mytrip writes "The Pentagon's non-lethal weapons division is looking for technologies that could 'disable' aircraft, before they can take off from a runway — or block the planes from flying over a given city or stretch of land. The Directorate's program managers don't mention how engineers might pull off such a kill switch. But, however it's done, they'd like to have a similar system for boats, as well. They're looking for a device that can, from 100 meters away, 'safely stop or significantly impede the movement' of vessels up to 40 feet long, with 'minimal collateral damage.'"
Hey, they obviously left out cars and trains here. A way to disable all cars on all LA freeways might have same use. I don't know what, but I'm sure some hare-brain in government could figure out what that would be good for.
Hey, they obviously left out cars and trains here. A way to disable all cars on all LA freeways might have same use. I don't know what, but I'm sure some hare-brain in government could figure out what that would be good for.
We have that technology. It's called "Gas Prices", and it does an excellent job at disabling cars and trains. What's it good for? Elections.
You'll "safely stop" it from flying - you just wont be able to safely stop it from hitting the ground and crash landing.
All semantics... it's no longer in flight when it's bursting into pieces on the ground due to impact. The flight portion though, remains quite safe (if scary) right up until that point.
Here's an idea for you: broadcast the hijacker transponder code and jam the voice frequencies. After ground stations get no response, a twitch General will order the plane shot down. No sense trying to smuggle a bomb onboard when you can get the Pentagon to do it for you.
I'm sorry, but why does everyone think that a terrorist's only weapon is a jet? How hard do you think it is to make a bomb (hint: diesel fuel+ammonium nitrate found in fertilizer = half the explosive force of dynamite per mass)? Any pissed off retard can mix a truckload those two together and blow up any building. So why hasn't it happened?.
Oklahoma City Bombing, April 19th 1995 - shortly before 9am, Timothy McVeigh parked a van containing a 5,000lb bomb made mainly of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, nitromethane, and diesel fuel outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. At 9.02am the bomb detonated, killing 168.
Not to rain on your parade and you've certainly got your history right, but when something as scary as terrorism requires you to think back thirteen years to an event with 168 fatalities, this seems very damn ridiculous to me.
Just as a sad little comparison: On average, each and every 36-hour-period from 1994 through 2007 had more people die in traffic accidents [1] than this huge headline-making bomb. 9/11, OTOH, took almost four weeks to be offset by road fatalities (and caused four^Wseven years of all-out war against freedom (and the middle east)). Strange, eh?
You must be from the UK. That was the IRAs favourite bomb making mixture for a long time. Typically it was a transit van filled with oil drums containing a mixture of diesel and fertilizer (about half a dozen drums normally). I saw a video of such a truck going exploding once - I wouldn't like to be near that!
Some guys tried that at Glasgow Airport. It lead to a slightly scorched aluminium door fascia and a lot of jokes. One of the wannabe "terrorists" (hard to justify the word, quite honestly) died of his injuries (mostly burns, although they both had seven shades of shit kicked out of them by people nearby) at the scene, the other died in hospital a couple of weeks later. The airport was open again two hours after it happened.
Looks like they didn't do their homework, if they're trying to bring a religious war to Glasgow.
Not correct. The jeep they used was filled with propane canisters, petrol and nails. The Ammonium Nitrate acts as an oxidiser, and these guys didn't have it.
Propane canisters are designed to not explode. The Glasgow terrorists clearly thought that if they just lit a fire under one of them it would explode (playing too much GTA methinks). They didn't even attempt to make proper explosive with an oxidiser.
"Good old Glasgow. If I had to pick a city in the world where I could depend on one of the locals to kick a man who was on fire, it would always be Glasgow. That really had to hurt - 90% burns and sore bollocks.
I think we should get a photo of that guy KICKING A FLAMING MAN, blow it up and make it the welcome sign at Glasgow Airport. Underneath we should have the words 'Glasgow Welcomes Careful Drivers'..."
Go figure the govt using a sledgehammer to polish a window. IT pros are used to these situations, rather than explain the problem and ask experts to find a solution they tell you the solution that their pea sized short sided brains can conceive.
Why not get a group of engineers together and say, come up with a contingent plan for hijackings. This would open the door to creative solutions other than kill switches.
The solution to aircraft hijackings has be listed in post hijacking reports since the 1960s. Strengthen the flight deck walls and door and keep the door locked. If this had been done 9/11 could never have happened. After all, if the Israeli airline could do it why couldn't everyone else.
The solution to aircraft hijackings has be listed in post hijacking reports since the 1960s. Strengthen the flight deck walls and door and keep the door locked. If this had been done 9/11 could never have happened. After all, if the Israeli airline could do it why couldn't everyone else.
Au contraire! Before 9/11 the hijackers simply would have said "unlock the door or we'll start killing hostages," and they would have unlocked the door. The assumption at the time was that if you make the hijackers think you're giving in to their demands, they'll land the plane safely and let the hostages go, and then you can try to capture the hijackers. The American people now understand that some hijackers want to use planes as weapons and are willing to die for their cause. Consequently, the threat of killing hostages no longer carries any weight.
Locked door or not, after 9/11 it is no longer possible to hijack a plane and fly it into a building.
Using the 'noone can get to the cockpit' thought, have the cockpit be a separate unit entirely: an armoured capsule at the front of the plane. Having it only accessible via an external door, you limit hijacking to before takeoff, or by terrorists with jetpacks. No real risk of forced entry then, and you limit options in a hostage situation (they can't demand control, only negotiate destination).
Right, The Terrerist and a team of twenty Boeing engineers manage to pack the necessary equipment to steer a plane onto one (we're talking a few duffel bags here, those cockpits have a damn lot of buttons in 'em), then take control of the plane, then somehow get their equipment from the inaccessible storage part of the aircraft, then slash their way through to cabling that's not usually accessible in-flight (and takes hours to get to when grounded), then cuts those cables, reattaches them to their own system and finally get to actually pilot the plane.
Unfortunately, right after that, Chuck Norris roundhouse kicks a tricycle that Bruce Willis rode through Area 51 to save E.T. right up into the stratosphere where it smashes into an exploding asteroid seventeen times the size of the sun, thereby breaking said asteroid into twenty-two pieces. The single large piece proceeds to not hit earth and destroy civilization by four meters (it breaks off the antennas of both the Eiffel Tower and the Empire State Building), the smaller ones are deflected by some jedis with light sabres, only to hit The Terrerist and each one of the Evil Engineers right into the face, killing them. Also, explosions, a sex scene without the girl taking her bra off, a scene in a strip bar and more explosions.
Suppose the terrorist was either a master lock pick or had some inside information about how to open the door. BAM! Pilot is dead, and now nobody can get into the cockpit.
No, while the terrorist is busy picking or otherwise trying to open the lock, one or more of the passengers will be bludgeoning him to death. Look what happened to Richard Reid. All he had to do was light a match and put it to his shoe bomb. As soon as someone saw the match go up, they knocked his ass down.
As someone else pointed out, what gave the 9/11 hijackers an advantage was that SOP was to give in to hijacker demands and everyone would be okay. The authorities could try to catch them later. Now, if anyone tries a hijacking, everyone will try to kill them. The passengers will figure they have nothing to lose since, if they don't try to kill the hijackers, they will all die anyway.
what makes you so sure that it is NO longer possible?
You live in a post-9/11 world. You're on a plane. Somebody gets up, pulls out a box cutter and starts threatening passengers in an attempt to get the cockpit open. Do you:
1. Open the cockpit and let him fly the plane into a building, or
2. Jump the motherfucker along with half the other passengers on the plane?
That's why he and I are so sure that it won't happen again. Like he said, policy used to be "do whatever they say" because the assumption was they just wanted to get someplace and run off. The assumption now is "they're going to fly this plane into a building," whether that's right or wrong. I don't know about you, but I assume my chances of survival to be pretty low if my plane is flown into a building, so I'm going to jump the fucks even if I do risk being spliced up potentially to the point of death. Death sucks pretty much either way for me, but I like my own odds better trying to do something to stop it and I acknowledge that if I'm a goner either way the best case is for there to be as few other deaths as manageable.
For that matter, terrorists are not stupid. 9/11 was a pretty brilliant plot: they identified weak points in a part of our country, including policy for how to react to what they were about to do and the fact that we were basically not looking; they exploited these weak points, poor policy decisions and general naiveté of the populace; and they did so in a way that made people literally terrified to use something that days before had been ingrained in our culture. They won't that round big time.
Do you really believe round two is going to be done in the same manner? In a place we've fortified, changed our policies about and are watching to the point of unhealthy obsession? They're going to look for the NEXT target where they can exploit their way to success--and I'm sure there are many of them. If I had to pick a place I felt the MOST safe from a terrorist attack post 9/11, it would be on an airplane. Hell, I'd be more afraid in the lines at the security checkpoints. If I were a terrorist, I'd detonate my bomb there.
It's not an impossibility, no; few things are when dealing with predicting human behaviors. But it's almost certainly low enough risk now that we don't need to be focusing all our energy there--and should never have been to begin with.
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday June 11 2008, @11:08PM (#23759125)
Amen! Mark Twain said 'When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail'. The stupid thing is they announce these hare-brained schemes without even realizing how dumb they sound. Our intellectual superiors should be tackling terrism at the roots, where future terrists are born, bred and indoctrinated. Instead these high-tech sort of solutions will cost $$$ and not give results. As Bruce says, all the terrists have to do is when planes get too hard blo up a shopping center or train which aren't well defended. They're assuming the terrists will use the exact same attack vector as they did last time.
And hey NSA: Why are you wasting time logging and reading my message? Why aren't you looking in the caves of North Pakistan for you-know-who? You guys get heaps of cash. Please spend it sensibly.
There was also the interesting case Project X-Ray [wikipedia.org], a plan that involved tiny timed incendiary devices attached to bats to be released over Japanese cities. The bats would be released at night from special "bat bombs," basically parachuting terraces loaded with bats, and would later roost in Japanese buildings, which were generally quite flammable. The development and use of the atomic bomb negated the need for the project, but an accidental release of armed bats burned many buildings near the development center in a botched test. A later test on a mock Japanese city showed promising results. The key was that the bats would be able to roost unnoticed and that widespread fires would become established before a response could be mounted, and that it required only a few planes to achieve a large area of effect.
exhaust pipes! And what will plug and exhaust pipe non-lethally? Potatoes! ergo we need to genetically engineer jet-engine size potatoes and precision potato canons.
If they have something that can disable a plane, how do the prevent malicious usage? And then how can you prevent that kill switch from being disabled?
Boats aren't that complex, especially if you have a diesel engine, where electricity is not required. Airplanes could be made without that special "feature".
What the hell are they going to do with it? Once they are installed and there is no longer any use in trying to use a plane for terrorist activities and the terrorist turn to the much easier alternative that they already have... uhhh who the fuck is going to pay for the kill switches? This OCD focus on air transport for anti-terrorism is a ploy as there is no reason to believe that there are MORE terrorists who WANT to use planes.
It's all a ruse to continue the 'war on terror' and the multibillion dollar boondoggle of the American populace. $4/gallon is nothing once we start paying for all these unnecessary anti-terrorism measure it will be up to $15/gallon or higher.
Actually the only word that I can think of for the focus on air transport is criminal. Nothing less is behind it.
As myself and many others will point out, there are PLENTY of other worthy methods of terrorism. Picking the most guarded of them is hardly filed under 'surprise attack' in the terrorist's field manual.
Back to basics here:
Where are the terrorists? Prove it! What will they use to attack? Prove it! Why won't they use other, simpler methods? Prove it!
If you can answer those three in support of beefing up air transport security I will quickly ask why you have not gone out and apprehended them already since you know who is guilty of what and why, and apparently have the fucking proof.
I'm so tired of these ineffective and inconvenient excuses for the government to steal my rights in the name of protecting me. Fuck off already. At the rate things are going, the next round of so called 'terrorists' will actually be citizens revolting against the protective measures.... arrgghhhh
Yeh, and then some evil types of people or even pranksters (on ground, or by using a so-configured laptop or camcorder or hand-held game) might figure out how to:
-- boost the reception range in order to deceive or seduce the cockpit,
-- bypass security (long accept command if wheels up, over 100 kph indicated, if turbines over 25%, if altimeter log indicates movement inconsistent with runway traffic...), to force unwitting external (non-pilot) command input
-- trick the ground-based systems to interfere with runway traffic to cause on-ground, or taxi-vs land traffic...
-- trigger false halts and false diverts to wreak havoc upon ATC or military airspace controllers when the aircraft (in real-time or by delayed instruction) fail to "squawk" back...
then all hell could break loose. Don't think I wanna be on one of those planes... nor near one...
Basically, they want radio-controlled, perimeter-restricted shopping carts that work on the ground or in the air.... roi...ght....
IIRC, some old Star Trek episode had the perfect solution for this problem: Just deploy a giant disembodied hand that grabs the plane and holds it motionless in space.
I don't think drug runners or terrorists are going to be using DRMed boats or planes.
Given how often tasers are used as pain-forced compliance devices as opposed to an alternative to an actual deadly force situation, I don't think non-lethal disabling technologies do anything but provide the government with media friendly ways to suppress dissent.
There was discussion on Slashdot about the Soft Walls Project [berkeley.edu] that did something similar. See the 1/04 [slashdot.org] and 7/03 [slashdot.org] discussions.
What I find interesting is just how vehement software engineers and pilots are about the idea, and yet everyone seems to trust fly-by-wire.
There is Soft Walls FAQ [berkeley.edu] that covers common objections.
What I find interesting is just how vehement software engineers and pilots are about the idea, and yet everyone seems to trust fly-by-wire.
From your linked FAQ: "the Soft Walls system will choose the strategy that is most likely to protect the no-fly zone, even if it puts the airplane and its passengers at risk."
We don't yet know what caused the crash of the Boeing 777 BA038 crash at Heathrow in january but this post on the reg [theregister.co.uk] makes an interesting suggestion.
I distinctly remember that before the 911 attacks passengers were instructed to comply fully with hijackers. This was because it was thought that this would lessen the danger to passengers.
911 really blew the hijacker's wads, because there are no longer compliant airline passengers.
There will never be another hijacking unless the sole purpose is to crash the aircraft arbitrarily - in which case a kill switch wouldn't really hurt the hijacker's plans.
There's a way to do this right. Read this article about the F-16 GCAS [f-16.net]. This is a ground collision avoidance system that works so well it can be used on combat missions, including flying through mountain passes at 500 knots, 200 feet from rock. Pilots call it "You can't fly any lower". When the Auto-GCAS decides a ground collision is imminent, it takes over the aircraft, rolls to wings-level and initiates a pull-up. (In an F-16, the roll is at 180 degrees per second and the pull-up is at 5G; for an airliner, much lower numbers would be configured and recovery would be initiated much sooner.) Read the article; fighter jocks liked the thing, and those guys usually hate letting the automation take over the aircraft.
This would prevent most "controlled flight into terrain" accidents (there are about three of those involving commercial jets per year, worldwide), so there's a big win in having this independent of military/terrorism worries. Once you have a system like this, it can be given "no-fly" areas into which it won't let the plane go. If you're going to enforce "no-fly" zones via hardware, it's better to do it through a system that knows about terrain and is looking at it with radar.
The way to do overrides would be to give the pilot a switch to turn off the system in an emergency, but doing so sends out an emergency transponder signal that this has been done. The ground then has the option of sending up a suitably encrypted signal to turn it back on. This gives a way to handle system failures. If the ground sees a plane heading somewhere it shouldn't be, the ground can force the system back on.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Airbus starts offering something like this. (Airbus takes the position that the aircraft should protect itself against pilot errors. Boeing has the philosophy that the pilot should always be able to override the automation. The Boeing approach worked better back when the typical airline pilot had 10,000 hours, a previous military flying career, and was chosen competitively from a big pool of applicants.)
Seems more reasonable now that I read the actual request. It mentions preventing aircraft from being taken off of the ground, but it doesn't go into much detail about when in flight and preventing aircraft from flying into no-fly zones, at least not from what I perceived, other than
Effects should be focused on the aircraft, not the pilot or other personnel on board
. But a little skepticism of the govt is always a healthy thing to have. I would still be wary of having some sort of device on board a plane I'm inside of, and that is one big malfunction that could occur.
This is an idea that goes back to a book I read in the '80s about UFOs. First let me say that I realize that as a source for information, it rates right up there with the Institute for Intellegent Design, but bear with me. In the book, it was noted that during UFO sightings, car engines tend to stop running, while once the UFO departs, the car works just fine. Afterwards, mechanics can find nothing wrong with the engine or electrical system. The author hypothesized that some sort of directed beam of microwaves could temporarily short out the car's battery. Sounds like exactly what the Pentagon is looking for; they just need to review the archives at Area 51.
You say: "Defense"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You say: "Defense"... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:You say: "Defense"... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:You say: "Defense"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:You say: "Defense"... (Score:4, Funny)
Duh.
Parent
Re:You say: "Defense"... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:You say: "Defense"... (Score:5, Funny)
You'll "safely stop" it from flying - you just wont be able to safely stop it from hitting the ground and crash landing.
All semantics... it's no longer in flight when it's bursting into pieces on the ground due to impact. The flight portion though, remains quite safe (if scary) right up until that point.
:-)
Parent
Re:You say: "Defense"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:You say: "Defense"... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's an idea for you: broadcast the hijacker transponder code and jam the voice frequencies. After ground stations get no response, a twitch General will order the plane shot down. No sense trying to smuggle a bomb onboard when you can get the Pentagon to do it for you.
Parent
Re:You say: "Defense"... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:You say: "Defense"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just as a sad little comparison: On average, each and every 36-hour-period from 1994 through 2007 had more people die in traffic accidents [1] than this huge headline-making bomb. 9/11, OTOH, took almost four weeks to be offset by road fatalities (and caused four^Wseven years of all-out war against freedom (and the middle east)). Strange, eh?
[1] http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx [dot.gov]
Parent
Re:You say: "Defense"... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:You say: "Defense"... (Score:5, Funny)
Looks like they didn't do their homework, if they're trying to bring a religious war to Glasgow.
Parent
Re:You say: "Defense"... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:You say: "Defense"... (Score:5, Funny)
I think we should get a photo of that guy KICKING A FLAMING MAN, blow it up and make it the welcome sign at Glasgow Airport. Underneath we should have the words 'Glasgow Welcomes Careful Drivers'..."
-- Billy Connolly
Parent
Re:You say: "Defense"... (Score:5, Funny)
It's called "Celtic vs Rangers"
Parent
Re:You say: "Defense"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not get a group of engineers together and say, come up with a contingent plan for hijackings. This would open the door to creative solutions other than kill switches.
Parent
Re:You say: Hijacking "Defense"... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:You say: Hijacking "Defense"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Locked door or not, after 9/11 it is no longer possible to hijack a plane and fly it into a building.
Parent
Re:You say: Hijacking "Defense"... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:You say: Hijacking "Defense"... (Score:5, Funny)
This risk is mitigated via use of an innovation referred to as a "co-pilot".
Parent
Re:You say: Hijacking "Defense"... (Score:5, Funny)
Unfortunately, right after that, Chuck Norris roundhouse kicks a tricycle that Bruce Willis rode through Area 51 to save E.T. right up into the stratosphere where it smashes into an exploding asteroid seventeen times the size of the sun, thereby breaking said asteroid into twenty-two pieces. The single large piece proceeds to not hit earth and destroy civilization by four meters (it breaks off the antennas of both the Eiffel Tower and the Empire State Building), the smaller ones are deflected by some jedis with light sabres, only to hit The Terrerist and each one of the Evil Engineers right into the face, killing them. Also, explosions, a sex scene without the girl taking her bra off, a scene in a strip bar and more explosions.
Parent
Re:You say: Hijacking "Defense"... (Score:5, Interesting)
As someone else pointed out, what gave the 9/11 hijackers an advantage was that SOP was to give in to hijacker demands and everyone would be okay. The authorities could try to catch them later. Now, if anyone tries a hijacking, everyone will try to kill them. The passengers will figure they have nothing to lose since, if they don't try to kill the hijackers, they will all die anyway.
Parent
Re:You say: Hijacking "Defense"... (Score:5, Insightful)
You live in a post-9/11 world. You're on a plane. Somebody gets up, pulls out a box cutter and starts threatening passengers in an attempt to get the cockpit open. Do you:
1. Open the cockpit and let him fly the plane into a building, or
2. Jump the motherfucker along with half the other passengers on the plane?
That's why he and I are so sure that it won't happen again. Like he said, policy used to be "do whatever they say" because the assumption was they just wanted to get someplace and run off. The assumption now is "they're going to fly this plane into a building," whether that's right or wrong. I don't know about you, but I assume my chances of survival to be pretty low if my plane is flown into a building, so I'm going to jump the fucks even if I do risk being spliced up potentially to the point of death. Death sucks pretty much either way for me, but I like my own odds better trying to do something to stop it and I acknowledge that if I'm a goner either way the best case is for there to be as few other deaths as manageable.
For that matter, terrorists are not stupid. 9/11 was a pretty brilliant plot: they identified weak points in a part of our country, including policy for how to react to what they were about to do and the fact that we were basically not looking; they exploited these weak points, poor policy decisions and general naiveté of the populace; and they did so in a way that made people literally terrified to use something that days before had been ingrained in our culture. They won't that round big time.
Do you really believe round two is going to be done in the same manner? In a place we've fortified, changed our policies about and are watching to the point of unhealthy obsession? They're going to look for the NEXT target where they can exploit their way to success--and I'm sure there are many of them. If I had to pick a place I felt the MOST safe from a terrorist attack post 9/11, it would be on an airplane. Hell, I'd be more afraid in the lines at the security checkpoints. If I were a terrorist, I'd detonate my bomb there.
It's not an impossibility, no; few things are when dealing with predicting human behaviors. But it's almost certainly low enough risk now that we don't need to be focusing all our energy there--and should never have been to begin with.
Parent
Govt can't think outside the box (Score:5, Insightful)
And hey NSA: Why are you wasting time logging and reading my message? Why aren't you looking in the caves of North Pakistan for you-know-who? You guys get heaps of cash. Please spend it sensibly.
Parent
Re:You say: "Defense"... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
And don't worry, they'll have encryption (Score:5, Funny)
Have you bought a ticket lately? (Score:5, Funny)
Delta seems to have the edge on this market already.
Block them from flying over cities? (Score:5, Insightful)
How the hell do they intend to pull that off without collateral damage. Force fields? Giant shark balloons?
What do all fuel engines have in common? (Score:5, Funny)
And what will plug and exhaust pipe non-lethally?
Potatoes!
ergo we need to genetically engineer jet-engine size potatoes and precision potato canons.
Profit!
Parent
Re:What do all fuel engines have in common? (Score:4, Funny)
Hmmm. Smells like french fries.
Parent
Re:What do all fuel engines have in common? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Block them from flying over cities? (Score:5, Funny)
How the hell do they intend to pull that off without collateral damage. Force fields? Giant shark balloons?
Parent
And how to prevent malicious usage? (Score:4, Insightful)
And then how can you prevent that kill switch from being disabled?
Boats aren't that complex, especially if you have a diesel engine, where electricity is not required.
Airplanes could be made without that special "feature".
Re:And how to prevent malicious usage? (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell are they going to do with it? Once they are installed and there is no longer any use in trying to use a plane for terrorist activities and the terrorist turn to the much easier alternative that they already have
It's all a ruse to continue the 'war on terror' and the multibillion dollar boondoggle of the American populace. $4/gallon is nothing once we start paying for all these unnecessary anti-terrorism measure it will be up to $15/gallon or higher.
Actually the only word that I can think of for the focus on air transport is criminal. Nothing less is behind it.
As myself and many others will point out, there are PLENTY of other worthy methods of terrorism. Picking the most guarded of them is hardly filed under 'surprise attack' in the terrorist's field manual.
Back to basics here:
Where are the terrorists? Prove it!
What will they use to attack? Prove it!
Why won't they use other, simpler methods? Prove it!
If you can answer those three in support of beefing up air transport security I will quickly ask why you have not gone out and apprehended them already since you know who is guilty of what and why, and apparently have the fucking proof.
I'm so tired of these ineffective and inconvenient excuses for the government to steal my rights in the name of protecting me. Fuck off already. At the rate things are going, the next round of so called 'terrorists' will actually be citizens revolting against the protective measures.... arrgghhhh
Parent
Additionally... (Score:5, Funny)
"Minimum Collateral Damage"... (Score:5, Interesting)
-- boost the reception range in order to deceive or seduce the cockpit,
-- bypass security (long accept command if wheels up, over 100 kph indicated, if turbines over 25%, if altimeter log indicates movement inconsistent with runway traffic...), to force unwitting external (non-pilot) command input
-- trick the ground-based systems to interfere with runway traffic to cause on-ground, or taxi-vs land traffic...
-- trigger false halts and false diverts to wreak havoc upon ATC or military airspace controllers when the aircraft (in real-time or by delayed instruction) fail to "squawk" back...
then all hell could break loose. Don't think I wanna be on one of those planes... nor near one...
Basically, they want radio-controlled, perimeter-restricted shopping carts that work on the ground or in the air.... roi...ght....
Re:"Minimum Collateral Damage"... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
only law abiding citizens will be effected (Score:5, Insightful)
Given how often tasers are used as pain-forced compliance devices as opposed to an alternative to an actual deadly force situation, I don't think non-lethal disabling technologies do anything but provide the government with media friendly ways to suppress dissent.
It's not the terrorists I'm afraid of anymore... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've really gotta stop reading slashdot, to save my health.
_Now_ how do people feel about Amtrak? (Score:5, Insightful)
Soft Walls discussion and common objections (Score:5, Informative)
There was discussion on Slashdot about the Soft Walls Project [berkeley.edu] that did something similar. See the 1/04 [slashdot.org] and 7/03 [slashdot.org] discussions.
What I find interesting is just how vehement software engineers and pilots are about the idea, and yet everyone seems to trust fly-by-wire.
There is Soft Walls FAQ [berkeley.edu] that covers common objections.
Re:Soft Walls discussion and common objections (Score:5, Informative)
"the Soft Walls system will choose the strategy that is most likely to protect the no-fly zone, even if it puts the airplane and its passengers at risk."
Gee, I wonder why pilots don't like the idea...
Parent
It seems we might already have a kill switch (Score:5, Interesting)
Er, I think today's passengers will handle this (Score:5, Insightful)
911 really blew the hijacker's wads, because there are no longer compliant airline passengers.
There will never be another hijacking unless the sole purpose is to crash the aircraft arbitrarily - in which case a kill switch wouldn't really hurt the hijacker's plans.
How to do it right (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a way to do this right. Read this article about the F-16 GCAS [f-16.net]. This is a ground collision avoidance system that works so well it can be used on combat missions, including flying through mountain passes at 500 knots, 200 feet from rock. Pilots call it "You can't fly any lower". When the Auto-GCAS decides a ground collision is imminent, it takes over the aircraft, rolls to wings-level and initiates a pull-up. (In an F-16, the roll is at 180 degrees per second and the pull-up is at 5G; for an airliner, much lower numbers would be configured and recovery would be initiated much sooner.) Read the article; fighter jocks liked the thing, and those guys usually hate letting the automation take over the aircraft.
This would prevent most "controlled flight into terrain" accidents (there are about three of those involving commercial jets per year, worldwide), so there's a big win in having this independent of military/terrorism worries. Once you have a system like this, it can be given "no-fly" areas into which it won't let the plane go. If you're going to enforce "no-fly" zones via hardware, it's better to do it through a system that knows about terrain and is looking at it with radar.
The way to do overrides would be to give the pilot a switch to turn off the system in an emergency, but doing so sends out an emergency transponder signal that this has been done. The ground then has the option of sending up a suitably encrypted signal to turn it back on. This gives a way to handle system failures. If the ground sees a plane heading somewhere it shouldn't be, the ground can force the system back on.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Airbus starts offering something like this. (Airbus takes the position that the aircraft should protect itself against pilot errors. Boeing has the philosophy that the pilot should always be able to override the automation. The Boeing approach worked better back when the typical airline pilot had 10,000 hours, a previous military flying career, and was chosen competitively from a big pool of applicants.)
Re:Poor choice of words (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Minimal collatoral damage (Score:5, Informative)
The term "kill switch" was a journalistic flair added by Wired, and doesn't actually occur anywhere in the Request for Proposals [fbo.gov].
Parent
Re:Minimal collatoral damage (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Something like (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent