Re: (ukha_d) OT: Terrorism (Long and controversial)

["Mark Hetherington" <mark.egroups@xxxxxxx>]

The problem with implementing "secure" methods such as those
suggested in a system such as an aircraft is that in the event of
failure of any part of the system, you have just signed a death
warrant on everyone on board.

At my old flying school they used to have a plaque on the wall. I do
not remember the exact wording, but the motto was along the lines
of "Aviation is not inherently more dangerous than the sea, but is
completely unforgiving". Any system employed in an aircraft has to
bear in mind this simple fact.

A dead man's switch in a train, merely stops it if the driver dies,
but is not fault tolerant as at least one major train crash has
shown.

Most commercial flights these days are completely automated. Although
someone has suggested that the pilot is merely there for anything the
computers cannot do, in actuality the pilot is mainly there to make
the passengers feel safe. The world is not ready to trust their
holiday journey to a computer, so by having them think a person is
flying sets their mind at ease even though the truth is the pilot
generally sites back chatting the the crew. There are some rare
situations which might require human intervention, so the pilot is
also a failsafe against problems with the onboard computers.

Control from the ground is unlikely to happen. Other than commands
issued to the onboard computers as they are now, the issue of safety
far outweighs any advantage of fully remote ground control. It also
relies on the connection between the ground and the aircraft
remaining available. This is not always the case.

Aircraft are usually in touch with some form of Air Traffic Control
or Areospace Information Service by radio at all times. This was
demonstrated by the relative ease with which planes were diverted and
recalled yesterday.

As for self destruct mechanisms, giving the hijacker an inbuilt bomb
is not really a good idea IMO.

It should be possible always, as it is at the moment, for a passenger
to visit the cockpit and chat with the crew and see some of the
impressive technology that is making their journey possible and the
often incredible view from the front of the plane without a credit
check and authorisation in triplicate from theie home govenerment,
the destination govenerment, the UN and their doctor and for the
pilot to vist the bathroom or relax in the main cabin for a short
while during long haul flights. Restricting this would deprive many
of the chance to ever see such things or be so close to and observe
the controls of a flight in progress while causing problems for the
crew itself.

There are specific codes which can be sent from the plane to any
listening controller to indicate that a hijack is in progress. The
controllers would have been able to tell the plane(s) were off course
from a flight plan, but predicting a final target would not really
have been possible until it was too late since they were not at any
point in restricted airspace although their altitude and attitude in
the final moments would have shown the possible intent. The strange
thing is that none of the planes indicated a hijack in progress
(although there is a rumour than one did). Phone calls made from the
flights to loved ones are the main confirmation of hijacking.
Information is currently largely conjecture and currently incomplete,
since I have also seen mention of a pilot leaving his mike open and
the entire scene being heard by controllers on the ground.

The other thing all of this fails to consider is that these
terrorists went out that morning knowing they were going to die for
their cause. Since they have no regard for their own life as long as
it serves their terrible purpose, they are unlikely to have any
regard for the life of others. They will execute a few hundred
passengers until the pilot finally yields to them. If the pilot
refuses, the terrorist could still exercise control over much of what
happens by destroying the plane as he chooses before the pilot has
chance to take any "evasive action".

The majority of discussion is coming from by far the wrong direction.
Any change whatsoever to the procedures used on aircraft is a victory
however small for terrorists. We already employ a huge amount of
systems and security to guard against the quite rare problems such as
this. In all walks of life, prevention always proves better than cure
but I think this method of "prevention" is more in the realm
of "cure".

They made a statement about our way of life and our cultures. If we
change them, they "win". There are already rumours of us having
to
endure a Northern Ireland type security system within mainland UK,
which even all the NI troubles never managed to create on the
mainland. Yes we have had changes in things due to terrorism, but
never any that caused a great deal of noticeable change or
inconvenience to us generally.

It is the same with the "fear" that Mark Harrison expressed.
Apart
from the fact that this is never likely to happen again, that fear is
part of the aim or terrorism. Control through fear. It is overcoming
this fear which will ensure the "free world" remains so.

What we should be doing is not changing our aircraft or choosing ways
to limit how many people are killed in a given situation or even
changing our way of life, but discovering these splinter groups who
terrorise the innocent and removing this problem.

Although it doesn't mitigate or justify what happened, I personally
think the US would be better placed looking closer to home and
solving it's own immense domestic problems before meddling in the
affairs of other countries in an attempt to be some knight in shining
armour freeing the oppressed. Those countries which have not
condemned the actions of yesterday all generally seem to be of the
opinion that it was the US "bull in a china shop" treatment of
other
countries and cultures which triggered this attack against them and
they support it on that assumption. At least if they were more secure
and comfortable as a nation, then their actions elsewhere would seem
far less hypocritical and possible more welcome.

I do think it will wake the US up some. They have for a long time
been utterly complacent and almost pompous in their assumption that
they were safe and secure from harm. The comparisons with Pearl
Harbour are somewhat ironic. Our Military Intelligence warned them of
an impending attack and they thought little of it. After some
persuasion they made a token gesture towards potential damage
limitation while still scoffing at the idea that anyone could attack
them. It seems similar intelligence issues were at play here since
there were threats made that were ignored or not taken seriously.

One thing that has surprised me is that so far I have seen no reports
of vigilante action within the US. A number of times in the past,
vigilante groups appear to spring up playing judge, jury and
executioner over anyone who might be even slightly suspected of being
from the same area of the world as a perpetrator let alone actually
being involved, so in all the anger and hatred that must be coursing
through the country, it is somewhat reassuring that so far, things
are remaining civil. I do hope that it is not merely the higher
importance of reporting the act and it's aftermath which has kept any
such issues from appearing on the news.

Mark.