5 ms·

I'm struck by how these pilots (chilling in itself that it's happened enough times to count as its own group) are described as being suicidal. While technically

by mg1982 12y ago

I'm struck by how these pilots (chilling in itself that it's happened enough times to count as its own group) are described as being suicidal. While technically true, it detracts from the greater truth that they are mass-murderers. If someone shot up a mall and killed 150 people then ate a bullet, would we describe them as suicidal? I don't have a greater point I suppose, but it seems worth thinking about. Except, perhaps-- how do you go about 'screening' for inclination to mass-murder?

Florin_Andrei 12y ago
This responsibility is to great to leave it to humans. Automate this stuff.
- mikeash 12y ago
  There's always going to be a human involved at some point (at least until the machines take over, but then they probably won't be flying us around). If it's all automated, then instead of a crazy pilot killing everyone on his airliner, it might be a crazy programmer killing everyone on every airborne airliner.
  - nextw33k 12y ago
    Except there are checks and balances in place before software gets installed on a plane.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      Those don't always work. There are checks and balances in place before pilots get to fly airplanes, too.
      - nextw33k 12y ago
        > Those don't always work Of course not, nothing always works. You are implying that checks are worthless because they failed on this co-pilot. In the context of a pilots mental state verses malicious source code being installed on a set of flight computers, I'd have to say the computer is easier to validate. That many more people have to approve the process. With a pair of pilots the validation process is much smaller and more complex. We need to stop thinking that machines are flawed and that humans know best. The fact of life is that machines can and do perform better than humans, the only reason flight computers don't currently is that there hasn't been the investment in making them do so. Sensors fail but that is an engineering problem that can be solved.
  - reustle 12y ago
    Flights are almost fully automatic already. They saw data showing the pilot turned off autopilot and set the target cruising altitude to 100m. Putting a block in place unless you're in an area where that is safe (flat). I was recently flying in a small airplane (SR22) and the terrain detection system was going bonkers when we were landing saying that terrain was getting close to us. They have all the data, they just need to build in some more protections.
- jcfrei 12y ago
  I think in the near term a possible remote override from air traffic control would make more sense.
  - danellis 12y ago
    Right, because that signal would never get hacked.
    - fapjacks 12y ago
      That's not what he's saying. The world isn't as black-and-white as "it can be hacked, so it's not worth it"... He's talking about raising the barrier to entry for this kind of situation via automation, much like TCAS would have prevented the Uberlingen collision.
      - Piskvorrr 12y ago
        Preventing accidents and stopping a rogue insider are very different issues. Remote control opens a bunch of new attack surfaces, while not helping with the original problem.
        fapjacks 12y ago
        Just because they're "very" different issues doesn't preclude there being a technical solution that helps solve parts of both problems.
        Piskvorrr 12y ago
        No, no, no, no. There is no technical solution to this non-technical issue. I understand the frustration of "but surely there MUST be a scriptable way out of this," but IMNSHO there isn't (short of strong AI).
        fapjacks 12y ago
        This issue of humans in the cockpit? You're saying there's no technical solution to this ....... except AI, which would be a technical solution to this issue.
talmand 12y ago
You remind me of efforts in the past of renaming suicide bombers to homicide bombers.
koyote 12y ago
As there have been quite a few incidences of a pilot intentionally crashing a plane, It would be interesting to see if the ratio of mass-murdering pilots to pilots is larger than mass-murderers vs the adult population.
- johnchristopher 12y ago
  But mass-murdering pilots wouldn't necessarily use their planes to mass murder so that rules out pilots as a distinctive group. /armchair-whatever
- ArturSoler 12y ago
  This would have to be adjusted to the fact that most people is not usually in a position to easily kill this many people, while pilots are in a mostly daily basis.
  - RobertoG 12y ago
    You could check against bus drivers for instance.
Tomte 12y ago
One! That's important! The first officer shut the captain out who tried to break the door until the end.
BuildTheRobots 12y ago
(Unless I misunderstood) the gentleman running the press conference actively refused to call it a suicide as the co-pilot was responsible for the lives of the >150 people onboard at the time.
backtoearth 12y ago
Intentional air crashes are rare. Last was in Botswana/Namibia. http://www.aeroinside.com/item/3416/lam-e190-over-botswana-namibia-on-nov-29th-2013-captain-intentionally-crashed-aircraft http://www.aeroinside.com/item/3416/lam-e190-over-botswana-n...
- tim333 12y ago
  Assuming MH370 wasn't one which it quite likely was.
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    Intentional crash or intentional disappearance?
    - krschultz 12y ago
      I think it's fair to hand waive it as "intentional crash". Even if those people are not dead, they have been missing for over a year. I imagine it must be a fairly hellish experience if they are not dead.
      - tedunangst 12y ago
        For purposes of prevention/screening/etc., I think it makes sense to differentiate between "pilot wants to put the plane in the ground" and "pilot wants to abscond with the plane". Apparently that's just me though.

by mg1982 12y ago

Florin_Andrei 12y ago

This responsibility is to great to leave it to humans. Automate this stuff.

mikeash 12y ago
There's always going to be a human involved at some point (at least until the machines take over, but then they probably won't be flying us around). If it's all automated, then instead of a crazy pilot killing everyone on his airliner, it might be a crazy programmer killing everyone on every airborne airliner.
- nextw33k 12y ago
  Except there are checks and balances in place before software gets installed on a plane.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Those don't always work. There are checks and balances in place before pilots get to fly airplanes, too.
    - nextw33k 12y ago
      > Those don't always work Of course not, nothing always works. You are implying that checks are worthless because they failed on this co-pilot. In the context of a pilots mental state verses malicious source code being installed on a set of flight computers, I'd have to say the computer is easier to validate. That many more people have to approve the process. With a pair of pilots the validation process is much smaller and more complex. We need to stop thinking that machines are flawed and that humans know best. The fact of life is that machines can and do perform better than humans, the only reason flight computers don't currently is that there hasn't been the investment in making them do so. Sensors fail but that is an engineering problem that can be solved.
- reustle 12y ago
  Flights are almost fully automatic already. They saw data showing the pilot turned off autopilot and set the target cruising altitude to 100m. Putting a block in place unless you're in an area where that is safe (flat). I was recently flying in a small airplane (SR22) and the terrain detection system was going bonkers when we were landing saying that terrain was getting close to us. They have all the data, they just need to build in some more protections.
jcfrei 12y ago
I think in the near term a possible remote override from air traffic control would make more sense.
- danellis 12y ago
  Right, because that signal would never get hacked.
  - fapjacks 12y ago
    That's not what he's saying. The world isn't as black-and-white as "it can be hacked, so it's not worth it"... He's talking about raising the barrier to entry for this kind of situation via automation, much like TCAS would have prevented the Uberlingen collision.
    - Piskvorrr 12y ago
      Preventing accidents and stopping a rogue insider are very different issues. Remote control opens a bunch of new attack surfaces, while not helping with the original problem.
      - fapjacks 12y ago
        Just because they're "very" different issues doesn't preclude there being a technical solution that helps solve parts of both problems.
        Piskvorrr 12y ago
        No, no, no, no. There is no technical solution to this non-technical issue. I understand the frustration of "but surely there MUST be a scriptable way out of this," but IMNSHO there isn't (short of strong AI).
        fapjacks 12y ago
        This issue of humans in the cockpit? You're saying there's no technical solution to this ....... except AI, which would be a technical solution to this issue.

talmand 12y ago

You remind me of efforts in the past of renaming suicide bombers to homicide bombers.

koyote 12y ago

As there have been quite a few incidences of a pilot intentionally crashing a plane, It would be interesting to see if the ratio of mass-murdering pilots to pilots is larger than mass-murderers vs the adult population.

johnchristopher 12y ago
But mass-murdering pilots wouldn't necessarily use their planes to mass murder so that rules out pilots as a distinctive group. /armchair-whatever
ArturSoler 12y ago
This would have to be adjusted to the fact that most people is not usually in a position to easily kill this many people, while pilots are in a mostly daily basis.
- RobertoG 12y ago
  You could check against bus drivers for instance.

Tomte 12y ago

One! That's important! The first officer shut the captain out who tried to break the door until the end.

BuildTheRobots 12y ago

(Unless I misunderstood) the gentleman running the press conference actively refused to call it a suicide as the co-pilot was responsible for the lives of the >150 people onboard at the time.

backtoearth 12y ago

Intentional air crashes are rare. Last was in Botswana/Namibia. http://www.aeroinside.com/item/3416/lam-e190-over-botswana-namibia-on-nov-29th-2013-captain-intentionally-crashed-aircraft http://www.aeroinside.com/item/3416/lam-e190-over-botswana-n...

tim333 12y ago
Assuming MH370 wasn't one which it quite likely was.
- tedunangst 12y ago
  Intentional crash or intentional disappearance?
  - krschultz 12y ago
    I think it's fair to hand waive it as "intentional crash". Even if those people are not dead, they have been missing for over a year. I imagine it must be a fairly hellish experience if they are not dead.
    - tedunangst 12y ago
      For purposes of prevention/screening/etc., I think it makes sense to differentiate between "pilot wants to put the plane in the ground" and "pilot wants to abscond with the plane". Apparently that's just me though.