Boeing patents anti-terrorism auto-land system for hijacked airliners
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing patents anti-terrorism auto-land system for hijacked airliners
Cannot believe that nobody else has seen this and there is not uproar!
Apologies if it has been posted elsewhere.
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...+hijacked.html
Apologies if it has been posted elsewhere.
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...+hijacked.html
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast Canada
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I have been annoying people for years with my predictions of pilotless a/c: the progression from 4 or 5 crew to 2, soon one, soon none...should coincide with the last drop of fuel available for the engines. Sort of goes along with the way that pilot lifestyles/pay/working conditions have deteriorated along the way and will probably also coincide with the above.
Four or five pilots sitting about in a lounge, drinking tea. "Captain Prune, flight 6533 is having problems with an engine, Simulator 6, please."
Captain P. enters the sim and straps in, pushes the connect button and connects to the troubled flight, somewhere just short of Paris enroute Frankfurt. He sees the problem with the engine, ensures it has auto-shut-down, reviews the algorithms and proceeds to monitor the approach to Frankfurt. Just for a bit of fun, he takes the controls and flies the approach to the ground, where he returns it to auto as it taxis to the gate. He gets out of the sim and returns to the lounge, looking for his cup for another round, looking forward to his commute home tonight for his next round of days off.
Four or five pilots sitting about in a lounge, drinking tea. "Captain Prune, flight 6533 is having problems with an engine, Simulator 6, please."
Captain P. enters the sim and straps in, pushes the connect button and connects to the troubled flight, somewhere just short of Paris enroute Frankfurt. He sees the problem with the engine, ensures it has auto-shut-down, reviews the algorithms and proceeds to monitor the approach to Frankfurt. Just for a bit of fun, he takes the controls and flies the approach to the ground, where he returns it to auto as it taxis to the gate. He gets out of the sim and returns to the lounge, looking for his cup for another round, looking forward to his commute home tonight for his next round of days off.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holland
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't say this idea will cause uproar, BUT
People will be quite sceptical if they fly aircraft equiped with such a system.
There's always a chance that somebody (on the ground or in the air) activates the system when it's not supposed to be activated.
"ladies and gentleman due to a small mistake we are now going to land "in the middle of nowwhere"( - even i don't know where this will be-
) . As soon as we have landed we wil try to reset all systems, refuel the A/C, and hopefully be airborne soon. I'm sorry to announce that you will not be able to make your connection flight. On behalf of Stupid Airlines i appologize for the delay and inconvenience we caused you. "
i doubt if such a system will be on the market soon, since it wil have to be independed of cb's and fuelcontrolswitches, so it will be quite an complicated and expensive system.
People will be quite sceptical if they fly aircraft equiped with such a system.
There's always a chance that somebody (on the ground or in the air) activates the system when it's not supposed to be activated.
"ladies and gentleman due to a small mistake we are now going to land "in the middle of nowwhere"( - even i don't know where this will be-
) . As soon as we have landed we wil try to reset all systems, refuel the A/C, and hopefully be airborne soon. I'm sorry to announce that you will not be able to make your connection flight. On behalf of Stupid Airlines i appologize for the delay and inconvenience we caused you. " i doubt if such a system will be on the market soon, since it wil have to be independed of cb's and fuelcontrolswitches, so it will be quite an complicated and expensive system.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assumed that the concept of some system being capable of removing the crews ultimate command of the aircraft would not be well received, however you live and learn!
There is also the whole aspect of a faulty activation, or a failure in the override system causing a crash while the crew rides the plane to their destruction as observers.
I wonder if the response would be different if it was an Airbus patent?
There is also the whole aspect of a faulty activation, or a failure in the override system causing a crash while the crew rides the plane to their destruction as observers.
I wonder if the response would be different if it was an Airbus patent?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 447
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In order to be tamper-proof such a system would need to be protected in a number of ways. Otherwise hijackers could try to hack up the floor or ceiling to get at some power supply wiring in order to just "kill" autoflight, FADEC, etc.
Even the flight deck doors which resemble a burglar-safe door set into a chainlink fence are quite heavy. Making all the electronics compartments tamper-proof would add quite a lot of deadload.
Most airplanes I have flown with so far had some more or less easily accessible avionics compartment in the cabin and wreaking havoc in there probably wouldn't enhance the capabilities of George the Saviour.
Giving George the capability to look out for weather might be a headache, too.
Remote control looks more likely though I don't know how one would overcome the time lag.
Basically it boils down to the question whether John Public is more afraid of flying without a pilot or of flying with a pilot trying to make a religious or political statement by crashing.
Even the flight deck doors which resemble a burglar-safe door set into a chainlink fence are quite heavy. Making all the electronics compartments tamper-proof would add quite a lot of deadload.
Most airplanes I have flown with so far had some more or less easily accessible avionics compartment in the cabin and wreaking havoc in there probably wouldn't enhance the capabilities of George the Saviour.
Giving George the capability to look out for weather might be a headache, too.
Remote control looks more likely though I don't know how one would overcome the time lag.
Basically it boils down to the question whether John Public is more afraid of flying without a pilot or of flying with a pilot trying to make a religious or political statement by crashing.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: right here
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the other day we lost both GPS in a 738. not a single light came on. and now you're telling be, boeing thinks, they can make the all-by-itself-autoland-plane. suckers can't build a plane that flys straight.
suckers can't build a plane that flys straight.
So while doing this automatic diversion and landing the system is going to be capable of dealing with all the possible contigencies that a highly trained pilot is prepared to deal with (e.g. system failures, fires, weather, traffic conflicts, etc etc etc)????
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Charlotte and NYC
Age: 45
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think its hard to avoid the conclusion that such systems and UAVs represent the beginning of the end for human pilots on every flight.
How much would the airlines love to eliminate two more expenses from the front end of every leg? If they really were that bent on security, they could have just made the bulkhead solid with a seperate toilette and a coffee/ meal passthrough....not that I find that idea particularly appetizing either.
However while they are at it, perhaps it would be a good idea for the government to have the capability to assume control of all moving/ delivery trucks (HGVs)...there are just so many risks that we really need to eliminate!!
How much would the airlines love to eliminate two more expenses from the front end of every leg? If they really were that bent on security, they could have just made the bulkhead solid with a seperate toilette and a coffee/ meal passthrough....not that I find that idea particularly appetizing either.
However while they are at it, perhaps it would be a good idea for the government to have the capability to assume control of all moving/ delivery trucks (HGVs)...there are just so many risks that we really need to eliminate!!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remote control of airliners exists - for crash analysis
It would remove the threat of suicide hijackers, they would only have to hack into the system from a safe location. Until the pax can view a cockpit camera in flight, we only have your word you are up there!
It would remove the threat of suicide hijackers, they would only have to hack into the system from a safe location. Until the pax can view a cockpit camera in flight, we only have your word you are up there!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Location
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not in the UK ?!?!
Hi Guys,
The idea is not a big deal ! Just a more robust autoland type setup, with the inclusion (obviously) of auto flap, gear, navaid tuning ..etc..
However, I can't ever see the UK CAA allowing a system (that effects primary controls) that cannot be over-ridden by the crew ...
The idea is not a big deal ! Just a more robust autoland type setup, with the inclusion (obviously) of auto flap, gear, navaid tuning ..etc..
However, I can't ever see the UK CAA allowing a system (that effects primary controls) that cannot be over-ridden by the crew ...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane, Oz
Age: 82
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Says it all, really.
To paraphrase the US of A current V.P. . . .
Are we the only people reading this?
No!
Will 'they' learn from these discussion?
Yes!
Will Boeing achieve anything other than giving all admin types a (false) feeling of complete control?
No!
(I could easily go on, but . . .)
So, lets all retire to the local Aero Club bar, and celebrate that 'we' will be needed for a while yet (at least for as long as I am still getting around as a (retired) pax.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I noted this idea in Bruce Schneier's blog just after 9/11 back in 2001. I'm surprised that Boeing were able to patent it as it's so trivial to think of the idea. I'm certain I can't be the first person to come up with the idea as I'm just SLF and not in the aircraft flight computer business.
However, emergency auto-land makes perfect sense from the security point of view: deny the aircraft as a arbitrary destination flying bomb or as a traditional hijack situation (a la the 70's and 80's). It will not stop those who want to just blow up the aircraft who have figured out a way of doing that. Two out of the three major hijack modes completely dispensed with. History has shown that hijackers have never succeeded once back on the ground.
Arming pilots is a stupid idea - it just adds additional arms on a plane already equipped with many tonnes of fuel and an axe.
Solidifying the crew door is a good idea as it makes entry to unauthorized individuals much harder, particularly as PAX seem willing to fight back now, thus allowing pilots to land the plane quickly before the door can be compromised.
Physical security is not about absolutes, it's about deter, delay, and detain. Autoland is deter - there's simply no point any more. Hardened doors and better PAX screening is "delay". One day, someone will crack it especially as screeners are increasingly trained to be unbending and unthinking automatons.
This is a good addition to the threat model, even if it's not implemented widely. A sign saying "autoland fitted" is just as good as the system being actually installed as the attacker will not know for sure unless accompanied by inside knowledge.
Andrew
However, emergency auto-land makes perfect sense from the security point of view: deny the aircraft as a arbitrary destination flying bomb or as a traditional hijack situation (a la the 70's and 80's). It will not stop those who want to just blow up the aircraft who have figured out a way of doing that. Two out of the three major hijack modes completely dispensed with. History has shown that hijackers have never succeeded once back on the ground.
Arming pilots is a stupid idea - it just adds additional arms on a plane already equipped with many tonnes of fuel and an axe.
Solidifying the crew door is a good idea as it makes entry to unauthorized individuals much harder, particularly as PAX seem willing to fight back now, thus allowing pilots to land the plane quickly before the door can be compromised.
Physical security is not about absolutes, it's about deter, delay, and detain. Autoland is deter - there's simply no point any more. Hardened doors and better PAX screening is "delay". One day, someone will crack it especially as screeners are increasingly trained to be unbending and unthinking automatons.
This is a good addition to the threat model, even if it's not implemented widely. A sign saying "autoland fitted" is just as good as the system being actually installed as the attacker will not know for sure unless accompanied by inside knowledge.
Andrew
Once this diversion and land system has been activated, and it cannot be over-ridden how is it going to cope with...
- Engine failure
- Other possible mechanical failures
- Fuel leaks
- Depressurization
- Fires
- Traffic conflicts
- Traffic on runway
- ILS failures
Basically anything unusual that requires the intervention of highly trained flight crew.
So it takes you to your diversion airport, and the ILS is out, or the runway is occupied. Then what? Or you have an engine failure on approach? Or gear problem? Or a depressurization during the diversion? Or you spot a conflict with GA traffic? Or you start to run low on fuel?
Trained flight crew who could handle the situation would only be able to sit there and watch.
It's a frightening idea.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Earth
Age: 61
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can this new autoland system...
Avoid Windshear,
Read a NOTAM,
Avoid a vehicle, aircraft, person or animal on a runway,
Avoid hazardous weather,
Make a critical safety decision,
Perform a missed approach,
Determine that it has a safe amount of fuel, and (the really important question)
Does it breath life, and is it willing and able to preserve that life???
Avoid Windshear,
Read a NOTAM,
Avoid a vehicle, aircraft, person or animal on a runway,
Avoid hazardous weather,
Make a critical safety decision,
Perform a missed approach,
Determine that it has a safe amount of fuel, and (the really important question)
Does it breath life, and is it willing and able to preserve that life???
Guest
Posts: n/a
they can't even spell the word "foolproof" properly. "fullproff" my $ss...
I do of course agree though... computers make much safer pilots than people. But it only takes one crash to never let computers fly again. How many crashes have human pilots produced?
I do of course agree though... computers make much safer pilots than people. But it only takes one crash to never let computers fly again. How many crashes have human pilots produced?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a bad idea to put control of every commercial aircraft in the hands of the very entity that still has not been proven innocent in the original incident that got us here.
And, all communication systems that receive signals from the outside (i.e. non protected networks) are susceptible of being compromised. Next thing you know we will have some bored Dutch kid in cattle class taking control of the aircraft with his cell phone on some transatlantic flight.
And, all communication systems that receive signals from the outside (i.e. non protected networks) are susceptible of being compromised. Next thing you know we will have some bored Dutch kid in cattle class taking control of the aircraft with his cell phone on some transatlantic flight.