The C-102 was a passenger jet.
Posted on 06/03/2005 7:25:05 AM PDT by Petronski
The pilot says the hijack code is an error and the plane is secure, but naturally the authorities are not trusting him.
O.K., what does that mean?
What? Base 8 numbers fits perfectly. 1 digit is exactly 1 nibble, or 4-bits. So all 4 base 8 digits would be a 16-bit number.
You'll be flying Virgin America soon if Branson gets his way. He plans to have a home base here.
Eh?
Could you please update the title.
Plane has landed safely in Nova Scotia.
There is an article in ABC News -- in case you want to add a link at the top for those who are just tuning in.
Plane's Hijacking Signal Investigated
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=816370
A Virgin Atlantic flight diverted en route to New York has landed in Nova Scotia after its hijack signal was activated.
Canadian fighter jets scrambled to escort the flight that was originally due to land at JFK International Airport in New York City at 12:10 p.m.
Virgin officials told ABC News the hijacking signal was a mechanical error. The airline said it was in constant contact with the pilot, who assured them the cockpit was secure. Air traffic control officials and Heathrow Airport security officials also confirmed it was mechanical error.
At least it was in the late 70's - late 80's
The C-102 was a passenger jet.
Considering all trading on the NY Stock Exchange was shut down at the end of the trading day this week due to an error message rerouted millions of times, I would say anything is possible.
Oh, pul-ease. I am every bit for less government and everyone having a right to know *except* in war. The media practically has cameras inside our troops butts as is...and that is very dangerous to their physical protection. The media and the public need to leave them alone. Same goes for the airlines and their security, IMO.
Interesting that Canada decided to name it's aircraft after animals THAT DON"T FLY!!!!! :)
Check that last - there have been some reports of flying Beavers, but none in daylight.
The 757 is also included as a 'heavy' now, due to the incidents of following aircraft a few years back
Truth'sfriend wrote:
The term "Heavy" refers to transport category aircraft over a certain weight threshold. Aircraft in this category include (among others) the 767,777,747,C5, C17 and the A340.
ATC will include in an aircraft's ID the additional description of "Heavy", when communicating with the aircraft, to alert other aircraft. "Heavies" have additional separation requirements from other aircraft because of a larger wake turbulence "foot print".
Base eight takes three bits to encode.
It is a code word that means Michael Moore is on board.
They've made the problem worse, by requiring that every little aircraft within about 30 mi of DC has to have a squawk code, even if it's not entering Bravo airspace.
Actually that Avro WAS built, and at the time was the worlds first (and still the fastest) supersonic fighter. Unfortunately they were ordered dismantled and the program cancelled, because of political stupidity. Canada at the time had the chance to be the world leader in fighter aircraft design,and aircraft manufacturing but they blew it. The entire avro company was folded up. They also made many of the RCAF RAF aircraft during ww2, like the landcaster bomber.
Many of the engineers went on to work for NASA and Boeing.
There is one Avro hidden away in Alberta it is rumored.
there is a movie about it, but I can't remember the name of it offhand.
If I may, what you're advocating is known in the security biz as "security through obscurity." It is notoriously ineffective, as anyone with any degree of initiative can easily "defeat" this security mechanism. (You can validate this yourself by Googling the phrase "security through obscurity"--the articles which come up will almost without exception be disdainful of the concept.)
In this case, this information needs to be widely disseminated, as the aviation community (both professional and private pilots) need to be on the same page as the air traffic controllers at all times. Any attempt to keep this information secret is doomed to failure, as too many people need to know this "secret." Therefore, we must assume that the bad people know this information, and act accordingly. Posting the squawk code information once, twice, or a thousand times on Free Republic or elsewhere on the Web has no meaningful effect on aviation security.
If I recall correctly, you've got a personal stake in this (was it your husband that was a pilot?) so your position is understandable. But I think if you asked 100 security experts, 100 of them would tell you that it's not significantly more risk to have this information out in the public, and may in fact be safer than trying to keep this information closely held -- (i.e. a scenario where a private pilot either did not know or forgot the codes, putting his/herself, the fighter pilots, and possibly the public at risk thereby.) Security is the business of risk management, not risk avoidance. Pros and cons of any action taken for security purposes need to be carefully considered.
Having said that, I'd agree that it would be prudent to investigate some kind of rotating encrypted code system rather than the static code currently in use--maybe adopting the SecurID passcode technology for instance. However to implement that, you'd have to replace (or augment) the transponder systems in every single airplane in service. Smarter people than me are probably looking at how to do this right now, but it is a massively non-trivial problem to solve, not in the technology but in the deployment.
Sorry about going on at some length, but I thought your concerns needed a more thorough discussion. I'm sure other security-savvy FReeper can chime in with more detail.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.