Airbus A320

[earl1937]

What Earl did is known as 'concern trolling'.  It is where something without data to support it is put out there as a question when it really comes across as idea pushing, without supporting evidence.  This is very common on the internet and media nowadays.  I am not saying Earl intended it in that way, but that is effectively what the OP was.

  I flew behind a Collins FD-109 for a lot of years! As great as it was during that time frame, when it came to ILS below 600/quarter mile RVR, I hand flew the aircraft all the way down.
The one thing I have not seen mentioned here is the pilot in the left seat's attitude about "staying" alive, which is just as great as mine, about staying alive and if he has had the proper training over the years to obtain that left seat position, my odds of staying alive are better than with "George".
I am not saying that Cat III landings are not safe, but with all the electronic signals floating around in this atmosphere which the aircraft operate in, there is always that chance that something will interfere with the information needed to land safely.
But the pilot has much more information to make a decision with than the computer, experience, training, instincts, two eye's to evaluate what is happening, and the ability to push the thrust levers up with any doubt about continuing the landing approach.   

[Zimme83]

Ever heard about spacial disorientaton? Humans fails Flying in IMC far more often than a computer

[Puma44]

Ever heard about spacial disorientaton? Humans fails Flying in IMC far more often than a computer

Is this an attempt to drive the discussion off into the ditch? 

Anyone who has recieved formal pilot training has been introduced to and trained in regared to spatial disorientation.  If you are a trained pilot, provide the verifiable statistics to prove your statement.  If you are not a trained pilot, you are either making up it for some as yet unknown reason or regurgitating less than accurate information from some uneducated source.  Regardless, your statement is wrong and most certainly misleading to readers who don't know better.

[Zimme83]

There are a lot of accidents due to spacail disorientation. Of course training helps pilots handling it but humans still fails far more often than the auto pilot.

[Puma44]

There are a lot of accidents due to spacail disorientation. Of course training helps pilots handling it but humans still fails far more often than the auto pilot.

So, you aren't going to answer the previous question and continue to go off in a different direction.  How do you know that humans fail more often than autopilots?

[Zimme83]

1. I didnt started this "superhuman is always better than any computers"
2. crash stastistic support it

[Puma44]

1. I didnt started this "superhuman is always better than any computers"
2. crash stastistic support it

Crash statistics don't support your statements.  Point being, if you're going to make the statement, back it up with facts, which you don't have.

[Zimme83]

  noone have ever backed anything up with fact here.
Spacial disorientation is a very common cause of aviation accident. Of cource training helps pilots to prevent it but there have still been a casue of several airliner crashes.

Btw, Since im deaf on one ear i cannot get a medical to get a Instrument rating but i have been trained in instrument flying and i have experienced how the body can react without a horizon to look at. Its a very strange feeling when your body tells u that u are turning but the intruments says you are level. I understand perfectly well why so many have problem with trusting their instruments in such contition.

[bustr]

Speaking of Star Trek and automation. Star Trek at least has a solution for a scenario of this kind. A backup bridge access terminal where the captain or ranking officer can over ride the main bridge and issue new orders to the auto pilot system. Yet we saw in many episodes of Next Generation the backup bridge being hacked or infiltrated to do harm to the ship.

If you are going to rely on computers for so much, then the current implementation is proving itself to be a suicide pact with a single localized point of control. Literally......

The next step is to introduce an access terminal outside of the cabin for this type of situation along with allowing override from the ground and a drone pilot taking control. Even a backup cabin where the captain fly's the airliner like the drone pilot would using a laptop. Now you have multiple ways to get around that suicide pact while opening a new playground to hackers who can hijack an airliner from their mom's basement or a tent in a hot sandy place.

But, you got your computer control and automation to protect passengers from human error and suicide pacts. 

[Mister Fork]

GETTING BACK ON TARGET HERE... get out of the way ICEMAN.

A better question is this - why wouldn't the pilot or copilot have a code or a key to open a locked cockpit door?  I know why we have the doors locked - but the better question after the loss of 150 lives - was it really worth it having cockpit doors reinforced so that it not only keeps out bad people, but good people too?  I thought there is a way for keypad entry with an emergency code access that unlocks the door for 5 seconds?

Bigger picture question - is this whole notion of airline security so warped that it is now it's own worst enemy? What do you guys think?

[Puma44]

GETTING BACK ON TARGET HERE... get out of the way ICEMAN.

 I thought there is a way for keypad entry with an emergency code access that unlocks the door for 5 seconds?

There was a new report on TV last week that showed a photo of the Airbus exterior door entry keypad used to re-enter the cockpit.  Also shown was a photo of the door control panel in the cockpit.  It showed a position to select in order to disable and lock out the exterior panel in the event an unauthorized entry attempt.

[Lusche]

  I thought there is a way for keypad entry with an emergency code access that unlocks the door for 5 seconds?

Yes, but the pilot inside the cockpit can actively block that for 5 minutes at a time each - probably to prevent someone from using an extorted code.

[Puma44]

There was a new report on TV last week that showed a photo of the Airbus exterior door entry keypad used to re-enter the cockpit.  Also shown was a photo of the door control panel in the cockpit.  It showed a position to select in order to disable and lock out the exterior panel in the event an unauthorized entry attempt.

[FTJR]

I am not saying that Cat III landings are not safe, but with all the electronic signals floating around in this atmosphere which the aircraft operate in, there is always that chance that something will interfere with the information needed to land safely.
But the pilot has much more information to make a decision with than the computer, experience, training, instincts, two eye's to evaluate what is happening, and the ability to push the thrust levers up with any doubt about continuing the landing approach.

Earl, when Cat II and Cat III operations are in use the whole airport operates to an even higher standard than usual. In particular no vehicles or planes are allowed in the protected zone. They are "very" careful about inadvertent interference with the landing systems.

We train to  20' decision height, 100 metres visibility. Basically if the plane can handle it, it we let it do the job, if the little red light flashes, you push the levers up and get out of dodge.

[pembquist]

It took a little while for all the chatter about this to kick the old brain into action, but I finally remembered the fedex suicide attempt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Express_Flight_705