Protecting Cities from Hijacked Planes 971
Kong99 writes "A group at UC-Berkeley has proposed Soft Walls to stop hijacked planes from entering a protected airspace. Interesting read especially since they claim it is 'hack' proof."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Protecting Cities from Hijacked Planes
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"
Just a thought... (Score:2, Interesting)
2. Fly towards "softwall".
3. Kill power on plane (method not discussed in the interest of Homeland Security).
4. Can the "softwall" stop an unpowered (hence uncontrolled) plane (now a ballistic object)?
How about we just get the Gungan's to build us city shields? They were pretty...
Great idea until it hits reality. Here's why: (Score:3, Interesting)
And let's not get started on what being inside a "soft Wall" would do to properly values, and what being in the likely "Tried to hit the soft wall but ended up here" zone would do to the value of your property.
And who wants to be a whole slew of the wealthy will ante up to get their homes listed as being in a "Soft Wall"
And what about an out of date "Soft Wall" database that prevents a small plane from landing in a newly constructed airport?
And what about the manual override? There's ALWAYS a manual override. Just ask Riff.
Impractical (Score:5, Interesting)
Aside from the obvious risk of software problems (why is the plane trying to veer into that mountain?!) there's also the risk of unpredictable circumstances. What happens if some freaky weather condition needs we need to divert the flight path over a city to evade it etc.? Of course, the answer is to include an 'off' switch but then this defeats the whole point.
Also if it relies on GPS, would it not be possible to just jam the positioning signal from within the plane?
A clever(ish) idea but like a lot of ideas, just too impractical.
Re:Sounds dangerous to me (Score:3, Interesting)
So -- what's to stop people from using the excepted planes? Or planes originating in a country where installment of such a system isn't required?
Hack proof doesn't mean can't be *circumvented*
And anything larger than an atomic set of instructions is hackable.
Regards,
--
*Art
Re:I'm sure pilots will love this (Score:3, Interesting)
One was explosives around the rotor head that blew when you pulled the ejection handle, making the blades fly off before you blasted through the plane of the rotor disk. Not many folks really trusted the sequencing to work right when needed. I have heard of a syncronized system theory too, but I think the blades move too fast through the plane to give a seat time to clear the gap between them (unless you want to eject at MACH 69 and that does not do the body of the Aviator much good).
The other was a "through the floor" ejection. Great theory when you are not between 5' and 200' AGL. Unfortunately, tactical aircraft live between those altitudes a vast majority of the time, especially at the times they would be shot down.
Re:hack' proof (Score:3, Interesting)
Soft Donut? (Score:2, Interesting)
Both airports are embeded in protected airspace. This whole system seems very over simplistic.
Re:How close can they get? (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a really good point. As I recall, after 9/11, there was a big ruckus over re-opening Reagan National Airport in DC due to the flight path's proximity to important government buildings. Could one really put a softwall around these buildings and yet still allow planes to takeoff / land from this airport?
A much better idea, I think, would be to suppliment this 'soft wall' system with a system where a plane could be programmed, for each flight, with a 'soft tunnel' based on the flight plan the pilot files, to prevent the pilot from deviating from said plan. The FAA or agents on its behalf would be the only ones who could program the device on the plane for each flight (this would be enforced via some form of strong cryptography). Obviously (or hopefuly) these agents would not approve flight plans that ended in large structures
Airbus has plenty experience with this (Score:5, Interesting)
Ding ding ding! Thank you. One need look only as far as the Airbus A-320 that crashed at an airshow while doing a low fly-by; the computer prevented the pilot from increasing power to the engines, and the plane mowed a 200 foot wide swath through the forest and exploded in flames.
Several people were killed,and the pilot was scapegoated by Airbus; they claimed he was flying at 30 feet, not 70- that he had switched off the computer systems, etc. The flight recorder was removed by an AIRBUS EMPLOYEE from the crash scene(there's news footage of him carrying the box away!) and the box disappeared for a day or two. It was then mysteriously returned to the French police...and guess what? There was a large gap in the flight recorder's data, and it showed rather incriminating evidence(for the pilot.)
Re:Sounds dangerous to me (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:HOW ABOUT WE STOP TREATING THE MUSLIMS LIKE TRA (Score:2, Interesting)
i dunno that's the proper term (Score:2, Interesting)
they're taking advantage of impressionable, desperate people in a bleak situation. similar to the catholic cults in africa - but with greater resources.
total fuckwits - but they're not representative of 'muslims' in general.
French Air Show Incident (Score:1, Interesting)
Bottom line, the plane never should have been in that position in the first place. But once it was, taking the ultimate decision-making authority out of human hands and trusting the software too much was the final link in a series of errors leading to a "controlled flight into terrain". If planes must have systems like this, give me an exit door and a parachute. D. B. Cooper was just ahead of his time!
Re:Emp (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:hack' proof (Score:5, Interesting)
There was an incident a few years ago at DFW where one plane was on its takeoff roll when another crossed the runway in front of it. It wasn't a fly-by-wire plane, and the pilot of the taking-off plane yanked back the yoke and 'hopped' over the intruding plane. (Slightly more complicated than that, but that's basically what happened; he got enough air to get over the other plane before stalling and landing hard again; he didn't have enough speed to really get airborne.) An Airbus wouldn't have allowed the pilot to make that drastic a control change and would have plowed right into the other airliner no matter what the pilot did.
I heard about this incident from some insiders. I don't know if there's a reference on the web, but if someone else has a link, please provide it. IIRC correctly the intruding aircraft was a Delta plane and the taking off aircraft was a 737, but I'm not sure of that info.
Most crashes are due to pilot error, but I'm not quite ready to hand the controls over to a computer. I think it would be a disaster.
Re:Sounds dangerous to me (Score:3, Interesting)
Thankyou.
GPS can't be used as a primary navigation device because it's not accurate or reliable enough. GPS was designed for soldiers in the desert who can't map-read, not for landing planes with*. Galileo, when it's launched, will be accurate enough to land planes by (centimetre-accuracy), but it doesn't exist yet.
* If GPS fails, do you really want all of the planes in the area to crash simultaneously?
Even systems like ILS and MLS, which are nearly accurate enough to land with, need the pilot to land, because they're not actually accurate enough to entrust with a passenger plane. There's a reason the autopilot cut-off switch is so prominent (by the pilot's thumb on a helicopter; big red button in a plane), which is because the pilot is the failsafe. This is quite incompatible with a system which is acting against the instructions of the pilot.
As to the article's claim that navaids can be used as backup, this is quite simply dreamland. It really sticks out as the kind of statement made by someone who has no idea how such a system might be implemented, but wishes it were so. Even with good charts and a competant pilot, it's hard work to navigate by these things.
You can imagine the black box saying to the the city-detection unit, "well, we're somewhere between 060 and 070 degrees from cranfield, and about 3 miles plus or minus a bit from luton, and we've been flying north for 25 minutes since we last heard heathrow. I reckon we're... here!" (navaid computer points to a random spot on the map and sends aircraft in a climb away from an imaginary city...)
"It's just software, it should be easy". hilarious quote.
Hard versus soft limits (Score:3, Interesting)
With soft limits, the normal limits can be exceeded when the pilot assertively pushes beyond normal range of control inputs. This allows, for example, the temporarily "hopping" that you described, or to allow an emergency collision avoidance that would put excessive stresses on the airframe.
Hijacked planes aren't a danger any more (Score:2, Interesting)
Now things are different. We saw that with flight UA 93. Both crew and passengers will flight to the death and/or crash the plane to prevent anyone from taking control of a plane by force.
There are lots of other things to be worried about, but terrorists commandeering planes isn't one of them.
Forget 'soft' walls (Score:3, Interesting)
The airlines are sure to hate this idea. For them, it would mean they'd have to install sealed external doors just for the cockpit. Not to mention the extra crew support items - like a bathroom, separate provisions for meals, etc. That gets pretty damned expensive.
For us, it would mean that there would be no way to reach the cockpit. That means that there would be little reason to be searched for minor items like nail files and pocket knives. No more long waits at overcrowded and intrusive checkpoints. I mean, yeah, a terrorists could still kill people, or even everyone on board, but they'd have a hell of a time getting through a steel partition and flying the plane into a building.
Protection from Hijacked Planes (Score:2, Interesting)
If the US were serious about protecting planes from being hijacked, the pilots would be armed. Two shotguns in the cockpit and the option to carry a concealed weapon. End of story.
You've got to be a pilot... (Score:3, Interesting)
Tracy R Reed
PP-ASEL-IA and soon to be CP and CFI
An amazing way to die... (Score:3, Interesting)
There are times when temporarily approaching a stall is the best thing to do. See a lower post about "hopping" a plane crossing the wrong runway.
Also, because of Airbus' dedication to 'computer has final authority', one of their planes flew into a stand of trees at an airshow. The plane did a low pass, and then at the end of the pass, the pilot increased the throttle and nosed up. Being presumably an experienced pilot (showboating a new plane at an airshow wouldn't be trusted to new pilots I imagine), this would have worked. Unfortunately, this manuever would have put the plane too close to stall for the comptuter's tolerances, so it overided the 'pull up' until the airspeed was sufficient. The plane flew into the woods and crashed. I have it on video, email me if you want to see it.
The pilot couldn't stall the plane, true. He also couldn't even come close enough to save his own ass and a $40 million dollar plane from flying into the woods. The programmers can't think of everything that might happen in flight. Pilots can adapt instantanously to a new situation.
This also leads to an interesting cultural difference: in all Boeing planes (American), the pilot has final authority. The plane will do what it's told, and all thrust management, stall prevention, collision avoidance and autopilot systems are easy to overide or shut off. In fact, because of occasional problems (unforseen circumstances), Boeing reccomends that it's thrust management system be used sparingly.
On the other hand, in all new Airbus (Europe) planes, the computer has final authority over what the plane does, and can overide the pilot. Unfortunately, he's still held responsible for everything that happens, even if he can't control it.
So my thesis is thus: Boeing represents the American ideal of maximum individual freedom, while Airbus shows the European tendancy to defer to an 'authority' (the state, or in this case, the manufacturer) rather than be responsible for oneself, and others.
Newspapers in France, for example, can get away with basically saying 'The masses are too stupid to know what's good for them.' Such a thing would not go over well here in the US.
Well, that's my incoherent rambling for the day.
What are the first and last words of an Airbus pilot?
What's it doing now?
It's never done that before!
The problem was solved... (Score:1, Interesting)
Before 9/11 there was an unspoken understanding about hijackings of U.S aircraft: The hijackers would not hurt anyone, and the passengers and crew would cooperate and drop off the hijackers at their destination of choice. The 9/11 boys destroyed that understanding---now the prospective victins pop a few cans of whoop-ass and get busy.
It's when we expect someone else to do something about problems---when we start thinking things can be made safe for us---that we become victims and sheeple. We've gone two opposite directions since 9/11 (actually, it just accelerated an existing trend). On one hand some of us have been standing up when challenged, as in the hijacking record since then. We've also gone whole hog for handing the shreds of the Constitution to Bush and Ashcroft, if only they'll just make it all safe again. Jesus H. Particular Christ, people, pull your heads out and deal with reality. And maybe reclaim your national heritage, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Just go look up the Ben Franklin quote, and things the other Founders had to say then. They would NOT have agreed with the crap going on today.
The cure for 1984 is 1776,
Mal the Elder