Hacker News Reader

Comment by yaeger | Hacker News Reader

I think this whole thing could have been prevented if only the tracking systems could not have been turned off manually.

Why is that even possible? An oversight? If you think about just how many liberties we passengers had to give up after 9/11 worldwide, why was this still there? We can't take any liquids on board anymore but if the pilot wants, he can make the plane disappear at will? Yeah, the liquid thing was really the only security risk here...

Imho, tracking of planes should never be able to be turned off. Why should it? Could there ever be a situation were it would be vital to have these systems not running?

View on HN

>>but if the pilot wants, he can make the plane disappear at will?

The pilot is the captain of the airship and can take any decision deemed necessary for the safety of the aircraft and its passengers and that decision is final(this is actually defined in the airspace law, would need to look for a quote). That means that the pilot has to have the ability to turn off any and all electrical parts of the aircraft if that would ensure its safety(in case of a fire). That power cannot and should not be taken away from the pilot - you don't want a plane crash due to a fire which couldn't have been put out because the burning thing was always-on due to some regulations.

I don't know about international aviation law, but in the U.S. the text is: 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command. (a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft. (b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

This does not mean pilots can break rules as long as they make sure to do so safely, but if a situation is unsafe they may break all rules necessary to make it safe again. Furthermore, pilots are required to inform ATC of any deviations they made from the regs or ATC instructions (of course this is one of the rules they're allowed to break if making such a radio call would be unsafe). Again, this is only for the U.S., but other countries do tend to look us for how to do aviation safety.

> I think this whole thing could have been prevented if only the tracking systems could not have been turned off manually.

This was already answered several days ago. All electrical equipment has to be able to be switched off - there were cases where fires started in planes because electrical circuits could not be cut.

In the case of the radar transponder there is the very prosaic reason that ATC doesn't want their screen filled with all the aircraft sitting at gates.

There are legitimate reasons to have a manual on/off switch:

1. In case of electrical failure to extend battery charges for 2-way communication.

2. If the device goes nuts and is better off.

3. To be turned off so that it doesn't interfere with a backup transponder.

Could missiles ever be targeted on the transponder beacon? I could imagine that it is preferable to turn off such beacons when landing/taking off from near war zones or when the terrorist threat is very high.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com