 

[winsor68]

as long as there is a human up the front, there will always be that fear of death to help ensure the pilot does everything possible to prevent that death.... machines in the past, and just as recently, have happily flown themselves into oblivion..

No mate...No machine has done anything of its own will. Its humans that have caused the machines to do all of those things. Machines follow human orders. They only make mistakes if they are ordered to.

 

 

[facthunter]

Humans design the systems that are supposed to cover ALL situations that might occur , except they don't, because no one can anticipate ALL the possible combinations of failures.Systems rely on sensors and programmes. Older aircraft ( the best ones ) had redundancies where the plane would still be able to be flown with many systems not operating. A properly trained pilot could fly it out of the problem. Airlines don't like spending money on pilot training.

 

Any remote control can be interfered with too. Nev

 

 

[planedriver]

Was on an A320 flight Melb-Syd tonight and I said to my partner, "Hope the PIC is happy with life and getting on well with his partner" It would seem he was thankfully, and we had a great flight.

 

Pity, things in life are not always the same way.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Take the pilots away and add in a malevolent homicidal ground controller/engineer who is doing the automatic flight path programming.

 

Mass murder by remote control. Wouldn't that be exciting aviation progress!

 

 

[nomis]

Which aircraft types are capable of this pilotless flight that some of you think is the answer. Civil passenger carrying not exotic x series aircraft.

 

 

[winsor68]

Take the pilots away and add in a malevolent homicidal ground controller/engineer who is doing the automatic flight path programming.Mass murder by remote control. Wouldn't that be exciting aviation progress!

Yes. It would have the potential to make sure the only way an airliner could crash is by a deliberate action...completely the opposite of the most common cause of crashes now which is pilot error.

 

 

[winsor68]

Which aircraft types are capable of this pilotless flight that some of you think is the answer. Civil passenger carrying not exotic x series aircraft.

Not too many I would imagine and only of the exotic x series types at the moment...

 

BUT...

 

Compare this to 10 years ago where there were none... and you can see that things can easily and quickly change dramatically...

 

 

[dutchroll]

Yes. It would have the potential to make sure the only way an airliner could crash is by a deliberate action...completely the opposite of the most common cause of crashes now which is pilot error.

Deliberate action would be one way it could crash. Another way is a repeat of QF72 where the plane just decides to do its own thing after an unusual failure but there is no-one on the spot to correct it.

The QF32 out of Singapore probably also would've crashed had there not been humans in the cockpit to make some sort of sense and apply some lateral thinking to the multiple cascading failures presenting themselves.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Yes. It would have the potential to make sure the only way an airliner could crash is by a deliberate action...completely the opposite of the most common cause of crashes now which is pilot error.

But winsor you are not taking into account how many crashes are avoided when a mechanical failure requires pilot intervention.

Machines are wonderful tools but they 'often' get a mind of their own.

 

 

[SDQDI]

I'm with you on this one Dutch.

 

It would be interesting to have the stats on the amount of mechanical/electrical failures requiring pilot intervention, but would bet my hat that it would be more than 8 in 35 years

 

 

[ben87r]

I think I could see a day in my life time that freight ops zero pilot (Knowing CASA they will make a new IFR renewal category for this too!) could be a thing. I don't like the idea of sharing the same airspace tho.. Or having them fly over my house.