Slashdot Mirror

The proposed solution is a long term solution for large aircraft capable of causing damage to high value targets such as nuclear power plants etc.

It is feasible to eventually equip all large aircraft with a suitable set of navigation systems.

I smell a scam on the Department of Homeland Insecurity money pile.

BTW - The proposal predates 9/11, see Peter Huber, Cleared To Land, Forbes Magazine, March 18, 1991, pg 130

I work for Professor Lee, who independently came up with the idea of Soft Walls on the night of 9/11/01 and gave a lecture about the idea to the UC Berkeley EECS 20 Signals and Systems undergraduate class.

One Masters student, Adam Cataldo, might have received some funding from NASA or someone to do research in this area. Adam finished up in December 2003. Currently, the Soft Walls research is not directly funded, though the Center for Hybrid and Embedded Software Systems funds work on the Ptolemy Project which has been used as a software laboratory to simulate the Soft Walls.

I just don't see the Snake Oil here.

What I do find really interesting is that most software engineers have a real gut level reaction to this proposal. I'm a very sceptical person by nature and have raised many points concerning Soft Walls with Professor Lee and seen many other people raise similar points. I think the The Soft Walls FAQ (PDF) has done a reasonable job answering these questions.

The Soft Walls proposal is a long term proposal that is not something to be done lightly. Like many research ideas, it may seem far fetched at first, but the process of analyzing the proposal yields many interesting avenues of thought and future research in software verification and reliability. A better solution would be to simply require transponders to be enabled which would allow the ground to see what is happening.

Interesting idea, ,and one that could be implemented much more quickly than Soft Walls.

So, when the plane entered restricted airspace, I guess jet fighters would be scrambled and if they caught up to the plane it might be blown up? Should every high value target (nuke plant, oil refinery, small city) have an air base or anti-air craft missile batteries near by?

During 9/11, my understanding is that the transponders were disabled so it was harder to find the planes, so the transponders would need to always be on (not a big problem).

Having uninterruptible transponders brings up some of the same issues that remote control from the ground has. The The Soft Walls FAQ (PDF) says:

13. Wouldn't control from the ground be preferable?

It is technically possible to control aircraft from the ground. Northrop Grumann's Global Hawk aircraft is an unoccupied air vehicle (UAV) that is controlled from the ground. It flies without a pilot, and played a significant role in the recent Afghan and Iraq wars. Northrop Grumann has argued that the control system of Global Hawk could be adapted to permit controllers on the ground to take over an airplane and fly it safely to landing.

While technically feasible, this approach is probably more complex than Soft Walls, and it opens new vulnerabilities. For one, it creates the possibility of a hijacking from the ground, which suggests that sites equipped to take over aircraft would require serious protection, and personnel with access would be have to be severely vetted. Moreover, it creates a truly scary prospect of a wholesale hijacking of an entire fleet.

A second problem is that communication delays and lack of visibility into conditi

Of course, you should be warned that Huber's bias may run counter to that of the posted article: his book Galileo's Revenge is argued to lie at the heart of the Daubert ruling.

Is there something going around that prevents people from putting proper hyperlinks in their posts? Are people just lazy or what?

Peter Huber (engineering PHD from MIT; law degree from Harvard) has an interesting book out that deals with this issue:

http://www.phuber.com/huber/js/js.htm

You may also find interesting materials on his web site:

http://www.phuber.com/


"Oh, the tragedy of math gone wrong. I can't even talk about it." -Wil Wheaton http://www.wilwheaton.net

Peter Huber (engineering PHD from MIT; law degree from Harvard) has an interesting book out that deals with this issue:

http://www.phuber.com/huber/js/js.htm

You may also find interesting materials on his web site:

http://www.phuber.com/


"Oh, the tragedy of math gone wrong. I can't even talk about it." -Wil Wheaton http://www.wilwheaton.net

I remember to have read about this topic in a fascinating book by Peter Huber, engineer, lawyer and insightful writer.

The book is titled "Orwell's Revenge, The 1984 Palimpsest", and, amazingly, its text is freely available here.

Go ahead and read it (240 pages). Much better than the article.

I remember to have read about this topic in a fascinating book by Peter Huber, engineer, lawyer and insightful writer.

The book is titled "Orwell's Revenge, The 1984 Palimpsest", and, amazingly, its text is freely available here.

Go ahead and read it (240 pages). Much better than the article.