4 ms·

"In this case the simple reversal of the initiation of the descent (as a precautionary measure) might have prevented the unfolding of events." I think you migh

"In this case the simple reversal of the initiation of the descent (as a precautionary measure) might have prevented the unfolding of events." I think you might have missed my point. What telemetry do you think would have given ATC enough information in 8 minutes that would tell them reversing the descent is the correct course of action? If anything, the data in this flight would have indicated that the dive was initiated by the pilot, and would suggest allowing him to continue the actions. And how long would they have to discuss what should be done? The descent started 8 minutes before the plane hit the ground. That is a very short amount of time for people on the ground without full information to make the call. They would probably spend at least half that time trying to make contact with the pilot. The bottom line is that the person best appraised of how to fly the plane is the one behind the controls, and that is how aviation has traditionally treated these situations. If a pilot wants to bring down a plane bad enough, it's mighty hard to stop them. Anyways, and this is my speculation, I am fairly certain that remote control has been brought up many times before in aviation, and that there is a good reason why it isn't presently implemented. And as for the corner cases, those corner cases matter. This isn't a software engineering problem we are talking about.

ptaipale 12y ago
Precisely. People are proposing complex algorithmic solutions to a problem where applying such things might potentially make things worse. Generally, civil aviation is remarkably safe, and we should not go with knee-jerk potentially counter-productive reactions. Airline pilots are a highly selective group of people, well trained, and they are showing every day how they work with integrity. That someone has once gone over and killed himself and others should not obscure our assessment of the situation. We have about 88 000 departures per day in the world. We don't accept even ppm-range risks of disaster if we know how to mitigate them, but when we're this low, we need to be careful that "improvements" don't actually degrade performance.

ptaipale 12y ago

Precisely. People are proposing complex algorithmic solutions to a problem where applying such things might potentially make things worse. Generally, civil aviation is remarkably safe, and we should not go with knee-jerk potentially counter-productive reactions. Airline pilots are a highly selective group of people, well trained, and they are showing every day how they work with integrity. That someone has once gone over and killed himself and others should not obscure our assessment of the situation. We have about 88 000 departures per day in the world. We don't accept even ppm-range risks of disaster if we know how to mitigate them, but when we're this low, we need to be careful that "improvements" don't actually degrade performance.