Could an Emergency Remote Control of a Commercial Aircraft prevented this weeks mass murder?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Put a fail safe device that only lets auto-pilot be disengaged when both the co-pilot and pilot are there in their seat.
Like the car seats or mowers have as a safety device.

a reply to: Connman

Good idea, unless of course one pilot overpowers the other, then bingo, he is back in sole control again

Maybe, if you are a pilot, you have to agree with your airline that all medical records/doctors reports are submitted to said airline company for immediate review. I know that goes against medical privacy, but if you are in charge of an aircraft, maybe thats something that has to be done. That said, it doesn't stop the pilots from never going to a doctor to report anything in the first place

a reply to: nelloh62

Ok that pretty much almost can't be done away with. But it can be seriously made harder but not without bringing other safety issues into play. No matter what there will always be risk but it can be made near impossible.

Also got to remember why there is a copilot in-case say the pilot faints heart attack whatever. But the main issue is neither should leave the cabin in flight.could always put a barrier up separating the two.

I wonder if the victims of 9/11 would support this idea. a reply to: vonclod

a reply to: Connman

I think we all pretty much agree we have to keep the cabin away from terrorists,and the only way to do that is keep it locked. Which leaves us at the mercy of the pilots in control. Now I dont know what the percentage is of nutjob pilots gaining control / flights per year, but the odds must be pretty low.

a reply to: w8tn4it

I'm sorry it's just not feasible..nice thought but open to far more problems then it might solve.
Try as you might but you cannot prevent everything.

a reply to: HarryJoy

But how do you stop suicidal aircrew from hitting big red button in the middle of crossing the sea

a reply to: nelloh62

Well if they did at least the plane should land intact and able to deploy the life rafts that would otherwise never be used..

It is good idea. But better idea is to both pilots stay in cockpit for whole travel. Polish comercial lines make that, and order piltos to fly only when 2 pilots are on board (cockpit).


but... I see a big fail in Your plan. Imagine, you have NOW 10 000 planes in the air. How You would control all of them?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes that´s true but he´s still in the room and can do something against it.

a reply to: verschickter

EgyptAir 990 the captain was back in his seat almost immediately and fought to save the aircraft. The relief captain fought against him. End result was hitting the water in a vertical dive.

can a plane be landed by remote control with a reasonable chance of success?

Since I'm here and we're talking about potential safety features... Heres an idea i had a long time ago... probably would not work, but, here goes...

Why not have a giant parachute on the roof of the plane that can be deployed in an emergency so the plane can have a softer crash landing? And inflatable airbags around the sides so it will float in water?

Or maybe two somewhat giant but not as giant parachutes, one in the front, one in the back.

And maybe a third in the back that works like stock car chutes to slow forward movement?

That is all.

a reply to: 3n19m470

UAVs are every day.

a reply to: 3n19m470

That is what my earlier post was about and I ended up removing it... because I had suggested having a big red panic button that would be available to a number of crew members. When the big red button was pushed it would kill the engines by activating fuel shut off solenoids on each engine and then a pair of ballistic chutes would be deployed to slow down the plane followed by second explosion ( once plane has slowed sufficiently )that releases first small chutes and launches large recovery chutes ( that way chutes don't tangle ). It could even be set up to deploy airbags under the aircraft to soften landing and provide flotation..

I didn't remove the post because I thought it was a bad idea. I guess I just thought it sounded a little too crazy for most people to accept. But I do think it is the best and most fail safe type of system. Btw Cirrus aircraft already have ballistic recovery chutes as standard equipment on their small planes. It is proven technology on that scale...I don't think it would be too hard to modify for large aircraft. But...it would add some expense and decrease the planes passenger carrying capacity...by a few passengers.

a reply to: HarryJoy

Small aircraft already use a parachute recovery system. The problem with big aircraft is that the parachute would have to be almost as big as the aircraft, and would add a huge weight penalty they couldn't afford.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I guess I was editing to add as you were responding with the same points....well you know what they say about great minds !! Good timing. I do think ballistic recovery chutes are great but yes it would added weight and expense.

a reply to: HarryJoy

The 777 already has engines rated at over 100,000 pounds of thrust each, and on hot days airlines in the Middle East already have to limit weight just so they can get airborne. This would cut it even more.

I'd love to see a 777 floating under a parachute just for the WTF value though.