4 ms·

Do you know the rational behind having override-overrides from the cockpit? For me, this only makes sense under the assumption that Prob(malicious agent who kno

by sinesha 12y ago

Do you know the rational behind having override-overrides from the cockpit? For me, this only makes sense under the assumption that Prob(malicious agent who knows emergency codes in cockpit and good agents knowing codes outside ) is much smaller Prob(good agent knowing codes in cockpit and malicious agents knowing codes outside). How is this assumption justified? Under current regulations, the latter is becoming more and more unlikely. Or this could be fixed by letting the protocol to lock the door from inside the cockpit depend on an exchange with a trusted third party like air controllers. [edit: language]

Tomte 12y ago
No. The scenario is a good agent outside with a gun to his head.
- Grue3 12y ago
  In post-9/11 world a good agent would not open the door even at the threat of his life, because were the attackers gain control of the cockpit, he would die anyway, and a lot of other people too.
msandford 12y ago
I think that's the only possible counterpoint, really. But the override should be constructed so that it can only put the plane onto a "safe" autopilot route. And even then, I'm not really sure if that's actually safe without giving the plane collision avoidance, because it's entirely conceivable that in some urban airports just reverting to straight and level could cause a crash. If you're descending into an airport near NYC it's possible that you need to fly towards the city, turn and then continue descending to land. If you hit the autopilot external override at the right time you could be lower than the tallest buildings and get locked into flying into them without enough time to react. The real solution would seem to be what other people in the thread are suggesting; you must always have two people in the cockpit. At least one pilot and possibly another crew member.
- jwalton 12y ago
  The autopilot on modern aircraft is more than capable of landing the plane. I have a friend who flies for Air Canada who tells me that Air Canada requires pilots to be in manual control of the aircraft from takeoff to 500 feet, but after that the pilot can put the plane in autopilot and not touch anything until they're on the ground if she wants to. The plane will even apply breaking thrust after touchdown and bring the plane to a stop. At this point, pilots are really there to take care of unusual situations that the computer can't (which do happen from time to time.)
  - CPLX 12y ago
    The idea that a pilot could put a plane on autopilot soon after takeoff and then "not touch anything" and end up landed on the ground again is patently ludicrous. There are certainly things that automatic controls can do to make flying and landing a plane easier but they don't resemble your description at all. Source: I have a pilots license.

by sinesha 12y ago

Tomte 12y ago

No. The scenario is a good agent outside with a gun to his head.

Grue3 12y ago
In post-9/11 world a good agent would not open the door even at the threat of his life, because were the attackers gain control of the cockpit, he would die anyway, and a lot of other people too.

msandford 12y ago

I think that's the only possible counterpoint, really. But the override should be constructed so that it can only put the plane onto a "safe" autopilot route. And even then, I'm not really sure if that's actually safe without giving the plane collision avoidance, because it's entirely conceivable that in some urban airports just reverting to straight and level could cause a crash. If you're descending into an airport near NYC it's possible that you need to fly towards the city, turn and then continue descending to land. If you hit the autopilot external override at the right time you could be lower than the tallest buildings and get locked into flying into them without enough time to react. The real solution would seem to be what other people in the thread are suggesting; you must always have two people in the cockpit. At least one pilot and possibly another crew member.

jwalton 12y ago
The autopilot on modern aircraft is more than capable of landing the plane. I have a friend who flies for Air Canada who tells me that Air Canada requires pilots to be in manual control of the aircraft from takeoff to 500 feet, but after that the pilot can put the plane in autopilot and not touch anything until they're on the ground if she wants to. The plane will even apply breaking thrust after touchdown and bring the plane to a stop. At this point, pilots are really there to take care of unusual situations that the computer can't (which do happen from time to time.)
- CPLX 12y ago
  The idea that a pilot could put a plane on autopilot soon after takeoff and then "not touch anything" and end up landed on the ground again is patently ludicrous. There are certainly things that automatic controls can do to make flying and landing a plane easier but they don't resemble your description at all. Source: I have a pilots license.