Why DIDN'T the military take over the hijacked planes remotely?

reply to post by timiathan

Think about it this way: 70ies hijackings were different. The hijackers usually didnt know how to fly the plane, so the crew was not to be killed to achieve their goals. So getting the control of the plane out of the hands of hijackers wasnt important, since it never was under the control of the hijackers. The crew was. And they could be protected by better doors. Would have worked actually on 911 as well if they were kept shut.

So if that remote controlling idea was ever a reality, common sense would dictate that it was trashed for being impractical and too expensive. With no real advantage over a simple thing as a door.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Again, very interesting, but hardly practical.

I have no idea if it is or not.
I just posted the links to show that they have/are working on that kinda thing.

Maybe, in the future, a NEW jet will be designed that needs no human hands (Lord help us if this ever happens!!!)

They're already being developed.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...






[edit on 11-8-2008 by jakyll]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Please, do....ULTIMA.

I'd especially like to learn more about remote controlling a BAC 1-11....an airplane that isn't in much service, today.

There's nothing new about remote control technology, as this 2001 article explains:

Landing by remote control doesn't quite fly with pilots

By Jeff Long
Chicago Tribune staff reporter
Published September 28, 2001

The military has been flying planes and landing them safely by remote control for years, but airline pilots say questions about security must be answered before that technology is used aboard commercial jetliners to thwart hijackers the way President Bush suggested Thursday during a speech in Chicago.

"We will look at all kinds of technologies to make sure that our airlines are safe," Bush said at O'Hare International Airport. "... including technology to enable controllers to take over distressed aircraft and land it by remote control."

Pilots said after the speech that though they support other proposals for airplane security that Bush outlined, the idea of aircraft being remotely controlled concerns them.

"If the good guys can take control of the plane" from the ground, said John Mazor, a spokesman for the Air Line Pilots Association, "maybe the bad guys can take control of it too."

Taking control of a hijacked aircraft from the ground appears to be less feasible than other measures, he said.

"We would view that as a very--very--long-term type of undertaking," Mazor said. "There are enormous technical difficulties in trying to rig up an aircraft for that."

But companies that have designed such systems for the military say it wouldn't be difficult to adapt the technology for commercial aircraft.

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. developed a remote-controlled reconnaissance plane for the Air Force called Predator, which flew in Bosnia during the conflict there. Used by the military since 1994, it can be landed by pilots linked by satellite using controls on the ground or ordering an onboard computer to do the job.

Tom Cassidy, president and CEO of the San Diego company, said he sent Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta a letter shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Such a system would not prevent a hijacker from causing mayhem on the aircraft or exploding a device and destroying the aircraft in flight," the letter said, "but it would prevent him from flying the aircraft into a building or populated areas."

Cassidy said Thursday that a pilot aboard a commercial airliner could turn the plane's guidance over to ground controllers at the press of a button, preventing a hijacker--or anyone else aboard--from flying the plane.

That system also would keep people on the ground from taking control of a plane away from the pilot, Cassidy said, because the pilot would first have to give up control.

Aircraft anywhere in the nation could be remotely controlled from just one or two locations using satellite links, Cassidy said. Those locations could be heavily fortified against terrorists.

"The technology is available," Cassidy said. "We use it every day."

martiallaw911.info...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Please, do....ULTIMA.

Which would like more evidence of?

1 Remote cotrol systems.

2. AUTOLAND.

reply to post by debunky

So if that remote controlling idea was ever a reality, common sense would dictate that it was trashed for being impractical and too expensive. With no real advantage over a simple thing as a door.

I'm sure saying it'll be too expensive will be used as an excuse not to do it,but when the US can spend over 2 billion dollars (according to the B-2 program office) on just one B-2 Spirit (and they have about 21 in use today) then its safe to say money isn't a problem.

Yes it is for a simple reason:
Unique properties of B2: Low radar return, therefore hard to intercept. And less likely to get shot down. So can pay off since you dont have to replace shot down planes and dead crew.

Unique properties of remote controling highjacked planes: none
Szenario: Group of highjackers wants to highjack a plane. They cant enter the cockpit because it will take them hours to get down the door. Plane lands savely, resulting in a hostage situation

Or: Group of highjackers forces entry into the cockpit but remote control takes over. Plane lands savely, resulting in a hostage situation.

Also, there are quite a few more commercial jetliners around. Plus: some of them belong to non american countries and still fly into and through the US. So while it would be hard to convince the AA & UA to get this 2 million per plane upgrade (just made that number up) it would be next to impossible to convince arilines of foreign countries to put in a "US takes over" switch.

Originally posted by debunky
Also, there are quite a few more commercial jetliners around.

Most other countries are way ahead of us in the creation and use of remote control sytems for hijacked aircraft.

A consortuim including BAE Systems, Airbus and the European commission have been working on these systems even before 9/11.

Other countries like Isreal has even been working on and installing a missile detection system for airliners.

[edit on 13-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by thedman
The Flight Management System aka Autopilot is designed to fly the aircraft
to a pre determined location without human control. It works by
having the crew input destination and plane after reaching altitude
will fly to that point. It is not a remote control device in that external
forces are in control of aircraft. Crew must disconnect it before landing
as can not land an aircraft.

Sort of makes you wonder if the Autopilot destination can be adjusted from the ground. And if it was used in 911, I guess it doesn't matter whether it can land it or not.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


ULTIMA, I'm already very, very familar with Autoland...it's called Category III (IIIA, IIIB and IIIC, all with slightly different landing weather minima restrictions....and slightly different procedures for the pilots).

I realize the military has been using remote control, or UAV technology for a long time, but I understand it to be mostly for surveillance purposes, in a battle situation, since the vehicles are smaller, and don't risk a human pilot's life in a battle zone.

What I am yet to be convinced of is any ability, whatsoever, of any R/C currently installed in a Boeing or an Airbus that is being flown in normal airline day-to-day operations.

ALSO, this technology could be easily circumvented...if it used normal Ship's power....simply turn off the generators. A determined terrorist, with any systems knowledge, would have prepared for that eventuality.

Hint....on 'Standby Power', after total electrical failure, the Captain's side instruments, including the FMS and navigation systems, will work for a minimum of 30 minutes....this is an Airworthiness requirement for big passenger jets.

I expect, if price were no object, I could conceive of a purely electronic 'retro-fit' to allow ground take-over, including it's own independant power supply, etc....but it would be a daunting engineering problem.

Except, I'm stuck on how they'd operated the Flaps/Slats and Landing gear. These are mechanical levers, ....well, the gear lever on some airplanes is just operating an electrical solenoid. AND with the greater advent of FBW technology, even the Flap/Slat problem could be addressed.

BUT, still a lot of engineering, and lots of expensive retro-fitting.

If you look at RNP of the 767 navigation system it's not accurate enough to hit the towers anyway. And this includes a newer aircraft with GPS.

reply to post by C0bzz


Hmmm.....the RNP, even with VOR/VOR and or VOR/DME updating, prior to GPS input.....well, depends on airspace. Thought, if memory serves, in Terminal Airspace, RNP should be 0.3 That's still about 1,000 to 2,000 feet, horizontally??

BUT, the RNP is describing the FMS Position info, right?

A Precision Approach will use the Ground-Based facilities, ILS....so the FMS is not in the picture, anymore.

Yes, there are GPS Approach Procedures, but they're 'Non-Precision', with higher minima....unless things have changed in the last two years.

Whatever happened to the MLS concept??

I feel, GPS has been a boon to accuracy....and may someday allow the Precision Approach...but the wheels at the FAA grind very, very slowly.

I've noted, before, that GA gets this new tech far, far sooner than Part 121 Operators.....

I had a side question, because of another ATS thread concerning Obama's re-painted airplane.....I know, this seems off-topic, but it's pilot talk....

Saw the vids of him and his family dis-embarking in Hawai'i....and was wondering what airplane he's chartering? I know it's operated by 'North American Airlines' (whoever THEY are)....but was it ETOPS qualified??? Or, does Part 135 allow a twin-jet to operate extended over-water? OR, is it Part 91???

Because....if it's a B757 (It's obviously a narrow-body) then it can be certified for ETOPS, if it has a RAT, and the pilots are qualified...and other details, there are more....I know Aloha Airlines actually flew B737s from the West Coast....not sure how THEY were ETOPS....but, alas, they're out of business now. (Must have been required to keep the APU running the entire time, or something....) Not familiar, much, with Airbuses.....

I know, we lost most of you, I hope C0bzz may help me with some answers.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
What I am yet to be convinced of is any ability, whatsoever, of any R/C currently installed in a Boeing or an Airbus that is being flown in normal airline day-to-day operations.

Well what i have and can show is that there are many companies working on installing remote control systems as we speak.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Thank you, ULTIMA. That would be very interesting to me.

IN FACT, if you could tell me the companies involved (feel free to use U2U) perhaps I could contact them, and offer my knowledge and expertise...for a salary, of course!!!!

reply to post by weedwhacker


There's some documents on RNP on the Boeing website for the Pegasus FMC... it doesn't come close to the width of the WTC.... 208 feet. Pegasus was the newer GPS one too. And look at the flight paths... what? 450 - 500 knots? 30 degree bank? Negative decent rate of 2000 fpm +? Folks, even if the navigation were accurate enough, there's no way autoflight could possibly pull that off.

Here is a table, from Boeing, representing the Required Navigation Performance (Nautical miles). A single nautical mile is 6076 feet, assuming you could hit any part of the towers which were 208 feet wide, 104 feet left or right from the fix, means you have to have a ANP (Actual Navigation Performance) of 0.017115 nautical miles or lower to even hit WTC. AND the FMS fitted to the planes in question didn't have the GPS updating Pegasus does.



Notice how as RNP gets halved, the precision goes down more and more dramatically as RNP goes down. Imagine a RNP of 0.017115 nautical miles to even get the fuselage to hit the WTC... both planes hit dead on.... impossible, unless you give the 767 pseudo autopilot & Nav accuracy.

www.boeing.com...

Could you imagine Airliners, in real life, banking steeply, less than a mile from the fix, so they can get within 104 feet of a waypoint? That's not the intent and purpose of an autopilot system.

[edit on 14/8/2008 by C0bzz]

reply to post by C0bzz


Very good, C0bzz....and, neither the UAL nor AAL B767s at that time had the GPS enhancements, anyway.

I had completely forgotten about 'Pegasus'....stuff flies out of your head, over the years. I remember the B737 fleet, although the FMC unit looks similar, uses a different program. Almost the same, just minor variations n the software, due to different vendors. AND, refinements to the operating system constantly being made, and uploaded by mechanics...we always got bulletins when the new software was going to be implemented, and to check on initialization t see what version we had installed.

AND, no....that has nothing to do with 'remote control'....

Point is, the terrorists were "yankin and bankin" to aim at their targets....

edit to add....an A/P only has authority to 35 degrees of bank. The soiftware differences I refer to, between the B737 and B757/767 fleets is....the B737 A/P can be more aggressive, less smooth....depending on how the ROUTE is programmed, and how you engage LNAV. Same with 'chasing' a Localizer. Pilots learn to 'finesse' the systems....or hand fly.

[edit on 8/14/0808 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Thank you, ULTIMA. That would be very interesting to me.

Here is a start.
A consortuim including BAE Systems, Airbus and the European commission.

abcnews.go.com...

Now a coalition of European aircraft makers, government agencies and universities is at work on a project that its members say could result in a hijack-proof plane. No system is perfect, the coalition members caution, but they say the first new technologies could appear on airliners as soon as 2008.

If hijackers got into a cockpit and ordered a pilot to crash the plane into a building, a hazard-avoidance system would override the controls and steer it back into the sky. Control of the plane might conceivably be taken over by a computer, which would automatically land the plane.

The European plan is called Security of Aircraft in the Future European Environment, or SAFEE. It is a four-year, $45 million project, drawing on ideas from engineers, pilots and airlines.

[edit on 14-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


ULTIMA....yes, I can likely see this as more plausible in an Airbus....since the A-320, when introduced, is the first true Fly-By-Wire commercial jetliner. Everything is FBW....no cables, no maintenance expense with keeping cables 'rigged'....The A-319, the A-330, A-340 and A-380, same concepts.

BUT....none of the airplanes used on 9/11 were Airbus products.

ALL of the airplanes I mentioned above are flown by a 'joystick'....in the case of the Captain, mounted on the left console, on the right, of course for the First Officer.

This is NOT what people who had a few hundred hours in conventional airplanes would be accustomed to. They were used to a typical 'control wheel'...such as Boeing still uses.

Interesting fact....the latest of Boeing creations is the B777. From what I've been told from friends who fly it, it's great....BUT only the throttles are 'FBW'

Flight controls, still cable-connected to actuators....which, of course, shunt hydraulic pressure to the appropriate controls.

Not sure what the B787 will be like....but Boeing tends to stay with what has worked, my guess.

Interesting story, some years ago....I was on the jumpseat, hitching a ride on an A-320. We were at cruise altitude....and I could feel an unusual vibration. NOW, I'm not trained on the airplane....I thought, well, maybe turbulence, but it was like no turbulence I'd ever felt before. Then, the two pilots (it was not MY airline, I was there as a guest) were saying things like "There it is again...and, I thought they fixed it"

Well....that got my attention....so I asked.

Basically, there was a continuing problem, had been 'written-up' frequently, then signed off by maintenance....as 'Could Not Duplicate on Ground'...the write-ups were about a 'chatter' in the elevators....something about a possible software problem, in this FBW airplane.

The two guys were unconcerned....I had not been trained on the system, so I didn't know what fail-safes it had....but it got my attention...the elevator is CRITICAL in an airplane.


Needless to say, I was glad to get on the ground, and out of that particular airplane.

I've been a regular passenger, on Airbus products since then....and pay close attention, though nothing I could, anyway....but, I think I have better confidence now, since their safety record is pretty solid.

Most Airbus crashes have been attributed to the pilots, not the systems...and, this happened over ten years ago, to me....

Just thought I'd share.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA....yes, I can likely see this as more plausible in an Airbus....since the A-320, when introduced, is the first true Fly-By-Wire commercial jetliner.

But the point that i have made is that several companies (including Boeing) have been working on remote control systems.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


ULTIMA< true statement, about Boeing....after all, they ARE a huge Gov't contractor.

It boils down to practicalilty....and that means dollars.

Airbus airplanes seem to be easier to 'retro-fit', if I understand the concept properly, than existing Boeings.

All I'm sayin'