Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane  
User currently offlineBuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2899 posts, RR: 3
Posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 14469 times:

The Sunday Times is reporting that a consortium of Airbus BAe and the European Commission is carrying out tests with a plane that will be much more difficult to hijack. I can be flown on remote control and will automatically avoid flying into buildings. It also can monitor passenger conversations. Tests were carried out in Bristol and Hamburg.


The 4-year, 35.8 million euro ($45.7 million) project, called SAFEE or Security of Aircraft in the Future European Environment, was launched in February 2004. Among those taking part are aircraft maker Airbus, its parents EADS and BAE Systems, as well as Thales and Siemens AG (S). The European Commission is contributing 19.5 million euros ($25 million). Omer Laviv of Athena GS3, an Israeli company taking part in the project, said the system might be commercially available around 2010 to 2012.

SAFEE goes beyond the limited on-board improvements made since September 11 — like reinforced cockpit doors and the deployment of sky marshals.

Proposed enhancements include:

— A chip-based system to allocate matching tags to passengers and their luggage, ensuring both are on board and removing the need for stewards to count passengers manually.

— Cameras at check-in desks and at the entrance to the plane, in order to verify with biometric imaging that the person getting on board is the same as the one who checked in.

— An "electronic nose" to check passengers for traces of explosives at the final ground check before boarding.

— An Onboard Threat Detection System (OTDS) to process information from video and audio sensors throughout the cabin and detect any erratic passenger behavior.

— A Threat Assessment and Response Management System (TARMS) to assemble all information and propose an appropriate response to the pilot via a computer screen located at his side.

— A Data Protection System to secure all communications, including conversations between the cockpit and ground control.

— A secure cockpit door with a biometric system that recognizes authorized crew by their fingerprints, together with a camera to check they are not opening it under duress.

— An automatic collision avoidance system to correct the plane's course if it strays from a permitted trajectory.

[..]
In a September 11-style hijack scenario, for example, the TARMS system would detect that the plane was on course to plow into buildings and use biometric fingerprint sensors to check whether the pilot or an intruder was at the controls. "If there is a terrorist in control or the pilot is not aware of this [false] trajectory, the TARMS decides to avoid the obstacle so there is an automatic control of the plane," Gaultier said. The avoidance system would also kick in if the pilot, despite verifying his identity, persisted in the false course.

Given its complexity, the SAFEE project raises legal and ethical issues which are themselves a key part of the research. They include whether people will find it acceptable to be minutely observed by sensors throughout their flight, recording everything from their conversations to their toilet visits.

With help from sources including security agencies and behavioral psychologists, researchers are building a database of potentially suspicious traits for computers to detect.

[..]

The improved passenger surveillance, researchers say, will be an important advantage on larger planes such as the Airbus A380, capable of carrying 550 people.

They believe passengers will be ready to accept the trade-off of less privacy for the sake of greater safety. "We have to show it's not Big Brother watching you, it's Big Brother looking after you," Ferryman said.

Researchers say it is too early to judge the price of kitting out a plane with SAFEE, but they are working closely with a user group including airlines like Air France-KLM (AKH). The issue is part of a wider debate within the industry, with airlines calling on governments to underwrite security costs.

[..]

The researchers are also investigating the possibility — although they say it is probably some 15 years away — of developing an on-board computer that could guide the plane automatically to the nearest airport, in the event of a hijack.

"You never reach zero level of threat, no risk," said program coordinator Daniel Gaultier of French technology group SAGEM Defense Securite, a unit of Safran. "But if you equip planes with on-board electronics, it will make them very, very difficult to hijack."



Link (that doesn't seem to be working for now) :

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2350636,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207978,00.html

[Edited 2006-09-10 16:13:55]


I scratch my head, therefore I am.
62 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 14381 times:

Biometric scanners, fingerprint readers, ability to control airliners by remote, instruments to detect if the plane is being flown toward a target and override the pilot....?

This all costs more and more money to impliment. I doubt we will see most of this in commercial use anytime soon. Especially in the U.S., a simple strengthened cockpit door can buy enough time to divert in an emergency and armed pilots are the way to go.
Who decides what is a target and lets the computer take control. I've flown Instrument approaches that have taken me on a heading toward some tall buildings to end up turning toward the airport before hitting it. (obviously). Will my aircraft now not let me fly that approach?
What happens if the facility that is able to fly airliners by remote gets hijacked? Then every plane with this system installed is in trouble, not just one or two. Not to mention pilots will be protesting this as it takes away their ability to be the final authority as to flying the aircraft.
As a pilot i'm happy I only fly Cessna's for now because there have been times when extensive control inputs have been necessary. A computer probably wouldn't let me do a 50-60 degree bank in a C-152, even if it was necessary.

I'm betting, and hoping that stronger cockpit doors and armed pilots will be the future of air travel. I know I'll carry a gun if whomever I work for will allow me, I don't need someone on the ground unaware of the total situation to suddenly take over my aircraft.


User currently offlineUN_B732 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 4289 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 14260 times:

The trouble is explosives are a huge threat. There needs to be 100% scanning of explovies and cargo, and a fully blastproof cabin.


What now?
User currently offlineChristeljs From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 533 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 14232 times:

Quoting UN_B732 (Reply 2):
and a fully blastproof cabin.

Blastproof cabin--ok I can see that is a good idea, but what about the passengers? Why would we need a blastproof cabin when everything inside it would be non blastproof?
 Wink



Christel Sinsen Photography
User currently offlineWoosie From United States of America, joined May 2006, 115 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 14162 times:

Quoting Christeljs (Reply 3):
Quoting UN_B732 (Reply 2):
and a fully blastproof cabin.

Blastproof cabin--ok I can see that is a good idea, but what about the passengers? Why would we need a blastproof cabin when everything inside it would be non blastproof?

Unfortunately, there's a reason a typical house (or bank) safe is so heavy.

With the large volume of space in an airplane, "blastproof" is synonymous with "unobtainium".


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 14017 times:

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 1):
As a pilot i'm happy I only fly Cessna's for now because there have been times when extensive control inputs have been necessary. A computer probably wouldn't let me do a 50-60 degree bank in a C-152, even if it was necessary.

I was in the jumpseat when we did some 60 degree turns in an A319 over the North Sea.  Smile


User currently offlineRalgha From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 1614 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 13950 times:

One wrong byte in that computer program and instead of avoiding buildings, it aims at them. Nice. Oh, and you can't override it even if it freaks out, because computers know best. Anyone seen Terminator or Matrix?

"I'm sorry folks, there was a glitch in the electronics last night and it wiped the access circuits clean. The airplane won't let us into the flight deck, so the flight is cancelled. Also, those circuits are contained in the flight deck, which is protected by a bomb proof shell, so there is no way to reset it. You people are the lucky last group to sit on this aircraft before it goes to the scrap heap due to a locked door."



09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 13884 times:

Quoting Ralgha (Reply 6):
One wrong byte in that computer program and instead of avoiding buildings, it aims at them. Nice. Oh, and you can't override it even if it freaks out, because computers know best. Anyone seen Terminator or Matrix?

Don't be ridiculous.


User currently offlineThePRGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 13851 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 7):

Ditto, ridiculous statement
Some people are simply scared of computers


User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8380 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 13793 times:

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 1):
This all costs more and more money to impliment. I doubt we will see most of this in commercial use anytime soon. Especially in the U.S., a simple strengthened cockpit door can buy enough time to divert in an emergency and armed pilots are the way to go.

Please, pilots are not security agents. Let pilots be pilots. I mean, some of them can't even take off from the right runway, I wouldn't feel comfortable putting them in charge of terrorism prevention.

And this stuff is already in commercial use. The biometric scanners are already standard in virtually every major sports event, including right here in the US. Even airports already have surveilance systems in place, some of which use just this kind of biometric scanning and sniffing of explosive residue, so we're not exactly talking about ground breaking technology. Many airports already match bags to the passengers. It appears to me from the article that Airbus is just trying to bundle all the scattered security systems that we currently have into one bundled system that can be employed on a wide scale and thus make it a lot cheaper to support.

I suspect the public would be far more receptive to greater security than inflight movies. Besides, it's not like we have a choice about the security fees they add to our tickets anyway.


User currently offlineRalgha From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 1614 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 13722 times:

Quoting ThePRGuy (Reply 8):
Some people are simply scared of computers

Scared of computers? Me? I have a degree in computer engineering. I'm not scared of them, I simply know what they can do, and how easy it is to screw it up. All it takes is a == instead of a != in the code and you're screwed. Wouldn't be the first time such a simple mistake caused a catastrophic failure. Granted it's more than one byte though, maybe ten or so after it's translated into bytecode.

This type of system is useless if it can be overridden, however making it impossible to override places total faith in the computer and its programmer. In some applications, that is an acceptable risk. In this application, it is stupid.

[Edited 2006-09-10 19:27:10]

[Edited 2006-09-10 19:28:45]


09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8380 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 13635 times:

Quoting Ralgha (Reply 10):
This type of system is useless if it can be overridden, however making it impossible to override places total faith in the computer and its programmer. In some applications, that is an acceptable risk. In this application, it is stupid.

You're overreacting. The military already uses this in virtually every fighter jet. Not to fight highjackers but to keep a multi-milion dollar aircraft from crashing if the pilot loses control. Who said anything about not being able to overwride the system? The same way the airplane can be flown remotely the system can also be overridden remotely. I fail to see where a system like this can be useless and you sure must know that today's avionics have thousands and thousands of lines of code and somehow they manage to function just fine. I too have a Computer Science degree by the way and a Masters in Systems Security  Smile


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 13514 times:

Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Thread starter):
The Sunday Times is reporting that a consortium of Airbus BAe and the European Commission is carrying out tests with a plane that will be much more difficult to hijack.

First, I always think it's bad karma to put the phrase "-proof" on anything. "Resistant" is one thing, but "proof" is always asking for trouble.

I like the above wording more than I like the thread title...

Quoting Woosie (Reply 4):
Unfortunately, there's a reason a typical house (or bank) safe is so heavy.

With the large volume of space in an airplane, "blastproof" is synonymous with "unobtainium".

You don't need to add reinforcement and strength to a fuselage to help it survive a blast.

You really just need a means to relieve the blast pressure without compromising the overall structural integrity and flight control systems. Many pressurized containers have points that are intentionally made weak so that if the bottle is about to fail, that one point will pop first and relieve the pressure in a more controlled manner.

Quoting Ralgha (Reply 10):
This type of system is useless if it can be overridden, however making it impossible to override places total faith in the computer and its programmer.

Anymore than we place total faith in the mechanical and aeronautical engineers who design the airframe? Software isn't the only mission critical aspect of a commercial airliner...

Systems are built with redundancy. They are tested, and re-tested during design, development, and certification. They recieve on-going testing and observed during commercial opperation. Patches and upgrades are part of the evolutionary aspect of an airplane program.

This is no quantum leap in the "faith" we place in software.


User currently offlineWingspan From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 70 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 13374 times:

Think about something: a computer system's programming is based on known variables and algorithms to produce results desired by the programmer.

Known variables- That's great for assisting in this environment, but not for preventing anything. Why? Consider the following:

Scumbags are scum, but not stupid. The human mind has the ability to employ a vast array of thought, which is precisely why hackers have had such a field day dismantling the best laid security systems available on computer platforms in general. In this environment, complete reliance on a system of this nature with the enemies that would try to counter that system would be MORONIC. A system could certainly prove a useful tool, but just that- a tool.

Consider the stakes.  Wow!



Over the years, I've found that common sense is not that common.
User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 13323 times:

This all sounds great....until the pilot has to open this "smart door" to go take leak in the lav or let the F/A in to serve them drinks and meals.  Yeah sure

User currently offlineMBJ2000 From Germany, joined Dec 2005, 426 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 13242 times:

The more I think about the more I have the impression it doesn't make sense at all. Terrorists wouldn't have to hijack planes anymore but take control of the plane using the radio-interface, e.g. just break in one of the control towers and do the job from there...


Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending -- Bender Unit 22
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 13159 times:

Quoting Wingspan (Reply 13):
Scumbags are scum, but not stupid. The human mind has the ability to employ a vast array of thought, which is precisely why hackers have had such a field day dismantling the best laid security systems available on computer platforms in general.

When you say "hackers" keep in mind that an airplane is not your average Windows PC sitting on an unprotected DSL line.

The probability of an aircraft with a closed-loop software suite being "hacked" is exceedingly small. Even the new avionics on the A380 and 787 don't run in anything like the open-architecture systems used by the public. The software/hardware enviornment is very specialized, and I would suspect don't use the common programming languages.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 14):
This all sounds great....until the pilot has to open this "smart door" to go take leak in the lav or let the F/A in to serve them drinks and meals.

Consider the thousands of corperations who use IBM Thinkpad with an integrated biometric finger-print reader. That's a system running on Windows by the way!

Now, who would place millions of dollars worth of productivity and data behind a 128-bit encryption system if they were affraid that little chipset would lose the key?

Quoting MBJ2000 (Reply 15):
Terrorists wouldn't have to hijack planes anymore but take control of the plane using the radio-interface, e.g. just break in one of the control towers and do the job from there...

Now, I didn't read the entire article, but no where did I read that Airbus will test a system that gives ground controllers the ability to pilot the aircraft....

Quoting MBJ2000 (Reply 15):
The more I think about the more I have the impression it doesn't make sense at all.

To the contrary, some of these technologies are absolutely essential to lock-down our poor transportation security. Keep in mind this is only a test program, but these are things we really need:

— A chip-based system to allocate matching tags to passengers and their luggage, ensuring both are on board and removing the need for stewards to count passengers manually.

— Cameras at check-in desks and at the entrance to the plane, in order to verify with biometric imaging that the person getting on board is the same as the one who checked in.

— An "electronic nose" to check passengers for traces of explosives at the final ground check before boarding.


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 13147 times:

Quoting Ralgha (Reply 10):

Scared of computers? Me? I have a degree in computer engineering. I'm not scared of them, I simply know what they can do, and how easy it is to screw it up. All it takes is a == instead of a != in the code and you're screwed. Wouldn't be the first time such a simple mistake caused a catastrophic failure. Granted it's more than one byte though, maybe ten or so after it's translated into bytecode.

Then you do what these people do - write three seperate systems in three different languages and have them vote on it.

The solution to your 'problem' has been around for decades.


User currently offlineAdria From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 13121 times:

Quoting Ralgha (Reply 10):
Scared of computers? Me? I have a degree in computer engineering. I'm not scared of them, I simply know what they can do, and how easy it is to screw it up. All it takes is a == instead of a != in the code and you're screwed. Wouldn't be the first time such a simple mistake caused a catastrophic failure. Granted it's more than one byte though, maybe ten or so after it's translated into bytecode.

Since human factor is the main cause of most aircraft accidents (when did computer mailfunction bring down an airliner?) it is obvious that the future goes towards computers. Pilots are not reliable. I think that the F-117 (not sure about the number but it's the stealth one) can only fly with the assistance of the computers. So there is no rational reason why the compputers on an airplane are not good or dangerous.


User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 12958 times:

Sounds like a heavy airplane. CASM on it is gonna suck. Airlines won't want all of it, at minimum.


There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 12868 times:

Quoting Adria (Reply 18):
when did computer mailfunction bring down an airliner?

Computer-related issues have been responsible for a number of incidents. In terms of those that actually caused a "crash," Iberia Flight #1456 caused the write-off of an A320 and prompted Airbus to modify the flight control software.

In summary, the aircraft encountered windsheer on approach which led the flight crew to select a go-around. When TOGA thrust was applied, the crew pulled-up but the fluctuating strength of windsheer caused the alpha protection system to reduce the climb such that the aircraft struck the runway and skidded to a stop.


User currently offlineAdria From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 12544 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 20):
Computer-related issues have been responsible for a number of incidents. In terms of those that actually caused a "crash," Iberia Flight #1456 caused the write-off of an A320 and prompted Airbus to modify the flight control software.

In summary, the aircraft encountered windsheer on approach which led the flight crew to select a go-around. When TOGA thrust was applied, the crew pulled-up but the fluctuating strength of windsheer caused the alpha protection system to reduce the climb such that the aircraft struck the runway and skidded to a stop.

There have been some issues on the A320 at the begininng, but the chances that a computer makes a mistake compared to a human are about 0.

Air travel is much safer because of the computers (which are preventing human error) and since human error is the cause No.1 for accidents it is normal that the role of pilots will further be taken over by computers. Pilots get drunk while on duty, take-off from wrong runways, forget to set the flaps before take-off,...and the list goes on. I think that in about 15 to 20 years there will be only one person in the cockpit and her/his job will be to monitor the computer.


User currently offlineDeC From Greece, joined Aug 2005, 616 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 12224 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 20):
Computer-related issues have been responsible for a number of incidents. In terms of those that actually caused a "crash," Iberia Flight #1456 caused the write-off of an A320 and prompted Airbus to modify the flight control software.

In summary, the aircraft encountered windsheer on approach which led the flight crew to select a go-around. When TOGA thrust was applied, the crew pulled-up but the fluctuating strength of windsheer caused the alpha protection system to reduce the climb such that the aircraft struck the runway and skidded to a stop.

Scary stuff, unbelievable how nobody got hurt!

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20010207-0



DEC
User currently offlineGoodbye From Australia, joined Jan 2001, 913 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 12149 times:

Quoting Ralgha (Reply 10):
...and how easy it is to screw it up....

Yeah, just look at Microsoft  Wink


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 11986 times:

Quoting Adria (Reply 21):
There have been some issues on the A320 at the begininng,

That particular Iberia incident was in February 2001, hardly a teething issue...

Quoting Adria (Reply 21):
but the chances that a computer makes a mistake compared to a human are about 0.

1) Computers can remove a great deal of human error in opperation, but those systems are designed by humans who are also capable of making mistakes.

2) No matter what gets developed, hardware malfunctions or software corruption is still a possibility. They do happen in the real-world.

3) While aircraft are built with redundancy to prevent one malfunction from interrupting safe opperation of the aircraft, to insist that the ratio between human and computer errors will forever remain zero is false and reeks of bad karma, IMO.

Quoting Adria (Reply 21):
Air travel is much safer because of the computers

No argument here...

Quoting Adria (Reply 21):
and since human error is the cause No.1 for accidents it is normal that the role of pilots will further be taken over by computers

You can rarely pin the blame of an accident on simply flight crew error. I've never seen an accident report that simplistic.

Quoting Adria (Reply 21):
I think that in about 15 to 20 years there will be only one person in the cockpit and her/his job will be to monitor the computer.

Likely in time, but not the timetable you've specified.


25 BeechNut : Is this plane going to be, like, the "unsinkable' Titanic??? Beech
26 FlyDeltaJets87 : My point was not in whether or not the door would work. My point was that the door to the flight deck would be wide open for a short period of time.
27 Smokeyrosco : What so we'd have to go back to checking in at a checkin desk again and not be allowed to use online checkin? What if i put my chip in your hand lugg
28 Silentbob : Didn't George Carlin already suggest a solution to this in the 70's? Give every passenger a gun. (poof) no more hijackings.
29 KingAirMan : FLYING IS JUST NO FUN ANYMORE!! WHY CANT THING BE HOW THEY USED TO BE ?! The age of fascinating air travel is gone, now its such a modern, computer dr
30 Kaitak744 : Don't most aircraft have an access hatch from the main deck to the avionics bay below? A hijacker can simply get in there and disable the computers.
31 Post contains images FlyDeltaJets87 : I think this picture says it all.
32 Post contains images Futurecaptain : I agree that pilots should be allowed to concentrate on flying the aircraft, that is the number 1 rule...no matter what happens, fly the plane. But u
33 Gunsontheroof : Strange that this thread would pop up, I was just thinking about this kind of stuff last night. A lot of these ideas sound good, although I doubt we'l
34 Jcf5002 : That was hugely innapropriate. Please never make a comment like that again. -Jeff
35 WesternA318 : But oh SO funny
36 JumboBumbo : Is there any legal requirement that would prevent a plane from being constructed in which the cockpit, a lav and crew rest compartment were completely
37 Fumanchewd : Not surprising. In twenty years there will be no airline pilots but techinical monitors.
38 Aloha717200 : This is going too far, i dont want every wipe of my ass in the airplane lav to be recorded and broadcast to the entire cabin crew. i hope this shit ne
39 WesternA318 : LOL Aloha, I 100% agree
40 Post contains images Aloha717200 : OMG...I remember you! How've you been?
41 WesternA318 : Doing alright, just working my tail off...did you see Shadows site?
42 Aloha717200 : No..........where is it?
43 Post contains images Adria : Well statistics say it all... I'm not saying remove the pilots but computers are so much better than any pilot. And yes they are designed by humans a
44 Post contains images Alaskaqantas : but if this is suppose to stop terrorist then couldn't a terrorist just use a smaller plane? never heard that before I don't know what to think of th
45 Elite : Microphones will eavesdrop on passengers’ conversations while computerised CCTV detects suspicious movements so that hijackers can be caught before
46 Rolfen : Real security will only happen when you will be sure that passengers are not able to take any weapons or bombs on board. Trying to create security on
47 BuyantUkhaa : Hence my quotation marks. The Titanic was unsinkable too....
48 StealthZ : This has been brought up time and again and is such a horror story. If the software is written by humans, some other human can and will find a way to
49 Jasond : Well its great that we are going to get all this wonderful technology to make us all a little 'safer'. Somehow though its all rather reactive. Why don
50 Post contains links BoeingOnFinal : Well, we all know that previous Airbus projects with automatic landing system has been very successful: Airbus Video
51 Adria : This was (once again) human error, so check before making such posts...
52 Goaliemn : The problem is if the system is implemented, it won't have any override controls. Plus, if they do implement remote control in case of a hijacking, s
53 AirTran717 : Airbazar was highly out of line with that runway comment. That's just insensative. Have we heard a complete or official NTSB hearing on this yet? I do
54 Monteycarlos : Sadly, it is PEOPLE that have taken that away. Too many accidents and too many lives lost when the technology was there to prevent it. We're now in t
55 AndrewUber : SAFEE will never get anywhere with this. When offered appropriate technology, they turned their noses up at it to do it THEIR way. I for one do not se
56 NAV20 : As a matter of interest - have there been ANY hijacks since 9/11? I don't recall any? Can't help thinking that this is a massive over-reaction. In sea
57 YYZYYT : (and to all others who have commented after) I can see the CVR transcript now: "08:15:53 PNF: Open the landing gear doors, please. 08:16:10 PNF: Open
58 Monteycarlos : And with that attitude the 787 would never have been built, nor the A380, nor the 707 for that matter. In fact, the Wright brothers would never have
59 NAV20 : Not 'negativity', Montey, just logic. This latest venture is not designed to prevent hijacks. it is specifically designed to prevent 'hijacks-plus' -
60 Elite : Thanks to the terrorists, these things are necessairy now. The security on the ground is already 100 times tighter than pre-9/11, and all these things
61 Monteycarlos : But Nav, we always come back to this. Your logic is not greater society's logic. You cannot palm it off as being logical in your eyes when there is t
62 Floridaflyboy : Hijack-proof? Does the word Titanic come to anyone else's mind? Yeah, it's about the time you say it's hijack-proof that it will be hijacked.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Boeing Won't Imitate Airbus' "Symbolic" China FAL posted Tue Oct 31 2006 09:03:15 by Leelaw
The "Hijack-Proof Aircraft" Of The Future posted Wed Sep 20 2006 23:01:04 by Vio
"Nonhijackable Plane" posted Fri Aug 11 2006 13:35:16 by NWDC10
FI: Embattled Airbus A350 Rethink To Be "Dramatic" posted Mon May 8 2006 10:00:34 by Leelaw
Airbus A319/A320 "Rebooting" Article posted Mon Apr 24 2006 18:14:58 by Mustang304
Prior To Airbus SCE, Who "delivered" For Them? posted Fri Apr 7 2006 17:36:00 by N328KF
What Will Happen To The "Pink Plane"? posted Sun Feb 26 2006 20:18:18 by DL4EVR
Airbus "A350" The A340 Part 2 posted Mon Nov 28 2005 16:22:19 by Astuteman
Help On AMS "spy Plane" Flights posted Mon Nov 21 2005 14:17:34 by BuyantUkhaa
Airbus "A350" The A340? posted Wed Oct 26 2005 16:10:27 by Astuteman