Automagic No-Fly-Zone Enforcement 536
An anonymous reader writes "SoftWalls is the name of an aviation project at UC-Berkeley that's developing a system for commercial airliners that establishes and enforces no-fly zones. Basically, through GPS, if a plane begins to enter a no-fly zone (eg, around a mountain, or over Lower Manhattan), an alarm goes off in the cockpit. If ignored, the system actively removes control of the plane away from the pilot and co-pilot to steer the plane out of the no-fly zone. The technology is intended as both an accident prevention technique and a deterrent to terrorists planning to ram a building. ABCNews recently profiled the project (with video) and also rode along with a working prototype built by Honeywell that successfully kept a Beechcraft from hitting a mountain."
Why get in a plane to ram a building.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The real question is ... (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of lives would have been saved if a plane would have at least a small database of known mountains in the flight path. Why don't our planes avoid mountains automatically?
Re:The real question is ... (Score:3, Funny)
Technology just becoming "mature"... (Score:4, Informative)
The core technologies have been around awhile but I think it's important to remember that GPS technology and fast small CPUs are just now becoming "mature", so it's not out of line that these systems are still in the testing phase. Sure, ten years ago maybe you could build such systems with half of the first class section stuffed with hardware...
Re:The real question is ... (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The real question is ... (Score:2)
Re:The real question is ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's a stupid idea.
A computer can't know the myriad of decision factors that the pilot does. There's a lot more to safe flight operations, especially during an emergency, than simply pointing the airplane in the right direction. There's considerations of how bad the weather may be in one direction, which engine may have failed causing difficulty in turning in one direction, which heading the aircraft needs to be on after completing a turn to line up with the desired runway so as to make a landing the first time (because there might not be a second time), how critical is it to get to a certain altitude rapidly, and hundreds of other factors that might (or might not) be important. The pilot is the one best to rapidly rank order what's important and what's not given the particular situation he's found himself and those several hundred passengers in.
Just what computer program could decide that it's a better decision to allow the plane to fly close to a mountain (how close? 1000 feet? 2000 feet? 50 feet?) in order to meet some criteria the pilot (you know, the person deemed competent to make such decisions) has decided is most critical.
Aids that assist in flying are wonderful - keep bureauacracy and "for the children" politics out of the cockpit though.
Re: It's about restricting, not permitting options (Score:4, Interesting)
You make a good point, but I think you (and others) might be polarizing the issue more than necessary.
I can imagine this being implemented as a restriction of options rather than prescriptive flight path. As you mention, pilots already deal with a myriad of decision factors, and this would act as another. If you need to put your 747 into an Immelmann or Split-S, just make sure you're not doing it into a mountain -- because the computer won't let you. The computer won't dictate what you have to do, just what you can't.
We see these restrictions all around us. Water drums near highway barriers. Curbs on sidewalks. Large rocks surrounding bridge supports. Pilots are just beginning to benefit from the fact that these influences can be virtual.
Re: It's about restricting, not permitting options (Score:3, Interesting)
Fly by wire already does this. The aircraft is actually controlled by the computer. The pilot says 'turn left 10 deg'. The computer actually figures out how far to move the control surfaces, depending on alt, weight, speed, etc. It will not send the a/c into an Immelman.
Fighter aircraft are limited by the FCC in the same way. Limited to a specific turn or G
Re:The real question is ... (Score:4, Informative)
There's considerations of how bad the weather may be in one direction
How do you think the pilot knows of bad weather
which engine may have failed causing difficulty in turning in one direction,
Currently all the new aircrafts coming out are fly-by-wire (777,A320,A380) so the computer has to handle this already. Further more how do you know which engine is out without the computer (the insturments are run by one of the myriad of computers on board).
which heading the aircraft needs to be on after completing a turn to line up with the desired runway so as to make a landing the first time
First of how do you think it work now 99% of the time you are in the air the FMC is guiding the plane including *gasp* your headings out of turns towards your runway (yes I know the FCC is where the real control logic for the autopilot is but it tries to fly to what the FMC is telling it).
how critical is it to get to a certain altitude rapidly
You know what the FMC is going to be able to calculate out how fast you can and can't climb a hell of alot better than any human (yes I know you can do a general calc of how fast you can climb based on your gross weight / alt / airspeed / and your possible thrust but you can't do it nearly as accurate or quick so would you really want to?)
Now mind you I dont like the idea of taking away control from a human because computers can fail (I know there are 3 FMC (well the new 777 is actually a different cabinet setup but you get the idea)) and I want a human watching. They get paid rediculous money so let them do their jobs.
So next time before you do some arm chair piloting get your facts straight.
Re:The real question is ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I guess 3000 hours of flight time with 500 hours in combat including more emergencies from engine failures due to fire to hydraulic failures to electrical failures to lightning strikes to ... than I can count doesn't mean shit on slashdot.
How do you think the pilot knows of bad weather ... oh thats right he gets ground reports through his computer
Well, he could always look out the window ... perhaps a difficult concept to comprehend for those that believe that the pilot should only do what's been preallowed by some programmer who is completely unaware of the particulars of the situation that may occur.
Further more how do you know which engine is out without the computer
There's a significant change in thrust from one side of the aircraft when an engine has failed. Turning into a dead engine, especially with a heavy fuel load, is usually not the smart thing to do because of the greater difficulty of turning back - but if the pilot makes a concious decision to turn in a particular direction then a computer should not attempt to override it for reasons that are less critical than safety of flight (such as some BS no-fly zone).
99% of the time you are in the air the FMC is guiding the plane including *gasp* your headings out of turns
Sigh. An autopilot system is an aid for the pilot - it's not a substitute. A system that calculates the headings and lead points is fine for rolling out on a certain course, but is irrelevant to the situation of a pilot flying the aircraft where he wants it to be, vice some erroneous decision made by software.
FMC is going to be able to calculate out how fast you can and can't climb a hell of alot better than any human
No it can't. It can calulate the optimum climb rate to get to some altitude using the least fuel or least time or least distance - but that is not definitely better - the system doesn't know what may be most important at any given moment. That's the job of the pilot. People that advocate being able to hinder the pilot's options are doing no favors to either the pilots or the passengers they are responsible for.
Responsibility for the lives of hundreds of others is a big deal. Maybe you've never been there.
Re:The real question is ... (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the weather I full understand looking out the window is very important. but can you really tell that much about which way the wind is going when your 200 miles off? If your in a bad weather cell that different. (but at no point in my post did I say the pilot should not be able to fly his plane)
As for the signifacant changes due to an engine lose
See I understand in emeregence situations autopilot is not a substitute for a pilot. At the bottom of my post I said I hate the idea of taking the control out of the pilots hands. I also freely admit computers are not perfect and that why pilots routinely change setting in the FMC to make it do what the pilot wants
I will give you the point that the computer may not make the right descion and there should be a way to take control away from the computer. You also have to admit that there are times where the pilot wont make the best descion (see the crash in swiss airspace where the pilot went against his TCAS and people died because of it).
I ask you to find one thing in my post where I said the pilot should not have the ability to break away. Hell I know computers aren't perfect and I agree a 100% that taking control away is a bad idea. I just disagreed with your reasons because they weren't applicable to current commercial jetliners.
As for responsibility of hundreds of lifes, your right I have not been up there with the lives in my hands but before my current job I used to write ATC systems which are mission critical (in production in germany) so I do full understand its not kids play and that when things malfunction you put lives in danger.
I think you had the right idea your reason just where off. And I'm sorry if I offended I was probably a little harsh but I didn't agree ande I need to post on it.
Re:The real question is ... (Score:3, Troll)
No you didn't, in those words. But yes, you did, by supporting the idea put forward in the main article. Any system that purposely puts active control of the aircraft into the "hands" of someone who is not in the cockpit of a manned aircraft (I am not talking about RPVs here) is interfering with the pilot's ability to fly his plane. Period. No amount of argumentation you will put forward about safety factors, commercial v
Re:The real question is ... (Score:3, Interesting)
He did not go against his TCAS out of his own volition. He obeyed orders given by a dimwit dumbfuck from the ground. Which the Swiss air control tried to hide and blame on the pilot. Just as they usually do. They are the second most famous after the French in Europe about it. Ever heard of a crash in Swiss air space when the pilot is not guilty? Even if he is given instructions to try to land from the hill
Re:The real question is ... (Score:3, Insightful)
A piolet has to take in a lot of data all at once and put out a lot of data, something a computer isn't complicated enough to do yet. Piolets can feel the plane, the controls have 60+ years of customizat
One word: Bugs (Score:5, Informative)
See, if a computer program somehow fucks this up, and ends up flying right towards the mountain instead of away from it, the pilots would realize that this *can't* be right but a computer wouldn't. I'm sure they have lots of *warning* systems, but up until now I don't think anyone has thought that overriding the pilot was a good idea, since up until Sept 11th noone thought anyone would *willingly* crash the plane. Maybe it'd save lives if the pilot had a heart attack and collapsed in his seat, but it's a stretch.
And another thing - sabotage. If you can compromise this program, you suddenly have the power to crash *every* plane in the air - complete with uber-searched passengers, armed guards and top security clearance pilots. While it is a lot less likely, the consequences would almost be far more catastrophic.
And face it - hi-jackers in control of a plane can crash it where it does a *lot* of damage anyway - even if it's not dead-center in the Pentagon. If nothing else, fly as close as you can, cut power to the engines and drop like a living dumbfire fuel bomb. How far could you get on a 30,000 feet drop? I'm guessing quite a bit into the "no-fly" zone...
Kjella
Overriding the pilot is the Wrong Thing (Score:5, Insightful)
The system being discussed here would take ultimate control of the plane away from the pilot. In the century of powered flight we have just completed, such ideas have have always turned out to be the Wrong Thing.
If we could always trust the flight computers and control systems, we wouldn't even need pilots: today's jetliners are smart enough to fly themselves. The problem is that the systems are just not reliable enough, and the system designers are not prescient enough, to handle every eventuality.
For ages, the question has been A modern corollary might be:
Remote Control Planes (Score:3, Interesting)
Best of all, remote control airplanes would allow terrorist groups to work in larger numbers. Right now, terrorist groups are pushed to their limits to take over 4 airplanes. In this new system, a terrorist group that hac
Can You Say GPS jammer? (Score:5, Insightful)
Situation... (Score:5, Interesting)
"...I can't"
"Sure you can, just turn!"
"NO... I physically CAN'T, the plane won't let me."
BAM.
Taking the control out of the pilots hands is a bad thing.
Re:Situation... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Situation... (Score:2)
Re:Situation... (Score:2)
Re:Situation... (Score:2)
Re:Situation... (Score:3, Insightful)
On the early Airbus flight computers, you selected which mode the computer was to be in at any one time, ie cruise, takeoff, landing, manual operation, generic flight. If the computer was in the wrong mode to what you actually were doing, it would react di
Re:Situation... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Situation... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Situation... (Score:2, Insightful)
The pilot has time to respond to the warning. During this time, he is fully in control of the plane. If he heads back out, he maintains control of the plane. If he does not head out, he is assumed to be incapable of operating the plane and is relieved of duty by the automation software.
Just like with any security issue, assuming that the end-user is in complete control of the machine at every time is a mistake. Grandma is not in control of her new Windows XP box. Joe P. Capitain
Re:Situation... (Score:5, Funny)
Hell, Windows XP isn't fully in control of the box itself
I find it amusing that you illustrate your point about security with a Windows example
Re:Situation... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. This is not a situation where a BSOD is acceptable. Grandma might be appreciative of Clippy helping her out, but the last thing a pilot in an airline full of passengers needs is some "oops" in the programming preventing him from turning when he wants because it might overfly
Re:Situation... (Score:2)
You are missing the point... What if he responds by continuing to fly into the "mountains"? Just a nice little (false) GPS signal from someone malicious, telling it there are mountains everywhere... except where the real m
Re:Situation... (Score:2)
Tom
They use the RAT (Score:5, Informative)
The Gimli Glider [wadenelson.com] used this to survive the loss of both engines.
Re:They use the RAT (Score:2)
The point though is all the marvelous engineering aside you're still climbing in a 30 or so tonne mechanical device where the simplest of things goes wrong [re: nasa disasters] you die.
I'm not saying airtravel is not safe. By all means I think it's safer than cars [though not buses]. The point is in the grand scheme of things one more system is not likely to make you that insecure [provided it's not trivially unsafe]
Tom
Re:Situation... (Score:2)
Poor example, but yes, control w/out limited = bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but your example is a poor one. Pilots have a multitude of options at their disposal for avoiding collisions. Altitude changes(up OR down! Wow!), heading changes(left OR right!) and speed changes(faster OR slower!)
The real problem is that in almost every plane with an autopilot, there's a Big Red Switch the pilot can press. When I saw this in action, it was on a small(4 seater) single, and pressing the switch caused about 2-3 switches to
Aside from it's a repeat... (Score:2)
Good idea, maybe a different implementation would work...
Re:Aside from it's a repeat... (Score:2)
This sounds like a great idea (Score:2, Interesting)
Setting up some form of fine system would achieve the desired effect without endangering the lives of thousands or millions of people.
Please (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do people seem to think that terrorists are just dumb camel jockeys from the middle of the desert who are easily impressed by internal plumbing? If an al Qaeda operative wants to smash a plane into a building, he'll figure out a way to disable such a system.
The lower Manhattan nightmare scenerio (Score:5, Insightful)
So someone says "Oh, there will be an override for situations like that" -- well, why won't that override get used when someone is bound and detmined to fly a 757 into a tall building? At that point its just another warning system, which is fine, but the computer control part scares me. I like pilots in control when necessary.
Re:The lower Manhattan nightmare scenerio (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The lower Manhattan nightmare scenerio (Score:2)
The real purpose of the system is to prevent crashes into mountains, which are referred to by the euphemism
Re:The lower Manhattan nightmare scenerio (Score:2)
Re:The lower Manhattan nightmare scenerio (Score:2)
Re:The lower Manhattan nightmare scenerio (Score:2)
i'll assume your situation works perfectly as you describe it. . .
if they can control where the plan IS, don't you think they'd be able to see the same information as the pilot? at least as far as gauges go. I mean come on.
Re:The lower Manhattan nightmare scenerio (Score:2)
Re:The lower Manhattan nightmare scenerio (Score:2)
so yes there would be an override system. heck, of course there will be - they can shut the system down if they will there's no question about that! just cut the power if nothing else works(and it's so boneheaded that there isn't options on allowing certain plane to go through certain zone).
the planes need to fly above areas with population anyways..
.
What happens to the planes when GPS is dis-abled (Score:3, Interesting)
Car implications (Score:3, Interesting)
Think about it: Doing a similar system in the air is a great place to learn about how to do this with cars...since asside from takeoff and landing, there's a much bigger tollerance for error in the wide blue skys.
--
Written in the name of sacred jihad [anti-slash.org]
air is more practical (Score:2)
There are also generally only a few flight corridors that get alot of use due to popular routes, the earth's curvature and weather patterns, unlike road systems.
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
The FAA has been reported as saying "Yep, it's doing it's job, we couldn't see such a useful feature being exploited".
The FAA is also considering trained monkeies to replace the crew. Passangers, who will be given shock buttons, seems to enjoy this idea... far too much.
shot down? (Score:5, Interesting)
From the FAQ [berkeley.edu] (warning, PDF).
I hate cutting and pasting from PDF files.
Anyway, the statement Today, that plane would be shot down. to me is a bit absolute... is this really true? IF a pilot had problems, called in said problems to the tower and acted according instructions or his own judgement, would he really get shot down? Additionally, I have a problem accepting that jets would scramble fast enough to be able to do so...
Re:shot down? (Score:5, Funny)
No jets need to be scrambled to launch a surface-to-air missile - it's launched from the surface, and it goes to the air.
Re:shot down? (Score:3, Interesting)
You'd be surprised, then, at how quickly on-the-ground alert aircraft can be scrambled. Perhaps more to the point, however, is that according to CNN and other public news sources many of the no-fly zones in the US now have random aircraft patrolling. A 767 might be capable of just-subsonic flight, but has no chance to get from the edge of a nfz to an interesting target against an F-15E that's already in
Re:shot down? (Score:2)
Re:shot down? (Score:2)
btw, shooting it down just like that would probably result in a really big mess by itself too and I kinda think that it would be taken into consideration when doing a very hasty decision on whether to shoot it down or not and what's the situation and why is the plane moving that way, if
Shot down WHERE? (Score:4, Interesting)
However, something I'd like to check - I Am Not An American - isn't the White House kinda surrounded by Washington and lots of people (in a general kind of way). Where do you shoot it down that doesn't do more damage to the surrounding populace? Not all plane crashes end like Con Air.
Re:shot down? (Score:3, Interesting)
Pilots *have* to be able to make arbitrary decisions in the interest of safety at the last minute without fear of being second guessed by anyone. (Of course the FAA might ask for an explanation on the ground.) One several instance
Re:shot down? (Score:2)
sounds neat but... (Score:5, Interesting)
That is unless I guess commercial airlines transmit on L1 & L2 frequencies. Provided of course the military sees fit to allow commercial airlines to use that frequency. Which makes me wonder about what juridstiction the United States would have if say a Japan Airlines plane was using that frequency when it pulled in our airspace... Oh well back to work
Re:sounds neat but... (Score:2)
Jamming is a possible problem. Military GPS receivers have anti-jam features that are not available on civilian GPS receivers. The receiver needs a crypto module and a current set of crypto keys to have full functionality.
Spoofing would be more dangerous. A clever adversary could simulate a number of GPS satellites and b
counterspoofing (Score:3, Informative)
Just what this TFR happy Administration needs... (Score:5, Informative)
Currently there are ten (10) TFRs around the US that were enacted soon after 9/11 and/or right before the opening of hostilities against Iraq. There is no need for these TFRs any more, yet the Administration will not instruct the FAA to remove them. The Aircraft Owner's and Pilots Association (AOPA) spends most of their time and money these days fighting the TFRs and ensuring that they are announced with enough lead time so pilots can plan around them and that they are removed in a timely manner. You can read more about it at the AOPA website [aopa.org].
This Administration does not need a technology that would enhance the annoyance they are causing priviate pilots!
hijacker checklist (Score:2)
B) kill air-marshal.
C) threaten passengers.
D) enter cockpit.
NEW: E) Disable softwall-thingy
F) take plane wherever I please.
Re:hijacker checklist (Score:2)
Re:hijacker checklist (Score:2)
New terrorist weapon... (Score:2)
You could effectively take over a plane from the ground by feeding this automated system incorrect coordinates. The irony would be felt by the pilots would be unable to over-ride the system, becuase it has to be terrorist proof....
-Chris
Re:New terrorist weapon... (Score:2)
Admittedly, I don't know a whole lot about GPS, but wouldn't they need a satellite in the right place in orbit to do this?
Clarification, please.
ATM project (Score:5, Interesting)
The big difference between the 2 projects is that ours only gives possible solution to the pilot and then he has to accept the route deviation rather than removing control from the pilot.
I mean realisticly these solution are bleeding edge and wont make it into service for 20 years. Personally I'd like to see more of a grouund based solution but that probably because my background is ATC systems.
Bad idead (Score:2)
I guess, as always, someone is trying to make some dough off this silly scheme, hoping to prey on our "terrorism" fears.
And yes, I know the linked article ultimatley states that the end result of human error, it illustrates a very important point: Either have only the highly trained pilot fly the craft, or have a very thoroughly tested computer fly the craft.
I don't think the 2 mix very well at this point in time.
--
PIlot discretion (Score:2, Insightful)
I think there are simply too many "what-if" situations that require a pilot have control over the aircraft to allow such critical remote control. What if the jet runs out of fuel? What if the no-flyover beacon directs the jet into other air traffic or really bad weather.
Moreover, wh
Lone Gunmen (Score:2)
For those who don't remember: Evil government people used a remote controll device to bypass the pilots and steer a 747 into the World Trade Center...
So, they're going to use it to steer away now?
Re:Lone Gunmen (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for a plane avoiding mountains, and taking over when the pilot is incapacitated so the plane doesn't crash -- but I hate seeing articles about new technology being promoted with "it'll stop those nasty terrorists! Woohoo!"
I'm sure the (surviving) terrorists are ROFL at us scrambling to prevent them repeating something they know they'll never repeat. We need to harden our other systems -- water/electric supplies, who's driving the oil/gas tankers/trucks, etc.
Re:Lone Gunmen (Score:4, Interesting)
First sane thought I've seen in this thread.
Over many years we had trained ourselves to cooperate with airplane hijackers and wait to see what they wanted. The 9/11 terrorists knew this and used it against us.
They won't do it again, because they know that every person on the plane will try and rip their throats out.
They'll watch, see what we aren't paying attention to, and use that next time. Bad news for us - we cannot pay attention to everything.
A.
Terrorists (Score:2)
Aargh! (Score:2)
I hate those kind of buzz words (Score:3, Funny)
ACM RISKS (Score:2)
When you get right down to it, this idea has some fundamental problems. Would I fly on such a a plane equipped with a system that could over-ride the pilot no matter what? Probably not.
In fact, once you have something like this, why bother with pilots at all? Obviously, the've been declared redundant and useless.
Slashdot's Covered This Before (Score:2)
Technical Solution to a Social Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Many others have posted great reasons why taking control away from a pilot is a bad thing, so you can read them- but if it's terrorists you're worried about, they now have much more to fear from the passengers than from a computer system. The stakes couldn't be higher now for airline hijackings, and knowing the stakes, no US group of passengers will allow any hijackers to carry out their mission. (Flight 93) This, incidentally, is a social solution to a social problem.
Sure, this kind of thing would be great for terrain avoidance. But I wouldn't bet my life on it. Between jamming, spoofing, misplaced confidence, programming errors and the like, it can be quite problematic.
Basically, you're swapping your trust in the pilot for your trust in the programmer. Not necessarily a good trade.
Ludite reaction or not ? (Score:4, Insightful)
In the end you can't defend against human decision making unless you remove the human from the process.... which means you used canned human decision making in the form of code which to my knowledge is not and cannot ( to date ) be made self-correcting. Thus if there is an unforseen circumstance for the code to encounter you don't know what will happen. The code can't think on the fly for itself. So choose your poison. A plane that will be consistently flown even if that consistency invovles a bug that flys into the ground given the proper circumstances or a pilot that can think for itself and do unthinkable things such as fly into a huge skyscraper, or come up with an inovative way to control a plane with differential thrust due to the failure of control surface hydraulics ( actual real world example ). In fact both of those examples are being subjected to CODE fixes for making such actions easier or more difficult, this being an example of 9/11 ( or mountain ) avoidence and the new implementation of a backup directional control system utilizing dissimilar engine thrust rates. But its impossible to account for all scenarios and untill code can be sufficiently capable to deal with unforseen circumstances you have an overide. You draw your own conclusions on what a pilot will decide to trust in an odd situation when presented with loss of control of the aircraft. If your response to that is not to allow that decision then why the hell do you have a pilot in the cockpit to begin with ?
What about GA? (Score:2, Insightful)
If only... (Score:3, Flamebait)
You want auto-fly planes, but not metro lines? (Score:5, Informative)
The factors that affect flight (I'm a private pilot pp-asel) are soo diverse and include decision making far more complex than "should I turn here to avoid airspace xyz". In an emergency - say an engine failure, oil leak, etc, pilots *are* allowed to violate any airspace restriction to avoid injury / deaths. Here are the federal regulations that are pertinent:
FAR = "federal aviation regulations" which comprise section 14 of the Federal Law Registry.
FARs part 91 = General Operating and Flight Rules
* general (non commercial) aviation falls under part 91.
FAR 91.3b = "In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency".
Far 91.141 restricts flight in the vicinity of the president and president's related parties. It is clearly in part 91, and can be deviated from in an emergency.
My flight instructor had a partial engine failure in a twin engine aircraft during training at Oakland - and dealing with the emergency required flying below a the legal 1000' altitude above populated areas. In fact he flew at 500' in the pattern which is below the "500' from people or property rule". If the plane attempted to climb on a partially failed engine, they would have likely crashed and all (3 aboard) perished.
There are 1000s of anecdotes, but feel free to go over to rec.aviation.piloting or r.a.student to read more. Having computers override pilots is a very bad idea - in the minds of virtually all actual pilots.
The likelyhood of true disasters coming from airplanes that take control from pilots is pretty high in my book. The likelyhood of armed terrorists being able to disable such a system also seems pretty high... ever heard of a wire-cutter? How about a gps jammer?
Final note: GPS is not perfect! I've flown two different C172s with Garmin 430 and 530 equipment, and both misplaced class-B (the only airspace below 18000' requiring a clearance to enter) airspaces by several nautical miles. If such gps ever misplaced a mountaintop, or the plane's position by even a couple of miles, it could forcebly cause a crash under near-ideal conditions.
Turning a 747 into a dive bomber (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:My guess (Score:2)
Re:My guess (Score:2)
WRT to previous post about the microburst avoidance over the White House, it is that sort of situation that you WANT an override; say, place the system in override when the plane is coming in to an airport to provide the pilot maximum control.
Want to minimize flyovers of the Capitol/White House, even for emergencies? Then close down Reagan Airport. Baltimore/Washingto
Re:My guess (Score:2)
"If the pilot did not turn, the computer would take over the controls and steer the plane itself. No human in the plane could override the system."
Re:My guess (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yea we learned from 9/11 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yea we learned from 9/11 (Score:2, Informative)
Others have already pointed out that people did design the towers to withstand a plane impact--- but, aside from the sizes of aircraft getting bigger of the years, fuel capacity has increased as well. It seems like the speculation has been that most of the significant structural failure of the WTC towers actually resulted from the intense heat of the fuel fires, not impact.
Re:I'd like this for cars... (Score:2)
Re:I thought they already had this. (Score:2)
Re:A way around the system (Score:2)
Re:Disaster waiting to happen (Score:2)
Change is always resisted, we can easily come up with reasons how the change could make things worse and they of course do to an extent. Question to ask would be, are the benefits worth it? Is this a good turn for the longer run (as far as we can see it). Technology is our friend, with a few undesirable risks, do not drive it away.
Re:You forget these are nutters (Score:3, Interesting)
Call me a heartless bastard, but I'll take the torture of one 6 year old girl over thousands of deaths and countless little girls tortured for life by the sudden violent slaughter of their parents any day. And that's not even counting the financial disaster, and the country- and world-wide consequences of a voluntary plane crash, such as the paranoi
Re:This will end well (Score:2)
The plane homes in on the nearest place they don't want it to go. And of course, no override (its a feature that swings both ways).
Add in a timer to kick in tha evil bit flip of doom and you have a much worse situation than 9/11 offered.
No box-cutters required. Just a 1K software update from over the internet. (and they're still busily freaking out over shoes and pet fish right now)
Have I mentioned that I think putting all that crap in to override the pilot is stupid?