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!
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.
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"
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.
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.
No no no, this technology would only impose soft wall restrictions on planes flown by terrorists with the intention of crashing into buildings. It would even feature a special subconscious scanning algorythm that would know if the pilot was a terrorist, even if he didn't know it himself!
/t
i mean, if you're going to live in a fantasy world, it might as well be a good one, no?
#!/usr/bin/english
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.
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.
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.
No problem. There will be a panel in the cockpit. Remove that panel and you will find two wires leading to the "tamperproof" soft-wall decision box, a red one and a blue one. A bad guy would know which wire to cut because he did his research beforehand, but you're a good guy, so you will have to agonize over the matter. "Do I cut the red wire, or the blue wire?" Beads of sweat break out on your forehead as you position the wire clippers over the blue wire, change your mind at the last instant and clip the red wire. This turns out be the right decision, so you will be able to steer the plane to avoid disaster just in the nick of time. Hurray!
That's because terrorists all know and follow the International Terrorist Wire Color Code (I think it's an IEE (Institute of Evil Engineers) standard or something. It's the same standard that requires bombs to have large red LED countdown diplays. It also forbids the use of any boobytraps to prevent someone from opening the box.
Life is too short to proofread.