A simple way to prevent hijackings?
May 14, 2005 9:21 AM Subscribe
So, I was thinking about the latest "airplane over DC" scare, and it reminded me of something I've been wondering about for a while. Given all the advances in avionics and fly-by-wire technology, couldn't aircraft manufacturers install some sort of 'hijack button' that would irreversibly cause the aircraft to contact the authorities and land itself at the nearest suitable airport, or let someone on the ground take over the controls remotely?
It seems like this would be an ideal way to prevent hijackings and 9/11-type situations, and I'm surprised that it hasn't been implemented yet. Or has it, and we're just not being told?
It seems like this would be an ideal way to prevent hijackings and 9/11-type situations, and I'm surprised that it hasn't been implemented yet. Or has it, and we're just not being told?
Unless the person on the ground is an evil hacker or a terrorist.
posted by caddis at 9:25 AM on May 14, 2005
posted by caddis at 9:25 AM on May 14, 2005
The pilot is ultimately responsible for landing the craft safely. It's difficult to imagine any decent pilot willingly relinquishing control to someone flying a desk.
posted by SPrintF at 9:26 AM on May 14, 2005
posted by SPrintF at 9:26 AM on May 14, 2005
Response by poster: What about the first option, then? Or, what if the plane were to be controlled by, say, a pilot in a USAF escort? Seriously, guys, I think the technology is there to make something like this work without the risk of it being co-opted by evil dudes.
posted by greatgefilte at 9:32 AM on May 14, 2005
posted by greatgefilte at 9:32 AM on May 14, 2005
well, if the pilot has his throat cut and can't fly the plane, i think your attitude would be quite different.
posted by puke & cry at 9:32 AM on May 14, 2005
posted by puke & cry at 9:32 AM on May 14, 2005
Think of the number of airports near major cities. Now, think of what could be snuck onto airplanes beforehand. Getting that plane to an airport near a city that easily could be a terrorists dream.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 9:38 AM on May 14, 2005
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 9:38 AM on May 14, 2005
It's the best way to ensure that the everyone on the plane will die. The second someone hijacks the plane, they want control. If it's taken away, and the the plane is about to land at the nearest air force base, what will stop the hijackers from detonating the bombs or slaughetering the passengers?
In terms of crashing into buildings, I think you have the same problem, and the authorities figure that AA missiles are more of a failsafe.
I doubt it would serve as much of a deterrent also, as I'd guess that the vast majority of the time, a hijacking is done for attention and/or out of desperation - has there ever been a "successful" hijacking that didn't result in the death of the passengers or the hijackers? Especially after 9/11 there are probably much easier ways to cause trouble that fooling with planes.
posted by loquax at 9:41 AM on May 14, 2005
In terms of crashing into buildings, I think you have the same problem, and the authorities figure that AA missiles are more of a failsafe.
I doubt it would serve as much of a deterrent also, as I'd guess that the vast majority of the time, a hijacking is done for attention and/or out of desperation - has there ever been a "successful" hijacking that didn't result in the death of the passengers or the hijackers? Especially after 9/11 there are probably much easier ways to cause trouble that fooling with planes.
posted by loquax at 9:41 AM on May 14, 2005
This was actually proposed soon after 9/11. I'm too lazy to look up a reference, but the proposal was commercial planes would simply refuse to fly near specific parts of the world. Ie: try to fly over the White House and the plane would turn left, whether you wanted it to or not.
It's a terrible idea. In addition to the reasons given above, it's also very unsafe to have a machine always override a pilot's decisions.
posted by Nelson at 10:05 AM on May 14, 2005
It's a terrible idea. In addition to the reasons given above, it's also very unsafe to have a machine always override a pilot's decisions.
posted by Nelson at 10:05 AM on May 14, 2005
It's hard enough to fly a plane when you can feel what it's doing. I can't imagine anyone successfully landing a 747 by remote control. If there are pilots that good, I want them in the plane!
posted by kindall at 10:35 AM on May 14, 2005
posted by kindall at 10:35 AM on May 14, 2005
This might help in the 9/11 scenario, but in the traditional hijacking situation where someone wants political prisoners released (or similar), I don't see the point. Threatening to kill the passengers is just as good a bargaining tool against a pilot on the ground as one in the cockpit. And from the plane hijackings I'm aware of, the plane is usually landed safely somewhere anyway, and the hard part is getting the passengers released.
posted by cillit bang at 10:56 AM on May 14, 2005
posted by cillit bang at 10:56 AM on May 14, 2005
I think one of the best solutions is to enhance security of the cockpit door, as proposed by Ralph Nader.
posted by banished at 12:02 PM on May 14, 2005
posted by banished at 12:02 PM on May 14, 2005
It's hard enough to fly a plane when you can feel what it's doing. I can't imagine anyone successfully landing a 747 by remote control. If there are pilots that good, I want them in the plane!
Pilots use auto-land technology all the time. It's called a Category IIIC approach. Scroll down to Caboclo's comment on this page. The planes literally land themselves. In some sense, a large airliner like a 747 is better suited to this, because its size, weight and approach speed make it more stable, requiring fewer quick corrections.
posted by letitrain at 12:36 PM on May 14, 2005
Pilots use auto-land technology all the time. It's called a Category IIIC approach. Scroll down to Caboclo's comment on this page. The planes literally land themselves. In some sense, a large airliner like a 747 is better suited to this, because its size, weight and approach speed make it more stable, requiring fewer quick corrections.
posted by letitrain at 12:36 PM on May 14, 2005
Who is going to want to pay the extra cost of installing that technology?
posted by mischief at 1:46 PM on May 14, 2005
posted by mischief at 1:46 PM on May 14, 2005
The problem with this is that "The Button" is just software. It has no motivation. It will take decades to test it thoroughly in real-world situations. You want to be one of the testers? avionics do fail, that's why we have real humans up front.
Your meat-type pilots are nicely motivated by the fear of VIOLENT FLAMING DEATH, are much harder to fool, won't go off by accident, cannot be spoofed by someone on the ground. They are also running wetware that has had, oh, a hundred thousand years of testing, based on a platform that has maybe a million years to work the major bugs out.
How's that compare with fresh new code written by the lowest bidder? A pilot actually understands the plane and the situation. Software just follows a set of rules written by some guy in a windowless office somewhere, who probably got things mostly right.
Realistically, if they simply armed every woman who got on the plane we would have no more successfully hijackings. Just issue them a taser of the way in, pick it up on the way out. Women who are not comfortable with one can request a look-alike dummy. The men don't get one 'cause guys would forever be tasering their buddies "by accident"
posted by Ken McE at 8:07 PM on May 14, 2005
Your meat-type pilots are nicely motivated by the fear of VIOLENT FLAMING DEATH, are much harder to fool, won't go off by accident, cannot be spoofed by someone on the ground. They are also running wetware that has had, oh, a hundred thousand years of testing, based on a platform that has maybe a million years to work the major bugs out.
How's that compare with fresh new code written by the lowest bidder? A pilot actually understands the plane and the situation. Software just follows a set of rules written by some guy in a windowless office somewhere, who probably got things mostly right.
Realistically, if they simply armed every woman who got on the plane we would have no more successfully hijackings. Just issue them a taser of the way in, pick it up on the way out. Women who are not comfortable with one can request a look-alike dummy. The men don't get one 'cause guys would forever be tasering their buddies "by accident"
posted by Ken McE at 8:07 PM on May 14, 2005
It's a terrible idea.
Think about it: once you hit the "I'm being hijacked!" button, it should be impossible to override it, right? Otherwise, what's the point--Mr. Bad Guy could just turn it off. So what happens when someone accidentally hits the Hijack button? You can't override it. Too bad, so sad.
As others have already stated, the easiest, cheapest, and most effective deterrent would be an armored pilot door.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:13 PM on May 14, 2005
Think about it: once you hit the "I'm being hijacked!" button, it should be impossible to override it, right? Otherwise, what's the point--Mr. Bad Guy could just turn it off. So what happens when someone accidentally hits the Hijack button? You can't override it. Too bad, so sad.
As others have already stated, the easiest, cheapest, and most effective deterrent would be an armored pilot door.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:13 PM on May 14, 2005
They're already locking the pilots into the cockpit with a secure door. Maybe not bullet proof, but much better than the pre-9/11 days.
posted by Doohickie at 8:23 PM on May 14, 2005
posted by Doohickie at 8:23 PM on May 14, 2005
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Capn at 9:25 AM on May 14, 2005