Worrisome anti-terrorist idea

[billvon 2,396]

Bush gave a speech at O'Hare recently and called for increased security measures on aircraft. He said one thing that's a little worrisome:
>He did, however, call for developing one radical new technology: the ability for
> ground controllers to take control of an airliner and land it by remote control, if
> necessary.
I think it would be incredibly hard to essentially disconnect everything in the cockpit of a plane from all flight controls (even the circuit breakers and engine fire handles?) while preserving the capability of pilots to react to emergencies. I would think it even tougher to make the system immune to failure or deliberate sabotage. Imagine a single terrorist managing to crash _all_ the planes in the US instead of just one.
-bill von

[TheMarshMan1 0]

That is indeed a scary, and in my opinion, horrible idea. As a pilot, my job is to FLY the aircraft and ATC's job is to provide radar services. Mixing the two up is gonna be like trying to mix oil and water. And yes, I realize these wouldnt be your typical air traffic controllers, but its going to be extremely difficult for someone on the ground to determine whether or not such and such aircraft must be taken over. I don't want to have to worry about some "ground controller" intervening in the event of a hijacking. And I have a hunch that pilots will not take kindly to this. I would take firearms in the cockpit over this ANY DAY.
In fact, I dont see how this even will help airline security. If a terrorist wants to kill a bunch of people, he can still do it no matter WHO is flying the plane. I think that the reinforced doors are a good step, and more federal air marshals as well. If they want even more security, train pilots to use firearms, and provide one for emergency use in the cockpit.
"If I could be like that, I would give anything, just to live one day, in those shoes..."

[Sebazz1 2]

Or put a big trap door right in front of the cockpit that say's "do not cross this line at any time"SEBAZZ.......

[TheMarshMan1 0]

And another thing:
I will garuntee you that this idea was pitched by someone who's never flown a plane under any "difficult" circumstances. What kind of difficult circumstances, you might ask? Well, to list a few: Shitty weather (lightning), turbulence, nasty crosswinds, wet/snowy/icy runways- all things that, for the most part, a pilot would have to be in the aircraft to avoid/handle. And how are they going to get ALLLL of this information FROM the cockpit TO the place where the ground controller is? Probably some sort of satellite link? Oh great, yes that would be wonderful. One small interruption in the link going 150 knots down the ILS at a few hundred feet AGL and these people are gonna be toast anyways. The longer I think about it, the more I hate this idea. I'll spare you all my rants about Bush himself.
"If I could be like that, I would give anything, just to live one day, in those shoes..."

[quade 3]

Did we learn nothing from Wrath of Kahn?
quade
http://futurecam.com

[billvon 2,396]

>Did we learn nothing from Wrath of Kahn?
As I recall:
1. Never announce to everyone who can hear that you have just finished a great new device that could, completely incidentally, destroy whole planets.
2. If you're a bad guy, kill your opponent first, _then_ gloat.
3. If you have a cool transporter thing, tell them to beam you out _before_ the really bad stuff happens. For example, if they hear you screaming, that would be a good time.
4. If you walk into doors, they always open before you hit them. This is actually not a great thing to learn for circa-2002 people.
-bill von

[AndyMan 7]

Never mind the single biggest rule we leared from Star Trek:
Don't put all your high ranking officers in one shuttle craft.
_Am
ICQ: 5578907
MSN Messenger: andrewdmetcalfe at hotmail dot com
AIM: andrewdmetcalfe
Yahoo IM: ametcalf_1999

[billvon 2,396]

And, of course, if you're wearing a red shirt, do _not_ volunteer for the landing party.
-bill von

[Cornholio 0]

that is exactly what I was going to say. Those guys in RED die every time. It never hit me until years later when watching the re-runs.
__________________________________________
If first you don't succeed....skydiving is not for you.

[FallRate 0]

From the "War on Terror" thread...

Quote

I just finished developing a system that allows streaming video to be sent from an airliner to the ground for security purposes. It might be used to help prevent something like 9/11 again. That's my contribution to the war on terrorism. I think it is a more effective way to fight terrorism than shooting up some arabs.

Bill, I am curious as to how this information could be used. Specifically what you have envisioned its use to be.
If you feel this information is useful to those on the ground and you are not in favor of somehow controlling the plane from the ground, (which can be done), then how will this be helpful in preventing 9/11 type incidents?
Unfortunately I feel the need to point out that I did not say that I support this initiative, of controlling the aircraft from the ground. Just curious about Bill's thoughts on the subject.
(And for those who believe it to be impossible or at least incredibly difficult to land a plane by remote control, it has been done with wide-body aircraft. As for the consideration of weather conditions, it would certainly be secondary to the problems posed by a plane being controlled by "terrorists".)
FallRate

[skyhawk 2]

i dunno bout what the system is for but im assuming it would help with alot of things, 1. it might allow the milatary to see if is just a hijaking or a suicide threat and if the later if nesacery take action
Opinions are like a-holes everyone has one, the only one that does you any good is yours and all that comes out is shit

[quade 3]

Bill --
Yes, those are all good lessons, but the one I was specifically refering to was that if your ship can be remotely controlled, then it will be.
Kirk send the command codes to the ship that Kahn has commendeered telling it to drop it's shields. Kirk then blasts it.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[ernokaikkonen 0]

Yeah, suppose Khan had found out the access-codes for the Enterprise? We would have never seen Star Treks III-VI... If there is a possibility to remotely control a plane (or a starship...), there is always a way to abuse this possibility.

[SkydiveMonkey 0]

The beginning would have been "Our mission, to kill new worlds, to wipe out new civilisations, to boldy go where no-one wanted to go anyway !!"
Danger could be my middle name. But it's Paul.

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Did we learn nothing from Wrath of Kahn?

Yeah, and worse than that 'Maximum Overdrive'. What if all of the machines came alive! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAhhhhhhh!

[TheMarshMan1 0]

Quote

controlling the plane from the ground, (which can be done)

Can be done under extremely controlled conditions and with nobody on board the aircraft. Oh, and in the middle of the desert. I think they're gonna have a hard time making a remote control 767 and successfully flying them on a routine basis under every day conditions.
"If I could be like that, I would give anything, just to live one day, in those shoes..."

[pilotdave 0]

Although I agree that the idea is kind of dumb and wouldn't work the way described, it's not totally unrealistic either. Most airliners have autopilots capable of fully automated, hands off landings. All they need really is a panic button which the pilot (or maybe even someone on the ground) could hit which would automatically cause the autopilot to land the plane at the nearest properly sized airport. I don't think having a "take control away from the pilot permanently" button is such a good idea, but it could prevent 9/11 type hijackings. In the future, disconnecting the pilot from the equation after he hits the button will become easier and easier as more planes are developed with fly by wire controls. On a 777 for example, I'm sure the entire cockpit could simply be disconnected from the rest of the plane if they wanted. Computer flown airliners are coming. I think at this point flying and landing have become easy for computers.... it's taxiing and taking off that are harder for computers to do.
Dave
http://www.skydivingmovies.com

[TheMarshMan1 0]

In any case, I fail to see how a system like this would INCREASE airline security. In fact, this would just give people a false sense of security. The key to increased security is to not let the hijackers onto the aircraft in the first place. Once they get on, even with this system, they could still kill hundreds of people with ease.
"If I could be like that, I would give anything, just to live one day, in those shoes..."

[kmcguffee 0]

I don't necessarily think this is a bad idea. I'm sure there will be a lot of checks and balances to ensure that one person can't control every plane in the sky and crash it. If the pilot voluntarily hands control of the plane over to the tower, or some one else, then any terrorist on board will not be able to force him to do anything. They could probably still crash the plane but crashing it into a target would be extremely hard. I'm sure there are bad points but I believe you have to weigh the risks and rewards.

[quade 3]

Quote

I think they're gonna have a hard time making a remote control 767 and successfully flying them on a routine basis under every day conditions.

Maybe I'm just dense, but why would that be any more of an issue than the RPVs that are already flying like the RQ-1 Predator or NASA's Pathfinder?
It is entirely possible with current technology to have a plane fly itself with NO human interaction from gate to gate. I'm not saying that's what I'd like to have happen, but there's absolutely no technological reason it can't be done.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[TheMarshMan1 0]

Quote

It is entirely possible with current technology to have a plane fly itself with NO human interaction from gate to gate.

In an experimental situation? Yes. In the real world, I dont think so. And I still dont see how this increases security on any level whatsoever. I dont understand WHY this would be any better than having a human pilot fly it.
Oh, and the day that all aircraft can be controlled by someone on the ground, is the day I put all my certificates and ratings into an envelope and mail them back to the FAA with a letter telling them where to shove them.
"If I could be like that, I would give anything, just to live one day, in those shoes..."

[quade 3]

Hey, I don't like the idea either, but it certain could be done.
I don't think anyone is talking about all aircraft, but I do believe that the airline industry will attempt to push through some sort of automation.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[TheMarshMan1 0]

Its alright, its just the sheer rediculousness of this idea that bothers me. I have no goals of flying for the airlines anyways. Oh, and if that happens, Cat II and Cat III ILS's will be on the up and up all over the country. Cat I isn't precise enough for autoland... "If I could be like that, I would give anything, just to live one day, in those shoes..."

[billvon 2,396]

>If you feel this information is useful to those on the ground and you are not in
> favor of somehow controlling the plane from the ground, (which can be done),
> then how will this be helpful in preventing 9/11 type incidents?
1) video surveillance will allow a ground station to see what's going on in the cockpit, to better make shootdown decisions
2) a secure voice link to an air marshal on board will allow better coordination between ground and air actions
3) a secure transponder/telemetry channel will allow accurate tracking of the aircraft even if the ATC transponder is turned off, and will allow ground forces to decide if a rapid descent is being caused (for example) by a mechanical failure. As a side benefit, it will allow black box data to be recorded, as a backup in case the CVR/FDR is lost.
Note that there were only three aircraft used as weapons on 9/11, not four. A simple phone made the difference in the fourth case, because those on the plane knew enough to take action. That, to me, is the big issue - the ability for people on the ground to know what's going on in the plane and vice versa.
-bill von

[billvon 2,396]

>Maybe I'm just dense, but why would that be any more of an issue than the
> RPVs that are already flying like the RQ-1 Predator or NASA's Pathfinder?
Same reason that Arianes are a lot cheaper than shuttles. One is safe enough to carry people; one is not.
-bill von