BobbyPSP wrote:

Owlmaniac wrote:

BobbyPSP wrote:

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.

The point is you’re making a diagnosis and stigmatizing bi polar issues. Your comment on a mixed state being dangerous is flawed too. It’s a state of hypomania, not hypermania, along with depression.

You never answered if you’re a mental health professional and if you are, you can’t make a diagnosis of a mental illness from his conversation with ATC. It only lets us into his state of mind at that point.

There are many many different psychiatric diagnoses that have could have caused his breakdown, along with emotional issues such as stress.

Your comments are a disservice to those living with bi polar disease.

Wow. Nobody is making a diagnosis, as you already said, it's a speculation. I think saying my comments as stigmatizing is rather OTT and it certainly wasn't intended. You're clearly out to have an argument and I'm not going to satisfy this need of yours. I won't enter into any further discussion with you.

RDUDDJI wrote:

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.

And autopilot could malfunction and crash a plane into the ground. But it doesn't, because redundancies and workarounds are built in, just like they would be in this system. Sorry to bust your anecdotes with logic.

These other systems you speak can be turned off, a functional security system cannot be turned off. Or you build in emergency by-passes for safety which makes the whole security system moot. If the auto-pilot fails you turn it off.

BobbyPSP wrote:

The point is you’re making a diagnosis and stigmatizing bi polar issues. Your comment on a mixed state being dangerous is flawed too.

I didn't write the comment you're replying to but I'd like to clarify my own related comment. With so little evidence it is of course not possible to diagnose the guy. In my personal opinion, his behavior on the ATC audio (and obviously in stealing the plane) is consistent with a mixed state. That being said, there is more than one way to get a brain into such a state, drugs being a leading contender.

In the research literature, and I suspect also in clinical psych, it's been recognized for some time that people in a mixed state are more likely to act destructively than those in a depressed or manic state. Again, based on my experience this is correct. The thing to remember is that a) mixed states are rare b) most people with uncontrolled bipolar illness do nothing more destructive than ruffle feathers among friends and family while getting screwed by the system over a period of years c) by far the most likely person to be harmed by someone with bipolar illness is the person themselves.

Suicide risk for those with diagnosed bipolar (which, being diagnosed, has presumably had some attempt at controlling it) is TWENTY TIMES that of the general population. It's an illness that has received far less research than other mental illnesses - one way to illuminate that is the fact that lithium remains the only medication specific to bipolar illness and it was introduced decades ago. Bipolar sufferers end up taking meds that were developed for other illnesses because there is nothing specifically for them. It's the same with psychotherapy. There is no well researched therapeutic paradigm specifically for bipolar. None. It's looking like DBT may be useful, but again, that's a therapy that was developed for a different illness and people with bipolar are just kinda shoved in and it's hoped they improve. Bipolar type I and II (or the lack thereof) was mentioned, and the truth is, so little research has been done that there is no definitive answer to pretty much any question you can ask about the disease.

Again, this man may well not have been suffering from bipolar at all, but since speculation is inevitably going to happen, it's worth it to put this information out there. Depression, anxiety, OCD, and schizophrenia are not the be-all and end-all of mental illness. Many many people are out there suffering, who could lead good lives and have a good family with the right kind of social support.

Any "code"would end up being the same as 99% of secure doors at every airport: 1234.

How do you turn the Q400 on the ground? Does it have a tiller? Surprised he got it on the center line. FOs aren’t even allowed to ground taxi some airplanes.

RDUDDJI wrote:

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.

And autopilot could malfunction and crash a plane into the ground. But it doesn't, because redundancies and workarounds are built in, just like they would be in this system. Sorry to bust your anecdotes with logic.

“Workarounds” in other words ways to get around something, hence a door that can be opened to bypass these so called security devices...

RDUDDJI wrote:

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.

And autopilot could malfunction and crash a plane into the ground. But it doesn't, because redundancies and workarounds are built in, just like they would be in this system. Sorry to bust your anecdotes with logic.

But this is most illogical because putting a workaround on a security system invariably makes it less secure and can possibly render it useless and a waste of money and time.

eugdjinn wrote:

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.

Here - Let's spend some time on this. What was he being paid??? Four years with Horizon, clearly trained to do very specialized and dangerous work on the ramp that involves moving aircraft on a busy ramp at an international airport in contact with the tower... and in the tapes there is some mention that he's a minimum wage worker. Before we start talking about keys, and stupid things let's talk about the basic lack of respect that four years in the position at extremely low wages doing something that requires some serious skill and is in fact quite security sensitive is now a position with NO respect and no real pay. And yet, actually requires people with real brains to do it well - as proven by this young man who clearly had a fine mind, as evidenced by what he was able to do.

This is where the real conversation should be.

When we insist on paying starvation wages on the ramp, we get gun smuggling (ATL), drug smuggling (DFW), and other craziness (this.) It's not easy work, it is security sensitive, and it does need respect (and respect in the form of increasing pay for greater skill). This is part of what is breaking people in our society.

I agree with all this. Thank you. Our society has something sick within it. Grind people down for profits and pit workers against each other. How often do Pilots lord it over the other workers of a airline and call them derogatory names just because they are paid less? Oh woops, was that a little dark secret I was not supposed to share?

Those very workarounds suggested open the way for these events. As controlling the airspace, the pilot, not ATC, is legally in control of the plane. If you give ATC the means to stop the aircraft movement, you have effectively broken that responsibility and moved the problem to the controller.

GF

Do companies have the ability to send commands to a particular planes auto-pilot?

(and apologies for being one of those who registers due to a particular incident, huge amateur aviation nut and intend to stick around )

32andBelow wrote:

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.

This kid was ground ops! Forget about codes. It’s about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.

You are aware he was not the supervisor of ground ops. Learn to think.

neom wrote:

Do companies have the ability to send commands to a particular planes auto-pilot?

(and apologies for being one of those who registers due to a particular incident, huge amateur aviation nut and intend to stick around )

No fortunately, we have ACARS and datalink but that’s just the ability to receive messages and performance numbers along with preloaded flight plans (just to name a few) but no way to remote control it.

Hello All! I've been a lurker here for many years and love and appreciate all I've learned from so many knowledgeable posters! My apologies if it's been covered, but I have a question in regard to the Dash 8 Q400's FDR & CVR. Do they have to be manually activated to begin recording or would they automatically be activated upon the aircraft being powered up? I sure hope they were operating as there are many questions to be answered that these recorders would help in shedding some light on this sad and tragic incident.

hilram wrote:

Finn350 wrote:

freakyrat wrote:

I think some of the BBD test pilots have already done some of these with the Q400 during flight testing.

But surely it must have been the first barrel roll on a Q400 (and I suppose on any modern commercial airliner)?

I do not know if you consider the Boeing 707 to be a "modern" commercial airliner - it certainly belongs in the Jet Age - but Boeing test pilot Tex Johnson took a Barrel Roll in it over the Lake Washington in 1955.

The 707 was rolled quite a few times back then. There was one fatal crash due to that during a non-revenue flight. I think it was LH. Tex finally had to tell others to stop doing that.

It’s rumored that more Boeing models have been rolled, but no-one will substantiate it for obvious reasons. I heard one retiring pilot was asked if he’d barrel rolled the 737. He winked or something like that. Again, all unsubstantiated.

The more important part of this thread is the young man who was reported to be a nice fellow. I wish he could have gotten the help he needed.

He had at least three places to land, McChord, Tacoma-Narrow, and an Army base airport near McChord. I wish he’d chosen to land there and get some help.

I’m sure the USAF personnel at McChord wouldn’t have roughed him up as he feared. They would have gotten him to a doctor.

a/c dxer wrote:

To me a simple idea that might work is just trip some circuit breakers. Wouldn't be 100% but they are not clearly labeled and you would need to know which ones to trip.

Someone will forget to reset a breaker and you'll kill more people than you save.

CFM565A1 wrote:

neom wrote:

Do companies have the ability to send commands to a particular planes auto-pilot?

(and apologies for being one of those who registers due to a particular incident, huge amateur aviation nut and intend to stick around )

No fortunately, we have ACARS and datalink but that’s just the ability to receive messages and performance numbers along with preloaded flight plans (just to name a few) but no way to remote control it.

Do you think there is a way to safely design a system like that? For example, if the plane was able to read the heart rate of the pilots and could allow the company to enable a two key system that could land the plane at an airport? I was thinking more in the context of something like Helios Airways Flight 522.

Thanks for the reply.

neom wrote:

Do companies have the ability to send commands to a particular planes auto-pilot?

(and apologies for being one of those who registers due to a particular incident, huge amateur aviation nut and intend to stick around )

Welcome to A.net! Companies do not have the ability to control the auto pilot from the ground, and that's probably a good thing.

Heinkel wrote:

NearMiss wrote:

How would a costumer service agent know how to even start a modern twin engine turboprop? It's not like just pushing buttons or moving levers.

Everybody should be able to start the engines after reading the manual or some other kind of training. It is no rocket science, especially for people, who are interested in aviation.

One thing is for sure. He figured out the seat belt.

neom wrote:

CFM565A1 wrote:

neom wrote:

Do companies have the ability to send commands to a particular planes auto-pilot?

(and apologies for being one of those who registers due to a particular incident, huge amateur aviation nut and intend to stick around )

No fortunately, we have ACARS and datalink but that’s just the ability to receive messages and performance numbers along with preloaded flight plans (just to name a few) but no way to remote control it.

Do you think there is a way to safely design a system like that? For example, if the plane was able to read the heart rate of the pilots and could allow the company to enable a two key system that could land the plane at an airport? I was thinking more in the context of something like Helios Airways Flight 522.

Thanks for the reply.

Airplanes are designed where the pilot has ultimate control and is trusted. We don’t want people hacking airplanes from the outside. Also any and every system on a plane can and will fail. There are backup systems for every critical failure.

Newbiepilot wrote:

neom wrote:

CFM565A1 wrote:

No fortunately, we have ACARS and datalink but that’s just the ability to receive messages and performance numbers along with preloaded flight plans (just to name a few) but no way to remote control it.

Do you think there is a way to safely design a system like that? For example, if the plane was able to read the heart rate of the pilots and could allow the company to enable a two key system that could land the plane at an airport? I was thinking more in the context of something like Helios Airways Flight 522.

Thanks for the reply.

Airplanes are designed where the pilot has ultimate control and is trusted. We don’t want people hacking airplanes from the outside. Also any and every system on a plane can and will fail. There are backup systems for every critical failure.

Its also worth pointing our if you didnt know that the Q400 does not have an auto throttle, so even if you could send commands to the plane, its speed would be uncontrollable.

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.

Airplanes are designed with the believe that the pilot has ultimate control. Anything that inhibits a pilot from operating the airplane can have unintended consequences. It would be disastrous for a system malfunction to lock a pilot out from controlling his airplane. For example of the airplane has some sort of electrical failure in flight and resets are required, the idea of a code needing to be entered could be fatal. The pilots always have the ultimate authority.

Airplanes are designed according to FAR 25.1309 where failures with a catastrophic result must have a probability of less than 1 in 1 Billion. Every situation possible can’t be accounted for, so probabilities are used when making design decisions. A ground crew member hijacking an empty airplane is one of those events that happens less than 1 in a Billion times. I doubt we will see airplane redesigns because of this event.

Yes, the FDR and CVR should have been recording, assuming he didn’t trip the breakers.

GF

Newbiepilot wrote:

neom wrote:

CFM565A1 wrote:

No fortunately, we have ACARS and datalink but that’s just the ability to receive messages and performance numbers along with preloaded flight plans (just to name a few) but no way to remote control it.

Do you think there is a way to safely design a system like that? For example, if the plane was able to read the heart rate of the pilots and could allow the company to enable a two key system that could land the plane at an airport? I was thinking more in the context of something like Helios Airways Flight 522.

Thanks for the reply.

Airplanes are designed where the pilot has ultimate control and is trusted. We don’t want people hacking airplanes from the outside. Also any and every system on a plane can and will fail. There are backup systems for every critical failure.

Got it. Thanks for the reply. As someone who works in technology, ideas for designing a system like that are a really fun thought experiment. Appreciate you indulging me!

neom wrote:

CFM565A1 wrote:

neom wrote:

Do companies have the ability to send commands to a particular planes auto-pilot?

(and apologies for being one of those who registers due to a particular incident, huge amateur aviation nut and intend to stick around )

No fortunately, we have ACARS and datalink but that’s just the ability to receive messages and performance numbers along with preloaded flight plans (just to name a few) but no way to remote control it.

Do you think there is a way to safely design a system like that? For example, if the plane was able to read the heart rate of the pilots and could allow the company to enable a two key system that could land the plane at an airport? I was thinking more in the context of something like Helios Airways Flight 522.

Thanks for the reply.

Once you have this system then you might as well just have autonomous flights

RDUDDJI wrote:

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.

No doubt smarter peeps than I will be looking into this, but I think any and all takeoff lockout should be controlled by ATC (they already have this power, but no enforcement to stop a rogue actor). It’s a better “check”. In your scenario above, a rogue pilot (with the code) or mechanic could still pull off what happened in SEA.

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. This could also be done over the radio with a hash in case the link to the aircraft electronically is down. This, of course, would require a ton of work to implement. Software (and possibly hardware) on the planes, some sort of algorithm and hash of say the aircraft ID and a time component (it’s only good for x minutes), and SW in the tower. This would also give ATC the control over engine run-ups too. Before giving MX the code to run up the engines, they can verify that they’re in an acceptable location to do so, and give them a code that expires in x minutes.

If the only way was to takeoff was by the tower remotely entering a code what would you do at airports that don’t have a tower? While large jets primarily operate at airports with towers occasionally they do operate at airports with no tower, or before the tower opens. Regional aircraft, like the Q400, do it routinely.

Speaking as a current controller; y’all are nuts if you want to add any kind of control like that. I can guarantee there isn’t a single controller that wants that. And just for the record, on any given day I talk to numerous American MX, Delta MX, SWA MX, etc... that reposition from ramps on one side of the airport to the other. 90 percent of the time they have to cross active runways. If anyone wants to go rouge and turn onto the runway and take off they are going to do it and we in the tower can’t do anything about it other than tell the desk and the appropriate authorities. If the same American maintenance guy who for the last five years sounds the same and calls with the same request as he has every day, why wouldn’t we give him approval without thinking twice. It sounds like the SeaTac tower guys and the approach guys did everything possible to mitigate the outcome of this situation; however, it couldn’t have been prevented from anything the tower did or didn’t do. Driving a vehicle in front of him? Some of y’all been watching too many John Mclaine movies.

32andBelow wrote:

neom wrote:

CFM565A1 wrote:

No fortunately, we have ACARS and datalink but that’s just the ability to receive messages and performance numbers along with preloaded flight plans (just to name a few) but no way to remote control it.

Do you think there is a way to safely design a system like that? For example, if the plane was able to read the heart rate of the pilots and could allow the company to enable a two key system that could land the plane at an airport? I was thinking more in the context of something like Helios Airways Flight 522.

Thanks for the reply.

Once you have this system then you might as well just have autonomous flights

I presume I would not be too popular on here if raised the question of whether or not that is a good idea.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

keesje wrote:

Was this guy's future loading bags at extreme working hours for a minimum wage?

Only if he wanted it to be. But remember, he has traveled extensively, owned a business, working on a degree, gotten married - he has had opportunities.

If he wanted to do a low wage job for the rest of his life, that’s his choice. Hopefully he would instead finish his degree and move up the chain.

Owning a business and four years working the ramp would seem that he lost that business at some point. The travel he’s done would seem to indicate he was much more financially well off. That can take a major toll on ones mind. As someone who has seen a bipolar break first hand, people don’t see it until the break happens. Hopeful they are able to get immediate help to correct the condition. There are effective mood stabilizers for it that help them lead a normal productive life.

neom wrote:

I presume I would not be too popular on here if raised the question of whether or not that [AI pilot] is a good idea.

Many threads on AI FO, or AI cockpit... search box, top of each page, RH side.

CFM565A1 wrote:

neom wrote:

Do companies have the ability to send commands to a particular planes auto-pilot?

(and apologies for being one of those who registers due to a particular incident, huge amateur aviation nut and intend to stick around )

No fortunately, we have ACARS and datalink but that’s just the ability to receive messages and performance numbers along with preloaded flight plans (just to name a few) but no way to remote control it.

Doesn't the 787 operating system include remote access by Boeing? Never been fully described what those capabilities could ultimately include, but for now the aircraft has to be on it's undercarriage, and not in motion.

A few years ago, I had a problem with a car under warranty. Via OBD, the dealer could access data customer reader's can't. And the manufacturer had access to even more data, which showed for example a fuel filter had been removed, and the same filter re-installed. That had nothing to do with the problem. Also showed the highest revs in every gear, together with the date and time, which in first and reverse was at the dealer while being serviced.

Remote access and reporting is a maintenance function, not a control function. So, yes, Boeing and the engine builder has remote access, but can’t control the plane.


Gf

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Remote access and reporting is a maintenance function, not a control function. So, yes, Boeing and the engine builder has remote access, but can’t control the plane.

I'm sure they have the capability.

It's a discussion that financiers and leasors have had with Boeing and Airbus.

smartplane wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Remote access and reporting is a maintenance function, not a control function. So, yes, Boeing and the engine builder has remote access, but can’t control the plane.

I'm sure they have the capability.

It's a discussion that financiers and leasors have had with Boeing and Airbus.

Neither Boeing nor Airbus can remotely control aircraft. I’m not aware of any plans to roll out that functionality.

Hey guys one question I didn’t see brought up that Rich and the controller actually brought up. So let’s say Rich did manage to land the plane which to be honest I think could have possibly been done successfully had he really wanted to. Maybe the plane would have been damaged to some extent, but maybe survivable. Anyway, what kind of jail time do you think he would have gotten? I was talking with guys at work (ATC) and I asked if it would be life. Most said NO. The guy is only 29 years old, and we brought up the situation how the 2014 Chicago Center contractor that tried to burn the facility down, commit suicide, and cut several critical lines only received 12 years. Crazy!
It’s too bad, I bet Rich could have landed that thing and got some help and eventually lived his life outside of jail at some point.
Seemed like a cool guy based on listening to him chat and some of the pictures and videos he’s posted.

neom wrote:

CFM565A1 wrote:

neom wrote:

Do companies have the ability to send commands to a particular planes auto-pilot?

(and apologies for being one of those who registers due to a particular incident, huge amateur aviation nut and intend to stick around )

No fortunately, we have ACARS and datalink but that’s just the ability to receive messages and performance numbers along with preloaded flight plans (just to name a few) but no way to remote control it.

Do you think there is a way to safely design a system like that? For example, if the plane was able to read the heart rate of the pilots and could allow the company to enable a two key system that could land the plane at an airport? I was thinking more in the context of something like Helios Airways Flight 522.

Thanks for the reply.

Good question... I would say no since there’s all this hacking nonsense these days. Not sure I would want someone in a remote position to have access to the plane. Closest thing is the new autodescent feature on planes like the A220 which detects a bad cabin altitude and starts a descent on its own.

Has there been any coverage on the actual crash site? Did Rich put it into a nose dive and end his life etc etc? Did he a really run out of fuel before he crashed?

There's nothing on AVH about the aftermath.

pugman211 wrote:

Has there been any coverage on the actual crash site? Did Rich put it into a nose dive and end his life etc etc? Did he a really run out of fuel before he crashed?

There's nothing on AVH about the aftermath.

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the videographer that captured the roll and F15 on video said after the video moves away from the Q400 he eventually just puts it in a vertical straight up attitude and stalls it out and just crashes. That makes sense based on what he said about rolling it then just putting it right into the ground. That’s what he did.

pugman211 wrote:

Has there been any coverage on the actual crash site? Did Rich put it into a nose dive and end his life etc etc? Did he a really run out of fuel before he crashed?

There's nothing on AVH about the aftermath.

I think because there was so much known almost immediately, we have an expectation that that information flow will continue. Generally, though, we have to wait for the investigation to be at least moving forward, if not complete, to learn everything we want to know. I personally suspect that he may have had an engine loss, perhaps due to fuel, and he wasn't able to control the plane - but I'm not a pilot and it could very well be that he just nosed over like he suggested.

One thing related to my "information" comment above is that there is a lot being made out of the things that we know he said. Minimum wage, for example. However, we only know what apps like LiveATC picked up or what people listening in have posted. We don't know what was said over the radio when it scanned other channels, and we certainly don't know what was said/done in the cockpit when not on the radio. Unless or until they release a full CVR transcript, we may never know everything that he did, said, discussed, etc. For all the talk, for example, about minimum wage, we have no idea how that really related to anything. In fact, that sentence was cut off in the beginning, so some of the context of it is missing. Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending the wage they paid nor am I attacking it. However, I'm not hearing a whole lot of vitriol towards his company in the dialogue we've heard. Getting a full transcript - or the actual audio - would obviously answer a lot of those questions.

trnswrld wrote:

Hey guys one question I didn’t see brought up that Rich and the controller actually brought up. So let’s say Rich did manage to land the plane which to be honest I think could have possibly been done successfully had he really wanted to. Maybe the plane would have been damaged to some extent, but maybe survivable. Anyway, what kind of jail time do you think he would have gotten? I was talking with guys at work (ATC) and I asked if it would be life. Most said NO. The guy is only 29 years old, and we brought up the situation how the 2014 Chicago Center contractor that tried to burn the facility down, commit suicide, and cut several critical lines only received 12 years. Crazy!
It’s too bad, I bet Rich could have landed that thing and got some help and eventually lived his life outside of jail at some point.
Seemed like a cool guy based on listening to him chat and some of the pictures and videos he’s posted.

I reckon he’d plead insanity and get placed in a mental institution and face 0 jail time. But he could be stuck in the psych ward for 20 years

aviationaware wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

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.

Much less likely - you can’t enter a larger plane, much less an A380, without stairs. A Q400 does not need external stairs to get in. With a larger plane, you either need an accomplice to drive the stairs away or you have to crash into them and hope they fall the right way/don’t damage the aircraft badly. Maybe a 737 COULD work, but anything with more ground clearance needs stairs to get in. Or a very tall ladder if you manage to get one there.

Utter rubbish, easy to get into through the gearwell & avionics bay on any widebody. There is a video on youtube of an LH A346 Pilot at JFK holding at the RW stopbars, telling ATC he needs to exit the aircraft to close an open latch. He did just that, thru the NLG well, closed the latch, climbed back on and 5 minutes later they took off.
off topic, but all this talk that this is a regional problem ´only´ is just crap, could happen with any AC type.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fs9HcdhUFI

eugdjinn wrote:

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.

Here - Let's spend some time on this. What was he being paid??? Four years with Horizon, clearly trained to do very specialized and dangerous work on the ramp that involves moving aircraft on a busy ramp at an international airport in contact with the tower... and in the tapes there is some mention that he's a minimum wage worker. Before we start talking about keys, and stupid things let's talk about the basic lack of respect that four years in the position at extremely low wages doing something that requires some serious skill and is in fact quite security sensitive is now a position with NO respect and no real pay. And yet, actually requires people with real brains to do it well - as proven by this young man who clearly had a fine mind, as evidenced by what he was able to do.

This is where the real conversation should be.

When we insist on paying starvation wages on the ramp, we get gun smuggling (ATL), drug smuggling (DFW), and other craziness (this.) It's not easy work, it is security sensitive, and it does need respect (and respect in the form of increasing pay for greater skill). This is part of what is breaking people in our society.

Exactly. Nailed it.

ual763 wrote:

travelsonic wrote:

ual763 wrote:

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?

This guy was one^

But, then on CNN, they had some audio from an “aviation expert” explaining how simulators have gotten so realistic and are accessible to anyone, resulting in this.

Yes they have gotten realistic. Yes anyone can book time in some of these Sims especially in Europe. However it takes a reservation and you are vetted. The first time I was in one of these Sims (Airbus A320) I was pretty wore out after 90 minutes. It's much harder than it looks folks even for this GA pilot. The second time it was easier as I was used to the sidestick, my sight picture etc and I did much better. My instructor who was rated in the A320 was totally awesome. We got to simulate some emergencies and single engine stuff so I wasn't bored. I actually learned a lot. Being and old steam guage guy, I can now fly with glass. I totally like flying with a sidestick with less cockpit clutter. The whole experience made me appreciate the training that pilots go through to fly us safely from point A to point B everyday. IMHO You do not restrict flight simulation as this encourages young people to possibly consider a career as a pilot.

do we have any photos of the crash site? :/

Unless he was on the clock, how about limit people’s access to restricted areas when they’re off the clock? Have their passes only valid to those areas during their shifts.

CFM565A1 wrote:

neom wrote:

CFM565A1 wrote:

No fortunately, we have ACARS and datalink but that’s just the ability to receive messages and performance numbers along with preloaded flight plans (just to name a few) but no way to remote control it.

Do you think there is a way to safely design a system like that? For example, if the plane was able to read the heart rate of the pilots and could allow the company to enable a two key system that could land the plane at an airport? I was thinking more in the context of something like Helios Airways Flight 522.

Thanks for the reply.

Good question... I would say no since there’s all this hacking nonsense these days. Not sure I would want someone in a remote position to have access to the plane. Closest thing is the new autodescent feature on planes like the A220 which detects a bad cabin altitude and starts a descent on its own.

The A220 feature is really neat, I did a bit of poking into how that works and it's very clever. I already have a day job and enough to think about (we design internet attached mass transit management systems for cities) + I don't care to hijack this thread (no pun), but it's a super super interesting problem and something that will no doubt bother me in my free time.

Thanks again for your thoughts and perspective. And for being so welcoming on this forum.

dragon6172 wrote:

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.

I think the smoke was from the tires and not the brakes. No pax, no cargo, and light on fuel. I'd say the tires skidded and smoked some as he whipped around the taxiways and onto the runway. Does a Q400 have anti-skid? Does it have to be turned on during start up?

You mean like Tokyo Drift the movie? Lol. No, if you're going too fast in a Q, especially a light one and you try and make a turn going too fast, the nose will lose traction first and the airplane will plow straight ahead. Smoke would come from the nose tires.
About the smoke from the main wheels. Carbon aircraft brakes are not to be used like the brakes in a car. Using them when they're not up at operating temperature causes them to wear out quickly, using them to control your taxi speed causes them to overheat quickly. When taxing use the props to control speed and brakes only when needed. The Q, especially an empty one with low fuel, will get going quickly on the ground if you're not used it. If no one has ever given you any instruction or training on this, and you've never done it before, you will bungle it and overheat the brakes.
No, this guy didn't taxi with the park brake on, although the airplane has the power to do it, there would be no tires left before he got off the ground. Yes the Q has antiskid, there's a switch for it, it's always on unless deferred and it's active above certain speeds.
I saw this on the news somewhere yesterday: A retired airline pilot said there's a saying among them: For any airplane - If you can start it you can fly it.

aviationaware wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

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.

Much less likely - you can’t enter a larger plane, much less an A380, without stairs. A Q400 does not need external stairs to get in. With a larger plane, you either need an accomplice to drive the stairs away or you have to crash into them and hope they fall the right way/don’t damage the aircraft badly. Maybe a 737 COULD work, but anything with more ground clearance needs stairs to get in. Or a very tall ladder if you manage to get one there.

I know reverse thrust is not authorized as a powerback on any modern aircraft, but is it possible? Will full reverse thrust back an airplane? If it was possible, that could allow a single person to back away from a set of airstairs at the front door.

Another possibility would be a scissor lift catering truck, with a jury rigged remote lowering control to drop it down to the ground where one could pull forward and let it pass under the horizontal stabalizer.

RyanVHS wrote:

Unless he was on the clock, how about limit people’s access to restricted areas when they’re off the clock? Have their passes only valid to those areas during their shifts.

SIDA badges are not issued by the company so there is no way (and way too much hassle) to turn badges on and off. What happens if someone stays late, comes in early, etc.?

Future airplanes should have two pilots, one in the airplane and the other at a ground control station..Steal the airplane or deviate? and sorry, ground pilot has the airplane. Earthquake wrecks the ground station? Ok, sky pilot has it.

twinotter wrote:

Any "code"would end up being the same as 99% of secure doors at every airport: 1234.

Bruce G. Blair claims that the first US nuclear bombs with security codes were all set to 00000000. https://web.archive.org/web/20120511191 ... -links.cfm