Armed pilots

[RanchMan]

<font color=blue>1) Instead of just voice recorders and black boxes, why not install a $39 "cockpit cam"? </font color=blue>

I saw something on TV where some company is developing this currently. The other part of the news story was that the airline pilot's association was not real happy about "watching" the cockpit (fine with the cabin) due to liability issues.


<font color=blue>2) Why not have the airplane automatically, at the first hint of any problem, dial up the FAA and begin a V.90 data dump directly to them of all pertinent information? </font color=blue>

That same news story had talked about development of a "ground based pilot" system so they (whoever "they" is) could control of the plane in an event of an emergency (pilots had to have a code to override or something like that). Different than what you were talking about, but I bet someone is thinking about it if they are also considering the remote pilot thing.

 

[Bob_Trevithick]

<font color=blue>...By the way ... did you see the news report yesterday re the Egypt Air flight? They're releasing the official report and everything is laid on the co-pilot based on the black box data. He kicked off the a/p and dropped the nose. </font color=blue>

Yeah. I feel so bad for his family. :-( The guy apparently did turn off the A/P and drop the nose, but he then throttled back the engines to keep the plane within it's rated .86G rating, and pulled out of the dive somehow. Doesn't sound lto me ike a guy who wanted to crash. But Mike Bara said it much better than I possibly can in his article. I consider Mike's integrity and intelligence beyond question, as he is Richard Hoagland's right hand man. I just wonder.. is the radar data from six independent Air Force radar stations going to magically disappear from the final report? It wouldn't surprise me in the least, I'm sad to say.

Yeah, I bet pilots wouldn't be crazy about having everything they do recorded by a camera. My feeling.. that's tough.. do it anyway. I agree about the FAA probably not wanting it either. A sad state of affairs we've come to, if you ask me.

 

[Wingnut]

I'll have to read the report when it comes out ... it had been my impression that the pull-out had been the pilot trying to regain control or wrest control away ...
I don't imagine that the information is going to disappear ... since it was already announced almost immediately.
I very much doubt that these guys WANT the co-pilot to be responsible ... it goes against their aim of always making air travel appear safer than sleeping in your own bed.

 

[Egon]

Bob:

That independant radar data is extremely interesting!

Egon

 

[Charlie_Iliff]

Bob:
If you search the net on Egyptair, there is a lot of discussion, speculation and argument. There is also the public release factual NTSB data, with both analysis by the Air Force of its data, and some discussion. Of primary importance, I think is that the "climb" from 16000 to 24000 is just after the mode C transponder shuts off, so it is quite different from that showing the dive. I can see why it hasn't been given much weight. Of more significance to me is the cockpit voice recorder translation. Although there are a lot of references to Allah, they read a lot like "Oh My God."
Since soon after the crash, the Egyptians have been saying a missile or bomb took off the tail. Some stories lay the whole thing at ol' *****'s feet. The most consistent theme of the government, however, seems denial that any missile ever could have been in the area of three unexplained crashes and a lot of pilot reports of having seen things.
I don't think the radar really shows much, but the suicide doesn't make sense either.
I had been buying the suicide theory until now. Having read a bit more, I now doubt it, and am more stricken by the similarity to TWA 800.

 

[Old_Wanker]

I'm all for pilots having arms. What they going to fly the plane with otherwise - their teeth?

Just a little light relief.

 

[billboe]

I agree... The most important part is to keep them out of the cockpit! Unless these guys can smuggle some kind of automatic weapon on board I don't believe the passengers will stand (or sit) for them killing other passengers or crewmembers. I'd say this type of hijacking is finished (especially if they can keep them out of the cockpit). Passengers just won't take it!

Now, we just need to anticipate what the terrorists will do next (not easy I'm sure!)... The thing about 9-11 was that the idea was soooooooooo simple! That is why it was soooooooooo "successful"...

 

[Kelvin]

I won't bother to express an opinion as to the cause of the accident. I don't KNOW and facts and speculation would be useless. Here is some general information about the aircraft pitch axis:

<font color=blue>but he then throttled back the engines to keep the plane within it's rated .86G rating, and pulled out of the dive somehow. </font color=blue>

Retarding the engines to idle will cause the nose to lower thus aiding in a rapid descent while applying engine power will cause the aircraft nose to raise. Retarding engine power to idle is one of the first steps in an emergency descent.

The aircraft could have pulled out of a dive without the pilot's or copilot's inputs. This is how: If the aircraft's elevator axis was trimmed to fly at 0.74 mach (a reasonable "cruise mach" number that I made up), and the control column was held forward while the aircraft was descending and accelerating to 0.86 mach, then if control column were to be released the aircraft would attempt to return to the 0.74 mach that it was trimmed for (in this case a climb would be required to lose airspeed). I realize that the copilot could have changed the trim setting, but if so, may not have trimmed it for 0.86 mach.

Kelvin

 

[3rdbase]

Wow. So many thoughts. I have an interest in this because it's what I do for a living In fact I had just taken off from San Francisco in a 767 when the first aircraft hit the WTC. So many points brought up. Here's a few of my own. If pilots were armed, 9-11 would be a lawsuit, not a national tragedy. Rapid decompression as the result of a bullet hole is way overrated-the stuff of movies. Frangible bullets solve the problem,(though it really doesn't exist anyway). The point made about about crippling the aircraft by hitting a component necessary for flight is a non sequitor-wouldn't happen. We're not talking about an old west gunfight here, just defending the flight controls. All those accidents mentioned have little to do with the issue, and would take too much bandwidth to discuss.
Here's my take. Is it reasonable to arm someone who is in control of a potential weapon of mass destruction in order to prevent this potential weapon from killing thousands of citizens? I say, without a doubt. Next time you're in a shopping mall take a look at the extremely overweight ARMED security guard whose task is to do do what? Protect the masses from shoplifters? The debate is ongoing in my industry and boils down to this: Are company attourneys advising the board of directors to be willing to defend a worngful death lawsuit in order to save an airplane?
Someone suggested the horse is out of the barn on this issue. I think not. Islamic terrorists may not try to use the same tactics, but with 50-250 people on airliners, it doesn't take bizarre ideolgy to come up with one wacko. It was also suggested that our lawmakers do not fly commecial. Wrong. They do. I see them all the time.

 

[3rdbase]

Other stuff

Guys, I really don't want to get off the subject, but do feel the need to comment on other posts in this thread.
Kelvin. Excellent point re an aircraft seeking it's "trimmed" airspeed. Fully explains the pull up of EgyptAir.
CP in a previous post stated: "Had the pilots of the 9/11 airplanes been armed, all one could say is that maybe those disasters could have been averted".
Wrong cp. Those disasters would have been averted.
I do believe the fuel tank explosion theory of TWA 800. The errant missile theorists have never fired a missile or gone through the prelimnary work necessary to do a live missile exercise. Preposterous to think that a US Navy ship could have fired a live missile under a know departure corridor. If the theorists believe it came from an airplane they need to explain the paucity of radar evidence. An event of this magnitude would leave behind a hugh trail.