Yanksn4 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1392 posts, RR: 13 Posted (6 years 11 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1711 times:
just had a little discussion with a friend about auto land systems and terrorism. Does anyone know if there's a system being developed to where ground control could take the controls of the pilot and land the plane safely before a sept. 11 would be repeated? thanks.
N8076U From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 425 posts, RR: 10 Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1706 times:
If "ground control" could take over, then what's to stop the terrorists from doing so as well, without even having to get near the airport or the aircraft? Or instead of taking over a couple aircraft, take over the control center and crash 100 aircraft.
From a technical standpoint, this sort of remote control override would be more useful with something like, oh, let's say an A320 or any fly-by-wire type of aircraft where the pilot can be taken out of the loop. With something like a 747/757/767, the pilot can always override the autopilot with the controls, unless that was somehow modified as well.
Conspiracy theorists would say that capability is already there.
PolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3 Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1703 times:
You might as well fly the plane from the ground. Save some pilot salary
David L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9216 posts, RR: 42 Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1661 times:
Quoting N8076U (Reply 1): With something like a 747/757/767, the pilot can always override the autopilot with the controls, unless that was somehow modified as well.
I'd assume such a system would prevent anyone in the aircraft from regaining control otherwise it would be a bit of a waste of time.
But, as has been said many times before, there are too many problems with the concept and perhaps even the need... at the moment.
Avioniker From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1109 posts, RR: 11 Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1631 times:
There is a system in existence but as with any autoflight system there must be, and is, a provision allowing manual override by a pilot in the cockpit.
I don't believe the system is currently installed in any aircraft in passenger or revenue service.
One may educate the ignorance from the unknowing but stupid is forever. Boswell; ca: 1533
Redcordes From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 245 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1621 times:
Systems/programs that could initiate, from the ground or aircraft, an irreversible emergency landing at a nearby suitable airport are probably rather easily done with modern technology. Unfortunately, a would-be hijacker could preempt this system by threatening against its use in the first place.
"The only source of knowledge is experience." A. Einstein "Science w/o religion is lame. Religion w/o science is blind."
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, RR: 66 Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1602 times:
Quoting N8076U (Reply 1): If "ground control" could take over, then what's to stop the terrorists from doing so as well, without even having to get near the airport or the aircraft? Or instead of taking over a couple aircraft, take over the control center and crash 100 aircraft.
Well, we've all seen Die Hard II
Quoting N8076U (Reply 1):
From a technical standpoint, this sort of remote control override would be more useful with something like, oh, let's say an A320 or any fly-by-wire type of aircraft where the pilot can be taken out of the loop. With something like a 747/757/767, the pilot can always override the autopilot with the controls, unless that was somehow modified as well.
On a non-FBW aircraft, I assume you could install motors strong enough to override the pilots. And I don't think "more useful" is an appropriate word. Something like "more practical" maybe?
Quoting Avioniker (Reply 6): There is a system in existence but as with any autoflight system there must be, and is, a provision allowing manual override by a pilot in the cockpit.
That would make the system useless at preventing 9/11 style takeovers.
I think the money would be better spent elsewhere, for example in better security as opposed to the politically induced ineffectiveness in the US now. See here for an example (The Kuwait Airport section): http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2459. If most Americans could just get over their opposition to body searches (yes, they are VERY effective if done properly) and these were made mandatory, things might improve in my mind.
Here'�s the punchline of the article: How long did this take? Not much longer than it takes to read about it. How good was it? I've never felt safer in an airport, and this was technically a war zone. How expensive was it? Not very, and certainly cheaper than replacing the World Trade Center.
Would this have stopped the attack? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Would it stop many other incidents? Yes. Does it intrude on American privacy? Not much.
It is efficient, it is polite, it is secure. For those reasons, the FAA obviously won't embrace it.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Avioniker From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1109 posts, RR: 11 Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1592 times:
I have to agree totally with Starlionblue.
I went through FRA a couple of weeks ago, and because I was enroute to the US went through security searches three times. None of the searches delayed me more than 30 seconds and they were VERY thorough. Much more so than the 15 to 25 minute delays I experienced in ORD the same day.
It isn't so much the Americans' attitude about searches as the searchers' attitudes about having power over someone making the general public feel intimidated by a two digit IQ.
Just one man's opinion mind you...
One may educate the ignorance from the unknowing but stupid is forever. Boswell; ca: 1533
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1392 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9216 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
