Lance wrote:As I understand it, the technology exists now to fly an airliner and even land it automatically. Adoption of such technology has been, and is being fought by pilot's unions out of fear it would make them obsolete at some point in the future.
Lance wrote:Well.... Yeah....
I didn't mean I thought making pilots obsolete was a good idea. Just that it is their fear.
IMHO, the technology should be on airliners as a backup or in case of emergency, but never to replace the pilots.
I think your original idea is a fantastic one.
Bill EE wrote:Would it not be a really good idea to put a radio control in ICBM - if one is lauched by accident or by a rouge launch team it could be order to drop into the ocean or detonate above the atmosphere?
The answer is NO! The reason is that someone will figure out how it works and turn it against you. The same reasoning goes for this proposal. The only way to make it effective would be to make it take over command from the ground whether or not the pilot want it to. You could never be sure that the crew would be able to activate the unit for the handover and there are cases you want to use the system if the plane strays and you lost communications (loss of pressure for example). Once you do that, then a terrorist could take over and cause all sorts of havoc.
Just my two cents - it not a technoloy issue, it is a security issue.
Bill EE wrote:Animal - I worked on the Tomahawk cruise missile and it has a redirection feature but no remote control. It can be ordered to redirect to another pre-programmed target. As I understand it, the Harpoon can but nudged - i.e. the target present position can be updated to a limited degree. In neither case can the missile be sent back to the firing unit and in the case of the Tomahawk, due to geo-fencing, can not be used to attack the US.
I don't know why there was an assumption of remote-control on this anyway. Certainly ground control would be one option, with the disadvantages cited already in this thread, but the original post was about the possibility of any kind of denial-of-control system. Remote ground control would be but one option.
Bill EE wrote:Airliners are suppose to have TAS (Terrain Avoidance System) installed so...
Lance wrote:Bill EE wrote:Airliners are suppose to have TAS (Terrain Avoidance System) installed so...
I think one of the funniest things I've ever heard, if there can be a funny side to accident investigation, was the term "controlled flight into terrain". I just had visions of two morons in a cockpit playing chicken with a mountain top.
Bill EE wrote:Airliners are suppose to have TAS (Terrain Avoidance System) installed so integrating that into the AP shouldn't be a problem. There are two basic system that I know about - the RADAR system that uses a forward looking RADAR altimeter to determine if the terrain is rising. The second uses GPS with a terrain map database.
I Am He wrote:I doubt very much that the hijacker's are going to succeed in their mission.
Do things like the American Airlines crash in Colombia (flight into a mountain on a plane with no mechanical failure) happen because they don't have these systems, because these systems were turned off or improperly programmed or overridden, or because these systems are not totally effective (I mean, no system is totally effective, but maybe some are close)?
Bill EE wrote:It could be the plane in Columbia only flew in South America and it is not required or the crew ignored it (that happens a lot - called, I believe, warning overload when someone gets use to the warning alarms and do not take them seriously).
Return to Science and Technology
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests