Automagic No-Fly-Zone Enforcement

An anonymous reader writes "SoftWalls is the name of an aviation project at UC-Berkeley that's developing a system for commercial airliners that establishes and enforces no-fly zones. Basically, through GPS, if a plane begins to enter a no-fly zone (eg, around a mountain, or over Lower Manhattan), an alarm goes off in the cockpit. If ignored, the system actively removes control of the plane away from the pilot and co-pilot to steer the plane out of the no-fly zone. The technology is intended as both an accident prevention technique and a deterrent to terrorists planning to ram a building. ABCNews recently profiled the project (with video) and also rode along with a working prototype built by Honeywell that successfully kept a Beechcraft from hitting a mountain."

Comments

Why get in a plane to ram a building..

[Aliencow]

When you can find a way to do it remotely !

Situation...

[skermit]

"Turn 50 degrees east-north-east... you're about to hit another plane!"
"...I can't"
"Sure you can, just turn!"
"NO... I physically CAN'T, the plane won't let me."

BAM.

Taking the control out of the pilots hands is a bad thing.

The real question is ...

[bigjocker]

Why wasn't this been implemented before? I don't care a rat arse about terrorists this and terrorists that, but I have lost a few friends in airplane crashes. With these technologies available at least a decade ago (this project is an implementation of a few old technologies) why isn't this a major requirement for all new planes?

A lot of lives would have been saved if a plane would have at least a small database of known mountains in the flight path. Why don't our planes avoid mountains automatically?

What happens to the planes when GPS is dis-abled

[PaK_Phoenix]

Would a catastrophic loss of the GPS system, render these planes unusable? Also, depending on the accuracy of the system(remember they 'skew' the signal for civilian recievers), it could make the planes a bigger target, for the possibly more accurate GPS recievers on them.

Car implications

[the man with the pla]

Everybody's thought about automobile systems that drive for you, and I think most of us suspect it will simply be a matter of time before it happens.

Think about it: Doing a similar system in the air is a great place to learn about how to do this with cars...since asside from takeoff and landing, there's a much bigger tollerance for error in the wide blue skys.

--
Written in the name of sacred jihad

shot down?

[killthiskid]

From the FAQ (warning, PDF).

A New York Times article in April of 2002 examined this issue [9]:

"A Boeing 737 pilot for a major airline recalled approaching Reagan National Airport from the south a few years ago and facing a microburst, a rainstorm that includes sudden changes in wind direction. Such a condition can lead to a crash if a plane is at low altitude and low air speed, as it is on approach. He broke off the approach and turned east. ''It was the only way to go,'' he said.

However, if he had been a little deeper into the approach, he said, ''I'd be flying right toward the protected area,'' the forbidden zone that includes the White House. A system that prevented him from turning that way would be unsafe, said the pilot, whose airline, like most, has been reluctant to discuss security changes."

Today, that plane would be shot down. So this pilot was wrong. The absence of the system is far more unsafe. No microburst is as dangerous as a modern surface-to-air missile. With Soft Walls, this pilot would have maximum maneuverability, and there would be no need to shoot down the plane (assuming that the military has confidence in the system).

I hate cutting and pasting from PDF files.

Anyway, the statement Today, that plane would be shot down. to me is a bit absolute... is this really true? IF a pilot had problems, called in said problems to the tower and acted according instructions or his own judgement, would he really get shot down? Additionally, I have a problem accepting that jets would scramble fast enough to be able to do so...

sounds neat but...

[segment]

Based on GPS? Correct me if I'm wrong here but couldn't a GPS jammer render this useless? (More on GPS jamming)

That is unless I guess commercial airlines transmit on L1 & L2 frequencies. Provided of course the military sees fit to allow commercial airlines to use that frequency. Which makes me wonder about what juridstiction the United States would have if say a Japan Airlines plane was using that frequency when it pulled in our airspace... Oh well back to work

ATM project

[ipjohnson]

I actually currently work on another NASA research project that is taking a slightly different approach. Our model is to not only avoid no-fly-zones but other aircraft (using ADSB reports) as well as bad weather (this relies on weather reports from ground stations.)

The big difference between the 2 projects is that ours only gives possible solution to the pilot and then he has to accept the route deviation rather than removing control from the pilot.

I mean realisticly these solution are bleeding edge and wont make it into service for 20 years. Personally I'd like to see more of a grouund based solution but that probably because my background is ATC systems.

Re:Lone Gunmen

[Alrescha]

"I think it's both hilarious and sad that we're still focusing on terrorists wrt airplanes. They had their chance, and they used it to their great advantage. They'll come at us from a different angle now, knowing that they'll never again surprise us in that particular way."

First sane thought I've seen in this thread.

Over many years we had trained ourselves to cooperate with airplane hijackers and wait to see what they wanted. The 9/11 terrorists knew this and used it against us.

They won't do it again, because they know that every person on the plane will try and rip their throats out.

They'll watch, see what we aren't paying attention to, and use that next time. Bad news for us - we cannot pay attention to everything.

A.

Re: It's about restricting, not permitting options

[Leeji]

You make a good point, but I think you (and others) might be polarizing the issue more than necessary.

I can imagine this being implemented as a restriction of options rather than prescriptive flight path. As you mention, pilots already deal with a myriad of decision factors, and this would act as another. If you need to put your 747 into an Immelmann or Split-S, just make sure you're not doing it into a mountain -- because the computer won't let you. The computer won't dictate what you have to do, just what you can't.

We see these restrictions all around us. Water drums near highway barriers. Curbs on sidewalks. Large rocks surrounding bridge supports. Pilots are just beginning to benefit from the fact that these influences can be virtual.

Shot down WHERE?

[TinheadNed]

I agree with the others replying to this post in that there would be no doubt that the plane could be destroyed if desired, and little doubt that it would.

However, something I'd like to check - I Am Not An American - isn't the White House kinda surrounded by Washington and lots of people (in a general kind of way). Where do you shoot it down that doesn't do more damage to the surrounding populace? Not all plane crashes end like Con Air.