• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

what to do about homicidal pilots?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
vailr said:
@ CZroe:
You might find this podcast interview of interest, concerning what actually happened on 11 September, 2001:
http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2015/03/RIR-150318.php
Click to expand...

GET. OUT.caps

JTsyo said:
The difference is that the hijackers already had control of the plane since they allowed it. A few times after 9/11 passengers have stopped hijackers/ violent passengers.
Click to expand...

Yep. Doesn't mean that they would have been successful 100% of the time had the doors not been upgraded. Hold him to his own idiotic standard.


tynopik said:
there are zero instances where a door being able to last longer than 30 seconds would have been helpful

you're the one that's going for the improbable scenario
Click to expand...

We have four from September 11th, 2001.

This IS fun.
 
CZroe said:
Yep. Doesn't mean that they would have been successful 100% of the time had the doors not been upgraded.
Click to expand...

All rest of passengers vs hijackers win 100% of time


CZroe said:
We have four from September 11th, 2001.
Click to expand...

what good are armored doors if they are voluntarily opened from the inside?

which is what would have happened on 9/11 as soon as the hijackers put a knife to a throat
 
tynopik said:
not on one plane



armed with what? boxcutters?

that's not going to stop determined passengers
Click to expand...
I am showing you how many complicit people they had in ONE plot. Even so, that's an average of 5 per plane. If all they needed to do was throw more muscle at it and we made no other changes to prevent it other than relying on passenger behavior, they'd just stick all 19 on one or two planes if they had to. You LOST this. You must be desperate if you think that was even an argument. Why are you even continuing to try?
 
Last edited:
All of this shit and arguing is irrelevant. Airplanes should have sonar installed so that they don't crash into terrain. The computers should be able to figure out whether the current trajectory and speed will lead to a crash.
 
I think we should all stay home, preferably in steel framed and reinforced rooms (with padding all around for safety), only communicating via telephone or Internet and never leaving. :colbert:
 
tortillasoup said:
All of this shit and arguing is irrelevant. Airplanes should have sonar installed so that they don't crash into terrain. The computers should be able to figure out whether the current trajectory and speed will lead to a crash.
Click to expand...

Except that it would fly with sensors and automatic sensor-driven crash-avoidance has been responsible for past crashes with this very plane (had to be fixed). If a pilot can't compensate when an airspeed sensor freezes and the plane fights him because it thinks it's preventing a crash, we're screwed.
 
CZroe said:
If all they needed to do was throw more muscle at it
Click to expand...

if they could have gotten more hijackers, they would have

yet they didn't


CZroe said:
and we made no other changes to prevent it other than relying on passenger behavior, they'd just stick all 19 on one plane if they had to.
Click to expand...

If they had done that, they MIGHT have been able to crash one plane. They would have taken down ZERO towers.

So who's the one constructing fantasy scenarios now?

We have ZERO instances of 19 hijackers on one plane but multiple instances of pilot suicides. Which one is more likely, hmmm . . .
 
tynopik said:
if they could have gotten more hijackers, they would have

yet they didn't




If they had done that, they MIGHT have been able to crash one plane. They would have taken down ZERO towers.

But who's the one constructing fantasy scenarios now?

We have ZERO instances of 19 hijackers on one plane but multiple instances of pilot suicides. Which one is more likely, hmmm . . .
Click to expand...

You think you can say that when they didn't need more hijackers at the time? They didn't need more then and having more would have hurt their chances then (raised more suspicion). Notice that I didn't say it would have eliminated them.
 
CZroe said:
You think you can say that when they didn't need more hijackers at the time? They didn't need more then
Click to expand...

they had more targets than they had planes. If they had more hijackers, they would have gotten another plane.


CZroe said:
and having more would have hurt their chances then (raised more suspicion). Notice that I didn't say it would have eliminated them.
Click to expand...

so you're saying that 19 hijackers on a single plane is unlikely? Or at least less likely than a homicidal pilot?
 
tynopik said:
if they could have gotten more hijackers, they would have

yet they didn't




If they had done that, they MIGHT have been able to crash one plane. They would have taken down ZERO towers.

So who's the one constructing fantasy scenarios now?

We have ZERO instances of 19 hijackers on one plane but multiple instances of pilot suicides. Which one is more likely, hmmm . . .
Click to expand...

4 hijacked planes with 19 total hijackers vs 3 or 4 known instances of suicidal pilots.

Also: evidently they didn't need more than 19.
 
Ns1 said:
So don't open it up from the inside when the terrorists are banging on the door.
Click to expand...

and then they grab the flight attendant, hold a knife to her throat and threaten to kill her unless they open the door

the pre-9/11 attitude towards hijackers was all about cooperation and avoiding confrontation. They would have allowed the hijackers access before watching their own get their throats slit.
 
tynopik said:
and then they grab the flight attendant, hold a knife to her throat and threaten to kill her unless they open the door

the pre-9/11 attitude towards hijackers was all about cooperation and avoiding confrontation. They would have allowed the hijackers access before watching their own get their throats slit.
Click to expand...

If your argument is that the passengers should Zerg the terrorists to prevent them from gaining access to the cockpit, my argument would be that the passengers should Zerg the terrorists to save the flight attendants life.
 
Ns1 said:
If your argument is that the passengers should Zerg the terrorists to prevent them from gaining access to the cockpit, my argument would be that the passengers should Zerg the terrorists to save the flight attendants life.
Click to expand...

yes, now they would, because everyone's attitude towards hijackers has changed

pre-9/11? no, no they would not have
 
CZroe said:
Except that it would fly with sensors and automatic sensor-driven crash-avoidance has been responsible for past crashes with this very plane (had to be fixed). If a pilot can't compensate when an airspeed sensor freezes and the plane fights him because it thinks it's preventing a crash, we're screwed.
Click to expand...

Yeah but it looks kind of like the pilot set the auto pilot to crash the plane for him. Autopilot shouldn't be able to do that. He even set an elevation that was below the terrain's elevation, a sonar setup would prevent that. I'm a little curious why the co-pilot would set up the autopilot to do such a thing and not just crash the plane in a steep decline.
 
Ns1 said:
So we're in agreement that reinforced doors are a good thing to prevent 9/11 style hijackings.
Click to expand...

nope

now they aren't needed because the passengers won't allow it to happen

a reinforced door is redundant and in fact is harmful because it can keep legitimate people out
 
tortillasoup said:
Yeah but it looks kind of like the pilot set the auto pilot to crash the plane for him. Autopilot shouldn't be able to do that. He even set an elevation that was below the terrain's elevation, a sonar setup would prevent that. I'm a little curious why the co-pilot would set up the autopilot to do such a thing and not just crash the plane in a steep decline.
Click to expand...
...and could CAUSE many more crashes due to incorrect terrain avoidance. It probably threw off many alarms that he had to ignore and override but allowed it because as far as it knew the pilot was maneuvering it as if it were a controlled crash landing due to a more serious issue. There is no substitute for a human which can override where needed.
 
Look, tynopik is either a fool or he's trolling -- I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and call him a troll.

Intentionally crashing a plane happened BEFORE reinforced cockpit doors and have now happened after reinforced cockpit doors. We will see the 2-person rule go into effect everywhere and that will reduce but not eliminate these events.

What is also likely to happen is more comprehensive and frequent mental screening and this may reduce the chance of something like this happening but will not prevent it.

Even without reinforced cockpit doors a pilot could still crash the plane by simply performing a maneuver that causes the place to crash. Even with two pilots at the control a pilot could quickly yank the stick/yoke at the wrong time and there would be no way for the other pilot to recover in time. Landing and takeoff have little margin for deviation from the proper actions.

So, I'd just ignore the troll...


Brian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top