fly18725

I think that people with direct experience in aviation are saying that while your solution sounds simple, it is actually very complex. Aviation is so safe because everything is designed and certified for a roughly one in a billion probability of failure. Even the most simple change, like a new type of light bulb, can’t be quickly implemented by an airline.

The tough question here is whether this type of rare event (unauthorized use by an approved employee) needs to be protected against or if it is significantly rare.

the phoenix

Zorak

Or maybe they reached a point where it was easier to just give you what you wanted than to try to keep reasoning with you.

Ok, boss.

LarryJ

Taxiing an airplane isn't that difficult. You look out the windows and don't run into things.

twitch76

EmailKid

bingo!

economyplusfan

In portions of the ATC communications there is a constant "ding" going off in the Q400 cockpit, I presume an alarm. Does anyone know what this is? BTW, my heart goes out to the family of this guy.

jrl767

djp98374

If passengers were boarding the flight I don't think he would have been able to get control since PAX aren't allowed on the plane without the pilots on the plane

I have been on planes continuing thru where there was a crew change (on Southwest and other airlines like American and delta) and I had to exit the plane

djp98374

I agree you could have a pilot slide in an encrypted badge into a slot to be able to turn on the aircraft would be an easy solution

tusphotog

Except airplanes don't have "real" keys. Boeing, however, does provide a key when a plane is delivered.

Taking off is easy too. Go fast, pull up. And I guess make sure the brakes are released.

Master caution.

ATOBTTR

To piggyback on this the reality is that the acceptable level of risk is driven by economics, conveniences, and costs. It's easy from a behind a computer screen to say "you can't worry about that - safety and security must be paramount" without having to factor the other things in, but that's not how it works in reality and thus an "acceptable level of risk" is also balance with cost and convenience. For example, and as an extreme to perhaps absurd example, we could likely all but eliminate traffic deaths (at least to people in the automobile) by lowering the speed limits on all roads to 15 mph, as accidents at this speed, combined with vehicle safety standards, are very unlikely to result in many deaths to passengers in the vehicle. Of course, people will not tolerate this due to the inconvenience and time costs incurred by only being able to drive 15 mph. Thus whether people have realized it or not, they have accepted a risk of the increased dangers of driving at a higher speed as a trade off for time savings. Any solution implemented (if any) will have to be balanced with economics and convenience.

In fairness to bitterprofit (which can't be said of some others throughout this thread), at least bitterprofit recognizes there are things he/she doesn't know and is willing to be open to feedback. But otherwise I do agree that yes, "simple sounding solutions" to those who don't or haven't dealt with aircraft operations on a day to day basis or are not familiar with the security procedures already in place or just who has access to the cockpit on a regular basis and why may not realize why "simple solutions" aren't actually practical or as easily implemented due to the complexities and realities of aircraft operations.

twitch76

ATOBTTR

Is the key unique to each aircraft/cockpit door? If so, then this makes things messy how do you get a unique key to each pilot, given that pilots may fly multiple aircraft in a day and pilots obviously don't fly every day. Is the key universal? Well, this is why it's pretty easy to steal a golf cart if one wanted. Is there going to be a station at each airport (or at least major airports with crew bases) where keys are passed out and collected to the pilots and those needing access to the flight deck?

And even if one goes the passcode route, what about authorized personnel who have a passcode? That's the thing with this "simple solution" - this is a guy who was authorized to be on an aircraft and possibly in the flight deck as part of his job (and he was part of a tow team in which even if he wasn't, other crew were accessing the flight deck while he was doing his role). I don't know what kind of "video game" set-up this guy had at home where he practiced his stick-and-rudder skills that he referenced while flight around but this guy knew a lot about the plane and how to operate other aspects of it that indicate he was either someone who operated this stuff previously as part of his job, observed others do it as part of their job, or had a simulator at home that was far more advanced than a video game. This guy knew not only knew how to start the engines, but also other functions such as how to operate the aircraft radios. Is this passcode/electronic door lock going to be wired into the aircraft electronics so that based on who enters the passcode, the aircraft then knows whether its a pilot who is authorized to fly the plane and will allow all functions versus a ground crew member who doesn't and thus block out those functions from being performed? (See why this solution might not be quite so "simple"?)

elCheapoDeluxe

Actually, putting a parking "boot" on the landing gear wouldn't be a bad solution. Or at least some sort of lock that the pilot had to release while on his/her walkaround. Because this boot would not go up with the plane, there really would be no likelihood of adverse consequences in-flight. Put dual-locks on that puppy - one "pilot" key and one "ground" key. Even if all of the keys were not unique, it would require gaining access to two keys to move.