

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'.'"
Different problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The obvious? (Score:1, Insightful)
I mean to do something like 9/11 you don't even have to be ON the plane???
It seems to make thing MORE dangerous, not less.
-Em
Re:Let's not get all technical now (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
How about... (Score:5, Insightful)
Skyhook (Score:4, Insightful)
(And no, that isn't a referrer link where I get money. I don't know why it has 'ref=')
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 an alarm. Seems like a good idea to me.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot [wikipedia.org] as always.
Won't change anything actually (Score:5, Insightful)
Fanatics are irrational by design...
Re:Let's not get all technical now (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
What a freakin' waste of time. (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe you don't get this!!! (Score:2, 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?
Re:Let's not get all technical now (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:New terrorist attack method (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let's not get all technical now (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:If we've got autoland (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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Let's not get all technical now (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
make hijacking more likely/dangerous? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Let's not get all technical now (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Let's not get all technical now (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let's not get all technical now (Score:1, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
True American Heroes. (Score:2, Insightful)
You're not alone in making that calculation. The passengers on the fourth 9/11 hijacked jet came to the same conclusion - even though they themselves were the collection on the light side of the balance.
(IMHO they deserve a posthumous award of the Medal of Freedom.)
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: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.
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)
Re:Anti-hijacking technology isn't needed (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Simpler Solution (Score:2, Insightful)
There's a far simpler (and less risky) solution - two doors between the flight deck and the main cabin, so that the flight crew can always have a closed door between them and the cabin when they have to leave the cockpit. El Al's been doing this for years, and IIRC, United is on track to do so. If the cockpit can't be stormed, the airliner can't be used as a weapon.
Autopilots malfunction. That's why there's a big red button on every yoke or sidestick (not just on the flight guidance panel) - an autopilot disconnect switch. The thought of having an autopilot that you can't disconnect on every flight of every airliner is just plain scary, probability-wise.
Here's a more likely use for it: The FAA wants to raise the pilot retirement age to 65. You'll need it to land the airplane after the old geezer pilots fall asleep.
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.
Thats fine (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thats fine (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.
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
So what happens if.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Let's not get all technical now (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Let's not get all technical now (Score:2, Insightful)
The people on Flight 93 were just "average" people, but when they fully realised the situation they still fought their captors. I don't think that the character of the "average" person has changed that much between now and then.
From a 'European' military perspective.... (Score:1, Insightful)
The net result is that for much of its history the US has been an oddly peaceable nation. It has only been interested in fighting wars where it was sure it would easily win. When it does fight a war, US doctrine is to bring overwhelming fire power to bear, and eradicate everything in the vicinity from a distance, while preserving the lives of its own soldiers.
Compare that approach with, say, the British action at Goose Green in the Falklands War, where 600 British soldiers assaulted a well dug in force of over 1000 elite Argentinian troops, in defiance of conventional military practice. Both sides showed extreme bravery - Lt Col H Jones' death while leading a direct charge over open ground up a steep hill to silence machine gun posts was only one of a number of such incidents where soldiers on both sides took actions involving almost certain death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Goose_Gree
This European ethos looks good in the cinema, so good that Hollywood frequently takes European fighting occurances and transposes them to a US setting (which causes a lot of bad feeling) But I do not think this indicates a 'lack of moral fibre' on the part of the US. It's just a different way of doing things, and, I think, the US can argue that it has a more sensible approach.
If I were to be asked to join an army where we only fought where we had an overwhelming superiority over the enemy, compared to one where we were expected routinely to engage with inferior weaponry, numbers and tactical position and still win, I know which army I would prefer!
Re:Let's not get all technical now (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 someone like Bruce Schneier before running this kind of story.
Re:Let's not get all technical now (Score:1, Insightful)
I have never understood the American belief that arming people is the royal road to health and sanity. It is universally understood that, if someone is intending to attack, they are overwhelmingly more likely to succeed than someone who is not intending to defend. Arming people just ups the ante in the death stakes.
Incidentally, the moronic partnt poster bendodge is wrong on all fronts - the FBI did a study a little while ago and found that, comparing a man with a holstered gun and a man with a knife ten feet away, the man with the knife won 9 times out of ten. And that was with participants who knew what was going to happen.
Americans live in a little world of their own where movies are more real than reality. You can see that in their foreign policy. The reason Iraq is such a mess is that they really thought the film ended when the white hats won and rode off into the sunset!