Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
T prop wrote:Future airplanes should have two pilots, one in the airplane and the other at a ground control station..Steal the airplane or deviate? and sorry, ground pilot has the airplane. Earthquake wrecks the ground station? Ok, sky pilot has it.
MatthewDB wrote:T prop wrote:Future airplanes should have two pilots, one in the airplane and the other at a ground control station..Steal the airplane or deviate? and sorry, ground pilot has the airplane. Earthquake wrecks the ground station? Ok, sky pilot has it.
What an incredible gift to terrorists! They don't even have to die to use the airplane as a weapon. Just hijack the signal, and you're in control.
T prop wrote:MatthewDB wrote:T prop wrote:Future airplanes should have two pilots, one in the airplane and the other at a ground control station..Steal the airplane or deviate? and sorry, ground pilot has the airplane. Earthquake wrecks the ground station? Ok, sky pilot has it.
What an incredible gift to terrorists! They don't even have to die to use the airplane as a weapon. Just hijack the signal, and you're in control.
That easy huh..lol. they should hijack some Reapers then.
usxguy wrote:do we have any photos of the crash site? :/
T prop wrote:MatthewDB wrote:T prop wrote:Future airplanes should have two pilots, one in the airplane and the other at a ground control station..Steal the airplane or deviate? and sorry, ground pilot has the airplane. Earthquake wrecks the ground station? Ok, sky pilot has it.
What an incredible gift to terrorists! They don't even have to die to use the airplane as a weapon. Just hijack the signal, and you're in control.
That easy huh..lol. they should hijack some Reapers then.
RyanVHS wrote:Unless he was on the clock, how about limit people’s access to restricted areas when they’re off the clock? Have their passes only valid to those areas during their shifts.
PlanesNTrains wrote:usxguy wrote:do we have any photos of the crash site? :/
https://www.google.com/search?q=horizon ... 67&bih=468
MatthewDB wrote:T prop wrote:MatthewDB wrote:
What an incredible gift to terrorists! They don't even have to die to use the airplane as a weapon. Just hijack the signal, and you're in control.
That easy huh..lol. they should hijack some Reapers then.
It's already happened to a RQ-170 over Iran.
I would expect the technology and security that the US military à apply to a small number of drones is vastly more complex than what would be viable for the 23,000 aircraft in service worldwide.
Edit to add: The other factor is that when scaling the technology to vastly more aircraft worldwide, you exponentially expand the number of people around the world that you have to trust with the knowledge of how to hack it.
MatthewDB wrote:aviationaware wrote:jfklganyc wrote:
Sure...why not?
If a plane is not parked nose first at a gate, anybcommercial plane is stealable.
Pull the chocks, start the engines and go.
Much less likely - you can’t enter a larger plane, much less an A380, without stairs. A Q400 does not need external stairs to get in. With a larger plane, you either need an accomplice to drive the stairs away or you have to crash into them and hope they fall the right way/don’t damage the aircraft badly. Maybe a 737 COULD work, but anything with more ground clearance needs stairs to get in. Or a very tall ladder if you manage to get one there.
I know reverse thrust is not authorized as a powerback on any modern aircraft, but is it possible? Will full reverse thrust back an airplane? If it was possible, that could allow a single person to back away from a set of airstairs at the front door.
Another possibility would be a scissor lift catering truck, with a jury rigged remote lowering control to drop it down to the ground where one could pull forward and let it pass under the horizontal stabalizer.
neom wrote:CFM565A1 wrote:neom wrote:
Do you think there is a way to safely design a system like that? For example, if the plane was able to read the heart rate of the pilots and could allow the company to enable a two key system that could land the plane at an airport? I was thinking more in the context of something like Helios Airways Flight 522.
Thanks for the reply.
Good question... I would say no since there’s all this hacking nonsense these days. Not sure I would want someone in a remote position to have access to the plane. Closest thing is the new autodescent feature on planes like the A220 which detects a bad cabin altitude and starts a descent on its own.
The A220 feature is really neat, I did a bit of poking into how that works and it's very clever. I already have a day job and enough to think about (we design internet attached mass transit management systems for cities) + I don't care to hijack this thread (no pun), but it's a super super interesting problem and something that will no doubt bother me in my free time.
Thanks again for your thoughts and perspective. And for being so welcoming on this forum.
MatthewDB wrote:twinotter wrote:Any "code"would end up being the same as 99% of secure doors at every airport: 1234.
Bruce G. Blair claims that the first US nuclear bombs with security codes were all set to 00000000. https://web.archive.org/web/20120511191 ... -links.cfm
alasizon wrote:SIDA badges are not issued by the company so there is no way (and way too much hassle) to turn badges on and off. What happens if someone stays late, comes in early, etc.?
MatthewDB wrote:aviationaware wrote:jfklganyc wrote:
Sure...why not?
If a plane is not parked nose first at a gate, anybcommercial plane is stealable.
Pull the chocks, start the engines and go.
Much less likely - you can’t enter a larger plane, much less an A380, without stairs. A Q400 does not need external stairs to get in. With a larger plane, you either need an accomplice to drive the stairs away or you have to crash into them and hope they fall the right way/don’t damage the aircraft badly. Maybe a 737 COULD work, but anything with more ground clearance needs stairs to get in. Or a very tall ladder if you manage to get one there.
I know reverse thrust is not authorized as a powerback on any modern aircraft, but is it possible? Will full reverse thrust back an airplane? If it was possible, that could allow a single person to back away from a set of airstairs at the front door.
Another possibility would be a scissor lift catering truck, with a jury rigged remote lowering control to drop it down to the ground where one could pull forward and let it pass under the horizontal stabalizer.
CitizenJustin wrote:How much harder would it have been to take an Airbus or Boeing? Would that have even been possible?
rg828 wrote:How about putting some type of movable barrier around critical areas of an airport that can be controlled by the folks at the tower. You know, like those metal cylinders that shoot out from the ground in some garages.
If you had some of those at a runway threshold or in other critical locations a tower/ground controller could effectively block any aircraft from moving around causing havoc.
That could have prevented the guy from leaving the cargo apron or even denied him entry to the active runway.
Sounds simpler than codes etc...
Just a thought
cougar15 wrote:aviationaware wrote:jfklganyc wrote:
Sure...why not?
If a plane is not parked nose first at a gate, anybcommercial plane is stealable.
Pull the chocks, start the engines and go.
Much less likely - you can’t enter a larger plane, much less an A380, without stairs. A Q400 does not need external stairs to get in. With a larger plane, you either need an accomplice to drive the stairs away or you have to crash into them and hope they fall the right way/don’t damage the aircraft badly. Maybe a 737 COULD work, but anything with more ground clearance needs stairs to get in. Or a very tall ladder if you manage to get one there.
Utter rubbish, easy to get into through the gearwell & avionics bay on any widebody. There is a video on youtube of an LH A346 Pilot at JFK holding at the RW stopbars, telling ATC he needs to exit the aircraft to close an open latch. He did just that, thru the NLG well, closed the latch, climbed back on and 5 minutes later they took off.
off topic, but all this talk that this is a regional problem ´only´ is just crap, could happen with any AC type.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fs9HcdhUFI
neomax wrote:SIDA badges can and should be valid around the clock, what needs more scrutiny is who they can be given to in the first place.
GoSteelers wrote:If anyone wants to go rouge and turn onto the runway and take off they are going to do it and we in the tower can’t do anything about it other than tell the desk and the appropriate authorities. If the same American maintenance guy who for the last five years sounds the same and calls with the same request as he has every day, why wouldn’t we give him approval without thinking twice.
T prop wrote:A retired airline pilot said there's a saying among them: For any airplane - If you can start it you can fly it.
MatthewDB wrote:T prop wrote:MatthewDB wrote:What an incredible gift to terrorists! They don't even have to die to use the airplane as a weapon. Just hijack the signal, and you're in control.
That easy huh..lol. they should hijack some Reapers then.
It's already happened to a RQ-170 over Iran.
I would expect the technology and security that the US military can apply to a small number of drones is vastly more complex than what would be viable for the 23,000 aircraft in service worldwide.
Edit to add: The other factor is that when scaling the technology to vastly more aircraft worldwide, you exponentially expand the number of people around the world that you have to trust with the knowledge of how to hack it.
Revelation wrote:It's kind of silly that a.net members learn of one or two hacking events and decide that all attempts at security are futile.
Revelation wrote:GoSteelers wrote:If anyone wants to go rouge and turn onto the runway and take off they are going to do it and we in the tower can’t do anything about it other than tell the desk and the appropriate authorities. If the same American maintenance guy who for the last five years sounds the same and calls with the same request as he has every day, why wouldn’t we give him approval without thinking twice.
Wouldn't it be better if the aircraft software knew the operator was a mechanic only authorized for taxi and didn't allow him/her enough thrust to "go rogue"?
As above, I think we can do better than the current situation, but putting ATC in charge is problematic.
I think the airline can send the current security codes through secure networks directly to the aircraft so they can be updated regularly. The operators log in and the airplane grants appropriate privileges and no more
Yes, nothing is guaranteed to be hack proof, but what we have right now is nothing at all.T prop wrote:A retired airline pilot said there's a saying among them: For any airplane - If you can start it you can fly it.
Yep, currently all the authorization you need is to get yourself into the cockpit with enough knowledge to start the plane and it's off to the races.MatthewDB wrote:T prop wrote:That easy huh..lol. they should hijack some Reapers then.
It's already happened to a RQ-170 over Iran.
Even if that happened as Iran (ahem) claimed, what do you think the response would be?
A) "Yep, they really got us that time, but they're just lucky a-rabs and they'll never do anything like that again, so let's forget about it"
-- or --
B) "Let's take a good look at how this could happen, and harden the systems"I would expect the technology and security that the US military can apply to a small number of drones is vastly more complex than what would be viable for the 23,000 aircraft in service worldwide.
Edit to add: The other factor is that when scaling the technology to vastly more aircraft worldwide, you exponentially expand the number of people around the world that you have to trust with the knowledge of how to hack it.
It's 2018 not 2011 or 2001. Time marches on. It used to be easy to jail break an iPhone, then it got more difficult, and now it's next to impossible. The guy at the kiosk in the mall can't jail break your phone like he could a decade or so ago. Hacking will never be eliminated, but year by year the bar gets raised. It's kind of silly that aircraft don't have anything like basic authentication and authorization. It's kind of silly that a.net members learn of one or two hacking events and decide that all attempts at security are futile.
All it will take is someone whose psychotic break leads them to fly the plane into a stadium or a building instead of taking a joy ride and crashing into a forest, and all this will change.
Either that, or a few insurance companies saying "we won't insure your aircraft until you implement basic authentication and authorization functions".
32andBelow wrote:You don’t want the mechanic to have the ability to do a full power run up after like an engine change? Or to diagnose a power issue?
CFM565A1 wrote:Revelation wrote:It's kind of silly that a.net members learn of one or two hacking events and decide that all attempts at security are futile.
Kind of silly that a.net members learn of one or two aircraft stealing incidents and decide that we need to have some over the top security systems that could prove to be more trouble that good.
Revelation wrote:CFM565A1 wrote:Revelation wrote:It's kind of silly that a.net members learn of one or two hacking events and decide that all attempts at security are futile.
Kind of silly that a.net members learn of one or two aircraft stealing incidents and decide that we need to have some over the top security systems that could prove to be more trouble that good.
What you call "over the top" I call "similar security to that which is found on an iphone or macbook".
T prop wrote:MatthewDB wrote:T prop wrote:Future airplanes should have two pilots, one in the airplane and the other at a ground control station..Steal the airplane or deviate? and sorry, ground pilot has the airplane. Earthquake wrecks the ground station? Ok, sky pilot has it.
What an incredible gift to terrorists! They don't even have to die to use the airplane as a weapon. Just hijack the signal, and you're in control.
That easy huh..lol. they should hijack some Reapers then.
catiii wrote:T prop wrote:MatthewDB wrote:What an incredible gift to terrorists! They don't even have to die to use the airplane as a weapon. Just hijack the signal, and you're in control.
That easy huh..lol. they should hijack some Reapers then.
They have. The Iranians grabbed a Sentinel.
A Christian Science Monitor article relates an Iranian engineer's assertion that the drone was captured by jamming both satellite and land-originated control signals to the UAV, followed up by a GPS spoofing attack that fed the UAV false GPS data to make it land in Iran at what the drone thought was its home base in Afghanistan. Stephen Trimble from Flight Global assumes UAV guidance could be targeted by 1L222 Avtobaza radar jamming and deception system supplied to Iran by Russia.[17] In an interview for Nova, U.S. retired Lt. General David Deptula also said "There was a problem with the aircraft and it landed in an area it wasn't supposed to land".[18][19]
American aeronautical engineers dispute this, pointing out that as is the case with the MQ-1 Predator, the MQ-9 Reaper, and the Tomahawk, "GPS is not the primary navigation sensor for the RQ-170... The vehicle gets its flight path orders from an inertial navigation system".[20] Inertial navigation continues to be used on military aircraft despite the advent of GPS because GPS signal jamming and spoofing are relatively simple operations.[21]
CFM565A1 wrote:What you call security is what I call over reacting after one incident but hey I just work with planes
frmrCapCadet wrote:Mythic Pacific NW aviation figures: D B Cooper, The Bare Foot Bandit, and what will we call this? The three share a certain lack of malice, no collateral injuries or deaths. Criminal behavior, an odd resistance against the system (ineffective of course), but in all three an adventuresome story line which is lacking in most crimes.
Revelation wrote:
It should also be clear that some of the things being discussed here wouldn't use the same technologies as were used before 2011 and the industry awareness around hacking is not the same as it might have been in 2011.
catiii wrote:Revelation wrote:
It should also be clear that some of the things being discussed here wouldn't use the same technologies as were used before 2011 and the industry awareness around hacking is not the same as it might have been in 2011.
As evidenced by recent national events, the awareness around hacking and the response thereof is worse than it was in 2011.
aden23 wrote:Can someone explain why they didn’t shoot this plane down immediately?
It’s a confirmed hijacked plane, flown erratically by a suicidal man over innocent people. What exactly were they waiting for?
GalaxyFlyer wrote:As if a plane, once shot down, won’t crash into the very populace you presume to be protecting. Orders to fire are clearly defined and accountable. I do tend agree that, by shooting him down, it might be a disincentive for copycats, knowing doing so is a death sentence. But, do we need this disincentive?
GF
QuarkFly wrote:Hmmm, hope you cant "steal" a 777 or A380 just as easily as a Q400 !!
Hopefully just a bad show by the folks at AS and SeaTac...not an aviation-wide problem.
And what is it with pilot suicides?...Egyptair 767 over the Atlantic -- the Germanwings A320 in the Alps...just frickin jump off a bridge. Why take a plane, and worse, passengers with you !!
GalaxyFlyer wrote:freakyrat wrote:usxguy wrote:If its even remotely possible to say something positive about this, I bet BBD is anxious to get their hands on the data recorders so they can see exactly how much force the plane can handle - he did a lot of maneuvers you don't put those planes in.
I think some of the BBD test pilots have already done some of these with the Q400 during flight testing.
I rather doubt BBD flight test has done aerobatics in the Q and I know some of those guys—pros.
GF
estorilm wrote:aden23 wrote:Can someone explain why they didn’t shoot this plane down immediately?
It’s a confirmed hijacked plane, flown erratically by a suicidal man over innocent people. What exactly were they waiting for?
I haven't heard much of any mention of the F-15C's guided to intercept this guy from NORAD, but they were there in almost no time - and told to start a covert trail 2-3 miles behind him while most of the ATC you've heard was happening.
The "pilot" that was talking to him is one of the F-15 pilots actually.
Also - after they confirmed the crash, they were told to go "weapons secured" - so presumably on departure they were already cleared weapons hot based on their training / ROI for an intercept target.
One was busy communicating with NORAD, ATC, relays, and Rich, sounds like the other guy was just waiting to pull the trigger.
The entire time they relayed altitude, heading, etc, while listening to ATC trying to keep him away from populated land and busy airspace.
There was NO reason to blow this guy out of the sky.GalaxyFlyer wrote:As if a plane, once shot down, won’t crash into the very populace you presume to be protecting. Orders to fire are clearly defined and accountable. I do tend agree that, by shooting him down, it might be a disincentive for copycats, knowing doing so is a death sentence. But, do we need this disincentive?
GF
Nah, I think the speed at which those F-15s were on his tail and cleared for engagement is basically a nearly-equal deterrent. Of course the media isn't focusing on ANY positive side of this at all. They SLAM past incidents when high publicity targets weren't intercepted immediately, then totally ignore it when these guys had a lock in something like 13 minutes from the time ATC picked up the phone. (Which is SPECTACULAR and I'm really proud of those guys too!)QuarkFly wrote:Hmmm, hope you cant "steal" a 777 or A380 just as easily as a Q400 !!
Hopefully just a bad show by the folks at AS and SeaTac...not an aviation-wide problem.
And what is it with pilot suicides?...Egyptair 767 over the Atlantic -- the Germanwings A320 in the Alps...just frickin jump off a bridge. Why take a plane, and worse, passengers with you !!
Pretty ignorant post.
There are thousands of ops and procedures carried out at hundreds of airports around the country, via tens of thousands of employees that we trust our lives to on a daily basis. Most have the ability to do something like this, or worse - with pax involved. It's just not something worth thinking about, it is what it is. Pay sucks but most of the people I know feel their jobs are rewarding at the end of the day. Lord knows there's plenty of other (easier / less stressful) jobs out there that pay the same or better.
AS and SeaTac did nothing wrong - they made numerous calls to the aircraft prior to TO. Also it wasn't located at a gate, it was at a maint ramp where I'd imagine ground controllers don't take much notice to movements and there's no gate or ground staff watching where the thing was going - indeed someone said the aircraft was done for the day anyways.GalaxyFlyer wrote:freakyrat wrote:
I think some of the BBD test pilots have already done some of these with the Q400 during flight testing.
I rather doubt BBD flight test has done aerobatics in the Q and I know some of those guys—pros.
GF
Without being morbid, this popped into my head pretty quick.
Ironically, a friend of mine flies unlimited aerobatics (MX-S) AND flies the Q400 for a defense contractor (R&D / 'who knows' stuff inside) - interesting combo of experience in this situation. He saw the video and was a little surprised the wings didn't snap off on the bottom of that "loop".
I assume the Q400's FDR is advanced enough to record +/- G loading?
Also why do people keep saying he was a mechanic? I thought he was confirmed to be a customer service agent or whatever their official title is at Horizon?
Personally I think it's all really sad. I'm not going to squash the guy for "potentially risking hundreds of lives" or say that "we need to turn the entire staff-access / security protocol system upside down to prevent this" either. This whole thing is just a mess, but I see it as the golden BB that'll impact the industry every now and then. As long as it's run by humans, you can't cut this stuff out 100%. Even if you limit and/or monitor ramper / mech / staff access, the pilots can still do it. The only difference is that there tends to be a couple hundred people behind them when they do. I don't see unmanned commercial aviation in my future (or lifetime) so let's just focus on the human / mental factors at play here and try to help some of these people. He sounded like a good dude.
estorilm wrote:aden23 wrote:Can someone explain why they didn’t shoot this plane down immediately?
It’s a confirmed hijacked plane, flown erratically by a suicidal man over innocent people. What exactly were they waiting for?
I haven't heard much of any mention of the F-15C's guided to intercept this guy from NORAD, but they were there in almost no time - and told to start a covert trail 2-3 miles behind him while most of the ATC you've heard was happening.
The "pilot" that was talking to him is one of the F-15 pilots actually.
Also - after they confirmed the crash, they were told to go "weapons secured" - so presumably on departure they were already cleared weapons hot based on their training / ROI for an intercept target.
One was busy communicating with NORAD, ATC, relays, and Rich, sounds like the other guy was just waiting to pull the trigger.
The entire time they relayed altitude, heading, etc, while listening to ATC trying to keep him away from populated land and busy airspace.
There was NO reason to blow this guy out of the sky.GalaxyFlyer wrote:As if a plane, once shot down, won’t crash into the very populace you presume to be protecting. Orders to fire are clearly defined and accountable. I do tend agree that, by shooting him down, it might be a disincentive for copycats, knowing doing so is a death sentence. But, do we need this disincentive?
GF
Nah, I think the speed at which those F-15s were on his tail and cleared for engagement is basically a nearly-equal deterrent. Of course the media isn't focusing on ANY positive side of this at all. They SLAM past incidents when high publicity targets weren't intercepted immediately, then totally ignore it when these guys had a lock in something like 13 minutes from the time ATC picked up the phone. (Which is SPECTACULAR and I'm really proud of those guys too!)QuarkFly wrote:Hmmm, hope you cant "steal" a 777 or A380 just as easily as a Q400 !!
Hopefully just a bad show by the folks at AS and SeaTac...not an aviation-wide problem.
And what is it with pilot suicides?...Egyptair 767 over the Atlantic -- the Germanwings A320 in the Alps...just frickin jump off a bridge. Why take a plane, and worse, passengers with you !!
Pretty ignorant post.
There are thousands of ops and procedures carried out at hundreds of airports around the country, via tens of thousands of employees that we trust our lives to on a daily basis. Most have the ability to do something like this, or worse - with pax involved. It's just not something worth thinking about, it is what it is. Pay sucks but most of the people I know feel their jobs are rewarding at the end of the day. Lord knows there's plenty of other (easier / less stressful) jobs out there that pay the same or better.
AS and SeaTac did nothing wrong - they made numerous calls to the aircraft prior to TO. Also it wasn't located at a gate, it was at a maint ramp where I'd imagine ground controllers don't take much notice to movements and there's no gate or ground staff watching where the thing was going - indeed someone said the aircraft was done for the day anyways.GalaxyFlyer wrote:freakyrat wrote:
I think some of the BBD test pilots have already done some of these with the Q400 during flight testing.
I rather doubt BBD flight test has done aerobatics in the Q and I know some of those guys—pros.
GF
Without being morbid, this popped into my head pretty quick.
Ironically, a friend of mine flies unlimited aerobatics (MX-S) AND flies the Q400 for a defense contractor (R&D / 'who knows' stuff inside) - interesting combo of experience in this situation. He saw the video and was a little surprised the wings didn't snap off on the bottom of that "loop".
I assume the Q400's FDR is advanced enough to record +/- G loading?
Also why do people keep saying he was a mechanic? I thought he was confirmed to be a customer service agent or whatever their official title is at Horizon?
Personally I think it's all really sad. I'm not going to squash the guy for "potentially risking hundreds of lives" or say that "we need to turn the entire staff-access / security protocol system upside down to prevent this" either. This whole thing is just a mess, but I see it as the golden BB that'll impact the industry every now and then. As long as it's run by humans, you can't cut this stuff out 100%. Even if you limit and/or monitor ramper / mech / staff access, the pilots can still do it. The only difference is that there tends to be a couple hundred people behind them when they do. I don't see unmanned commercial aviation in my future (or lifetime) so let's just focus on the human / mental factors at play here and try to help some of these people. He sounded like a good dude.
aviationaware wrote:Are you sure that door is operable from the outside?
aviationaware wrote:cougar15 wrote:aviationaware wrote:
Much less likely - you can’t enter a larger plane, much less an A380, without stairs. A Q400 does not need external stairs to get in. With a larger plane, you either need an accomplice to drive the stairs away or you have to crash into them and hope they fall the right way/don’t damage the aircraft badly. Maybe a 737 COULD work, but anything with more ground clearance needs stairs to get in. Or a very tall ladder if you manage to get one there.
Utter rubbish, easy to get into through the gearwell & avionics bay on any widebody. There is a video on youtube of an LH A346 Pilot at JFK holding at the RW stopbars, telling ATC he needs to exit the aircraft to close an open latch. He did just that, thru the NLG well, closed the latch, climbed back on and 5 minutes later they took off.
off topic, but all this talk that this is a regional problem ´only´ is just crap, could happen with any AC type.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fs9HcdhUFI
Are you sure that door is operable from the outside?
but it certainly is on the Boeings and i wouldn't expect it any different on Airbus.Revelation wrote:CFM565A1 wrote:What you call security is what I call over reacting after one incident but hey I just work with planes
How many incidents does it take for someone who "works with planes" to decide a reaction is needed, like considering how far behind the state of the arit aircraft are with regard to security?
From my point of view, it seems like one possible (or even probable) hack of one military drone seven years ago has made many people over react to the threat of hacking.
Given I "work with computer security" maybe I should waive a flag or tell everyone how I have a large penis...
frmrCapCadet wrote:https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/sea-tac-officials-airlines-to-meet-monday-to-discuss-security-protocols-after-turboprop-heist/
A good and accurate summary of the flight and roles of the two fighter jets, and as well early discussions of airport security.
It goes without saying, except for certain a-nutters that this was a serious security breach.
Price said he believes airlines need to put more complexity into the process of starting up an aircraft, such as programming the systems to require a code or sequence to start.
Revelation wrote:frmrCapCadet wrote:https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/sea-tac-officials-airlines-to-meet-monday-to-discuss-security-protocols-after-turboprop-heist/
A good and accurate summary of the flight and roles of the two fighter jets, and as well early discussions of airport security.
It goes without saying, except for certain a-nutters that this was a serious security breach.
It was pretty good with regard to the security discussion. One set of quotes said:Price said he believes airlines need to put more complexity into the process of starting up an aircraft, such as programming the systems to require a code or sequence to start.
and others saying the outcome may be that there's no benefit to doing that, and another saying to not over-react to one incident.
It also mentioned the mental health aspect. I'm sure improvements could be made, but I wonder how effective or reliable such improvements would be.
