Slashdot Mirror
Remote Control To Prevent Aircraft Hijacking
Snad writes "The UK's Evening Standard is reporting that Boeing plans to roll out aircraft remote control systems in a bid to eliminate the threat of terrorist hijackings, and prevent any repetition of the events of September 11 2001. 'Scientists at aircraft giant Boeing are testing the tamper-proof autopilot system which uses state-of-the-art computer and satellite technology. It will be activated by the pilot flicking a simple switch or by pressure sensors fitted to the cockpit door that will respond to any excessive force as terrorists try to break into the flight deck. Once triggered, no one on board will be able to deactivate the system. Currently, all autopilots are manually switched on and off at the discretion of pilots. A threatened airliner could be flown to a secure military base or a commercial airport, where it would touch down using existing landing aids known as 'autoland function'.'"
Remote control systems should simply augment human control systems. In this scenario, the human control system is much more effective. Specifically, "passengers beating the living shit out of all hijackers."
Won't terrorists instead try and find ways to take over the remote control system? Why limit yourself to simply crashing one plane when you can crash them all.
Why not autotakeoff as well, then we can just eliminate the human pilots altogether for nonmilitary aircraft?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Everyone as shot down as the enraged terrorist realizes what is going on and that he has no option but to kill himself or face serious charges. Might as well take out as many people while you can in the process. This is an interesting, if not extremely original idea but I think that a terrorist can still cause a lot of damage even with this.
All they need is a case of baseball bats on the plane. "In case of a cabin seizure, a small bat will fall from the ceiling. Take the bat, and beat the shit out of the hijacker until he is unconscious"
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Basically this turns planes into remote control missiles - and this is a GOOD THING????
I mean to do something like 9/11 you don't even have to be ON the plane???
It seems to make thing MORE dangerous, not less.
-Em
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
So now instead of hijacking one plane to destroy one target on the ground, they'll be trying to compromise this system to remotely hijack hundereds or thousands of planes from the comfort of their living room. That's a scary thought. Fortunately, I doubt many fellow slashdotters will argue that IT security pros are far more adept than TSA at preventing attacks on their respective 'networks'... This will be interesting.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
In order to prevent a repeat of 9/11, we are going to impliment a system, which makes it possible for a terrorist group to remotely hijack a plane, with the on board pilot being completely unable to resume control of the plane?
Wonderful. Hopefully it will be as hackproof as the RFID in a passport.
So instead of being physically on a plane, the new attack vector will be the remote control station.
Good Work.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Wouldn't a creative technology terrorist comprimise and activate this system and force a jetliner to land on the Whitehouse? The pilots can't override it and no need to get any hijackers on board at the time of flight.
No remote access allowed unless the pilot flips a switch in the plane.
Right _now_ these are the topics of the Alex Jones Show which you can listen to
on the web by going to http://www.infowars.com/
- Remote control / automated control of aircraft with uninterruptible autopilot via a panic switch
- explosive charges built into the doors of Boeing planes
- Pilot quits over built-in explosive charges in plane
The Alex Jones 3 hour show is on Monday-Friday and is repeated 24 hours daily 7 days
a week.
Captain Field McConnell
Alex welcomes back to the program Top Gun Military/Commercial
Pilot Field McConnell to discuss his 9/11 cover-up discoveries a
nd his new documentary, 9/11 Solved.
Related Information:
Pilot's Lawsuit Alleges Airliners Rigged With Explosives
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
what concerns me is: 1) it could be accidentally triggered under certain conditions i.e. someone nudges the door like in a fall bracing against the door etc. 2) if an accident did happen, normal flight would incur excessive delays [acceptable or not?] 3) under what conditions would the system not detect a hijacking, ie can it be triggered from the ground in case of failure? 4) human error- suppose the system is bypassed by the pilot- ie it isnt switched on or the door is kept open etc. what then? how would these problems be addressed and how would it affect the normal operations in flight?
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Why wouldn't hijackers just start going after the controllers, instead?
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
Ok. This thing uses autopilot to infer its location, and probably sight maps too.
What would prevent it from getting.. well, "fucked up", by using this on a wee higher power setting?
Lemmee see... USB changeable, dual bands, 30 ft radius (well, the whole inside the metal tube of the plane), and looks like cigarettes.
Or, how would one make an EMP pulse using a workable "laptop" with lithium batteries and capacitors? Im sure Boeing doesnt use Tempest on low earth flights (jets I'd imagine otherwise).
Thats right. I shouldnt be talking about this, as I "might" alert the terrorists. HINT: They already know, and can search the internet just like you. They also have a brain to devise stuff, just like us. I use the standard security "excuse": Its better to know a vulnerability and have the chance to shut down the service than it is to not know and take the proverbial beating for it.
What ever happened to the idea of isolating the cockpit from the rest of the plane? I remember a few years ago reading that the cockpit would not be accessible from the cabin while in the air, regardless of the pilot's discretion. It might be inconvenient to the pilots and flight staff, but it seems like the most idiot proof way of insuring the safety of the aircraft.
still in deep testing, a few units mounted in test planes by the manufacturers and a couple airlines, nobody is using it regularly. IIRC, there is a limited authority to use the tool from the FAA, but it is not type-accepted for regular passenger use at this time.
Honeywell, for one, has been hinking around with it for 12+ years, and because single-source doesn't cut it, Sundstrand also has licenses and has their own version.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Wow since everyone is being so candid and original on their concepts of terrorism 2.0 how about we just cut to the chase. Say the terrorists buy a remote control and just start wheeling the planes out of the hangars before the pilots get to use them. Then they could just wheel them into oncoming traffic coming into the airport. Why stop at that. Why not paint up a commandeered plane as a bus and load it up with passengers. They're poor and noone cares about them so why not load them up. See you can argue for increased security and a new solution for longterm welfare recipients. Wow a solution for terror from abroad and the less fortunate members of society. Man being paranoid about a remote control system that has just merely been announced is about as logical as trying to hijack a train to drive into the white house. Yes its been used (ali g) but the logic is just the same. Did you ever think that the only result of the war on terror has been the reduction of your rights? I for one want them back.
1. Get a single flunky aboard the craft. No weapons needed. 2. Flunky makes a scene attacking the cockpit door. 3. Pilot hits panic button. 4. Terrorist ground unit intercepts signal, gains control of plane. 5. Profit???
ceci n'est pas une
How about locking the f***ing cabin door??!!! Doesn't cost anything, no one gets hijacked. Instead lets make a remote control terminal to fly the plane into a building. Only good old fat government defense contracts can bring us such stupidity. Heck, lets give the contract to Diebold and let the central control program be an Access VBA App on a Windows machine connected to the internet.
I think id be a little scared of a completely automatic landing without human assistance. Does anyone know if auto-landing is even something that is done with any regularity today? And if it were that easy, that will certainly take a lot of the drama out of the multitude of movies where they have the video game addicts landing planes safely. And besides, most hijackings involve landing a plane safely and not crashing it, with the exception of one single event. So i'd say that it is a bit of overkill to be doing that anyway.
I'm a frequent flyer who would prefer not to fly in any plane thus equipped.
This type of system is a perennial topic on comp.risks & is certainly not a panacea. It is not clear whether the system is any improvement, or whether it merely increases risk; and I don't trust Boeing to decide for us.
you had me at #!
How much cash and resources do we have to spend on 9/11 related expenditures before we realize that it's going overboard? It was a terrible day, the worst in my life and it didn't even affect me personally (i.e. I didn't know anyone who died.) But I think that the spending has gone overboard. I'm guessing that there will be serious safety issues related to this system anyhow.
Skyhook is a book centered around this concept. The interesting part was that they wouldn't actually deploy this system in commercial aircraft, they'd just have a press release to make people think they had.
(And no, that isn't a referrer link where I get money. I don't know why it has 'ref=')
Oh, I'm sure this could never POSSIBLY go wrong.
The mind *boggles*.
But it'll make for some great disaster movies, where Bruce Willis has to hack his way through a bulkhead to cut the wires for the autopilot before Boeing Jon can fly the remote-hijacked plane to Norway where all the passengers would, um, well, have something awful happen involving blonde women and glaciers.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Autopilot systems that can take off and land large commercial aircraft already exist and are commonly used (they are called "CAT III" autopilots). If a pilot is feeling lazy, all he or she must do is program the flight computer and taxi the aircraft to the runway -- the aircraft will take off, fly, and land at the desired destination without any input from the pilot.
This new system seems to be a way of locking-in the autopilot function so terrorists cannot manually fly the plane after the pilot triggers an alarm. Seems like a good idea to me.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot as always.
this is a seriously good idea. *but* wouldnt the terrorists just read the manufacturing plans like they glean the flying manuals and train in six months prior to the ambush? i mean, it's probably something that could be dismantled during flight. some seriously ingenious work would have to go into the making of the system to prevent this from being taken apart.
great to see we still have some fresh ideas appearing.
Why UNIX?
this is a vehicle for the US Govt (- and legal system, which sometimes is scarier yet) to harvest wanted people who may have committed no crime in their own countries and bring them to the USA involuntarily
Do you seriously think they wouldn't use it?
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
There is no such thing...
Very soon we'll hear a story of a hijacker smashing in the cockpit door of an airliner only to find an empty room with no controls, no instruments, no windows; just a Federal Agent sitting there with a big gun, some tape and a pair of handcuffs.
If this technology is available, why bother with pilots at all? I know, I know, human in the loop safety etc, etc. But if the fares were cheap enough, I'd risk it.
This could be great in the event the pilot for whatever reason dies...and co-pilot....What it happens in the movies?
You would think that in the event the Pilot cannot fly the plane that someone down on the ground can. Not just for t3rr0rizm.
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
Hijackers simply start shooting passengers until they remotely fly him where he wants to go.
Fanatics are irrational by design...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
The plane can land itself without remote involvement. Way to fail to understand the topic at hand! Military planes have been doing this for years. So can certain commercial airliners, already. (Thanks to kansas1051)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Didn't RTF summary, huh? It has to be activated on board the plane. Besides that, this is not a general purpose network we're talking about. It is s special purpose communications link that likely will be encrypted and spread spectrum. If the military can use wireless drones in combat without fear of the enemy taking over, why not here?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
So, the pilot flips a switch, and the autopilot takes over, and takes the plane to .... where, exactly?
Let's presume that it was pre-programmed on the ground. So, at LAX, it will take the plane to some Californian AFB. So far, so good. But, if the hijacker comes in on approach to JFK, does this mean the aircraft then does a 180 turn and heads back?
Fuel requirements may be to have 90min reserves, over and above what is required for the flight. So, this would have the plane run out of fuel 90 min after turning round.
OK, so the destination is set for the arrival airport, then. Even better - it will go straight there, and neatly ignore all the other traffic in the approach.
To be honest, I can see the airlines doing this deliberatle to keep to their schedules (nothing beats queue jumping!)
Maybe, the autopilot has no preset destination, then. OK, the aircraft will then head for 0 latitude, 0 longitude. Not a good move either.
Pretty rubbish idea, really.
"She's furniture with a pulse"
Is hijacking seriously still a viable option for terrorists in the USA? I'd think that the standard assumption these days would be that a terrorist hijacking a plane probably intends to use it as a missile. Failing a passenger revolt against the hijackers, I'd think the US military would just shoot down the plane or otherwise force it to land. The assumption is that the passengers are dead anyways...
We don't need this. If anything genuinely good came out of 9/11, it's this: passengers will *NOT* sit idly by while a hijacker goes and tries to seize control of an aircraft, as they know that their lives would likely be forfeit anyways if they did. It was a very costly wake-up call, and although I would never go so far as to say it was worth it, I think it's safe bet that no hijacker will ever be able to take control of a passenger aircraft ever again... at least not over USA soil.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Comment removed based on user account deletion
We have Chloe O'Brian and they don't.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Nearly all widebody (two aisle) and many narrowbody (single aisle) aircraft with a seating capacity over ~120 seats flown by US domestic airlines are equipped with autoland (I can't speak for foreign carriers). It's generally not used other than occasional functional checks (once a month) or during exceptionally poor weather (visibility less than 800 feet). Use of autoland requires what is referred to as a Category II or Category III instrument landing system (ILS) approach, which is the ground based radio navigation aid associated with a particular runway. Cat II/III ILS systems are only found at large airports where the cost can be justified. The most capable systems are "Cat IIIc" which allow landing in zero visibility. Finding the gate after landing in such conditions ends up being more problematic than landing the aircraft. Category I approaches (visibility as low as 1800 feet) and some Cat II approaches are typically hand flown. Autoland systems are quite good and often one-up the flight crew with a nice touchdown (speaking from personal experience - it's hard to swallow the machine doing a better job!). Many autoland equipped aircraft also have autobrakes which will either slow or completely stop the aircraft on the runway.
even without bats the next deranged whackjob to attempt hijack of a u.s. plane will probably be beaten to death pulped beyond identification by any visual means.
Something like that happened just recently: Hijacker didn't speak French. Captain did the landing announcement and in the French version told the passengers and crew he was going to do a very hard landing and for the stews and any strong male passengers to rush the cockpit and subdue the hijacker.
He hit the brakes hard. The hijacker (who was standing) tumbled over. The stews and passengers broke in and jumped him. The stews poured boiling water over him while the passengers beat him until subdued.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
With your idea:
"One passenger dies every minute until the door is unlocked".
Duh.
With the new system:
"One passenger dies every minute until the fancy auto-pilot is turned off".
Another duh.
Any questions, Einstein?
For one, I'd assume that there would be nothing simple about attacking the remote control station. Unlike airliners, where pretty much anyone can get on if they can afford a ticket, the remote control station would be heavily secured.
If this system is worth its salt, jamming or hijacking the remote control station's signal should also be extremely difficult. Boeing is a major military contractor, I'm sure they know how to do secure radio communications. I doubt many hijackers have access to the kind of equipment it would take to crack a secure transmission that's even close to military-grade.
Finally, they'd still have to get someone who's willing to go on the plane since the system needs to be triggered somehow. That would make timing really tricky - for the "break into the control station" scenario, you'd have to get your guy on the plane to smack the door and trigger the system and have your team who's broken into the control system in place in time to take over the plane, and then hold off the SWAT team or whoever long enough to do something with the plane.
I'm also assuming that they're smart enough to have plenty of fail-safes hardcoded in so that it's impossible to make the plane do a nose dive straight into the ground or something like that.
It's already well established that terrorists are willing to die for their cause. The rest of us infidels, we're not into the dying thing so much.
This system may prevent another 9/11-style attack, but that's about it. It's not likely to save any lives. The aircraft can still be extracted from the sky conventionally from within the cabin by a sufficiently motivated and prepared threat.
What I see here is that this system allows the terrorists to reduce the total number of operatives on the aircraft. This reduces their exposure and they can concentrate on higher value targets, such as the remote command/control systems. Or even devising their own system of control.
Auto(land/brakes/throttle) is/are fantastic systems, but they are not found in all aircraft. I expect there will be an amusing article about this in an upcoming Crypto-Gram.
RUPERT! I TOLD YOU TO WATCH THE BAGS! You were looking at the boys again, WEREN'T YOU.
Now the terrorists do not have to sacrifice their lifes. Or just need some jamming equipment in addition.
To illustrate the level of naivity: In security research people saying "tamper proof" are not taken serious by anybody. Even "tamper resistant" needs very strong mechanisms to be taken halfway serious.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Kinda reminds me of Kirk/Spock attempting to take over USS reliant back from Khaaan.
As far as I know, this was the first time we'd seen a suicide hijack. Previous hijacks have had some fairly cooperative hijackers who want to escape from an oppresive regime. People presumably didn't try to stop the terrorists because they assumed the same thing would happen and thought there was a good chance that they would just be held in a plane for a few days before being freed.
If they tried it again, people would know that they were going to die. They'd have nothing to lose by trying to stop the terrorists. A high risk of death is better than certain death, and there would be a lot more civilians than terrorists. More than enough to overpower men armed with boxcutters.
Middle eastern airlines have had this for a long time, it's not too difficult to think of, unless you're plain stupid. Planes with NO PASSAGE BETWEEN FLIGHT DECK AND PASSENGERS. Is that hard? I guess it requires another exterior door, bathroom for pilots, food service for pilots (read "fridge"), etc. But ultimately, the simplest solution is probably the best. Why can't people even think of this? Well, I guess it's an easy retrofit that you couldn't charge an arm and a leg for.
Less look fast, more go fast.
I think it's a great idea, but their scenario of flying the plane to a secure military base? What makes them think that the terrorists won't just blow up the plane for non-compliance with their demands? What happens to the negotiations? Moreover, terrorists have one purpose and that is to instill terror in people. What makes them think that the terrorists won't just kill everyone on board and blow up the airplane, just for the sake of causing terror? I think the best it does it keep another 9.11 from happening.
Please keep off the grass.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
You are attempting to engage the Remote Control System.
Cancel or Allow?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Anyone? Bueller?
geek. lawyer.
So, this auto-control thing at least creates the possibility that hijackers will be able to take over the plane without even having to be on the plane. Cool! Either the pilot-control feature is good enough that no one can trigger it from the ground, and therefore this system isn't effective at preventing someone from taking over the plane, or else is does allow itself to be triggered easily enough that someone could perhaps control it from the ground. If it's triggered by excessive door pressure, maybe that means that all the hijackers need is to have one guy on the plane put pressure on the door (or just damage the switch in some way) and then have the real crew safely on the ground, taking over the controls somehow.
Does it come with a mute button so you don't have to listen to the passenger's screams?
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
"You can't fly any lower describes an advanced ground contact avoidance system developed in Sweden and tested on F16s. This is really impressive.
After moderate checks of the system at shallow dive angles and an aborted run or two, Prosser simulated several fatal mishaps. The first replicated a pilot flying on night-vision goggles (NVG) and losing situational awareness. With Auto-GCAS minimum descent altitude set at 500-ft. AGL (a medium-risk test condition), Prosser rolled into a partially inverted 5g turn, then back to a 90-deg. bank before relaxing his grip on the stick. The mishap pilot had lost the night horizon and, thinking he was approximately wings-level, let the nose fall. He was unknowingly diving toward the ground. Similar NVG-related accidents have killed F-16 and A-10 pilots.
While the flat Rosamond Dry Lake raced upward at us, filling my out-the-canopy field-of-view, I glanced at my back-seat HUD repeater and saw two large chevrons moving toward the center of the display. Their arrow-points touched, and we immediately snap-rolled to wings-level and pulled sharply to about 10 deg. nose-up. When the "You got it!" annunciation sounded, we were climbing at about 317 kt. and 2,940 ft., roughly 600+ ft. above the lakebed--an artificially high altitude established for safety reasons.
This thing is dealing with flight situations much tougher than anything the big transports do. It's designed not to interfere with typical attack aircraft maneuvers. We flew about 200 ft. above the ground at 520-560 kt., popping over high-tension power lines, hills and small ridges. Slipping through cuts in the desert mountains, rolling inverted to pull down the backside of ridges, and carving around the sides of rocky hills, Prosser demonstrated that a pilot could fly a normal, low-level tactical mission without experiencing a single nuisance fly-up. But go a little too low, and there's a "speedbump" as the system nudges the aircraft up a bit.
The system turns off when you're set up for landing: slow speed, wheels down, flaps down.
This would have saved United 93, where they had a fight in the cockpit. If the computers take over when the plane is headed into the ground, a number of situations become survivable. Not just hijackings; crashes due to pilot distraction or navigational error; what's called "controlled flight into terrain".
Couldn't this system make hijacking more likely? Say terrorists take over a plane. Knowing they don't need them, the terrorists kill the pilots. The remote system turns on, and the terrorists say "control, take us to *insert Middle Eastern or African country here* or we start killing hostages every 10 minutes until you turn to heading 180 or what have you... maybe the developers should look into being able to control the displays in planes, but then the terrorists could also carry compasses and maps... it just doesn't sound like a very good idea to me. p.s. -hey terrorists, i have just trademarked that idea so you can't use it.
sad part is terrorists are destined on killing the passengers in the case their wishes are not met. so now instead of the slight chance of negotiation that is there in a normal hijacking they will straight away just kill everyone on board. so now instead of saving people were saving the plane?
Didn't RTF summary, huh? It has to be activated on board the plane.
Until somebody figures out a remote exploit.
It's just a little more software in the autopilot computer triggered by an input signal on a particular port. And it's got, or is connected to, a radio-datacom system that will remote-control it once triggered. Compromise the computer and you can fool it into believing the button was pushed (or whatever). Then you've got a plane flown by carefully-designed software written by Boeing (so YOU didn't have to write it), designed and tested to be uninterruptible by anyone on the plane, including the flight crew.
And it's remote controlled. So there's an open radio data port managed by a software driver, just waiting for a remote exploit to be used. (Remember the Broadcom blob exploit? Extrapolate it to this system.)
You need:
1) A remote control system.
2) A remote communication exploit to insert malware that:
3) Triggers the system, and
4) Changes the keying so YOUR remote control works and the official ones don't.
2), 3), and 4) are small stuff for the sort of folks that run a multi-billion dollar spam industry on botnets, and a cakewalk for a governmental infowar department.
1) will be easy, too. Once such a system is deployed the remote controls (and inventories of spares) will be all over the world - including in airports under control of countries that "sponsor terrorism". If the platforms are generic you won't even need to rip off the hardware - just clone the software. Target systems (suitable for debugging your code) will be in even broader distribution - installed in every commercial aircraft.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I proposed this to them about 5 years ago....
....I wonder if I would even be a foot note as the person who lead them to this idea?
c t.html
Oh, if you are wondering if I'm full of it, take a look at where I got my idea form:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8947/proje
and replace 'hobby rocket' with 'aircraft under distress'. I still have all of my original documents too.
The pilots could just have a switch to "knock out" all the passengers in a few seconds, so in the event of an attempted hijack, they could do this, and drop the hijackers into the hold, to freeze to death ;-)
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
Why do we still have pilots?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
my dick is a plane
Alex Jones is frequently called a "conspiracy nutjob", and in short order is shown to be right on the money. It's a wonder that more people don't take him seriously...
We'd have a new revolution on our hands if more people payed attention. They can't pay attention to "Dancing With the Stars" and "American Idol" at the same time as they're concerned about their country.
"Lame" - Galaxar
Um Slashdot guys, remember when I tried to submit this article two months ago?
[By the way, I hope Mr. Levine can prevail in a patent battle with Boeing]
On 23 January, I attended a fascinating presentation by Sy Levine, a senior aerospace engineer with extensive experience in guidance, control, and navigation.
He presented his advanced concept for aviation safety and air traffic control in the 21st century. He envisions a system where all aircraft would maintain a constant data link with ground controllers. Pilots, controllers, and airlines would have real-time access to all navigational and on-board systems information.
In the event of deviation from flight plan, or unforeseen emergency, ground based controllers could advise, and if necessary alicensed remote pilot in a ground based virtual reality high fidelity flight simulator, takes control of the aircraft.
The most obvious application is a 9-11 like scenario, where a ground-based pilot would take control of the plane, and guide it to a landing at a remote airfield.
However, Sy also brought up a number incidents, such as the Payne Stewart Learjet and Helios Air 522 , where decompression disabled the flight crew, and there was no course of action that could save those aboard.
Just implementing the data-link part of the system would allow some novel possibilities, such as letting pilots see key position and flight control data of neighboring aircraft. This could add a safety factor to the 'free flight' model, where pilots are not restricted tightly defined traffic corridors. In case of a crash, accident investigators could review telemetry up to loss of contact.
The audience I was in was primarily engineering and communications professionals who were quite receptive. The general consensus is that all of the technological components, including secure communication and integrated flight controls are ready for prime time. It would be most intriguing to see this concept presented to a room full of pilots.
Sy himself acknowledges that he has an uphill battle to promote this system to the aviation community. However he persuasively points out that that basic technology of air traffic control (and the fatality rate) has not changed since the early 60's.
Why not take advantage of the huge progress that has been made in communications and computing to build more safety into civil aviation system?
For a detailed explanation, check out http://www.safelander.com/
300 people on a large jumbo-jet vs. 3000+ in an office building in manhattan. I would have taken the 300.
You're not alone in making that calculation. The passengers on the fourth 9/11 hijacked jet came to the same conclusion - even though they themselves were the collection on the light side of the balance.
(IMHO they deserve a posthumous award of the Medal of Freedom.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Don't most of the conspiracy theories about how the government destroyed the World Trade Center posit a remote control of the jetliners that crashed into the towers?
Seastead this.
the fatality rate is very low, and remains so; which is a testament to rigor's the aircraft industry is in the US.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That'll be $1M for each plane please.
Instead we would have hijackers who could fly the plane without being in it. How clever!
Incidentally, weren't the planes that flew into the twin towers already equipped with a remote control override? I seem to recall some kind of talk of that one - can anyone confirm?
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
Frankly, I never understood what the big draw is for 72 virgins. Explaining and training young women to give the perfect blowjob is a time consuming waste of effort. (SWALLOW, DAMMIT!!!) Ugh. An eternity of lousy sex. A fate worse than death...
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
How much cash and resources do we have to spend on 9/11 related expenditures before we realize that it's going overboard?
You have to pick the right thing to compare the expenditure against. The 9/11 attack cost about 3000 lives and a few billion bucks. But an ongoing, escalating, series of such attacks could cost far more. THAT is what the spending is attempting to prevent.
"Billions for defense, not one cent for tribute!" is actually good financial management: The cent is just the first one, it doesn't stop until you stop it, and the longer you wait the bigger the job to turn it around.
Same goes when it's death and damage, not tribute.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
that incapacitates everyone on the plane. Is there a chemical that can safely do this? If so then this could be almost fail safe. If a hijack is attempted, pass the controls to a ground pilot, knock out everyone on the plane, land anywhere and pull off the hijackers before anyone wakes up.
The only flaw I can think of is if someone has an allergic reaction to the chemical used. But even then one or two deaths is better than the whole plane.
over a million of other decisions when building the aircraft.
Your not exactly in the triple digits, are you?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I was on a United Boeing 777 from Chicago to Seattle and visibility was so bad in Seattle that our flight wouldn't have been able to land except that the 777 has an autoland capability. It was a gentle landing but it was weird since the fog was so thick I could see anything out of the window and could only tell we landed when I felt the landing gear touchdown on the runway.
(Why do we have pilots?)
To feed the dog, of course.
So, how does this help? Should Osama Bin Terrorist find out he can't crash the plan into something, then just decides to destroy the plane any way he can? I doubt they've set things up to lock the doors. And our explosive detection is still a joke.
Just sayin'
Galen
In your face, and always right!
There's long been a saying in aviation that on the flightdeck of the future there will be a man and a dog. The man is there to feed the dog. The dog is there to bite the man's hand if he tries to touch a control.
For the standard commercial flight I can see two main safety functions for the pilot. One is to implement ATC instructions, and the other is to sort things out when things go wrong.
If lots of planes were doing this then some way of remotely implementing ATC instructions would be needed to keep the aircraft apart, especially near airports: I don't think TCAS is up to that job yet. But if it were rare then ATC could maintain separations just by keeping other airraft out of the way. Presumably the panic button would automatically set the SSR to squawk the hijack code, so it would stand out like a sore thumb on ATC screens.
As for the pilot, well, I think being hijacked comes well within the category of something going wrong, and this gives one way of dealing with it. The pilot may well hope that nothing else goes wrong during the flight, but even if it does it isn't going to make things much worse. "Damn, you mean I'm almost certain to die and we've got to divert to New Jersey?"
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
will be the new Patriot Act, which will require a similar system to be installed on all new automobiles.
Run a red light, get driven to the police station. Can't have terrorists exceeding the speed limit.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
This seems pretty obvious, but, computer systems being what they are, doesn't this create the mother of all cracker targets? Whatever remote control technology they use, I hope it's far safer than mere IP addresses. I mean, come on, planes should not have public IP addresses, especially not public IP addresses linked to a remote control system. Pilot: "I'm sorry folks, but it appears the some script kiddie has taken control of the flight, drinks are now free"
As a passenger ... and a pilot I think this is a VERY dangerous idea. More so than dealing with the terrorists in other ways.
Let me qualify myself -- I am a hobbyist when it comes to flying. Single and dual engine props are the largest I've ever flown myself, but I know a damn good landing when I see / feel one. Flying "runs in the family" as my brother does it, my father, my grandfather [did, passed away], and my Uncle is a commercial pilot himself. Growing up it was common to go and visit grandpa (or more often have him fly over to us) in the rent-a-plane type club -- why drive and deal with all the traffic? When we wanted to go downtown to the city -- just fly in. I was flying when I was six... Anyway, I digress...
On a recent commercial trip to Hawaii I can remember two specific landings that took place. One was in bad weather and the landing impressed me so much that I waited around to find out who landed the plane. The pilot proudly introduced me to his co-pilot and informed me it was his first real landing as such [flying passengers and not testing / in a simulator]. The other landing scared the hell out of me and within seconds of touching down I looked at my white-knuckled scared wife and said "somethings wrong, we're going off the runway". The weather was calm and clear -- and at the gate the pilot apologized to *everyone* over the PA system and informed us that the landing that took place was done by the emergency autopilot landing system [a scheduled test -- WITH PASSENGERS]. THANK GOD he was able to dis-engage said system and go with a hard left rudder when he did...
Due to that last landing it has been the _last_ commercial flight I've taken (or plan to take). I'll fly myself, thank you.
What do I do for a living? Ironically computer [programming] -- and I know all too well what can (and does) go wrong with these types of computer programs. There is NO WAY that all the bases and/or possibilities could be covered with our computer knowledge today.
Sorry, didn't want to step on what you put into your pipe. Other than a
pseudosmart one-line it seems you don't have a lot to contribute here.
Great -- we are worried about brute-force attackers taking over an airplane and flying it into a building. So we build in a back door that can be cracked over the radio, allowing attackers to fly ALL AIRPLANES CURRENTLY IN FLIGHT into buildings. Nice one, Boeing.
Slashdot has a fairly robust moderation system. Anything I can do to help you waste time here keeps you from shitting all over the rest of the internets.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Gee whiz. So you make the aircraft more difficult to hijack. So what. The terrorist will then target the airports. And when you make the airports tougher to attack, they will plant bombs in the airport carpark etc. Eventually, you can't get out of your own home without being strip-searched. So, you might as well just start walking around naked just to save time. Bend over, America.
Don't fall for it! If this contraption works, then all of the pilots will be out of a job by Christmas. However, since most crashes are caused by pilot error, this could be a good thing. Maybe it can force a missed approach if the pilot insists on landing in a micro-burst.
What?
According to some conspiracy theories, 911 was done by remote control. Of course that doesn't explain how or why the relatives were then calling from planes that were remote control hijacked.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
This will all be for naught when Terrorist MacGyver is on the plane.
Never play chicken with a passive aggressive.
While demonstrating one of the new remote controlled aircraft, it was pointed out that the cockpit will now be occupied by a pilot and a dog. When asked about the dog, it was explained that he was there to bite the pilot's hand off if he reached for any of the controls.
What?
True Pearl Harbor was a military target, but on the other side of the math, it was a surprise attack. 911 wasn't a surprise attack--it was the second attempt to destroy the same target by an enemy. (Though it still shocked the world.)
I suppose the conclusion is that neither was a particularly honorable move. Most attacks aren't.
Discalimer: IANAAE - I am not an aeronautical engineer.
Isn't it true that airliners use most of their fuel supply during takeoff? Why not have a system that kicks in a locked autopilot if the cockpit door is opened for *any* reason before a plane reaches cruising altitude? An airplane isn't a particularily good weapon once 75% of its fuel has been consumed, or perhaps I've got it all wrong...
There's a far simpler (and less risky) solution - two doors between the flight deck and the main cabin, so that the flight crew can always have a closed door between them and the cabin when they have to leave the cockpit. El Al's been doing this for years, and IIRC, United is on track to do so. If the cockpit can't be stormed, the airliner can't be used as a weapon.
Autopilots malfunction. That's why there's a big red button on every yoke or sidestick (not just on the flight guidance panel) - an autopilot disconnect switch. The thought of having an autopilot that you can't disconnect on every flight of every airliner is just plain scary, probability-wise.
Here's a more likely use for it: The FAA wants to raise the pilot retirement age to 65. You'll need it to land the airplane after the old geezer pilots fall asleep.
Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
"You weeel take deees plane to Aaafgaaaneeestaaan, or I weeeeel --"
"BEEEP - Please kindly press 1 for service in Spanish, 2 to leave a message,
3 to speak with a customer service agent, or 0 to repeat this message again..."
Inevitably there will be some kid who gets a hold of the Airplane's control system and thinking its a video game, it will spiral out of control and crash.
God spoke to me.
No one cares if a plane is diverted to Algeria. They care if it's flown into the ground or a target, which is of course something the pilots will never do no matter how many passengers are killed, for obvious reasons. Seperating pilot from passenger accomplishes only one thing, but its a very important thing. Namely, it prevents the class of hijackings in which all passengers die, and those are the ones we care about.
Relax I just want some peanuts.
Thank you for reminding me to keep focused.
Why not just completely isolate the cockpit by making the door to it external?
That, combined with a policy where the pilot severs all contact with the passenger compartment immediately upon learning of a hijacking. That way, they can't make threats or demands. For a hijacker to negotiate, they will need communication.
Maybe include some microphones and/or cameras throughout the passenger compartment that can be switched on and monitored from the ground.
Nothing is entirely tamper-proof.
This way, they just have to have one person on the plane (who doesn't even have to know how to fly), and other people who could break into the system that the people on the ground use to control the plane. Heck, they might be able to hijack an airplane without being onboard.
Scary. Very scary.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
"terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
What if instead of the remote control taking over, it just alerted flight controllers and turned on a camera in the cockpit? They could make the judgment call. Easy peasy.
I like the idea of having the cockpit complety seperate an inaccessable from the cabin so it's physiclly impossible for a person to enter the cockpit while the aircraft is moving better. Take out the first row of first class and build additional space for a flight attendant to tend to the captain, co-pilot's beverages and meals. It's also possible to have a flight crew member act as captain to keep order in the cabin since the real captain can't get into the cabin either. A radio can allow the crew to communicate with the captian in the even of an emergency where the captain then fly to the closest airport and land. Tigher securty can be handled at the airport as well as random searches at the gate, don't forget the dogs. The FAA amy be a government group. but the airlines are private companies whom can legally require passengers to eithr conform to their policies or take the damned bus! I'm so sick of the "it violates constitutional rights" type searches .. Fine, no problem ma'am, we can't force you to a random strip search .. but you are NOT getting on my aircraft until you do ... pick one .. my plane .. or that bus over there!
SkyNet thanks you for your contribution.
Important updates need to be installed before proceeding.
Please install updates and then restart.
Have a nice flight.
"Folks, this is your captain speaking. I have turned off the fasten seatbelt light, so feel free to move around the cabin".
*Stands up, grabs laptop from overhead bin, pushes power button*
Windows: New bluetooth device found
Windows has detected a new bluetooth device:
Boeing 777 300a
Allow Windows to communicate with this device?
Accept Cancel
"Um... flight attendant?"
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
until a pilot triggers that system and then takes a nap? :)
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who do not.
For something *that* secure, I'm sure they're using Vista. I can see it now, "It looks like you're trying to let someone take over your aircraft by remote control. Allow or deny?"
But more seriously, how could a system like that EVER be trusted? M$ spend lots of time and way more money trying to make Vista secure, and it's already cracked. Same for HD-DVD DRM. And if terrorist really can't think of anything better, they can do this:in this case the solution is a social one not a technological one. the most powerful force on a plane are its passengers.
...aircraft remote control systems in a bid to eliminate the threat of terrorist hijackings...
Didn't anyone here watch episode 1 of The Lone Gunmen???
So what happens if the auto-pilot goes mad? I for one welcome our new auto-pilot controlled overlords and hope that they fly me somewhere nice.
Right?
Seriously, this is a safeguard? So people can then hijack the plane without even needing to be on it.
What a plan.
I skimmed the comments and am surprised this wasn't brought up:
"Hello Air Control? We are the terrorists. If you do not relinquish control of this plane we will execute a passenger every 5 minutes. Thank you!"
How do terrorists EVER get anything done?
"This increases their planning overhead, their budget overhead, and possibly their coordination overhead. They also have to acquire more information from more sources, and possibly design, manufacture, and smuggle aboard additional equipment."
/sarcasm
Are you expecting terrorist organisations to declare their activities are no longer economically viable and "fire" their employees ?
Maybe they can file for bankruptcy protection to stave off the inevitable...
Seriously, i doubt the extremists these systems are targeting run their operations like a corporation, or care about economics.
I wonder can an autopilot program maneuver an aircraft in the middle of turbulence? What if the pilot is forced or accidentally switched on the remote contol in the middle of a thunder storm?
--And what precision! To be able to accurately target a building which is so far away that you can't even see it is amazing. These were guys who couldn't even pass flight school. Sounds like a computer assist to me.
-FL
Add the keyword: skynet
So what happens if the remote control station gets hijacked?
on you believing that '911' was a 'terrorist' attack. If, as the overwhelming evidence shows, it wasnt, then whats the point? Why not just impeach Cheney and his pet monkey Bush? Save some cash and return the Government of the USA to the people of the USA. Novel concept, I know.
great -- just what we needed -- now they won't even have to hijack the plane,
all they have to do is hack the remote to crash the plane, while they stay nice and safe
on the ground -- bleach.
I've been saying for years that they ought to put all passengers to sleep...
1. extreme safety factor
2. imagine how many people they could toss into a 747 if everyone was loaded in a coffin-sized chamber and stacked like toothpicks?
a. less airport congestion
b. no longer annoyed by the 45 minutes of taxiing for takeoff, and 2 hrs. of flying in circles and waiting for a ramp to disembark at
3. ???
4. profit!
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. - Dr. Seuss
Well, if this system works at all, why even bother with the pilot in the first place ?
Shove all the electronics in the belly of the plane, and replace the cockpit with a lectern and projector - and have some corporate marketting people at the front of the aircraft present the passengers with endless powerpoint slides.
You could have presentations about any of the following topics to a captive audience :
- That downloading mp3's and movies from the internet is supporting communism.
- That linux actually costs more than Windows.
- That Dell really does listen to its customers.
- That SCO's legal claims are based on facts.
- That everyone will be left in the stone age if they dont upgrade to Vista.
etc etc
The corporates would of course pump millions into providing these essential services and effectively subsidising the flights.
Idea - or not ?
I knew America was behind when it came to Cellphones but GPRS?
Says who? The Media? "oh, all fanatics run around shooting off their AK47's into the air while driving around shouting down with america, bush is the devil and other crazy things"?
Why do you think Fanatics have to be crazy? Because they do things that you, a "sane" person wouldnt do? Because they would die for something?
---
i see a story like this on /. and immediately feel a cringe in my gut at the number of comments there will be shooting down the possibility that this may be useful. i thought using tech to solve real world problems was what geeks really enjoyed?
irresponsible application of tech and poor implementations certainly deserve some healthy debate - but shooting down ideas because they seem 'hard' just strikes me as negative.
cool tech has gotta start with someone who believes it can be done.
It also explains why there was no hijacking code sent by any of the planes pilots(a quick 2 second job).
Now for the wave of denials from "skeptics" who dont have any idea of what they are talking about (after reading and believing lies off of main stream news, that is more often than not completely contradicted elsewhere in the mainstream news).
watch "the money masters" on google video
Make it so, Mr. Data.
There should be a scale, like the Richter scale for earthquakes, for dumb ideas.
This one would be 11/10.
Hijacks are very, very rare so the effectiveness of this stupid idea is dominated by the failure modes. The obvious failure mode is accidental activation. This will occur much more often than an actual hijack.
So rather than being a solution, it will be just another cause of flight delays.
Can anyone name a single system that someone with enough patience and diligence has not managed to break into??? If so then this is a great idea else I believe Ill sail or use the train.
Hehe, NOBODY will prevent American government from repeating 9/11 attacks.
Looks like the researchers took some clues from the **wild rumors** that claimed that the WTC planes were remotely controlled....
So, presumably, there is a system where control of the airplane can be taken over from the ground. How is this safer? With such a system, terrorists -- or whoever might want to fake a terrorist action for political gain -- will have the power to hijack planes from the ground.
As much as I hate to use the term "terrorism" for anything (because it is a blanket term for anything that current leaders of witch hunts deem threatening to their positions), this invention makes possible "armchair hijacking". Well, I guess modern conveniences can be apportioned to any social group nowadays.
As there is no "tamper proof" system, I cannot see how this could be anything but stupid.
"The illusion of safety . . ." -- Tyler Durden
Travellers, have fun waiting in line . . . for nothing.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
Now how does this prevent our military from tapping into the remote controlled system in an attempt to fly the aircraft into civilian structures during war games?
If the system is turned on the hijackers could just threaten to kill hostages unless ground control flew the plane to a specific destination. They would have to make a global database of secure, unsecure, airstrip, runway locations and when the switch was flipped, the plane would automatically fly and land itself to the nearest location according to predefined logic without any human intervention. That would make hijacking to get to a destination or hostage taking towards a political goal an exercise in futility.
That crash seems to have been the result of several problems including human error, but there was no remote control involved, see:= 19880626-0&lang=enf 296.shtml
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id
http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/a
-- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
"using existing landing aids known as 'autoland function'.'" Correct me if I am wrong, but all aircraft have a built in "autoland" function. They will all land eventually, somehow....
- Gronk!
The US have NEVER been interested in 'heroic' type military actions, of the kind that European nations value. I think it's something to do with the different histories - Europe has a tradition of feudal battles which emphasise 'valiant last-ditch stands' (probably to encourage the knights and house-carles to fight to the last!), while the US looks back to the Indian Wars, where technological imbalance and slaughter were the order of the day.
n refers.
The net result is that for much of its history the US has been an oddly peaceable nation. It has only been interested in fighting wars where it was sure it would easily win. When it does fight a war, US doctrine is to bring overwhelming fire power to bear, and eradicate everything in the vicinity from a distance, while preserving the lives of its own soldiers.
Compare that approach with, say, the British action at Goose Green in the Falklands War, where 600 British soldiers assaulted a well dug in force of over 1000 elite Argentinian troops, in defiance of conventional military practice. Both sides showed extreme bravery - Lt Col H Jones' death while leading a direct charge over open ground up a steep hill to silence machine gun posts was only one of a number of such incidents where soldiers on both sides took actions involving almost certain death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Goose_Gree
This European ethos looks good in the cinema, so good that Hollywood frequently takes European fighting occurances and transposes them to a US setting (which causes a lot of bad feeling) But I do not think this indicates a 'lack of moral fibre' on the part of the US. It's just a different way of doing things, and, I think, the US can argue that it has a more sensible approach.
If I were to be asked to join an army where we only fought where we had an overwhelming superiority over the enemy, compared to one where we were expected routinely to engage with inferior weaponry, numbers and tactical position and still win, I know which army I would prefer!
The pilots could just have a switch to "knock out" all the passengers in a few seconds, so in the event of an attempted hijack, they could do this, and drop the hijackers into the hold, to freeze to death ;-)
Who's going to be flying the plane whilst the pilots are in the back working out which passengers they need to manhandle into the cargo hold? Anything which can do this is also going to "knock out" all the flight attendants too. The people best able to actually identify the hijackers are going to be amongst the unconcious.
Or, they could have a switch that turns on the new Military Puke Ray to incapacitate the terrorists (and passengers). After all, a plane-load of puking people has a certain zen quality about it.
You don't actually need some fancy device. Just the knowlage that pilots (and drivers) tend not to get motion sick...
..there was a recent US police report that stressed this. At a distance of around 20 feet, an attacker with a knife will have a significant advantage over someone armed with a pistol. Think time to run 20 feet and attack vs time to realise you're being attacked, draw, aim and fire.
There's a problem with this, and the problem is there's no such thing as tamperproof.
If there's the ability for someone on the ground to land the plane by remote control, it can be abused; and if it can be abused, then it will be abused. All this effectively means is that you no longer need actually to be on board an aircraft in order to hijack it! If the remote system can't be overridden by the cockpit controls, then the plane is vulnerable to remote hijacking. But if the remote system can be overridden from the cockpit, then what purpose is it serving anyway?
It's like copy-prevention, insofar as it is mathematically impossible to do perfectly. And the stakes are high enough that eventually, somebody will have a go, sooner or later.
Your OpenPGP-protected e-mail isn't secure because OpenPGP is secure. It's just that nobody is so desperate to read your e-mail that they would try to crack your OpenPGP key; if The Authorities want information, they have easier ways of getting it (which include locking you up on an unrelated-but-plausible charge and fabricating evidence after the event). But there are people who are desperate enough to fetch down aircraft, and we've already seen examples showing what sort of things they will try. Whether it's a case of building a transmitter that can be used to land a plane, getting hold of a "real" one somehow from one of the "secure" landing sites, modifying the plane's electronics so the system will not work, or just switching tactics and relying on killing passengers to get a message across, people will do it if they have a good enough reason to.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Put a lock on the cabin door!
If only this was an open source system we could rest easy that terrorists would never figure out how to bypass the system.
This is why you never negotiate with terrorists. Not that this will be much comfort to either the victims on the plane the first time it happens, or the commanders/negotiators on the ground who have to talk to the terrorists knowing what the consequences will probably be, of course.
It's a bit like the attitude of the submarine commander I saw in a TV documentary a few years ago:
Interviewer: Do you hope you'll launch a nuke one day?
Captain: Of course not. Millions of innocent people would die if we ever did that.
Interviewer: So would you do it if you were ordered to?
Captain: Absolutely, and without hesitation.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
So with this implemented, hijackers will need to not only take flying lessons but also some will need to take autopilot repair and maintenance training. Or maybe they can forego the pilot training and just do the autopilot repair and maintenance training. I wonder which is easier?
Actually, my favorite stupid 'foolproof' idea is remote control. That could permit the hijackers to take over the airplane and fly it into whatever - without ever having to go thru security screening at the airport. And if they do it by satellite - maybe without having to enter the country.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Now terrorist won't even have to leave their home to crash planes. All they need is a computer. Of course this system will be well guarded, because heck nothing that sensitive and important has ever been cracked before. I mean come on it just radio waves.
And the terrorist were just hired to plant the bombs in the buildings, and the planes were flown by remote control anyway. Something like this ep of The Lone Gunmen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UuAVuuGkV8
Uhhmm, I think we clearly have a case of prior art here. Remember Die Hard? All one has to do is tweak the ILS parameters and the altimeter and the pilot will do the terrorists' job for them completely unwittingly!
Thick sturdy doors that CANNOT be opened during flight, period.
If we can have a redundancy for the pilots why not just prevent the cabin door from being opened EVER during flight (and I mean it's not physically possible even for the pilots)? Or eliminate the cabin door completely and have a different entrance for the pilots? So the cockpit will need a crapper.....
sad part is terrorists are destined on killing the passengers in the case their wishes are not met. so now instead of the slight chance of negotiation that is there in a normal hijacking they will straight away just kill everyone on board. so now instead of saving people were saving the plane?
Umm the point is for them to realize hijacking a plane is USELESS. I am sure if this gets put in place then possible hijackers will know about it and it will at least make them rethink their plans. I mean if they KNOW that there is no possible way for them to control the plane if they hijack it then why would they hijack it in the first place unless the only thing they really want to do is kill just the passengers (which is not very common and like you said they usually use the passengers as bargaining chips for other demands)? With this system they can't hijack a plane and tell the pilot to fly to some safe harbor until their demands are met and/or crash the plane into a high value target.
I think it is a great idea if done right and it could even be used in non terrorist situations that others have mentioned such as if the whole cabin is depressurized and the pilots get knocked out or some other situation where the pilots lose control. The scary thing to me is the quality of code that some of the airline manufacturers write for their flight systems, I don't know if the people were lying but some of them said after seeing some of the code they would not get on those particular brands again!
Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
My concern is the term "tamper-proof" used to describe the remote control. The last thing we need is for a terrorist to be able to take control and orchestrate the synchronized take-down of planes with no risk to his own life, from the comfort of his own home or internet cafe.
God look at me, I'm just a man, but you tell me I'm not just a man, so hard to understand, after all, I'm just a man.
You know... I heard that Al Qaeda has a plot to take over an abandonded church 100 yards away from Dulles International Airport. The rumor is that they'll run some fiber optics from the air ports systems into the church where they setup a mobile air traffic control station.
The word on the street is that they'll set their systems up to trick the AutoLand function into thinking that the ground level is 10 feet lower than it actually is, which will make the planes crash when they try to land.
It could be that the only thing that will save us is a defunct Detroit cop on holiday to visit his estranged wife.
This is serious business, man. If McClane can't stop them, we'll be screwed.
Pre 9/11 - evidence indicated that if you listened to a terrorist you would get out with your life.
;-)
Post 9/11 - nobody believes that anymore and I can't imagine a passenger being cowed by a terrorist anymore. Not when there are still carts, metal pans, forks, knives, hot coffee, hot water, etc that can be used as weapons by a very large number of passengers that would rather go out fighting than like those unsuspecting 9/11 passengers.
Even a whole slew of laptop batteries being flung at the terrorists should distract them enough to get to them
Never mind laptops, backpacks, hand bags, etc.
I hope we'll never find out whether this happens but I have to wonder if there is anyone around other than Boeing (trying to get more funding) and our gov't (trying to give Boeing more funding) that believes that the pre-9/11 mentality is still around.
The first thing a would be hijacker will do is get on the radio and threaten to kill everyone on board unless they remotely disable the system.
Now I don't want to be the guy who makes that decision!
Sure it will protect ground targets ala 9/11... but it does nothing to protect those on board.
I would rather see every flight equipped with remote controlled fog makers, radio jammers, and noise makers... make it impossible for them to communicate with each other. Throw in some sleeping gas, high voltage door to deliver a nice shock... maybe a few rottweilers with big fricken lasers, an escape pod, and finally what security system wouldn't be complete with a self distruct button... that would stop em.
Seriously, why can't we as a people accept that shit happens. Don't get me wrong, I think that it would be stupid to just ignore the problem, but there really is no foolproof way to ensure that bad things won't happen.
Instead of making flying very slightly more safe (how many plane hijackings have actually happend?) Why don't we focus on how much safer it is to fly than the alternatives. The millions that Boeing is spending on this technology would be far better spent reminding the public that even with the occasional hijacking, it's still MUCH safer to fly than to drive.
This system will not make me feel one bit safer, why, because I know that statistically the chances that it will help me in anyway are almost insignificant! If the rest of the world knew what I know, Boeing would sell more planes, ticket prices would continue to drop, and fewer people would die behind the wheel trying drive 24 hours straight to reach a destination that would take 3 hours on a plane.
Honestly, if they want to spend millions on a new technology... spend it on something that makes planes faster, more fuel efficient, or meaningfully safer... not a stuipid technology that does nothing but make people "feel" safer.
Joe
PS... I realize that I will sound like a jackass the first time this system prevents a terrorist attack. But remember how many people died from more common threats that could have been prevented had this money been spent differently.
Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
The world would then be safer.
Here's one well-researched and very thoughtful rubuttal to the Popular Mechanics article. The Popular Mechanics article is widely considered too silly to even consider. --There are more logical flaws in that article than can be forgiven in any intelligent discussion.
Cheers!
-FL
Who's going to be flying the plane whilst the pilots are in the back working out which passengers they need to manhandle into the cargo hold?
I'd think the ones with guns/explosives about their person would be prime suspects? Anyway, you could just leave everyone knocked out until the plane had landed.
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
a large aircraft's controls can be bypassed *outside* the cockpit, for example, the pumps and controls for pumps that run the hydraulics aren't located there. You've already put your mind in a box, and it is therefore of no use discussing what might be done inside the cockpit. Plenty of automotive security systems are defeated by electronic/electrical/rf means, not hammers. Aircraft system allowing remote rf control would also have means in that realm of defeating.