Slashdot Mirror
Wireless Devices Could Foil Hijack Attempts
ErikPeterson writes Flight attendants soon may be outfitted with wireless devices that would be used to alert pilots of attempted hijackings or other in-air security threats.
The Federal Aviation Administration said Wednesday that it plans to require that airlines provide a way for the cabin crew to "discreetly notify" pilots "in the event of suspicious activity or security breaches in the cabin."
The proposed regulation, which is not yet final, grew out of an advisory panel that the Transportation Department created after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. That panel recommended that cabin crew have "a method for immediate notification to the flight deck during a suspected threat in the cabin" that would permit pilots to take appropriate action, such as beginning an immediate landing."
Cool. So this is the first real-world implementation of Wi-Fi-Fly-Hi-Ji technology!
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
How long until someone hacks these devices and starts sending false alarms? Terrorists wouldn't have to actually hijack planes anymore! Just stuff the devices in someone's baggage with a timer on them. They're non-explosive, so they wouldn't be sniffed out, and I'm sure they could disguise them. All you need is a power source and the transmitter. Think of how easy it would be to freeze airlines. I hope they really make an effort to make sure that these things are secure.
Before you die, you see DoubleRing...
It's not just blocking them. You'd have to count on the crew actually being able to set off the alarm. Think of banks: they started putting buttons under the counter or in a discreet location. Now a holdup person comes in and the first thing they want is everyone's hands in the air.
I'm trying to imagine a device a crew memember could activate without it being seen. Once word gets out that they press a button on a wrist band, or something else, hijackers will know what action to watch for and what device to remove from the staff.
Maybe they'd be better off with something like the health monitors I saw on the Tour de France. They're wireless and transmit things like heart rate to a monitor. The pilot would have to evaluate the info. If he sees one crew member with a sudden heart rate increase, he can check on that person, but if it happens to two or more at once, that would be a strong indication that something stressful is happening in the plane.
This sounds pretty good to me to but rather than blocking ot what if someone learns how to send fake signals. Instead of blowing up or hijacking planes a person could cause several to make emergency landings, thereby really screwing up air travel.
You are so boring that when I see you my feet go to sleep.
if it were a wristband i would press it anyway if a hijacker told me to put my hands up. i would take the risk to save people on the ground. odds are the hijackers dont have a gun or anything else too dangerous. besides that, i really dont think a plane is going to be successfully hijacked for a looooooooong time. flight 93 is evidence for that.
always mosh clockwise
How many hijackings have there been since 9/11? My naive expectation is that hijackers would now have a short life expectancy, no matter how they're armed.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
No door between cabin and cockpit!
Wow, no more problems. Hijackers can do what ever they want in the back but they can't get to the pilots.
For current planes, retrofit with impenetrable doors that can not be opened after take of. Even by the pilots.
Now with out control of the plane there is no reason to hijack and the skies are safe!
Remember KISS
Keep it simple stupid.
This is just one more paranoial waste of money without increasing security. Lets face it - the real security is the bullet-proof reinforced flight deck door with CCTV surveillance of the entry area.
The problem with a secret alert device is a) secrets don't remain secret if you mandate it for the entire industry and b) what is the pilot supposed to do if he gets alerted of "suspicious activity" (We have often "suspicious activities" aka unruly passengers)
The pilot can not go back to check it out. He can not just dive to the next airport because it might have been a false alarm or the situation can be resolved by the flight attendants. If every alarm would lead to an diversion the system could be easily misused for a DoS attack.
So in the end he would just have to wait until 1) someone shows up at the cockpit door and tries to force entry: Hijack (better: attempted hijack) or 2) noone shows up: Situtation resolved.
This is the same as the usless keypads on the flight deck door mandated by the FAA. Two buttons would have been enough: regular entry and emergency entry.
The security is not that only the flight attendants know the secret keycodes - with a knive to their throat they will type in the correct one anyway. The security is the video surveillance to check the area from the flight deck. (To be fair: the keypads have the advantage that passengers in search for a toilet will not accidentaly press the "emergency door bell" - which would mean immediate landing)
Back to a) Why secrets won't work: Like every equipment on board it has to be approved by the FAA which makes it expensive which results in only very few vendors offering a system. And they will offer it to any airline, including Saudia Airways, Pakistani Airways and Ariana Afghan Airways and many other. It would be naive to think that intelligent terrorists do not have contacts in the airlines and can not get access to the devices.
In the end most airlines will anyway use the loophole of some "secret" intercom procedure which they have to document and distribute to thousands of FAs and Pilots.
This is just another stupid TSA regulation in a long line of stupid TSA regulations - like not being allowed to stand in a line in front of a toilet.
X IMPRIMITE "SALVE TERRA!"
XX ITE AD X
Then they could use some other means... say, a device that would measure the wetness of the wearer's underwear. If they piss themselves, it could set the alarm off! I'm not sure what you would call this technology, but I suppose it just *DEPENDS* on the creator. ;)