Silicon Valley plans to stop skyjackings...all of them.

ZDNET news desk ^ | 9/13.01 | David Coursey

[oneway]

A simpler approach would to make the cock pit impenatrable and have a couple of sky marshalls guarding it with fractals...

[Restorer]

This is all great but why can't we just seal the door to the cockpit?

How long would the pilots keep the door sealed with the flight attendants and/or passengers being killed and/or tortured on the other side to induce them to open up? That is apparently what happened on at least one of the planes Tuesday.

[Gladwin]

That is better than 2 airplanes crashing into the WTC. Also, you could program each flight number with a unique emergency landing site and time of landing.

[LBGA]

Interesting idea. What do you think, RightOnline?

[AlaskaErik]

Sounds reasonable to me, also, HOWEVER, I heard that these terrorists were able to yank out the piece of equipment that allowed the control towers to track them, and I'm wondering if the same could be done with this panic button apparatus, once it's been used?

No need to tear it out. The transponder can simply be turned to standby or turned off. As for the black boxes associated with the panic system, they can be placed in a part of the aircraft not accessible during flight. Preventing hijackers from defeating a panic system would be incredibly easy as long as a self-diagnostic check is included in the system that insures the system is functional just prior to take off. This would prevent an accomplice in the maintenance department from disabling the system right before pushback. The whole system could be built from off the shelf equipment already in existence.

[ffrancone]

Seal the cockpit and issue a can of pepper spray to each passenger. Impossible at that point to hijack any airplane. And, the perceived risk would be so great as to turn the terrorists attention elsewhere.

[Ethrane]

"No automated system in existence can land a plane without a pilot. "

Check your facts...this has been done many times...

If I'm not mistaken, military jets can be landed on an aircraft carrier by remote systems...

[RightOnline]

Thanks for the ping. This was posted on another thread a day or two ago, and as I said then, if I can figure out how to disarm it in a heartbeat (ex-pilot), then I think it's safe to say that Abdul the Terrorist sure can, as well............after some training, of course. Nice thinking on this guy's part, etc., etc., but WAY too easy to disable.

[Mr.E]

"and automatically land the aircraft there."

There lies the problem....

[runningbear]

Sounds like revisions are needed. I see lots of bugs to work out. And terrorist don't care if the plane lands or not, they want to disrupt the status quo, free market economy, and Capitolism, USA. So a computer safe mode is fine for the means, but the end result is another matter.

[Gladwin]

It is still better than having them hit the World Trade Center.

[CWRWinger]

NEWS FLASH!!!! (this is a parody only)

"School bus hit by drunk driver! Children hurt and taken to a local hospital!"

"Community in shock! Outrage expressed for not having seat belts on the bus!"

The above did take place a few years ago. The real problems are the drunk driver and the constant obsession for a technical solution for everything, while avoiding the tougher questions of how to deal with man's fallen nature and tendency to do wrong.

IMO, the auto-pilot, auto-land idea is a joke. But if Steve is a good friend of Mr. Condit and well connected, he could probably legally plunder a small fortune from the taxpayers.

[Gladwin]

Ping!! for excellent idea

[Gladwin]

The real problems are the drunk driver and the constant obsession for a technical solution for everything, while avoiding the tougher questions of how to deal with man's fallen nature and tendency to do wrong.

We use a technical solution called penicillin to treat syphilis. Syphilis is caused by moral failings.

[WVNan]

I vote for sealed cockpits and sleepy gas triggered by flight attendants or pilots. No gas masks allowed on board.

[ThePythonicCow]

There was a discussion of such ideas for a "dead man's auto-land" switch on planes on a late night radio talk show last night.

I'm vague on the details, but apparently this was considered in some detail by some commission one of the talkers was on, and they concluded that the various failure modes were as risky, at least for current planes (which do not lower flaps or landing gear by computer only).

One possible variant seemed possible -- have the "dead man's switch" put the plane in straight ahead flying mode, _only_ releasable by a signal from another plane flying _very_ close (to prevent ground activation). That other plane would be a fighter escort, which would have time to scramble and catch up to the hi-jacked plane.

The talk show would have likely been on KSFO 560, San Francisco, Thursday or Friday evening. I don't recall more - sorry.

[HEFFERNAN2]

And how do you propose to land the plane? I have a much better idea but I certainly won't tell you and the thief Bill Gates who made a mint off other people's ideas. No thank you. If you are interested email me and my people will get in touch with Gates and make sure he has his checkbook handy. Semper Fi, Mike

[AZPubbie]

Airliners cannot land on autopilot. I think that this Steve Kirsch is the same guy who took out full page ads criticizing the president's education record just prior to the election. He's a jackass and it sounds like he's an idiot too.

[TheLion]

If the hi-jackers can get at it....it is not fool proof. They could torture the pilots into giving up the code. Better solution is to seal off the cockpit someway. If this is publicly known, the thugs will look elsewhere. Most flights don't need any pampering from stewardesses and stewards. They could even fend for themselves on longer flights. Passengers could be isolated from the crew.

[Gladwin]

Uh, yes they can.