MIT expert: US rules make chances of cockpit takeover slim

WANE.com ^ | 03/26/2015 | Associated Press

[E. Pluribus Unum]

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) — A Massachusetts Institute of Technology aviation analyst says U.S. flight regulations make it unlikely that a single jetliner pilot could barricade himself or herself inside the cockpit.

MIT expert John Hansman tells The Associated Press that U.S. safety procedures require two people in an airliner’s cockpit at all times. Hansman says if the pilot or co-pilot of an American carrier leaves the flight deck for any reason, a flight attendant goes in.

[C. Edmund Wright]

That’s helpful, but anyone intent on driving a jet into the mountainside wouldn’t think twice about offing a stew who was inside the cockpit.

[proxy_user]

Apparently, we are less trusting than the Europeans. A true German would never.....wrong!

[bajabaja]

No offense, but J. Grueber was an MIT “expert” as well.

Perhaps the expert is right on this, but “experts” are not all they are cracked up to be.

[Moonman62]

A saying of trial lawyers is that when the facts are on your side, use the facts. When the facts aren’t on your side, use experts.

[9thLife]

You definitely can't trust every "expert" -- even the MIT ones. The leading pusher of climate change data hysteria is an MIT guy. He preaches at Davos. But then this other one says it's a cult.

MIT has gotten really weird over the last 20 years.

[PhiloBedo]

Homosexuals are prone to histronics, sometimes devastating, because that’s what society has let them get away with.

Interestingly, one of the requirements for obtaining an ATP (Airline Transport Rating) which is required for FO’s , now, is: “must be of good moral character”.

So the FAA believes being a homo is good moral character.

[Defiant]

Gonna need an armed flight attendant. Another method would be to have a phone near the cockpit that the crew can use to get back in. GM can unlock a car door with OnStar, so could ground control. There would have to be a system in place to make sure the terrorists aren't the ones on the phone.

The other method would be for planes to be programmed not to crash, and to stop taking manual instructions if they are headed for a crash collision. This would present its own problems, like hacking.

There are many options to improve the safety, but all will have drawbacks and weak points.

[Vince Ferrer]

I would trust a robot airplane that no one could reprogram while it was in the air the most.

[Moonman62]

I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.

[sasquatch]

You got it exactly right.

[Michael.SF.]

I bet the Germans would have said the same thing before ‘slim’ ran into the Matterhorn.

[Svartalfiar]

The other method would be for planes to be programmed not to crash, and to stop taking manual instructions if they are headed for a crash collision. This would present its own problems, like hacking.

So how do you land then? A landing is, essentially, just a controlled crash that keeps the plane in one piece. A gradual descent into the side of a mountain isn't gonna look much different from landing to the computer.

[Defiant]

Presumably, it would have to be guided by gps to land at an airport with beacons that help with the landing. It's not ideal, and of course experts would have to design it, but it is an option. Better than having a nutball crash it into a mountain.

When the plane descends for its piloted landing in an ordinary landing, the plane's gps and computer won't take over because the pilot's actions will not be out of the ordinary.

[DB]

Yep.

[Svartalfiar]

Presumably, it would have to be guided by gps to land at an airport with beacons that help with the landing. It's not ideal, and of course experts would have to design it, but it is an option. Better than having a nutball crash it into a mountain.

When the plane descends for its piloted landing in an ordinary landing, the plane's gps and computer won't take over because the pilot's actions will not be out of the ordinary

And what happens when, like 1549, you hit a couple birds in the middle of a major city? Would the pilot have enough control to land in the river instead of in the middle of several skyscrapers? Would it allow for other emergency landings at non-destination airports? If the airplane is too big to land at the nearest one it needs to?

[Defiant]

That could be a situation where both pilots override the crash prevention. No one knows right now whether that or something else is the best way to do it. It is just an option, one that would undoubtedly create an entirely new set of “what ifs” that would have to be thought through.