Remote Control To Prevent Aircraft Hijacking 544
Snad writes "The UK's Evening Standard is reporting that Boeing plans to roll out aircraft remote control systems in a bid to eliminate the threat of terrorist hijackings, and prevent any repetition of the events of September 11 2001. 'Scientists at aircraft giant Boeing are testing the tamper-proof autopilot system which uses state-of-the-art computer and satellite technology. It will be activated by the pilot flicking a simple switch or by pressure sensors fitted to the cockpit door that will respond to any excessive force as terrorists try to break into the flight deck. Once triggered, no one on board will be able to deactivate the system. Currently, all autopilots are manually switched on and off at the discretion of pilots. A threatened airliner could be flown to a secure military base or a commercial airport, where it would touch down using existing landing aids known as 'autoland function'.'"
Let's not get all technical now (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Let's not get all technical now (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let's not get all technical now (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Let's not get all technical now (Score:5, Insightful)
If we weren't such pussies we would have done what Israel did to Lebanon when Hamas took two guys hostage.
We aren't pussies. Our fearless leader just had other priorities. Rather then rally the country behind him ala FDR after Pearl Harbor he decided to try and use it as an excuse to take down Saddam. Days after 9/11 Bush and Cheney were looking at ways to tie Saddam to the attacks.
FDR desperately wanted war with Nazi Germany but he didn't try to blame Pearl Harbor on them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
(actual video of an Airbus320!)
The Oops List [oopslist.com]
Hit AirBus320_trees.mp4. The site won't permit hotlinking. Listen to the spectators at the end.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id= 19880626-0&lang=en [aviation-safety.net]
Purely attributable to Pilot error. You may be getting confused with the fact that the A320 is fly-by-wire.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Let's not get all technical now (Score:4, Insightful)
Our president's intentions to take down Saddam after 9/11 don't change the fact that we, America and probably most of the first world, are pussies. Have you ever been in a fight? I've never been in a fight. I was a gigantic asshole for the last two years high school and never found myself in the slightest danger of receiving even a single punch.
And what's the point? If the powers-that-be had decided to glass Afghanistan do you really think they wouldn't have been able to rally the American people behind it in the days after 9/11? Throw some propaganda in the mix, make the Pearl Harbor comparison (though 9/11 is inherently worse -- Pearl Harbor was a military target) and demand nothing less then total victory. I think you'd be surprised by the American people.
That said, it was all for naught, because from day 1 of being sworn in this administration wanted to go into Iraq.
Automated Pilots? (Score:4, Funny)
"BEEEP - Please kindly press 1 for service in Spanish, 2 to leave a message,
3 to speak with a customer service agent, or 0 to repeat this message again..."
Re:Let's not get all technical now (Score:4, Insightful)
wouldn't jump a hijacker with any sort of impressive-looking or effective weapon
Doesn't United 93 kind of prove you wrong there? I still think you are underestimating Americans.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is "pussies" another word for "civilized, decent human beings"? If so, then I'm glad that we (and most of the world) are pussies. Violence is an ineffective way to solve problems.
Re:Let's not get all technical now (Score:4, Insightful)
If we weren't such pussies we would have done what Israel did to Lebanon when Hamas took two guys hostage.
You mean start a war they were bound to lose/not win and not even catch the original bad guys? I think we're doing a pretty good job of that already.
Re:Let's not get all technical now (Score:5, Insightful)
This system would be a lot more effective than a passenger attempt to stop the hijackers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because that worked so well on the United 93 flight, right?
Not saying I am for this system (way too much room for abuse imo); And I much rather opt for heavier enforced cockpit-doors and an inability for the pilots to open those doors for the entire flight.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's absurd. With a system such as that, how are the flight attendants going to bring them martinis?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
While this may be true, it doesn't mean that deploying such a system isn't worth it.
What you're saying is exactly like "if we get a bank vault, the thieves will just plan and figure out a way to get into the vault. It's easier said than done, and proba
Re:Let's not get all technical now (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Let's not get all technical now (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like a variation on "Die Hard 2". Which is the problem with all these attempts to address "movie plot" senarios. If you don't guess right then the system is utterly useless. The newspaper really needs to talk to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
-Em
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe they have nicer terrorists there. Who knows.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Different problem (Score:5, Insightful)
RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Cancel or Allow? (Score:5, Funny)
You are attempting to engage the Remote Control System.
Cancel or Allow?
Re:RTFA (Score:4, Informative)
Or someone knocks on the door... hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Flight to nowhere (Score:2)
Let's presume that it was pre-programmed on the ground. So, at LAX, it will take the plane to some Californian AFB. So far, so good. But, if the hijacker comes in on approach to JFK, does this mean the aircraft then does a 180 turn and heads back?
Fuel requirements may be to have 90min reserves, over and above what is required for the flight. So, this would have the plane run out of fuel 90 min after turnin
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now it just takes 1 person to try to tackle the door---and someone on the ground can take over the flight (assuming they're technically capable of it).
Won't change anything actually (Score:5, Insightful)
Fanatics are irrational by design...
Re:Won't change anything actually (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'll have to agree that simply adding some substance to the air, and having everybody falling sound asleep is a little over simplified.
First of all, chloroform is not that good for your health, there are multiple reasons it is not used for human anesthesiology anymore, but severe organ damage was the most convincing reason.
The russians tried an opiate based drug, and that only proofed that for an adequate sedation, by opiates alone, the dose is so high, that severe resp
Thats fine (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not quite. It prevents the type of hijacking where the hijackers take physical control of the plane. It does not prevent the hijackers from killing all the passengers.
Re:Different problem (Score:5, Informative)
a. how to hijack the plane
b. how to fly it to the destination of their choice
they also have to figure out
c. how to override the remote control system
This increases their planning overhead, their budget overhead, and possibly their coordination overhead. They also have to acquire more information from more sources, and possibly design, manufacture, and smuggle aboard additional equipment.
It's certainly not a foolproof solution, but even a half-ass implementation will force would-be hijackers to escalate their own operations, to the detriment of their overall chances of success.
Re:Different problem (Score:4, Insightful)
No it doesn't. Instead of having to prepare and deploy dozens of suicide pilots, they can work in secret safety on figuring out the control protocol, and make the attack wirelessly from the safety of a suburban house.
Just ask Captain Video...
Re:Different problem (Score:5, Insightful)
All to prevent an incredibly low probability attack. I doubt the serious terrorists still consider airplanes to be a useful target. Maybe only the crackpots that got kicked out of terrorist boot camp for being unable to complete a simple plan. They're moving on to newer, more accessible pastures. I'm much more worried about a ground-based plan to simultaneously blow up large numbers of people.
terrorist budget ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you expecting terrorist organisations to declare their activities are no longer economically viable and "fire" their employees ?
Maybe they can file for bankruptcy protection to stave off the inevitable...
Seriously, i doubt the extremists these systems are
Re:Different problem (Score:5, Funny)
Didn't you read the article? It's "tamper-proof" and "uses state-of-the-art computer and satellite technology" - so terrorists won't be able to do that. You can sleep easy, little fella, there's nothing to worry about - us big folk have it all under control...
(/sarcasm)
If we've got autoland (Score:4, Interesting)
Computer Flight Coordination (Score:2)
Re:If we've got autoland (Score:5, Informative)
Liability is also the reason that the military's remote control UAV's have to have a human with their hand on the trigger.
Anyways:
1. I thought commercial auto-pilot systems already had the ability to be run from the ground.
2. How does Boeing "secretly" patent "The so-called 'uninterruptible autopilot system'"
Already exists...CAT III autopilot systems (Score:3, Insightful)
Autopilot systems that can take off and land large commercial aircraft already exist and are commonly used (they are called "CAT III" autopilots). If a pilot is feeling lazy, all he or she must do is program the flight computer and taxi the aircraft to the runway -- the aircraft will take off, fly, and land at the desired destination without any input from the pilot.
This new system seems to be a way of locking-in the autopilot function so terrorists cannot manually fly the plane after the pilot triggers
Re:Already exists...CAT III autopilot systems (Score:4, Informative)
While the parent was moderated Insightful I would like to point out that up to date no commercial Airplane can take off with autopilot. Take off is always done manually.
Also, even on an Autoland the pilot has to perform a few tasks like extending the landing flaps and lowering the gear. Again no airplane that I know of has these under autopilot control.
Besides, autoland for the pilots is far from leaning back and enjoying the show. Current autopilots are still limited in the operational envelope (max wind inputs etc.) and need a lot of working systems that a pilot can do without (landing signal receivers etc.). It is not uncommon for an airliner in normal operation to be restricted to "no autoland" because some subsystem is not performing nominally.
Why these Limitations? Because certifying any automatic operation on an airplane costs lots of money which is not necessary as long as a pilot can perform these operations for "free".
Disclaimer: I earn my living flying airplanes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Boeing has "secretly" patented all sorts of classified technology, as have most companies working in the Defense/Intelligence industries. The classified patent system has been in place for a while. Just because something is patented doesn't mean it's publicly available knowledge.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nice and smug above - but really automated systems are nowhere near where we would want them to be to make such a thing a reality. The simpler system of missiles of which a lot of resources has been expended is a good example - they don't always go where they are told. The F-22 dateline fault example should be enough to make a point. Pilots have training AND experience - a remote controlled plane can only
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-hijacking technology isn't needed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Anti-hijacking technology isn't needed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Not just US planes and already happened. (Score:3, Informative)
Something like that happened just recently: Hijacker didn't speak French. Captain did the landing announcement and in the French version told the passengers and crew he was going to do a very hard landing and for the stews and any strong male passengers to rush the cockpit and subdue the hijacker.
He hit the brakes hard. The hijacker (who was stan
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=hijack
Doesn't change much (Score:2)
Good Work.
uh... (Score:2)
New terrorist attack method (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Problem with your method (Score:5, Funny)
what if... (Score:4, Interesting)
So... (Score:2)
Whate ever happened to... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How about... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I can't believe you don't get this!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
"One passenger dies every minute until the door is unlocked".
Duh.
With the new system:
"One passenger dies every minute until the fancy auto-pilot is turned off".
Another duh.
Any questions, Einstein?
I know, this sounds like algebra, not your strong suit.
did they consider consumer rejection? (Score:2)
This type of system is a perennial topic on comp.risks [ncl.ac.uk] & is certainly not a panacea. It is not clear whether the system is any improvement, or whether it merely increases risk; and I don't trust Boeing to decide for us.
How much cash do we have to spend on 9/11 (Score:3, Interesting)
Skyhook (Score:4, Insightful)
(And no, that isn't a referrer link where I get money. I don't know why it has 'ref=')
"tamper-proof", huh? (Score:5, Funny)
The mind *boggles*.
But it'll make for some great disaster movies, where Bruce Willis has to hack his way through a bulkhead to cut the wires for the autopilot before Boeing Jon can fly the remote-hijacked plane to Norway where all the passengers would, um, well, have something awful happen involving blonde women and glaciers.
sounds like a really good idea (Score:2, Funny)
great to see we still have some fresh ideas appearing.
Very soon (Score:2)
If this technology is available, why bother with pilots at all? I know, I know, human in the loop safety etc, etc. But if the fares were cheap enough, I'd risk it.
Hijacking in the US? (Score:2)
What a freakin' waste of time. (Score:5, Insightful)
An aggressive GCAS might be a good thing (Score:5, Informative)
"You can't fly any lower [f-16.net] describes an advanced ground contact avoidance system developed in Sweden and tested on F16s. This is really impressive.
After moderate checks of the system at shallow dive angles and an aborted run or two, Prosser simulated several fatal mishaps. The first replicated a pilot flying on night-vision goggles (NVG) and losing situational awareness. With Auto-GCAS minimum descent altitude set at 500-ft. AGL (a medium-risk test condition), Prosser rolled into a partially inverted 5g turn, then back to a 90-deg. bank before relaxing his grip on the stick. The mishap pilot had lost the night horizon and, thinking he was approximately wings-level, let the nose fall. He was unknowingly diving toward the ground. Similar NVG-related accidents have killed F-16 and A-10 pilots.
While the flat Rosamond Dry Lake raced upward at us, filling my out-the-canopy field-of-view, I glanced at my back-seat HUD repeater and saw two large chevrons moving toward the center of the display. Their arrow-points touched, and we immediately snap-rolled to wings-level and pulled sharply to about 10 deg. nose-up. When the "You got it!" annunciation sounded, we were climbing at about 317 kt. and 2,940 ft., roughly 600+ ft. above the lakebed--an artificially high altitude established for safety reasons.
This thing is dealing with flight situations much tougher than anything the big transports do. It's designed not to interfere with typical attack aircraft maneuvers. We flew about 200 ft. above the ground at 520-560 kt., popping over high-tension power lines, hills and small ridges. Slipping through cuts in the desert mountains, rolling inverted to pull down the backside of ridges, and carving around the sides of rocky hills, Prosser demonstrated that a pilot could fly a normal, low-level tactical mission without experiencing a single nuisance fly-up. But go a little too low, and there's a "speedbump" as the system nudges the aircraft up a bit.
The system turns off when you're set up for landing: slow speed, wheels down, flaps down.
This would have saved United 93, where they had a fight in the cockpit. If the computers take over when the plane is headed into the ground, a number of situations become survivable. Not just hijackings; crashes due to pilot distraction or navigational error; what's called "controlled flight into terrain".
As a passenger ... and a pilot (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me qualify myself -- I am a hobbyist when it comes to flying. Single and dual engine props are the largest I've ever flown myself, but I know a damn good landing when I see / feel one. Flying "runs in the family" as my brother does it, my father, my grandfather [did, passed away], and my Uncle is a commercial pilot himself. Growing up it was common to go and visit grandpa (or more often have him fly over to us) in the rent-a-plane type club -- why drive and deal with all the traffic? When we wanted to go downtown to the city -- just fly in. I was flying when I was six... Anyway, I digress...
On a recent commercial trip to Hawaii I can remember two specific landings that took place. One was in bad weather and the landing impressed me so much that I waited around to find out who landed the plane. The pilot proudly introduced me to his co-pilot and informed me it was his first real landing as such [flying passengers and not testing / in a simulator]. The other landing scared the hell out of me and within seconds of touching down I looked at my white-knuckled scared wife and said "somethings wrong, we're going off the runway". The weather was calm and clear -- and at the gate the pilot apologized to *everyone* over the PA system and informed us that the landing that took place was done by the emergency autopilot landing system [a scheduled test -- WITH PASSENGERS]. THANK GOD he was able to dis-engage said system and go with a hard left rudder when he did...
Due to that last landing it has been the _last_ commercial flight I've taken (or plan to take). I'll fly myself, thank you.
What do I do for a living? Ironically computer [programming] -- and I know all too well what can (and does) go wrong with these types of computer programs. There is NO WAY that all the bases and/or possibilities could be covered with our computer knowledge today.
Will never fly, many reasons (Score:4, Insightful)
Time to exhume an old joke (Score:3, Funny)
Implementation (Score:3, Insightful)
For something *that* secure, I'm sure they're using Vista. I can see it now, "It looks like you're trying to let someone take over your aircraft by remote control. Allow or deny?"
But more seriously, how could a system like that EVER be trusted? M$ spend lots of time and way more money trying to make Vista secure, and it's already cracked. Same for HD-DVD DRM. And if terrorist really can't think of anything better, they can do this:not necessary. (Score:3, Insightful)
in this case the solution is a social one not a technological one. the most powerful force on a plane are its passengers.
Oooh boy. (Score:3, Insightful)
--And what precision! To be able to accurately target a building which is so far away that you can't even see it is amazing. These were guys who couldn't even pass flight school. Sounds like a computer assist to me.
-FL
Yes, Popular Mechanics IS stupid. (Score:3, Informative)
Here's one well-researched and very thoughtful rubuttal [serendipity.li] to the Popular Mechanics article. The Popular Mechanics article is widely considered too silly to even consider. --There are more logical flaws in that article than can be forgiven in any intelligent discussion.
Cheers!
-FL
Hijacks are very, very rare (Score:4, Insightful)
This one would be 11/10.
Hijacks are very, very rare so the effectiveness of this stupid idea is dominated by the failure modes. The obvious failure mode is accidental activation. This will occur much more often than an actual hijack.
So rather than being a solution, it will be just another cause of flight delays.
Not just terrorists (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you seriously think they wouldn't use it?
Re: (Score:2)
At least you can rest safe in the knowledge that, even if the pilot cannot regain control of the plane, he can at least sabotage the plane so it cannot be remotely controlled either.
That is, you can rest safe if you're not on the plane, or under its flight path. Otherwise your rest
Re:existing autoland function, HA! (Score:5, Informative)
Autoland had been in use on commercial aircraft for over thirty years. It's routinely used for landing at places like Heathrow which are frequently foggy. It's so accurate that they had to introduce some dither into it because the runways were starting to deteriorate what with landing gear smacking into the exact same spot landing after landing.
Boeing 777 can autoland. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:existing autoland function, HA! (Score:5, Informative)
While you are correct that autoland has been around since the 70s, it is far from used routinely.
Pilots use autoland only when required so due to fog (visibility below roundabout 300m, depending on aircraft type). Even at London I doubt that more than 1% of all landings are made with autoland.
And the thing about hitting the exact same spot on landing is a myth, because so many factors (weight of airplane, temperature, wind, rigging of the control surfaces to name just a few) will affect the landing spot even for an autoland that it is impossible to touch down at the same spot consistently.
Disclaimer: I earn my living flying airplanes
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
See, now I know you don't know what you're talking about even if you are a pilot. (I'm a pilot too, but it's not my job).
The localizer and glideslope (let's skip MLS for now, although the same principle holds) are fixed with respect to the airfield. The autoland is tracking localizer and glidescope (and radar altimeter and yada yada). Weight,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite. At some point during the autoland, usually around 50 to 20 ft above the runway the aircraft does not follow the glideslope anymore. Instead it will do a preprogrammed flare following a fixed programm like "pull the yoke back by 2 inches and wait for touchdown" (I know that it is a little bit more complex than that). Any (vertical) disturbances during those last few seconds are not corrected and will lead to different touchdown points.
I am not saying that autoland systems do not have a dither (li
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's autoland. It'll even steer the aircraft down the runway, and brake if it's equipped with autobrake. Totally hands off. How else would you land in zero-zero fog?
Manually activated by in flight crew. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It means less passengers per flight, more weight, a complet change of the elctrical system.
Large planes are very comlex. Changing the length of just 1 wire can be recalibration of several instrements, now take that to all the wires from all the sensors needing to be changed.
Plane wiring isn't some simple 60Hz wiring job.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wow! At last, somebody who knows "exactly" what happened on 9-11! Astonishing! Nobody else in the public has anything but theories and logical guesswork, but you actually know exactly what happened! Can I have your autograph?
-FL