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.'"
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.
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.
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"
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.
"Who modded this informative? Whoever it is must've been smokin' some of that martian pot!"
How the hell do they intend to pull that off without collateral damage. Force fields? Giant shark balloons?
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of their women.
How in the world can you 'safely stop' and aircraft in flight?!
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.
Better question that that is:
... uhhh who the fuck is going to pay for the kill switches? This OCD focus on air transport for anti-terrorism is a ploy as there is no reason to believe that there are MORE terrorists who WANT to use planes.
What the hell are they going to do with it? Once they are installed and there is no longer any use in trying to use a plane for terrorist activities and the terrorist turn to the much easier alternative that they already have
It's all a ruse to continue the 'war on terror' and the multibillion dollar boondoggle of the American populace. $4/gallon is nothing once we start paying for all these unnecessary anti-terrorism measure it will be up to $15/gallon or higher.
Actually the only word that I can think of for the focus on air transport is criminal. Nothing less is behind it.
As myself and many others will point out, there are PLENTY of other worthy methods of terrorism. Picking the most guarded of them is hardly filed under 'surprise attack' in the terrorist's field manual.
Back to basics here:
Where are the terrorists? Prove it!
What will they use to attack? Prove it!
Why won't they use other, simpler methods? Prove it!
If you can answer those three in support of beefing up air transport security I will quickly ask why you have not gone out and apprehended them already since you know who is guilty of what and why, and apparently have the fucking proof.
I'm so tired of these ineffective and inconvenient excuses for the government to steal my rights in the name of protecting me. Fuck off already. At the rate things are going, the next round of so called 'terrorists' will actually be citizens revolting against the protective measures.... arrgghhhh
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Why not get a group of engineers together and say, come up with a contingent plan for hijackings. This would open the door to creative solutions other than kill switches.
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
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
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"
Air brakes.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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
Here's an idea for you: broadcast the hijacker transponder code and jam the voice frequencies. After ground stations get no response, a twitch General will order the plane shot down. No sense trying to smuggle a bomb onboard when you can get the Pentagon to do it for you.
Not a typewriter
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.
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.
This risk is mitigated via use of an innovation referred to as a "co-pilot".
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Not to rain on your parade and you've certainly got your history right, but when something as scary as terrorism requires you to think back thirteen years to an event with 168 fatalities, this seems very damn ridiculous to me.
Just as a sad little comparison: On average, each and every 36-hour-period from 1994 through 2007 had more people die in traffic accidents [1] than this huge headline-making bomb. 9/11, OTOH, took almost four weeks to be offset by road fatalities (and caused four^Wseven years of all-out war against freedom (and the middle east)). Strange, eh?
[1] http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
Not correct. The jeep they used was filled with propane canisters, petrol and nails. The Ammonium Nitrate acts as an oxidiser, and these guys didn't have it. Propane canisters are designed to not explode. The Glasgow terrorists clearly thought that if they just lit a fire under one of them it would explode (playing too much GTA methinks). They didn't even attempt to make proper explosive with an oxidiser.
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.
Not to mention the fact that Glasgow's already got a religious war...
:)
It's called "Celtic vs Rangers"
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !