Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
usflyer msp wrote:There is nothing heroic about what this man did. It was irresponsible, poorly thought out, and had deadly consequences - thankfully only for the thief.
stinson108 wrote:It’s unbelievable to know you don’t need a key or password on the screen to start these birds
Try getting into a john deer loader and starting it
It’s going nowhere without the four digit code inputted first
smokeybandit wrote:I know it's human nature to discuss it, but why should this event have any impact at all on protocols and procedures? One time out of the multiple thousands of opportunities someone would have in a year to do such a thing doesn't mean you have to rewrite all your manuals.
NYPECO wrote:neomax wrote:T prop wrote:Probably the brakes smoking. Someone who doesn't know how to taxi would use the brakes to control speed.
This is a really naive question, but how else would you control speed?
I'm assuming you could reduce the throttle to idle and let the plane slow down on its own if it isn't going very fast.
Jetty wrote:treetreeseven wrote:He said "nah I'm a white guy" on the ATC audio. What does he mean by that?
I ussumed that to mean he expected to be a victim of affirmative action, not allowed in most civilized countries, but a real thing in the USA.
DL717 wrote:NYPECO wrote:neomax wrote:
This is a really naive question, but how else would you control speed?
I'm assuming you could reduce the throttle to idle and let the plane slow down on its own if it isn't going very fast.
Or he left the parking brake engaged.
I’m curious to see if he had some flight training and didn’t make it to an airline for some reason. If he’d gone somewhere like UND or Riddle, he’d have had complex sim time. You don’t just jump into a turboprop, start it up and head out. You also don’t go out and barrel roll one either. I mean, the guy even asked about being at 3,000-feet before doing it. I’m sure it will come out in the investigation, but for now I’m having a hard time believing this guy was just a ramper.
travelsonic wrote:ual763 wrote:pwm2txlhopper wrote:With the serious complexity of sims nowadays, he probably could. Pilots love to think it could never happen and that sims aren’t the same, which they aren’t, but procedurally anyways, they are now the exact same. Only difference being one is real and one is not. But, I sincerely hope this does not lead to restrictions on home-based flight simulators. I’ve already seen some so called experts calling for this on Twitter.
I would not at all be surprised if home computing has gotten to the point where at home we can have the amount of computing power needed to simulate the physics (just the physics) of an aircraft as accurately as in a full motion simulator from the 80s and 90s.
Do I dare look at the cringe festival that is so called experts calling for restricting flight simulators? Actually, I might be more amused than not - have any links?
Revelation wrote:As mentioned up thread, that night there was a stadium full of people watching a rock concert that could have been a convenient target.
Or, plenty of tall office buildings in downtown Seattle, etc.
Just because this guy was a psychotic joy rider, doesn't mean the next one will be.
DL717 wrote:I’m curious to see if he had some flight training and didn’t make it to an airline for some reason. If he’d gone somewhere like UND or Riddle, he’d have had complex sim time. You don’t just jump into a turboprop, start it up and head out. You also don’t go out and barrel roll one either. I mean, the guy even asked about being at 3,000-feet before doing it. I’m sure it will come out in the investigation, but for now I’m having a hard time believing this guy was just a ramper.
“He worked a shift yesterday. We believe he was in uniform,” said Brad Tilden, the chief executive officer of Alaska Air Group, the parent company to Horizon Air. “It was his job to be around airplanes.”
Tilden, speaking at a news conference Saturday at Sea-Tac Airport, said Russell had been with the company for nearly four years.
Tilden said the plane was parked at Plane Cargo 1, in the north side of the airport. The plane was not scheduled to fly Friday evening.
“The individual did use a pushback tractor to rotate the aircraft 180 degrees so he could then taxi the aircraft,” said Mike Ehl, a Port of Seattle official, confirming that the man did that himself, first driving the tractor and then the plane.
Two-person tow teams are responsible for moving airplanes on the tarmac. One person drives a tow tug, pulling the plane. The other communicates with the tower from inside the airplane’s cockpit and can apply the plane’s brakes in an emergency, Christenson said.
Tow teams are trained how to use some airplane systems such as the auxiliary power unit, hydraulics and radios, said Christenson, who did not know Russell well.
Horizon CEO Gary Beck said the ground-service agent, who is not believed to have had a pilot’s license, pulled off some “incredible maneuvers” once airborne.
“Commercial aircraft are complex machines,” he said. “So I don’t know how he achieved the experience that he did.”
indcwby wrote:Two Factor Authentication is a simple answer. It's something you know + something you have. Pilots are carrying around tablets nowadays for their charts, manuals, etc. Add a soft token app from either RSA or Google. It can be done. The question is, will it?
jetmatt777 wrote:indcwby wrote:Two Factor Authentication is a simple answer. It's something you know + something you have. Pilots are carrying around tablets nowadays for their charts, manuals, etc. Add a soft token app from either RSA or Google. It can be done. The question is, will it?
Engine failure in flight, now need to restart. Time to grab the key out of your bag or wherever it is stowed; or find the page on your iPad app to verify the code to punch in. There’s a reason airplanes don’t have keys and that’s the fact that this is likely a 1 in a million+ event. I think the last time this happened in the US was when a SkyWest PILOT (who would have the keys or code) borrowed a plane in SGU and ran it off the end of a taxiway.
The probability of this occurring again is likely in the same risk-acceptable range of a two engine failure on an ETOPS flight. Can it happen? Sure. Do things need to change? Probably not.
If this were a case of a passenger, or someone climbing the fence, and starting up and doing this we would be talking about a complete failure of multiple points of aviation security. This is action taken by someone who was allowed to be there, and any changes proposed would still allow him to be there.
Any changes that need to occur need to happen in the field of mental health. It is a) very expensive b) hard to get an appointment c) very difficult for others to not look down on you for seeking mental health.
I see a therapist once a week for some very mild issues I’m dealing with, and it is very tough on the wallet and it was nearly impossible to get an appointment. I also have a tough time building the courage to tell my family, because I don’t want them to see me as a failure, or see themselves as a failure (parenting etc.). It’s a very tough situation and it’s unfortunate how our society views mental health.
Aviation protocols didn’t fail with this incident, our society failed this man in what we offer in terms of mental help.
Wacker1000 wrote:Revelation wrote:As mentioned up thread, that night there was a stadium full of people watching a rock concert that could have been a convenient target.
Or, plenty of tall office buildings in downtown Seattle, etc.
Just because this guy was a psychotic joy rider, doesn't mean the next one will be.
So end commercial aviation (or any transportation for that matter), go back to horse and buggy, and we'll guarantee it'll never happen again - problem solved.
Revelation wrote:stinson108 wrote:It’s unbelievable to know you don’t need a key or password on the screen to start these birds
Try getting into a john deer loader and starting it
It’s going nowhere without the four digit code inputted first
It seems we could do better than having no security code at all.
Entering one code would enable full functionality (i.e. pilots) another would not permit anything more than taxiing, or full power only if ground speed is zero for engine tests.
Change it frequently enough (let's say weekly) so that any loss of codes is only a short term problem.
keesje wrote:Was this guy's future loading bags at extreme working hours for a minimum wage?
uta999 wrote:I think the first casualty will be the many Youtube videos detailing a 'cold & dark' engine start.
You could literally memorise most of it or have it on an iPad. Should cockpit doors be locked on the ground too?
GalaxyFlyer wrote:This code is dumb on stilts. The guy here was tow-qualified, so he’d have to have the codes to perform his job. Why do you think ATC is more reliable than the airline’s employees? How is ATC going to control about 20,000 airplanes? In the end, we have to trust somebody with potentially dangerous tools that are also vital to our way of life. And, you know what, that trust works 99.9999% of the time.
GF
GalaxyFlyer wrote:This code is dumb on stilts. The guy here was tow-qualified, so he’d have to have the codes to perform his job.
32andBelow wrote:catiii wrote:Airbus747 wrote:Richard "Beebo" Russell is now being called a "hero" and "sky king" in some parts of the internet, especially for having performed the aerobatic stunts.
A few articles try to understand what kind of a person he was: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/r ... 09306.html
His online profiles appear to depict a normal guy who loved traveling and sharing his story:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ765Fnec8Q (video he made about himself and his work)
https://www.linkedin.com/in/beebo-russell-544730158 (his Linkedin profile)
What exactly was heroic?
Stealing an airplane and fulfilling a childhood dream of millions of people to scarred to do anything significant. We love stories were people steal things and are successful. They make movies about stuff like that all the time.
Revelation wrote:Wacker1000 wrote:Revelation wrote:As mentioned up thread, that night there was a stadium full of people watching a rock concert that could have been a convenient target.
Or, plenty of tall office buildings in downtown Seattle, etc.
Just because this guy was a psychotic joy rider, doesn't mean the next one will be.
So end commercial aviation (or any transportation for that matter), go back to horse and buggy, and we'll guarantee it'll never happen again - problem solved.
That's an asinine comment. In case you don't know what that means, I'll spell it out: it means ass-like.
We wouldn't have commercial aviation at all if we just went with the first thing someone thought of and left it at that.
There's an on-going process of trying to make things better all the time.
Some ideas stick, some get discarded.
It seems clear to me that this incident shows that some sort of raising of the bar to prevent unauthorized personnel from taking joy rides or worse could and should be attempted.
As above, if having security codes for high end farm equipment works, why not try to enact something similar or better for commercial aircraft?
He's said to be a member of the tow team so he's trained enough to move the aircraft around the field, start the APU, check hydraulic pressure, understand the radio jargon, etc.
ual763 wrote:[photoid][/photoid]GalaxyFlyer wrote:This code is dumb on stilts. The guy here was tow-qualified, so he’d have to have the codes to perform his job. Why do you think ATC is more reliable than the airline’s employees? How is ATC going to control about 20,000 airplanes? In the end, we have to trust somebody with potentially dangerous tools that are also vital to our way of life. And, you know what, that trust works 99.9999% of the time.
GF
Amen! Regardless, of what some so-called experts think, ATC should never have any direct control of an aircraft. The PIC is in total command of an aircraft at all times. As per the FARs he is the sole authority. Any ability for controllers to “take over” control of an aircraft would go against this FAR. Not to mention, it would open up the opportunity for many over-zealous controllers to pressing said button for such trivial things as missing a radio call on the ground, or similar. It would be a nightmare. To me, the solution is simple! Encourage mental health treatment in this country, instead of discourage it. And also, simply, increase ramp security. If someone was simply watching, this may not have happened. How could someone not notice an employee doing that?
ual763 wrote:[photoid][/photoid]GalaxyFlyer wrote:This code is dumb on stilts. The guy here was tow-qualified, so he’d have to have the codes to perform his job. Why do you think ATC is more reliable than the airline’s employees? How is ATC going to control about 20,000 airplanes? In the end, we have to trust somebody with potentially dangerous tools that are also vital to our way of life. And, you know what, that trust works 99.9999% of the time.
GF
Amen! Regardless, of what some so-called experts think, ATC should never have any direct control of an aircraft. The PIC is in total command of an aircraft at all times. As per the FARs he is the sole authority. Any ability for controllers to “take over” control of an aircraft would go against this FAR. Not to mention, it would open up the opportunity for many over-zealous controllers to pressing said button for such trivial things as missing a radio call on the ground, or similar. It would be a nightmare. To me, the solution is simple! Encourage mental health treatment in this country, instead of discourage it. And also, simply, increase ramp security. If someone was simply watching, this may not have happened. How could someone not notice an employee doing that?
trnswrld wrote:So real quick back to the smoking tires/brakes. I know this was touched on, but those with experience in this type of aircraft, do you think he was rolling with partial brakes applied and was causing the brakes to smoke? You would think it would take a little longer to get the brakes warm enough to start smoking and to be noticeable enough for other aircraft to see near the departure end of the runway. Then someone mentioned he may have had the parking brake set. Is that even possible to taxi the aircraft and get it airborne with the parking brake set? You wouldn't think so. So the smoking tires/brake thing seems odd to me.
CFM565A1 wrote:First of all it’s joy ride not rides.... this is happened once in modern times so to do the new trendy thing and panic and plug another hole in the dam with a piece of chewing gum is not the answer. Circumvention of such system will undoubtedly happen.
As for the farm equipment example, it’s weak imo. Operating passenger aircraft on scheduled service and harvesting wheat with a John Deer are two vastly different things. Nice try but I think the answer is helping people problems not adding a password or key system.
RDUDDJI wrote:If local towers had to push a takeoff lockout release (TOLOR, trademark pending ) electronically right before a plane takes the RWY, this could avoid the rogue pilot scenario. If you don’t have said TOLOR, you cannot put the engine power level above x. ...
Revelation wrote:CFM565A1 wrote:First of all it’s joy ride not rides.... this is happened once in modern times so to do the new trendy thing and panic and plug another hole in the dam with a piece of chewing gum is not the answer. Circumvention of such system will undoubtedly happen.
As for the farm equipment example, it’s weak imo. Operating passenger aircraft on scheduled service and harvesting wheat with a John Deer are two vastly different things. Nice try but I think the answer is helping people problems not adding a password or key system.
This reminds me of the old saying, "the great is the enemy of the good" ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_i ... my_of_good ).
It'd be great if our system of mental health assessment and treatment was better, but could it ever be expected to reliably prevent those who seem to be normal but are actually suffering a psychotic break from doing something dreadful?
It'd be good if we raised the bar to try to prevent unauthorized people from doing unauthorized things.
Ideally, do both, but I'd start working on the simpler problem first.
Owlmaniac wrote:New to a registration but have been lurking on the forum for a while. This story really caught my heart.
A couple of people mentioned bipolar and I agree with this speculation. His loss of judgement (someone mentioned psychosis - bipolar is not only considered a mood disorder, but also a psychotic one), risk taking, very chatty and changing topics rapidly. The only thing that doesn't fit is his comment about being broken, as people with mania usually think there is nothing wrong and even that they are invincible. However, there is a less well known state called a mixed episode, which is a combination of mania and depression - it's a very dangerous state, as we have sadly seen. His family seemed shocked so if it was bipolar it may have been his first episode, and classically people outside of episodes usually seem entirely normal.
Although people with bipolar can indeed appear to be intoxicated I guess that is an alternative, that he was feeling suicidal and decided to go out on a high.
Either way I just wanted to say how shocked I was at how good the ATC was with him. Calmly building a rapport and regularly bringing up a safe landing. He did all the right things, when someone is in that sort of state there is nothing else you can do. It's a case of capture, hospitalize and treat, and luckily most people don't have access to a plane so this is often possible.
RIP Rich
RDUDDJI wrote:ual763 wrote:[photoid][/photoid]GalaxyFlyer wrote:This code is dumb on stilts. The guy here was tow-qualified, so he’d have to have the codes to perform his job. Why do you think ATC is more reliable than the airline’s employees? How is ATC going to control about 20,000 airplanes? In the end, we have to trust somebody with potentially dangerous tools that are also vital to our way of life. And, you know what, that trust works 99.9999% of the time.
GF
Amen! Regardless, of what some so-called experts think, ATC should never have any direct control of an aircraft. The PIC is in total command of an aircraft at all times. As per the FARs he is the sole authority. Any ability for controllers to “take over” control of an aircraft would go against this FAR. Not to mention, it would open up the opportunity for many over-zealous controllers to pressing said button for such trivial things as missing a radio call on the ground, or similar. It would be a nightmare. To me, the solution is simple! Encourage mental health treatment in this country, instead of discourage it. And also, simply, increase ramp security. If someone was simply watching, this may not have happened. How could someone not notice an employee doing that?
No ones advocating for ATC to have control of the aircraft. Their mission is control of the *airspace*, and in this case it was defeated by a ramper who had access to the cockpit. Don’t confuse control of the airplane with control of the airspace.
uta999 wrote:I think the first casualty will be the many Youtube videos detailing a 'cold & dark' engine start.
You could literally memorise most of it or have it on an iPad. Should cockpit doors be locked on the ground too?
jetmatt777 wrote:indcwby wrote:Two Factor Authentication is a simple answer. It's something you know + something you have. Pilots are carrying around tablets nowadays for their charts, manuals, etc. Add a soft token app from either RSA or Google. It can be done. The question is, will it?
Engine failure in flight, now need to restart. Time to grab the key out of your bag or wherever it is stowed; or find the page on your iPad app to verify the code to punch in. There’s a reason airplanes don’t have keys and that’s the fact that this is likely a 1 in a million+ event. I think the last time this happened in the US was when a SkyWest PILOT (who would have the keys or code) borrowed a plane in SGU and ran it off the end of a taxiway.
The probability of this occurring again is likely in the same risk-acceptable range of a two engine failure on an ETOPS flight. Can it happen? Sure. Do things need to change? Probably not.
If this were a case of a passenger, or someone climbing the fence, and starting up and doing this we would be talking about a complete failure of multiple points of aviation security. This is action taken by someone who was allowed to be there, and any changes proposed would still allow him to be there.
Any changes that need to occur need to happen in the field of mental health. It is a) very expensive b) hard to get an appointment c) very difficult for others to not look down on you for seeking mental health.
I see a therapist once a week for some very mild issues I’m dealing with, and it is very tough on the wallet and it was nearly impossible to get an appointment. I also have a tough time building the courage to tell my family, because I don’t want them to see me as a failure, or see themselves as a failure (parenting etc.). It’s a very tough situation and it’s unfortunate how our society views mental health.
Aviation protocols didn’t fail with this incident, our society failed this man in what we offer in terms of mental help.
BobbyPSP wrote:Owlmaniac wrote:New to a registration but have been lurking on the forum for a while. This story really caught my heart.
A couple of people mentioned bipolar and I agree with this speculation. His loss of judgement (someone mentioned psychosis - bipolar is not only considered a mood disorder, but also a psychotic one), risk taking, very chatty and changing topics rapidly. The only thing that doesn't fit is his comment about being broken, as people with mania usually think there is nothing wrong and even that they are invincible. However, there is a less well known state called a mixed episode, which is a combination of mania and depression - it's a very dangerous state, as we have sadly seen. His family seemed shocked so if it was bipolar it may have been his first episode, and classically people outside of episodes usually seem entirely normal.
Although people with bipolar can indeed appear to be intoxicated I guess that is an alternative, that he was feeling suicidal and decided to go out on a high.
Either way I just wanted to say how shocked I was at how good the ATC was with him. Calmly building a rapport and regularly bringing up a safe landing. He did all the right things, when someone is in that sort of state there is nothing else you can do. It's a case of capture, hospitalize and treat, and luckily most people don't have access to a plane so this is often possible.
RIP Rich
Are you a mental health professional? I don’t believe speculating being bi polar is proper. First off, it seems to me the term is used as the new catch all for anything that goes wrong in society these days.
That being said, your description is flawed. There’s bi polar type and type II. There is a big difference and you can google it.
That being said, many different factors can cause a psychotic breakdown, both acute and chronic.
freakyrat wrote:uta999 wrote:I think the first casualty will be the many Youtube videos detailing a 'cold & dark' engine start.
You could literally memorise most of it or have it on an iPad. Should cockpit doors be locked on the ground too?
If you watch the videos it is an extensive process following the checklist to go from "cold and dark" to engine start to taxiing for takeoff. It takes a bit of time to do it all properly. Fifteen minutes (Video Length) for the Airbus A320. As a GA pilot it took me about that amount of time out of a 90 min Sim session. That included programming the MCDU etc. I also had a wonderful instructor who was an A320 pilot. It also takes a couple of hours in the Sim just to get comfortable with locating everything, figuring out your sight picture, getting use to the controls etc. From the beginning the biggest challenge for me was getting use to my sight picture of sitting higher off the ground etc. Thirty minutes just getting use to flying with a sidestick. I was just saying it isn't easy and is more complex. You just do not jump in the airplane and start it and take off.
Given the amount of time it takes to do a proper checklist from cold and dark why wasn't he noticed or challenged. I feel that the security protocols need to be looked at. Even the Sims like IPilot and Ufly that are open to the general public follow security protocols.
Revelation wrote:GalaxyFlyer wrote:This code is dumb on stilts. The guy here was tow-qualified, so he’d have to have the codes to perform his job.
That's why you'd have more than one code: one code for towing (which would allow apu start but not engine start) vs another for mechanics (can start and run engines as long as ground speed is zero) vs another for pilots (full privileges). Give people the privileges they need to do their jobs, but no more. We do this kind of thing in computing all the time ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... _privilege ).
jfklganyc wrote:Mortyman wrote:N415XJ wrote:Geez, what's with everyone stealing regional jets these days? I mean, if you're going to do something as idiotic as steal a commercial plane at least go all in and grab something cool like an A380 or 787.
.
Would one person be able to take off and fly an A380 ?
Sure...why not?
If a plane is not parked nose first at a gate, anybcommercial plane is stealable.
Pull the chocks, start the engines and go.
Revelation wrote:It'd be great if our system of mental health assessment and treatment was better, but could it ever be expected to reliably prevent those who seem to be normal but are actually suffering a psychotic break from doing something dreadful?
It'd be good if we raised the bar to try to prevent unauthorized people from doing unauthorized things.
Ideally, do both, but I'd start working on the simpler problem first.
Owlmaniac wrote:BobbyPSP wrote:Owlmaniac wrote:New to a registration but have been lurking on the forum for a while. This story really caught my heart.
A couple of people mentioned bipolar and I agree with this speculation. His loss of judgement (someone mentioned psychosis - bipolar is not only considered a mood disorder, but also a psychotic one), risk taking, very chatty and changing topics rapidly. The only thing that doesn't fit is his comment about being broken, as people with mania usually think there is nothing wrong and even that they are invincible. However, there is a less well known state called a mixed episode, which is a combination of mania and depression - it's a very dangerous state, as we have sadly seen. His family seemed shocked so if it was bipolar it may have been his first episode, and classically people outside of episodes usually seem entirely normal.
Although people with bipolar can indeed appear to be intoxicated I guess that is an alternative, that he was feeling suicidal and decided to go out on a high.
Either way I just wanted to say how shocked I was at how good the ATC was with him. Calmly building a rapport and regularly bringing up a safe landing. He did all the right things, when someone is in that sort of state there is nothing else you can do. It's a case of capture, hospitalize and treat, and luckily most people don't have access to a plane so this is often possible.
RIP Rich
Are you a mental health professional? I don’t believe speculating being bi polar is proper. First off, it seems to me the term is used as the new catch all for anything that goes wrong in society these days.
That being said, your description is flawed. There’s bi polar type and type II. There is a big difference and you can google it.
That being said, many different factors can cause a psychotic breakdown, both acute and chronic.
If you don't believe in speculating why are you even on a forum full of people speculating every aspect of this tragedy?
You are correct in that it's the USA's DSM that separates bipolar into types 1&2. However, there is a world outside of the USA and the ICD-10 by the World Health Organisation does not separate into types. Rather, it describes bipolar affective disorder and when diagnosing there is a recognition of the current episode (e.g. hypomania or mania). You can google it.
Yes there are factors leading to any mental health condition, not sure what your point is.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:RDUDDJI wrote:ual763 wrote:[photoid][/photoid]
Amen! Regardless, of what some so-called experts think, ATC should never have any direct control of an aircraft. The PIC is in total command of an aircraft at all times. As per the FARs he is the sole authority. Any ability for controllers to “take over” control of an aircraft would go against this FAR. Not to mention, it would open up the opportunity for many over-zealous controllers to pressing said button for such trivial things as missing a radio call on the ground, or similar. It would be a nightmare. To me, the solution is simple! Encourage mental health treatment in this country, instead of discourage it. And also, simply, increase ramp security. If someone was simply watching, this may not have happened. How could someone not notice an employee doing that?
No ones advocating for ATC to have control of the aircraft. Their mission is control of the *airspace*, and in this case it was defeated by a ramper who had access to the cockpit. Don’t confuse control of the airplane with control of the airspace.
But, your idea controls the airspace by giving control of the plane to ATC.
GF
rg828 wrote:How about putting some type of movable barrier around critical areas of an airport that can be controlled by the folks at the tower. You know, like those metal cylinders that shoot out from the ground in some garages.
If you had some of those at a runway threshold or in other critical locations a tower/ground controller could effectively block any aircraft from moving around causing havoc.
That could have prevented the guy from leaving the cargo apron or even denied him entry to the active runway.
Sounds simpler than codes etc...
Just a thought
Revelation wrote:stinson108 wrote:It’s unbelievable to know you don’t need a key or password on the screen to start these birds
Try getting into a john deer loader and starting it
It’s going nowhere without the four digit code inputted first
It seems we could do better than having no security code at all.
Entering one code would enable full functionality (i.e. pilots) another would not permit anything more than taxiing, or full power only if ground speed is zero for engine tests.
Change it frequently enough (let's say weekly) so that any loss of codes is only a short term problem.
rg828 wrote:How about putting some type of movable barrier around critical areas of an airport that can be controlled by the folks at the tower. You know, like those metal cylinders that shoot out from the ground in some garages.
If you had some of those at a runway threshold or in other critical locations a tower/ground controller could effectively block any aircraft from moving around causing havoc.
That could have prevented the guy from leaving the cargo apron or even denied him entry to the active runway.
Sounds simpler than codes etc...
Just a thought
XAM2175 wrote:RDUDDJI wrote:If local towers had to push a takeoff lockout release (TOLOR, trademark pending ) electronically right before a plane takes the RWY, this could avoid the rogue pilot scenario. If you don’t have said TOLOR, you cannot put the engine power level above x. ...
And when the system on-board the aircraft itself fails, what will it do? Leave the power governor enabled, which I suppose is okay on the ground, though annoying - but if a failure in flight causes the governor to be re-engaged?
Every now and again the top of streaming CVRs and FDRs is brought up in relation to topics both like and unlike this one, and they almost always progress to the suggestion "and pilots shouldn't be able to shut them off!!!!!", and from there very quickly "and what if they need to be shut off to prevent damage to or loss of the aircraft?".
Hideously-complex control devices like this are not going to help. Simple. Imagine in your daily lives how inconvenienced you'd be if your car now needed three different keys, an RFID fob, a one-time code string, and radio-data clearance from Traffic Control to even leave the driveway. Stall it on the highway on-ramp? Too bad, champ.
You know you're just driving to work, or to the shops. None of this stuff solves any of your problems, because you don't have any problems like this.
But in a couple of minutes with a car or a truck and without inhibitions you can harm and wound and kill more people than this fellow did in his entire flight.
The message that we don't want to send, and that we can't afford to send, is one that says "we don't understand you". One that says "we don't trust you", and one that says "you're a threat to us", and we saw that clearly after 4U9525. German law didn't require an FMO to notify the airline of a pilot's mental instability, and that changed, but it also showed that if the culture about mental health is one of fear, people will not be open to realising that they need help, and they will not seek help, and even if they do try but can't - for reasons of cost, or mandatory reporting that might cost them their job - they'll feel they can't even get help to get help.
Start sending messages of compassion, and understanding, and of a willingness to help, and I'll wager a lot more people will get a lot more benefit then they ever will from money-pit Rube-Goldberg authorised-operation-only modifications to airplanes.
frmrCapCadet wrote:Isn't it standard military procedure that for certain inherently hazardous items it takes two persons to authorize activation. I imagine Boeing/Airbus/airlines are looking into this currently. Waking up a sleeping plane would be the obvious point. And the previous mentioned parties will know how this could be implemented. Right now it is suppose to be the tug and the cockpit people (?) who wake up a plane. Ground ops would give them each a one time code.