RE: (ukha_d) OT: Terrorism

[peter.white@xxxxxxx]

Despite the movies, modern jets can actually land themselves on autopilot
i=
f
they need to - the captain is only really there to deal with emergencies
th=
at
the computers cannot (yet) deal with.

The fact is that the technology to prevent intrusion into the cockpit is
ea=
sily
implemented, however if there's a hijacker killing passengers and crew the
=
other
side of the door until it's opened, it would take a very strong person to
r=
esist
them, even if ultimately they know and understand the final consequences
wo=
uld
be much more serious.

The crew only have to press a button to activate a hijack marker on the
rad=
ar
screens, so for all 4 planes to seemingly fail to do this I suspect (IMHO)
there's a lot more to it than just not having the door locked.

Pete

-----Original Message-----
From: MIME:paul_gordon@xxxxxxx at INTERNET
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 12:06
To: White, Peter; ukha_d@xxxxxxx at Internet
Subject: RE: [ukha_d] OT: Terrorism


I was discussing this very thing with SWMBO last night, saying that there
must be numerous technologies which could be employed on a plane to ensure
that ONLY the flight crew (or authorised ground crew) are able to excercise
any control over the aircraft.

I'm thinking of things like:
Dead mans handle type systems, using biometric recognition, - maybe a
retin=
a
scanner built in to the pilot & co-pilots headsets, or fingerprint
scanners
built into the control yoke. - thus making it impossible for anyone other
than one of the 2 pilots to fly the plane.

Or things like the watches that joggers wear that measure the pulse rate,
worn by both pilots, and linked by radio to the aircraft telemtry systems,
=
-
if either signal stops being received (i.e either pilot is killed, or even
=
if
the watch is removed from the pilot when the craft is anywhere other than
o=
n
the ground), then the controls are locked out and can only be unlocked by
t=
he
other pilot in conjunction with the ground-based controllers.

Perhaps it's also time to consider putting self-destruct systems on planes,
under the exclusive control of the 2 pilots (authorised by systems such as
above). - I'm sure the crew of any of the hijacked aircraft yesterday would
have used such a system had it been available to them.... (it always seems
=
to
work on Star Trek)

Or how about remote control of the plane by the ground crew? - that stuff
must be 90% there already, - there's "auto-pilot" for a start,
not to menti=
on
the various landing control systems that virtually land the plane without
pilot intervention... all it takes is a little modification to allow those
kinds of systems to be used to "take over" a plane from the
ground and fly =
it
from there. - The controllers must have been able to see and plot the path
=
of
the 1st 2 planes long before they actually hit the towers... If they could
have invoked such a system, they could have forced the planes into a high
climb and steered them out to sea long before they were allowed into
airspa=
ce
over a populated area...

Just my =A30.02 - what good is the advancement of science and technology
if=
it
is not employed for the benefit of mankind?

Paul G.


>I also want to see the hijacking of planes
>being made impossible. Surely it is not beyond us to prevent a
terrorist
>from gaining the controls of a passenger jet, even if it means locking
the
>cabin door from the inside for the entire flight. Even if a small
number o=
f
>terrorist could actually manage to kill all the passengers and crew
with >=
pen
>knives, they could not have killed thousands without access to the
cockpit=
..
>
>Graham


_________________________________________________________________