[janus]

For edification and discussion.

[anniegetyourgun]

Sounds completely reasonable to me.

[america76]

No automated system in existence can land a plane without a pilot. Wind speed and direction, other weather condiions, the planed loaded weight etc. make this nearly impossible. No computer program can land a plane there are too many variables that only a skilled pilot can handle. Ask any pilot and he will tell you every take off and landing is unique. One program will never fit all.

[ConservChristian]

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

[pointsal]

well let's hear something from the airline industry....

[CFIIIMEIATP737]

What about hazardous weather? What sort of test would be required of the system before each flight, both aircraft and ground-based facilities? Can no human override the system if the descent and landing is less than perfect? What insurance underwriter is willing to take the risk in case of failure? Gunfire aboard an airplane is not that bad, except for people. So what if a few bullets penetrated the fuselage? All pressurized airplanes leak, some worse than others. Pressurization itself is nothing more than a regulated leak.

[Mr. K]

hmmm interesting idea- and once the panic button is hit an air force fighter jet immediately is sent to take a look-see...

[anniegetyourgun]

Afterthought....what if two planes are on auto to land at nearest airport - that would present a problem. Could be set to autopilot only to intended destination instead.

Of course, all of this wouldn't keep someone bent on targeting (through suicide mission) planes just to take hundreds of civilians out.

[jackbill]

All that we need is two or so loaded commercial airliners in "safe-mode" heading for the same airport.

[CWRWinger]

"...raised other millions in order to save United Way in San Jose.."

He may be technically smart, but he sure isn't wise. He raised millions for United Way's advertising/fund raising buddies and their management's girlfriends and vacations.

United Way is a leftwing joke, and the joke's on the people of this country.

[oneway]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[diotima]

It sounds like a good idea...I just keep hearing " 'Close the pod bay door, Hal.' 'I am a afraid I can't do that, Dave.' "

[Enough is ENOUGH]

Issue each passenger a gun. Mexican standoff.

[supercat]

A coworker had an even better idea: program the plane's controls to know where they're not supposed to fly, and rig the controls so they won't allow the plane to fly there. For planes which are already flown under entirely electronic control, the added cost of doing this should be fairly small; for planes which allow purely "mechanical" flying, probably all that would need to be taken over would be the elevators: arrange something so that when the plane is over a forbidden zone the elevators force the plane into a 10-30 degree climb.

How does that sound for a plan?