User avatar
Buyantukhaa
Posts: 2289
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 5:33 am

Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:03 pm

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.
 
futurecaptain
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 1:54 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:25 pm

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.
AirSO. ASpaceO. ASOnline. ASO.com ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO.
 
UN_B732
Posts: 3529
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 12:57 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:02 am

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?
 
christeljs
Posts: 528
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:08 pm

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:10 am

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 A Photography
 
Woosie
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 3:47 pm

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:21 am

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".
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:17 am

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
 
Ralgha
Posts: 1589
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 1999 6:20 pm

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:35 am

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
 
Rj111
Posts: 3007
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:02 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:53 am

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.
 
ThePRGuy
Posts: 1833
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:07 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:58 am

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 7):

Ditto, ridiculous statement
Some people are simply scared of computers
Heathrow has been described as the only building site to have its own airport.
 
airbazar
Posts: 6876
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:09 am

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.
 
Ralgha
Posts: 1589
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 1999 6:20 pm

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:25 am

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
 
airbazar
Posts: 6876
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:50 am

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
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:28 am

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.
 
Wingspan
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 1:26 pm

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 4:28 am

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.
 
FlyDeltaJets87
Posts: 4479
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:51 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 4:44 am

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
"Let's Roll"- Todd Beamer, United Airlines Flight 93, Sept. 11, 2001
 
mbj2000
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:15 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 5:02 am

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
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 5:24 am

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.
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 5:29 am

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.
 
Adria
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 7:53 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 5:33 am

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.
 
Lemurs
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:08 am

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.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:12 am

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.
 
Adria
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 7:53 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:37 am

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.
 
DeC
Posts: 535
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:00 am

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 avatar
Goodbye
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2001 1:41 pm

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:07 am

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

Yeah, just look at Microsoft  Wink
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:22 am

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.
 
beechnut
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:27 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:40 am

Is this plane going to be, like, the "unsinkable' Titanic???

Beech
 
FlyDeltaJets87
Posts: 4479
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:51 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:44 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 16):
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?

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.
"Let's Roll"- Todd Beamer, United Airlines Flight 93, Sept. 11, 2001
 
smokeyrosco
Posts: 1441
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:21 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:53 am

Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Thread starter):
— 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.

What so we'd have to go back to checking in at a checkin desk again and not be allowed to use online checkin?

Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Thread starter):
— 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.

What if i put my chip in your hand luggage?
John Hancock
 
silentbob
Posts: 1539
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:26 pm

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:05 am

Didn't George Carlin already suggest a solution to this in the 70's? Give every passenger a gun. (poof) no more hijackings.
 
KingAirMan
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:33 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:04 am

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 driven daily activity for many. What happened to the skill in flying ? Long LIVE THE DC's ,72's, and all of those other birds who are sadly gone. .
 
kaitak744
Posts: 2086
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:25 am

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.
 
FlyDeltaJets87
Posts: 4479
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:51 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:30 am

Quoting KingAirMan (Reply 29):
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 driven daily activity for many. What happened to the skill in flying ? Long LIVE THE DC's ,72's, and all of those other birds who are sadly gone. .

I think this picture says it all.
"Let's Roll"- Todd Beamer, United Airlines Flight 93, Sept. 11, 2001
 
futurecaptain
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 1:54 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:33 pm

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 9):
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.

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 unfortunately the job of security has fallen in our lap now too. I fly out of the busiest airport in the state. It has a 6 foot chain link fence around it and several ways to enter by vehicle. All ways into the airport are equipped with key pads where a security code can be entered. Unfortunately the main entrances are kept open 24/7, there is no way to know who is on the grounds and what they might be doing. The airport has 1 security guard, he seems to be about 80, walks with a cane, and only works for about 6 hours in the middle of the night. The TSA has posted a memo here telling all of us to stop and question people without visible ID's and even unfamiliar delivery drivers and "suspicious" people. The job of security has been given to the pilot and we do our best.

Quoting Adria (Reply 18):
Pilots are not reliable.

As a pilot I have to comment on this. Huh????????

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 24):
You can rarely pin the blame of an accident on simply flight crew error.

Thankyou!  Smile
AirSO. ASpaceO. ASOnline. ASO.com ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO.
 
gunsontheroof
Posts: 3226
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:30 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:36 pm

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'll see full fledged recording of passenger conversations. What I'm wondering is why an interface can't be built between the plane, and say, the airline ops center that would allow people on the ground to take control of a plane that shows signs of being hijacked by tapping into the FMC and guiding the plane to the nearest available airport. Obviously, you'd have to figure out a way to prevent the hijackers from bringing the plane down another way once they lose control of the plane, but I think it'd be a start.
 
jcf5002
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 7:41 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:47 pm

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 9):
Please, pilots are not security agents. Let pilots be pilots. I mean, some of them can't even take off from the right runway...

That was hugely innapropriate. Please never make a comment like that again.

-Jeff
Its always a sunny day above the clouds || CSEL, CMEL, CFI, CFII, MEI
 
WesternA318
Posts: 4475
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:55 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:37 pm

Quoting Jcf5002 (Reply 34):
That was hugely innapropriate. Please never make a comment like that again.

But oh SO funny
Check out my blog at fl310travel.blogspot.com!
 
JumboBumbo
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 1:17 pm

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:48 pm

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 isolated from the cabin (i.e., had a separate entrance such as the one found on the belly of a B-52 or KC-135)?

With an ability to report all the performance data of an aircraft to the flight deck, there's really not much of a need anymore for pilots to go back into the cabin.

Just a thought... any of the major A/C manufacturers ever look into this?
 
fumanchewd
Posts: 2878
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 7:43 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:12 pm

Not surprising. In twenty years there will be no airline pilots but techinical monitors.
In the time of chimpanzees, I was a monkey...
 
User avatar
Aloha717200
Posts: 3739
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:50 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:27 pm

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 never comes to light.
 
WesternA318
Posts: 4475
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:55 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:28 pm

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 38):
i hope this shit never comes to light.

LOL Aloha, I 100% agree
Check out my blog at fl310travel.blogspot.com!
 
User avatar
Aloha717200
Posts: 3739
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:50 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:30 pm

Quoting WesternA318 (Reply 39):
LOL Aloha, I 100% agree

OMG...I remember you! How've you been? Big grin
 
WesternA318
Posts: 4475
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:55 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:38 pm

Doing alright, just working my tail off...did you see Shadows site?
Check out my blog at fl310travel.blogspot.com!
 
User avatar
Aloha717200
Posts: 3739
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:50 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:40 pm

No..........where is it?
 
Adria
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 7:53 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 5:52 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 24):
You can rarely pin the blame of an accident on simply flight crew error. I've never seen an accident report that simplistic.

Well statistics say it all...

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 24):
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.

I'm not saying remove the pilots but computers are so much better than any pilot. And yes they are designed by humans and should be monitored by humans. I mean one fine example is the AA 757 crash in Columbia where at the end the aircraft crashed into a mountain and one of the reasons was because the pilots forgot to retract the airbrakes. The A318 has now a system where the airbrakes retract automatically so if the 757 had that system then the chances of survival would be much greater.

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 32):
As a pilot I have to comment on this. Huh????????

Well if a passenger has to worry if the pilot takes-off from the wrong runway or if he is drunk or did he set the flaps (or the Chinese A340 that took-off from a taxiway)...and so on, then there is a problem. I'm just looking at it from the passengers point of view. I mean most of the people that are scared to fly are worried if something goes wrong with the aircraft, but I think that few are asking themselfs is the pilot maybe drunk? And if you look at the statistics you'll see what I mean...

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 37):
Not surprising. In twenty years there will be no airline pilots but techinical monitors.

 checkmark 
 
User avatar
alaskaqantas
Posts: 856
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 6:12 pm

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:06 pm

Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Thread starter):
The improved passenger surveillance, researchers say, will be an important advantage on larger planes such as the Airbus A380, capable of carrying 550 people.

but if this is suppose to stop terrorist then couldn't a terrorist just use a smaller plane?

Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Thread starter):
They believe passengers will be ready to accept the trade-off of less privacy for the sake of greater safety.

never heard that before  Wink

I don't know what to think of this... Its good that we are trying to do something, but then again. I won't bring up points that have already been talked about.
~Cheers-
~~Kyle H.

P.S. I am now 15, so i can sit in the emergency exit row legally!
P.S.S. September 11th.
to some people the sky is the limit, to aviation enthusiasts, its home!
 
Elite
Posts: 2296
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 6:31 pm

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:30 pm

Microphones will eavesdrop on passengers’ conversations while computerised CCTV detects suspicious movements so that hijackers can be caught before they go into action.

Hm, being monitered and listened to :/
 
rolfen
Posts: 1539
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:03 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:41 pm

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 the aircraft only benefits system builders.

IMHO this is how I would tackle this problem:

- Pilots are to be completely autonomous and isolated from the rest of the plane during the duration of the flight.

- Luggage is sent separately in cargo planes. Only the minimum necessary to sustain the flight (book, some food and water maybe) could be allowed on the plane, but only under tight scrutiny. This will require a dramatic change of configuration in theplanes to remove the cargo bay and maximise passenger space, but it is worth it in the long term!

-And of course encrypting and securing communication... I cannot believe it is not done yet, i mean come on... anyone can go on the aviation radio waves and communicate with aircrafts and disrupt traffic...
rolf
 
User avatar
Buyantukhaa
Posts: 2289
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 5:33 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:57 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 12):
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..

Hence my quotation marks. The Titanic was unsinkable too....
I scratch my head, therefore I am.
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:10 pm

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 33):
What I'm wondering is why an interface can't be built between the plane, and say, the airline ops center that would allow people on the ground to take control of a plane that shows signs of being hijacked by tapping into the FMC and guiding the plane to the nearest available airport.

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 defeat it.
Just imagine how we would be remembering this anniversary if instead of bringing down 4 aeroplanes and the WTC etc we were remembering an anniversary where some evil genius brought down ALL the aeroplanes!
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
jasond
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:23 am

RE: Airbus Tests "hijack-proof" Plane

Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:20 pm

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't we put as much effort into solving the issues that now require us to have all these measures implemented in the first place. I can't help think that as a species we are not making any progress here.