Worrisome anti-terrorist idea

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

And I still dont see how this increases security on any level whatsoever.

Just one example that I can think of right now. Terrorists are beating on the cabin door to try and take over the plane. Pilots know they are going to get in soon. Pilot pushes button that allows a tower to take over the plane. Pilot cannot regain control of the plane from the tower and neither can the terrorists. The terrorists could still crash the plane but they would not be able to target that plane at large population centers very effectively.
If anyone says that we can get 100% security from terrorists getting aboard planes I really don't think that is achievable. Too many civil rights issues will interfere with that ever happening.

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

One is safe enough to carry people; one is not.

If you are in a hijacking situation I think that the level of 'safe enough' would change.

[TheMarshMan1 0]

Quote

Just one example that I can think of right now. Terrorists are beating on the cabin door to try and take over the plane. Pilots know they are going to get in soon. Pilot pushes button that allows a tower to take over the plane. Pilot cannot regain control of the plane from the tower and neither can the terrorists. The terrorists could still crash the plane but they would not be able to target that plane at large population centers very effectively.

What happened to new cockpit doors? I'm not one for putting firearms in the cockpit, but the scenario you just described would be a perfect reason to.
And that still DOES NOT INCREASE SECURITY. If the hijacker got on the damn plane in the first place, that is where the security problem is. The security of allll the pax is still compromised, and now the airplane is in the hands of someone completely out of the loop. Stupid stupid stupid idea if you ask me.
"If I could be like that, I would give anything, just to live one day, in those shoes..."

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

And that still DOES NOT INCREASE SECURITY.

Yeah, you are right. It doesn't increase security for the people in the aircraft, but it does increase security for the people on the ground. On 9/11 where were most of the casualties located? In the plane or on the ground?

[billvon 3,111]

>If you are in a hijacking situation I think that the level of 'safe enough' would
> change.
And I suspect if you were on a plane where the system removed control from the pilots 20 seconds before landing, and the plane hit a freeway instead, your definition of safe enough would change as well.
We have about 50 aircraft accidents a year in the US, killing on average about 100 people a year. We have, on average, less than one hijacking a year. If this system changed those numbers to 100 accidents and zero hijackings, you'd still kill a lot more people.
-bill von

[quade 4]

That's just a matter of time.
Corrent me if I'm wrong, but can't the B-777 be flown from takeoff to rollout just by the press of a few buttons? Sure, the Pilot has final say and can take over at any time, but the flight automation can do wonders.
Also, some folks on this forum think that the FAA would take over the controls during the hijack -- I don't think so, probably would be the dispatch center wouldn't it? I mean, they already are monitoring just about every facet as it is. Giving them a secondary control doesn't seem too far out of the realm of possibility.
Again, not that it's the way I'd like to see it done, but it certainly seems possible with current technology.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

We have about 50 aircraft accidents a year in the US, killing on average about 100 people a year. We have, on average, less than one hijacking a year. If this system changed those numbers to 100 accidents and zero hijackings, you'd still kill a lot more people.

I don't get your point. How would the aircraft accidents go up? If the plane can only be taken over during a hijacking scenario how would that cause accidents outside of that scenario?

[billvon 3,111]

>I don't get your point. How would the aircraft accidents go up?
Because you would have to change the design of everything in the cockpit. Right now, the design paradigm is that the pilot has ultimate authority. Aircraft who have messed with that (Airbus 340 for example) have a higher than normal accident rate, many of which have been traced to the pilot essentially "arguing" with the computer.
Anything you put in an aircraft can fail. Engines, radios, FMS's, radar, control systems - they have all failed at some time or another. To overcome this, pilots often have alternate means to control the aircraft (backup hydraulic systems going to only one yoke, manual landing gear pumps, even cables in the case of some jets.) You're talking about removing all that - removing anything that the pilot can use to control an aircraft when the computer is engaged, because now it must be the computer, not the pilot, who has ultimate authority. To do otherwise makes the exercise pointless.
Plus which, given that anything can fail, we have to keep in mind that the computer itself can fail. And since there must be no way for a hijacker to override it, that's pretty much all she wrote.
Any time you add something to an aircraft, from a new engine to a new tail design, you have to ask the question - do the benefits outweigh the risks? In this case, the benefits are that it will be much more difficult to hijack the plane. The risk is that the pilot is no longer able to override the aircraft's computer to (potentially) save the aircraft.
-bill von

[kmcguffee 0]

I understand your point but I think if the pilot is allowed to make the decision of when he cedes control of the plane to the computer then the situation must be dire enough to warrant it. In current fighter aircraft the computer does a tremendous amount of flying. The F-16 is actually so unstable that it will not fly straight and level without constant input from the computer. I don't see how the idea of remotely flying an aircraft is an extreme stretch. There are obstacles of course, but it is entirely feasible in my opinion. I guess we'll just have to wait and find out what happens.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I don't see how the idea of remotely flying an aircraft is an extreme stretch

Just a reminder.....an F-16 has an ejection seat and they tend to get used a lot. From my experience it's more from engine problems but I have seen a computer controlled fuel switch malfunction and cause a crash.
"It's all about the BOOBIES!"

[billvon 3,111]

>I understand your point but I think if the pilot is allowed to make the decision of
> when he cedes control of the plane to the computer then the situation must be
> dire enough to warrant it.
Problem is that you can't _let_ the pilot be in control of ceding control for this system to be effective. Imagine a terrorist takes a flight attendant at gunpoint, either has her gain entry to the cockpit or wait until the pilot comes out to pee, then points his gun at them and says "Hands up!" No opportunity to enter the "lock controls" code. For the system to be 100% effective it has to be able to be enabled from the ground.
>In current fighter aircraft the computer does a tremendous amount of flying. The F
>-16 is actually so unstable that it will not fly straight and level without constant
> input from the computer.
The A340 is very similar, although it is more stable to begin with - it is 100% computer controlled. Like I mentioned, the A340 has had problems even though the pilot is nominally never "locked out." And right now just the flight controls are computer controlled on the airbus - you'd also have to disconnect the engine controls, firecontrol systems, circuit breakers, pressurization systems, fuel management, electrical systems controls, etc.
In addition, keep in mind that the ability to pull 10G's momentarily and to have roll rates of 600 degees a second is not just a nice bonus in the F-16 - it can mean the difference between life and death in combat. Given that, if you have to trade off reliability for agility, it makes sense to rely more on the computer, even if you have to deal with a failure and subsequent ejection and loss of aircraft occasionally. Airlines don't have the same considerations.
-bill von

[skyhawk 2]

um 1 problem what if the terrorist takes control of the planes computer (i.e hacking) then they are unstopable and it would probably be a hell of alot easier to crash a plane into a specific place from the comfort of a room without having to worry about all the ppl on board
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 4]

Again . . . Wrath of Kahn.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[FallingILweenie 0]

Well, then, take out this Kahn character...and there you go!
"Marge, it takes 2 people to lie. One to lie and one to listen."
-Homer

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

what if..........

What if.........computers turn against us or............terrorists learn to travel through radio waves or......................Kahn comes down and wacks us all?
Sorry, all of the what iffing is getting to me.

[billvon 3,111]

>What if computers turn against us or............terrorists learn to travel
>through radio waves or..........
These are two of my biggest worries. A terrorist could take down our entire financial system with a few viruses. As 9/11 has shown us, terrorists are willing to go to great lengths to "learn the ropes." And with the advent of wireless everything, he could do it from a boat in the middle of the ocean, or even from his home country.
-bill von

[FallingILweenie 0]

>What if computers turn against us or...
"Pacemaker.....set....on...hummingbird..."
"Marge, it takes 2 people to lie. One to lie and one to listen."
-Homer