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: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Could'nt agree more, hence the star, the less complicated things are, the better. Prevention is better than cure. Have a nice day now




posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   
For a remarkably easy way to stop at least some of these incidents, with minimal modification, the Air Force has begun using Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance Software. It GPS maps terrain around the world, and if it senses a possible collision it flies the aircraft up and over it.

Auto GCAS



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I have one - now well aged - 'Microsoft Flight Simulator', game and from time to time have put such into a nose dive just to hear the voice telling me to pull up, flying low etc......Have always wondered why such was never programmed to take such control and pull-up higher should i fail to do so. Nice to hear they are at last doing / considering such on a Real Flying Plane. Everything has to create a realistic tragedy before mankind seeks out an alternative means of safety. Imagine a New Robot like means of Surgery. They cannot programme that to realise an artery has just burst, no doubt they'll wait till such happens then they Might???? Think again......They Might ????



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: steaming

The Air Force put it onto their F-16 fleet at the end of 2014, start of 2015 and it's alreadysaved at least two aircraft.

At this point it's just a matter of testing it on larger aircraft.
edit on 3/29/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Fingers crossed on this one, surprising really though. Especially when considered how a Submarine can circle the oceans and use a sort of pinging device to avoid accidents. Whales can be fitted with a small chip like gadget and be followed as they too circle the planet, yet Planes are still a signalling headache (Ah Ah) or so we are told. Someone must have wanted to patent a worthy idea back in the 50s. But then who am I to say that ?
edit on 29-3-2015 by steaming because: spelling mistake



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: verschickter
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.


Well... as a matter of fact, the co-pilot could still cause damage even with the toilets in the cockpit area... he could lock the Pilot in the toilet somehow.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 08:50 AM
link   
How about the back of plane has a hatch and every passenger a parachute? If this scenario happens or any other scenario where the plane is going to crash, all passengers get to back of plane, open the hatch and jump. Yes I know the plane is travelling at speed and there is risk of getting sucked out but I'd rather take that risk then be hitting a mountain or the ground! Each passenger is taught how to use said parachute either before flight or before it takes off or even they have to take training up to a month before their flight (Free training). And they could actually do these indoors now with the gale force which comes from a speeding plane.
edit on CDTMon, 30 Mar 2015 08:54:29 -0500u3108x129x1 by TruthxIsxInxThexMist because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
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?




Is this any different than the school shootings? Do we need gun control? No, we do not and we also do not need remote airplane control. We have a major mental health issue on planet Earth which needs attention.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: 3n19m470
There is test footage out there of remote flying jumbo's for crash test purposes..It can be done for sure but a little different when people on board.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Connman
a reply to: Zaphod58

Put a fail safe device that only lets auto-pilot be disengaged when both the co-pilot and pilot are there in their seat.
Like the car seats or mowers have as a safety device.


It was the FMS that was programmed that crashed the plane so not disengaging the device since there was only one pilot in a seat would have made no difference. There will always be a way to crash a plane regardless of who is in control of the airplane whether it be the FMS or flight controls. They could overstress the aircraft and break it up in flight (less easy on an Airbus), pull the fire suppression or any number of things.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flipper35

originally posted by: Connman
a reply to: Zaphod58

Put a fail safe device that only lets auto-pilot be disengaged when both the co-pilot and pilot are there in their seat.
Like the car seats or mowers have as a safety device.


It was the FMS that was programmed that crashed the plane so not disengaging the device since there was only one pilot in a seat would have made no difference. There will always be a way to crash a plane regardless of who is in control of the airplane whether it be the FMS or flight controls. They could overstress the aircraft and break it up in flight (less easy on an Airbus), pull the fire suppression or any number of things.


yes there are always ways but there are few ways to stop a mass murder like the one that happened last week or in 9/11.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

ChesterJohn, I thought the same thing when I heard that the Pilot was locked out. Asked the question in another thread that was ongoing at the time, but ATS members replied that it wouldn't work. They say that flying a jet remotely isn't a simple as flying a drone, plus, a nutcase on the ground could take control and crash the plane.

I know nothing about the technical challenges of remotely controlling a large jet. But, we trust people on the ground with Nuclear Missile codes, so why can't individuals be trusted in this scenario?



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

they remote fly the planes during tests before the aircraft is certified. only then will they put two pilots in the seat and do more tests.

It is not impossible to land a large commercial aircraft especially if it is computer assisted.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

No they don't. They fly the simulator. There a are crews on board for every flight, and none are remotely flown.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

This is exactly what NASA and the FAA are looking into. It will happen.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Bad things will happen when computer systems try over ride human output..Management issues in the problem solving capabilities are nowhere mature enough for software systems to replace a well trained pilot.Pilot problems are humans making bad decisions due to improper training,poor decision making via fatigue,overwork or personal illness.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

Not computer systems. We are talking about remote human operators.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

My car's cruise control system has an "Automatic Avoidance" system that keeps me from rear-ending someone on the highway. Somewhat annoying because it starts braking my car if I cruise to within 5 car-lengths of the vehicle in front, but thankfully that distance-cushion is adjustable.

For this to work in a plane, should the Ground Avoidance System rely on Satellite feedback, or ground feedback for determining actual height? I'd hate to see what would happen if the system thought the ice crystals at the top of some thunderstorms was actually solid ground. False positives like this could result in the plane flying so high that it loses its lift.


edit on 3/31/2015 by carewemust because: spelling



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: TruthxIsxInxThexMist
How about the back of plane has a hatch and every passenger a parachute? If this scenario happens or any other scenario where the plane is going to crash, all passengers get to back of plane, open the hatch and jump. Yes I know the plane is travelling at speed and there is risk of getting sucked out but I'd rather take that risk then be hitting a mountain or the ground! Each passenger is taught how to use said parachute either before flight or before it takes off or even they have to take training up to a month before their flight (Free training). And they could actually do these indoors now with the gale force which comes from a speeding plane.


Far, far more drunk pax would open it up and jump and freeze/suffocate/strangle themselves on the cords.



All types of parachuting techniques are dangerous, but HALO/HAHO carry special risks. At high altitudes (greater than 22,000 feet [6,700 m]), the partial pressure of oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere is low. Oxygen is required for human respiration and lack of pressure can lead to hypoxia. Also, rapid ascent in the jump aircraft without all nitrogen flushed from the bloodstream can lead to decompression sickness (also known as caisson disease or "the bends").

A typical HALO exercise will require a pre-breathing period (30–45 minutes) prior to jump where the jumper breathes 100% oxygen in order to flush nitrogen from their bloodstream. Also, a HALO jumper will employ an oxygen bottle during the jump. Danger can come from medical conditions affecting the jumper. For example, cigarette smoking, alcohol and drug use (including histamine antagonists, sedatives, and analgesics), anemia, carbon monoxide, fatigue and anxiety can all lead to a jumper being more susceptible to hypoxia. In addition, problems with the oxygen bottle and during the changeover from the pre-breather to the oxygen bottle can result in the return of nitrogen to the jumper's bloodstream and, therefore, an increased likelihood of decompression sickness. Theoretically, a single breath of atmospheric air may elevate the jumper's arterial nitrogen level to dangerous levels. A jumper suffering from hypoxia may lose consciousness and therefore be unable to open his parachute. A jumper suffering from decompression sickness may die or become permanently disabled from nitrogen bubbles in the bloodstream, which causes inflammation of joints.



posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: aholic

Eventually there is talk of single pilot remote operations. But not for years.




top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join