Wireless Devices Could Foil Hijack Attempts 312
ErikPeterson writes Flight attendants soon may be outfitted with wireless devices that would be used to alert pilots of attempted hijackings or other in-air security threats.
The Federal Aviation Administration said Wednesday that it plans to require that airlines provide a way for the cabin crew to "discreetly notify" pilots "in the event of suspicious activity or security breaches in the cabin."
The proposed regulation, which is not yet final, grew out of an advisory panel that the Transportation Department created after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. That panel recommended that cabin crew have "a method for immediate notification to the flight deck during a suspected threat in the cabin" that would permit pilots to take appropriate action, such as beginning an immediate landing."
Ground Breaking! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ground Breaking! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ground Breaking! (Score:5, Insightful)
A lock.
This simple mechanical mechanism will permanently seal the door between the cockpit and the passenger compartments, thus preventing all access to the pilots while the plane is in transit. Best of all, it has thousands of years of successful field application behind it!
Alternatively, build a seperate, external door to access the cockpit and replace the internal door with a solid wall. You can push the wall back a bit and create a little suite in there so they have food and facilities during long flights. Problem solved!
=Smidge=
Flown Recently? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your notion of adding a second external door would require redesign and refit of every aircraft, which is unlikely ffor financial and aerodynamic reasons. Also, the crew needs access to the passenger section, especially during non-hijacking emergencies..
Re:Ground Breaking! (Score:2)
Re:Ground Breaking! (Score:3, Insightful)
Israeli airlines have done this years before 9/11.
A more technical solution would be to engage autopilot while overiding manual flight controls if the lock is breached and the plane contacts ground control and they have autopilot fly it to the closest airport.
Re:Ground Breaking! (Score:2)
Especially seeing how we can easily get all of these on airplanes too.
Come on! They wouldn't even let me bring on a RJ-45 crimper in my carry on baggage! Much like bolt cutters, guns, explosives, etc.
Re:Ground Breaking! (Score:3, Insightful)
I highly doubt this would work as numerous flights have had incidents where a would be attacker or miscreant was subdued, and by subdued I mean beat the fuck out of, while attempting to do some craziness. I would categorize a beheading as one of those mob triggereing events.
Re:Ground Breaking! (Score:3, Insightful)
The pilot still has control of the plane, and can probably shake things up a little. Especially when the innocent passengers are wearing their seat belts, and the terrorist isn't.
Lotsa tinfoil (Score:3, Interesting)
You are underestimating the US government. The Pennsylvania flight 93 was shot down. I have a friend who was listening to a police scanner down there at the time, and it was quite clear from the radio traffic that it was shot down, and the passengers had nothing to do with it. Jumping the terrorists is the best thing the passengers could do in a situation like that, no doubt, but it just wasn't what's happened.
If y
eh (Score:3, Interesting)
In other news, I recommend to Taco that he blow up this childish 403'ing of the w3 validator so we can actually, uhm, test your new layout as you have asked us to. Kthx.
Re:eh (Score:4, Insightful)
Once the pilot knows something fishy is going on in the cabin, why couldn't they release anesthetsine gas like they do in every Star Trek episode when the Enterprise gets hijacked?
On an unrelated note, this new redesign of slashdot has guilted me into closing my p tags in submissions.
Re:eh (Score:2, Insightful)
When the Russians tried this in Moscow back in '03 they killed well over 100 hostages with the gas.
Good idea in theory, bad idea in practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Cameras! (Score:2, Interesting)
I just returned from a vacation to Europe and was shocked and amazed that the cabin had no cameras of any sort. I mean, cameras are so good and so small these days that there really is no reason not to. We each had interactive screens in the backs of our seats, but they can't put in a couple cheapo webcams?
I know cameras only show you the bad stuff happening and don't do anything to prevent it, but tipping the pilots off sooner than later can only be better than what we have now.
The other thing I wond
How long until... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How long until... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this could be worked around fairly easily. Heartbeat ping to cabin device with encoded id would do it. If the personal transponder stops signalling (or if they all do) have a look through one of the the aforementioned discretely-placed cabin-cams. Analogue-only alarm signals are so last century.
Re:How long until... (Score:5, Insightful)
That said , a video camera and/or microphone would possibly be a lot more effective .
Re:How long until... (Score:2, Insightful)
Stress & Motor Skills (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Stress & Motor Skills-Training. (Score:2)
I'll go along with that, except in the case of slashdot posters.
Flight computer overrides pilot's commands (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Flight computer overrides pilot's commands (Score:5, Funny)
COPILOT: Switch on the computer control.
PILOT: (flips switch)
COMPUTER: Would you like to play a game?
PILOT: Oh, crap!
Re:Flight computer overrides pilot's commands (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Flight computer overrides pilot's commands (Score:2)
Does anybody else remember.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Does anybody else remember.... (Score:2, Interesting)
I think I have a few of those still lying around. I remember when they used to be made out of metal, not the cheap plastic ones. I think you can still get the wings, but not personally from the pilot.
Re:Does anybody else remember.... (Score:3, Informative)
Contact your local EAA chapter. Not only will your child be able to talk to the pilot, the pilot will explain how the airplane works and walk the child through a preflight before takeoff. Once in the air, the child MAY be allowed to hold and manipulate the controls. If you live close to the airport (and there aren't to many people waiting) the pilot MAY point out the child's house. Do a web search on 'Young Eagles'.
Very nice, except... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Very nice, except... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Very nice, except... (Score:4, Insightful)
Scenario:
- mother holding infant
- sleeping gas goes off
- mother drops infant (it would have to be fast acting to be effective against hijackings no?)
- infant breaks neck
- hijacker just turns out to be a drunken salesman from Hoboken on his way back from a weekend in Vegas
Sleeping gas a bad idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
But, back to the point. Doesn't anybody remember the Moscow Theatre hostage crisis [wikipedia.org], when the Russian government ended up killing 120-odd hostages wit
Re:Very nice, except... (Score:2)
I think the moscow experience showed that it won't work except in the most extreme circumstances.
Pork Fat Sprayer (Score:2)
Electronic lockout (Score:5, Insightful)
An AC posted [slashdot.org] the following in a thread on the recent Thoughts on the Space Elevator story:
A few seconds of warning would be enough to hit a Lockout button. There wouldn't be anything like enough time to land a plane or even change its position enough to bother a hijacker (terrorist or mere jet thief).
Re:Electronic lockout (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Electronic lockout will work (Score:3, Insightful)
Ground control taken over, plane not taken over: no problem, trusted pilot flies.
Ground control not taken over, plane taken over: no problem, ground control flies plane (provided trusted pilot had enough time to transfer control).
Ground control taken over, plane taken over: terrorists win, but that's also the case now. So the new system add security without introducing new weaknesses (excep
Uh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh... (Score:4, Informative)
When hijacked, you're supposed to set the transponder code to 7500. That's one of those ideas left over from the days when hijackers were clueless nuts. It's never been much of a secret. Hijacking procedures are in the Airman's Information Manual, available in any bookstore. One would hope by now that the guys flying the big iron have something better available to them.
not very secret (Score:4, Informative)
This action assumes that the pilot is still at the control and have access to transponder and radio. (in the event like 9/11, hijackers know how to fly the airplane, thus bypass the security measurement)
Alternative Solutions (Score:5, Funny)
Why bother with potentially cranky technological solutions when extreme violence works better, and is much more satisfying?
Remember: violence is the last refuge of the incompenent... because the competent don't leave it until last.
Re:Alternative Solutions (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I've always been fond of Archie Bunker's idea of how to deal with hijackers: arm all the passengers so the hijackers know they're ournumbered.
Re:Alternative Solutions (Score:2)
Well they could start by stopping taking away our jewelers' screwdrivers, scissors, ... If you think about it, they're just being icredibly stupid about this.. After 9/11, the best security system was the passengers, because passengers suddenly realized that you can't just sit in an airplane and wait for Bruce willis to transfer to your jet from an F-15 with an open cockpit.
Best Alternative Solution (Score:2, Interesting)
further uses (Score:5, Funny)
Needed? (Score:5, Insightful)
How many hijackings have there been since 9/11? My naive expectation is that hijackers would now have a short life expectancy, no matter how they're armed.
Re:Needed? (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as we might need to think and act for ouselves instead of pressing a button and waiting for the authorities to save us we will never be safe.
This just in (Score:5, Funny)
The low-tech way is better (Score:4, Insightful)
Scream (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Scream (Score:2)
And terrify/panic the passengers, get the hijackers all worked up, and possibly kill the flight attendant who screamed.
Yes, as a last recourse, maybe. But I'd also want a different system to notify the cockpit. Something the bad guys might not notice right away.
Simple direct solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, no more problems. Hijackers can do what ever they want in the back but they can't get to the pilots.
For current planes, retrofit with impenetrable doors that can not be opened after take of. Even by the pilots.
Now with out control of the plane there is no reason to hijack and the skies are safe!
Remember KISS
Keep it simple stupid.
Re:Simple direct solution... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Simple direct solution... (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, and what percentage of flights are 23 hours? I can't think of any. Long haul flights are in the 12 hour range.
Re:Simple direct solution... (Score:2)
I understand what you mean about the extra facilities in the cockpit, but the problem with that is that all the extra stuff will take up a fair bit of space. I mean, you'd need a toilet, a galley area with it's own food supply (if it's shared with the rest of the plane it's not secure), and at least two bunk beds for relief crew. That'd just about double the size of the current cockpits, at least. All that extra space takes up quite a
Re:Simple direct solution... (Score:2)
The international rules are a pilot can't fly for more than 12 hours straight. However, carriers tend to keep a crew flying for only 8 hours or less; you can count on having two crews onboard a flight of more than 6-8 hours.
On the very long flights (like 15 hours, US to South Africa, US to India, etc) you may find three crews: one crew handles take off and the first 6-8 hours of flight, the seco
Re:Simple direct solution... (Score:2)
It's not a terribly good example (as it crashed, killing everyone on board), but the recent Helios crash [airdisaster.com], where decompression at altitude knocked out the pilots, might have been averted if cabin crew were able to bring one of the portable oxygen units through to the pilots (on the assumption here that the p
Re:Simple direct solution... (Score:4, Funny)
Probably not, since most of the flying is by computer. In fact, cockpit crews of the future will consist of only one pilot and a dog. The pilot's job is to feed the dog. The dog's job is to keep the pilot from touching anything.
Re:Simple direct solution... (Score:2)
For a really good read about computer controlled flight systems and their limitations, read this article [aviation-law.net].
Plane hijackings will not be successful again... (Score:3)
They're coming for you (Score:2)
This is a paranoid's worst nightmare.
LK
Duh, a no brainer here, (Score:2)
Wonderful technology! (Score:2)
Man, those plane hijackings really have been dominating the news recently, haven't they?
[/sarcasm]
So the terrorists will do something else next time (Score:2)
I would blow up a boat, or a train, or something else. There must be lots of other potential targets. All the effort has been put into protecting the target that was chosen last time. That diverts resources from protecting the targets that haven't been tried yet.
And no effort at all has gone into the sort of political process that would make these precautions
Re:So the terrorists will do something else next t (Score:2)
Have we not learned? (Score:2, Insightful)
Waste of money (Score:5, Insightful)
As for hijackings, you don't need to worry about it because IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN. I can't believe people still think that terrorists will try again to hijack a commercial airliner and use it as a missile--it was a one-time trick and it will NEVER work again. If you want proof of this, you need look no farther than United Airlines Flight 93. ONE HOUR after the first plane hit the trade center, the passengers of the Pennsylvania flight decided not to let the terrorists keep control of the plane. Despite the fact that the terrorists had already taken control in the cockpit and should have had a significant tactical advantage, the passengers were able to overwhelm them and force them to abort the mission. Had the passengers acted earlier, they would have never even made it to the cockpit. A few passengers may have died, but NO ONE can stand against dozens or hundreds of passengers stampeding them in close quarters.
Our mindset has changed now, and not a single person in the USA, from a seven year old boy to a ninety year old grandmother, is stupid or cowardly enough to let someone hijack the plane. This device is pointless, because no potential hijacker will ever made it to the cockpit ever again.
Re:Waste of money (Score:2)
Unless, of course, we grow complacent and allow people to forget the lessons of 9/11.
Or, if the intent is not to use the plane as a missile, but instead just crash it, or use the threat of crashing it to take hostages.
At any rate, having th
MOD PARENT UP. He's quite correct. (Score:2)
That's exactly what I've been saying ever since the gubment started talking about adding so much more security to airlines. With our new "post-9/11" mindset, the first thing that most people are going to think of if a plane is ever hijacked aga
Wow... (Score:2)
Solve the real problem (Score:2, Interesting)
It couldn't be too hard to provide CCTV into the forward cabin, back to the cockpit - whether an actual screen (does the cockpit need more clutter?) or as an input into an automated pattern-match system. Any manic activity in the cabin gets noticed; any attempt to gain entry to the cockpit is checked against a video screen... however the mechnics function.
Providing a wireless system for "discrete notification" into the
Snake Oil Security (Score:5, Informative)
This is just one more paranoial waste of money without increasing security. Lets face it - the real security is the bullet-proof reinforced flight deck door with CCTV surveillance of the entry area.
The problem with a secret alert device is a) secrets don't remain secret if you mandate it for the entire industry and b) what is the pilot supposed to do if he gets alerted of "suspicious activity" (We have often "suspicious activities" aka unruly passengers)
The pilot can not go back to check it out. He can not just dive to the next airport because it might have been a false alarm or the situation can be resolved by the flight attendants. If every alarm would lead to an diversion the system could be easily misused for a DoS attack.
So in the end he would just have to wait until 1) someone shows up at the cockpit door and tries to force entry: Hijack (better: attempted hijack) or 2) noone shows up: Situtation resolved.
This is the same as the usless keypads on the flight deck door mandated by the FAA. Two buttons would have been enough: regular entry and emergency entry.
The security is not that only the flight attendants know the secret keycodes - with a knive to their throat they will type in the correct one anyway. The security is the video surveillance to check the area from the flight deck. (To be fair: the keypads have the advantage that passengers in search for a toilet will not accidentaly press the "emergency door bell" - which would mean immediate landing)
Back to a) Why secrets won't work: Like every equipment on board it has to be approved by the FAA which makes it expensive which results in only very few vendors offering a system. And they will offer it to any airline, including Saudia Airways, Pakistani Airways and Ariana Afghan Airways and many other. It would be naive to think that intelligent terrorists do not have contacts in the airlines and can not get access to the devices.
In the end most airlines will anyway use the loophole of some "secret" intercom procedure which they have to document and distribute to thousands of FAs and Pilots.
This is just another stupid TSA regulation in a long line of stupid TSA regulations - like not being allowed to stand in a line in front of a toilet.
El Al has the right idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:El Al has the right idea (Score:2)
So the stewardess can run up to tell the pilot his intercom is turned on while someone in the cabin yells "lady, you forgot the coffee!"
Re:Not so bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm trying to imagine a device a crew memember could activate without it being seen. Once word gets out that they press a button on a wrist band, or something else, hijackers will know what action to watch for and what device to remove from the staff.
Maybe they'd be better off with something like the health monitors I saw on the Tour de France. They're wireless and transmit things like heart rate to a monitor. The pilot would have to evaluate the info. If he sees one crew member with a sudden heart rate increase, he can check on that person, but if it happens to two or more at once, that would be a strong indication that something stressful is happening in the plane.
Re:Not so bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
if it were a wristband i would press it anyway if a hijacker told me to put my hands up. i would take the risk to save people on the ground. odds are the hijackers dont have a gun or anything else too dangerous. besides that, i really dont think a plane is going to be successfully hijacked for a looooooooong time. flight 93 is evidence for that.
Re:Not so bad... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why not just put in video cameras?
So the pilot doesn't have to watch the passengers getting killed while he refuses to open the cockpit door?
Re:Not so bad... (Score:2)
Re:Not so bad... (Score:2)
So why not just put a few armed-to-the-sharpened-incisors security guards into the plane, and have them kill or arrest the hijackers instead ? Guards are used to secure every other place with potential problems, so why not airplanes ?
I've never understood how planes can be hijacked in the first place without explosives - they have a 100+ people in a small, cra
Re:Not so bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never understood how planes can be hijacked in the first place without explosives - they have a 100+ people in a small, cramped space, making firearms pretty useless, and the passengers know that they will propably be killed anyway if the plane falls or hits something, so why not just storm the hijacker - or just throw him with bags or something ? It just doesn't add up...
Because hijacked planes did not hit anything until 9-11. Mostly, the hijackers wanted to achieve some other goal, either getting
Re:Not so bad... (Score:2)
Man... US politicians must absolutely fucking hate their citizenry.
Re:Not so bad... (Score:2)
Just like El-Al Airlines [elal.co.il]? I've never flown them, but I hear they have heavily armed guards on each flight.
And yes, it appears that Slashdot changed the "Poste Comment" page.
Re:Not so bad... (Score:2)
Fine. Have it on a wrist band. Make it so that unless you have the proper key, taking off the wrist band sets off the alarm. Of course, you don't exactly publish that little detail.
Re:Not so bad... (Score:4, Insightful)
Making it hard to get away from someone is just a sure way to make sure it's either cut off or the person is killed.
The problem is that most details should not be published, but will be found out anyway. If you've got a highly organized group, you set up a fake hi-jacking. The perps watch what happens to be sure they know what the signal is. Then they communicate this info through their lawyers to their partners.
Re:Not so bad... (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyone concerned with highjacking another plane would probably know about "secret" tricks like wristbands or hidden alarm buttons.
I think this is all kind of moot, however, because anyone highjacking an airliner these days is going to get beaten to death by angry passengers who have nothing to lose. The phrase "I have a knife, I am taking over this plane!" no longer has power.
I do like that heart monitor idea: that would help the pilots keep tabs on the hot new flight attendant's vitals.
(I am not being a pig: there are female pilots and male flight attendants too.)
Re:Not so bad... (Score:2)
So does it really matter if a crew member does something that is possible seen by the hijackers? I mean, really? In bank robberies it *might* make sense not to do anything, because the robbers most likely don't have killing you first in their minds. After 911, it is however quite obvious that if you are in a plane being hijacked, you might as well risk your life protecting others rather than to crash in one place or an other.
Besides, I don't think that it would be that hard to activate in without being
Re:Not so bad... (Score:2)
It's not an after-the-alarm situation. If it's any kind of known action, it can be found out. As I posted elsewhere in this thread, if you're dealing with people ready to die, you can stage a hijacking you intend to fail and the perps can later pass info through their lawyers about what actions they saw the crew take. There's also the possibility that a hijacker might see a flight attendent attempt to reach fo
Re:Not so bad... (Score:2, Funny)
Right. Can you spell m-i-l-e-h-i-g-h-c-l-u-b?
Re:Not so bad... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not so bad... (Score:2)
Re:Not so bad... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not so bad... (Score:2)
Re:Not so bad... (Score:2)
Remind me not to fly during important soccer match (Score:3, Informative)
Already been done [cnn.com]. The Peruvian aviation authority was not amused.
Re:Not so bad... (Score:2)
What about CCTV?
Re:Not so bad... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well, then... (Score:2)
Actually, it is fstab that you want to edit in order to takie care of your filesystem, not dstab. Wait a minute - what are we talking about again?
That's it - no more tequila in the office. For real this time.
Re:Cell Phones (Score:4, Funny)
Re:cockpits (Score:2)
Re:Electronics on board? (Score:3, Informative)
They can use their own computerized equipment because it has gone through a lengthy test cycle with that airplane and been proven not to interfere with the *very* sensitive analog instrument landing system equipment still in use at most airports (and which is also often used on takeoff).
There have been reports of interference with ILS recievers from various electronic equipment. When the downside of scre