4 ms·

Newer planes are fully fly-by-wire, so you could build software to attempt to address the issue. The problem is identifying a suicidal action. A descent is not

Newer planes are fully fly-by-wire, so you could build software to attempt to address the issue. The problem is identifying a suicidal action. A descent is not suicidal. There are many cases that make a sudden descent a life-saving procedure. For example, cabin depressurization. Alternately, an ATC could require a plane to descend rapidly to clear airspace for another flight that is disabled. Now, consider that programmers make mistakes (even in aerospace) much more frequently than pilots decide to commit suicide. If a software system is given first-authority instead of a pilot you'll have more deaths due to the system than due to pilots intentional attempt to destroy a plane. The problem of suicidal pilots can be addressed by a number of known mechanisms, none of which jeopardize the safety of a flight. Pernicious problems of software quality are still incredibly difficult to address in any context.

return0 12y ago
I wonder, since the plane wasnt nosediving, it was descending, and the radars could probably detect that it wasnt descending to any place to land. Couldn't a remote operator stop the descent?
- mikeash 12y ago
  Now you've just changed the scenario from "rogue pilot crashes airplane despite efforts of other pilot" to "rogue air traffic controller crashes airplane despite efforts of pilots."
  - return0 12y ago
    Yeah obviously, the point is how to find the best compromise. It's not just for security, i m thinking of the unlikely scenario of pressure loss and the ability to maybe remotely bring the plane down or land it on the sea or anything.
- Piskvorrr 12y ago
  No. This is not Hollywood, and A320 is not a UAV. There's no option "hack into the thing and fly it from the back seat" (do I need to explain, here on HN, why a lack of remote control is also a Good Thing? "I've got the same combination on my luggage!")
  - hydrogen18 12y ago
    It is extremely scary to me that you have to point this out to individuals. How does the reasoning process work for people who think like that? It must go something like "I can share photos with my mom on Facebook, so it must be possible to remotely fly a plane! #technologythatdoesntexistyet"
    - Piskvorrr 12y ago
      Oh, the technology exists, all right (UAVs), but nobody has been insane enough to use it for commercial aviation. So far - we might see a push in this direction now.
    - return0 12y ago
      Its not like that at all. Planes are mostly fly by wire anyway today, so i m not sure why it would be harder to do that. You 're aware that drones fly remotely , right?
      - Piskvorrr 12y ago
        The question was not "why is this impossible?" but "why didn't someone remote control the GW flight"? Because, although all the required technological pieces are currently available, remote control is not actually implemented in any commercial aviation aircraft. As to "why is it not implemented" - because it would create far, far more problems than it would solve, without a measurable benefit.
      - hydrogen18 12y ago
        You statement is essentially just another way to say "it's just a small matter of programming" All the technology exists for me to build a drone swarm to patrol my house constantly on the inside and out, deliver me a video stream, and to deter intruders with non-lethal force. That doesn't mean I just need to order the parts, assemble them, and use. There is no off the shelf remote fly-by-wire for an Airbus A320 or any other passenger jet. Plenty of companies have done it as a one-off thing. This is for either testing UAV systems or using the plane as a crash test vehicle. This usually involves the same team of engineers that equipped the aircraft monitoring every single parameter in real time. The military has actually received criticism for conducting weapon systems 'tests' in this manner. There is a huge difference between that and commercial operations of such a system. In a commercial environment, you can't have a team of engineers on constant standby. For planes flying for research purposes over unoccupied areas a high risk of total loss of control is completely acceptable. Commercial and military remote control aircraft all have systems that intentionally crash the vehicle if communications is lost and it leaves a designated area. This prevents potential loss of life due to mundane software bugs. You can't ethically build a system that intentionally crashes an airliner full of people as a response to a software bug.

return0 12y ago

I wonder, since the plane wasnt nosediving, it was descending, and the radars could probably detect that it wasnt descending to any place to land. Couldn't a remote operator stop the descent?

mikeash 12y ago
Now you've just changed the scenario from "rogue pilot crashes airplane despite efforts of other pilot" to "rogue air traffic controller crashes airplane despite efforts of pilots."
- return0 12y ago
  Yeah obviously, the point is how to find the best compromise. It's not just for security, i m thinking of the unlikely scenario of pressure loss and the ability to maybe remotely bring the plane down or land it on the sea or anything.
Piskvorrr 12y ago
No. This is not Hollywood, and A320 is not a UAV. There's no option "hack into the thing and fly it from the back seat" (do I need to explain, here on HN, why a lack of remote control is also a Good Thing? "I've got the same combination on my luggage!")
- hydrogen18 12y ago
  It is extremely scary to me that you have to point this out to individuals. How does the reasoning process work for people who think like that? It must go something like "I can share photos with my mom on Facebook, so it must be possible to remotely fly a plane! #technologythatdoesntexistyet"
  - Piskvorrr 12y ago
    Oh, the technology exists, all right (UAVs), but nobody has been insane enough to use it for commercial aviation. So far - we might see a push in this direction now.
  - return0 12y ago
    Its not like that at all. Planes are mostly fly by wire anyway today, so i m not sure why it would be harder to do that. You 're aware that drones fly remotely , right?
    - Piskvorrr 12y ago
      The question was not "why is this impossible?" but "why didn't someone remote control the GW flight"? Because, although all the required technological pieces are currently available, remote control is not actually implemented in any commercial aviation aircraft. As to "why is it not implemented" - because it would create far, far more problems than it would solve, without a measurable benefit.
    - hydrogen18 12y ago
      You statement is essentially just another way to say "it's just a small matter of programming" All the technology exists for me to build a drone swarm to patrol my house constantly on the inside and out, deliver me a video stream, and to deter intruders with non-lethal force. That doesn't mean I just need to order the parts, assemble them, and use. There is no off the shelf remote fly-by-wire for an Airbus A320 or any other passenger jet. Plenty of companies have done it as a one-off thing. This is for either testing UAV systems or using the plane as a crash test vehicle. This usually involves the same team of engineers that equipped the aircraft monitoring every single parameter in real time. The military has actually received criticism for conducting weapon systems 'tests' in this manner. There is a huge difference between that and commercial operations of such a system. In a commercial environment, you can't have a team of engineers on constant standby. For planes flying for research purposes over unoccupied areas a high risk of total loss of control is completely acceptable. Commercial and military remote control aircraft all have systems that intentionally crash the vehicle if communications is lost and it leaves a designated area. This prevents potential loss of life due to mundane software bugs. You can't ethically build a system that intentionally crashes an airliner full of people as a response to a software bug.