'hijack-proof' Airliner
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'hijack-proof' Airliner
According to the Sunday Times yesterday and today’s Daily Telegraph, trials have begun on the first ‘hijack-proof’ airliner. Plans are being developed by UK’s BAE Systems, Airbus and the European Commission in an attempt to counter any terrorists who succeed in slipping through airport security. Similar work is apparently also being done in the US.
The articles state that the systems under development go far beyond the reinforced cockpit doors and sky marshals. They include:
• Electronic ‘sniffer’ explosive/chemical detectors at aircraft doors
• Computer chips which match baggage with passengers on board
• Biometrically controlled cockpit doors and cockpit instruments
• Flight deck computer system to evaluate threats inside aircraft and advise captain on response
• Emergency avoidance system to prevent an aircraft being taken off its flight plan, avoid buildings etc and, in extreme cases, allow controllers on the ground to auto-land it
• Video cameras and microphones to detect unusual patterns of movement around the cabin, facial stress or suspicious actions
Apparently, first tests were carried out last month using actors in aircraft on the ground in both Bristol and Hamburg.
Some of the systems mentioned would appear to be developments of exisiting technologies such as TCAS which might explain why the plan is, apparently, for first elements of the technology to be available to airlines mid-2008. The full system would follow-on a few years later.
The engineers involved in this £22 million four-year study believe the travelling public will be willing to trade this higher level of scrutiny for the increased re-assurance the new systems will provide. No mention of the thoughts of aircrew though!
The articles state that the systems under development go far beyond the reinforced cockpit doors and sky marshals. They include:
• Electronic ‘sniffer’ explosive/chemical detectors at aircraft doors
• Computer chips which match baggage with passengers on board
• Biometrically controlled cockpit doors and cockpit instruments
• Flight deck computer system to evaluate threats inside aircraft and advise captain on response
• Emergency avoidance system to prevent an aircraft being taken off its flight plan, avoid buildings etc and, in extreme cases, allow controllers on the ground to auto-land it
• Video cameras and microphones to detect unusual patterns of movement around the cabin, facial stress or suspicious actions
Apparently, first tests were carried out last month using actors in aircraft on the ground in both Bristol and Hamburg.
Some of the systems mentioned would appear to be developments of exisiting technologies such as TCAS which might explain why the plan is, apparently, for first elements of the technology to be available to airlines mid-2008. The full system would follow-on a few years later.
The engineers involved in this £22 million four-year study believe the travelling public will be willing to trade this higher level of scrutiny for the increased re-assurance the new systems will provide. No mention of the thoughts of aircrew though!
Last edited by backseatjock; 11th Sep 2006 at 23:32.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scan. Monitor the radio. Discuss share prices. You know, the usual stuff.... 
What would you do while someone was trying to kill you?
What would you do while someone was trying to kill you?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: "como todo buen piloto... mujeriego y borracho"
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Psychophysiological entity
I don't believe that it is possible to achieve this goal. The answer, if there is one, has to be in the licencing of the passengers in their fitness to travel. It is a concept that is as extreme as similar measures taken in wartime.
The aviation hardware specialists will be focusing on the aircraft's defenses, leaving the security to ‘other departments', what else can they do? Well, if I were to be asked about modifications to the flying hardware, I would concentrate on the acceptance of the people entering the door. Each and every one of them would have to be acceptable to the on-board system.
The concept of being pre-approved is easier said than done. If the airlines were to be burdened with the task, it would cost the industry more than it could afford, it has to be carried out and funded by governments internationally.
Still, ‘sleepers' or those converted to another faith, or perhaps people that have become angry to the point of illness, will be a risk. Perfect documentation, but their psyche changed in some way. Governments would have to be held accountable for the quality of the vetting.
Aircraft have a unique vulnerability, we can only protect them by precise vetting of every single person that enters them, services them, and delivers goods to the immediate area surrounding them. The cost to the industry will still be vast, but there is no doubt in my mind that this will happen, it's just a case of just what will it take to make it happen. I fear that it might be one or perhaps two more major uses of airliners as weapons before such a radical system is resorted to.
What I'm saying will be unacceptable to almost all the people that have a vested interest in the industry, but we all know that there is no totally foolproof way that we can stop the destruction of an aircraft, when the people doing it are fanatics.
The aviation hardware specialists will be focusing on the aircraft's defenses, leaving the security to ‘other departments', what else can they do? Well, if I were to be asked about modifications to the flying hardware, I would concentrate on the acceptance of the people entering the door. Each and every one of them would have to be acceptable to the on-board system.
The concept of being pre-approved is easier said than done. If the airlines were to be burdened with the task, it would cost the industry more than it could afford, it has to be carried out and funded by governments internationally.
Still, ‘sleepers' or those converted to another faith, or perhaps people that have become angry to the point of illness, will be a risk. Perfect documentation, but their psyche changed in some way. Governments would have to be held accountable for the quality of the vetting.
Aircraft have a unique vulnerability, we can only protect them by precise vetting of every single person that enters them, services them, and delivers goods to the immediate area surrounding them. The cost to the industry will still be vast, but there is no doubt in my mind that this will happen, it's just a case of just what will it take to make it happen. I fear that it might be one or perhaps two more major uses of airliners as weapons before such a radical system is resorted to.
What I'm saying will be unacceptable to almost all the people that have a vested interest in the industry, but we all know that there is no totally foolproof way that we can stop the destruction of an aircraft, when the people doing it are fanatics.
...in extreme cases, allow controllers on the ground to auto-land it...
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 10 west
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hijack-proof airliners
hold on though...maybe we shoud'nt knock these ridiculous ideas so quickly.
lets see.
now..if we get rid of the crew..that way there is no one to threaten.
then we have airliners that are programmed to only to one location at a time..that way it can't be interfered with.
of course it would have to be able to divert to an alternate...but what if for some reason it was closed....then peolpe would just have to stay up there..???
no, no that would'nt work...
oh well back to the drawing board.....
lets see.
now..if we get rid of the crew..that way there is no one to threaten.
then we have airliners that are programmed to only to one location at a time..that way it can't be interfered with.
of course it would have to be able to divert to an alternate...but what if for some reason it was closed....then peolpe would just have to stay up there..???
no, no that would'nt work...
oh well back to the drawing board.....
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope that this will all be run by the DfT people who have done such a superb job with the latest increase in security.
I will then have no doubts at all that it will be a superb improvement in aviation security.
I will then have no doubts at all that it will be a superb improvement in aviation security.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK South Coast
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very simple indeed. Build an aircraft which has absolutely NO access to the flight deck from the cabin ie pilots have their own entry door from the outside. In the cockpit is a galley and loo (as El Al have done to their 747s - door welded locked for the duration of the flight)
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whenever you try to fix one problem,you inevitably create another.How would the airlines cope with the economic effects of all the delays that are bound to occur as a result of nuisance/false warnings.Furthermore,would the airlines have to pay for it?If they do,that cost gets passed onto the customer.
We have seen since 911 several situations which on the face of it posed a threat but subsequently turned out to be benign.We still rely on human intervention which is 100% adaptable;if the circumstances change,the response changes.Would a computer instigate defcon 1 measures for a passsenger with unknown mental problems or a disgruntled first class passenger who has had one too many?Once the threat has been established as benign,how can one be sure that the pilots can regain control?That brilliant scene from 2001 where HAL is disabled springs to mind.
In an ongoing dynamic situation,computers must never replace human intelligence.The new door with correct procedures backed up sky marshalls is the best we have for now.Sounds like some of these new proposals might do some good if limited to check-in and boarding only.
We have seen since 911 several situations which on the face of it posed a threat but subsequently turned out to be benign.We still rely on human intervention which is 100% adaptable;if the circumstances change,the response changes.Would a computer instigate defcon 1 measures for a passsenger with unknown mental problems or a disgruntled first class passenger who has had one too many?Once the threat has been established as benign,how can one be sure that the pilots can regain control?That brilliant scene from 2001 where HAL is disabled springs to mind.
In an ongoing dynamic situation,computers must never replace human intelligence.The new door with correct procedures backed up sky marshalls is the best we have for now.Sounds like some of these new proposals might do some good if limited to check-in and boarding only.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Camel jockey
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
• Emergency avoidance system to prevent an aircraft being taken off its light plan, avoid buildings etc and, in extreme cases, allow controllers on the ground to auto-land it
And what if as in the case of 9/11 there are multiple threats, just how many ground control systems will there be,
ie "well we had 3 but there where 4 threats, sorry about the BA aircraft, but the US ones got priority, Although it's on-board building avoidance system worked right up to the point where we shot it down, then sadly it failed"
or even,
"thank god the pilots where there to land the 4th aircraft safely"
And what if as in the case of 9/11 there are multiple threats, just how many ground control systems will there be,
ie "well we had 3 but there where 4 threats, sorry about the BA aircraft, but the US ones got priority, Although it's on-board building avoidance system worked right up to the point where we shot it down, then sadly it failed"
or even,
"thank god the pilots where there to land the 4th aircraft safely"
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: England
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Reason Behind It
Think what you like about the prospect behind this concept coming to fruition, however it's premised upon a very forceful motivator. Since 9/11 there have been numerous EU instances of airliners and bizjets out of contact for protracted periods and suicidal light aircraft impacting upon the lawns of the German Chancellery etc. In all instances as the aircraft moved through Europe, crossing individual EU states without anybody being able or willing to produce a shootdown decision, the potential for an ultimate fiasco was obvious.
.
Not only do 40% of EU states lack an intercept capability, the incentive is always there just to see the rogue aircraft to the next border and then breathe a sigh of relief as it becomes yet another reluctant pollie's responsibility. NATO has no remit to intercept or shootdown rogue/hijacked aircraft, so the problem can't be fobbed off on it.
.
This project is seen as the last best hope for taking this career-ending nightmare potentiality away from being a politician's burden. In the event a martyr aircraft did get through, the politicians can always say that the system was in place to ensure that the suicide mission failed and that they therefore cannot accept any responsibility. So you could say that the project has the fervent hopes (and economic strength) of the EU behind it. Even if it doesn't come to fruition for some years, the EU national leaders can point to the project and say, after a successful attack, that they were developing a coping mechanism and not allowing the grass to grow under their feet.
.
.
Not only do 40% of EU states lack an intercept capability, the incentive is always there just to see the rogue aircraft to the next border and then breathe a sigh of relief as it becomes yet another reluctant pollie's responsibility. NATO has no remit to intercept or shootdown rogue/hijacked aircraft, so the problem can't be fobbed off on it.
.
This project is seen as the last best hope for taking this career-ending nightmare potentiality away from being a politician's burden. In the event a martyr aircraft did get through, the politicians can always say that the system was in place to ensure that the suicide mission failed and that they therefore cannot accept any responsibility. So you could say that the project has the fervent hopes (and economic strength) of the EU behind it. Even if it doesn't come to fruition for some years, the EU national leaders can point to the project and say, after a successful attack, that they were developing a coping mechanism and not allowing the grass to grow under their feet.
.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most medium and large aircraft are equipped for autoland nowadays. How many airports are epuipped for it? With accurate ILS's and everything required for low vis operations? And what about the airports that can not use ILS or final approach aids sufficiently accurate for autoland? Dream on.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The motivation here is the promise of total safety from hijacking.
The assumption is that the public will pay any price to achieve this promise.
The fallacy is that there is no such thing as total safety (oops, have I just just disclosed a state secret???)
The assumption is that the public will pay any price to achieve this promise.
The fallacy is that there is no such thing as total safety (oops, have I just just disclosed a state secret???)