there are already absolute computer controlled functions on the airbus, if both pitot tubes clog up, the plane goes into a slow down angle, the fly by wire pilot control can not override. it has happened before.

Those are just operational control not authority limits. Within the control limits of a fully functional plane the pilot can set the plane to fly from 38,000ft to 100ft, kick back, ponder oblivion and watch as it tries to fly through the middle of the French Alps. All the alarms go off near the ground but it stays on course.

 

If they know that hijacking country X's airliner will result in an armed retaking of the plane by force while hijacking country Y's airliner will result in protracted negotiations that may or may not lead to having their demands met and that hijacking country Z's airliner will almost certainly result in their demands being met, up to some point, which country can expect to see more of its airliners hijacked?

US to Cuba met that last criteria. I forgot how many there were during that time frame, it was crazy. I was in Key West during that time and we tracked a few into Cuban airspace. Finally even Castro was upset with all the nuts and threated to kill some or send them back to the USA. That slowed it down it rather quickly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cuba–United_States_aircraft_hijackings

 

For all you magnetic people: even if following an incorrect magnetic compass heading (which he didn't do) that would not account for the controlled descent into terrain. He would just go off in the wrong direction.

Two men in the cabin did not help a few years back (sorry all searches turn up today is the current crash) when the copilot murdered the pilot before doing a suicide fall.

You can't prevent everything, no doubt about that at all. A two person policy might or might not have made a difference in this case. We will probably never know. I still maintain that it is a very reasonable policy that does mitigate certain risks at essentially zero cost and it is therefore hard to justify NOT having that policy in place.

 

US to Cuba met that last criteria. I forgot how many there were during that time frame, it was crazy. I was in Key West during that time and we tracked a few into Cuban airspace. Finally even Castro was upset with all the nuts and threated to kill some or send them back to the USA. That slowed it down it rather quickly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cuba–United_States_aircraft_hijackings

And when it really slowed down was when we bombed Libya in 1986, in part as a response to state-sponsored hijackings. The state sponsors quickly got the message that the hijackers weren't the only ones as risk.

 

Stupid question: The speed/altitude profile in #16 shows that speed remained steady and even decreased as the altitude was rapidly declining. Doesn't that require the engines to be throttled back or even off?

That seems odd. Could holding engine rpm constant have been meant to disguise the descent so that reaction would be delayed? It would prolong the time-to-impact with little change in the end result. Was he savoring the moment? If I had to perform this grisly chore, I'd accelerate as much as possible to get it over with.

 

It was so easy for this coward. He didn't have to dirty himself with the killing.

Just lock the door and set the pilot.

 

nsaspook said: ↑
US to Cuba met that last criteria. I forgot how many there were during that time frame, it was crazy. I was in Key West during that time and we tracked a few into Cuban airspace. Finally even Castro was upset with all the nuts and threated to kill some or send them back to the USA. That slowed it down it rather quickly.

And when it really slowed down was when we bombed Libya in 1986, in part as a response to state-sponsored hijackings. The state sponsors quickly got the message that the hijackers weren't the only ones as risk.

That's hilarious. Highjackings to Cuba peaked in 1969, 17 years before Libya.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cuba–United_States_aircraft_hijackings

 

You can't prevent everything.

Amen! Nothing is fool proof because there is no limit to the ingenuity of fools.
I try not to think of the contortions people go through to make sure there is a law against every kind of harm that is possible. (See the Oreo thread.) Then, Bam. What are you going to do? Arrest the red splatter that used to be a co-pilot?

(Fingers in ears) La la la la la.

 

I can't think about what the people went through these last minutes. Minutes of worries, seconds of fear, then... nothing. Vanished within fractions of a seconds.

What do you think/do seconds before the impact? Look one last time to your partner, wife, child, collegue, friend and think, so this is it?

Difficult to get this out of my head. If it really was the guy he was not only mentally ill he was also a "Riesenarschloch". Who is he to take that decision for others?

 

That's hilarious. Highjackings to Cuba peaked in 1969, 17 years before Libya.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cuba–United_States_aircraft_hijackings

I was talking about highjackings, not JUST hijackings to Cuba; another responder used those specifically in their response. I can see how my response could be taken in that narrower context, but it was intended in the context of the broader discussion.

 

Stupid question: The speed/altitude profile in #16 shows that speed remained steady and even decreased as the altitude was rapidly declining. Doesn't that require the engines to be throttled back or even off?

That seems odd. Could holding engine rpm constant have been meant to disguise the descent so that reaction would be delayed? It would prolong the time-to-impact with little change in the end result. Was he savoring the moment? If I had to perform this grisly chore, I'd accelerate as much as possible to get it over with.

Depends on how he carried out the maneuver. As a rule (particularly in light aviation, don't know if it applies equally well to heavy aviation, but I suspect it does) you use your flight controls to control airspeed and your power to control altitude. If he just set the autopilot altitude setting to a very low altitude, then the autopilot would have probably throttled back the engines to establish a normal descent rate, which is typically about 3°. At an airspeed of 600 kts (just guessing, don't know what the A-320's cruise speed is) that would be a descent rate of 3200 fpm. As he got into thicker air his airspeed would have tended to decrease with the same trim settings.

I don't imagine he was thinking about the passengers at all, let alone when they reacted. But if he kept the descent rate anywhere near that typical 3° profile, many of them probably never even noticed they were in a descent.

 

I was talking about highjackings, not JUST hijackings to Cuba; another responder used those specifically in their response. I can see how my response could be taken in that narrower context, but it was intended in the context of the broader discussion.

Either way, all US highjackings peaked on 1969. It just so happens that the overwhelming number of highjackings were to Cuba.

 

Either way, all US highjackings peaked on 1969. It just so happens that the overwhelming number of highjackings were to Cuba.

U.S. to Cuba hijackings were not state-sponsored, which was what I was talking about, and they were of a very different qualitative nature. It was very rare for there to be injuries or fatalities. In 1969 there were a total of 86 airline hijackings but only 5 fatalities. The nature of airline hijackings changed in the early-1970's and even though the total number of hijackings were in the range of 20 or so the number of fatalities was in the range of 80. In 1977 there were 32 hijackings but 114 fatalities. The fatality numbers in 1983 were 12, in the following three years they went from 33 to 65 to 87 in 1986. The following year, the number of fatalities was just 2, followed by 12 and then 1.

 

The target keeps moving. First it's highjackings, then state sponsored highjackings, then highjacking fatalitles. In 1990, the number of fatalities was 86 on 37 highjackings. In 1996 it was 125 fatalities on 16 highjackings. It also fell form 114 to 3 to zero in the 1977 to 1979 period, and 268 to 2 to 0 in the 2001 - 2003 period.

 

The target keeps moving. First it's highjackings, then state sponsored highjackings, then highjacking fatalitles. In 1990, the number of fatalities was 86 on 37 highjackings. In 1996 it was 125 fatalities on 16 highjackings. It also fell form 114 to 3 to zero in the 1977 to 1979 period, and 268 to 2 to 0 in the 2001 - 2003 period.

Look at general trends and not the erratic nature that is natural to rare event statistics.

It's very clear that you are going to choose to argue with anything I say. It's interesting that you're the one that gets all upset anytime I respond to one of your posts and you're the one that keeps saying that you no longer respond to mine. I have tried to return the favor and have forgone responding to a number of your posts. It's obvious that you and I don't mix well, so let's leave it at that, shall we?

 

Look at general trends and not the erratic nature that is natural to rare event statistics.

I do.

It's very clear that you are going to choose to argue with anything I say. It's interesting that you're the one that gets all upset anytime I respond to one of your posts and you're the one that keeps saying that you no longer respond to mine. I have tried to return the favor and have forgone responding to a number of your posts.

I have likewise forgone responding to a number of your posts.

And BTW,

It's interesting that you're the one that gets all upset anytime I respond to one of your posts

Naw, you haven't seen me upset.

 

I do.



I have likewise forgone responding to a number of your posts.

And BTW,



Naw, you haven't seen me upset.

Wait for it...

 

Wait for it...

Keep waiting -- but don't hold your breath.

 

This wasn't a hijacking, it was unlawful interference by a crew member so measures designed for external hijacking like armor in trucks or strong doors are useless to stop the trusted co-driver from shooting the driver and crashing the truck into a school. Even two man controls (one layer) are not really effective unless there is an external many layered authority chain (the President by himself can not release nuclear weapons) that the persons actually in physical possession can't override without rendering the device inert. The problem is how do you inert a flying plane from a trained insider as a practical manner, I don't think you can, so the problem becomes how to inert the bad pilot so they have no chance to jam the controls down in a power dive right after takeoff or during a landing with the door wide open if one person always has full authority to fly the aircraft. I don't think you can do this either.

This is the 'lone gunman/nut' scenario that really has no absolute solution to stop them from the outer layer of security and depends on detection with many layers of security to stop them from the target.

 

This wasn't a hijacking, it was unlawful interference by a crew member so measures designed for external hijacking like armor in trucks or strong doors are useless to stop the trusted co-driver from shooting the driver and crashing the truck into a school. Even two man controls (one layer) are not really effective unless there is an external many layered authority chain (the President by himself can not release nuclear weapons) that the persons actually in physical possession can't override without rendering the device inert. The problem is how do you inert a flying plane from a trained insider as a practical manner, I don't think you can, so the problem becomes how to inert the bad pilot so they have no chance to jam the controls down in a power dive right after takeoff or during a landing with the door wide open if one person always has full authority to fly the aircraft. I don't think you can do this either.

This is the 'lone gunman/nut' scenario that really has no absolute solution to stop them from the outer layer of security and depends on detection and many layers of security to stop them from the target.

Agreed. The best you can realistically do is minimize the opportunities and the probabilities. You screen your aircrew on a recurring basis (which it appears they did and he hid his medical/mental condition from his employer). A two-person policy makes it harder for him to carry out an act like this, but not impossible. Just being left alone in the cockpit might have been sufficient inducement to make him carry out what might well have been a spur-of-the-moment impulse that otherwise might not even have occurred to him. Short of finding some note or some other smoking gun, we will never know if he boarded the airplane with the intention of downing it or not.

While systems and procedures shouldn't ignore the insider threat -- and protections should be taken commensurate with the risk -- the final reality is that a determined insider will always be able to do a lot of damage.