'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!

Could make sequencing a little easier as well ;)

And what do the pilots do while the controls are taken away from them?

Scan. Monitor the radio. Discuss share prices. You know, the usual stuff.... :hmm:

What would you do while someone was trying to kill you?

El-Al already has 'hijack-proof' Airliners. It's not rocket science.

I predict the Indian ATC'ers are going to love this concept and demand that the all aircraft will have this feature switched on.

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.

"Governments would have to be held accountable "
Dream away my friend

Reads to me like: "...in extreme cases, allow terrorist hackers on the ground to fly it into a building.."

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.....:ugh: :ugh:

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.

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)

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.

so how does all this hijack proof BS stop a jihad warrior from detonating an explosive? or killing PAX, or firing a rocket at it from the ground?

What if the hijackers hijack the tower?

• 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":D

or even,

"thank god the pilots where there to land the 4th aircraft safely":ok: :ok:

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.
.

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.

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???) :rolleyes:

There is in aviation: stop flying. That aside, I agree.

Where would they take it to?


Sorry!

It is so much easier to spend billions of $$$ on trying to make a machine that will solve a human problem. :rolleyes:

This is such a wonderful idea by the hardware manufacturers and defence companies. They will make millions before the concept is abandoned..

Many of the posts here just spell out why my miserable, almost science-fiction type of solution will eventually be the only way forward. The cost will be huge whichever way we go, but I have a terrible gut feeling that what we have now is the lull before the storm. I hope I'm wrong, but the ‘success' of 9/11 will not be missed on the planners of chaos.

An aircraft that weighs 20% more due to cast iron bulkheads and other daft ideas, will also be a burden to be paid for by nations not airlines...well, unless ticket prices double. Even then, to effect the winning of a battle, they only have to bring it down over a town. No need to be at the controls. All in all, it will be better to work towards carrying ‘sterile' passengers.

What I'm saying is, whichever way we go, it will be expensive: a partial rundown of aviation as we know it, before rebuilding the industry.

Of course, there is another route. Working towards some understanding of the hatred that these fanatics feel towards us, and working towards battle agreements that would leave aviation alone. I'm mindful of the IRA's policy of backing off after the mortar attack at Belfast. It was in their interest to leave aviation alone. Their determination was absolute, but I'm told there were several reasons for not attacking aviation. Just maybe there could be a common logic. Mmmm......Now I'm dreaming.

I agree with Mode7. It isn't the answer to all the problems but I've always thought having a completely seperate flight deck would go a long way in reducing possibilities open to a potential hijacker. But then you wouldn't get to chat to the hosties I s'pose...:}

Well ... if the politicians chatted with the folks that hate them and try to find out WHY they hate them (it ain't difficult, coz they keeps telling us) then we don't need to have sterile pax or cast iron flying machines.

As I keep repeating, this is a human problem, created by humans. Machines and the deities are not needed.

You also get to ponder the irony of this thread sitting right next to the thread about the Helios accident ...

Bring back thise hard nosed FE's. That will solve the problem.

Well I know of at least one hi-jack that was ended with a gentle tap on the skull with a Flight Engineer's torch.
Not only a separate flight deck, but the ability to jettison the cabin would be a good start. A gentle para descent and flotation devices should limit the punters complaints.
One common factor to all the suggestions made in the original posting. They all need electrical power.
There lies the first weakness.

I'm sure the terrorist labor union is disturbed by this development.

Teams of terrorist operatives could always count on years of financial assistance while training, and maybe a small pension for their families. (jihadi video royalties)

Now they will be able to outsource these labor intensive teams to some disgruntled teenage computer hacker with a joystick. :E

No mate the fallacy is that the public will pay! Not up front they won't.A mythical source will provide limitless cash.Oh that would be me would it? Subsidising air transport throgh taxation?

I didn't know they do that....those devilishly clever Israelis must be frightfully good at welding before each flight, then unwelding when it comes down again, then rewelding, off again, down again, unwelding, rewelding, unwelding, rewelding.......

Do the aircrew do that? Or is it a specialist job?

Futile attempts?
 

Sooo - when airside is blocked, when will "they" turn elsewheres?

:confused:

Quite soon. To cargo shipments and remote maintenance hangars, not necessarily in that order.

Hollywood gave "them" the idea of using aircraft for kamikaze. Don't remember the movie, but it's there... Long before 2001.

Shudder at the thought of what ships entering US harbours may do, the checks there not matching airports.

Kinda weird that "gods-own-country" may give control of their harbours to the very kind that they now are at war with.

Strange world, I say. :ugh:

About 25 years ago a C172 pilot attacked the White House and managed to damage a shrub, I believe, but it intensified D.C. security quite a bit; sharpshooters on the roof were the result I believe.

star wars
 

some time in the future.....
all flts will be "launched" out of an airfield in to the air and on board systems like automatic terrain aviodance coupled with gps coupled with google earth uplink;) will prevent the aircraft from approaching terra firma at all parts of the globe except designated airfields determined by a encrypted uplink from acars.On approaching an airfield, video feed from the cockpit+biometric data will be verified against ref data by controller and company security, at which point the automatic terrain aviodance mode will change to ILS capture mode.In the event of a go-around system will revert back to terrain avodance mode.Any perfomance degradation that may lead to ditching/forced landing/fuel starvation is prohibitted by law:E

The plane is not the problem....
 

the passenger is.
As long as they maintain political correctness and these half-wit security measures we will have problems with people coming aboard with less then honorable intentions.
Everybody might be better off spending a little more on good security then spending millions making aircraft bomb-proof.
Example:
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/N...998462,00.html
Pilots do not need shoe bombs to bring down a plane...