'Soft walls' will keep hijacked planes at bay

New Scientist ^ | 7/2/03 | Anil Ananthaswamy

[paulk]

duhh - what hapens when they cut power to this system?

Dumb- dumber - come on guys think!

What a waste of money.

[LibWhacker]

I don't know. Presumably hijackers will not be able to disable the system from inside the plane.

[exit82]

Won't work on the Airbus. The pilot will try to turn left, and the plane will try to turn right. Then the tail falls off.

[ALASKA]

I hope this technology can be refined down to a personal level. It sounds like a perfect way to keep an ex-GF or two away.

[freekitty]

I think it's great. The article says the buildings have batteries so you don't need power. Bagdad didn't have any power when these planes were used so they must have used something.

[freekitty]

Interesting point.

[JRandomFreeper]

what hapens when they cut power to this system?

Because it controls flight surfaces, it is redundant again, according to good design and ATA regs. If they pop all three breakers (I'm not sure you can do that without the AC fighting back), the fly-by-wire wires don't fly. It wouldn't work on anything but FBW AC.

/john

[Squawk 8888]

Won't work on the Airbus. The pilot will try to turn left, and the plane will try to turn right.

IOW the Scarebus will perform just as it does today ;)

[FairOpinion]

And what happens when the system malfunctions?

[JRandomFreeper]

when the system malfunctions?

Which one? The one on the "A" bus, the one on the "B" bus, or the one that is switchable between "A", "B", or "Batt"

/john

[Reeses]

Even if this system was perfected, what would keep a terrorist from landing on a terminal at the airport? Timed right the terrorist could take out 10,000 people and a dozen 747's loaded with fuel. Or the terrorist could fly into a cruise ship, which being movable would not be in the GPS data base.

It's a lot more fool-proof to have the pilots armed with guns.

[FairOpinion]

Not to be melodramatic, but the Titanic was supposed to have been unsinkable. "Foolproof systems" with no human override make me nervous. And of course if there is a human override, it defeats the purpose.

It's an interesting idea, but Murphy's law hasn't been repealed. Such system on planes could cause accidents just by the virtue of their existence, someone made a software glitch in the program, which only causes a problem in some 1 in a million situation, and bingo, that situation happens.

I vaguely remember that NASA lost some unmanned drones, which go through plenty of design reviews and tests, on account of some software glitch due to some simple conversion issue that nobody noticed. Well, think of hundreds of people on an airplane when a glitch occurs.

[JRandomFreeper]

It's a lot more fool-proof to have the pilots armed with guns.

Amen! And the rest of the crew. And the passengers.

I would support legislation to limit what rounds could be carried....

And to answer your question, nothing. But when I started, I was answering a very specific question. ;>)

/john

[JRandomFreeper]

Foolproof systems" with no human override make me nervous.

Me too. I was answering a very specific question. I'm also watching the History Channel which is playing "Engineering Disasters" I like Reeses answer better than any of the techno answers.

/john

[elbucko]

It's a lot more fool-proof to have the pilots armed with guns.

I agree, but the media and the "Progressive Left" have made Americans so afraid of guns that they would rather rely on a complex system for their security. This system is nothing more than an electronic "Maginot Line" and is merely a challenge for a terrorist, not a deterrent. When will they ever learn.

[Cicero]

A very elaborate and expensive system like this will only introduce new dangers.

[AmericanVictory]

How about an Evelyn Waugh defense system, in which we hire interior decorators from the demimonde to go exterior and layer all major metro areas in steel and foam rubber? It would be about as practical.

[txzman]

Heard an expert on Fox talk about an easier, even more chilling attck plan the FBI has been looking at.

Terrorists infiltrating (rather easily) airport runways during peak traffic hours and setting off small, multiple bombs on fully-gassed airliners as they load/unload on the runway. The results at some of the crowded airports in the US and Europe would be catastrophic.

Requirements to do this would be minimal in terms of explosives, planning, cost and people.

[yooper]

This is all well and good, but it ignores the potential victims in the plane itself.

Arming the pilots and placing law enforcement aboard would be much more efficient and cost effective...