Frankly, I would be prepared to pay whatever costs are necessary to make civil airliners as safe as they can possibly be. I think society as a whole has started taking air travel far too much for granted, as if it was some kind of right rather than a luxury.

All speculation at the moment, but I really hope this isn't the case. I was kind of hoping the cabin was depressurised so those poor people were passed out, but it seems increasingly likely everyone was awake and knew what was happening. What a horrible way to go. 

Too expensive and would only last until the 3rd person tried to bring the plane down...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Express_Flight_705

 pretty unlikely anyone would have access to a hammer on a passenger flight with today's level of screening

The purpose of that, as it is here in the US, is to prevent the bathroom pilot from being locked out if the flightdeck pilot suffers an incapacitation. It was not instituted with deliberate crashes in mind. There is nothing that can stop a deliberate act.

 

Where did I refer to a deliberate act. Anyway if they are two people in the cockpit the likelihood of a deliberate act is reduced?

This thread is about a deliberate act. You posted in it. It's going to be read in that context.

pretty unlikely anyone would have access to a hammer on a passenger flight with today's level of screening

There's an axe in the cockpit.

A flightdeck crew of three would dramatically increase the safety of flights, but it won't come for the same three reasons no other aircraft except the Boeing 787 currently has a safe air conditioning/pressurization system (think "fume events") - 1. money, 2. cost, and 3. profit.

All speculation at the moment, but I really hope this isn't the case. I was kind of hoping the cabin was depressurised so those poor people were passed out, but it seems increasingly likely everyone was awake and knew what was happening. What a horrible way to go.

Hope usually gets trumped easily by facts. The early facts showed a cfit. It was difficult for me to fit an incapacitation scenario to the way that plane cfit into the mountain. That is why my first post in this thread tried to dispell the incapacitation notion.

Awful events. If the passengers/crew were conscious and aware the aircraft was descending, and that the pilot was unable to access the cockpit, I wonder if any of them attempted calls to anyone from aboard the aircraft in its final minutes?

Looks like he set 100ft in the MCP.  :(

 

Flightradar24, which tracks flight around the world found that the ships' autopilot was "manually changed from 38,000 to 100 ft at 09:30:55."

 

Link

This thread is about a deliberate act. You posted in it. It's going to be read in that context.

 

There's an axe in the cockpit.

But kind of takes the element of surprise away when the 3rd crew member stands up and goes for the axe. Im not sure how the axe is released but Im guessing its not just lifted off a shelf

 

There would need to be a set rules eg the observer must be seated and in view of the pilot whilst the co pilot is in the toilet. The autopilot must be engaged etc etc. Its doable but the cost will be the over riding factor

There have been reports of people on the plane screaming before it impacted the mountain (as per the CVR).

 

And also reports that mobile phones can hardly be used in that area, especially at higher flight levels.

The real solution, which we are already headed towards, is towards a pilotless passenger aircraft.

 

Controlled by whom or what though? Totally automated isn't going to happen and whilst there is a human element controlling an aircraft there will be an ability to deliberately crash it. Just because the said individual isn't on the aircraft in question (and therefore it isn't 'suicide') doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

But kind of takes the element of surprise away when the 3rd crew member stands up and goes for the axe. Im not sure how the axe is released but Im guessing its not just lifted off a shelf

 

There would need to be a set rules eg the observer must be seated and in view of the pilot whilst the co pilot is in the toilet. The autopilot must be engaged etc etc

I'm not going to go into the details of where the axe is and all that. But suffice it's not hard, the observer would have easy access. Of course that can be changed by an engineering order. But this crash is a case of collusion. An insider with access had malicious intent. Even if there was an observer, there is nothing to prevent the observer and the flying pilots to be in collusion to crash the plane. It is very difficult if not impossible to stop collusion. And you've just introduced another element of risk into each cockpit each flight by adding a third person.

Controlled by whom or what though? Totally automated isn't going to happen and whilst there is a human element controlling an aircraft there will be an ability to deliberately crash it. Just because the said individual isn't on the aircraft in question (and therefore it isn't 'suicide') doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

The technology is easily available. Think uav. I agree total automation may never happen. But not due to technology limits. But rather liability. Boeing and Airbus would be foolish to build a plane where the crash cannot be blamed on pilot error. But to have a plane that can be controlled from a central ground station, with an onboard human backup, is easily attainable with today's uav technology.

The technology is easily available. Think uav. I agree total automation may never happen. But not due to technology limits. But rather liability. Boeing and Airbus would be foolish to build a plane where the crash cannot be blamed on pilot error. But to have a plane that can be controlled from a central ground station, with an onboard human backup, is easily attainable with today's uav technology.

 

Don't disagree with that in any way. My point is that it's not a solution, it just changes the problem slightly. No pilot on board makes it physically impossible for the 'pilot' (or whoever the person is that controls the aircraft remotely) to commit suicide and take everyone else with him/her. Instead it just means that someone that is mentally unstable can kill a plane load of people (if not more) without dying themselves. Is that any more/less likely to happen?

Don't disagree with that in any way. My point is that it's not a solution, it just changes the problem slightly. No pilot on board makes it physically impossible for the 'pilot' (or whoever the person is that controls the aircraft remotely) to commit suicide and take everyone else with him/her. Instead it just means that someone that is mentally unstable can kill a plane load of people (if not more) without dying themselves. Is that any more/less likely to happen?

Like I said earlier, nothing will stop collusion. If everybody in dispatch and atc want to crash that plane, no amount of technology can stop that. What you can do, is automate as much as possible, increase the visibility of actions, and distribute controllability so that the collusion required to act maliciously requires more and more participants. That increases the difficulty for a malicious act to succeed.