Hijack Prevention

[Bill EE]

That is just plain scary.

[ktesibios]

That is just plain scary.

That people who are clearly just making @#$% up can put it over on enough other people that it becomes part of the conspiracist Gospel, indeed.

That they can fasten the guilt implied by their fantasies on whoever their chosen hate-object happens to be and still put it over, moreso.

It looks like I presumed wrongly that this @#$% would be commonly known among the non-conspiracist demographic. See what you miss by relying on GLP for a daily dose of lunacy?

I prefer to browse Indymedia sites to get my blood pressure up to going-to-work-in-the-morning levels. I particularly recommend the Portland IMC. It's spotty- days can go by without a really good bit of paranoid conspiracism turning up, but when it's bad, it's horrid. Apparently there are quite a few folk in Oregon who are happily carrying on the cultural tradition of the John Birch Society.

Returning to the original topic (apologies for the semi-hijack), are there any cases where it's imperative for the flight crew to leave the cockpit while in flight? If not, why not a system that provides the cockpit with a fortified door which is controlled by sensors on the landing gear, so that the door automatically locks when the plane leaves the runway and can't unlock until the plane's weight is once again on its wheels? (Of course, you'd have to provide the pilots with a way to pee and a coffee/water/soda dispenser.)

If it's impossible for a hijacker to gain access to the flight controls, even by coercing the crew, an absolute upper limit is set on the amount of destruction he can wreak which is the same as for an accident- the plane, crew and passengers could be lost, along with whatever and whomever it might happen to crash on, but the possibility of using the plane as a directed weapon would be foreclosed.

An old-style "take me to Cuba, or Beirut, or Gibipp" hijacking could be dealt with by landing at any airport demanded which is within the range of the plane. Once on the ground, the use of the plane as a weapon is impossible and the worst-case scenario is a hostage situation, which there are tested means of overcoming.

[Bill EE]

The [strike]cockpit[/strike] I mean flight deck is never to left by any members of the flight crew - now. In the old days it was not uncommon to see the pilot or co-pilot come out to [strike]hit on[/strike] greet the pretty young women in the cabin. But that is showing my age.

Now the door is to locked and remain locked during the flight. I suppose the flight crew would not like being "locked in" with an automatic lock and it raises safety questions in the event of a fire or hard landing (although I believe they can bust out a window in the flight deck and use an escape rope).

[ktesibios]

This is looking more and more like a problem with no solution that would be acceptable to everyone.

The trouble with security systems which are under the control of the flight crew is that they might be blackmailed into defeating them- it would take a granite will to stay behind a door they can unlock while passengers are murdered one by one on the other side, but if you take that decision out of the crew's hands, there will be objections- if not on the grounds of safety, because it deprives the captain of some measure of authority.

Besides the risk of unauthorized access, a remote control system of the sort we've been talking about would meet with the same objections. An airline pilot probably wouldn't be too happy to know that someone outside the plane can deprive him of control- and there would surely be safety issues involved as well.

If it be technically feasible, an irrevocable automatic go-to-and-land-at-the-nearest-designated-emergency-airport "panic button", triggered by the flight crew, might be the only solution that would be accepted.

[Animal]

None of you have yet explained why auto-controls is worse than what we have right now. My (and probably others) idea is:

An auto-pilot similar to what is planned for the next generation UAVs with a pre-programmed flight path which will land the aircraft at some predetermined airfield along its filed flightpath. This can only be enabled from the ground, and only when a set of conditions is met.

Worst case is that the system is cracked and a bad guy re-programs the flight controls. How is this different than a "sleeper" becoming a real airline pilot and crashing into something? In fact, how is it different than a pilot just getting real depressed and deciding to "make a statement"?

I'm not talking about any difficult AI here. Sure it'll be expensive. Like Bill said, the system will need to much finer resolution sensors. I don't think, though, that it'll be that expensive.

[Мастер]

Worst case is that the system is cracked and a bad guy re-programs the flight controls. How is this different than a "sleeper" becoming a real airline pilot and crashing into something? In fact, how is it different than a pilot just getting real depressed and deciding to "make a statement"?

It seems to me Air Botswana had four planes, and a pilot "made a statement" by crashing one of them into two of the others. He was the only casualty...

[Lance]

I watched "The Flight that Fought Back" last night, about UA93 that was put down in a field in Shanksville PA on September 11, 2001. It was a dramatic recreation of the events of that flight based on communications between passengers and the ground, cockpit voice recordings and other sources. Numerous surviving family members were involved with, as will as in the production.

One of the flight attendants, Sandra Bradshaw, was in contact with her husband Phil Bradshaw, a pilot for U.S. Airways. Once the decision had been made by the passengers that they were going to attempt to retake the aircraft, Phil Bradshaw told his wife that he "could tell her how to program the computer so the plane would land itself".

If that is true, and I have no reason to believe it isn't, then it seems at least that part of the technology is not only available, but trivial.

[Bill EE]

Any Boeing from the 747-400 onwards (757+) had the avionics to support automatic landing at airports equiped with MLS - basically any major international airport. The instructions are actually in that book "Worst Case Scenarios" - the "pilot" still has to get the plane to the area of the airport. Given the right instructions, it would be a simple matter for a passenger to program it into the AP. The problem, however, for purposes of this discussion is that the AP is easily overriden by the pilot. So for hijack prevent it is an incomplete solution.

[Animal]

The problem, however, for purposes of this discussion is that the AP is easily overriden by the pilot. So for hijack prevent it is an incomplete solution.

Bugger lips and other profanities! Ain't no such thing as a complete anti-hijack system in place right now, so every-bloody-thing can be considered either incomplete or non-existant.

Granted that everything in areospace costs about 10x what it does for other industries, but this should not be that exensive IF the documentary and you are correct in saying that an 'Auto Lander' system already exists. All that is needed is some re-programming and hooking the thing up to an encrypted radio. And don't tell me that encrypted radios are inherently expensive; they're trivial to make and are costly only because the manufactures are charging what the market will bear.

The scenerio as I've laid it out is very simple: Plane does something odd, pilot fails to give a proper response, ground sends the override code which tells the auto-pilot to head to some airport and the 'auto lander' is enabled. The ground people can not program the plane to some arbitrary place; the designated fields are pre-determined and the on-board computer simply picks the closest one.

Even if there wasa bad guy at ground control, he/she/it couldn't do a bloody thing other than have the plane make an unscheduled landing at a regual airport.

[Bill EE]

As I said Animal at the beginning of the thread - this is not a technology issue but a security one. If such a system was widely installed, a terrorist could attack by commanding all the plane at once to do it - for example. Could you imagine the problems when two hundred planes all turn towards the nearest security airport at once!

If is a tough problem - but not an issue of technology not being ready but an issue of figuring out what is the best method of doing it.

[Animal]

As I said Animal at the beginning of the thread - this is not a technology issue but a security one. If such a system was widely installed, a terrorist could attack by commanding all the plane at once to do it - for example. Could you imagine the problems when two hundred planes all turn towards the nearest security airport at once!

If is a tough problem - but not an issue of technology not being ready but an issue of figuring out what is the best method of doing it.

I am saying that security is not as large of an issue as you think.

[Bill EE]

Okay Animal - then I misunderstood you point! My apologies.

[Animal]

Okay Animal - then I misunderstood you point! My apologies.

Where's the fun in that?

[Bill EE]

Animal wrote:

Where's the fun in that?

I didn't say I agreed with you. I still think the idea of a ground based "abort and land" system to take over airliners from the fight crew is danergous or at least a severe security risk. I am just civilized :D .

[Animal]

Animal wrote:

Where's the fun in that?

I didn't say I agreed with you. I still think the idea of a ground based "abort and land" system to take over airliners from the fight crew is danergous or at least a severe security risk. I am just civilized :D .

The Romans were "civilized" also. What's your point?

How is the ground based Abort-and-Land (I like your term) anymore dangerous or open to mis-deeds than what we have right now? I have not proposed that the system I have in mind be used like an IP Broadcast message. The system would require that a human ground controller hit some magic keys which is no more dangerous than our current/proposed missle defense system.

Your argument about everything being tied together via a network and thus allow a nefarious person to destroy the world has been around since we built ICBMs. it didn't hold water than and it doesn't now.

(I hurried this 'cause I'm busy. There is a great big hole that I've left.)

[Мастер]

I have not proposed that the system I have in mind be used like an IP Broadcast message.

I would have to agree, that would not be a good way to do it :D

[Bill EE]

Well if of the technical manual for the abort-and-land system gets out in the wilds then someone will build a system to start "trying to test the security" of the system. I can see hundreds of planes out of the control of the flight crews suddenly turning towards the nearest properly equiped airport and trying to land. The ground controller will attempt to clear the airspace but too many of the planes will be on auto control and be expecting the airspace to be clear. The joy and confusion that will bring!

[Animal]

Well if of the technical manual for the abort-and-land system gets out in the wilds then someone will build a system to start "trying to test the security" of the system. I can see hundreds of planes out of the control of the flight crews suddenly turning towards the nearest properly equiped airport and trying to land. The ground controller will attempt to clear the airspace but too many of the planes will be on auto control and be expecting the airspace to be clear. The joy and confusion that will bring!

1) Don't make it public. We can keep automated missile system manual secret (sort of), so we should be able to do this.

2) The ground controller can override the override. Its an on/off thing. it would have to be, just in case there is a normal temporary communication failure.

[Frogmarch]

And don't forget this Abort and Land system would be a very good deterrent against terrorism, it doesn't actually have to work. %)

[Bill EE]

Animal wrote:

1) Don't make it public. We can keep automated missile system manual secret (sort of), so we should be able to do this.

2) The ground controller can override the override. Its an on/off thing. it would have to be, just in case there is a normal temporary communication failure.

And I again repeat myself, this isn't a technology issue but a security issue. If you can create a security system that prevent the necessary technological information form getting out the engineer can make it work.

Editted to add: But if the DOD doesn't feel it can do it from ICBM, I doubt it (sufficient security) can be done for airliners.

[Animal]

Bill EE,

Your argument is that the only reason this is a bad idea is that security would be weak and thus it has the potential of doing Bad Things.

Correct?

My argument is that this argument is not strong enough, nor is it a Show Stopper. The security aspect can be overcome by technology and sound thinking. Thus, the idea should be put into effect tomorrow at zero cost to the tax payer, flying public, or the airlines. :)

[Bill EE]

Animal wrote:

Your argument is that the only reason this is a bad idea is that security would be weak and thus it has the potential of doing Bad Things.

Correct?

Yep!

Then he wrote:

My argument is that this argument is not strong enough, nor is it a Show Stopper. The security aspect can be overcome by technology and sound thinking. Thus, the idea should be put into effect tomorrow at zero cost to the tax payer, flying public, or the airlines.

That will never happen - first the FCC, FAA, DOD, and whoever else knows about it will have a big power struggle over who gets to be in charge of this system. Each will have valid points on Powerpoint presentations that will be shown endlessly to Congressional staffers and committees. Then someone will step in and select a winner, not based on the merits presented but by a quick game of rock-paper-scissors. The winner will immediately get program office started and present a budget ot Congress for approval. The losers will put together their own program offices and start attacking the winner for spending too much, not spending enough, etc.

After all this a BAA (Broad Area Announcement) will be made for a Request for Proposals. Several large companies will put in very detailed proposals with basically the same cost and technical data. One or two small companies will put in very innovative designs with very competitive costing that will have better performance at lower costs than the big companies. The big companies will have the little company bids thrown out as non-responsive or un-realistic or they bid too low. After two years a big company will be selected (a US government contracting officier has never been fired for selecting a big company). The big company will spend all the money on endless meetings with various government agencies where they will ask questions not directly related to the project. They will blame the government for not answering those questions as the reason for the cost overruns. Finally the winning contractor will hire a small company to complete the technical work and then buy that company and ruin it.

Should take five to ten years. Soon after that, the bidding for the improved, follow-up system will begin.

[Animal]

You win.

[Bill EE]

Sorry - one too many trips to Washington I guess. Can you tell I was with the "small company?" Not that I am bitter or anything :D .

[Мастер]

not based on the merits presented but by a quick game of rock-paper-scissors.

If you are able to get reruns of the BBC series My Hero, watch for the episode Nemesis.