German-Wings Copilot "one of us"?

At 12:48 30 March 2015, Mike Schumann wrote:

Since 9/11 the threat has changed. There hasn't been a successful
Hijackin=
g yet (except by pilots). Every attempt has been blocked by an immediate
r=
esponse by the crew and passengers to subdue to bad guy(s). The need for
s=
ecure cockpit doors has passed.

No it has not. Unauthorised access to the flight deck is still the greater
threat, still is potentially more harmful and more likely than any of the
other problems which occur in flight. The current incident is rare, very
rare as is a mechanical failure or mistake by the flight crew resulting in
a crash. The only reason there are fewer hi-jackings is that it has been
made too difficult.

On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 2:30:05 AM UTC+13, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 12:48 30 March 2015, Mike Schumann wrote:

Since 9/11 the threat has changed. There hasn't been a successful
Hijackin=
g yet (except by pilots). Every attempt has been blocked by an immediate
r=
esponse by the crew and passengers to subdue to bad guy(s). The need for
s=
ecure cockpit doors has passed.

No it has not. Unauthorised access to the flight deck is still the greater
threat, still is potentially more harmful and more likely than any of the
other problems which occur in flight. The current incident is rare, very
rare as is a mechanical failure or mistake by the flight crew resulting in
a crash. The only reason there are fewer hi-jackings is that it has been
made too difficult.

I agree with Mike Schumann. Passengers will never again allow hijackers to take over and kill them. The armoured cockpit door is unnecessary.

Worse than that, it is harmful.

There have been half a dozen crashes in the last 15 years cause by pilots going rogue. Just a year ago there was (most likely) MH370.

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 07:51:26 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:

There have been half a dozen crashes in the last 15 years cause by
pilots going rogue. Just a year ago there was (most likely) MH370.

I can only think of one very probable (German Wings[*]) and one possible
(MH370). Can you give references for the rest?
[*] AFAIK the only evidence so far is from the cockpit voice recorder,
reporting that nothing was said inside the cockpit during the descent or
that terrain proximity warnings were triggered. So at present, I'm not
inclined to accept that as more than very probable cause until data from
the hardware monitoring black box(es) confirm intentional control use and/
or that the terrain proximity warning was disarmed. One report had words
to the effect that 'the autopilot was reset from 38,000 ft to 100 ft' but
I've not seen anything to show this is anything but some reporter's
imagination.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

At 16:47 30 March 2015, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 07:51:26 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:

There have been half a dozen crashes in the last 15 years cause by
pilots going rogue. Just a year ago there was (most likely) MH370.

I can only think of one very probable (German Wings[*]) and one possible
(MH370). Can you give references for the rest?

[*] AFAIK the only evidence so far is from the cockpit voice recorder,
reporting that nothing was said inside the cockpit during the descent or
that terrain proximity warnings were triggered. So at present, I'm not
inclined to accept that as more than very probable cause until data from
the hardware monitoring black box(es) confirm intentional control use
and/
or that the terrain proximity warning was disarmed. One report had words
to the effect that 'the autopilot was reset from 38,000 ft to 100 ft' but

I've not seen anything to show this is anything but some reporter's
imagination.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Martin,
Have a look at the flightradar 24 forum,
http://forum.flightradar24.com/threa...lysed-the-raw-
data-from-the-transponder-of-4U9525-and-found-some-more-data
They detail how this was found and have also released the raw data so
anyone can check it.
Ben.

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 17:05:44 +0000, Benedict Smith wrote:

At 16:47 30 March 2015, Martin Gregorie wrote:
I've not seen anything to show this is anything but some reporter's
imagination.

Have a look at the flightradar 24 forum,
http://forum.flightradar24.com/threa...lysed-the-raw-
data-from-the-transponder-of-4U9525-and-found-some-more-data They detail
how this was found and have also released the raw data so anyone can
check it.
Ben.

Thanks for that.

I didn't know that Mode S would carry that sort of data: presumably its
there as a way to spot a fat-fingered an altitude change setting.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 12:56:07 PM UTC-7, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 17:05:44 +0000, Benedict Smith wrote:

At 16:47 30 March 2015, Martin Gregorie wrote:
I've not seen anything to show this is anything but some reporter's
imagination.

Have a look at the flightradar 24 forum,
http://forum.flightradar24.com/threa...lysed-the-raw-
data-from-the-transponder-of-4U9525-and-found-some-more-data They detail
how this was found and have also released the raw data so anyone can
check it.
Ben.

Thanks for that.

I didn't know that Mode S would carry that sort of data: presumably its
there as a way to spot a fat-fingered an altitude change setting.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

That Airbus had CPDLC and ADS. That gives the European controlers the ability to "See" exactly what is set in the FMC and I believe the MCP. And I seriously doubt it was Fat-fingered to descend to that low altitude. I am fairly certain that the conclusion of the investigators is what happened.

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:19:55 -0700, lloydbanks220921 wrote:

On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 12:56:07 PM UTC-7, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 17:05:44 +0000, Benedict Smith wrote:

At 16:47 30 March 2015, Martin Gregorie wrote:
I've not seen anything to show this is anything but some reporter's
imagination.

Have a look at the flightradar 24 forum,
http://forum.flightradar24.com/threa...lysed-the-raw-
data-from-the-transponder-of-4U9525-and-found-some-more-data They
detail how this was found and have also released the raw data so
anyone can check it.
Ben.

Thanks for that.

I didn't know that Mode S would carry that sort of data: presumably its
there as a way to spot a fat-fingered an altitude change setting.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |

That Airbus had CPDLC and ADS. That gives the European controlers the
ability to "See" exactly what is set in the FMC and I believe the MCP.
And I seriously doubt it was Fat-fingered to descend to that low
altitude. I am fairly certain that the conclusion of the investigators
is what happened.

I didn't mean to suggest that it was, especially as there don't seem to
have been any altitude change requests sent by either pilot or ATC: more
that, with the close stacked enroute clearances currently in use it would
be sensible for ATC to cause the system to read back what was actually
set if they'd asked the pilot to change altitude.

However, Don's reference to MH370 and one of the causes that has been put
forward for that crash does suggest a more benign reason for the A320's
altitude change: if the pilot became anoxic, realised a bit too late and
lost conciousness while he was lowering the cruise altitude, mis-setting
it as a result.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 12:56:07 PM UTC-7, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 17:05:44 +0000, Benedict Smith wrote:

At 16:47 30 March 2015, Martin Gregorie wrote:
I've not seen anything to show this is anything but some reporter's
imagination.

Have a look at the flightradar 24 forum,
http://forum.flightradar24.com/threa...lysed-the-raw-
data-from-the-transponder-of-4U9525-and-found-some-more-data They detail
how this was found and have also released the raw data so anyone can
check it.
Ben.

Thanks for that.

I didn't know that Mode S would carry that sort of data: presumably its
there as a way to spot a fat-fingered an altitude change setting.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

/*acronym alert */

Mode-S in a sufficiently configured aircraft will reply to UF20 (uplink format 20) request for different BDS (Binary Data Store) register contents, like in this case a BDS register containing vertical intent (aka A/P altitude select) data. You will only see those replies from the aircraft when the ground based Mode-S interrogator asks for it, typically as part of a Mode-S EHS (Enhanced Surveillance) facility. EHS like this is is used in many locations in Europe, Unfortunately not used in the USA.

Mode S can potentially transmit a lot of detail about a suitably configured aircraft and it's operation. Another example is that Mode-S is used as part of TCAS-II to coordinate TCAS-II resolution advisories between two TCAS-II equipped aircraft (so for example both don't get told to climb into each other). Those Mode-S broadcasts can be monitored from the ground and controllers (at least in principle) alerted to an aircraft's TCAS-II system issuing a RAs.

Even Mode-S transponders used in gliders, like the Trig TT-21 and TT-22 are Level 2 transponders and so will can reply to UF20 requests, but the Vertical Intent register won't contain data...

The data that ADS-B actually transmits also comes from (different) BDS registers (containing just basic aircraft specs, pressure altitude and GPS data), but is relatively limited and certainly does not include the Vertical Intent data.

A good article is at http://defenseelectronicsmag.com/sit.../512RFDSF3.pdf

On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 5:48:37 AM UTC+13, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 07:51:26 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:

There have been half a dozen crashes in the last 15 years cause by
pilots going rogue. Just a year ago there was (most likely) MH370.

I can only think of one very probable (German Wings[*]) and one possible
(MH370). Can you give references for the rest?

You can easily google a number of articles. Here's one from before MH370

http://www.ibtimes.com/pilot-suicide...-plane-1519756



[*] AFAIK the only evidence so far is from the cockpit voice recorder,
reporting that nothing was said inside the cockpit during the descent or
that terrain proximity warnings were triggered. So at present, I'm not
inclined to accept that as more than very probable cause until data from
the hardware monitoring black box(es) confirm intentional control use and/
or that the terrain proximity warning was disarmed. One report had words
to the effect that 'the autopilot was reset from 38,000 ft to 100 ft' but
I've not seen anything to show this is anything but some reporter's
imagination.

I've previous reported here that this was shown by Mode S data automatically received and stored (as they do for every flight in the world within range) by the FlightRadar24.com web site. Are you suggesting that FlightRadar24 have falsified the data for some reason?

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 19:34:25 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:


http://www.ibtimes.com/pilot-suicide...n-who-crashes-
plane-1519756

And what did the official accident report show?

I've previous reported here that this was shown by Mode S data
automatically received and stored (as they do for every flight in the
world within range) by the FlightRadar24.com web site. Are you
suggesting that FlightRadar24 have falsified the data for some reason?

I'd forgotten you mentioned that: the item I found didn't say how the
setting change was known outside the aircraft. The main black boxes still
haven't been found according to anything I've seen heard or read so far.

But that's only one crash: where are the official reports for the other
16 you identify? Newspaper reports don't count.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |