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: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barnalby
This is the solution. We haven't had another hijacking in 14 years, however at this point, we HAVE had incidents of pilot incapacitation/malicious pilot activity kill nearly as many passengers as 9/11 did.

The locked cockpit doors do nothing, they're just security theater. Let's get rid of them once and for all.


Actually that's the perfect solution! Security theater. Make the external override code always work, but don't tell anybody. Have a second code which allows the interior pilot able to override (so if threatened by a hijacker the crew can say "sorry the pilot can lock us out").

The two crew rule might fail if as one pilot is leaving the other malicious one swiftly shuts & locks the door before the crew can take a seat.




posted on Mar, 27 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   
This would be a wonderful idea, except that it opens up yet another avenue for terrorism and hijacking. Rather than having to infiltrate the plane, getting through the layers of security that are only now so apparent post 9-11, and THEN actually physically forcing your way into and taking control of the cockpit...all you would need is a skilled hacker and someone with the ability to remotely fly the plane. Too many vulnerabilities. Opens up a whole new way to hijack a plane, and could all be done anonymously hundreds if not thousands of miles away.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Aa reply to: Ensinger23

Again it could only happen if that switch is triggered without the trigger no one could control the plane



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 04:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Since 1976, counting three incidents where non pilots stole planes and crashed them, there have been nine incidents of pilot suicide, counting this one, which isn't entirely clear was.

This is an incredibly complex solution for an incredibly rare problem. There have been six incidents where this system would have been used in almost 40 years. It would add complexity, weight, and cost to the aircraft, as well as a potential for trouble, for something so rare as to be almost non existent.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Banks get hacked, the Defense Department gets hacked, corporations get hacked.... you think this remote control would stay secret or safe? Onstar can turn off your car.... would you like your airplane to be remotely controlled by the wrong person or group? Nothing seems safe from cyberwarfare and hacking and you think flying planes this way would be a good idea? Huh.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Skynews have a story today about 'remote' flying.

news.sky.com...



Technology offers the hope that the Germanwings plane disaster will never happen again, experts have told Sky News. Systems are already in place to fly unmanned planes from the ground, but they are currently only used in the military sphere.




n 2009, Honeywell was awarded a patent for a fly-by-wire system that could take control of a plane's cockpit controls and remotely pilot a commercial plane to prevent "unauthorised-flight" and maintain "stable flight".




Mischa Dohler, Head of King's College London's Centre for Telecommunications Research, told Sky News: "We have all the technology in place so the aircraft can talk to the ground directly or via the satellite link, so that is all possible. It's just a question of cost. "At the end of the day, you just need to pay for the infrastructure or a data plan, in the same way as you might pay for your mobile phones. "The airlines have to decide whether they are willing to invest that money to add that extra real-time safety to airplanes."



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

The airlines just have to decide if they want to pay to allow someone ELSE to kill their passengers, or risk an incredibly rare event happening.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
If remote flying had been implemented there at least would be closer for the families of Asian Air 370.

Many believe the pilots were overcome by smoke from a fire in the front wheel well that burned through the communications array just above it.

If it was pushed in this type of scenario the remote pilot could have landed the plane that was in route that the pilot turned towards and some may have survived or all the bodies would be properly buried.

I think we will see more of these events and then they wont be so rare as some claim.

an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

It was Malaysian 370.

If it WAS a fire that burned through the electronics bay that knocked out communications and other systems, what makes you think that a remote control system would have remained operational?



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn

an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.


Probably, but you´re proposing the opposite - half a ton of prevention for half a gram of problem.

Such a system might be workable, but only in the form of a dead mans´ switch type. i.e., The aircraft asks for input by a pilot after X minutes of inactivity. With nio response from the flight crew, only then would the AIRCRAFT request guidance from the ground. This the only way to cut out human misconduct at any end of the chain with overwhelming certainty.

Something like this could have saved HELIOS 522. And still... incredibly rare. I dont have to tell you that it couldnt have saved a plane from suicidal crew or hijackers.

You´re talking about a ginormous effort here to cure a fringe problem. What we will see within the next weeks is a shift from ALL major carriers to require the presence of two people in the cockpit at all times. This is simple and easy to do.

The next thing is that flight crew mental health procedures will receive a revision. Including not only more prominent psychological evaluation and regular check-ups, but also to offer flight crew an alternative to continuing to fly - for example, retraining for ground duty and carreer change support as well as covering of flight school debt. Just to combat inhibitions of flight crew that HAVE personal problems to be more honest about their condition.

These are both much more practical ways to react on this incident and will furthermore be of benefit in a much wider array of situations.
edit on 28/3/2015 by Lonestar24 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn
These situations will become more the norm with the MSM promotional news spots encouraging pilots and zealots alike to do so



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Theres a saying "Nothing happens till something happens."



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

People keep saying things like this, and air travel keeps getting safer.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   
My first thought was that the Pilot should have been able to contact air traffic control and receive assistance with either an additional emergency "code" that would be entered at this point and that you cannot override from within the cockpit, or some other type of procedure to intervene. I get that there are measures in place to protect the cockpit, thanks to the attacks on 9/11 but obviously they will now have to create another procedure due to this tragic incident. reply to: ChesterJohn



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: shell69

Why? This is the sixth pilot suicide in almost 40 years.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Simply install a toilett in the pilots cabin.
That´s the supposed reason why the captain went out.
Eliminate that and you end up with two guys in the cockpit all the time.

edit: for future planes or instead of a toilett, a dixi like device.
edit on 29-3-2015 by verschickter because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: verschickter

As soon as that pilot steps away from the controls, the other pilot is on total control and will be able to put the aircraft into a dive.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   
I don't much like the possibility of a passenger aircraft being remote accessed. I don't really see Delta or Alliegent, for example, spending the money on the type of encryption that keeps drones secure.

That said, I could see the auto pilot having a remote access available so long as the pilots could over ride it with some type of two password authentication.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   
"What could have been don't to prevent such a disaster? "

The only way this can be fixed is that cabin door stays locked the entire flight. Pee Bags whatever. Pee in a bucket I don't care. It's a breach of security if that door opens during flight anyhow. That seems a easy fix. Food coffee can be placed through slots.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I know, I know. BOTH pilots hold hands and go the toilet together
. Oh , hold on, who's flying the plane !!!
Sorry, couldn't resist



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join