Timeline for What technology is being moved forward to keep pilots from crashing planes?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
31 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 5, 2015 at 3:03 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 5, 2015 at 6:17 | |||||
| Mar 30, 2015 at 18:00 | comment | added | Simon | @Michael A bullet through the fuselage would hardly be noticed. A bit of a whistling noise maybe but aircraft can cope with holes very much larger than a bullet. It is almost impossible to significantly damage an aircraft with a bullet, especially from a handgun. You might want to review this question | |
| Mar 30, 2015 at 17:24 | comment | added | cpast | To answer the new questions in the edit: 1) Yes, it's called "radar." 2) Yes, it's called "pilots." 3) Yes, it's called "pilots if they can spare the time," and sometimes "air traffic controllers" (if the flight track reflects the issues). 4) No, and it's actually a pretty bad idea to do this -- a pilot has to have the ability to deal with emergencies, and they need not talk to ATC when they're doing so (the order is aviate, navigate, then communicate). You can't tell intent through sensors, and a conscious non-malicious pilot is better at dealing with emergencies than ground control. | |
| Mar 30, 2015 at 16:04 | history | protected | reirab | ||
| Mar 30, 2015 at 15:40 | comment | added | Michael | Two people can override the pilot's lockout? Great, now an attacker can just force two people to operate the override and can storm the cockpit. @Simon seems like a stun gun would be safer, stray bullet could easily puncture the plane's skin and cause serious issues. | |
| Mar 30, 2015 at 14:42 | history | edited | blankip | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 597 characters in body
|
| Mar 30, 2015 at 14:27 | comment | added | Calphool | Every person needs to be taught basic risk management in high school or something. There are TWO components to risk management: frequency and severity. You multiply them together to determine actual risk. An airplane crash, while extremely severe is very rare. Conversely, auto accidents are less severe (only a few people die at a time), but they happen all the time. As a result, we know that riding in a car as dramatically more risky than flying in a plane. | |
| Mar 30, 2015 at 12:30 | answer | added | Simd | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 30, 2015 at 1:01 | comment | added | Mast | @raptortech97 I burned the 'crazy' part. It was offensive and superfluous. | |
| Mar 29, 2015 at 17:54 | answer | added | WBT | timeline score: 2 | |
| S Mar 29, 2015 at 15:38 | history | suggested | Mast | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Removed two instances of 'crazy' for being offensive while superfluous.
|
| Mar 29, 2015 at 15:21 | review | Close votes | |||
| Mar 29, 2015 at 17:08 | |||||
| Mar 29, 2015 at 15:00 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 29, 2015 at 15:38 | |||||
| Mar 29, 2015 at 14:02 | answer | added | Maxim Cheusov | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 29, 2015 at 8:50 | comment | added | jao | I think only in the US pilots are armed, at least not in Europe. | |
| Mar 29, 2015 at 7:49 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackAviation/status/582087134200360960 | ||
| Mar 28, 2015 at 21:14 | comment | added | Jason C | Note that media sensationalization does not imply a sudden increase in a problem or sudden increased need to solve it (nor does it create an increase in benefit in a cost-benefit analysis of a solution). Just because you are suddenly aware of it (and care about it, for at least a few more days/weeks until the next big story comes up) does not mean it's an increased danger. It just means your favorite news anchors have something to talk about to keep you watching and keep their twitter feeds active for a few days. | |
| Mar 28, 2015 at 20:42 | comment | added | Michael Hampton | OK, so you want to put a political officer in charge of the pilots. What happens when the political officer forces the pilots to make a bad decision? Everyone dies. | |
| Mar 28, 2015 at 15:54 | comment | added | raptortech97 | @Simon lethal force is never called for if it can be avoided. If an Air Marshal can prevent a pilot from posing a danger to the aircraft and its passengers without harming the pilot, that must always be preferred. | |
| Mar 28, 2015 at 15:39 | comment | added | blankip | @AndreasBonini - well it only takes two of these incidents to put an airline out of business and there are a lot of copycat reactions in the world... so I would think this is something major airlines would be looking into. | |
| Mar 28, 2015 at 14:52 | comment | added | Simon | I do not understand why I would trust the marshal any more than I would trust the pilot but supposing I did, why a stun gun? Surely lethal force in such situations would be called for? | |
| Mar 28, 2015 at 12:14 | comment | added | mins | Wouldn't that introduce a possibility that Air Marshal will crash the plane?. If we can trust the pilot, why would we trust someone else? This comment only to illustrate the question is a dead end. | |
| Mar 28, 2015 at 12:05 | comment | added | user7889 | An Air Marshal with a stun gun at the ready, so their will always be two people in the cockpit at any one time | |
| Mar 28, 2015 at 9:19 | comment | added | Andreas Bonini | Pilots crashing planes intentionally is so ridiculously rare there is no need to create measures against that. And it would be a completely reactive, not preventive, measure: just like the TSA operates (oh, that one time they tried to blow up the plane using liquids, let's ban liquids, although there are virtually endless other possibilities on how it could be blown up, but we will start caring about them the first time they try) | |
| Mar 28, 2015 at 8:10 | answer | added | Peter Kämpf | timeline score: 12 | |
| Mar 28, 2015 at 6:18 | answer | added | cpast | timeline score: 25 | |
| Mar 28, 2015 at 5:56 | comment | added | blankip | @cpast - I am not say that the dual unlock is just two people, it would just take two people to unlock. (copilot and airline or two airline ground employees). Whatever. I don't have the answers but it seems like this should be something that is going to change. | |
| Mar 28, 2015 at 5:55 | answer | added | raptortech97 | timeline score: 35 | |
| Mar 28, 2015 at 5:42 | comment | added | cpast | And what if a pilot has a medical emergency and they need to divert? There is no technical solution to having a pilot who has the ability to deal with emergencies while preventing them from crashing the plane. | |
| Mar 28, 2015 at 5:29 | review | First posts | |||
| Mar 28, 2015 at 6:12 | |||||
| Mar 28, 2015 at 5:24 | history | asked | blankip | CC BY-SA 3.0 |