Slashdot Mirror
Pentagon Wants Kill Switch For Planes
mytrip writes "The Pentagon's non-lethal weapons division is looking for technologies that could 'disable' aircraft, before they can take off from a runway — or block the planes from flying over a given city or stretch of land. The Directorate's program managers don't mention how engineers might pull off such a kill switch. But, however it's done, they'd like to have a similar system for boats, as well. They're looking for a device that can, from 100 meters away, 'safely stop or significantly impede the movement' of vessels up to 40 feet long, with 'minimal collateral damage.'"
I say: "Attack vector".
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Something called WEP.
... looking for technologies that could 'disable' aircraft, before they can take off from a runway
Delta seems to have the edge on this market already.
How the hell do they intend to pull that off without collateral damage. Force fields? Giant shark balloons?
The twitter monologues. Click on my homepage and be amazed.
So instead of closing existing security vulnerabilities, they'd rather open new ones?
If 'terrists' wanted to crash a plane, now they don't even have to get out of their seats. Just send the wireless kill code from a disguised iPod.
Sigh.
equals the plane itself and all passengers aboard. Wouldn't a better idea be to devise a way to disable manual control and either keep it that way or reinstate auto-pilot to somehow navigate the plane to pre-set locations where an emergency landing is feasible?
A "kill switch" as of now means an F-18A intercepting it and shooting it down.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
I'm pretty sure that's already a reality.
If they have something that can disable a plane, how do the prevent malicious usage?
And then how can you prevent that kill switch from being disabled?
Boats aren't that complex, especially if you have a diesel engine, where electricity is not required.
Airplanes could be made without that special "feature".
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
A directed EMP burst, perhaps? If there is such a thing.
Does this mean that they are no longer willing to call the pain and death caused my missiles "minimal collateral damage"?
...because the scary people would just disable said "kill switch"
Why don't they just do away with pilots altogether and have everything remote controlled from the ground like the Reapers used by the military?
Reading a bit further the RFP noted the Pentagon would really like a pony.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
As long as the kill switch can't disable planes while they are in the air. That would suck.
Yeh, and then some evil types of people or even pranksters (on ground, or by using a so-configured laptop or camcorder or hand-held game) might figure out how to:
-- boost the reception range in order to deceive or seduce the cockpit,
-- bypass security (long accept command if wheels up, over 100 kph indicated, if turbines over 25%, if altimeter log indicates movement inconsistent with runway traffic...), to force unwitting external (non-pilot) command input
-- trick the ground-based systems to interfere with runway traffic to cause on-ground, or taxi-vs land traffic...
-- trigger false halts and false diverts to wreak havoc upon ATC or military airspace controllers when the aircraft (in real-time or by delayed instruction) fail to "squawk" back...
then all hell could break loose. Don't think I wanna be on one of those planes... nor near one...
Basically, they want radio-controlled, perimeter-restricted shopping carts that work on the ground or in the air.... roi...ght....
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
this had better be darn secure, even beyond the levels that would satisfy the most paranoid of people. If implemented badly, this has a huge potential for misuse by malicious parties. For example, if pirates were able to disable a shipping vessel with this, they'd have their choice of anything on board.
And then there's the fact that this must be absolutely safe, so that it doesn't accidentally cause a mid-air collision or a boat to run into something. The fallout from any such accident would be horrible.
I don't think drug runners or terrorists are going to be using DRMed boats or planes.
Given how often tasers are used as pain-forced compliance devices as opposed to an alternative to an actual deadly force situation, I don't think non-lethal disabling technologies do anything but provide the government with media friendly ways to suppress dissent.
We are all just people.
exhaust pipes!
And what will plug and exhaust pipe non-lethally?
Potatoes!
ergo we need to genetically engineer jet-engine size potatoes and precision potato canons.
Profit!
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I don't think that these are a good idea. You could say that you could kill a plane in the air, and then you can't force a landing.
You should really focus on how that terror in Miami was done, and it was really done the only way that you can really do that.
With these bad switches, you can really sabotage any plane in the sky, and I really think that this is a bad idea.
Stay in Iraq; keep on devaluing the dollar.
Next year the Airlines can't afford to fly.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
Reapers or Raptors, the results can end up pretty grim...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
I'm sure they could install a special system that interfaces with the plane's electronics and GPS system and shuts down the plane's engine upon receiving an encrypted request from the Pentagon. The only problem with this is how are you going to install this on all private planes? Who's going to pay for it and are they going to pay for electronic upgrades for all planes as well?
As for boats, how in the world are they planning on stopping sail boats? Most smaller boats (16-24 feet or so) don't even have outboard motors let alone any electronics. Are they going to require motorized sails on the boats that will roll the sails up on command? Or an anchor dropping mechanism? How do you deal with small boats that are just a fiberglass hull, mast, and sail?
They may want to work on the name. People are nervous enough flying without getting onto a plane with a "kill switch" installed.
Just sayin'.
*shudders thinking about stepping on anything with a "KILL SWITCH"*
I've really gotta stop reading slashdot, to save my health.
Well we could just go back to trains, high speed ones at that. That way they can only blow up stuff near train stations and rails.
The Pentagon really needs to think outside the box here. Airplanes and boats are pretty small and can't really do that much damage. Imagine how much damage someone could inflict by hijacking a 1,000 foot 15,000 ton train.
Which would you rather be in: a train where the locomotive has a kill switch or a jet that has a kill switch?
James Fallows wrote in The Atlantic (twice) about small airplanes being equipped with a parachute to deploy in case of engine failure. Here's the technology.
If terrorists take over a plane, just deploy that sucker.
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
So after high prices, airlines dropping bankrupt, concerns about safety, and various maintenance problems, what we really need for aircraft is a way to make them A) more expensive B) more complex C) require more government restrictions and D) add a way that anyone can disable a plane. That is really going to help America! What I think is funny is how 1 terrorist attack used planes and that is all we are concerned about lately, even though we look to every country but America and see how the terrorists use other means of transportations (trains, buses, cars, etc.) to carry out terrorist activities but what we really need to do is stop any way for various American airlines to make a profit and that is what is really going to make us secure! Boy, I think that this is a great idea to make the US to be the most prosperous country in the world!
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
What ever happened to the ElectroMagnet Pulise (EMP) gun that can disable cars, planes, boats, etc....
If were hearing about this before it's possible from a government it probably means they are fishing for answers.
SHHHHHH!!!
Everyone must get paid!!
> The Directorate's program managers don't mention how engineers might pull off such a kill ...why would they be asking?
> switch.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
There was discussion on Slashdot about the Soft Walls Project that did something similar. See the 1/04 and 7/03 discussions.
What I find interesting is just how vehement software engineers and pilots are about the idea, and yet everyone seems to trust fly-by-wire.
There is Soft Walls FAQ that covers common objections.
I can just see it: instead of a little gravel in the hubcaps and similar pranks we played as teenagers, modern-day teenagers with a little tech-savvy will be able to stop the engine of a boat or train or car from 100 meters away. Carnage to the left of me; mayhem to the right! What a wonderful f*ing idea!
What ever happened to just using lethal force and denying it? / likely what they will end up doing for "cost saving reasons". // secret courts will find it legal /// sucks but you know i'm right.
You misunderstand. They aren't looking for some sort of kill switch to be built into the aircraft, despite the reporter's use of that phrase. They want a "nonlethal" weapon to use against aircraft.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
We don't yet know what caused the crash of the Boeing 777 BA038 crash at Heathrow in january but this post on the reg makes an interesting suggestion.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
This may be the best use of the tag "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" ever.
Disabling transportation seems like a good way to entrap dissidents and resisters, no?
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
that Rabbi Dov Zakheim, onetime Comptroller of the Pentagon, should have a long term interest in the Systems Planning Corporation that makes just such things.
...is the Bush administration.
Mine is labeled '50MT'.
I guess the people that were squirreled away in the mountains during the y2k "crisis" are now in charge of the the government and military. So we've had exactly 3 planes taken over so we should run and push the panic button, and oh boy how many boats have caused problems.
Small minded control freaks are slowly removing the freedoms of everyday citizens because the citizens are too stupid, or just aren't paying attention.
Hey let's make everything remote controlled, and then we can file traveling plans with the government anytime we want to drive, fly, boat, and once the plan is reviewed and approved then my local Security officer can remotely operate my car, plane or boat for me, but of course I'll need to show my papers first, than submit to a blood test to make sure I'm not using illegal drugs, and sign a loyalty oath.
I distinctly remember that before the 911 attacks passengers were instructed to comply fully with hijackers. This was because it was thought that this would lessen the danger to passengers.
911 really blew the hijacker's wads, because there are no longer compliant airline passengers.
There will never be another hijacking unless the sole purpose is to crash the aircraft arbitrarily - in which case a kill switch wouldn't really hurt the hijacker's plans.
Read my Very Short "Stories"
Actually, they already have it. Granted, right now most of the military ones are built as bombs, and even if they're not in a bomb package, the device is definitely a one time use. But the range is a few hundred meters. It would certainly disable a plane and I suspect any boat with a motor. Of course, if the induced current ignited the fuel, that might be a problem.
It always seemed to me that focused microwave lasers would work very well for taking out large mechanical devices.
This is totally not my field though, and I assume that if it were feasible, it would already be in use. Is there something that I am missing?
Tactical High Energy Lasers. Everywhere. /discussion
Sorry to shout in the title (not really) but isn't it just obvious that all commercial aircraft should be fitted with some way to take remote control?
All you need is a few cameras, some electronics, a computer, and a radio. It isn't rocket science.
As for small private boats and cars, this is a phenominally stupid idea. First, it won't work. Any asshat looking to use a boat to blow something up is going to get the cheapest one available... which means one built in the 1980's wwithout any electronic controls at all.
Or they will buy a new one and just retrofit the damn thing to work around a kill switch. Just slap an old V8 in there, or build their own electronic fuel injection control (almost trivially easy) and shield the hell out of it and the kill switch is dead itself.
For large commercial jets, making them remote-able isn't a problem, and the airlines would go along with it for just the liability protection alone. For personal vehicles, fuhgeddaboudit.
Wouldn't the Pentagon just want a kill switch for everything?
Jan 15th, 2015.. A civilian flight leaving JFK airport in New York crashed today killing all 205 passengers and crew. A spokesman for the TSA reportedly confirmed that the crash was believed to be the result of a malfunctioning killswitch....
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my Father! Prepare to die!
Ends with "shall not be infringed."
I want a kill switch for the pentagon
This could just as easily be used by a terrorist who has control of the kill codes and disables a plane while its on its final descent. Or they create a situation whereby planes must be used to evacuate people but all the planes are disabled. Somehow reminds me of this, a prototype system to remotely disable cars fleeing from cops. Which could also be used by cracker/criminals to prevent their victims from fleeing TO safety. Or by a rogue government to lock down a whole city.
But beside the issue of inevitable abuse, there's something repellent about these incremental encroachments upon our free will, Technology as our protector/warden. At what point do we decide that we have surrendered too much of our autonomy as living creatures for the sake of safety? Too many find false comfort in the womb-like cocoon of total surveillance and control. "...and when I wake up, I'll be fat and rich and I won't remember a goddamned thing." But unlike The Matrix, in the real world the technology is not run by impersonal machines but by real people who we voluntarily set up as our masters.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Here's a crazy thought .. instead of spending tens of billions to develop something like this (and billions more on other warsa nd weapons) why don't we remove our troops from the Middle East and stop meddling in their affairs to the point where we get thousands of people so pissed off at us they are willing to hijack planes and kill themselves to make their anger at us known. Just a thought ...
Overfunded department!
The MPAA is seeking the same thing for movies & digital content. So are the cops against fleeing suspects. So is the FBI against Cybercrime.
Dangit, if we could only just get people to stop doing things that we don't want them to do!
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
The solution to aircraft hijackings has be listed in post hijacking reports since the 1960s. Strengthen the flight deck walls and door and keep the door locked. If this had been done 9/11 could never have happened. After all, if the Israeli airline could do it why couldn't everyone else.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
lasers on friggin' sharks.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Kirk: Just keep nodding as though I'm still giving orders. Mister Saavik, punch up the data charts of Reliant's command console.
Saavik: Reliant's command...?
Kirk: Hurry.
Khan: Forty-five seconds!
Spock: The prefix code?
Kirk: It's all we've got.
Granted, hijacked airplanes and boats have been used in the past, but what's with the fixation on these modes of attack? If history about terrorist attacks is any guide, one should guess that they will opt for an easier but just as damaging form of attack. One such easy target is oil refineries or big chemical plants. Why not do something about the "low hanging fruit"?
How about 100 FBI agents who don't turn their cell phones off upon takeoff?
I agree. Good thing nothing will ever come of this.
FairTax baby!
The summary says that they're also looking for something to stop boats up to 40 feet long with "minimum collateral damage" from up to 100 meters away. Fat chance. Do these flyboys really think there's a way to put such a kill switch on a sailboat?? If so, they're far too dumb to be trusted with weapons of any nature, let alone multi-million dollar airplanes.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
My country is run by morons....
I'd like one for bureaucrats.
"technologies that could 'disable' aircraft, before they can take off from a runway -- or block the planes from flying over a given city or stretch of land."
What a perfect solution for all of us that live under a flight path, just make the planes fly around you.
All you would need is some time and a microprocessor connected to an antennae; now where could I get one of those?
Chicken canon. (I think the Mythbusters have one to spare.)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Typical moronic Pentagon mentality. Plan for what's already happened and won't happen again. Something that would accomplish this will cost billions, probably not work on motors that were protected by the proverbial tinfoil hat, and could be defeated by a pissed-off 10-year-old with two cell phones and a pack of bubble gum.
There's times when technology and politics meet in a very ugly, venal way. This is one of those times. It has "Pork Barrel" written all over it.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Locked door or not, after 9/11 it is no longer possible to hijack a plane and fly it into a building.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Amen! Mark Twain said 'When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail'. The stupid thing is they announce these hare-brained schemes without even realizing how dumb they sound. Our intellectual superiors should be tackling terrism at the roots, where future terrists are born, bred and indoctrinated. Instead these high-tech sort of solutions will cost $$$ and not give results. As Bruce says, all the terrists have to do is when planes get too hard blo up a shopping center or train which aren't well defended. They're assuming the terrists will use the exact same attack vector as they did last time.
And hey NSA: Why are you wasting time logging and reading my message? Why aren't you looking in the caves of North Pakistan for you-know-who? You guys get heaps of cash. Please spend it sensibly.
Just install several rows of hydraulic or electrically elevate rods in the runway (aircraft spike sticks). No need to mod the aircraft at all. For boats a Kraken might work wellâ¦
Firing AT the target plane might delay or even prevent the evil-doers from know the exact standing-by-transceiver is operating on, but it might be better for the target planes to glide or taxi INTO the command wave but with a stand-off or back-off threshold so the humans in the cockpit can have positive control of the craft.
After all, theoretically all those reinforced doors that the fucking dollar-sensitive airliners REFUSED to install proactively, like once the FIRST a/c hijacking occurred (nevermind statistics or likelihood of recurrence), ESPECIALLY after the various reported door-crashings well before 9/11.
But, I s'pose the military figures, "Hell, planes go down due to negligence in the cockpit or cost-cutting or negligence in the maintenance bay, due to bad weather, and mountains that maneuvered into the a/c's flight path. So what's a little defense-chief (defense-mischief) to avert what COULD be an imminent attack?"
Whether directed beam, or continuous wave, this kind of stuff can spell greater disaster than all the bullshit lies they fed us about personal electronics risking overwhelming the on-board systems. I've seen individuals running camcorders during the entire takeoff and landing procedures before 9/11 and we've NEVER learned of a crash due to people all of a sudden simultaneously firing up their devices in a suicide-pact manner. I suspect for that scenario the airliners & FAA don't want a working camcorder popping up in a cornfield like Klingons or other aliens with viewable footage and audible death wailing, only to land in the hands of journalists or farmers who make a copy before handing it over.
As far as I'm concerned, if MY plane ever is crashing, and IFFF I have a camcorder, I declare it public (the PEOPLE, not the officials nor their agencies) have first rights to its contents. PERIOD. Now, if they want to trump my wish on the grounds that it's not proper, nor fitting, or distasteful to the co-deceased and their survivors, too bad. We've had way too many untrue conclusions fed to us, and anything that uncovers future false reports should be WELCOME. And, if I SURVIVE a plane crash and happened to film the noise and rattling and crunching and what not, that's not going to become the property of NTSB. They can have a working, tested COPY, but not MY fricking medium.
But, back to the "firing" at planes. How the hell will they know just WHEN to start jamming a taxiing plane? I mean, at WHAT speed? What if the runway is iced? What if another plane is improperly on an intercept/collision, and the signal-commanded plane is decelerating and cannot regain forward speed to avert the impending collision?
And, of the plane in the sky, what are they going to do? Shoot it down? Bloody fucking barbaric. MOST commair don't ahve facilities to enable a hijacker to know the coveted bulls eye of any given military base or silo below. Even if they do, they can't exactly pull Immelmann or other maneuvers, coil like a python, and then SLAM right into the kill zone of a target. Not going to happen. They need to stick with boxing in the plane, making threatening gestures, and THEN leave it up to the pilot on-scene to decide to take it out -- IF they are in the vicinity.
But, I suppose they'll say, "But, as for protecting bases below, this will save fuel (probably $5.00 a gallon for JP-4 for the DOD, but could be $1.95, too...) and time. Besides, we're not looking at shooting down, but diverting aircraft..."
But, pilots might decide to bribe the mechanics to tell them which fuse disables those potentially wretched devices so they can pull them or disable them prior to take-off. Thinking ahead, the government/s will just order Boeing, et al to create disinformation blueprints, then even the mechs won't know for sure what is real or not.
This could become quite damned dangerous! Especially if there is no encryption. Then, what if other nations want positive, reserved control of foreign a/c entering or crossing close to THEIR own airspace? This could end up
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Can't this be achieved by having monkeys with laser pointers on the roof of the Pentagon?
Give the military a bunch of handheld green laser pointers. Flash them at the pilots.
"They're looking for a device that can, from 100 meters away, 'safely stop or significantly impede the movement' of vessels up to 40 feet long, with 'minimal collateral damage.'"
Soooo.... uhhhhh... you want fries with that?
Locked door or not, after 9/11 it is no longer possible to hijack a plane and fly it into a building.
Yeah, they now have bathrooms a kitchen a coffee machine and whatnot in the cockpit.
Three words kids, three words:
"Boeing Genuine Advantage"
BGA has detected that your aircraft has been pirated. Please insert a genuine flight crew to continue.
If you RTFA, you'll see that Wired's term "kill switch" is a lot like the title "Holy Roman Empire:" it doesn't kill anything, and it isn't a switch. The pentagon is seeking a device that can remotely disable aircraft and/or powered boats/ships without destroying them completely; preferably without hurting anyone at all (but that can be a bit harder with airplanes, for obvious reasons). It's not supposed to be something built into planes, it's supposed to be something you point at a plane and zap its engines. I'm pretty sure that some police agencies already have similar devices capable of killing the engines in cars (some sort of EMP, I think), which they sometimes use to end chases.
To those of you who think this is going to make the skies more dangerous, consider the fact that our only current option for dealing with a potentially dangerous airplane is to shoot it down. A new system like this would expand our options.
I am a military Air Intercept Controller (AIC). I have run real-world intercepts against unkown/potentially hostile aircraft. Unfortunately, unlike in the video games, real hostile aircraft don't just pop up as red dots on your display. It's up the the AIC and the crew(s) of the intercepting aircraft to figure out what kind of plane it is, what it's armed with, and (hardest of all) what the pilot's intentions are. You have to figure all of this out in a very short span of time, before the plane gets into weapons release range of the aircraft carrier or some other vital asset. If you err in one direction, you end up like the USS Stark ; if you err in the other direction, you end up like the USS Vincennes . Obviously, neither alternative is desirable, but, as they say, it's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. Something like this proposed system would provide us with an "option C" in situations where we can't ascertain an aircraft's intent.
I once spoke with another AIC a few years senior to me. He was on [what start out as] a routine flight out of Pax River, MD, on the morning of September 11th. He ended up controlling some of the CAP over northern Virginia. There were several points when they almost had to shoot down a plane that wasn't where it was supposed to be and wasn't responding to calls on guard. Fortunately, they were able to visually ID each of the planes before any of them went too far in the wrong direction. Predictably, he says it was the most nerve-wracking flight of his life. If we had a less lethal option, guys like me would be far less likely to face the possibility of ordering a civilian plane shot down.
I've been flying small planes (Cessnas, Pipers) since high school, and they're reasonably safe to land dead-stick. I know several people who have done so and walked away. Of course, I also know people who died as a result, but at least your odds are better than if you get hit with a missile. An airliner would be a different story: they don't glide so well. If you hit it on the ground, fine. If you hit it in the air, hopefully the weapon is directional enough that it only takes out some of the engines, not all of them. That would force a landing but would leave the pilot with enough power to bring it down safely.
"the man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either"
"CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?"
That's why divers who want closure for their families and friends need to NEVER dive without first attaching to their swim/scuba suits:
-- 1/4 sticks of dynamite that blow on chew/crunch
-- 5-15 vials of cyanide strategically attached to their suit's limbs and head mask
-- wear beacons on their limbs to find the fucker that ate them or snatched limb so it can be tracked and the shark hunted down and dealt with
-- erupting hemisphere-ripping spheres that internally eviscerate the shark, in unceremoniously or dramatically fast or slow fashion, (maybe a vial of anti-matter-like substance will be conclusive proof of the diver's transition to a new realm of existence...)
-- inflatable spheres that block there digestive path, or force them to the surface (like the submarine Seaview) at about 15 to 25 miles per hours (might be bad for any diver still attached, but at least they can see the sky before coming back plunging down)... but at least the shark will have unresolvable indigestion....
Oh, but, back to the real world... maybe divers should go ask the USN SEALs for some shark-repelling radio gear (that might exist) to avoid the chomp-n-release routine...
But, if you're existentialist or philosophical, you can accept being eaten by just asking and answering this question:
"Who was there FIRST?" (it's THEIR realm, not that of humans, except those who like to take chances...)...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
100% agreed. Such bullshit of the government to think they "need" a kill switch on an airplane.
Once sealed from inside the flight deck, no master key will open that door from the outside.
To get in, they'd need enough explosives that they might as well bring the plain down with them.
I saw Yoda do this in Star Wars III. Or maybe it was Grover--they sound so much alike...
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
"Au contraire! Before 9/11 the hijackers simply would have said "unlock the door or we'll start killing hostages," and they would have unlocked the door."
No, that's why they (those in the government spook and anti-terrist organizations) need to watch "Mirror Mirror", an old Trek episode. They need to come up with a "Tantalus Field" shown to him by that babe Marlena... for use by PILOTS.
ANY body, and I mean ANY BODY who/that gets out of line gets its ass ZAPPED. If you make a scene cuz the heads (lavatories) are all full and cuz you have to PEE, TOUGH SHIT. SIT and GRIN. Or, try to dump in the barf bag.
But, if the bags are too small, then the airlines might start installing race-car-like vacuum hoses and cups to alleviate the need for people to get out of their seats. Attach some pressure pants and a water-washdown system... and off we go. To hell with pesky passengers and their milling about the cabin...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Using the 'noone can get to the cockpit' thought, have the cockpit be a separate unit entirely: an armoured capsule at the front of the plane. Having it only accessible via an external door, you limit hijacking to before takeoff, or by terrorists with jetpacks. No real risk of forced entry then, and you limit options in a hostage situation (they can't demand control, only negotiate destination).
simple solution. Computer targeting controlled, infrared engine tracking 50 caliber rifle assemblies mounted on either side of a runway which will pop two jacketed hollow point .50 bullets into a jet's engines before they can spool up. those will effectively destroy a jet engine's ability to produce thrust. A jet engine is a huge target for a rifle 100 yards away.
No engines, no flying.
That's quite a simple and effective solution.
Though, not quite recommended for turbo prop engines as you don't want to send prop fragments hurling into the fuselage.
or, you could just fire a giant harpoon into its tail. Though, that's not quite elegant.
Though, you have to ask yourself, why would they want to stop an aircraft from taking off?
They're using their grammar skills there.
There's a way to do this right. Read this article about the F-16 GCAS. This is a ground collision avoidance system that works so well it can be used on combat missions, including flying through mountain passes at 500 knots, 200 feet from rock. Pilots call it "You can't fly any lower". When the Auto-GCAS decides a ground collision is imminent, it takes over the aircraft, rolls to wings-level and initiates a pull-up. (In an F-16, the roll is at 180 degrees per second and the pull-up is at 5G; for an airliner, much lower numbers would be configured and recovery would be initiated much sooner.) Read the article; fighter jocks liked the thing, and those guys usually hate letting the automation take over the aircraft.
This would prevent most "controlled flight into terrain" accidents (there are about three of those involving commercial jets per year, worldwide), so there's a big win in having this independent of military/terrorism worries. Once you have a system like this, it can be given "no-fly" areas into which it won't let the plane go. If you're going to enforce "no-fly" zones via hardware, it's better to do it through a system that knows about terrain and is looking at it with radar.
The way to do overrides would be to give the pilot a switch to turn off the system in an emergency, but doing so sends out an emergency transponder signal that this has been done. The ground then has the option of sending up a suitably encrypted signal to turn it back on. This gives a way to handle system failures. If the ground sees a plane heading somewhere it shouldn't be, the ground can force the system back on.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Airbus starts offering something like this. (Airbus takes the position that the aircraft should protect itself against pilot errors. Boeing has the philosophy that the pilot should always be able to override the automation. The Boeing approach worked better back when the typical airline pilot had 10,000 hours, a previous military flying career, and was chosen competitively from a big pool of applicants.)
Does this bring back memories of a certain Polish teen who hacked a TV remote earlier this year?
...preinstalled in every plane ?
It seems to me like they want to be just like the terrorists...
...and give everyone the possibility to earn fast money: "Look, I know how to activate the switch... pay or I will do it".
As someone else pointed out, what gave the 9/11 hijackers an advantage was that SOP was to give in to hijacker demands and everyone would be okay. The authorities could try to catch them later. Now, if anyone tries a hijacking, everyone will try to kill them. The passengers will figure they have nothing to lose since, if they don't try to kill the hijackers, they will all die anyway.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Sounds great until the pilot has a heart attack.
The alternative could be to allow for remote controlling of the aircraft from another nearby aircraft or some location using the internet. Could be intercepted by some cyberterrists, so may be a bad idea. But then again, this may be applied to the similar idea of "kill switches."
"Caution wake turbulence." Heard from ATC all the time at larger airports. It means the plane ahead of you has created standing vortexes that you probably don't want to fly through.
So take a C-130 and rig it out with a big, aimable vortex generator. Hopefully with a variable power control so you can adjust for a Cessna vs a 767. Whenever some errant airplane wanders into the Washington ADIZ, instead of firing missiles at him, PUFF! and Joe Pilot is getting an unexpected lesson in unusual attitude recovery. If he persists in heading the wrong way, PUFF PUFF and now we get to find out if he can deal with inverted flight. If he STILL doesn't react as desired, PUFF PUFF PUFF and maybe the wings come off.
It's not guaranteed to be non-lethal (though you always have plausible deniability), but under the old system we would have shot him down with a missile, so this is presumably better. If he hoped to survive the encounter, he should have read up on intercept procedures...
-Graham
You live in a post-9/11 world. You're on a plane. Somebody gets up, pulls out a box cutter and starts threatening passengers in an attempt to get the cockpit open. Do you:
1. Open the cockpit and let him fly the plane into a building, or
2. Jump the motherfucker along with half the other passengers on the plane?
That's why he and I are so sure that it won't happen again. Like he said, policy used to be "do whatever they say" because the assumption was they just wanted to get someplace and run off. The assumption now is "they're going to fly this plane into a building," whether that's right or wrong. I don't know about you, but I assume my chances of survival to be pretty low if my plane is flown into a building, so I'm going to jump the fucks even if I do risk being spliced up potentially to the point of death. Death sucks pretty much either way for me, but I like my own odds better trying to do something to stop it and I acknowledge that if I'm a goner either way the best case is for there to be as few other deaths as manageable.
For that matter, terrorists are not stupid. 9/11 was a pretty brilliant plot: they identified weak points in a part of our country, including policy for how to react to what they were about to do and the fact that we were basically not looking; they exploited these weak points, poor policy decisions and general naiveté of the populace; and they did so in a way that made people literally terrified to use something that days before had been ingrained in our culture. They won't that round big time.
Do you really believe round two is going to be done in the same manner? In a place we've fortified, changed our policies about and are watching to the point of unhealthy obsession? They're going to look for the NEXT target where they can exploit their way to success--and I'm sure there are many of them. If I had to pick a place I felt the MOST safe from a terrorist attack post 9/11, it would be on an airplane. Hell, I'd be more afraid in the lines at the security checkpoints. If I were a terrorist, I'd detonate my bomb there.
It's not an impossibility, no; few things are when dealing with predicting human behaviors. But it's almost certainly low enough risk now that we don't need to be focusing all our energy there--and should never have been to begin with.
If the door opens inward, it cannot be opened during flight due to the pressure difference between the in- and outside of the craft.
Leela: "Is all the work done by children?" Alien: "No, not the whipping."
They aren't looking for some sort of kill switch to be built into the aircraft, despite the reporter's use of that phrase. They want a "nonlethal" weapon to use against aircraft.
This isn't a problem, I'll just turn on the WiFi on my laptop and take down the plane. Oh, wait, you said, "nonlethal" - WiFi is far too dangerous then.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
How about a "Land Me" button in the cockpit - once activated auto lands the aircraft at the nearest suitable airport. No way to reset it from the air.
If my Flight Sim can do it already, it should be a piece of cake...
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
someone posted a car analogy. Now I can understand this story.
"Airlines Want Kill Switch For Pentagon"
but isn't it just obvious that all commercial aircraft should be fitted with some way to take remote control?
Close, but this can be abused. The better solution is an automated landing system with a failsafe.
Basically, if the pilot (or whoever you enable on the flight, stewardesses, whatever) gets scared enough he initiates an automated landing that can't be overridden without replacing the airplane's control system.
The system finds the nearest capable landing site without severe weather, declares an emergency, and puts the plane down on whichever runway is currently designated for emergencies. The weather and designations would have to be broadcast or updated before take-off (signed, of course). Sort out the mess on the ground. If the pilot panicked, a mechanic replaces the proper modules and the plane is basically just delayed.
We have such systems in use in the military - they can put an F-14 down on the deck of a carrier under full power in at least 20 foot seas, and hit within something like 4' of the ideal spot to catch the cable. Coming into O'Hare shouldn't be a problem.
We *don't* want ground control.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Or they could just cut and take control of the data cables that carry the commands to the control surfaces and engines, rendering the cockpit mostly superfluous. By necessity those cables must at some point travel through the fuselage to the wings/tail.
Random and weird software I've written.
Now reciprocate and give us a 'kill switch' for our leaders.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
It's no longer possible in the sense that both the passengers and crew are now aware that they're dead anyways, so there's nothing to lose by fighting back against hijackers. The conventional wisdom and official advice was always to be passive in a hijacking, now it is to fight back no matter the cost, and that makes the techniques pretty useless for hijackers in the future.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Imagine if the kill switch was a physical object that could be activated by someone pressing a button. Then all you'd need were some trained snakes, and you'd have a flight... into terror.
I wish we could at least mod articles. The Wired summary inserts the misleading phrase 'kill switch'. The Pentagon is merely looking for a method of disabling planes on the ground that isn't completely destructive and entail massive loss of life. Nothing remote going on here.
Yes, that's true. And don't forget that Israel put sky marshals in all of their flights. Before terrorists can get to the cockpit, they'll die first. Israel knows well the mentality of Islamic terrorists wanting to get 72 virgins in paradise.
This risk is mitigated via use of an innovation referred to as a "co-pilot".
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
When police got bulletproof vests, it wasn't long before they became fashionable among bank robbers. Mace, tasers... you name it, criminals got them.
So now the Pentagon wants to develop a technology that can make a plane slam on its brakes mid-flight. How long will it be before Osama Bin Laden can just point his remote at the sky and bring down a loaded airliner?
Yesterday there was a crane operating near our office building... by remote control (we could see the operator with a the -big- remote)! I asked my colleagues "are you thinking what I'm thinking?". Of course they were not. I wasn't actually thinking only "oh, it would be just great to have one of THOSE remotes" but i was actually asking myself what board would be more appropriate to buy for using with GNU radio to try to reverse engineer one of those, what's the range, is there any encryption?
Just blanket the whole thing in foam. It will keep it on the ground, or send it to the ground and act as a cushion to the impact.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
Somehow you completely missed my point. Congratulations.
The door doesn't matter. The passengers do.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
It's not an error. I don't know if it's done commonly any more, but mister has sometimes been used in military settings as a unisex term. We used to do that sometimes in the ROTC program I was in (a small number of years before that movie was made).
The military sometimes likes people to be interchangeable (which is part of the reason for wearing uniforms and normalizing haircuts), and differences in such forms of address tend to emphasize individuality, so they're inclined to suppress it for reasons of suppressing a sense of identity. That might seem a negative, but by deemphasizing individual differences, so the theory goes, everyone starts at the same place and has the same advancement opportunities. There was a theory then, and I don't know if it's still adhered to (there's presumably been additional statistics taking since then about whether it worked, which maybe someone knows about and can share) that the use of the female honorific would draw attention to the person's gender rather than to their role, and so it was thought better to emphasize role.
The use of "mister" itself in the military is really a role thing. It's not used to address someone's marital status or gender, but rather as a way to refer to someone who has a rank but without reference to their rank. So instead of saying "Corporal Jones" you say "Mr. Jones", to deemphasize rank. If in doing so, you had to bring in gender, the thought was that this would waste some of the value of moving to a rank-neutral term. You'd only be trading a gender-neutral title of rank for a rank-neutral term of gender. By making the term genderless, you increase its utility. Or so the theory went.
In the days where I was in that program, women were just finally being allowed a foothold as equals and my sense at the time (I was quite an advocate of that equality) was that it tended to produce the desired outcome, causing people to be treated more as equals. I can't say as I know for sure what the emotional impact was, but my guess knowing the people involved was that they wouldn't have been in the program in the first place if they were worried about something like that. They were deliberately pushing gender stereotypes just to be allowed into those roles, and a few non-standard word usages weren't going to deter them.
Of course, one of the things that Star Trek has always done is mirror society's progress (but on time delay), so the fact that the term fell out of use in later movies (and maybe in the real world military, too) may well have been a mark of the fact that once the gender barrier was broken, the fact of the gender reference in someone's name was not as big a deal as it had been until then. In that era (1970's), it was a big deal that we had a female brigade commander, just for example. I'd like to think that nowadays, that's just the ordinary course of business--though some of the recent political debate about Hillary as a possible Commander in Chief makes me think maybe public acceptance on this has a ways to go yet. Still, Star Trek and its many good role models give hope.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
We have something for people too and it works even on longer distances.
In that case we call it a kill trigger.
Privacy is terrorism.
So the 'terrrists' will then either 1. Hijack a foreign aircraft (one that wasn't intended to go to the USA and wouldn't have the kill switch meaning the old-school shoot the plane out of the sky technique occurrs, with bonus collateral damage) 2. Get a boat without the kill switch (through similar means, or buy a small one, or a... secondhand one) I think this is an example of poorly moderated bluesky thinking by some pentagon people. It won't make anyone safer, and if anyone thinks about it, it won't make anyone feel any safer. Well done, the US government. For that, it will cost you and the airline industry billions.
That's a pretty solid point! On long-haul flights you want the pilots to be comfortable. That means adding quite a number facilities to the separate cockpit, reducing the economic feasibility quite a bit. Secure fly-by-wire could help that situation, but it would hard to avoid DoS attacks even if hijackers can't actually take control of the plane.
How about we just use bigass fans to blow them away? As planes get closer to the fans they will hit turbulence, get discouraged and fly elsewhere. If the pentagon wanted to get cheap about it, just make a humongous leaf blower, and direct it towards potential hostiles. Should work real well with boats too.
I think a humongous firehose may be more effective now that I think about it.
Or a really really really big mosquito net around the cities, kinda like the big nets campers use when they want to sit outdoors using folding chairs and not get bit while they are drinking their beers?
Another good idea is to cover the whole city with smoke, reduce visibility. Yeah that should work wonders, and it's probably the cheapest.
Of course the only real way to prevent planes from flying over any given city is to simply position the city higher than the plane. Duh.
This is the WORST idea i have EVER heard.
Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherfucking terrorists on this motherfucking plane!
Fuck the government.
Damn it, I don't have mod points today. This is an awesome idea. Particularly if you only need one person to press one of the panic buttons to land the plane, you could even manage to get a regular passenger to do it in case of an emergency.
"Locked door or not, after 9/11 it is no longer possible to hijack a plane and fly it into a building."
Man can make it, man can break it. First fundamental unspoken rule of Hacking.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
The first thing that needs to be done is to seal of the cockpit. That way only the ones that are supposed to control the plane are in control.
Next, why not simply use gas to put all passengers to sleep? Terrorists in the back threatening to kill passengers? Hit the button and "good night". Fly to your destination in your unusually quiet plane, land, and have the police handle the rest.
The Omagh bomb was made from fertilizer and that did plenty of damage.
No sig today...
IIRC, they would have to do several as there are 2 or 3 backups - possibly both electrical and mechanical.
Right, The Terrerist and a team of twenty Boeing engineers manage to pack the necessary equipment to steer a plane onto one (we're talking a few duffel bags here, those cockpits have a damn lot of buttons in 'em), then take control of the plane, then somehow get their equipment from the inaccessible storage part of the aircraft, then slash their way through to cabling that's not usually accessible in-flight (and takes hours to get to when grounded), then cuts those cables, reattaches them to their own system and finally get to actually pilot the plane.
Unfortunately, right after that, Chuck Norris roundhouse kicks a tricycle that Bruce Willis rode through Area 51 to save E.T. right up into the stratosphere where it smashes into an exploding asteroid seventeen times the size of the sun, thereby breaking said asteroid into twenty-two pieces. The single large piece proceeds to not hit earth and destroy civilization by four meters (it breaks off the antennas of both the Eiffel Tower and the Empire State Building), the smaller ones are deflected by some jedis with light sabres, only to hit The Terrerist and each one of the Evil Engineers right into the face, killing them. Also, explosions, a sex scene without the girl taking her bra off, a scene in a strip bar and more explosions.
I live in an unusually crime free area. However cars fleeing at high speed from neighboring counties are a very serious problem even in my area. The cops need a switch that will dead stall any car they are chasing.
One of the funnier events was when our tank like building penetrator was out and about when a call came in about a felon in flight in a car. This tank has a long, solid steel nose meant to cave in concrete to get at barricaded suspects. They did a deliberate head on with the car in flight. It did not dent the tank. We won't be paying for any trials for the felon inside what used to be a car either.
We don't let puny things like "Price" stop us from anything.
Now, about that plane stopping device, please close your eyes and imagine a 2 MW, 15 feet tall taser...
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
Sounds good in theory, until you realize you are fucked if the pilots become incapacitated, or the pilots end up being terrorists themselves! Maybe auto pilot and remote ground control can take over, but if these systems fail or are otherwise compromised, then you can look forward to kissing your ass goodbye.
Welcome on board this new AirbusXXX equipped with the latest safety technology....
In the event of the plain being hijacked the plain will be remotely switched off to prevent minimal collateral damage. You will all be considered as martyrs if you convert now. Note to all atheist a conversion booklet to the religion of your choice will drop from a compartment above your head. Please convert yourself before trying to convert any other passengers that travel with you.
Where is my mind?
Bolts are extremely lock-pick resistant.
Look at Beslan for what happens when you try to use anesthetics like this. And remember in Beslan the gas was pumped in and people were immediately brought out and given medical attention. Even then a lot of them died. Now the Russian spooks characteristically fucked up by not preparing things, but from what I can tell even with immediate medical attention and the right antidote they would still have lost a few people. Your "gas the plane and fly on" is much worse than this - people need to be asleep but not dead with no medical attention for much longer.
I think you're better off having an air marshall shoot all the terrorists and hope that he doesn't kill too many civillians. There will be a few holes in the plane but with the right ammunition the plane won't explode or anything, at least according to Myth Busters.
Actually shooting the terrorists dead and writing off the collateral damage is a disincentive to future terrorist attacks I think.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
In fact, there's a patent on it
EMPs do a fine job of firing detonators and fuse heads.
It's already in use...
http://www.collude.biz - Ignore this, it's for Project Honey Pot.
aka the Cylon switch
Imagine, just press a button and the airliner goes down. No more uncertain, unsafe and cumbersome missiles! In the future terrorists can just press a button!
Man. That would make an awesome movie! Please tell me you are going to expand on this synopsis and submit for greenlighting? :P
Bot Assisted Blogging
I hear that US military planes sold abroad have for years had secret kill-switches installed in them. For example, Saudi-Arabia's planes won't leave ground unless they get some signal from US controlled satellites. They're practically defenceless if USA decides so.
Going to make having a wazz on a long flight, if you're the pilot just a teensy bit inconvenient eh? :)
That is why there are two of them. Also, despite the movies, passengers can't learn to fly a plane on the go.
First, China hacks local government computers.
Now, the government wants hackable airplanes.
Lolwut?
Isn't that why Flight 93 crashed - the passengers knew they had nothing to lose and decided to go down fighting?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
What they needed was an equalizer. Something small and compact like a S&W M&P 45 with hollow points would take care of business.
== First cross river, then insult alligator.
In an old plane, yes, maybe - in a modern airplane, i really, really doubt anyone would have the knowledge, resources, and time to fashion an alternate control center for the airplane before the cockpit crew land the plane, and while also battling passengers.
Not to mention that i doubt those cables and control surfaces are very easy to get to - and again, you need to do this while passengers inside oppose you.
Plus, how exactly are you going to carry all that equipment with you inside, along with serious weaponry to deal with the passengers that will attack you as they know there's a good chance they wouldn't survive anyway ?
You can only keep people at bay with small arms or even knives while said people still think they have a chance of survival, and thus they aren't willing to do something to jeopardize said survival.
Trains have dead man switches.
It will take no time at all for someone to hack these remote kill switches and to boost their range. Then we'll be reading about the threat of terrorists with kill switches hanging around airports.
Can anyone cite an example of a weapon of any kind that can not be turned around by the enemy to use against the originator?
The second part is interesting also. Exactly how does one "kill" an aircraft in mid-air, for the "prevent flying over" part. Aircraft don't exactly freeze in position. There is this rather quaint thing in physics called gravity. For most aircraft, fixed wing at least, the aircraft needs to have forward motion to stay in the air. Otherwise this gravity thing takes over. As such a "kill" switch is certainly something a brain dead bureaucrat would think of. If the DOD isn't totally brain dead (debatable) then they are proposing a remote control mechanism for aircraft. The mechanism would take control from the pilot in command, without his consent, and someone sitting on the ground would play with the airliner like a model RC aircraft. I suggest that all passengers wear diapers from now on. I can't imagine a worse experience that being trapped in an airliner being remotely flown by a disgruntled military fly-boy (who used to fly fighters and is irate that they don't now). IF the RC airliner lands OK, I'm glad I won't have to clean the interior! If the RC airliner doesn't land OK, well it's not the fly-boy's problem.
comes to mind. THX was fiddling around with radioactive pellet when he was targeted for "mind block" for some offense or other, this made him drop the radioactive pellet and nearly caused an explosion that would kill nearby workers.
... no problem at all.
I can see how there would be no such problem activating such a "kill switch" on a jumbo jet carrying 130+ passengers over urban area, no sir
If they did, then they should review the episodes: "The Sontaran Stratagem" and "The Poison Sky" from this past season. That's proof positive that the military should not have control over any vehicle with passengers by remote.
But then we wouldn't have funny films like Airplane, where the passenger gets to fly an airplane.
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
I still chuckle (sadly, but chuckle) when I recollect John Ashcroft, in his 'good-bye' speech, expressing astonishment that they hadn't gone after our food supply. Now the American public has sworn off tomatoes, and spinach STILL hasn't recovered - one store brand of sushi STILL has a sticker on it stating "contains no spinach!"
Me: I figure the water supply is next for most "bang-for-the-buck" when trying to kill or hurt a lot of people. Electric and 'dirty bomb' are two easy targets for instilling fear.
Yeah, mitigate risk and let him die. Great plan.
Oh, it can. But only if the terrorist with a jetpack is also The Hulk.
air burst a nuke over the runway. Unless the plane has vacuum tubes, it will fry everything. A lot of the former soviet aircraft had vacuum tubes for this very reason. In a nuclear war, their planes, tanks, etc would still have some functionality.
nice
9/11 had nothing to do with hijackers anyway...remote controlled planes bush was driving with his xbox controller.
We the people need a kill switch for the Pentagon. Something that will stop them if they get within 40 miles of an oil producing country.
The CIA may also want naked pictures of our wives....doesn't mean they'll get em.
That is more of along the lines of my thoughts. However, with all the unmanned aircraft that the Military uses, why not just make commercial aircraft unmanned, with one pilot on board in case of emergency. Of course the roumors I hear are that, that is pretty much how it is right now but you get that warm fuzzy by having someone sitting up front drinking coffee.
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
http://www.bikestoppa.com/ if it works for bikes it might works for ships, who knows
The use of 'kill switch' in the headline really bugged me, but for different reasons. A kill switch is a very common thing; My grass trimmer has one (shorts out the spark plug wire, killing the engine), a lot of diesel equipment at work has them, I know that a lot of big iron servers use them (the emergency power shutoff 'big red button'), gas stations have the same thing, etc.
What I'm trying to say is that kill switches, like dead-man switches, are very common things but their unfortunate names lead to easy media sensationalizing. A 'kill-switch' would be used on the ground before takeoff. If an airplane needed to be taken down while in flight, it would likely be done with an AIM 120 missile or a suitable substitute (manpads are not suitable subs).
I see you got modded +5, and all the more power to you, but your comment may as well have said, "I'll never get on anything with a SPDT switch!" Aircraft already have a variety of 'kill switches' that you just don't know about.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
...they'd like to have a similar system for boats, as well. They're looking for a device that can, from 100 meters away, 'safely stop or significantly impede the movement' of vessels up to 40 feet long I hear the Somalians are interested in the technology too. Just for different purposesOne of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Years later, the same man proposed all longitudes/latitudes of USAF installations be classified. His vision was GPS could not be used to guide aircraft and missiles to target.
Nobody explained horseshoes, nuclear weapons & proximity to him.
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
IIRC - some airlines have at least 1 well trained armed guard. often
two - one behind the door & 1 incognito posing as a passenger.
funny thing these planes do not get hijacked & have not been
hijacked since '73. Considering only the cost of 911 this would be
inexpensive at twice the price.
What we really need is a giant retractable dome over every airport that can be closed in case of an emergency. Either that or jet fuel that's so expensive that no one can afford to fly anymore.
. . . welcome our flying incendiary mammalian overlords. And at the same time, nominate this as a candidate for Worst. Weapon. Ever.
I am not a crackpot.
I didn't say it was likely, or even a high possibility, but its less likely that they fuck heads will be using box cutters, who's to say maybe they will go "high tech" seeing as they went "low tech" last time... there are an infinite number of ways to hijack a plane that one could dream up as possibilities, and also an infinite number of ways to stop it from happening. The problem is most people aren't devious enough to think up they ways until after the fact. I mean how many people saw a plan let alone 3 being hijacked by box cutters? I know I never would have. Then again I don't sit around all day dreaming up ways to harm others.
The thing that can "'safely stop or significantly impede the movement' of vessels up to 40 feet long" is called a BFG.
So when I have the "secret" shutdown code for today, I can just park by or at an airport and drop planes out of the sky?
Course they can. It's the landing that's the tricky part.
. . . for our government to mandate that these things be installed on every car on the road.
The thing is, messing with the water supply would take an awful lot of bucks. Any supply large enough to affect a lot of people is also large enough that you would need an awful lot of whatever you were using to have an effect.
There are an awful lot of easy targets though. Enough that I believe the fear of terrorism is massively overstated.
Rich
That's why they have a copilot.
Cynical Idealist
This is dumb shit.
Imagine terrorist hackers, who needs to take a plane by force when you can hit a button on a small device in your pocket and make it fall out of the sky.
I think we should just pick them up and move them. The ensuing civil war which would be 100% our fault and draw in many of the surrounding nations couldn't possibly have any consequences over here or globablly. Besides we have absolutly no responsibility to the people in the land we occupied to stop the from being overun by warlords after we destroyed thier existing semi-function form of governmtn.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Hell, I already shudder stepping onto anything with a COCK PIT. Whatever happens in there, it can't be good.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
That's what soda bottles are for...
What, never been on an looong car ride?
0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
this war criminal?
why didn't they just ask for a tractor beam?
Except the current study doesn't address airliners. The current study is for vehicles less that 40ft. long.
No, the 40' limitation is for the section on boats, not aircraft. That's a different project in the same solicitation. It's a response to the USS Cole incident. The U.S. Navy would like to have the capability to do something about unexpected approaching small boats, something less lethal than machine-gunning them.
If the aout pilot detects a signal, it cause the plane to veer away. Allow the Autopilot to override the pilot. All the tools are in place on plane today.
Of course, there are a mountain of reason why NOT to do this.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'd pay $12 to see that in the theater.
"Non-lethal weapons"? What an oxymoron. Anyone care to count the number of deaths due to "Non-lethal weapons" over the years?
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
Since when do you believe everything the government tells you. Maybe, just maybe, the government sees an opportunity to do something they wouldn't be able to normally do. Putting kill switches into planes and boats and cars, allows the government to have incredible power over it's own citizens. The kind of power that our founding fathers specifically didn't want them to have. The fact that they can now use the "terrorist" angle as an excuse just means they have a better chance of getting it implemented in a society of too-busy-and-overworked-and-indifferent-and-uninvolved sheep.
it has never happened in real life, the closest thing has been novice pilots landing light air crafts after thier instructor became incapacitated.
Some pilots have said it is possible. Mythbusters tryed it with a training flight simulator. They tryed it with no assisstance and both crashed, but with a pilot talking them through it from another room, both made a successful emergency landing even in crosswinds and turbulance.
Anyway, modern auto pilots can land the plane on their own, they would just need to turn a few switches to set the auto pilot and it could be landed by the computer.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
I reaaaaaally hope you're not in charge of anything important
which is totally what she said
Is the plane over Midwest farmland where the pilot has a longshot chance of landing a disabled plane without killing anyone, and is the train going around a curve on a Rocky Mountain pass at 100 mph with no brakes?
Personally, you won't ever see me get on a plane, train, boat with a "kill switch". If one gets put in my plane/boat/car, I'll remove it even if it means making a replacement board or shielding the MFer in a Faraday cage and risking possible incarceration for violating Federal Statute 1984, section 600, paragraph 60, sub-paragraph 6.
While autopilot is fine for cruising, AFAIK they don't have anything reliable enough yet for landing and takeoffs? What about situations where the plane has to circle for a while until there is a runway free to land, etc etc. Not an impossible coding task but there needs to be a lot of coordination going on to stop the plane crashing into any other planes, taxi-ing to the correct destination after landing, that kind of thing.
which is totally what she said
Come on, give people some credit man - I'm sure Jeff Goldblum could do it with his PowerBook and a couple of crocodile clips..
which is totally what she said
No one seems to prefer the current system of deterrence involving extensive body, baggage, and identity searches. Why, then, is everyone opposed to the idea of a "kill switch" to deter potential terrorism?
Last week, during the very hot weather in the Midwest, I had to attend to some business in a part of the city with a high crime rate. After parking my car on the street under the blazing sun, I decided to leave all the windows down to avoid having to return to a veritable oven which, even with air conditioning, would require a long time to cool down. Was I concerned about theft? Heck no. My car has an excellent anti-theft system that will prevent all unauthorized access. Even opening the door would engage the alarm.
A similar system could make air travel inherently safe from terrorist threats. Technology that is integrated with GPS navigation systems could easily prevent an airplane from venturing into unauthorized airspace. Knowing that such a system would completely thwart their attempts, terrorists wouldn't even bother to make plans.
Moreover, such systems would obviate the current cumbersome and intrusive airport checks.
Post 9/11, the passengers tend not to matter so much as the plane not flying into a building.. I can see the logic there even if it is a bit harsh.
which is totally what she said
IIRC, without locking doors there is a pilot and a co-pilot. The stewards/esses don't know how to fly the plane, and a kid who plays flightsims does not replace a pilot a la Snakes On A Plane.
You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
Anyone else see the irony in putting ANY sort of remote control system in airplanes after the series premiere of the Lone Gunmen had terrorists remote controlling an airliner and trying to crash it into the World Trade Center? Security will be no problem at all, because it's not like people have been able to hack into the Pentagon or Congress or anything. Remote controlling airplanes is just a really, really supergreat idea.
Yes, it is more difficult, but any lock or security mechanism can be defeated. Suppose the terrorist was either a master lock pick or had some inside information about how to open the door.
That would be one terrorist trying to open the door and how many flight attendants and passengers trying to stop them?
BAM! Pilot is dead, and now nobody can get into the cockpit.
There are two pilots either one can control the plane. Even then unless said "terrorist" can jam the door from the inside it can still be opened by a crew member.
I had it explained to me as they have sufficiently good autopilots to land the planes on the planes now except in really bad conditions, but the pilots still land the planes not because they need to but because they want to stay current. They need to be able to land in good weather with ease so that when they have to land they can. but IANAP so include 1 grain of salt...
You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
Ok, you might have a point there - but luckily i doubt Goldblum would be willing to blow himself up, so the world is safe.
That's the thing. People are basically lazy, even terrorists. If there are really so many terrorists, why is it none of them are lazy enough to attack the low-hanging targets? A few that leap to mind:
Use a light aircraft to bomb a shopping mall (make sure the gas-filled cars in the parking lot ignite, cuz once the asphalt starts burning they'll be days getting it under control).
Drive down the freeway, pitching incindiary grenades out the window into busy traffic. For that matter, stand on an overpass and drop grenades into open trucks as they pass below. (Kids already do this with rocks, some places.)
Throw a few hundred dead rats or a dozen dead sheep into a public water tank (the kind that provides water pressure to a neighbourhood).
Contrive a large mobile bomb involving a propane delivery truck and a case of liquid ammonia. Its sheer mass will take it through most public buildings' front wall.
Etc, etc, etc. I'm sure I've barely scratched the surface of the available EASY targets.
So... where the hell are all the terrorists?
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
This is the funniest and the most open-minded post blog ever :))))
Press to test.
*click*
Release to detonate.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I am intrigued by your ideas, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
But when the pilot forgets to turn off his mic and tells the co-pilot he needs a coffee and a blow job how is the stewardess going to deliver?
Right-click on the plane and select "edit".
Even before 9/11, if the hijackers were on El Al, they would have been subject to attack by the plainclothes air marshals present on each flight. Also, the flight attendants have army training. Before 9/11 The U.S. doctrine was to give into hostage demands, I don't think the Israeli doctrine was the same.
I think they have worked for decades in preventing planes from flying...
They didn't know till the group already had crontol. No attack group will make it that far now, with the reinforced doors and passenger agression, unless they are in the front row of the plane, and managed to smuggle on a gun, and several magazines of ammunition.
a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
The trick with water supply though is that it doesn't have to actually impact anything. Its completely psychological. You just have to make sure people *know* you have done something to their water.
a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
make a button that causes plans to fall out of the sky - which is what this amounts too. The technology is guaranted to fail in the worst way.
Nor should we give this kind of power to the government.They have proved not to be trust worthy either.
What they originally proposed for aircraft was the ability to take over and fly it from the ground. It's done all the time with military and civilian drones and remotely piloted vehicles. Most RPVs in Iraq are driven from here in the US.
Of course they catch the RPVs in a big net when they land. But most new airliners can basically land themselves once established on an approach.
Piece of cake.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
Pirates will really want this.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
You're hired!
Sincerely,
Hollywood Executive
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
It's easy, a remotely activated cellphone in the cock-pit. According the the FAA and FCC, we turn that sucker on once the door has been closed, and the planes toast!
Most "small planes" do not even have an autopilot and the control surfaces are actuated via rods and/or cables directly connected to the yoke and rudder pedals (i.e. no "power steering"). In such airplanes about the only place you'll find hydraulics are in the breaks and landing gear. Most "small airplane" engines are also far simpler than most people probably realize. The idea of installing a government "kill switch" or thinking that such aircraft can be remotely controlled from the ground is simply ludicrous. I wonder just how many of the people coming up with these ideas have ever even taken a basic ground school course for a private pilot license.
I'm thinking that, once the plane stops flying, it's going to no longer qualify as a "Non-Lethal Weapon"?
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Passengers matter, because the passengers will prevent a hijacker from gaining control of the airplane. Let me spell it out for you:
The fourth plane hijacked on 9/11 was prevented from reaching its destination, probably partly because some of the passengers were able to communicate with the ground via cell phone and found out about the other three planes. If the same thing happened today (regardless of any additional security measures), the passengers would not have allowed the hijackers to get as far as they did.
Prior to 9/11, a hijacker could simply threaten to kill hostages (passengers or crew) unless their demands (such as gaining access to the cockpit, or simply telling the pilot what to do) are met. The expectation was that if you comply with their demands, they won't kill anyone, and the best way to assure everyone's safety was to do what they say, until the plane is on the ground. Once the plane has landed and the passengers are safe, the hijackers can be dealt with by law enforcement.
In that environment, additional security measures don't really matter. You can prevent most weapons from getting on the plane, but the hijacker could simply grab an old woman and threaten to break her neck with his bare hands. You can lock the cockpit door, but as long as the pilots have the ability to open it, if they believe the safest course of action is to open the door (so the hijacker won't break the woman's neck), they'll open the door. You can put armed air marshals on the plane, but they may not be able to stop the hijacker without the risk of killing or injuring the hostage.
We are no longer living in that environment. Today, if a hijacker manages to sneak a gun onto a plane, the minute he tries to take a hostage, 300 other passengers are going to do everything they can to stop him, because they now understand that their own best chance for survival is to stop the hijacker (failure to do so could result in the plane being flown into a building). There will probably be casualties, but the hijacker will be stopped.
Terrorists understand this. If they try to hijack an airplane, they will fail, so they're not going to try, unless they're really stupid. Additional security measures don't matter either way.
Got it?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
With the way everyone now drinks bottled and filtered (by RO) water, I'm not sure if poisoning the water supply would even have that much effect, unless they use some kind of poison that can be absorbed through the skin when people bathe.
I for one never drink plain tap water. It all goes through RO filtering for me.
All commercial jet aircraft have remote control over-ride. ...
Nixon ordered it to be installed in the early 1970s.
Boeing's version is called Flight Director for TOTAL remote take-over of the airplane.
It seems the brass and spooks are worried about smaller craft
http://www.vialls.com/wtc/radiocontrol.html
RR
Of course they'll need to track both, for your security, and the insurance co's will want in on it, etc. I can remember anti-virus programs blocking all sorts of basic functionality because of false positives. Life is going to get pretty odd when people start saying with a straight face; I couldn't get to your house, my car thought the road wasn't there and wouldn't let me drive on it. One more great step towards a brave new world wherein a cheap machine that can out-think a drunken moron is given authority over us all.
Honestly I think that when it comes to path finding algorithms, if the algorithm were in control of the other planes, collisions would be easily avoidable if not impossible. hell look at the collission detection algorithms we have been using for decades in TCP protocols.
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
I thought some MS Windows products are already running on airplanes?
Like I stated earlier this week, this bit of bullshit about aircraft getting hijacked by box knife wielding retards is simply no longer a tactical or even a strategic option for them. They now know that they have one chance in trillions of actually getting to an aircraft that won't have just one crazy ass do or die American with even a basic training level of hand to hand combat simply stick their exacto knife up their ass and give a short brief lesson in unanesthetized colon removal.....
I am no longer interested in taking over the world, I just want a modest corner of the Solar System
This is clearly not practical. Aren't you forgetting in-flight entertainment for the pilots? While you're happy and snug in your well fitting seat, the poor pilots are probably nodding off, what with the planes flying themselves and all. Now where's that link I saw a while ago to the video with the stewardess helping the pilots concentrate... Hmm
-mp-
Ah. I knew that passengers would try to help themselves, but your post doesn't mention passengers (though others do), so I thought you were just pointing out that hostages can't be used for bargaining anymore as a government would rather just shoot the plane down than let another 9/11 happen.
which is totally what she said
I sincerely home one day Americans will see the sense in NOT spending money on stuff like this and instead get a decent health care system for everyone.
Only boring people are ever bored.
It would work fine in theory yep, there's just the practical side like getting it into every plane, even the private ones, etc. The actual path finding stuff would probably be the 'easiest' job, the difficult parts would be accounting for wind and other practical things like a slippery runway or unexpected obstacles in the way when taxi-ing, trying to expect the unexpected..
which is totally what she said
You might be preventing the pilot from getting to the back of the plane with an extra fire extinguisher or viewing wing/engine damage out a rear window or creating some other non-terrorist related problem. Not saying impossible just more to think about than just terrorists. Your real issue is the planes have already been built and we aren't about to throw them all away now.
Just set me up a basic sig... 10 PRINT "Gordon Aplin" : GOTO 10