It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Could an Emergency Remote Control of a Commercial Aircraft prevented this weeks mass murder?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
This is not about any currently known advancement in commercial aircraft but I felt it could go in this forum if not please move it.

If for example the German Plane that crashed purposely this last week could have been saved by remote should we not develop such precautions?

The co-pilot was able to use a safety switch to keep the pilot out of the cock-pit while he killed everyone including himself.

What could have been don't to prevent such a disaster?

Hindsight is always 20/20.

I thought of an idea that I thought might be an answer to this type of situation and during a hijacking.

If that safety switch is pushed manually by a pilot an emergency signal goes out to the authorities and a remote controlled unit is implemented to control the plane after that. This unit operated by someone at a remote location could correct any changes made or keep the pilots from making any changes in the flight route, altitude and pitch, and be used to bring the plane to the nearest airport where it is landed and then the ground authorities can move in to take the hijackers or pilots off the plane thereby preventing any such disasters in the future.

What thinketh ye of ATS?



edit on 27-3-2015 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
You make complete and total sense, I just don't know enough about aviation to know how effective it would be. My question would be, if a terrorist, hijacker, or what have you, did lock themselves in the cockpit and this remote system was engaged, what would stop them from just busting up the instrument panel? And again, I know very little about avionics, so I ask, would doing some kind of interior damage like that be enough to bring down a commercial jet?
edit on 27-3-2015 by Rexamus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Absolutely not. That's begging for a major disaster. What's to stop someone that finds out they're about to be fired, or their spouse is leaving them, or any of a number of other things, from taking control of a large plane, or several planes and deliberately crashing them.

Not to mention you'd need massive control centers. There are over 85,000 flights over the US counting General Aviation.
edit on 3/27/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
yes the remote control operators would have to be well vetted and screened themselves and the locations of the remote control units would have to remain unknown or mobile so as to not be taken by unfriendly forces and used to bring down crafts. but then again the only way it could be activated is by the cabin crew pushing the button there would be no ground override that could be used to take control of the plane



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

But that defeats the purpose. If one pilot takes over, and wants to crash the plane they're not going to push the button. And putting it in the cabin allows non crew access to it.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Rexamus

the idea would be that once the switch is pushed the flight deck no longer controls the plane. a central computer not located in the cockpit would be used to control the mechanics of the plane rendering the cock pit useless even if they did smash up the instrument panel.

I guess it couldn't take care of all variables but it could narrow down them to help prevent some of these events.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Thats a good one but as poster above said, whats to stop someone from smashing the device up?

Also, if they got locked in the cockpit, how does the other Pilot get back in to resume control?

Gliding through the skies at 6,000 feet via remote control doesn't sound very safe btw but I do know what you are getting at. I guess if the passengers don't know the plane is flying on remote, then they wouldn't panic!



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
It would give the bad guys a whole new system to target/hack into..baaaad idea.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Rexamus

Boeing patented a system just like this, but has never used it. It puts a separate power supply and computer on the aircraft that only powers this system.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

remember he had to push the switch which kept the pilots access code to the cockpit from working. Once that switch is pushed the remote system takes over and the cockpit no longer controls the aircraft.

you wouldn't need thousands of these units as it would be impossible for all the flights to be taken at the same time.

like a said it is not the cover all for all scenarios but it would help in some cases.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

And all a group would have to do is get to some pilots and guys on the ground, which they could do, and it's a recipe for disaster.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

remote means someone on the ground would be flying the plane.

A secondary or main drive for the on-board avionics could and should not be located in the cockpit but somewhere else on the plane. so even if they did smash it they could not affect the remote pilot from bring the airplane to the nearest airport.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ChesterJohn

But that defeats the purpose. If one pilot takes over, and wants to crash the plane they're not going to push the button. And putting it in the cabin allows non crew access to it.


and if we go to the next logical step and make it so that the aircraft could be taken over remotely when there is an issue. well that would just end up being a nice way for a terrorist to take it over without having to be on the aircraft.

sadly no matter what you do to increase security, it seems that it can be used against everyone. i do believe that after 9-11 when they decided that aircrews had to lock the door, and they also called for reinforcing the door. that many people said that this exact situation that seems to have caused this crash WOULD HAPPEN.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
And everything can be hacked into these days.

There would have to be some other way by using similar methods!

maybe something just as simple as another control outside of the cockpit that only flight crew know about.... maybe just one other flight attendant on board or a secret agent on every flight who knows the code to get into the cockpit!



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ChesterJohn

But that defeats the purpose. If one pilot takes over, and wants to crash the plane they're not going to push the button. And putting it in the cabin allows non crew access to it.


then the other pilot can get in with the Air Marshall and take that pilot out and resume control or at least get in and push the failsafe remote control button.

If necessary locate a button somewhere only the pilot and the head of the flight staff knows of and they could activate it from another part of the plane.

there is never a perfect scenario but the more we eliminate some then there are less variables to deal with.


edit on 27-3-2015 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   
I think it could be done, but would it really help, or just bring more to worry about. Then you would have to worry about a high jacking of the control centers, and this day and age of computer hacking, I wouldnt trust it. Id still rather have a pilot at the controls. This suicide has really scared a lot of people, your chances are probably much higher that you would get struck by lightning before death at the hands of a suicide pilot.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

it doesn't have to be wifi or bluetooth.

there are systems that are not hacklable otherwise the intl space station would already be taken by terrorists.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Glassbender777

remote or mobile remote control centers.

It could be done from towers and that rotated on a basis that no one knows the scheduling there are ways to prevent that.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

With the new doors, barring a miracle they'd be hard pressed to get through the cockpit door.

This is begging for trouble. If it's in the cabin and the pilot pisses off the Purser they can push the button and say they got suspicious of the pilot because they couldn't get in touch with the cockpit. Then the pilot gets to have a nice long interview with some very polite men in suits.



posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   
going to work now.

I will check in on the thread later.

have fun discussing



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join