Slashdot Mirror
Protecting Cities from Hijacked Planes
Kong99 writes "A group at UC-Berkeley has proposed Soft Walls to stop hijacked planes from entering a protected airspace. Interesting read especially since they claim it is 'hack' proof."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I bet that would work pretty well, too.
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
That's what they all say..
--------
Free your mind.
This is a really cool idea. I'm all for it.
Just one concern...what's to stop the hijackers from busting the autopilot controls in the cockpit? I would think that it would be sensitive to bullets or repeated bashing. It's not like you need an autopilot when you're right next to a city, just point the nose and go. What kind of range should these no fly zones have, and what should be protocol for when an airport is in/next to a city?
Even if this process is hack-proof (yet to be seen), anything that forcibly takes control away from the pilot is going to be dangerous. What if the only way to avoid a mid-air collision is to bank into one of these "soft walls"?
Phoenix
How long until someone creates a "softwall" around LAX :)
Never claim anything is hack-proof if you don't want to get hacked.
Especially do not claim that safety-critical systems are hack-proof, since even people who wouldn't normally try to hack them will try.
It's like security through obscurity- in this case more like security through non-boasting. The same thing applies- it doesn't really make you more secure, but it stops a lot of people from trying.
graspee
The twin tower attack was a one-time thing; neither it nor anything like it will ever work again, especially after all the media attention and tactical commentary the attack received.
This is a solution to a problem which will never come up again in anything near the form it did. It's interesting to think about and expand our engineering knowhow with but it's worthless as a Real Solution to a Real Problem.
Because the system is not dependant on ground input.
So I suppose there was nobody in those 4 planes...
Gog
The sweetest part of this diagram: http://www.newscientist.com/misc/popup_ns.jsp?id=n s99993893F1 is that there's no other planes in the diagram. And this plane is steering itself away from an imaginary line... something to think about
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
Peace in the middle east would also solve a good portion of the problem (from an engineering perspective) and it doesn't cost millions of dollars. AND it is immune to hacking.
-n
When you have the case where for whatever reason the only way a plane can recover from something is t bank into a softwall and because of this overide it can't and crashes.
Don't even mention bugs!
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
What happens when they need to make an emergency landing and there's a "soft wall" around the best landing spot?
--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu
Just make the plane itself out of spongy foam. Hell, then it doesn't matter what it hits - no harm done!
Yeah *right*. Until someone rewires the controls to full manual.
They're proposing relying on a database/collection of no-fly zones -- is the implication here that these folks have found some way to make a given collection of information 100%, completely, totally, un-hackable? If so, I think they probably would have some other opportunites far more lucrative than in aircraft software...
Maybe you'd have to physically be aboard the plane to hack this system, but that in itself does not make it hack-proof.
Plane tries hard to fly into zone but soft walls keep it out
I'm sold!
-Lucas
It would make a lot more sense if this technology was applied to grounded vehicles first. A la BladeRunner, etc.
I don't think it sounds like a good idea to me. Allowing an automatic system to control the flight of an aircraft is just asking for trouble. The manual system, if designed and used properly could be much better.
They propose modifying the avionics in aircraft so that the plane would fight any efforts by the pilot to fly into restricted airspace
Somehow this makes me feel a little less safe. I know that so much of flying is electronically controlled now anyway, with autopilot and more, but the there still is the ability for the pilot to actively fly the plane if it becomes necessary, without the plane "fighting" him or here.
What if the terrorist attack came in a different way, and the pilot had to make "evasive maneuvors" (sp!) or something?
[SIG] It's like putting a moose in the blender -- a recipe for disaster!
Oh, I get it. Planes will have to use an evil bit if they plan on crashing into a skyscrapper or something.
.sig
It's basically like those wireless dog "fences" that work with radio transmitters and shock collars. Except instead of shocking it engages the autopilot away from cities.
Didn't they try this in the dark ages? Huge rivers that flowed around a castle? Are we now doing the modern equivalent? Huge wall around a city?
[Sarcasm]My what an evolution! [/sarcasm]
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Your sig claims you were "raised on the command line", well, I was CONCEIVED on the command line!
Yes, that's right, I'm the only child ever to be born from the unholy union of two lamers cyber-sexing on IRC!
graspee
Terrorist #2: Yes, I see we have. And it appears to be hack-proof. We cannot fly into it.
T1: Then let us simply turn off all electronics in the plane and coast into the target!
T2: You are infinitely smart! Now let us kill ourselves!
T1: YIPEE!
IAALS.
This reminds me of those dog collars that prevent one's pet from breaching a set boundary. Some emit painful shocks. Maybe they should consider making this "soft wall" zap the pilot if he violates a protected airspace... :-)
I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
So if a plane was flying with a no-fly-zone to he left, and the pilot started banking left to enter the zone, the avionics would counter by banking right. Lee's system, called "soft walls", would first gently resist the pilot, and then become increasingly forceful until it prevailed.
I can't say I like the idea of a computer having the final say over the direction of an airplane. Even if the intentions are good, pilots need to have the final say. Even Air Traffic Control can't force a maneuver on a pilot, if he or she thinks it is not safe.
In other words: I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't let you fly there.
I thought this was solved by NOT allowing curbside luggage check-in.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
If human history has taught us anything at all it should be perfectly obvious that nothing is "hack-proof". If there's any reason at all to find a way to accomplish something, get around some security, etc. then someone, somewhere will eventually figure it out. As a species it's one of our best tricks, and I really don't see us stopping anytime soon, and certainly not because it seems difficult or impossible now.
Behold the Power of Cheese!
The system would include an on-board database of the GPS coordinates of the no-fly zones. If it sensed an attempt to jam GPS signals it would switch to other navigation aids such as airport beacons. Being independent of ground control means soft walls would be immune to hacking
Wishful thinking or willful ignorance?
The database would have to be updated prior to each flight, because the zones would have to be flexible. Points of entry are the main database at each airport, the central database at some government facility, and of course every single aircraft participating in this. Factor in the execptions you know the congresscritters cannot avoid putting into any sort of regulatory legislation, like exemptions from participation from non-commercial planes of a certain size or smaller, and you have a system so full of holes that it would hardly be worth the cost.
This system is based on the assumption that the only things that would repond to the plane's on board GPS systems would be the GPS satellites in orbit...what would it take to make the GPS systems get their data from another plane broadcasting signals?
Is this completely impractical/impossible?
In other news, shipmakers have launched a new 'un-sinkable' ship today, and dubbed her 'The Titanic'...more to come...
-- p06 "On religious wars: They're essentially wars over whoo's imaginary friend is better"
I think they just need to locate the airplane spec and set autoclip=off.
There is NO such thing as a hack proof system. ...
There is NO such thing as a hack proof system.
There is NO such thing as a
Okay, the one possible exception is when the BRS is turned to OFF. It doesn't exist now and it never will. In fact, I would say that the fact that it is NOT ground-based makes it even MORE vulnerable. After all, get the plane in the sky, then commence with the hacking, right?
My journal has hot
...claiming something is "hack-proof", or claiming that something like the 9/11 attacks will never happen again.
The reality is that people are [still] regularly getting contraband through security checkpoints. Great, there are bars on the cockpit doors now, but I'm not willing to bet thousands of lives on that alone.
I personally doubt anyone will TRY this type of attack in the near future, but to claim it will never work again seems pretty bold.
Uhm... so what's preventing someone from taking a baseball bat or some coffee to the system? If the autopilot system is out of comission, it simply can't work...
Why settle for soft walls when you could encase a city in a 10-mile-high 20-foot-thick Plexiglass? It's worth a shot!
I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
Hmm... Suppose that a plane were somehow to take off with a database of no-fly zones that listed all of the airports within a 1000-mile radius of its destination? Suppose that an updated database is released that accidentally puts O'Hare in a no-fly zone, and it isn't discovered until planes start colliding with each other over Chicago? And what can be done to save a plane that has a corrupted database once it takes off? From the story, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! You're doomed, see ya later.
Nice system. I'll walk, thanks.
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
So, rather then take control of a an aircraft by sneaking weapons on board, fighting your way through the passengers (who will not sit idly by anymore) and breaking into a locked cabin, and finally giving up their own lives, They'll only have to hack into the system to redirect the plane into a building. And not just any plane, all of the planes.
Oh wait, it's 'hack proof'. Never mind then.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Think like a terrorist for a second, will you.
So what if you can't slam a plane into a building? Your only limits are your creativity.
If the airplane's softwall control can't be hacked, then perhaps the terorrists can make planes crash into things by guiding them with `pirate soft walls'. Or just making planes crash. I don't think terorriats are lla that picky and choosy.
This is dumb.
When will American politics wake up and address the injustices that are the real root of the terrorist problem?
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
h3r3'5 th3 3133t 10g1n/p455w0rd:
4ir1in3s/sux0rs
Would you want some one to be able to control your care by radio waves remotetly ?
It creates to mutch of a possibility for "terrorists" to <B>crack</B> into the onboard computer and fly you to were they want you to go.
The other id with an onboard gps and sectioned of areas , it would once again be controlled by a computer and to be quite frank at this point in time I would see it causing more crashes than saving lives because the pilots could not overide it. While some people may argue that alot of what pilots do now is auto pilot that is true , the most important reason to have a pilot there is so that they can override the computer when it fucks up because we all know that will happen.
1. Hijack plane.
2. Fly towards "softwall".
3. Kill power on plane (method not discussed in the interest of Homeland Security).
4. Can the "softwall" stop an unpowered (hence uncontrolled) plane (now a ballistic object)?
How about we just get the Gungan's to build us city shields? They were pretty...
...will just start hijacking something other than planes. We and our soft walls will look real stupid when terrorists start crashing into our buildings with Segways.
Left, right, left, right, up, down, up, down, left pedal, right pedal, barrel roll left, hit the autopilot button, and BLAMMO, the names of the dev team are scrolling over the inflight movie.
Sounds like a recipe for air sickness bag sales!
--
My other computer is your IIS server.
Airport security has been stepped up to the point where you can't fart without getting a cavity search. The passengers nowadays will fight a hijacker, and everyone will be on high alert if a plane veers off course. I don't think that having someone crash a plane into a football stadium is going to happen because we're now expecting it. Just like with 9/11 if somebody's going to do a massive attack on civilians it's going to be in a way that nobody expects. All the security checkpoints and super high tech crap in the world won't stop someone who really wants to do damage at a target. They'll find your greatest weakness and strike it when you last expect it to happen. All this soft wall BS is a little something extra to make Joe Sixpack feel safe so he can continue drooling all over himself. (Mod me as a troll, but it really is true.)
Yeah, it sounds interesting, but unless the plane carried an onboard 3d map of the entire world, this system could not be made completely secure. There would have to be some communication with the ground, and giving a ground controller the ability to influence a plane's movement is not a good thing.
Given the fact that it seems nearly impossible for commercial entities to release bug-free software, doesn't it worry anyone that we are beginning to place life-and-death decisions at the mercy of software? I mean, really, it used to be that killing someone involved a possessing a lethal weapon, but if this system is implemented, killing hundreds could be as simple as typing a few keystrokes...If anything, this system would make it easier not harder, for terrorists to kill people.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
The devil you say! Those darn whiny pilots and their "control" and their "not dying in screaming terror because their controls have beem r00t3d"!
I guess we'll find out on Sunday.
Do not read this sig.
How are they going to reach the airports that are so close to the city centers nowadays?
How far from the new your city center were those airports of new york again?
An EMP would disable all electronics, and radios, transponders, etc, but the hydraulic controls for the rudder/etc would still function.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Isn't this similar to what they already have for altitude control? From what I hear they already can't fly at mountains, the plane takes over and goes up. Sounds like the same thing to me....
D
The system would include an on-board database of the GPS coordinates of the no-fly zones I think maybe they meant the system would include an on-board database of geographic boundaries specified as either geo-polygons or geo-ellipses with latitude and longitude pairs. The GPS would be used to detect if the ship was near or inside these bounds. But hack proof? I'm not sure about that. But still, an excellent (and cheap) way to go. Great idea.
How about lets do something so that planes don't get hijacked in the first place?
Every Super Villan uses Linux.
Hack proof? So how will they protect the onboard database of no-fly zones?
What happens when a system failure of some sort causes the plane to start randomly seeing no-fly zones in the middle of the planned flight course?
What happens when a major system failure leaves the system believing that everywhere is a no-fly zone?
Why, when it's already a major if not impossible task to diagnose a fatal crash, should we submit to having one more system fighting for control of the plane (i.e. millions of additional variables when we try to figure out what happened)?
Great idea until someone needs to make an emergency landing on a C.D. Highway (Many Highways were required by law to have a certain amount of space that could be used as a landing strip) only to find the "Soft Wall" directs them into the orphanage next to the greyhound station where 2,000 nuns are loading up for their trip the the annual "Sisters of Mercy and free medical care division" convention.
And let's not get started on what being inside a "soft Wall" would do to properly values, and what being in the likely "Tried to hit the soft wall but ended up here" zone would do to the value of your property.
And who wants to be a whole slew of the wealthy will ante up to get their homes listed as being in a "Soft Wall"
And what about an out of date "Soft Wall" database that prevents a small plane from landing in a newly constructed airport?
And what about the manual override? There's ALWAYS a manual override. Just ask Riff.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
If I were a pilot, I would certainly not feel safe knowing that the plane will prevent me from entering certain airspace beyond my control. It's all well and good in theory... until the shit hits the fan.
Aside from the obvious risk of software problems (why is the plane trying to veer into that mountain?!) there's also the risk of unpredictable circumstances. What happens if some freaky weather condition needs we need to divert the flight path over a city to evade it etc.? Of course, the answer is to include an 'off' switch but then this defeats the whole point.
Also if it relies on GPS, would it not be possible to just jam the positioning signal from within the plane?
A clever(ish) idea but like a lot of ideas, just too impractical.
While this technology is theoretically interesting, it won't save the victims of the 9/11 FTC disaster. And the terrorists have been subdued--you only have to turn on CNN and see that Iraq is now safely under American (to say nothing of Christian) control.
Heh, get it? Well...it goes like this...
Run run run until you're like, really low on fuel.
Climb to 40Kft, right over Chicago.
Turn off engines (another just now idea) or circle until you fume out.
Uh, what then beavis?
Isn't that like magnets with like poles opposing each other?
in this scenario however, methinks the plane wins.
not a soft boom either.
It's just yet more knee-jerk reaction by people who get a warm fuzzy feeling from pretending they're doing something useful, when in reality they are just wasting time money and effort.
it's just another technological solution to a sociological problem. What's to stop someone from killing the wall operator and letting a plane in? what's to stop someone from just blowing up the computer center?
the only way to make people stop hijacking planes is to make them stop WANTING to hijack planes.
From the article:
Lee's system, called "soft walls", would first gently resist the pilot, and then become increasingly forceful until it prevailed.
My question is, why use any yoke feedback at all? All modern passenger planes are fly-by-wire, aren't they? Let the hijacker turn the yoke left all he wants, the computer can override that and go right without having to "fight" for control of the plane.
If you really want to let the pilot know that the computer is overriding him, how about a "Neener neener neener" indicator light, or something?
Seriously, this sounds like a good idea, but I can't help but think of the video of that Airbus crash, where (IIRC) the pilot made a low-altitude pass during a demonstration flight, and the computer kicked into landing mode and locked out pilot input. If they ever roll this sort of thing out, it had better have been tested six ways from Sunday for all manner of stupid glitches beforehand.
~Philly
I think I see the flaw in this proposal...
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Hack the 'hack proof system' and now you have a guided missle without the messy problems of taking over an aircraft or killing yourself.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
That's University of California at Berkeley, not University of Berkley.
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)
Anyone remember that one scene in Star Trek: Generations when the Klingons use Geordi to figure out how to bypass the Enterprise's shields? That's what I'm seeing here too. All we need is for someone to use a plane that doesn't respect the "soft-wall" (or worse yet, a modified one that is allowed to pass through or fails to realize that it shouldn't) and all bets are off.
You can design any system that works 99.9999% of the time. It's that 0.0001% that's a bitch. I pretty sure we'll see this in RISKS and/or a book on computer bugs in about 20 years from now.
To the pilot, it would feel like fighting an external force, such as a strong wind. "When you reach a certain critical point, the pilot is banking as hard to the left as the aircraft will go - as far as he can tell - and that is only just cancelling the force, so the aircraft is still going straight," says Lee.
Okay so that is great if they are turning into a no fly zone, but what if they are heading straight at it?
------
"And may your days be long upon the earth."
So the pilots don't like the sound of the system. I imagine they were against fly-by-wire until it had some real-world proof that it worked as well. But since fly-by-wire is already a software-heavy system, I would think this would be an incremental change compared to the switchover from hydraulic systems to fly-by-wire.
I guess the pilots don't see it that way. I can see both sides of the argument, though. Of course, a one-line statement that the pilots don't like it isn't exactly something I'd take to a Congressional hearing as proof of something...
- Leo
You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.
That doesn't apply to all muslims, specific sects - yes, but certainly not all. Also remember, muslim does not equal middle east, the religion is global.
Bob's reply:
Why we just got too close to one of those soft walls, Bill.
It protects the people on the ground and kills us in the air.
Bill says:
Cute way to die.
Everyone in two planes scream at once.
Osama Bin Laden laughs at the superior technology in a cave.
Meanwhile two terroists decide they don't care about the "smart technology" and blow the avionics in the cockpit to hell after locking on a course straight for the heart of --insert national treasure here--.
At least we gave the pilots guns. That way they can waste themselves before the soft walls send them straight to the aviator happy hunting grounds or whatever.
ACK
Unhackable how?
If they mean the pilots can't hack the controls, this *might* be a possibility.
I think the real danger is in the other half of the equasion being hacked...the part that tells the planes where they can't fly.
F**k flying into a building, just tell the central system that *all* GPS coordinates are part of the no-fly zone. Bingo, everybody in the sky spins out of control and crashes to the ground, unable to over-ride the "safety measure"
-or-
The process used to update the database on the plane is hacked, someone finds a way to fake a legitimate communication to a plane and blocks off a huge part of the flight plan as forbidden space.
Bad idea, IMO.
The San Diego International Airport is in the city so aircraft fly across the edge of the city center. I guess that San Diego will be excluded or it will be the only target left.
Nate
Uh, there's no such thing (at least as far as I know) as the "University of Berkley", only the University of California at Berkeley ... you insensitive clod!
Now for my list of problems:
Ok, so there are just a few examples, but really, nobody is going to take this seriously. As soon as the hype wears off, and VC's stop giving them money, they are out of luck. Maybe this fun to look at from a technology and geek perspective, but don't expect anybody in the aerospace industry to take a close look.
Apparently the pilots are not too fond of the idea. And its not really surprising considering the name. Even crashing into a soft wall may seem like a bad thing to a pilot.
Perhaps they should rename it something less threatening, like "airspace avoidance system", or "redundant hijacker prevention".
Most writers regard truth as their most valuable possession, and therefore are most economical in its use - Mark Twain
...'hack proof' statement, it completely invalidates any further statements from that source. No system is hackproof. Perfection is not attainable by humans, for goodness sake. For a system to be used, it must have connections to some outside device, and thus is always subject to hacks in the end. They might be hard, they might take a while, but they can be accomplished. And will be, if someone is motivated enough.
http://thechubbyferret.net - Ferret pictures and informative links.
Not that it doesn't make sense to fix the problems that were revealed by September 11th's attacks, but does anyone honestly think that passenger jets will be used as weapons again? It seems like terrorists will move onto other targets using other weapons. Though using the same M.O. would be a slap in the face to the US, I don't think the scenario we witnessed on 9/11 will be repeated. It wouldn't "raise the bar" ... so to speak ... and sadly, I'm afraid that the result of that horrific day has probably left many numb to a less-sensational attack.
you better change your leadership first. They stole the election and stacked every office from Supreme Court on up. They are the only ones responsible - and I mean directly. Everyone needs a 'Pearl Harbour' excuse to send boys to their death, this case is no different.
Don't discount it until you've read it.
http://www.globalhowler.com/911_files/frame.htm
No words can describe it. The rabbit hole goes far deeper than that too.
slingshots.
...a group at Bellevue has planned soft walls for anybody crazy enough to believe something "can't be hacked".
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
When I fly a plane, as Pilot in Command I have to have the option to be in control at all times. I can not have some computer thinking that it knows how to fly the plane better than I do. There may be things that the computer doesn't know about. Sure, over the city might be restricted airspace but maybe I have to go in there to avoid going through a storm or hitting another plane.
As an anti-terrorism measureit might be effective but it sure wouldn't be safe to fly.
- In Capitalist America, law violates YOU!
Why not just do away with on-board pilots and controls all together?
Can/will this technology be able to override the flight safety portion of the flight computer? I could think of a scenario whereby an engine on a twinjet fails and the pilot has to overfly a city because he/she can't turn sharply enough on the required side. Would "Soft Walls" force the turn, thus putting the aircraft (and its passengers/freight) in jeopardy? If "Soft Walls" can be selectively disabled, what makes it 'hack-proof'?
Q: "Why do sound techs say 'check 1, 2'?"
A: "Cause if they could count any higher they'd be lighting techs."
They explain that the system would keep me from banking into a no-fly zone. I don't think it'll work, but ok...
Now what happens if I get a running start (say, 5 miles out) and fly straight at the no-fly zone?
A little haiku:
With hacked avionics
Airplane avoids all airports
All passengers die
I can see the market for this getting hotter than Xbox mods :)
So the planes in trouble (engine problems, pilot drunk,air hostess forgot makeup) and has to be taken through a "soft wall" to land ASAP so how is one going to "circumvent" the softwalls in these circumstances?
If the mechanism (disabling) is in the plane itself, its a candidate for takeover by a malicious person.. unlikely it can be on the ground because of misdirection / hostile action.
Finally from the mechanics of the problem, if I don't have sufficient thrust to clear the obstacle I could still go right in correct?? So a throttle close could still put the plane in the wrong place...
I'm sure there are answers to these somewhere..
-- everyones not everybody and neither is everybody like everyone.
So we'll have a soft door for LaGuardia Airport? It happens to be in an area we would really like to keep planes out of (NYC). I see a lot of people trying to profit from the whole avation security field, but the chances of a similar attack happenening again is probably pretty low.
I don't keep a lid on my coffee so when I walk around I look busy -me
Is this different from the University of California, Berkeley? Berkley is in Michigan, Berkeley is in California, and there is no University of Berkeley that I know of.
It's like saying "The University of Ann Arbor" instead of "The University of Michigan". Come on editors.
I wonder why? Faced with the problems of being shot at or their plane commandeered, pilots also complain about a system that would take away the ability to avoid possible mid-air collisions by creating "no-fly" zones that prevent the pilot from banking in the desired direction.
Couple of problems: of course it isn't going to be "hack-proof" as many will point out - if it could be done, it would have already. To think he can create something hack proof now is extreme bravado. What about planes that don't have the system? Also, what is the liklihood of this kind of attack occuring again: after all of the news coverage, introspection, and other preventative measures, adding this to the complications of flying seems over compensative.
>This reminds me of those dog collars that :-)
>prevent one's pet from breaching a set boundary.
>Some emit painful shocks. Maybe they should >consider making this "soft wall" zap the pilot
>if he violates a protected airspace...
Excellent idea Brain, but how would we get those dog collars onto the terrorists?
Hey, this is one of those "Added Features" that "Impriove the Experience", right? Sounds like some of the software updates I've seen...
"Hey, this "feature" is good for you, Mr. Pilot. It lets us make the decisions for you."
Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but copyright will always protect me.
Take over the plane (sure it's hard, but it can be done)... now, jam the GPS receivers... The plane switches to backup beacon positioning? No problem, have a buddy start broadcasting spoofed beacons from the ground (or possible on the plane)... best of luck writing software that won't all of a sudden think that the plane is 200 miles from where it really is, if you give it a few signals that match it's database... Now you have no more 'soft walls'... without even disabling the soft-wall software on the plane.
Now can someone convince me that my logic is flawed???
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
What if there were damage to the plane,(ie. being shot at etc.)and the pilot had to compensate for the loss of control by banking the plane to the right to maintain a level flight path. Let's say he's flying towards a city, and the computer starts fighting with him because the plane knows he should't be banking to the right, as it will directly line the plane up with the city. But meanwhile back in reality, the pilot is fighting with the plane to keep it from veering off badly and missing the airport entirely. Hey, it could happen.
If you're looking here for something insightful or thought provoking, you're probably looking in the wrong place.
Which is exactly why we should be sending all kinds of aid to poor urban areas in Muslim countries. Who do you think builds schools and clinics for poor people in Saudi Arabia and Egypt? Hint: his name rhymes with "Bosama Fin Maden." In order to stop people from wanting to kill us, we need to start doing things that will help in the long term, and may not be too useful in the short term. Not that this is terribly relevent to the discussion at hand.
They could even allow planes to be hijacked from the ground if terrorists managed to take over air-traffic control sites.
Well, duh, if it works by radio, people will listen to it and figure out how to take control. If some big dumb company like Microsoft makes it, there will be a buffer overflow in some unnecessary chunk that gives complete control of the flight control system. I imagine a scenerio where a terrorist sends the "air-clippy" a specially crafted message that either renders the controls inoperable or gives control to terroist on the ground. Ha ha is not very funny in the air.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The World's No.1 Science & Technology News Service
'Soft walls' will keep hijacked planes at bay
19:00 02 July 03
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
Surrounding city centres and likely terrorist targets with "soft walls" will make it impossible for hijacked planes to get anywhere near them. So say the inventors of an avionics system that creates no-fly zones that pilots cannot breach.
Since the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, anti-aircraft missile batteries have been installed to protect buildings in Washington DC and other US cities.
Less drastic solutions have also been suggested. Aerospace company Northrop Grumman, for instance, has proposed installing the electronics from its Global Hawk pilotless plane in passenger aircraft to allow ground control to take over a hijacked plane and land it remotely. Others say automatic landing systems could steer planes to safety without human intervention.
Stopping the hijackers
All these solutions have disadvantages, says Edward Lee at the University of California in Berkeley. They require radio links between the plane and air traffic control, and these can be jammed, or hacked into. They could even allow planes to be hijacked from the ground if terrorists managed to take over air-traffic control sites.
Lee and his colleagues have an alternative. They propose modifying the avionics in aircraft so that the plane would fight any efforts by the pilot to fly into restricted airspace. So if a plane was flying with a no-fly-zone to the left, and the pilot started banking left to enter the zone, the avionics would counter by banking right. Lee's system, called "soft walls", would first gently resist the pilot, and then become increasingly forceful until it prevailed.
Immune to hacking
To the pilot, it would feel like fighting an external force, such as a strong wind. "When you reach a certain critical point, the pilot is banking as hard to the left as the aircraft will go - as far as he can tell - and that is only just cancelling the force, so the aircraft is still going straight," says Lee.
The system would include an on-board database of the GPS coordinates of the no-fly zones. If it sensed an attempt to jam GPS signals it would switch to other navigation aids such as airport beacons. Being independent of ground control means soft walls would be immune to hacking.
Subscribe to New Scientist for more news and features
Related Stories
Safety fears over pilotless planes
27 June 2003
Hidden cameras to monitor aircraft passengers
8 May 2002
Precision flying device promises flock of jumbos
17 July 2001
For more related stories
search the print edition Archive
Weblinks
Northrop Grumman
Edward Lee, University of California
Boeing Phantom Works
For modern fly-by-wire aircraft, installing soft walls would only require software changes. Lee's team has developed algorithms to control the aircraft and carried out some testing. "But no pure software simulation is going to be sufficient to convince any pilot," says Lee.
To take it to the next level, Lee is collaborating with aircraft manufacturer Boeing. Don Winter, director of R&D at Boeing's Phantom Works research division in St Louis, Missouri, says Boeing has asked the Pentagon for more research funding for soft walls.
"We'd like to take the technology investigation to the next stage, which is evaluation of the algorithms in high-fidelity simulators," he says.
He has yet to convince the people who fly the planes. "In general, pilots are openly hostile," he says. "Frankly it surprises me, because of all of the options that they are facing right now - including being shot at or commandeered from the ground - this is their best one."
I hate to be picky, but-
It is not "university of Berkley"
It is the University of California at Berkeley.
Just like Michigan State University is not East Lansing University.
No reason to lie.
Besides, 'soft walls' can't protect everything. Planes still have to fly over schools, malls, freeways, stadiums, and my fucking house.
Get a clue, 'soft walls' inventor.
*Make your invention unnecessary.*
If there was a way to make the 'bubble' into a cone, would the engines stop at the inside of the apex?
...close together.
LaGuardia and the ConEd power plant are but 1/2 mile apart.
Depature to the North from Reagan National goes right past the Pentagon.
O'Hare is within the Chicago metro area. To get there, you must go over buildings.
And then, you have all the little airports that are often within city limits, or very close to something.
And at the very least, all you'd have to do is a looong slide through a residential area. Not quite as dramatic as bringing down the towers, but still very, very messy. A 767 at 400 mph would take a quite a long area.
"Since the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, anti-aircraft missile batteries have been installed to protect buildings in Washington DC and other US cities."
Does this scare anyone else besides me? What's worse than a piloted aircraft being flown into a building? I would say that an unpiloted hunk of burning airplane is just as bad, if not worse.
"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
...is a way to turn the damn system off in an emergency ie. 'low on fuel... need to land on that big strip of highway there...'. Not that big planes have ever done that, but I'm sure pilots want that option open to them. Also would this system be programmed to prevent the hijacker from crashing into the ground ? I don't think pilots are ready to give up control of their birds based on some computer algorithms.
Instead of worrying about what to do after the hijacking, why don't we just prevent the hijacking in the first place? Personally, I think if we were to see a new 9-11 size terrorist attack, it would be something besides what is expected.
Wasn't there some story in the past 2 years about a way to 'override' GPS with an identical stream, but with the values offset by some distance, making the receiver appear to be somewhere else? If so, this would be a flaw in the 'hackproof' idea.
It looked like in graphic at the site that the no-fly areas were defined by GPS coordinates. So, what is to prevent the terrorists, once they are in control of the plane, to alter the GPS receiver, so that the area they are not allowed to fly in is the north pole? Also, couldn't this system normally be off and only turned on if contact was lost with the presumably hijacked plane? The pilots would certainly appreciate that. -Neil
But Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
A little box on every plane with GPS co-ordinates of prime terrorism targets? Seems like a wealth of valuable info for some loon with a couple of ICBMs to spare.
Most writers regard truth as their most valuable possession, and therefore are most economical in its use - Mark Twain
So we have hard coded no-fly zones which counter any attempt by the pilot to enter protected air space.
Software/hardware on the plane literally counteracts using the avionics any attempt to enter that air space. This is better than the remote control options because it is self contained on the planes it removes the possibility of remote control by a hijacker. This is also cheep because all modern planes would only require software upgrades.
So as far as I'm aware (and sincerely hope) there are manual fall backs especially in a landing run where not all airports have Auto-Land and even those that do can't guarantee no outage's.
So assume that we can remove manual override which I don't think is a good idea despite statistics that show that most errors are human (references several studdies of Metro lines and aircraft accidents) I don't like the idea of no manual over ride, failing that you can always take a screw driver to it and force it on to some other fall back system.
But my favourite is the beautiful hack, for use when this can't be dissabled but a guy with a degree in aviation engineering, you change the code. You set up the no fly zones so the plane is trapped in a narrow corridor all the way to to the target.
Oh yes there is also the little matter of how you deal with places like Hong Kong where the Sky scrapers clip the wing tips on the way into land.
Oh yes and the whole thing relies on GPS so you could have a go a jamming that in the same way you'd jam the remote control solutions.
The odds of these things are low
But I'd bet good money the odds are much lower of a hijacker trying to use the plane as a missile.
Let's be blunt, planes are not used as massive suicide bombs on a regular basis. I don't know the stats, but I suspect a system like this would cause more problems than it was worth.
Everyone is raising all sorts of examples of situations where having a "Soft Wall" would be a very bad thing, and would cost lives.
I suspect Boeing is going along with this either because of a PHB who can't see past the end of his nose, or because they know it is too dangerous to implement but have to investigate it anyway for political reasons.
That or the article's claims of Boeing's involvement are overstated, inflated and limited to "They sold us some specs that are avaialbe to the general public."
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
I always discounted this sort of solution because any electrical device on board must have a circuit breaker. How do the designers get around someone just turning off this "navigational aid?"
> enter room
This could be dangerous. Are you sure?
> Y
Are you REALLY sure?
> Y
Are you REALLY, REALLY sure?
> Y
I could tell you weren't really sure. You turn around and walk away. Telegrams from all over the galaxy arrive praising your prudence...
Autopilot: "I could tell you didn't really want to avoid that oncoming jumbo jet by turning left into a no-fly zone. Have a nice afterlife..."
For the same reason Airbus removed certain features from it's autopilot. At an air show in France Airbus was demonstrating their new autopilt system which overrides pilot control, to supposedly keep him from crashing, and lands the plane safely. During the demonstration, the plane misread the runway and overrode the pilto crash into a stand of trees. I feel much more safe with a human at the controls, than a computer (insert windows bashing here).
Perhaps US missiles could incorporate this technology to prevent them flying into Chinese embassies.
If there is a first principle of aviation safety, it's never take control of the aircraft out of the hands of the pilot.
Even when the auto-pilot is on, the pilot is in control of its operation.
If this system is active and an airplane develops a mechanical problem that demands an expeditious flight-path, you'll turn a low-severity condition into a catastrophic one.
So explain to me how a plane is supposed to land in washington DC or San Jose, ca.
Both airports are embeded in protected airspace. This whole system seems very over simplistic.
This is a terrible idea for many reasons.
First, most cities are not "restricted airspace". There are no prohibitions against flying over all kinds of areas where just as much damage could be done as happened on 9/11. And in fact, you can't protect cities in this way, because they tend to put airports near cities. So this proposal fails to achieve its most basic security goal.
In fact, most restricted airspace is over isolated areas and is used for military training. It is restricted only so that combat pilots don't have to worry about accidentally ramming into jetliners.
Second, these days one of the main forms of security related restricted airspace is the Temporary Flight Restriction, TFR. This follows the president all over the country as he campaigns for the 2004 elections. But since the locations of the TFRs change daily and unpredictably, there would be no reliable way for the avionics to be loaded with the current TFR locations. Hence the proposal would fail to address one of the main current security concerns.
Third, there are significant safety issues involved. Every system is prone to failure. What happens when the gadget mistakenly activates and starts trying to turn the plane? The pilot will be fighting with the controls at a time when he may be distracted trying to land in bad weather. The system could easily kill many more people than it would save.
And fourth, there are occasions when there is a legitimate need to enter restricted airspace, such as during an emergency. A dumb gadget like this cannot be expected to understand that an engine is failing or that the control surfaces are damaged, and the pilot needs to get the plane on the ground pronto! Military bases, with their ultra-long runways and isolation from civilians, are ideal locations for emergency landings; but they are generally in restricted airspace. Again, imagine the scenario of trying to land a crippled airliner while battling a robot which insists that you don't have the right to land there!
All in all this is such a bad idea that it's clear that no one involved has any experience with the aviation business and what the real security issues are.
The most obvious hack is to corrupt the database or GPS system such that all the airports are listed instead of the cities.
All your planez are belong to us
- FAA
This won't do shit about it.
Hack proof? So how will they protect the onboard database of no-fly zones?
Agreed. Calling something "hack-proof" is an open invitation for hacking attempts. Never call anything hack proof. Heck, even a completely analog system can be hacked - Anyone here old enough to remember "Cap'N Crunch" and his 2600Hz whistle?
What happens when a system failure of some sort causes the plane to start randomly seeing no-fly zones in the middle of the planned flight course?
What happens when a major system failure leaves the system believing that everywhere is a no-fly zone?
What happens when the oxygen machine that a hospital patient is hooked to thinks that the patient is a tire that it needs to inflate? What happens when the electronic cruise control in your car thinks you are in the Indy 500 and gets stuck at maximum speed? What happens when there is a major system failure in your desktop PC and it starts hacking into grandpa's pacemaker?
One could come up with an endless string of preposterous what-if scenarios.
Why, when it's already a major if not impossible task to diagnose a fatal crash, should we submit to having one more system fighting for control of the plane (i.e. millions of additional variables when we try to figure out what happened)?
Hmmm. I think that the "millions of additional variables" that are used in my car's Airbag sensors, Anti-Lock brake sensors, service reminder lights, electronic fuel injector computers, digital turbo boost controller, and tire-pressure warning sensors all provide tangible safety benefits to myself and to other motorists. Why would the addition of a single safety system to an aircraft be any different? There are extremely stringent safety testing and standards requirements before anything like this would be implemented.
It's not like the pilots are going to be downloading, compiling, and installing KSoftWalls 0.1.9 (requires QT 3 and kernel 2.4.x) in their 747's by themselves.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
...and my girlfriend is Persian. So I can safely say that you're so full of shit, your eyes are brown.
Hey, watch out! That guy with the laptop, he's plugged into the aircraft avionics computer and he's uploading new firmware! He must be a hijacker!
(Hack proof! Yeah, right! Ask Oracle...)
Ding ding ding! Thank you. One need look only as far as the Airbus A-320 that crashed at an airshow while doing a low fly-by; the computer prevented the pilot from increasing power to the engines, and the plane mowed a 200 foot wide swath through the forest and exploded in flames.
Several people were killed,and the pilot was scapegoated by Airbus; they claimed he was flying at 30 feet, not 70- that he had switched off the computer systems, etc. The flight recorder was removed by an AIRBUS EMPLOYEE from the crash scene(there's news footage of him carrying the box away!) and the box disappeared for a day or two. It was then mysteriously returned to the French police...and guess what? There was a large gap in the flight recorder's data, and it showed rather incriminating evidence(for the pilot.)
Please help metamoderate.
1. Steal an aircraft.
2. Fly towards NYC at 15kfeet. Direct line just south of Central Park.
3. At the appointed distance, shut the engines off, thumbing your nose at the fancy GPS, autopilot, and FBW systems.
4. Impact somewhere in downtown NYC.
5. Reap profits of 72 virgins.
Basically what I'm saying is...if the pilot purposefully loses control of the plane towards the right direction, can the "soft wall" system regain control? I'd say probably not, and it sounds like this doesn't help any problem whatsoever, and it certainly creates some:
I can see a pilot maneuvering around a big city, getting in line to land...accidentally he starts to move towards the "soft wall"...the system forces him to return, right in the area where there are other airplanes. That sounds like a traffic control nightmare, one more thing for those poor guys to be aware of, one more thing to give them ulcers.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
From the article:
The system would include an on-board database of the GPS coordinates of the no-fly zones. If it sensed an attempt to jam GPS signals it would switch to other navigation aids such as airport beacons. Being independent of ground control means soft walls would be immune to hacking.
The system is hack proof because they have backup methods for dealing with jamming. Why it's so obvious they've thought of everything. It's almost as brilliant as asking everyone to turn off their cell phones, cause terrorists don't carry cell phones.
Hack Checklist:
1. Spoof GPS -- SUCCESS
2. Jam/Destroy GPS
3. Spoof Beacon Finder -- SUCCESS
4. Jam/Destroy Beacon Finder
5. Spoof next method of determining where you be -- SUCCESS
6. Jam/Destroy next modwyb - SUCCESS
Personally I would rather see pilots armed than this hack proof system. Flying naked would be a better system but all the seats would have to be vinyl.
Today, a hijacker needs only point a gun at a pilot, or learn a few fundamentals of cockpit systems, and can then do anything the plane is physically capable of doing. If the plane itself are hardened against manual plane-to-ground maneuvering, then the hijacker has a far more difficult task, with a wide variety of new security barriers that must be overcome.
Scenario: the Miami to Paris flight has ground-controllable avionics. Now hijack teams on the ground are able to explore and overcome the security barriers without being on the plane. The Walt Disney World Epcot Center ball and/or the Space Shuttle Discovery atop its launchpad catches fire on the Fourth of July.
Scenario: the Miami to Paris flight has only preprogrammed hardened avionics. Now hijack teams must prepare a civil plane by sabotaging it during service periods before takeoff, and/or technical team support during the target flight. During a flight, there's a lot of areas on a plane that are not physically accessible.
If the number of systemic barriers is high enough, and/or if the technical capabilities required are high enough, and/or the number of failsafe detection barriers are high enough, then the prospect of using a modern airliner as a weapon becomes less and less likely. No opportunist Richard Reids. No "flight school for a week" militant cell groups. And the remaining terrorists capable of pulling it off probably have funding to acquire their own weapons anyway. Jets as a weapon becomes suitably impractical.
[
Agreed. The only way that this would approach a state where the terrorist cannot bypass it would be to make the airplane ONLY flyable via electronic input - no backup hydraulic or mechanical control system at all. You say "go left", computer says "OK" and moves the control surfaces appropriately. Or you say "go left", computer says "not allowed", and you continue straight and level flight. But what if you say "go left", computer says "Fatal exception error 0x0FDE00"?
It lends a whole new perspective to the term "system crash".
----- Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.
The bulkhead without a door system is not 100% perfect, there has to be some sort of communications between the crew and the pilots and the hijackers will just use that system to threaten to kill passengers if the pilots do not follow relayed instructions.
At least they won't crash the plane though, so it has some benefit, it's just not perfect.
Comatose passengers aren't likely to hijack a plane... Especially if they're isolated from the flight crew.
The way they did it in the 5th Element is the way to go...
/sig
... technically, "hard walls" would keep the planes out just as well. :)
If it sensed an attempt to jam GPS signals it would switch to other navigation aids such as airport beacons.
And if the terrorists jam both GPS signals and airport beacons? Once you kill outside input to the plane, the plane doesn't know where it is, and can't avoid softwalls.
Worse yet, what if some airplane mechanic is a terrorist, and adds a little trojan to every plane he services? All of a sudden, when a certain signal is detected by the trojan from the ground, the softwalls prevent the plane from flying anywhere except a direct route into the White House.
Got a few facts wrong, I just realized. Here's a good article with the facts of the case; it was a combination of throttle malfunction at low altitude, and improper altitude display. http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af 296.shtml
Please help metamoderate.
Just because the system relies on an airborne database component does not mean that the system is unhackable. Where does the data come from in the first place? Airborne databases for flight management systems are updated every 28 days. These are compiled from numerous data sources held by different agencies. There are numerous points were this system could be approached including the transfer at the aircraft itself. To make the system unhakable would mean certifying a system form beginning to end includin data acquisition, processing, verification, assembling and finally delivery to the aircraft. This means every component on the ground and in the air would need to be "unhackable" - certainly an impossible task given the number of M$ components involved in the "ground based" portion of aeronatical data. Additionally, any system that could not be overridden or disabled by the pilot would need to be certified to proven levels of reliablity and fault tolerance tthat would far exceed the most reliable comonents on current generation aircraft. If an autopilot fails or otherwise experiences a "hard-over" the pilot disengages and can disable the errant system by pulling the circuit breaker. If this proposed systemhas a glitcg or a failure what would be the recourse? Such a systen would have safteyb applications thyat would go far beyond protecting attractive targets (protection from controlled flight into terrain) but the technologies to attain that are still just a gleam in the eye of alot of avionics engineers. This is not really a new idea.
To me it sounds like all you'd need to do is hack the computer system of the plane. Could it stop people? Yes, but it will just force terrorists to be more high tech. Plus, it would require updating every plane's software when the no fly zones changed. If the system is easy to update then it will probably be easy to alter maliciously.
-EndBabble
open a black hole and have the plane fly into some other dimension. oh wait, that's only in movies and on TV. what were they smoking when they thought up this dumb idea.
There are plenty of old planes without a fly by wire system or even significant electronics but can still carry a large load. So, a terrorist could just acquire a DC-3, DC-6, or even early jets (707, early 737s, 727's), and load them up with explosives of choice and defeat the system.
But, why bother with planes? Sure, planes are flashy, and they were destructive without adding explosives. But, what about taking over tanker trucks full of gasoline or dangerous chemicals and crashing those into soft targets? Or, if you have the explosives, do the old car bomb trick, but with a very large truck. Seems like that has been done before in Oklahoma. The point is that they don't need to bother with planes.
What if a plane is flying near a "soft wall" and an emergency comes up (ie another plane might hit them or lose of power or strong winds) that force a pilot to try and turn into the soft wall in order to save / maintain the plane?
the obvious solution would to put perameters that would take these into effect but then couldn't teh software be tricked into think an egine is out ect.
Will the idea seems to be good it to has it flaws.
He has yet to convince the people who fly the planes. "In general, pilots are openly hostile," he says. "Frankly it surprises me, because of all of the options that they are facing right now - including being shot at or commandeered from the ground - this is their best one."
I'm not surprised.
All of the options? Nope, sorry. The best defence against a hijacking is denial of access to the cockpit. I've said this since I was an Aerospace Engineering student, as long as the cockpit is accessable from the passenger compartment, you run the risk of hijacking. If you can't get to the aircraft's controls, you can blow it up, but you can't fly it into anything.
The airline industry just need to redesign its aircraft. It isn't cheap to retrofit but in new designs it would add little to the cost.
It's not going to happen again. The reason why three of the the four hijacked planes hit the attackers' targets is this: no one on the planes, not the pilots, not the passengers, not the attendents, had an inkling that the hijackers were intent on crashing the planes. It had never happened before.
Standard procedure for a hijacking is to cooperate with the hijackers to minimize harm to the people on the plane.
If the people on a hijacked plane know that they are on a doomed aircraft, the attackers have no leverage. The Pennsylvania flight was different from the other three in that the passengers ignored the-plane-will-crash-if-we-use-cellphones rule, called their families, got the lowdown, and then attacked the terrorists. The terrorists lost. The mission failed.
Mr. Shoe-Bomb also failed because the passengers gang-beat his ass. Mission failed.
Every plane hijacked in the future will have passengers that will not cooperate. The pilots won't cooperate. Missions to use airliners as bombs are now useless: any sane attacker will of course now use other methods.
Creating softwalls and turning our country into a AA-covered bunker is idiotic. Attacks via planes can't succeed. At the very least, the pilots will slam the plane into a field to save the lives of thousands.
I worry at the irrationality of the actions of the people of the U.S. Shutdown of the Constitution. Illegal attacks against non-threatening countries. Concentration camp in Cuba, complete with execution chamber (coming soon). Cameras everywhere. Reading everyone's mail.
You know, the attackers communicated face-to-face, so NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE STOPPED THEM.
We're turning the U.S. into an prison populated by people constantly agitated by their warden into a state of hysterical paranoia.
Listen, the people who really, really wanted to blow us up died in the planes. They are dead. They aren't in Iraq. They aren't everyone who speaks Arabic. They aren't being tortured in little white jail cells across the U.S.
Any future attack will come from a different front. And frankly, these men aren't that bright: they're cultists to begin with, so 9/10 of their brain cells are useless anyway.
The few loonies who want to attack us will do so no matter how many cameras are over our beds. Now, on the other hand, by attacking non-combatants all over the world, Bush Inc. has converted infinite good will into an implacable wall of resistance, not because of what we are, or the insanity of our enemies, but because of what we have done to people who had nothing to do with the 911 attackers. 2,000-10,000 dead in Iraq: Perle and Wolfowitz refuse to give an accounting. Bush has insulted and alienated the entire world when previously he had them firmly on our side. He's like John Adams wandering into Paris in the 1770's, who insulted and patronized the very people Franklin had so carefully cultivated into supporting the U.S. Adams, like Bush, nearly lost the war by his gross incompentency in diplomacy, his raw moral fanaticism, his ignorance of other nation's cultures, and his blind nationalism.
Soft walls won't save us from Bush's stupidlity in dealing with, well, ANYTHING.
"Unsinkable"
Yeah, white Christians are way better than that!
No way white Christians would ever launch a brutal armed campaign, kill millions of middle easterners, burn their homes and libraries and loot their cultural treasures, thereby setting their society back by thousands of years, all in the name of the Christian God and his holy book! I mean, white Christians wouldn't even think of such a...
Oh, wait...
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
I would think that a hard wall (reinforced cockpit door) and armed pilots is a cheaper and perhaps more effective solution than this soft wall.
What's to stop the hijacker from picking a "fly zone" rather than a "no fly zone"?
JoAnn
...Suicide bombers before being able to deliver their payload? (They have done so quite few times, I understand.)
Under your logic, that would mean that after the first one or possibly two captures that ALL suicide bombings should have stopped. That would be cool, but it just isn't so and never will be so.
Even if this "Soft Wall" approach were to work, terrorists would still attempt to take over a jet airliner and attempt another September 11th attack. They just might hit other smaller targets that don't have "Soft Walls" around them, like Mount Rushmore for instance...
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
Another academic with a dumbass idea that actually might go somewhere in our 'terror crazed' society.
If the moron actually gets this system installed on plane(s) I won't be flying on them.
This system is great for terrorists.
Since every single human on the plane and on the ground is locked out of controlling the plane I have the perfect weapon.
Hack the "softwall database". Create a narrow corridor straight to my target. Plane takes off. Plane gets into corridor. Autopilot takes over and flies plane directly into target.
A simple scenario is to hack the database and create corridors to 100 "secure" buildings. Load software onto 100 planes that will be in the appropriate air space. Sit back and watch as the government has 2 choices -- let the planes crash into their targets OR shoot them down. Either way is a no win situation.
Required suicide terrorists - none.
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
Is the same reason that car enthusiasts (and probably most regular drivers) don't want a computer taking over panic braking.
While industrial software tends to be more reliable (especially the stuff that is used to run, say, a space shuttle), we are used to things crashing in consumer electrf^ds$#j1
Sunny
Be my Friend
This is a solution with the same flight characteristic as the DMCA. It won't fly.
;-) ).
Consider these points:
1. An aircraft in an emergency situation may need to make use of strips contained within a no-fly zone, or may need to fly through a no-fly zone as the most direct path to emergency facilities. If the pilot is unable to override the soft-wall... Well, let's just say things will be very interesting for him. But not for long.
2. Rely on GPS? Well, golly gee-whiz. Ever hear of circuit breakers? The flight engineer (and any potential hijacker) has access to the circuit breakers. You don't need any fancy navaids to fly a coastline or follow a river at 5000 feet. Pop goes the breaker. And the target.
Grab and crash is not a fad, it's only just getting started. Fancy high-tech solutions won't replace a well-aimed shot to the forehead. Add a few more air marshals.
I think the big money would be better spent on ecm and anti-ir systems for commercial airliners. It's damned easy to get shoulder-launched sams to anyplace you care to bring them. The US has been doing it for years. Anyone else can do it as well.
El Al was using anti-ir many years ago, they probably still are (I'm not in a position to know any more
You can't use high-tech to stop a determined group trained up to the same level and with access to big money and to the technology. Sorry.
I was going to publish my plan to protect airplanes from liberated cities, using "hard air". As a city's population enjoyed increased freedom, four large jets would cool the air in order to limit the movement of people into oncoming planes.
What do you think?
Ah, the old UB. Not to be confused with the less prestigious UCB.
sig is
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There are several reasons why this is a bad idea:
1. Most large metropolitan airports are in or near areas where these 'softwalls' would be deployed. Take a look at the restrictions placed on takeoff and landings from Washington International (you basically have to fly down the Patomac River and make a hard left on short final to avoid restricted airspace over the White House and Congress. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want an autopilot to take control of the aircraft on short final if it didn't like my flight path. On takeoff - from the south - you have to similarly make a hard left turn barely wheels-up).
Putting this into effect would leave very little leeway for situations where the aircraft can not meet the minimum flight parameters (climb rate not up to snuff due to engine failure, damage to a control surface that prevents a turn at the proper rate to miss the restricted area, etc...) What was an emergency will become a disaster if control is removed from the pilot.
2. Legally a pilot is responsible for the safety of the flight. Many times the cause of accidents can be traced to pilot error. With this system in place, every accident near a restricted zone would raise questions - to what degree did the pilot and the autopilot contribute to the accident? This would be a legal can of worms (the cost of which would be born by the traveling public).
3. Who would certify that these systems are infallable without pilot control? If a pilot can not 'hack' the system - i.e. turn it off, then it had better be perfectly safe, as per FAA standards for other avionics. Avionics and flight instruments are designed to allow redundancy in the form of multiple backup systems - if one breaks, the pilot is trained to use backup systems to correlate the data lost from the main indicator. Unfortunately, since a pilot is prohibited from interacting with this system - how would we be 100% sure that the system would function under all conditions?
History has shown too many times that misapprehension of a technology's limitations often leads to disaster - the Titanic comes to mind. Until we can certify that a computer can function with uncertain and incomplete information effectively under all conditions (currently humans are the only ones that can do this satisfactorily), then I would not want to stake my life on this technology.
I am both a pilot and a software developer, having the hubris to think I have insight into this problem.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
For modern fly-by-wire aircraft, installing soft walls would only require software changes.
I'm sorry, but there is no such thing as "only" a software change in avionics. Software changes require rigorous testing and development. There is absolutely no guarantee that a software change would be any less time-consuming or expensive then a hardware change.
When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
What if you just come in high and cut the power?
How's the electrical system gonna stop the plane from gliding?
Now that we know an engine failure will relinquish control of the plane for emergency situations, all a terrorist would have to do is make sure the plane's engines failed near (or better yet, somewhat within) one of these restricted areas, then when the system cuts back over to pilot control, the terrorist has unrestricted flight (so to speak) within the restricted zone....until the crash.
In other words, build a better plane, and they'll build a better terrorist.
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Well, that's already covered by the current policies.
As it stands, (and this is pre attack on two towers) the door is ment to be locked. If anyone is held hostage, they are expendable until, and unless, the plane is safely landed.
That stands.
However, note that the pilots are in communication with air traffic control. The ability to communicate is powerful, but it also works to help the pilots. Put them on to an anti-terrorist specialist (as is, and has been, in the procedure for several years), and book an appointment with a counseller for the pilots.
The point of the 'no door' is to refuse the pilots options that will cause more harm. It's harsh, but you're dealing with people who are prepared to kill.
Normally, I would agree. But not in this case. Here's why:
They are trying to get funding for the project. Saying it is not hackable may help their case. If anything, it makes people take notice of it.
At this stage, thinking of ways to hack it are good. It doesn't really exist yet, and now is the time to try to hack it.
That being said, I think that this system shows promise. It is a "software only" solution, whereas others require plane modifications. If anything, it is a good attempt at a solution. But it does seem kind of single-purpose, stopping in-flight terrorism attacks by running planes into cities. There are still many other kinds of attacks that this system doesn't address.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
The Islamic terrorists don't attack because we treat them like trash (which we really don't). They attack because we aren't muslims. Simple as that.
Aircraft have had similar systems in place to prevent them from being flown into certain mountains since well before 9/11. It's kind of interesting that it's taken two years since before someone in the industry got the bright idea of "Hey, maybe we can take this and apply it to skyscrapers as well". I remember having a similar conversation with an American pilot about a month after the tradgedy, so what took these people so long to come up with this?
common sense: noun
What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
A mechanism that causes buildings to SPONTANEOUSLY IMPLODE whenever a plane flies too close, thus averting a disaster!
GENIUS!
what's to prevent these so-called "soft walls" from being modified to guide all aircraft INTO the city???
Right, except that the same avionics that implement the soft wall features also *fly* the airplane. No avionics means no auto pilot and the plane is just gonna fall out of the sky.
Not that this is a good outcome, either...
-Leo
You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.
This story is about researchers from the University of California at Berkeley (a.k.a. U.C. Berkeley or Cal), not the University of Berkley.
You could always leave slashdot, there may be better websites for you.
Many people, probably many slashdot readers, understand that most muslims are peace loving and have no interest in killing us. There are people there who hate us, just like you've shown there are people here who hate them. It's usually the ones who know nothing about one another that choose to hate.
But I guess not wanting to commit genocide of a race is anti-American and too liberal for you, so I'll end my post here.
FiGZ.COM - A waste of perfectly good web space
what's to keep someonw from just replacing the database? If you want to suicide into a building. zero the database, and if you want to generally cause havoc with the plane itself, replace it with a database of GPS coordinates of airports within ~500mi of the destination airport? Good luck trying to land before running out of fuel or commandeering some straight stretch of highway.
Nothing is hack proof. But this is probably the best attempt so far to solve the "put it where it dont belong" problem we've had with our airliners.
Personally, I'm with the 'bulkhead without a door school of thought (The pilots have a seperate external door. That makes it impossible to physically coerce pilots, because you can't get to them. Problem solved.
The problem with this idea, besides emotional coercion as others have mentioned, is that airplane doors are actually designed to blow out so that pressure can be quickly equalized throughout the cabin and cockpit. This is the reason that the old cockpit doors were so flimsy, and is the reason why even the new security doors are equipped with blow out panels. Unless the cockpit and cabin were individually pressurized putting a solid wall in place would be a huge safely risk.
Not that while Clinton was in office anything happened terror-wise to the US?
IDIOT.
Never mind the Cole, the embassy bombings, etc.
Clinton had the option once to have binLaden wacked, but he didn't do it.
Get real that it was Bush that spawned the 9/11 attacks.
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
This improper usage really bugs me, too. For everyone who hasn't yet figured it out, (including the Slashdot "editorial" staff)
The proper spelling of Berkeley [berkeley.edu] is B-E-R-K-E-L-E-Y, and the proper usage is "University of California, Berkeley," being that Berkeley is the University of California; the other UC schools (UCLA, UCSC, et al) are merely extensions of UC Berkeley, which was founded in 1868.
So no, it's not spelled "Berkly," "Berkely," "Berkley," or any combination of the three, and it most certainly has no connection to the Berklee College of Music [berklee.edu].
I'm amazed that any self-respecting geek can misspell "Berkeley", given the advances made there. Where the hell do they think Berkelium and Californium were discovered? If it weren't for Berkeley, which runs LANL [lanl.gov] and LBNL [lbl.gov], the DOD would be up shit creek, and GWB wouldn't have any of those "nuke-u-ler" weapons he likes to talk so much about. For the love of god, the guy who won a Nobel prize [princeton.edu] for inventing the frickin LASER [geocities.com] is a professor there.
Finally, without Berkeley, there'd be no BSD; it's the Berkeley Software Distribution. It's in the name of the operating system. At the very least, the person submitting the article (and the Slashdot "editors") should be able to figure out the proper spelling that way.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
They'd have to create an emergency where the only possible response is to fly into a restricted area. That would not be easy. How many abandoned air strips can there be in downtown DC, and how do you create a situation where that is the ONLY airstrip you can land at? Beyond that, it requires a great deal of cooperation from the plane's piolet since ground control would be unlikely to grant access to a stranger on the radio claiming such an emergency.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I still think a little silent alarm trigger (like used in banks) should be given to the pilot. When used, it simply sets the autopilot to a certian altitude and contiunes flying straight, and sends a message to the authorites. Disabling the system after activation could be done after the plane has travelled to a remote point on autopilot and the plane is allowed to land or something.
OH WELL THEN LET'S KILL THEM ALL! IT'S A CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS! GOOD VS EVIL! WE'RE THE GOOD SIDE!
please, got brainwashed? Have you heard of Palestine? Do you remember when Iran was a democracy? Do you know about the dictators we support?
No where in the article does it mention Mulims ... perhaps you shouldn't assume that all terrorists are Muslim? That also would be a good start :)
Attempting to build machines/programs that will stop a human being from doing what they want is futile. We have ingenuity on our side, only other people can react to our actions. It seems that something similar to the automated systems used in subway systems in NYC may plague the air... If people get comfortable with automating so much of their actions and depending on machines for security pretty soon pilots will have no jobs... and if I were one, I would be more concerned about that.
I'll assume there is some way to update the no-fly zones for the plane. (Important buildings of the week)
If you look at it from the inverse, what if everything was defined as a "Soft Wall" except for one path? If someone were able to inject their own list of soft walls, they could "channel" the plane to a target of their choice. They might not even need to be on the plane.
It's just another tool that can be used improperly in the wrong hands.
There are two such blindingly simple and (relatively) easy to retrofit solutions that it seems very few people have even considered.
First, don't have a passage way that lets people cross from the passenger compartment to the cockpit. Hijacker's can't take over the plane if they can't get into the pilot's seat... the only way to access the cockpit should be from an exterior door (and therefore only accessable then the plane is on the ground)
Second, what about biometric pilot identification? install a fingerprint reader on the control yolk to monitor the pilot's pinky finger. As soon as the pilot lets go of the stick, auto-pilot kicks in and ground control is alerted to the situation (which would probably just be the pilot getting up to take a piss of something, point is someone will know).
Granted, it may not be possible/practical for various reasons, but nobody seems to even bring it up!
Also, with all the stuff they record on the "black box", is there any room for some simple video data? I would think that a few snapshots of the cabin now and again would be extremely useful for investigators.
=Smidge=
" The Islamic terrorists don't attack because we treat them like trash (which we really don't). They attack because we aren't muslims. Simple as that."
Like most simple ideas about peoples motives, thats almost entirely wrong. There are lots of reasons, one of the primary being the presence of US soldiers in their holy land.
They have an obligation, according to that value system, to kill us off if they can.
Shame on you for repeating that kind of propaganda. You are obviously the one showing is a bit of ignorance about their culture.
I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.
When the government and media stop assuming that, I'll stop defending them against that assertion.
As usual, most here are missing the point.
Padlocks and alarms don't stop crime, just make it harder, so criminals move on.
Sky Marshals, armed pilots, reinforced cockpit doors and "soft walls" don't make distructive hijacking impossible, just harder.
Make it hard enough and terrorists move on (possibly to worse stuff).
Question: What if a real external force, say a change in pressure over an area (the very definition of force and cause of wind), **TURBULANCE** were you to "move" you into said "safe area"? What would happen then? Mother nature will work against you regardless of what algorithms you use.
Also, couldn't the hijackers just hack into the algorith code and state that cities are fly zones and rural areas are not???
Dude, these are people who have world domination built into their religion. Holy land? You mean mecca, right?
I would have thought that a little diplomacy combined with some common sense would be an easier ( and cheaper ) way to approach the problem of the rest of the world's anomocity. I suppose when you have the white house being bought by an extreme right-wing corporate sector, you have to basically accept that the US's foreign policy is going to be as subtle as a bulldozer through a field of daisies.
... and you know WHY they hate us? ... It's because they hate freedom ... ". Sure dickhead, that's why we all hate you. Because he hate freedom. Dickhead.
The sad thing is that most of the US actually believe Baby Bush when he proudly proclaims "
Good luck with your rubber buildings!
What an astonishingly dumb idea. I can see the news story now: Software bug flies airplane to sea; 200 people die.
And what if you have an emergency and have to fly directly to the nearest airport or else die? This is a really stupid idea.
Folks, the pilot has enough trouble flying without giving the plane the power to disagree with him.
The only even vaguely sensible automation idea I've heard is a pilot panic-button which turns the autopilot on and locks the controls until a ground controller provides an override. Even that's risky.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
The engines fall out and the plane is hurdling towards the ground at mach 1.7 or so. Is this computer going to steer a 20 tonne brick around the soft-wall?
Draconian ho!
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Tamper with the restricted location list and crash wherever you want. Seeing as the restricted location list is going to be updatable to add new locations, there's probably a way to remove existing ones as well.
In the worst case, one could create another restricted location within another and steer inside where both force bubbles cancel each other. Or fly an old airplane.
http://blogs.lns.kicks-ass.net/moonjihad/
Coming from a user poster named egg troll? hmmm. I may just spend my moderation points to provide humor to all our readers. Moron.
Races and civilizations have always regarded others less equal to their own. It is a natural order. If you think the Americans are so high and mighty that they are above this rule, and the United States has made great strides and progress toward equality, you need to get the rosey color out of your glasses. All nations have problems wth racism. Some have accepted it and moved on to better things to concentrate on. Americans are constantly trying to "fix" it. In doing so, they pour more attention on the topic.
Next time you have an argument with your friend, after the argument is over, keep bringing the topic back up for the next 5 days and suggest how to fix it. See how your friend feels about you and your suggestions after the 5 days.
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
Lebenon was a democracy that we helped destroy as well. With the success rate of american policy in the middle east, I'm amazed they don't just wise up and stop messing around. Americans know nothing about arab civilizations. They shouldn't bother.
What happens if the plane is off course and fly's directly into the no fly zone?
Will the plane suddenly try to make a 90 degree left or right with no way for the pilot to correct?
And depending on whether the zone is programmed as a perimeter or an area...
What happens if the plane somehow gets inside the perimeter? Does it circle untill it runs out of fuel?
After all, there is no need for a landing strip in the no-fly zone.
No sir, I don't like it. I want the pilot flying the plane. Just keep EVERYONE away from them so they can do their job.
An external door for the pilots with no door to the other compartment would do the trick.
Once in the air, you aren't getting in unless you're Superman.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
Remove the pilot from the plane and let if either fly by itself or be remote control...
-- Mike
Oh come now, what other group has ever orchestrated an attack on american soil?
I play Nerd-Folk!
This "unhackable" system sounds good, but only if its unhackable. If the hijacker could find a way to hack this, it would make things easier to kill everyone, not harder.
Think of it this way, what if the hacker were to "invert" the softwall gps coordinates so that the plane thought it were on the wrong side of the soft-wall? The plane would then automatically fly into a building regardless of what the pilot was doing.
Interesting read especially since they claim it is 'hack' proof.
Sharpie, anyone?
Seriously, nothing is "hack proof". And the idea that it is can be the greatest danger.
except, how do i land the plane again? especially if i'm trying to land at an airport that's in/near the city center? come to think of it, how do i even take off? i guess as a terrorist, i'll always be able to just crash into an airport terminal, if nothing else!
If this is true, it must mean that all countries except USA and Israel are muslim, since those are almost exclusively the ones targeted by islamic terrorists.
Do you really believe that?
Many people would argue that it was already too unlikely for the hijackers to have pulled this off without inside assistance. Why, for instance, weren't fighters scrambled to intercept hijacked planes headed hundreds of miles off-course? Why were the CIA and FBI told to back off of investigations of suspected terrorists and associates?
Could it be that we needed a crisis so that we could keep the populace in reactionary fear, ram through draconian laws, force congress to roll over while we unleash our military on people who had nothing to do with the attack but have plenty of valuable resources?
There are plenty of people in this country who hated New York City and the US federal government long before Arabs did and plenty of people with an economic self-interest in the state of war.
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
If it becomes difficult to use a plane as a bomb, terrorists are just going to come up with some other way such as a train loaded with explosives or a nuke on a ship at port. It is impossible to prevent suicidal maniacs from taking out people except by removing the root cause of the hatred.
Chika Chik-ah... do-e ow ow.
Consider a small EMP device is smuggled on-board (not possible you say because our security is perfect? ...but anyway). What's to prevent a hostile takeover of the cockpit, point the plane in the direction of the target, increase the plane's speed, and then just before hitting the soft wall... ZZZZZAAP!! EMP goes off and kills the electrical system including the automatic device. No amount of automation will protect an electrical system from an electromagnetic pulse. But then again IANAP, so maybe someone's developed a counter-EMP device used to protect sensitive equipment.
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
My idea is even simpler: build inflatable tent cities and randomly put them up in the general vicinity of real cities. This is a trivial extension of the inflatable decoy tanks used in WWII. From the air, you wouldn't be able to tell which of the five seemingly identical Washington DC's or NYC's was the real one.
I've,
Worked in the aviation consulting field for about 15 years now and I can assure you that what is being described is a pipe dream.
If you ever have the opportunity to work with the radar data and beacon code data from the current system you'll see why I say that.
The data is crap! Dropouts in the data is all too common. Such as: many times when an aircraft banks the do-hickie that sends back the altitude just quits working properly. Thus, a bunch of radar hits come back as zero altitude, yeah right!
I've seen commercial aircraft report zero altitude for a hundred, or more, miles of flight.
Same sort of thing goes for the radar hits themselves. You often have drop-outs or often times you have zig-zaggies. Zig-zaggies look like lightening bolts if you plot the aircraft's course afterward.
Even the military, with some pretty impressive radar, much better than the FAA's, cannot see their aircraft all the time.
It's sorta scary, but true. There are a lot of planes out there flying which are only being seen intermitantly. But, they are being talked to by the controllers. Thus, redundency is built into the system.
Another issue which people not in the know totally miss is the fact the the air traffic controllers union is difficult to work with, to say the least.
Anything which attempts to automate them out of a job is nixed. And we are talking about some pretty legitimate stuff that normal people would see as being highly advantageous. I foresee the proposed system as being just that sort of a tool.
The air traffic controllers just don't see it that way. All they see is a gadget that will put one of their own out of a job. Thus, they will fight it tooth and nail.
Anybody who doesn't believe the air traffic controllers dictate what goes into at least the United States air traffic control system obviously hasn't been in a room with 20 irritated air traffic controllers threatening to strike.
Caution: Contents under pressure
The Generals have always laid plans to fight the last war over again... and now the civilan goverment are planning to meet the last attack.
The initial plan of the French and British during WW1 was to prevent the Germans from using the same tactics as they did in the German-French war of 1870-1871. With it's overfocus on the attack however, this lead to the quagmire of the western front with it's millions upon millions of dead.
Having learned their lessons, the allies developed a masterplan that focused on the defence so they wounldn't have to fight a trench war again. And they didn't had to do that, as the Germans easily outflanked the heavily fortified border. To misuse a popular qoute from Fark; "France surrenders".
During the early years of the Cold War, both the east and the west trained and planned a massive conventional confrontation, even if they both intended to use atomic warheads to decimate the enemys conventional strenght (and some terrorbombing too, but that was a natural outgrowth of the things the germans, british and americans had been doing in WW2).
Then US forces trained for a conventional war in Europe found themself fighting an unconventional war in SE Asia - so for the next couple of decades everyone trained to battle guerilla fources.
These days we seem to try to fight the war on terror like we fought Iraq in the first gulf war (y'know, the one which UN and the international comunity sanctioned)... and guess what? The terrorist are one step ahead of us.
The next big attack, if it ever comes (and I pray not) will not be jets into buildings. That has been done, and the security has been thightened up. The next big one will be something we don't expect, and therefore havn't prepared for. Dream up your own horrors as to what it may be...
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
My parents have cruise control in a 93' Ford Escort wagon. After 6 trips to the shop for this wonderful little device I still have a problem. It revs uncontrollably at certain points. They've replaced all kinds of things (and refunded their money several times) and still not been able to correct it. It's got: New pumps, new electronics wiring, new computer, new relays, new cruise control circuit, new control arm, new fuel controls, new ....
Now this is a *simple* device, and yet it still produces an error that can cause a fatal accident, and 7 professional certified mechanics have looked at it and been unable to resolve it -- even after several thousand dollars worth of repairs (which the Ford dealers have been nice enough to refund when none of their work has fixed the problems). Yes, the Car Talk guys failed too.
And I'm supposed to trust a device that a pilot can't switch off that has the capability to prevent the airplane from being steered? No f'ing way.
Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
What if a terrorist is flying at buildings protected by a soft wall and then cuts off all the airplane's power? I'm sure there's some kind of backup power, etc. but if there was no power to control the rudders the plane would lose some speed and fly straight into the buildings.
Common sense is not so common.
This is an excellent point. But, I would think the expensive system would only be installed on large planes that would only land at large airports. It wouldn't be too difficult to make sure every plane got the new PGP-signed smartcards (or whatever method) by a certain date to update the database.
And what about the manual override? There's ALWAYS a manual override.
Exactly. There are countless emergency situations mentioned in previous comments where this system would make matters worse if an override didn't exist. Any automatic avionics system I can think of has a way for the pilot to make an important decision if necessary.
main(O){10<putchar((O--,102-((O&4)*16| (31&60>>5*(O&3)))))&&main(2+ O);}
LN2 is cool!
Why is everyone worrying about planes hitting each other? How often does that happen, anyway -- besides during take-off and landing, of course.
One the other hand, crashing into buildings and whatnot is a much bigger problem. Forget the 9/11 attacks -- what about that plane that crashed into the Empire State building by accident? That's the sort of silliness up with which we should not put!
Here's to soft walls.
they're not muslims any more than david koresh was a christian.
they're taking advantage of impressionable, desperate people in a bleak situation. similar to the catholic cults in africa - but with greater resources.
total fuckwits - but they're not representative of 'muslims' in general.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
Egypt air flight 990. That plane was determined to have been crashed by the co-pilot. (I realize that even with a cabin acceesible door, no one was able to save that plane). The fact is there is currently no sure fire way to prevent someone from intentionally crashing a plane except perhaps to use this kind of software to shape an entire flight pattern (shape, not dictate) in conjunction with pilot only access to the cockpit.
On a side note though, airlines are more aware of their terrorist allure and as a result are sufficiently safer than they were 2 years ago. But air planes are not the only vehicles that can be comandeered for malicious intent. What kind of thought has been put into making sure someone doesn't deliberatly derail a passenger train, or crash an 18 wheeler for that matter? Terrorists seek targets of oppotunity with destructive potential. The government seems to think safety can be achieved through covert operations (spying, wiretaps, etc) and by eroding citizens rights rather than implementing better security measures in vulnerable situations. Rather than making everyone a suspect, why not put systems into place that don't allow for that kind of behavior. Just my $.02
"Watch your cornhole, bud."
Bottom line, the plane never should have been in that position in the first place. But once it was, taking the ultimate decision-making authority out of human hands and trusting the software too much was the final link in a series of errors leading to a "controlled flight into terrain". If planes must have systems like this, give me an exit door and a parachute. D. B. Cooper was just ahead of his time!
You basically treat them like trash when you say such a thing. How do you feel when I say "American People want to attack Irak just because that's their way of life, money by all means" ?
Rob Malda doesn't want to fix this moderation system.
Either you are lying, or you are the most ignorant person in the world. Either way, you're an idiot.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Their first problem is declaring something "Hack Proof". Not knowing the details of it I'm not going to guess at how it could be done, but their are enough ambitious hackers out there that would be willing to prove them wrong. Next, what are they going to do WHEN(not if), their software fails and starts taking control of the plane, and putting it on a doomed path for no good reason. Should that happen, according to the article, the computer has the ultimate say so over the pilot. How would you override the system, when necessary. Kudo's for them for thinking of ways to thwart terrorism, but they seem a little bit arrogant in their assumptions.
--Mike--
- Now the pilots require their own toilet facilities. (Size and weight must be subtracted from payload.)
- The cockpit has to be expanded to accomodate yet another exit door. (Size and weight must be subtracted from payload.)
- (the real killer) The routes flyable with the aircraft are strictly limited to those which do not exceed the flight crew's allowable flying time. Missions such as over-the-pole flights between Europe and Chicago, which require a second crew to take over mid-flight, would not be possible.
I'm of the opinion that "soft walls" are probably less desirable than a "hijack, autoland me" system which can be activated by the pilots before any hijacker has enough time to breach the cockpit door.Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
The reason 9/11 happened in the first place was because pilots and passengers had always been taught to cooperate with terrorists under the assumption that the terrorists will land the plane somewhere and make demands. Once it was shown that hijackers will pilot planes into buildings (an attack unheard even by 'experts'), passengers (starting with the 4th hijacked plane) will gang up on a hijacker and prevent the hijacking from happening. And pilots will do anything to prevent a hijacker from gaining control of the plane.
Hey guess what? I am from Turkey. I haven't been to all of them but we muslims don't put up signs on mosques. So that must be some bullshit you just made up.
According to our religion, men do not pray with women side by side, that is true. But that doesn't mean that women cannot go into mosques. Most of them have separate rooms for women to pray.
Free your mind...2) Take over a plane, aim it at a big city, and max out the throttle until the flying surfaces get overspeed damage and fall off (usually happens to the horizontal stabilizers first, but the ailerons should go eventually). The plane turns into an unguided projectile and powers straight through the soft wall. Directional input without flight control surfaces is still possible in a multi-engined plane (a la UA232 in the early 90's)
3) Find a plane that has no fly-by-wire system, or has a backup mechanical system (like all American-built planes, and all planes built before the 1980s - including the 747. What, did you think they were going to throw out all those old planes?). Disable the fly-by-wire system if necessary, by killing the hydraulics or the electrical system.
4) If all else fails, crash it into the ground or into another plane.
This system isn't the solution. I'd rather see Patriot missile batteries, or armed pilots (and I don't like the idea of armed pilots either). Hell, put a self-destruct button in the cockpit; at least then the pilot has some control over the matter.
Sorry if this isn't constructive criticism, but the idea sucks to the core.
Two words: circuit breaker. Every avionics system has to have one, or you run the risk of an overloaded circuit causing a fire onboard, with disasterous results. And every circuit breaker must be accessible in-flight, so that they can be reset if necessary, or manually popped if there's smoke but not enough current to pop it normally.
Pull the breaker, bye-bye soft wall.
Technology is not always the answer (ooo, can I say that here?)
Japan?
I was suggesting (in a conspiracy theorist kind of way) that perhaps that very system (not the soft wall) had been used on 9/11 by elements unknown.
--Mike--
Forget the airplane: noisy, dangerous, inefficient, polluting.
Let's go to nice, whisper-quiet airships, gently wafting from point A to point B. Far quieter and safer, and frankly, just more civilized.
Worth a try, I say!
"What do you mean we're going to crash against the soft wall and die?"
"Let me check my notes..."
Oh, they mean electronic soft walls. I was all geared up to read about giant foam walls waiting to be set up around American cities. "Of course they're hack-proof," I thought, "why wouldn't they be? Who can hack foam?"
But no.
Dude, you can say the same thing about virtually any religion. The Koran, like most religious texts, is subject to many interpretations. The Koran also says things like forcing someone to believe in God is wrong.
Totally dangerous, completely unworkable and foolish to boot...
Stopping up the drain gets easier and easier as "scientists" invent more and more ways to complicate the plumbing.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
To be fair, he said Islamic terrorists, not Islamic people, and you even quoted it. Not all American people support the war with Iraq. Perhaps you should have said those who support the war with Iraq ...
What happens in an emergency? Say, when the pilot needs to take aggressive actions to avoid another plane? Sounds like s/he would be stuck between a rock and a soft place...
As a lowly private pilot, I feel these "policy decisions" should be left in the cockpit, not in the hands of some software dweeb.
I think the people behind this idea know it can't work. They're not trying to address the terrorist->airplane->tragedy issue, they're trying to address the popular idea that if you just redesign the technology so that it 'knows' not to let bad people do the 'wrong' things, then we'll all stay safe and rich. And they've realized that the best way to bring this fallacy to light is to establish the reduction ad absurdum of that belief as a strong meme that will resonate well with the masses.
.
So thank you Dr. Edward Lee (and colleagues), we salute you, Mr. Just-Rebuild-All-Planes-So-They-Won't-Hurt-People
Now if you'll excuse me, I have a bag of tacos here quicly seeking thermal equilibrium. Talk amongst yourselves.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
That's a load of crap.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
As the crow flies, Washington National Airport is 3.2 miles from the White House. Assuming we "soft-wall" the White House and the US Capital building (3.6 miles from DCA), how near do you mean when you say 'near'? The planes gotta land somewhere.
Assuming that mid-air collisions are more likely where there is a greater density of air traffic (at places like airports), do you still think that these soft-walls are safe and that the "nearby soft-wall" situation is covered?
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
Wow, I never realized Ann Coulter went by the name of Doug Neal!
Can I have your autograph? Please? Really, I love your idea about killing their leaders and convert them all to Christianity. Then there would be world peace and candy for everyone, right?
Sorry, I saw the signs. One was in the town of Kas, a town near Antalya. This was in 1994.
"But I guess not wanting to commit genocide of a race "
umm islam is a relgion....but i suppose facts don't matter to you....
I don't think that anyone is going to be able to pull of a highjacking for a very, very long time. If ever again.
I think that after seeing the atrocities at the WTC and Pentagon, and the bravery and sacrifice of the passangers of the flight out of Newark, people are ready to give their lives to prevent somethig like this from ever happening again.
"Lets Roll"
Huh?
Not even Anti-Aircraft Missiles, the real deal, with the large bore barrels and the deafening sound. Take a few off of old warships and fill the sky with lead if any pilot would dare to get near a large city again.
Of course, we would have to devise some defense from all the falling artillery pieces for the buildings and residents of the city, but we can overcome that I'm sure!
(Many Highways were required by law to have a certain amount of space that could be used as a landing strip)
This is regrettably an urban myth:
US DOT document concerning this
Snopes document on it
Christianity is not a peaceful religion.
Islam is not a peaceful religion.
Over the course of human history, the previous statments have been proved hundreds of times. The muslims invaded most of northern africa, and some of europe forcibly converting people to their religon. Christians did the same.
Obviously this is not as true today. However, it does not change the fact that one of the main goals of Islam is to spread itself to everyone, the same as christianity.
This is an absolutely dangerous idea.
The concept of "pilot in command" is extremely important in the FAA's rulebook, and is hard set in aviation culture. It's very simple; one person in the cockpit is the pilot in command (PIC), and he or she is directly, completely, and personally responsible for anything that happens to that plane while it is in the air.
The FAA's rules also clearly state that, in an emergency, the PIC is authorized to do anything necessary to take care of the emergency, even if it breaks every other rule in the book. For instance, if my engine failed and there was no civilian airport in range, I could legally land on a city street or a military airstrip, fly through restricted airspace, override ATC commands, etc.
So what happens if my engine fails, I need to get to an airport on the other side of a major city, and that city is "protected"? Suppose I have just enough altitude to get there at my best glide rate. Will the airplane override my inputs and resist my approach over the city?
What happens if "soft barriers" prevents the pilot from safely responding to a systems malfunction? A lot of flight does occur over dense urban areas (the final approach to Santa Monica airport passes just a few hundred feet over some downtown towers). Who is responsible for the non-optimal response: the pilot in command, or the soft barriers system?
"Oh, but that'll never happen," one might respond. Go to the NTSB's aircraft accident report site and read some reports. Aircraft are complex mechanical devices, and they can and do fail all the time, often in subtle and bizarre ways.
As a pilot, I won't get anywhere near a plane with "soft barriers", even as a passenger.
-John
It won't prevent evil pilots from crashing the plane, but OTOH if it's the actual pilots that are the terrorists, I don't think anything is going to help very much.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
hmm... hax0r the box and program enough softwalls to make a virtual soft tunnel that would lead right into a restricted area... yikerz.
If Al-Quaeda attacks again it will probably not be a copy-cat hijacking. They'll find a new way to shock and awe us, and we all the $ we spend on airborn Maginot Lines won't even slow them down.
I've read recently that the Dept. of Homeland Security has done nothing to require that chemical plants (a rather obvious target) increase their security. Seems like this administration is more interested in having an excuse to start wars and curtail our liberties than in protecting us.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
i'd bang Ann Coulter she looks great for being over 40....
probably fun in bed also
U.S. government policy in the middle east is 100% successful. They are trying to cause trouble, and they are. If you work for the CIA, NSA, or FBI, more trouble means more promotions.
Also, when I was hanging out with some Turkish guys (who were great guys, we became friends) and they were bragging about how many European women they had slept with, I asked them what would happen if I slept with a Turkish woman.
"Her brothers would kill you," was the reply, "and then maybe her."
This was in a town near Erzurum (may have spelled it wrong).
"In fact about 20% of Israel's national budget is from US donations"
Actually Israel's budget is around 40 billion and the US gives them between 2 and 5 billion dollars depending on the source you find.
Hijacked planes are a problem but compare the odds with getting into a car crash or being struck by lightning. Putting up SoftWalls is a ridiculous idea. The cost would be tremendous. However I am not surprised. Over the past few years Americans have been inundated with new reasons to fear (thank you Bush & Rumsfeld) and the threat of dieing from a hijacked plane is no exception.
An AC wrote:
;)
> 100.. 100.. 6
You know, if you insist on loudly proclaiming such an unenlightened view, you could at least not use *Arabic* numbers. They detract from your arguments.
Other things you might want to avoid: star names and chemistry. Unfortunately for your beliefs, while Europe was in the Dark Ages, it was the Arabs that kept science alive.
And how do all these oil-producing countries in the Middle East produce that oil without geologists, chemists and engineers?
> America should let the Nazis/Muslims destroy Israel.
Hitler was Catholic (when he bothered to be anything but looney) and most Germans were either Catholic or Lutheran. The Nazi mentality was not kind to non-Christian peoples (and even some Christians), and was decidedly bigoted against darker skinned peoples. Do read your history books.
> Because Americans have bases in the Middle East?
Bin Laden's beef is more that the "infidel" US has bases near the most holy spot in Islam: Mecca. He is entitled to his beef. He is not entitled to have masterminded the deaths of 3,000 innocents, some of them Muslims themselves. For such a horrible crime, he deserves to be punished. Unfortunately, his arrest, trial, and punishment have not been forthcoming.
> Because America protects Israel from Muslims?
Because the US gives Israel military aid: helicopters, bombs, missiles, bulldozers, etc., which Israel uses to oppress the Palestinians and kill their kids. Palestinian resistance fighters, long since shaded into terrorism, respond in kind. Israel retaliates, and the region is sunk in an endless cycle of violence, which peace alone can break. As long as "peace" is only imposed from the outside, it will never last. True peace has to come from the hearts of those involved. There is some hope though, as some Palestinians are turning to nonviolent means of protest.
> Let's see, when the 6 Days War broke out, what reason
> did those Muslims have to go on a jihad against Israel?
Maybe because Israel launched a surprise attack on Egypt? And Syria, Jordan, and Iraq came to Egypt's defense because they had signed a mutual defense agreement? That is what the World Book Encyclopedia says happened. It's kind of like if the Soviet Union had attacked the US during the Cold War and all of NATO came running to help.
See? If you avoid mentioning stuff that contradicts what you are saying, and get your history right, you too can spout ridiculous nonsense and get the masses to believe anything you say. Who knows? Someday, you might even get to be president and lead the nation to war against some looser based on your spoutings.
"Lola, kindness is not enough, look for the reason of hatred and anger.
When you find and understand that, love becomes the strongest power."
Belabera, "Mothra 3: King Ghidora Attacks"
It is very annoying to Americans that Arabs object to the U.S. government trying to kill them.
Get rid of the airplanes and airports:
Hire Chicago's Mayor Daly for a night to fix the airport ala Meigs Field.
Both of those are impossible to achieve.
The only way to make the system unhackable is to never implement it; and the only way to make it impossible for terrorists to use airplanes as weapons is to ground all of the airplanes.
We have to learn how to accept a "level" of security, as opposed to expecting "perfect" security.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
Keep in mind that the customers of this system are the same pilots who have been fighting tooth-and-nail to be allowed to have pistols in the cockpit. (Many pilots in the U.S. are ex-military, where they learned to fly, and may be predisposed to a certain mindset.) If you tell them that any of their control in the cockpit will be taken away by an automated system, they will cry bl**dy murder!
Good idea, but too strong a lobby against it.
Toon toon! Black and white army!
If the opening of "Futurama" is any indication. Poor Leela keeps crashing her ship at least once a week.
A better solution is to have NFL games run past scheduled conclusion times.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
The Arab people were a fully functioning culture until the virus that is Islam infected them. You cite creations that came before Islam even existed. You might want to get your facts straight, moron.
As for the rest of your liberal drivel, forget it. You are wrong and I have proven that you didn't understand anything I said - there, I say no more to you. Go ahead and hate America all you want - it doesn't bother me. I just hope you get deported.
How come if this technology works so well we aren't using it to stop people flying to mountains. Put a "soft" wall over all those mountains that people keep crashing aircraft into as well.
Now, it's not exactly the same, but an AirBus plane will not allow the pilot to do things it considers unsafe(for instance, send the plane into a nose-dive). Boeing planes allow the pilot to do whatever the pilot wants.
Obviously, one hopes that the system on an Airbus plane never affects what a pilot is trying to do. That pilots fly safely, and that the plane does not misinterpret a safe, necessary maneuver as being unsafe. I think the people who died on the Air Egypt flight where the copilot allegedly crashed the plane probably wish they had been on an AirBus plane.
My other sig is extremely clever...
How about giving up on the high rise and creating more humane cities?
The skyscraper is just an expression of egocentric capitalism anyway. It's about men with power and money who wanted bigger penises.
We should toss the idea aside and come up with better ways to live in high density urban areas.
That oughta take care of 9/11-style attacks.
I guess they'll just have to attack smaller cities ... probably anything other than New York, or D.C. at first. They'd be the first to implement such a plan. Not to mention, can GPS do elevation? Or is it stuck with lat/lon?
-----
Web Hosting @ HostForADollar.com
Why don't we just amend our foreign policy so that the rest of the world doesn't hate us, pay a small amount of attention (anything would help) to domestic policy so that the growing underclass doesn't find it advantageous to become a terrorist, and vote out the fascists currently in charge? Then we could all just take longer vacations and not have to work on fancy aviation software. Sounds like a win-win situation to me, even if you're wealthy, corrupt or stupid.
How about giving the pilots shotguns or tasers and making the door to the cockpit a little more secure (an obvious step, which AFAIK has not been undertaken)? Most of the time there's a low-tech, brute force solution thats much cheaper, more reliable, and at least as effective as the newest in high-tech.
There are a lot of older aircraft flying in the USA, and more in other parts of the world. Many of them don't have a GPS or a complex autopilot, just a VOR/NDB setup and I don't just mean cessnas I mean thinks like B727's and DC9's.
Or does this only prevent hijack by new hitech glass cockpit aircraft?
Erlang Developer and podcaster
A quick summary:
A single engine light aircraft was flying in heavy cloud and moderate turbulence when it apparently entered a thunderstorm cell. A severe downdraught caused an abrupt descent, followed by wind shear causing a stall, and further descent. The pilot broke free from the base of the cloud, still descending, and saw lots of trees. He pulled back VERY HARD on the controls, recovered control of the aircraft, but felt it was performing strangely, so he landed at the first opportunity.
Subsequent examination of the aircraft showed:
a) eucalyptus leaves in the undercarriage, presumably from tree skimming.
b) the wings had undergone permanent deformation, with the tips being now some 30cm higher than normal. The main spar had bent in two places. This was attributed to 'G' forces in excess of the flight envelope of the aircraft.
Leave the decision making in the hands of the pilot; that's what they're paid for. If I die in an airplane crash, I want to know that the pilot did everything in his power to save my life, and paid for his failure with his own. I'd not be nearly as happy about dying in such a crash and knowing that somewhere some programmer is cheering his software that prevented the pilot from violating some FAA regulation at the expense of the aircraft.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
What everybody in this thread fails to see is that what is happening is a fundamental clash between two different cultures. It won't (can't) end with a peace treaty. If any of us lives long enough, we may get to see the end of the struggle. Right now it's hard to predict which side will win. The West is more advanced, but the Muslims outnumber them.
Peaceful coexistence would be nice. It just won't happen. That's life. Choose your side.
2 points,
1) some airports are really close to major buildings, especially in non-american cities.
2)Terrorist WANT TO CRASH! Get up high, go in the general direction and blow the front of the plane off! All the avionics in the world won't help. But hey that should not stop us from spending BILLIONS to develop a useless toy. Give all passengers a bowie knife.
The majority that want to live
will kill the minority that want to die!
So then all one would have to do is flip a bit to invert the geometry of the "soft" walls and then all planes would be automatically and irrovocably steered into all no-fly zones...
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
being the presence of US soldiers in their holy land.
That is one reason that seems to be pretty prevalent, especially since some of the groups specifically say so in their "press releases"
Still, it is an irrational and frankly not-nice way to view the world which has no legitamacy whatsoever. If the Saudi Government invites the USAF to the country to put a base there, the beef is with the Saudi Government, not the American Public.
Moslems have a PR problem, but it's not because pasty-whites (like me) coming up with brash and racist ideas on our own (well, not entirely). It's forced female circumcision, death by stoning, violently sexist attitudes, cutting off hands for stealing, religious persecution of Jews, Christians and others, totalitarian/theocratic (and usually aggressive) governments, punishment of rape victims not the perpetrators, rape as a punishment for adultery or pre-marital sex, not to mention more than their fair share of terrorists willing to kill others and themselves... I could go on and on.
No matter that what I think is true or not. I think it because of what I have learned about Moslems over the years, from TV, newspaper, classic literature, etc. has made me think the guys over in the Middle-East and Eastern Africa are barbarians that are not willing to stop being a bunch of jerks.
If they want me to think the West should change it's behavior, they need to explain point by point why they have a problem, *AND* their complaints must be valid and rational. Until then, they get no sympathy from me.
the day of his victory. Indeed Saddam is tied to Al Qaeda like April 9th is tied to September 11th!
Here are some ideas which immediately come to mind. My assumption is that they aren't disallowing traffic a certain height above the city, just within a certain spherical radius.
Hacks:
1) Flights intended for an airport closed to the city can direct themselves at the city, and the perimiter will steer them off into a common pattern. Voila, lazy approach queuing.
2) Emit the soft-wall signal from inside the plane and steer! Fun for those long, drawn out trips.
Cracks:
1) Get above the city and nose dive into it in such a way way to make physics overload the aircraft's ability to turn itself in time.
2)Find two cities near each other and aim for the union of the two soft walls, where both cities cancel each other, and leave the attach to steer again.
3) I'm surprised they mentioned jamming GPS and falling back, since nothing prevents someone from jamming on several frequencies. Isolate the plane, and how can it tell where it is?
4) Some airports are too close to a city center (read Reagan Airport).
Partial Fixes:
1)User laser based deterrence. Emit a light from the highest structure in the city with timing information, so the plane can calculate how far away it is. No Jamming, but it is affected by weather.
2)Follow the leader. Jamming puts plane in a mode that causes it to follow an aircraft which shows up to escort it to a safe landing. That way, a person will always be in control of the plane one way or another.
slow day at work.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
Americans?
I think that the Oklahoma City bombing proves that we don't have to look very far to find people will to attack us.
I have great faith in fools - self confidence my friends call it. - Edgar Allan Poe
I see 2 things wrong with this:
1) what happens when the plane is shut down in mid-flight? fly it fast and straight and then shut it down and let it glide though the wall.
2) saying something is "immune to hacking" is like saying our airline "security is flawless". just saying it doesn't make it true.
Rock!
I think some folks in this thread are reading way too much into the guy's off the cuff remark about being "Hackproof". I think all he meant is that it is not a remote system controlling the plane from the ground. So, you'd have to hack the system as it is installed/updated or while you are on the plane. That clearly is more secure than a "fly it from the ground" override system as far as hacking is concerned. I mean even a "white hat" hacker would be sorely tempted to take over a big jet and fly it around a little via remote control before letting it go land safely.
But yeah, the planned implementation is not immune to security threats or corruptions. The biggest likely problem I could see is just the system mislabelling an airport as off limits and all the passengers getting diverted to another city. No danger, but what a major travel hassle! Of course, if all airports were marked off limits, it would be more than just a hassle.
Still though, at least the guy is trying to come up with something that would help make things safer. Even if it turns out to be a bad idea, you got to give the guy some credit for trying.
"Contrarily the lookaside buffer might not be the panacea... "
Thank you! As an American muslim, it's funny when I read/hear news that refers to the middle-east as the "muslim world", I think to myself, "ok, so it happened on Earth, they could be a little more specific."
I have seen both types of my fellow Americans, those
who like the simplicity of casting all their frustration/hate/blame against a certain group of people. For example, I have a friend who says he hates the French because of their purported sales of weapons to Iraq. I say who do you hate in particular? He says all of them. He won't even listen to French music when I play it because of the (purported ) actions of the French government. It's much easier to just hate them all than inform himself of who actually committed the act that he
resents.
Anyhow, all I can says is most of the people who discriminate against an entire country,race,religion are those who are also to lazy to even learning about what it they think hate. e.g. criticize Islam without knowing anything about the religion. I thought it was interesting when I met a muslim scholar for the first time, and he knew the ( King James ) bible better than I did, while I had been a Christian for the longest time before converting to Islam.
Sorry for the long, post, but I feel ( just as in any case ) making judgements about things you are ignorant of is wrong.
I can't afford a sig!
And how would this type of thing be enforced for general aviation? Not all planes in the air are huge 777s with fly by wire controls.
Are you going to force every plane to have an electronic guidence system?
Heck. Hypothetically, there are planes up there with no radios still.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Like Turkey with the Kurds, or Indonesia? I think you meant to say "we would be sending them US-made weapons to help the suppression; it saves us the job".
It's a question of "envelope management". Fly-By-Wire systems can be made to impose hard limits (reportedly the Airbus approach) or soft limits (Boeing).
With soft limits, the normal limits can be exceeded when the pilot assertively pushes beyond normal range of control inputs. This allows, for example, the temporarily "hopping" that you described, or to allow an emergency collision avoidance that would put excessive stresses on the airframe.
After all, building down instead of up can't be more difficult and it's just as aesthetic as this "Super Friends" anti-terrorist bubble dome.
If we want to help the Israelis, we should force them to give the Palestinians their rights.
As we develop more sophisticated weapons and further degrade our civil rights we are moving further away from peace. Revolutionaries, terrorists if you prefer, will always find a way to attack the system. Revolutionaries know why they are fighting and they are willing to die for their cause. We choose to not understand why they are fighting, we are therefore left with no idea why we are fighting. Witness; Iraq.
If we continue on this road we will be surrounded by the most lethal weapons while living in a prison of our own making and still vulnerable to terrorism. This is the path that Israel has chosen, let us not follow them.
None of this is really needed. The hijackings on 9/11 worked because everyone "knew" that when a plane was hijacked, it was flown somewhere, demands were negotiated, and most of the time no one got hurt.
Now things are different. We saw that with flight UA 93. Both crew and passengers will flight to the death and/or crash the plane to prevent anyone from taking control of a plane by force.
There are lots of other things to be worried about, but terrorists commandeering planes isn't one of them.
A lot of cities have major airports inside the city or right the edge with flight paths that go over the city. So if this scheme is adopted, is it turned off for those cities and thus rendered useless? Force those cities to move the airport (not an option in most cases)?
Has anyone come up with a reason why they don't just put an impenetrable door on the cockpit (impenetrable to things you could sneak onto a plane anyway)? This is all moot anyway because nothing like this will ever happen again. Up until that incident, everyone just expected the hijackers to land the plane in some non-extradition country or some such nonsense. If this were to happen today, every passenger on the plane would be out for hijacker blood - box cutters or no box cutters.
oops, left out the link.
Please repeat that after me, my dear Ashcroft fans:
Social problems cannot be solved by technical measures, no matter how much money you throw at them. Period.
This applies to planes, cars, handguns, drugs, wife battering and neglected kids. But hey, go ahead and try. Totalitarian socialism is not that bad, really...
Who says such a system needs to be located in the cockpit? Why not under the floor? Or in a wing? Or the tail? Or why not several redunant ones in several of these locations?
Come to that, why have a cockpit at all? Computers have been good enough to take off, fly, evade dangers, and land safely all by themselves for some time now. Why have human pilots at all? Put several computers around the plane, redunantly, with auto-failover; harden them against EMP. Done! Now in order to hijack the plane, you'd have to (1) simultaneously disable all of them at once right when the plane's pointing at, and at the correct range from, what you want to hit (in order to make the plane coast into it -- could be made impossible by correctly designing the programmed route), or simultaneously hack into all of them at once (pretty difficult when there's no access to any of them). About all you could do is explode the whole plane with a large bomb (bad enough, but at least not 9/11).
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
Why not simply lock the cockpit before flight?
Doubtful. A determined hijacker will just reprogram the flight control system.
Physical barriers between the pilots and passengers are just a feel-good measure. All a terrorist has to do is start killing hostages, and the pilots will open the door. Only a robot or a sociopath could remain locked in the cockpit listening to a vivid description over the intercom of the flight attendants being flayed with a box-cutter!
The only way to prevent this kind of attack (other than hiring hardened killers as pilots) is to lock the cockpit door from outside the aircraft, and keep the pilots locked inside for the duration of the flight. That wouldn't be very popular with the pilots, since it would prevent them from escaping from a crashed plane, or getting coffee or taking a bathroom break in flight.
0 1 - just my two bits
Solve that problem, once and for all.
" If they want me to think the West should change it's behavior, they need to explain point by point why they have a problem, *AND* their complaints must be valid and rational."
Who says they aren't? The media isn't interested in talking to moderates though. Extremists make much better headlines. As long as you passively wait for information to be brought to you, you will remain uninformed and therefore easily manipulated. You become dangerous to your fellow human beings because you can be turned against others through simple misinformation.
So then like someone writes a virus that waits until someone is near a 'soft' bubble and then invert the program to trap them there. The same controls that keep them from going into the city, now prevent them from leaving... so the circle till they're out of gas and crash. Great! The only issue here is that where using technology for a false sense of security. However, if this technology does go in, I could hack a no-fly-zone over my house... never mind, this is a great idea! Carry on!
who pictured giant, inflatable (soft) walls, before I RTFA?
-- My hovercraft is full of eels.
The fact we allow these people to continue to act as terrorists is the real injustice.
They need to be eliminated, ALL of them once and for all. And in masse. At any cost to these 2 bit countries that harbor them. I really dont care. They are all worthless and wasting valuable earth resources.
Once there is no profit from acting as a terrorist ( either financially or to 'get your point across' ) then it will stop.
2. Transmit it to the plane.
3. Use an amplifier and a parabolic dish to send an amplified signal to the GPS antenna.
4. The plane thinks, it is flying wherever the GPS signal is collected.
This would also work on GPS-guided weapons, but there it would be less practical -- sending an amplified precisely reproduced GPS signal to a bunch of bombs and missiles few kilometers above you and tens of kilometers away , moving at high speed is a bit harder than doing the same for few meters inside the plane.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Besides all the points raised about the risks of a pilot NOT being able to control the plane in an emergency....what about the fact that maybe the terrorists are smarter than to try THE SAME PLOY AGAIN! They used planes because that was our vulnerable spot...but everyone seems to think that terrorists have one strategy. It isn't like fighting a standing army with known technology and tactics which you can counter by thinking ahead. Terrorism is effective because they wait to see where the vulnerability lies and then exploit it. They don't do the same thing twice once you've plugged the gap. Airmarshalls and locked cockpit doors are effective at stopping people from taking over planes and they allow the pilot to remain in control the entire time.
Of course, every system has it's weakness. What if the hijacker threatened to kill, or did kill passengers if the pilot didn't open the door? Do all our pilots have steele reserve?
The best way to fight terrorism is to figure out why people are desparate enough, or mad enough to kill you. Eliminate the reason and you eliminate terrorism--And NO "they hate our freedom" is not the reason. Our freedoms are being eaten away...and anyway, why didn't they attack Japan or England, or France, or Canada? Those places have just as much freedom as we...
I wouldn't be surprised if the next terrorist attack is from a Militia-man going extreme over the Patriot Acts I and II.
You are a brave warrior, muhajin. Even in failure your place in the afterlife is secured. However, due to budgetary constraints and reorganization you will be given 5 virgins instead of the traditional 70. We hope that nevertheless we can continue to expect your unconditional zealotry and martyrdomly enthusiasm.
A colleague pointed something interesting out to me. The cockpit door is reinforced, locked, etc. However, on many aircraft there is a lavatory on your left as you enter (right behind the Captain's seat). I wonder if that wall is reinforced.
The movie scenario I like the most is having the bad guys crash planes by hacking into the ground systems to create "soft canyons" around planes already in the air, forcing them into targets.
It doesn't matter if you can't hack the plane if you can jerrymander the no flight map in realtime and point the planes right at densely populated areas. I don't know if these no fly zones have "ceilings" on them, but put a downward sloping ceiling on your soft canyon and watch the plane dive right into the ground.
"Trust in haste. Repent at leisure"
So if we are pissed about the presence of their soldiers in our holy land, do we have a right to kill their civilians ?
That argument was just too easy to shoot down. Next time try rubbing a few brain cells together before posting.
You fucking idiots still believe the Jewish media lies of what happened on Sept 11th? You fucking retards.. wake up. I suppose you believe Pearl Harbor was a "suprise" too. You filthy kike worshipping morons.
An even handed article is here.
in general it will not work. While it might be used to protect "obvious" targets like the White House, Congress, and the Pentagon (which I presume is really what they want to protect), it does nothing to protect the hundreds of thousands of other possible targets. It is unlikely that the GPS coordinates of these targets would be in the system. Not to mention that this article discusses "no-fly" zones and NOT just any building someone wants to make a "no-fly zone". If the landing patterns of a major international airport near a major city require flying over that city, it is unlikely that the buildings in that area can be designated a no-fly zone. So all a terrorist needs to do is seize the aircraft, fly in on his normal landing pattern until he's over the city, then blow up the plane and/or drop it on his target.
There was one of these military novels a few years ago that had terrorists actually BUYING older aircraft and crashing them into the Fed Ex distribution center with a few thousand pounds of explosive and fuel on them just to be able to short the stock market on airline and Fed Ex stock, among other things. These terrorists were far more competent than the usual bozos, however - mostly ex-US, French and British military.
Another novel I remember had a few terrorists with a dozen or so military radios blocking channels on the Atlanta airport net and then seizing control of those channels long enough to divert incoming aircraft so that they screwed up the pattern and caused Air Force One to get hit.
Fiction, of course, but who knows - without doing the operational plan - how many of these scenarios - and many others - might be possible?
Terrorism includes hitting targets of opportunity. This doesn't mean just targets that are selected on the spur of the moment; it means targets that aren't protected and never have been protected because they were never thought of as targets. The fact that the World Trade Center was bombed (ineffectively) before is WHY it was chosen for the 9/11 attacks. But they could just as easily have selected the Bank of America (Shoenstein Building) building or the Transamerica Building in San Francisco, or the Sears tower, or anything else.
The bottom line: you can NEVER defend EVERYTHING from terrorists. You can't even defend all high-value targets. What if the terrorists decided to crash into all the IRS data processing centers? All the Federal Reserve mints? Bush's Crawford ranch? For that matter, ANY place the President HAPPENS to be on some campaign tour? The Secret Service probably have Stingers in their vans, but that's not a total solution to the problem.
Still, it wouldn't hurt to build in some anti-hijacking smarts into the avionics. Only thing is, you'd better think it through because any time you remove human control of a complicated system, it is likely to allow for unforeseen problems that are not resolvable by the mechanical system.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
How do you feel when I say "American People want to attack Irak just because that's their way of life, money by all means" ?
I'd be inclined to agree with you to be honest. Just because I have a low opinion of islam doesn't mean I'm a rabid rightwing Bush fanatic, and I think the Americans' motives for invading Iraq are highly questionable.
No I don't fully agree with the example you quoted but it's on the right lines. Note that I wasn't referring to muslims as a whole in my original post, just the extremists - same goes for Americans/Christians. It just so happens that the ones in power right now are rightwing Christians.
Putting people inside a few tonnes of metal and sending them up where nature didn't intend is extremely dangerous and, in all probability, will kill people. It is still the safest way to travel. The question is what makes it safest.
But anything you install in a plane has risks. When you take off in that shiny new Airbus, how much control do you think the flight crew are going to have if someone overlooked a bug in the control software that is all that links their cabin controls to the physical surfaces?
Maybe that's part of the problem. One moment, you're perfectly legal, happily following a designated flight path and no threat to anyone. The next, you're a terrorist weapon that needs to be shot down because there's no time to do anything else. Isn't that a bit, well, sudden?
In a car, I'd agree with your reasoning, and I dislike the occasionally-suggested speed limiters and such for exactly that reason. But the thing is, a car doesn't put the ability to kill thousands of people in one easily controlled place, and then put up a big sign advertising that fact to people who just might be sick enough to try and take control of that one place do it.
While I entirely accept that a flight crew need to have the final word on anything under normal circumstances, they have to trust external influences all the time anyway: air traffic controllers, mechanics, software developers, GPS satellites... If any of the links in the chain breaks, an accident will result. And yet still, flying is the safest way to travel.
I can see why there will be serious and legitimate concerns about any system like this, but I think generalisations like "any sane pilot will oppose it" are going too far. If it's a choice between this and "OK, if you cross that line, an automatic missile system is going to fire on you instead" then I know which I'd take.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
A certainty of getting shot while going inside a certain area kinda limits your options too, as does being remote controlled.
BTW, it is of course perfectly feasible to make this system disableable from the ground (it opens it up to hacking, but with the right cryptography it should be reliable enough).
On tractor trailers.
Waiting for ad.doubleclick.net...
You have got to be joking.
all you need to do is make the flight controls on aircraft AUTO route around certain air spaces no matter what... program in pockets of restricted airspace that the plane cannot fly into.
Sure the soft wall may be "hack proof" - but then the soft wall itself becomes the target... not the impervious shield
...you can see, children, the hate-filled bile spewed by the neo-conservative of the early twenty-first century. Vitriolic ranting and ad hominem attacks were the normal mode of operation and became quite effective in moving their society toward unrest and, eventually, destruction...very similar to the Nazi movement of the mid twentieth century. Now lets move on to the thousand-year dark ages that followed this period of war and destruction and then, in the next exhibit, the exciting birth of the Re-Enlightenment period.
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
An AC wrote:
;)
:b
> Arab != Muslim
Yes, Arab the people, culture, and in the case of Saudi Arabia, the country, is obviously not synonymous with Islam the religion. But Islam the religion began in Saudi Arabia, and many Arabs today are Muslims.
> The Arab people were a fully functioning culture until
> the virus that is Islam infected them.
The Arab people were a fully functioning culture before one Arab man and his deity decided to create the religion Islam, and a lot of their countrymen joined in. Actually, it was around that time that they became involved in alchemy, which later became chemistry. They still are a fully functioning culture, if you ask them. Nothing to do with viruses though.
> You cite creations that came before Islam even existed.
And ones that were created at the same time, and ones used in oil production today. Imagine that.
> You might want to get your facts straight, moron.
You are the one who doesn't read much. And don't call people names. It is rude.
> As for the rest of your liberal drivel, forget it.
First you call me a name, then you give me orders. I don't think you like me.
> You are wrong and I have proven that you didn't
> understand anything I said - there, I say no more to you.
Okay, if it makes you feel better.
> Go ahead and hate America all you want - it doesn't
> bother me.
I don't hate America at all. I love America, both the continent and the US of A.
I just don't like what the current administration is doing, which is my right as a citizen. This wonderful right, called the First Amendment, allows both you and me to speak our minds on any given issue. It allows us freedom to worship our favorite deities, whether it be Jesus, Allah, or my personal deities: Mothra and Godzilla.
> I just hope you get deported.
Sorry, but I was born here.
My parents were born here.
My dad was a sergeant in the US Army in WWII.
There is nowhere to deport me to.
Chief Tsujimori: "I won't let you get away. I will never let you escape."
Godzilla elegantly lifts his tail skyward to give her the "finger", crashes it down on the water, and submerges.
"Godzilla X Megagiras", 2000
If it cannot keep Orville and Wilbur Wright away from the airspace, it's no damn good.
This idea is so ignorant of the reality of flying it I doubt you will find any pilot who agrees with it.
Pilots are specifically trained to deal with all sorts of navigation and mechanical failure. This system would effectively add a device to the aircraft who's malfuction could cause a crash the pilot would not be able to override it.
Just like computers, airplane systems like autopilots fail pretty often.
Anyway, terrorists will now have an easier time using a private plane than a commercial plane. They are everywhere and most of them have no ignition lock system! Of course, you can buy an old plane for cheap, so if the terrorists have any financing at all they can just buy their own.
Yes, It's not going to happen again.
Like in Ender's Game: "this is going to work only once, so let's do it big", speaking about the MD device.
Once your enemy knows your new trick, you can not use it again. The terrorist will have to invent new tricks.
You're racist and a liberal.
One mistaken supposition is that the system is not
hackable. GPS is just a system of beamed signals. There have been attacks against "hard" random number generators that use background radiation...when someone realized that they could put a radiation source next to the receiver and guarantee that all "random" bytes were MAXINT.
Similarly, this system is hackable by anyone who creates a few GPS transmitters that are broadcasting more loudly than the real sattelites (not hard to do locally). The plane above Manhattan suddenly thinks that it's in Kansas and has no problem landing in the "corn field" which is, in fact, the NY financial district.
with as much as I know about computers, I think I'd rather walk, thanks very much.
Check out my sysadmin blog!
You misspelled "oil."
Scares the hell out of me too. If it can be done without any programming, perhaps it's a thought.
- what about emergency landings?
- beacons are supposed to be a backup, not always able to triangulate
- unhackable, as long as the plane is in tact... and secure somehow of course
A blog I run for the wealth
Plane, fly closer to those buildings.
Plane: Have you considered other alternatives, like those open fields over there?
Marvin, make this plane go close to those building!
Life, don't talk about life.
Why in almighty fucks name has Slashdot set the fucking comment limit to 50? 50?! I'm not going to click through 14 fucking pages of shit; fuck no! I've set my fucking preferences with a limit of 500; "NO!" says the almighty Slashdot "50 it is". Fucking peice of shit fucking Slashcode Perl shit. Fucking CmdrTaco. FUCK
Please feel free to list the sects that the doctrine of kill infidels or force them into dhimmi status doesn't apply to and then feel free to list the countries where those sects dominate.
No, really, I'm curious.
cutting off hands for stealing
Thats worse than gassing, electrocuting or posioning a person how?
religious persecution of Jews, Christians and others
Like the Christians have never gone in for a little persecution!
totalitarian/theocratic (and usually aggressive) governments
Yeah, theres never been a totalitarian theocratic Christian Government!
not to mention more than their fair share of terrorists willing to kill others and themselves
Like the Protestant & Catholic terrorists from Northern Ireland? Damn Irish Muslims!
You're full of shit. All you see is "Muslim == Terrorist" and thats it; a good, white, Christian boy could never be a terrorist and Christians could never do anything bad, like those dirty Muslims could. No siree! You sir, are a bigot.
I'm all for hard walls. Like the kind you put between the cockpit and the passenger cabin. The kind without doors. Good strong ones, too - made of thick plate steel. Make the terrorists bring a big torch to cut through it, instead of just busting down a door.
The airlines are sure to hate this idea. For them, it would mean they'd have to install sealed external doors just for the cockpit. Not to mention the extra crew support items - like a bathroom, separate provisions for meals, etc. That gets pretty damned expensive.
For us, it would mean that there would be no way to reach the cockpit. That means that there would be little reason to be searched for minor items like nail files and pocket knives. No more long waits at overcrowded and intrusive checkpoints. I mean, yeah, a terrorists could still kill people, or even everyone on board, but they'd have a hell of a time getting through a steel partition and flying the plane into a building.
(Score: -1, Stupid)
"The system would include an on-board database of the GPS coordinates of the no-fly zones."
So, why not bring your own database / replacement-HD with you when you hijack the plane?
What's the ROM do if it detects a harddrive swap in flight? Crash the plane immediately? Make everything a no-fly zone? Land at the nearest airport, lock the doors, and send knock-out gas through the cabin?
Of course, Lik Sang will sell a modchip. You can't have a computer in a plane without a working Linux port available!
ridiculous... hamas, islamic jihad, etc have spokesmen who are working to rationally explain their beliefs... they all say "death to israel"
(Many Highways were required by law to have a certain amount of space that could be used as a landing strip)
<trebek>Ohh, I'm sorry, that's incorrect</trebek>. Check here for the answer
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Here's Prof. Edward Lee's research group's website on Heterogeneous Modeling and Design and some more technical publications regarding soft walls.
Monsanto?
Islam had a great period of civilizational dominance. China did too but both have clearly fallen behind since that period. It's a fair question whether Islam can deal with modernity. The prospects aren't looking too bright by objective measurements.
As for Hitler and his disdain for the darker races, you might want to look up the history of the Nazi relationship with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the SS battalions raised from among the muslims. History is history but at least don't quote selectively to give a false impression.
On the Palestinians/Israel. Muslim lands host, literally the last refugee camps from the post WW II settlement. Jews were expelled and ran for their lives all across the Middle East when Israel was established. Houses were confiscated, monies expropriated, and no restitution has ever been forthcoming. In the same era that those jews were running, the germans were being expelled from Konigsberg and other places and all sorts of populations were being shifted all over the map. Today, all those people have been settled down and their children are citizens of the land of their birth except for the Palestinians.
Why are muslims so inhospitable, so cruel, and have not let Palestinians assimilate? Why are these people born in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, etc. not given passports in the land of their birth? Why should they be any different than the Germans who were expelled or the indians who fled?
Every military analysis I've read on the 1967 war is unified in stating that Israel merely disrupted the timing of the forthcoming muslim attack by attacking first. It was pretty obvious that there would have been a war without Israeli preemption but with Israel being in a weaker military position.
Then just just go somewhere else for weapons, only now they are pissed at us - so you have even more pissed off people with weapons that dislike the US. Great plan!
Only in sunny Cal at Berkley could someone come up with a completely unworkable idea that might be implemented at a cost of billions of US dollars.
If the US were serious about protecting planes from being hijacked, the pilots would be armed. Two shotguns in the cockpit and the option to carry a concealed weapon. End of story.
No pilot in his right mind will fly with a system like this unless it has an OFF switch.
In-flight emergencies, landing in adverse conditions, aborting a takeoff. These are all things pilots have to contend with that this system could very well prevent them from doing so.
If the pilot can find the OFF switch then so can the hijackers. Even if it was protected with biometrics they can be fooled and a kamikaze hijacker prolly won't have many qualms about severing a finger or plucking out an eyeball.
Pilots will insist, rightly so, on manual override. To coin a phrase, this idea just won't fly.
The current FAA regulations state that, in an emergency, a pilot may take *ANY* action required to deal with the emergency. And yes, this includes violating restricted airspaces. So, in order to support this, there would have to be a local override for emergencies -- the first plane which went down because the pilot couldn't do what was required as a result of the software would be enough to kill the program.
Also, this may be practical on some fly-by-wire systems, but I'm willing to bet that any implementation would be (relatively) easy to hack at the hardware level (pull the chip, turn off the power, whatever). Heck, even if you turn off _everything_ and go to whatever manual controls exist, you can still glide for some distance if you start 6 miles up!
If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
Oh great, right wing = klan lover and it gets moderated +3 insightful? What a way to prove the guy's point. That kind of crap is the worst stereotype mongering there is in politics and gives rise to its mirror image left winger = traitor, something that, until recently, the right has been reluctant to go full bore about. Unfortunately for the left, the self-restraint is gone and Ann Coulter's Treason is a best seller.
It's all a matter of will. The numbers don't matter much. Do you have some latin? Look up Carthago delenda est and you'll see that the only thing saving muslims is the conviction of a majority in the west that they are worth saving. We're perfectly capable of replicating the roman experience. We just don't want to.
FR: DHS (Dept. of Homeland Security)
CC: FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), DoD (Dept. of Defense)
RE: "Soft Wall" idea
--------------
Thank you for submitting your idea. We found it interesting but currently have a system in place that accomplishes the similar goal. Our solution involves working with an in service "vector delivery system" that quickly removes any possible threat from our skies. Our flight "escort" service have even been warmly received by the flying public. Clearly our system has cost advantages over yours.
Thank you again for your time.
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
Okay this is a system which steers the plane based on GPS signals and a database of areas to steer away from?
Just position your pirate Lear Jet above the target 747, then broadbast some fake GPS signals which causes the 747 to make "corrective" adjustments causing it to steer wherever you want.
Duh!!!!
1) isn't this a bit extreme ? "Yeah people would die anyway" -> that's still a murder + who makes this decision ? (obviously the terrorists make this decision, but apparently your government makes it too). How do they know the situation in the airplane ? And after 9-11, just how trigger-happy are they ?
...
2) how does it help ? It's not like the mass of an airplane lowers when you blow it up. It'll just cause gigantic shards of metal to strike a wide area. (ie not bringing down a building, but still potentially killing hundreds/thousands of people)
3) The last airplane crash in Belgium, if I remember correctly, was due to a pilot fighting with the automatic pilot (which was not switched off) over control of the airplane. He was fighting the same "subtle force" they talk about in the article, simply because he didn't realise it was there. It caused the airplane to stall, about 50 meters from the ground. Nobody survived.
4) If you can fly anywhere near the no fly zone, you could calculate the trajectory, blow the engines and the wings, and I'd like to see that system (or any bomb for that matter) stop the plane after that.
Why not make people, euhm, not want to kill you ? It's not very hard, just don't lie about wmd's (especially from within the only country to ever use an atom bomb against people), don't take over other countries, keep your killing to the absolute minimum and apologize for every one you did kill (and make DAMN sure it is, or looks like, an accident)
Never claim anything is hack-proof if you don't want to get hacked.
Tempting fate has been unfashionable since the maiden voyage of the "unsinkable" Titanic. If the hackers do not get you Murphy's law will.
The whole range of Airbus planes (except for the A300/A310 series) are as fly-by-wire as can be. Joysticks in the cockpit, no linkage between the pilot and the wings.
And more than once they've crashed with loss of life and the fly-by-wire avionics has been blamed.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Like I said...moderates don't make headlines. You just hear the people screaming "death to isreal". Anybody who seriously believes that most muslims seek the death of all non-muslims is gullible and a fool.
You said he was wrong, but you didn't say why. Care to elaborate?
You have to realize: there is no text... It's not the text that disappears, it's your own brain. ;-)
Since this has to be externally controlled, or else it will be out of date, and subject to change by the people in the plane. Therefore, you attack the groundstation and make the airports no fly zones...
They then disable the system (to fix it) and you crash the planes where you want.
Jason
Yes its true that the parent posting came from a troll. However, that doesn't make what he said incorrect. Pointing out the fact that it came from a troll, and thus the argument is worthless is not unlike claiming that since the imfamous Pentagon Papers were released by a person seeing a psychiatrist that their contents was irrelevant. Its ducking the issue by attacking the messenger.
There must be scores of legitimate reasons for airplanes to go over city centers.
* Most major sports stadia are near downtown, and planes towing advertisements often circle during the game.
* Even more annoying, stadium events often have flyovers. (Hmmm... maybe keeping those away is a good thing.)
* Helicopters can safely land downtown. This is a Good Thing(tm) when someone must be airlifted to a hospital. Of course, I don't think this proposal applies to helicopters, so what will terrorists use?
* Many airports are fairly near city centers. Soft walls would impede take off and landing.
* Others?
Now that I think about it, you could kill a LOT of people by crashing a plane into an airport terminal. We'd better throw up soft walls, anti-aircraft missles, and other anti-plane measures at all the nation's airports!
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
No matter that what I think is true or not. I think it because of what I have learned about Moslems over the years, from TV, newspaper, classic literature, etc. has made me think the guys over in the Middle-East and Eastern Africa are barbarians that are not willing to stop being a bunch of jerks.
If they want me to think the West should change it's behavior, they need to explain point by point why they have a problem, *AND* their complaints must be valid and rational. Until then, they get no sympathy from me.
So they get no sympathy because they haven't yet overcome your brainwashing by propaganda and ignorant stereotypes in American television. You know you've been brainwashed by horseshit, but maintain that it is on them to fix your ignorance and prejudice.
You, sir, are an example to us all. I salute you, in the time-honored one-finger method.
The enemies of Democracy are
If (when) someone hacks the system, they will be able to effectively steer the plane by placing a "soft wall" in its path in such a way to make it avoid the "soft wall" and steer in the direction they want to steer it. Now the terrorists don't even have to die to complete their mission, they can steer the plane from the ground.
Biodiesel : domestic, renewable, clean, and in the fuel tank of my bone stock 2002 New Beetle TDI
Isn't that redundant?
I wonder if Prince had anything to do with this project...
There are plenty of places to deport to you. Your citizienship can be revoked and you can be placed on a raft. I honestly don't care. You are yet another one of these people who want to constantly defend Muslims. You want to champion how great their culture is and what wonderful things they've done. The comment about oil production is amusing since the Middle East wouldn't produce nearly as much oil without the technology Americans invented and gave to them. Let me just see if we can find some common ground here (and the comment about your rights is typical liberal nonsense - where did I say that it was a crime for you to spew such bullshit? Just as you have the right to write such nonsense, I have the right to respond to it. Try not putting words in my mouth.) Do you believe that the cultures and civilizations of Egypt/Palestine/Iran/Iraq are better for the people of those countries than the culture and civilization of the United States is for the people of the US?
watch al jazeera with a translator. Tell me who's brainwashed? You, unfortunately, are a brainwashed cunt who believes the socialist lies you've been fed.
About three months ago, I was flying in the midwest and heard a UPS crew talking with ATC. The UPS crew had a broken weather radar and were avoiding thunderstorms trying to get down. The weather was shitty and ATC was very busy. ATC directed the UPS aircraft to make a 20 degree turn to avoid a restricted area, into an area with severe thunderstorms. The UPS crew declared an emergency, violated the restricted airspace and landed safely.
... would have killed them. Flying through thunderstorms kills people. The wings off mode of flight is bad. The UPS crew made the right call: Declare an emergency, violate the airspace to maintain safety of flight. Had a softwall prevented that, there would be airmail and dead bodies spread over Kansas.
This nice softwall
"Ground control? Disable the soft wall, or we kill one passenger every minute!"
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
I felt all warm and fuzzy when my flight got one of those escorts. It was the urine soaking into my pants. Funny post.
And we'd pull out, too, if Ryadh weren't so insistent we stay...
What do you do when your airplane says, "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."
--
Vote for your hopes, not for your fears - Vote Third Party
...to really understand all of the problems with this idea. For one thing paying passenger aircraft have to be certified and one of the requirements is that the pilot be able to overpower any installed autopilot system. They would have to change the rules. But this sort of thing would introduce so much expense and complication and additional safety risks and new modes of failure that it will not be implemented. It's hard enough just to get something like TCAS or even GPS installed. It saddens me to think that my two passions in life (computers and flying) are also two of the most misunderstood fields around.
Tracy R Reed
PP-ASEL-IA and soon to be CP and CFI
People in Chechnya dont fight for Islam or Allah
but for their independence.
It makes sense, they are a distinct nation, with their own language, culture and civilization and want their own country.
So where would you put the airport?
---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"
actually, Islam (via the Koran) thinks of Jews and Christians are sister religions which should tollerated.
The hatred of the Jews for Muslim's is all about the politics of coming to the eastern shore of the mediteranian and saying, "ok, all of you out! This is a new country and by the way it doesn't belong to you any more."
Fact is, antisemitism has a longer history in Europe than it does in the middle east.
-pyrrho
This system is totally flawed and shouldn't even be considered.
I mean, how's this for a scenario: the terrorist points the plane in the desired direction, then destroys the plane's navigation computer. The plane's soft-wall system along with everything else is dead, and the plane carries on towards its target. Oops.
I wonder, would this end up like Skynet in the Terminator? Or maybe this could lead to something like the matrix
Captain, I think we have a computer fowl-up.
I see.
Well, what do you recommend, Captain?
Maybe you should run it through the computer.
But sir, I already have.
Good.
Just to be on the safe side, should I check the rear data-banks?
No, why don't you check out the rear data-banks.
... the inlook for the over 40.
There are times when temporarily approaching a stall is the best thing to do. See a lower post about "hopping" a plane crossing the wrong runway.
Also, because of Airbus' dedication to 'computer has final authority', one of their planes flew into a stand of trees at an airshow. The plane did a low pass, and then at the end of the pass, the pilot increased the throttle and nosed up. Being presumably an experienced pilot (showboating a new plane at an airshow wouldn't be trusted to new pilots I imagine), this would have worked. Unfortunately, this manuever would have put the plane too close to stall for the comptuter's tolerances, so it overided the 'pull up' until the airspeed was sufficient. The plane flew into the woods and crashed. I have it on video, email me if you want to see it.
The pilot couldn't stall the plane, true. He also couldn't even come close enough to save his own ass and a $40 million dollar plane from flying into the woods. The programmers can't think of everything that might happen in flight. Pilots can adapt instantanously to a new situation.
This also leads to an interesting cultural difference: in all Boeing planes (American), the pilot has final authority. The plane will do what it's told, and all thrust management, stall prevention, collision avoidance and autopilot systems are easy to overide or shut off. In fact, because of occasional problems (unforseen circumstances), Boeing reccomends that it's thrust management system be used sparingly.
On the other hand, in all new Airbus (Europe) planes, the computer has final authority over what the plane does, and can overide the pilot. Unfortunately, he's still held responsible for everything that happens, even if he can't control it.
So my thesis is thus: Boeing represents the American ideal of maximum individual freedom, while Airbus shows the European tendancy to defer to an 'authority' (the state, or in this case, the manufacturer) rather than be responsible for oneself, and others.
Newspapers in France, for example, can get away with basically saying 'The masses are too stupid to know what's good for them.' Such a thing would not go over well here in the US.
Well, that's my incoherent rambling for the day.
What are the first and last words of an Airbus pilot?
What's it doing now?
It's never done that before!
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
"In the future, the airplane's cockpit will hold a computer, a human and a dog. The computer is there to fly the plane. The human is there to reassure the passengers. And the dog is there to bite the human if he touched the controls."
the article assumes that you could only update the database when the plane is grounded. And that the ground based update is completely securable. And that the hardware failing isn't a problem. And even with all those assumptions the articles claim of security is bogus.
The claim of security is based on the notion that there would be no realtime input that could be hijacked. And with this system there is no real time input aboout where yoou can't fly. However this scheme uses GPS, which means that there is real time input about where you are. And with realtime radio based input the system is sunject to high jacking. whether disabling the GPS would turn off the no fly zone controls allowing the plane to be flown into a building by a pilot, or if it would result in the plane computing it's positon based on the velocity and position the plane when the GPS was first disabled is not discussed. So the repercussions of this flaw can not be inteligently discussed.
Now BSOD can really kill you
And yes, you don't have a choice. Democrats and Republicans are the same and have the same agenda. How about you 'get real'. I can't wait until people like you are killed off like flies by your own stupidity. Truth hurts eh? Where is that constitution of yours now? Being torn to tatters by the New World Order cronies.
you're on to something. But, you're forgetting that the Anti-christ is THE ONE who will be the first to attempt and succeed in making temporary peace between Israel and Palestine (The sons of Abraham).
As many people here have pointed out, there would be many ways to circumvent any software protection, and such software would surely be an extremely large and complex project - and hence buggy. Anyone brave enough to try out such a system at say, Hong Kong International ?
The real problem of crashing large planes (airliners) into buildings is not their kinetic energy, but the chemical energy of the 100 tons or so of fuel they have on board. crudely speaking, that's the same chemical energy as 100 tones of high explosive.
What makes the 100 tons of explosive extremely dangerous is that all that energy is released in a few milliseconds. What makes an airliner a really dangerous weapon is that most of that 100 tons of fuel burns in a fireball in a few seconds. This occurs because the fuel "mists" on impact, as it it is violently expelled from broken fuel tanks and lines.
This was realised by ICI Paints Division over 30 years ago, who started work on how to prevent misting of aircraft fuel to prevent or minimize aircraft fires in crashes. This work recieved a huge impetus when two Jumbo jets collided on the ground at Teneriffe, and 500 people died.
ICI eventually developed a special fuel additive "FM9" that reduced misting greatly. A number of tests with old WWII bombers on rocket sleds demonstrated just how effective it was.
The FAA started to become keen on the idea, and got NASA to crash a remotely-controlled 707 with the modified fuel into a specially-prepared site at Edwards. Unfortunatly NASA did not do a sterling job: the remote control of the plane barely worked. The plane was crashed at double the planned sink rate, and in a slow flat spin. During the slideout, a "Tomahawk" sliced sideways through an engine, which exploded in a huge fireball. Burning fuel from the damaged engine entered the plane through a cargo door that burst open. The plane ended up a burnt-out hulk, and the senior managers present abandoned the project on the spot. It was a public relations disaster of the first magnitude.
It was a few months before all the troops got reassigned, so in the meantime the FAA guys did a thorough analysis of the crash. They found:
* only 50 gal / 12,000 burned up in the fireball
* the aircraft was not damaged by the fireball: the black soot could be rubbed off the airframe to reveal undamaged paint below.
* most of the fires went out just after the plane slid to a stop
* if you had been on board, you could have walked away (unlike the most similar crash on their database)
* the plane was burnt out by a fire in the cargo bay. the fire-fighters had used up all their foam on the wings and fuselage, and by the time they realised that there was fire _inside_ the cargo bay they did not have any left.
The FAA then did some rather dramatic experiments with jet engines and large quantities of fuel. When normal fuel was poured into the exhaust of a running engine, a large fireball developed, and when that impacted on a aluminium panel it melted and caught fire, with tempertures quickly exceeding 600 C. When the same was done with modified fuel, a small fireball developed, and the temperature of the aluminium panel rose to about 180 C - the boiling point of the fuel. When the test was finished the panel was intact, but blackened.
In the final tests, the modified fuel was poured into the _inlet_ of the running engine. A large fire developed, and so the engine was quickly shut down. When the same test was re-run with normal fuel, the engine exploded and the test site was wrecked.
Our conclusion was that the "FM9" additive worked in that it prevented misting, and hence extreme temperatures, however it was not able to provide perfect protection in the event of large quantities of fuel entering a major ignition source like a running engine.
My understanding is that the Twin Towers collapsed because the intense fire from the initial fireball overwhelmed the fire protection systems in the buildings, and led to sever
All this airline security is bunk anyhow.
Every time one potential target gets hardened, new targets will be selected.
The next big terror attack won't be a hijack, but someone exploding a canister of radioactive cobalt or spraying smallpox around, or something else that's new.
There's no point is getting preoccupied with just hardenin one vector and ignoring others.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
Putting the "security" in the device has been proven time an time again to be hack-proof.
See, for instance, Content Scramble System, which is built into DVD players.
-Peter
...and that is, in principle, exactly what this soft wall system does.
It denies the pilot the option to fly towards a protected site.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Sorry, I did not read any other replies, and I'm late on this thread (but I read the FA).
If there's another attack on US territory, me thinks it will not come by plane, like 9/11 anyway.
They are focusing security on what happened that fatefull day, not about what *might* happen after...
Before 9/11 there was an unspoken understanding about hijackings of U.S aircraft: The hijackers would not hurt anyone, and the passengers and crew would cooperate and drop off the hijackers at their destination of choice. The 9/11 boys destroyed that understanding---now the prospective victins pop a few cans of whoop-ass and get busy.
It's when we expect someone else to do something about problems---when we start thinking things can be made safe for us---that we become victims and sheeple. We've gone two opposite directions since 9/11 (actually, it just accelerated an existing trend). On one hand some of us have been standing up when challenged, as in the hijacking record since then. We've also gone whole hog for handing the shreds of the Constitution to Bush and Ashcroft, if only they'll just make it all safe again. Jesus H. Particular Christ, people, pull your heads out and deal with reality. And maybe reclaim your national heritage, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Just go look up the Ben Franklin quote, and things the other Founders had to say then. They would NOT have agreed with the crap going on today.
The cure for 1984 is 1776,
Mal the Elder
Silly Linux newbie...dll's are for Windows
That's right, we have so-hell instead.
Like what I said? You might like my music
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
soft walls! Hack proof! But wait- there's more! We'll even throw in the world's tiniest bag of peanuts... And if you order now, Boeing will even throw in an extra drink cart with every plane upgraded!
... and no, I am NOT a terrorist, nor do I support actually doing any of these things. I only present them precisely because what one fool can calculate, so can another...
Feh! This has got to be one of the most assinine ideas I've heard yet... Hack proof... yeah right. Do ANY of these nitwits read the Risks list?
Here's some off-the-napkin-back attack methods:
1) "Trusted" mechanic downloads an "upgraded" set of coordinates to the softwall system. Terrorist controlled plane flies right in... It shouldn't be, so no one thinks twice to watch it until it's too late...
2) Terrorists in the general vicinity of the area spoof the GPS signal... It doesn't kick over to VOR, so it must be OK...
3) Just in case they spoof it too well, they spoof the VOR boxes too (remember, they're basically unmanned sheds located in the middle of fields all over the place...)
4) The system is installed, but the fuse is removed? And the indicator light is removed too...
5) Don't fool with the system at all... Just start crashing planes near restricted airspace, and blame it on an inability of the pilot to react to the emergency because the "system" prevented the pilot from doing so... Besides the lawsuits that will end up eating companies and individuals, it will throw so much FUD into the public domain that the systems will be out almost instantly...
6) Don't crash planes - but have pilots report problems with controlling the planes - whether it happens or not... Again, FUD causes the public outcry and the systems are removed...
7)Upload a set of coordinate corrections to the system via whatever "trusted" method there is, and reprogram the system to delay them from taking effect until the plane is at some pre-determined altitude... Once it's there, ALL coordinates become softwalls... Then the plane can't do anything except shutdown...
In short, doing anything that removes control from a pilot is a BAD idea. I'd much rather stick with the threat of being blown out of the sky if one violates a restricted area than trusting a computer to keep me out... Besides, there's always the possibility of EXPLAINING why one is in a restricted area and being escorted by F-16 out of the area if there's a situation that necessitated going in there in the first place (emergency, mechanical/electrical/software failure, etc...)...
They're called "F-16's" and they escort hijacked aircraft back to the airport, or they suddenly "break up" in midair because the passengers "bravely fought off the hijackers."
You know, kind of like the 4th 767 that curiously landed in a rock quarry on 9/11/2001 after pieces of the aircraft landed in farmers' fields 20 miles away.
These hijackers have done more to prevent future hijackings than metal detectors and armed security guards in airports ever could have. I would daresay that this is already a dead art.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
Let me start off by saying I'm not American, or white, or christian.
/.
Has there ever been a non-brutal armed campaign? Are you saying middle-easterners (or any other race for that matter) don't kill each other, even in the count of millions?
While I agree that war in Iraq could be avoided, we all need a little perspective on this. The Iraqis looted their own museums, and Saddam probably killed more of his own people than the Americans did. The changes brought about by this war won't be seen for years, so let's not judge too quickly.
But then again, this is
Never underestimate the predictability of human stupidity...
Hello, he's talking about the Crusades, bro. You know, where the collective armies of Christian Europe tore through the middle east raping and pillaging and forcing people to convert at the threat of death, lobbing of heads of nonbelievers left and right, while they burned all of the "heathen" things, like, oh, say, the library at Alexandria?
You did know that happened, didn't you?
People, there are other kinds of accidents than terrorism. What pilot in their right mind would want to fly a plane that won't respond to controls? Not many, fortunately:
"He [Don Winter, director of R&D at Boeing's Phantom Works research division in St Louis] has yet to convince the people who fly the planes. "In general, pilots are openly hostile," he says. "Frankly it surprises me, because of all of the options that they are facing right now - including being shot at or commandeered from the ground - this is their best one."" Well, the pilots probably have a firmer grasp on accident statistics than Don Winter and most of the public. Soft walls would obvoiusly increase the risk for just about any kind of accident except hijacking.
I hate to be the one to say it, and it would be terrible to be prophetic, but unless you cover _all_ cities then this is useless. Sure, you can protect the propagandic phalic symbols in the big cities but you can't do much for overpopulated suburbs or mid-sized city centers.
How about a more effective measure; Stop pushing foreign policy which causes widespread suffering and then no one will have a reason to retaliate for anything... And don't start the "they hate us because we're richer" business either...
Did it right in Civ 2. Build SAM batteries in all your cities!
I can't think of anything witty right now
hi,
Suppose this hijackers hacked in and added a few soft wall areas to the plane's database... say, perhaps, like all of the airports within the current range of the aircraft?
sTc
Most things worth doing are worth doing twice. -- me I think or was that my boss' methodology?
"Hacking and cracking are two completely different things"
Could this sentence please be added to the lameness filter? An unfortunate number of nerds also happen to be tiresome padants.
Actually, in this case "hack" is correct, because in any critical system you don't want anyone making unauthorized changes, regardless of their intent.
No, wanting to kill off a race of people cause they are "filthy" is why I made ties to the klu klux klan.
FiGZ.COM - A waste of perfectly good web space
Then you don't know a thing about computers, you idiot. Do you think the onboard or atc computers run windows?
Then again we already know you know nothing.
No culture? That's funny - read any Mark Twain lately? What about William Burroughs? There are plenty of cultural landmarks that reflect a specific American ideal. You are obviously someone who simply hates America and chooses to spew half-truths.
While it is terrible that the events of September 11th happened, most Americans will never be in such a situation as to be affected by Terrorism.
The terrorists won't be hitting no-name places in the middle of nowhere America. They will ONLY be hitting big name places with major historic or national signifigance. Places like national monuments, major government buildings and major economic centers. (Like the World Trade Center and Wall Street.)
The emotional blow to this country would be quite severe with the destruction of our nations series of National Monuments. People would feel a tremendous personal loss and it would do a great deal to demoralize the average citizen, maybe not nearly as much, but close the demoralization that occurred on September 11th, 2001. In the end, it would only strengthen our resolve, since it would prove to the American public that nothing is sacred in the minds of those terrorists. (Which is very true, but not something generally accepted by many people.)
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?