'Greatest security breach in the nation's history'

USA Today ^ | 9/12/01 | Jack Kelley, Kevin Johnson and Toni Locy

[kattracks]

WASHINGTON

[supercat]

At least one of the commercial pilots was able to activate a cockpit warning code that alerts air traffic controllers that their jets have been hijacked, sources say.

While I would not want airplanes to include a device to allow control to be taken over by radio, what would be the cost and effects of a "hijack button" which would specifically allow such control takeover [and could not be overridden except by radio control]? Until Tuesday I would have thought the cost/benefit ratio totally absurd, but unless passengers are strip-searched before every flight I can see no other way to prevent a repeat of Tuesday's events.

[TennesseeProfessor]

Unfortunately, these terrorists knew how to turn off a transponder, which means they had more flight training than just a software simulator. If there had been a flipover switch, the terrorists would have known about it and prevented its use.

But that is a good point -- if even someone like me knows that a trasponder code of 7700 means hijacking, then it no longer serves its purpose of being a hidden way of alerting authorities. Maybe code opening the cockpit door to the transponder? But then how to handle stewardesses? Hmmm... Need more ideas.

[HiTech RedNeck]

The time to hit the hijack button would be before the hijackers broke into the cockpit. For such a button to thwart a hijacking, it would have to be incapable of being toggled back off until the aircraft has landed, and then only under encrypted radio control.

However I don't know how much cost that remote controllability (which would have to include landing capability which is a heavily manual task) would add.

[waxhaw]

I hold the Clinton administration directly responsible for the successful attacks of these terrorists. For 8 years the Clintonistas emasculated the U.S. Intelligence Community; hundreds of experienced analysts and intelligence collectors either resigned, retired or were fired. You can't pluck good analysts and collectors from trees - in these professions, like most professions, experience counts. For 8 years the Intel Community saw its budget constantly being cut - stations and collection centers all over the world have been closed and since many of the people who manned these stations were "overseas/operations" type personnel there was no place for them in the U.S. based intelligence hierarchy... many resigned or retired. The Clintonistas have always displayed an animosity towards those who have dedicated themselves to the protection of our nation, its people and our Constitution... our nation is reaping what the Clintons sowed.

[supercat]

The time to hit the hijack button would be before the hijackers broke into the cockpit.

Precisely, though any time after that the pilot could manage it would be good as well.

For such a button to thwart a hijacking, it would have to be incapable of being toggled back off until the aircraft has landed, and then only under encrypted radio control.

Is it possible to reasonably-safely land a large aircraft via combination of radio control and reasonably-priced automatic equipment? My impression is that nearly all, if not all, commercial aircraft land manually. My guess would be that without a very expensive control system the best that could be hoped for under remote control would be a very rough landing which would probably result in injuries even if the plane landed on a foamed runway.

I think it would be much more practical to allow control to be returned to the cockpit via radio link (encrypted, of course) while airborne [though the "hijack" switch would remain set so the plane could be taken over again by radio link]. I don't see the risk of someone with inside access to the code/keys sending an "unlock" signal as being any greater than that of someone with inside access simply flying the plane by remote control after the "hijack" button was pushed, and allowing for a manual landing could considerably simplify the control override; I'd suggest that the radio link, when activated (the "hijack" button has been hit following takeoff, AND the plane is receiving an encrypted take-over signal) simply force the plane to auto-pilot to 10,000 feet elevation at a specified course. Not too much to hit at 10,000 feet if other aircraft are warned to stay clear.

[InterceptPoint]

I hold the Clinton administration directly responsible for the successful attacks of these terrorists. For 8 years the Clintonistas emasculated the U.S. Intelligence Community; hundreds of experienced analysts and intelligence collectors either resigned, retired or were fired. You can't pluck good analysts and collectors from trees - in these professions, like most professions, experience counts.

I am betting you are right about this. What can you point us to that would quantify your assertion of budget cuts in the Intelligence Community during the Clinton Dark Ages?

[HiTech RedNeck]

And when the craft runs out of fuel...? The remote control would take the kamikaze option away from the occupants, short of a physical breach of the hull. I believe modern airliners run all their controls by servo anyhow, though there are safety requirements for mechanical backups. In anti-hijack mode, just override the mechanical links and control the servos by radio, and transmit the instruments back by radio, through a ground console which duplicates the cockpit.