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'.'"

Comments

Let's not get all technical now

[Lord Grey]

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."

Re:Let's not get all technical now

[pembo13]

And THAT is the real tragedy that so few seems to notice. What ever happened to fight or flight?

Re:Let's not get all technical now

[SirWhoopass]

and inability for the pilots to open those doors

That's absurd. With a system such as that, how are the flight attendants going to bring them martinis?

Re:Let's not get all technical now

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow I sure wish I had you as a boss. Sitting in your office remeniscing about the days you used to kick the shit out of other kids. And ruminating about how great it is to have started out so low, yet be in charge of so many "sheep" these days! U sound like a real fun guy to work for =P

Anti-hijacking technology isn't needed

[Samalie]

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"

Re:Anti-hijacking technology isn't needed

[brian.gunderson]

or... Snakes???

"tamper-proof", huh?

[smellsofbikes]

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.

sounds like a really good idea

[eneville]

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.

Re:Won't change anything actually

[timeOday]

The failsafe autopilot also disperses chloroform into the air supply. Just don't tell any terrorists, it's a secret.

Re:Different problem

[wall0159]

Didn't you read the article? It's "tamper-proof" and "uses state-of-the-art computer and satellite technology" - so terrorists won't be able to do that. You can sleep easy, little fella, there's nothing to worry about - us big folk have it all under control...

(/sarcasm)

Cancel or Allow?

[fahrbot-bot]

No remote access allowed to a computer without the administrator password, either.

You are attempting to engage the Remote Control System.
Cancel or Allow?

Re:Problem with your method

[mh1997]

You are absolutely correct, military and some civilian aircraft already have this feature. However, a terrorist activating a jammer could never happen because it is against FAA rules to turn on a transmitter during flight.

Time to exhume an old joke

[iminplaya]

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.

Automated Pilots?

[sanman2]

"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..."

Re:Not just US planes and already happened.

[devilspgd]

So that's the solution -- Everyone learn French. Well, except the terrorists.

Re:Already exists...CAT III autopilot systems

[ET_Fleshy]

Well technically you use autothrottles, which is a form of autopilot I guess. And at 500' (YMMV) you switch on the autopilot anyways. So it's damn close.

Re:Would 9/11 happen again?

[Fantastic Lad]

You're right. In fact, that is exactly what happened on Flight 93. They knew the score.

Wow! At last, somebody who knows "exactly" what happened on 9-11! Astonishing! Nobody else in the public has anything but theories and logical guesswork, but you actually know exactly what happened! Can I have your autograph?

-FL

I for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.