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)
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
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
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!
But changing the restricted GPS coordinates in the avionics is what I was thinking. You need to have a way to get that information into the avionics in the first place, so that's the weak link. Presumably you'd have some kind of wirefull connection that could only be accessed from the outside of the plane. But that'd just mean someone on the ground would have to be in on the plan, which isn't farfeteched.
Also, this is a safety-of-flight issue. If you are on the edge of restricted space and you see a plane coming right at you you have to take evasive maneuvers. If this system prevented a pilot from taking appropriate evasive action that'd be a bad thing.
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.
Peace doesn't cost money?
Since when?
Peace between Israel and Egypt costs billions of dollars a year in aid, assistance, fixed oil prices and so on.
The end of the Cold Wars costs hundreds of millions of dollars a year in securing old facilities, clean up and decommissioning weapons systems.
Peace between the Koreas costs billions of dollars a year in salaries, equipment expendatures, aid and assistance.
Even if Hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad and the Israels all sat down, smoked the peace pipe and buried the M-16s there would be people not satisfied and they would conduct terrorist operations.
Even if the United States hadn't Tomahawked the Sudan and Afghanistan following the Embassy bombings and played the Peace card to the Taliban there still would have been terror.
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.