It would not be necessary to point an aircraft straight down to kill oneself and everyone on board. As I recall the Lufthansa murderer flew the aircraft into a mountain. Whoever was responsible for the Malaysia flight 370 incident evidently just flew it until it ran out of fuel and went down on its own. Even if there were no mountains readily available or he didn’t want to risk waiting until the fuel was gone, I am pretty sure that a qualified pilot could accomplish the task in several other ways that wouldn’t be prevented by a mechanism that kept the plane from going straight down. Flying the aircraft into a high rise building would probably work, and as I understand it, it’s suspected that Egypt Air flight 990 crashed because one of the pilots turned off the engine(s).

As for the “two person” rule, I don’t know what sorts of things there might be in the cockpit that could be used as a weapon by one to disable the unsuspecting other, but even at my advanced age and feeble physical condition I could probably do it with a garrot improvised with a couple of innocuous pieces of wood doweling and length of Kevlar cord. That might not work, but then it might.

I said nothing and will not say anything about a pilot’s “right” to murder others by deliberately crashing his plane. I am pointing out possibilities and impossibilities, not asserting rights.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
It would not be necessary to point an aircraft straight down to kill oneself and everyone on board.

That is beside the point. A pilot could crash his plane on takeoff or landing, run it into a building on takeoff or landing, ditch at sea, any number of things. That is beside the point, which is that there is no reason, ever, to put a commercial aircraft into a straight nose-down position, and therefore a governor preventing this would be a good idea.

Here is what I will say. It is true that there is no reasonably conceivable reason to point the airplane at the ground. Hence Airbus reasoning. Things happen and you want full authority to fly out of them. Hence Boeing reasoning. (oversimplification)

If you limit control inputs in what seem like reasonable limitations you are doing so in an environment of what is considered a "reasonable emergency". Unfortunately there have been accidents where something happened that were previously considered impossible to occur. Right up until it happened.

I'm saying if the shit hits the fan and I need to do something that no one ever thought necessary to save the plane I don't want the computer saying no.

This accident and most of the others of similar ilk have more to do with culture than anything else. As far as I know the only thing even close in the US was the FedEx incident and that wasn't one of the crew who did it.

There are a dozen ways a pilot could kill a planeload of people. Going straight down isn't even the hardest one. I won't go into details. Putting limitations on control inputs to keep pilots from committing suicide isn't why Airbus has their limits and it wouldn't stop any event in the future. Reasonable idea that really wouldn't have any positive impact in real life.

As for cameras, just no. No, no, and no. If they add cameras to the cockpit, be prepared for simple and easy "malfunctions" to occur to the cameras.

quote:

This accident and most of the others of similar ilk have more to do with culture than anything else.

^^^^^^^^^
How about the suicdal German pilot who flew the plane into the mountain? Are you suggesting this was cultural?

quote:

This accident and most of the others of similar ilk have more to do with culture than anything else

Do you have trouble reading the written word?

What is your problem? Unable to reply to a simple disagreement? I have noticed you have a pattern of hostility. Answer the question about German culture please.

No. If you can't read what I wrote that is your problem. Read it slowly to yourself and answer your own question.

This is a thread about China Eastern. If you want to start a Germanwings thread have at it.

Sometimes systems indicate the aircraft is doing something it is not, so by necessity there are manual disconnects or overrides.

One simple example is the stall system which detects that the wings are getting close to not being able to develop lift, which then activates a clacker (audible alert) then a stick shaker, then a stick pusher. If one of the systems erroneously detects an impending stall it will force the nose of the aircraft down. I have had this happen on arrival and had to disconnect the system manually.

I've also had the GPWS system erroneously decide we were about to crash into the ground and start blaring so loud that we could not communicate between each other in the cockpit nor with the tower controller for a couple of minutes while we pulled circuit breakers to shut it off.

I've been rolled inverted by a rotor in the lee of a mountain range, requiring a recovery procedure that Airbus wouldn't have liked.

Severe mountain wave with a sudden major loss in airspeed at high altitude will require a significant nose down attitude.

There are any number of scenarios where the worst thing would be the airplane telling a pilot no.

FAA regulations require two pilots in the cockpit at all times, and if one must leave for necessary reasons then another crew member must go into the cockpit. And yes there would be any number of ways for someone to disable another person in the cockpit. As with any crime, a dedicated perp will easily find a way.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
That is beside the point. A pilot could crash his plane on takeoff or landing, run it into a building on takeoff or landing, ditch at sea, any number of things. That is beside the point, which is that there is no reason, ever, to put a commercial aircraft into a straight nose-down position, and therefore a governor preventing this would be a good idea.

You're assuming there's some murderous, suicidal sunuvabitch at the controls on every flight. What you're proposing would take MOUNDS of cash to recertify EVERY AIRFRAME that is on the planet. It is not cost beneficial. You're trying to make the airplane "safer", just as people try to make a gun "safer", when we both know it's the HEART OF MAN that turns both of these inanimate objects into a killing weapon against innocents.

There are times in Upset Recovery, i.e., the aircraft is flipped outside its normal flight parameters due to wake turbulence, for example, where having full deflection of the controls is necessary. When that happens, your recovery might depend on having to point the nose straight down...or at least have use of the controls to point it straight down.

Yes, that's what I'm proposing.

The aviation industry doesn't have that kind of cash. The bean counters, I'm sure, have performed their due diligence on Cost/Benefit. Cost won. It would be like designing a sensor on a gun that if some thug sunuvabitch is pointing it at an innocent victim, the gun would lock up and you couldn't pull the trigger. All of a sudden, that $499.99 Sig is now $49,999.00.

To boot, I'm not sure I would want an aircraft to override my control input in the event I needed it. Hence why I don't fly Airbus. "If it ain't Boeing, we ain't going", as the saying goes.

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:
The aviation industry doesn't have that kind of cash.

Does it really matter? I have no input as to what they do. What if I proposed putting curb feelers on the landing gear of all commecial aircraft? Maybe mandate one of those fragrant little fake pine trees in every cockpit? It would mean as much as what I've said so far in this thread. I don't understand all the angst.

Having control limitations could conceivably actually cost lives at some point. It also would have zero actual impact on stopping this kind of suicidal behavior. I wouldn't mind a fresh smelling little fake pine tree though.

Well, it appears what actualy did cost lives was allowing someone in the cockpit to point an aircraft straight at the ground.

That 65 foot deep crater in Chinese isn't a concept.

For every measure, there is a counter measure.
For every counter measure, there is a counter counter measure.
For every counter counter measure,…
Well you probably figured it out by now.

That and then this …

"If you make something idiot-proof, someone will just make a better idiot."

We don’t need pilots in commercial aircraft for normal operations, autopilots can do it all, including takeoffs and landings. Why have pilots then? Because when something the autopilot can’t handle comes up, you need a human in the loop. The sensors may malfunction, preventing the pilot from pointing the plane in a direction the autopilot & sensors considers straight down, but is really needed to save the plane.

I’ve almost been in two serious traffic accidents due to active safety systems in cars. I now disable all but passive safety systems in vehicles I own and drive.