ATC to Land Distressed Aircraft by Remote Control? - Bush

[Airbubba]

From the Washington Post's coverage of President Bush's speech at ORD:

"He said the government will offer grants to develop new airline safety technology, such as video systems to allow pilots to monitor the passenger cabin and transponders that cannot be shut off from the cockpit and continuously relay a plane's location to air traffic controllers. >>He also said the government will explore the possibility of allowing air traffic controllers to take over the helm of a plane in trouble and land it by remote control. Aviation experts say such technology is well within reach.<<"

This would be something new, even if the technology is feasible on newer fly by wire aircraft, would the cost of training and other issues be worth whatever incremental margin of safety this would add? Sounds a lot like the research to control aircraft attitude by thrust alone proposed after the UAL Sioux City DC-10 crash. Perhaps not worth the money invested considering the low probability that it would indeed save lives someday.

The cabin video and transponder proposals sound much more reasonable to me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34273-2001Sep27.html

[BOING]

For ATC to take over the helm of a plane in trouble implies that there is no-one on board the aircraft capable of piloting the aeroplane, otherwise someone would.That only leaves a few possibilities.

The first is that the pilots are all dead or incapacitated and the hijackers cannot fly the aircraft - pretty dumb move on their part! Otherwise any pilot trained terrorists would disconnect the remote flight system and do what they wanted with the aeroplane. At least, the terrorists would simply find some way to crash the aeroplane, such as shutting down the engines, rather than be flown quietly to jail.

The second possibility is that the FAA is thinking in terms of gassing everyone on the aeroplane to secure it. Then the plane would have to be landed from outside.

The third possibility is that the Feds are thinking of installing some sort of automatic system which is totally separate from the normal aircraft control system and which can be used to over-ride them. Next time ATC says "hold 210 till the marker" they can just fly the aircraft for you!

Where is Boy George getting his ideas from? No wonder security is a mess if the same people are advising him who bought up this idea. The FAA cannot even keep their present radars working. Any high tech. system they have tried to install has been a disaster with massive delays and cost overruns. How would controllers be trained and kept current? What technology would be needed? The aircraft installation alone would be enormously complex and expensive.

Sounds like a turf grab by the FAA to me.

How many sky marshals could you buy for the R&D costs of this project? To be more accurate, it would probably be cheaper and quicker to buy a few of the more troublesome countries than finance this idea.

I sure hope it works better than the missile defence system!

[spannerhead]

Didn't someone try this with an old 707 during an experiment? Trying out a new fuel? It didn't work then...and the remote pilot must have had hours of pratice!!!

[West Coast]

The technology to fly the aircraft already exists to a limited degree in the military through data links. Autoland capability has also been around for awhile. Don't discount the idea out of hand.

[ft]

Yes, it is a brilliant idea. This way, you don't even have to be on the plane to hijack it. Just take over the ATC center which is probably a lot easier - or duplicate the comms somehow. Gee, now a terrorist won't even have to be onboard the plane to crash it...

Smart.

Now if the plane instead goes to a CAT III alternate (lots of those all over as we all know) automatically when a panic button is hit, the idea is just outrageously ridiculous, not criminally stupid.

/ft

[swashplate]

Also, what happens if the Terrorists jammed the radio datalink.....? :eek:

.....scary........ :eek:

The technology isn't easy to come by, but then it's not easy to train B767 pilots and they managed it. No shortage of electronics engineers out there..... :rolleyes:

All you do is rebroadcast the RF signal in antiphase......

[Roadtrip]

What makes anyone think that a suicidal terrorist is just going to sit there and watch the aircraft land itself. They're going to pull circut breakers, tear up wiring bundles, start fires, etc to crash the aircraft.

The only way you're going to stop it is to KILL the terrorist on the spot and not surrender command of the aircraft.

But since our government doesn't trust us with firearms, they've decided to shoot us down instead. Bizarre.

[Tripower455]

This make MUCH more sense than simply arming the pilots.... :rolleyes:

[Dagger Dirk]

SwashPlate
If it was so easy to jam satellite transponders, GPS would be a particularly vulnerable system. The fact is that it is now an indispensable tool of commerce in many industries, apart from aviation - and it is protected by a number of means which you are simply unaware of.

To quote from the text of the Bush speech: "He said the government will offer grants to develop new airline safety technology, such as video systems to allow pilots to monitor the passenger cabin and transponders that cannot be shut off from the cockpit and continuously relay a plane's location to air traffic controllers. He also said the government will explore the possibility of allowing air traffic controllers to take over the helm of a plane in trouble and land it by remote control. Aviation experts say such technology is well within reach."

The RoboLander concept is simply a post 11 Sep 01 up-to-date development of something (http://www.iasa-intl.com/RoboLander.htm#centimetric) that Stanford U and NASA Langley were working on with 100% success back in 1994 (and since). Over four days in 1994 they autolanded a 737 with centimetric accuracy utilising GPS - over a 100 times with no failures or failings. So why has nothing much further been heard of it? The problem with the concept has always been the public's gut reaction to the whole proposition. This has led to inhouse studies and research within the larger avionics companies, but no government contracts and very little military research funding beyond what has gone into the Global Hawk, the Predator, cruise missile and other RPV's. Following on from GWBush's statement you could expect all that to change and the Aerospace consortiums are now forming up as we speak for a slice of these technology research grants.

Moreover, both this satellite transponder-based technology and airliner autoland itself are now very mature. So you would have to expect, following on from the traumatic events of 11 Sep and the Presidential announcement, that movement on this front will not be dissimilar to that created by JFK's "We will put a man on the moon by the end of this decade - and return him safely to earth". The requirement for RoboLander (and its system specs) was virtually defined on 11 Sep 01 by the terrorists themselves . You have to recall that terror in various forms revisits airline aviation very regularly. Its latest format is wholly unacceptable and totally repugnant to any concept of "civilised" warfare and so the eliminatory response must be, in the medium term, based upon the Western World's considerable capacity for technical innovation. There is ample precedent for the present knee-jerk reactions of adding Sky-marshalls and then later covertly withdrawing them [following in camera hearings held behind closed doors for "security reasons"). It's simply a 21st century stammering and stuttering response to what's been done before and always later failed (but this time with greater calamity). The Administration knows that but is strapped by having to be seen to do something tangible right now - in order to stop the aerospace and airline industry global meltdown. But they are certainly now looking beyond band-aid solutions toward permanent fixes. It's a certain case now of "Fool me once, shame on you, but fool me twice, shame on me". They know very well that comes the day that those two licenced USAF Generals make a decision to shoot down a jet full of innocent passengers, whether hijacked or simply disabled, well that's the beginning of a slippery slope (for background read "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire").

So like it or not, it will come and I'll cite the opinion here of Rainman (a long-time Boeing and McDD automated flight-control expert). He sees no impracticality at all with RoboLander, neither in design, implementation, nor reliability. In fact when you look at the detailed RoboLander concept, do so with a jaundiced eye and try to pick the flaws. Keep in mind that it's an [b]irreversible but not irrevocable transfer of autonomous flight-control - and that there are other useful modes without any anti-terrorist considerations or provisions. That is a wholly unsubtle difference that is being missed by most of the poo-poo, tut-tut, shock-horror and otherwise dismissive brigades.

Charlie R wrote:

Ques: Did I hear President Bush correctly today at O'Hare? - that a remote system is being proposed to allow ATC to safely land a disabled aircraft?
Talk about a risk!

Rainman Answer: With all due respect, Charlie, unless you are a design engineer who has done formal Safety Analysis (which includes risk and probability assessments) for aviation systems (I have done them for automatic landing systems that have to meet 10^-9 probabilities of catastrophic failures) I would encourage you to not make such assumptions about a remotely-controlled "hijack proof" airplane.

Many "lay folk" love to throw around the words "safety" and "risk" as if they are nebulous subjects. In the world of aircraft system design, they are very specific. And I guarantee you that a remotely-controlled system could be developed that would meet its intended function, and be at an "extremely improbable" risk (those are FAA words) for suffering a hull loss.

The human pilot is the strongest link in the aviation safety chain when it comes to handling malfunctions. Unfortunately, that same pilot can immediately become the weakest link in a hijacking situation. The most effective solution is simply to REMOVE control (or ceding thereof) of the airplane from any soul on board.

I know I will get my hand slapped on this one (again), but at least my issue (being one of flight deck technology) is closer to the Bluecoat charter than discussions of pilots packing heat.

Rainman

I think it's realised that the industry downturn will cause many older (and aging) aircraft to be parked (most of them permanently). Rainman's opinion is "It would work well and be readily retrofittable onto the most modern fly-by-wire flight decks (777, A320, A330, A340 series)." So I think that any such qualified opinion gives some considerable credibility to the concept.... as does the opinion of the Tom Cassidy, president and CEO of the San Diego company of General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. In a letter to Secretary Minetta he said: "Aircraft anywhere in the nation could be remotely controlled from just one or two locations using satellite links, Cassidy said. Those locations could be heavily fortified against terrorists.

"The technology is available," Cassidy said. "We use it every day."
.
http://chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0109280208sep28.story

.There are other qualified opinions here (in the RoboLander Concept Discussion)
. http://www.iasa-intl.com/RoboLander.htm

[Self Loading Freight]

Swashplate

You can't 'broadcast the signal in antiphase' unless you know the precise phase and amplitude of the signal at the receiver's antenna *and* can calculate the path budget instantaneously to generate the exact opposite at the receiver. Due to little problems like the speed of light, this is unfortunately impossible...

If you want to jam a signal, the only two ways to do it are to generate some sort of false signal that the receiver preferentially receives, or to put so much energy into the appropriate part of the spectrum that the receiver is unable to distinguish the wanted signal. Neither is easy, and in many cases both are effectively impossible or vulnerable to countermeasures.

R

[EGDR]

If this was possible and totally safe, then why even bother with a stick monkey ?

[Wino]

2 summers ago GPS went down over most of france because someone was experimenting with a jammer. It worked, much to the consternation of some of us who were crossing France every day on our GPS backed up INS systems.

GPS is very jammable.

Cheers
Wino

[Roadtrip]

Not in our lifetime. A terrorist could still at least crash the airplane by internal destruction of systems, wire bundles, etc.

With the US government's willingness to shoot down hijacked airliners and murder the crew, pax, and terrorists, why don't they just put a self-destruct package on all commercial aircraft that can be triggered by remote control from some military command center. Saves the cost of an interceptor's jet fuel.

Just when you thought it just couldn't get any more stupid . . . .

[Hoverman]

"With the US government's willingness to shoot down hijacked airliners and murder the crew, pax, and terrorists ....."
Roadtrip
You call it "murder", deliberately emotive, and also incorrect.
Are you saying that it would have been wrong of the US government to shoot down the aircraft before they hit WTC or Pentagon if they'd been able to do so?
Is it wrong for the Police to kill (or murder as you incorrectly call it) a gunman murdering (correct use) lots of innocent people?

[john_tullamarine]

spannerhead,

I suspect that you are thinking of an experiment quite a few years ago with a 720 (as I recall). The intent was to look at various aspects of crashworthiness. The aircraft was flown by remote control to a landing in amongst some stakes to control the rupture of the wings. My recollection of some technical reports at the time is that the experiment was quite successful.

So far as RPV style operations are concerned, the industry has been doing just that for many years. Australia has made a tidy sum with Jindivik target RPVs dating back to a long time ago.

[Roadtrip]

Maybe a lawyer out there can answer that. Is there a law in the US code that allows law enforcement to intentionally kill innocent civlians in the course of stopping or aprehending a criminal?

If a gunman is shooting in a crowd, does that give the government the right to machine gun the entire crowd in order to kill the gunman?

What the government may try and rely on is a "act of war" angle. For years we have been skating closer and closer to defacto negation of the Posse Comitus (sp?)law.

It is immoral, IMHO, to authorize the shootdown of an airliner full of innocent people, when at the same time, the government intentionally denies the commander of the aircraft the basic tools to defend the command of that aircraft, and thereby possibly negate the perceived necessity destroy the aircraft and kill innocent passengers and crew.

[Roadtrip]

John T -
With the 720, was flown gear up at a low rate of descent into cutters that intetionally breached the fuel tanks. The experiment was to test a fuel additive that decreased a post crash fire. The intended crash landing was totally successful. The fuel additive was completely unsuccessful, as witnessed by the REALLY big post crash fire.

To fit a autofly/autoland system onto present commercial aircraft would be very expensive. A ground based cockpit/pilot taking over remotely would be very difficult considering the various types of aircraft that may have to be remotely controlled. Many aircraft are not even equipped with autoland, and even less with CATIIIc with rollout. Since remote live pilot would be impractical, there would need to be a L/VNAV navigation logic/takeover the autopilots that would fly the aircraft to the nearest CATIIIc runway (not a whole lot of those)and shoot the entire procedure. There would need to be extra circutry to lower the gear, flaps, arm speed brakes, and arm autobrakes. There would also need to be a complete disconnect of all circut breakers, cockpit switches, etc. to prevent a suicidal hijacker from simply turning off power to essential flight equipment/flight controls and other compenents. Even after all that a hijacker could destroy the pitot static system essential to the CADCs or go into the equipment bay and begin destroying LRUs.

While an admiral idea, remote/auto control of a commercial airliner would only be useful against incapacitation of both pilots, but still allow a suididal pilot to at least crash the aircraft and kill everyone on board, just maybe not at the place of his choosing.

[Wino]

The airframe and avionics builders have come out and said that this is a crackpot idea that seams to have taken on a life of its own via the internet. It was in a corner of last weeks Flight international.

Cheers
Wino

[john_tullamarine]

Roadtrip,

Dear me. I intended to suggest that the remote controlled aspects of the program were successful, not the fuel crashworthiness aspects. I guess that I really must start using qualifications on top of qualifications in my posts.

You are quite correct in that the FAA sponsored NASA CID program was an incredibly underwhelming success in respect of the fuel additive idea. It put FAA proposals to mandate the stuff aside very rapidly. I have some video clips of the impact sequence tucked away somewhere in the office and they make for entertaining viewing.

My recollection of reports was that a number of subsidiary tests programs were successful. If my memory is up to it, there were a number of cabin crashworthiness tests involved which was my interest at the time.

[Wino]

I seam to recall that the remote controll aspect did NOT go well. Infact the aircraft was experiencing porpoising and struck the ground well short of its intended impact area.

Cheers
Wino

[john_tullamarine]

I guess it would take input from someone involved in the program at the time to clarify this. Certainly the impact from video and photo records is into the staked area. The video does show some instability but not what I would have thought was a concern.