A "Non-Hijackable" Plane?

www.citynews.ca...

Washington Post.Com Link

Reuters Link



Is it just me, or does this not show that the government appears to be behind this latest so called "terrorist attack".?? Who do you think would benefit money wise from these changes and by incorporating them? Big Brother is at it again.. this is getting ridiculous!!! Soon we will have a camera crew be following us and filming us 24 hours a day/7 days a week even when we are sleeping to make sure our dreams are not terrorist related.

The funniest part about this article was this:

"We have to show it's not Big Brother watching you, it's Big Brother looking after you," suggests research scientist James Ferryman.)

[edit on 11-8-2006 by DoNotBelieveThem]

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 14/8/2006 by Mirthful Me]

Where the hell have these people been?

The researchers are also investigating the possibility -- although they say it is probably some 15 years away -- of developing an on-board computer that could guide the plane automatically to the nearest airport, in the event of a hijack.

911review.com...

Here's an idea. Let's make passenger airplanes that can't fly. We take off the wings, make 'em a little smaller so they can taxi down the interstate like the other traffic.. Then they won't need centralized locations to take-off and land... wait a minute..
dangit! My camera crew just informed me that we already have those things and we call 'em busses. And they occasionally get hijacked...

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Where the hell have these people been?

The researchers are also investigating the possibility -- although they say it is probably some 15 years away -- of developing an on-board computer that could guide the plane automatically to the nearest airport, in the event of a hijack.

911review.com...

Nice post Skadi. One problem. The researchers are full of it. The US Navy has had a remote control system for landing aircraft since the late 1960's. Forget trying to have the aircraft land itself. Just have it landed by remote control from the ground. This can be done easily with off the shelf components. All that has to be done is to add some components.

The newest airliners are fly-by-wire. All that has to be done is to install a panic button in the cockpit. When the button is pressed the flight controls become inoperative from the cockpit. In the mean time the transponder is automatically changed to squawk a designated emergency code. This notifies ATC to clear the airspace around the aircraft. The auto pilot takes control of the aircraft and flies it to the nearest airport equipped with a ground control system. The aircraft is then landed by remote control from the ground. With the current system of carrying enough fuel to reach divert fields an aircraft over the US would have no problem in reaching an airport with a ground control system.

Most all of the technology listed are great ideas--with one exception: the technology that allows the aircraft to fly/land without human intervention; and, in fact, virtually elliminating the possibility for a human to take control once that technology engages.

The problem is the perception that if the human is "removed" from the control of the aircraft human error can be elliminated as a factor in accidents (human error is the largest causal factor in accidents). The flaw in this line of thinking is that the technology is designed by humans and therefore is susceptible to human error--only instead of the pilot being the factor; it's the engineer (and others) who designed and built the technology who are safely on the ground. My point is that there are too many variables in flight to completely and safely eliminate human involvement from inside the aircraft. I believe that technology emplyed on the ground is the best option for preventing future attacks from aircraft.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Nice post Skadi. One problem. The researchers are full of it. The US Navy has had a remote control system for landing aircraft since the late 1960's. Forget trying to have the aircraft land itself. Just have it landed by remote control from the ground. This can be done easily with off the shelf components. All that has to be done is to add some components.

www.globalsecurity.org...

The AN/SPN-46(V) Automatic Carrier Landing System (ACLS), also referred to as the Precision Approach and Landing System, provides the capability to simultaneously and automatically control two individual aircraft during the final approach and landing phase of aircraft carrier recovery operations. This automatic control capability enables aircraft pilots to make "hands-off" landings during instrument flight conditions. Although the AN/SPN-46(V) ACLS is designed primarily as an automatic landing system, it also provides manual control capabilities. The AN/SPN-46(V) is in Phase III (Production, Deployment, and Operational Support) of the Weapon System Acquisition Process.

The AN/SPN-46(V)1 ACLS, installed on all aircraft carriers, is currently being upgraded. The upgrades consist of system upgrades through the Navy's Product Improvement Program and installation of the Radar Doppler Video Processor. When these upgrades are completed, the AN/SPN-46(V)1 ACLS will be designated AN/SPN-46(V)3 ACLS.

The AN/SPN-46(V)1 ACLS is operated by Air Traffic Controllers, with Naval Enlisted Classification (NEC) 6902, assigned to the Carrier Air Traffic Control Center. Upgrades to the AN/SPN-46(V)1 ACLS will not cause any changes to current operator manpower.

ACLS has been an integral part of Navy flight ops at sea. I'm sure the ATS member Snafu 7700 could shed more light on this subject.

Um......does anyone have any idea on how much something like this would cost? Considering that the U.S. has roughly 87000 flights per day and 30000 of them being commercial flights it would cost billions upon billions of dollars to upgrade the systems.

This would be a huge and extremely expensive system to put into place. The government wouldnt be the ones footing the bill either. It would most likely be the Airlines who would have to pay for these upgrades....well at least some of them. Now since they can barely afford to even stay in the sky why would you think that they would be able to do all of these things? How comfortable do you think the public would be when your normal business trip to Tampa goes from $200 round trip to $600 overnight?

Originally posted by DoNotBelieveThem
A "Non-Hijackable" Plane?

A plane that blows itself up when it senses that there are terrorists aboard?

A kind of a pre-emptive strike, with the intention of making the terrorists give up, making them see how pointless the whole suicide bombing excercise is.

i.e. "And in the news tonight, the government successfully blew up another airliner in mid-air, there-by thwarting an attempted hijacking."

Kind of like Détente, during the cold war.


[edit on 15-8-2006 by In nothing we trust]

I personally would authorize the pilots under confirmed situations to pitch the plane wildly. Yes, everyone would de-stabilize, but that is the point.
And then charge them with Mutiny on top of everything else.

This was a tactic on the high seas when a plot unravelled to overthrow the captain.
There's some good tactics.


.:>]

[edit on 15-8-2006 by bothered]

Maybe a dumb idea but makes sense to me why dont they just have the cockpit completely sealed from the passengers with a seperate door on the outside being the only way in and out.

Wouldnt this make hijacking impossible unless superman decided to do it

Originally posted by build319
Um......does anyone have any idea on how much something like this would cost? Considering that the U.S. has roughly 87000 flights per day and 30000 of them being commercial flights it would cost billions upon billions of dollars to upgrade the systems.

Actually it wouldn't cost that much. The ground control units could be phased in with the updated Air Traffic Control system that is currently in the planning stages now. As for the aircraft themselves, it would be phased in to all new airliners during manufacture. This is just an upgrade to the current auto-pilot system allowing it to take inputs from outside the aircraft. Any aircraft currently in service with digital fly-by-wire systems could be upgraded. This would take a few years to phase in and I would start with the largest aircraft types first.

When you start looking at the insurance liability carried by the airlines and the history of lawsuits over hijackings, the insurance companies would be the first on board for this. The savings in liability premiums would help defray the costs of the equipment. When you consider that one liability claim can go into the tens of millions of dollars, the expense of this system becomes alot easier to take.

Eventually this would trickle down into the business and general aviation systems and actually make aviation safer.

[edit on 15-8-2006 by JIMC5499]

Throw every passenger in a Buddy Bag and be done with it already!

Maybe even a little training on what to do with someone in a fervor.
Like jump at their legs. You know,

Originally posted by Teknikal
Maybe a dumb idea but makes sense to me why dont they just have the cockpit completely sealed from the passengers with a seperate door on the outside being the only way in and out.

Wouldnt this make hijacking impossible unless superman decided to do it

No hijackers could still influence the pilots. What are you going to do if I start torturing or killing passengers until you do what I want. This takes it completely out of the flight crew's hands.

if we just hired terrorists to fly the planes they might not want to hijack their own planes.

JIMC5499

You make some very good points especially with insurance.

Then the next big obsticle with fly-by-wire would be the passengers themselves. It would take a huge effort to convince people to start flying in a plane that has a computer as your pilot.

Originally posted by JIMC5499

No hijackers could still influence the pilots. What are you going to do if I start torturing or killing passengers until you do what I want. This takes it completely out of the flight crew's hands.

I see your point but that would depend on the pilot and the instructions he's been trained to follow as well and even if he did follow demands it wont be a 911 scenerio no pilots gonna crash his plane and die because he's been told to.

As a second line of defence could always give him a button to flood the passenger compartment with sleeping gas or something but thats starting to make things to complicated for a simple solution and that didnt work out well for the russians in that school siege either maybe theres alternatives.

The only other thing I can think off is cutting the communication between the pilot and passenger section alltogether but that could cause problems in a medical emergency or similar.

Originally posted by build319
JIMC5499

You make some very good points especially with insurance.

Then the next big obsticle with fly-by-wire would be the passengers themselves. It would take a huge effort to convince people to start flying in a plane that has a computer as your pilot.

Fly-by-wire is in airliners now. I'm not talking about having the pilots replaced by computers. I am talking about a plane being landed by remote control in the event it is hijacked or something happens to the flight crew. This would be an extreme measure only.

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by Teknikal
Maybe a dumb idea but makes sense to me why dont they just have the cockpit completely sealed from the passengers with a seperate door on the outside being the only way in and out.

Wouldnt this make hijacking impossible unless superman decided to do it

No hijackers could still influence the pilots. What are you going to do if I start torturing or killing passengers until you do what I want. This takes it completely out of the flight crew's hands.

The only problem with this is everyone's senses are heightened during flight.
Ever try to get one more, when you've had one too many?