Pentagon Wants Kill Switch For Planes

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.'"

Drones

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't they just do away with pilots altogether and have everything remote controlled from the ground like the Reapers used by the military?

"Minimum Collateral Damage"...

[davidsyes]

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....

Who'll pay for it and other problems

[dlevitan]

I'm sure they could install a special system that interfaces with the plane's electronics and GPS system and shuts down the plane's engine upon receiving an encrypted request from the Pentagon. The only problem with this is how are you going to install this on all private planes? Who's going to pay for it and are they going to pay for electronic upgrades for all planes as well?

As for boats, how in the world are they planning on stopping sail boats? Most smaller boats (16-24 feet or so) don't even have outboard motors let alone any electronics. Are they going to require motorized sails on the boats that will roll the sails up on command? Or an anchor dropping mechanism? How do you deal with small boats that are just a fiberglass hull, mast, and sail?

It's not the terrorists I'm afraid of anymore...

[robo_mojo]

*shudders thinking about stepping on anything with a "KILL SWITCH"*

I've really gotta stop reading slashdot, to save my health.

Re:Block them from flying over cities?

[willyhill]

Well I suppose you could have a system where you can force the autopilot to activate, without it being overrideable from the cockpit.

Sounds like a recipe for the next "unexplained" 737 crash though.

It seems we might already have a kill switch

[MichaelSmith]

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.

Re:Something like

[vrmlguy]

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.

Re:You say: "Defense"...

[RockoTDF]

During WW2, BF Skinner tried to train pigeons that could pilot bombs towards Japanese flagships. The training part worked and they performed the task in the lab. But since they aren't strong enough to pull actual controls and fly by wire had not been invented they could not pilot the actual bombs.

Re:What do all fuel engines have in common?

[mechaman]

Actually Mythbusters had a good run at this. It turns out that there is far too much back pressure produced for the potato to stay lodged. You, more or less, end up with a decent potato cannon.

Re:You say: "Defense"...

[sporkme]

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.

Re:You say: "Defense"...

[vonart]

You, sir, caused me to almost spit coffee all over my monitor and keyboard. I know it's an old joke, but it was unexpected. Way to go :)

Re:You say: Hijacking "Defense"...

[arthurpaliden]

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.

Re:You say: "Defense"...

[hardburn]

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.

Re:Not thinking big enough

[tftp]

Tracks lead into major cities. A freight train can have 100 cars, each carrying 100 tons - 10 kilotons total. If the load happens to be explosive, it will demolish the whole city. Such things happened before [local1259iaff.org], unintentionally.

Where have we heard this before?

[hyades1]

Typical moronic Pentagon mentality. Plan for what's already happened and won't happen again. Something that would accomplish this will cost billions, probably not work on motors that were protected by the proverbial tinfoil hat, and could be defeated by a pissed-off 10-year-old with two cell phones and a pack of bubble gum.

There's times when technology and politics meet in a very ugly, venal way. This is one of those times. It has "Pork Barrel" written all over it.

Re:You say: "Defense"...

[Tanktalus]

You're assuming that they didn't already have huge numbers of such engineers together and among the top recommendations was this gem. That said, it does seem like a reasonable assumption, but we do have to recognise it as an assumption. All we really know is the output from whatever meetings they may have held, and not how they got there.

Also, keep in mind some constraints. This is the Pentagon looking, not the FAA. It is outside the Pentagon's purvue to dictate the make-up of civilian aircraft. It is INSIDE their purvue to protect no-fly zones. They don't just want to stop terrists from hijacking commercial aircraft to use as missiles (again), they are actually being insightful by looking at ALL methods of air attacks, such as terrists renting (haha) a smaller aircraft for use, where the possibility of innocent citizens being on the aircraft is an unknown. Or a sleeper cell where someone actually is a licensed and employed pilot, so locking the doors doesn't help. There are many scenarios where other solutions just don't work. Though they're unlikely, so was the concept of four co-ordinated hijackings occurring simultaneously on U.S. soil (or in U.S. airspace) and doing the damage they did. So it seems reasonable that they want failsafe (and foolproof, and especially terrist-proof) options.

They probably also watch too much Jack Bauer.

Re:You say: Hijacking "Defense"...

[aevan]

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).

How to do it right

[Animats]

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:You say: Hijacking "Defense"...

[Foobar of Borg]

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.

Re:You say: Hijacking "Defense"...

[cscorley]

The alternative could be to allow for remote controlling of the aircraft from another nearby aircraft or some location using the internet. Could be intercepted by some cyberterrists, so may be a bad idea. But then again, this may be applied to the similar idea of "kill switches."

Re:You say: "Defense"...

[Hojima]

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? Has anyone considered the fact that these extremist group leaders have been using religion to gain power and are much more interested in controlling (i.e. terrorizing) their own population. The Muslim religion doesn't passively hate the west, the extremists just use it as a campaign slogan to start a Jihad. That way, anyone who is not with them (non-extremists) are against them. The best way to stop them from getting to us is stopping them from utterly invading the country like the Taliban did.

Failsafe automated landings

[bill_mcgonigle]

but isn't it just obvious that all commercial aircraft should be fitted with some way to take remote control?

Close, but this can be abused. The better solution is an automated landing system with a failsafe.

Basically, if the pilot (or whoever you enable on the flight, stewardesses, whatever) gets scared enough he initiates an automated landing that can't be overridden without replacing the airplane's control system.

The system finds the nearest capable landing site without severe weather, declares an emergency, and puts the plane down on whichever runway is currently designated for emergencies. The weather and designations would have to be broadcast or updated before take-off (signed, of course). Sort out the mess on the ground. If the pilot panicked, a mechanic replaces the proper modules and the plane is basically just delayed.

We have such systems in use in the military - they can put an F-14 down on the deck of a carrier under full power in at least 20 foot seas, and hit within something like 4' of the ideal spot to catch the cable. Coming into O'Hare shouldn't be a problem.

We *don't* want ground control.

Re:You say: "Defense"...

[Hal_Porter]

The reason for the worry about terrorism was not the number of people they killed it's that as Tony Blair put it about 9/11, "Does anyone doubt that if they could have killed ten or a hundred or a thousand times as many people they would not have done so".

Though in retrospect it seems like 9/11 and the bombings around that time were a high point in death tolls from Islamist terror. But that's mostly because they are disorganised on a level that was hard to believe around that time.

Re:Er, I think today's passengers will handle this

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

That's what I thought too, until the 2007 hijacking of a Turkish jetliner:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKL1824462620070819 [reuters.com]
The passengers went along with it until the plane landed.

Re:Govt can't think outside the box

[Hognoxious]

After all, going on a suicide mission is a lose-lose scenario and not exactly the kind of thing you do out of dislike alone.

Google is your friend. "72 virgins" is a good search criterion.

Re:REMOTE CONTROL

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

Or into the world trade center, as happened in the pilot episode [plaguepuppy.net] of the X-Files spin-off The Lone Gunmen.
Except back march 4th 2001. It was more subverted by the govt to crash into the WTC to preempt a war, and hacked by the lone gunmen to keep it from crashing, but same concept of remote control abuse.

Crazy crazy writers..

Re:_Now_ how do people feel about Amtrak?

[morcheeba]

I've ridden amtrak once, and apparently the kill switch had been activated. We were locked on the train & didn't leave NYC until about an hour after we were supposed to arrive in DC... so, it wasn't too fun. I've also flown hanggliders, which have their kill switch activated all the time... lots of fun!!

(p.s. I love trains... Japanese ones beat planes for 1 hour flights)