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)
what's to stop the hijackers from busting the autopilot controls
Because I'm guessing they're talking about a layer which is actually integrated into the fly-by-wire controls. And you don't want to smash those, eh? Then neither a pilot nor an auto-pilot could control the danged thing.
That's covered. It's a 'soft' wall - as you get ner to the wall, it generates a small opposition to the pilots actions, and that opposition increases as they get closer.
So, with a mid air collision scenario, unless both planes are right on the limit of the wall, then the pilots can steer fine. One direction will be slightly less preffered by the autopilot, but that should not be significant, at the outside of the area.
Note also: That aircraft should not be near the wall off area's anyway, so the situation aught not to arise. It's totally software controlled, so interfacing with teh current mid air collision systems [0] and breaking the wall in that case would be perfeclty feasable.
I think that's one of the lesser problems with the idea.
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.
[0] As it stands, the computers in two aircraft nearing collision have a chat, and decide on the two optimal vectors, and then move the planes along those vectors automatically, after ensureing that they will not collide.
"What if the only way to avoid a mid-air collision is to bank into one of these "soft walls"?"
This is why pilots don't like the idea.
What if I setup my own NDB/DME and get it to transmit an identifier saying "new york". Then put it at the end of a runway...
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.
Nope, sorry. In a fly-by-wire plane there are no mechanical links to the control surfaces. If the flight control computer completely dies, you have absolutely no control over the plane.
When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
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.
Yes, there are. 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.
;-)
These planes do not request from their pilots to manipulate the moving surfaces in such a way as to obtain the desired attitude of the plane, they just need input as to what the attitude should be and then move the plane like that. Rather like a computer game, really.
The most visible advantage of this is that the pilot cannot 'stall' the airplane. The airplane will not put itself in a situation where it would stop flying. One simply cannot 'pull up' or deccelerate so much that the airplane would crash. Quite amazing technology, an entirely not Microsoft powered.
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.