Preventing Aircraft Hijacks

[xheavenlyx]

Just a silly query. How can the terrorists threaten the passengers when they do not have the weapons?

I dont get it. Where did you get the idea the terrs are without a weapon?? Quote the line . We are having this discussion because of the fact that they have weapons. If they hadn't we would not be talking :P

[The_Big_K]

*Bumping into an old thread*

Now that we have lots of new members, can we expect newer,better ideas?

-The Big K-

[ash]

Hey, this thread is cool! I wonder how I could have missed it.

The above system can be costly depending on the projectile gun system and installation charges, the video feed and controls are nothing for these big companies considering they are actually looking into security.

I believe it'll be alright for Boeing and Airbus, cause they are the ones selling the aircraft. The ones that have to bear the costs are the airline companies themselves.. and its not really a lucrative business if they are not careful, with things like high fuel costs, maintenance costs, etc. These days, airliners try to seek way to cut costs to stay in business. Introducing an expensive anti-terrorist system may just be a too much for them, unless they lay the burden of cost to the consumers (passengers). So, are we willing to accept an increase of airplane tickets? Perhaps it'll be okay for high income earners, but not for the general population.

I suppose its better to find a cheaper solution for the aircaft itself, and let the expensive anti terrorist stuff at the airports as suggested earlier. One thing to note about the RC controlling idea. What if the terrorist can actually use that against us by hacking into the RC system? it could make life easy for them I'll think of some things up soon

[frodo.rok]

Sorry for digging up a months old discussion but i just cannot resist myself from answering the last thread posted by ASH.

"One thing to note about the RC controlling idea. What if the terrorist can actually use that against us by hacking into the RC system? it could make life easy for them"--Ash.

Okay i get your point.
Taking control of RC can be done in two ways.
1. corrupting people associated with it.
2. conducting a welplaned attack on the airport.
3.Hacking the RC system.

If terrorists follow the first methode they can do it up there also(e.g. they can corrupt the pilot himself/herself.).
but why we should have more control on ground is because a aircraft while flying is like an isolated island. No matter how much control you provide up there you will or can never be satisfied.
Now if the terrorists follow the second methode(which i dont think they will ever follow as it is gonna be a easy way suicide) they can be taken care of by commando action immidiately.
But up there the commando action is not that easy. Also it is very difficult to make terrorists land on ground of your own country. We can always have commando action on ground of our own territory but it is difficult to have commando action up there and on ground of any other country.
So it is better to make them land in our territory.
And if they hack into the system???????
Well have you ever imagined what will happen if terrorists hack into our RC system associated with missiles we have....??
Answere to your question lies in this question of mine:
THEY WILL OR CAN NEVER GET IT HACKED AS WE WILL NEVER LET THEM.

[ash]

thanks for the bump!

Ah, but bro, it is foolhardy to think any wireless encryption system is unbreakable! That's what I meant by hacking. Probably like how the A5/1 cypher is cracked. Once terrorist can figure out the cypher (maybe after months), they could probably control any plane which has the system.

To stop them from doing so, we could probably just jam the signal. But that would affect our ability to control the plane. Thinking the other way round, terrorist could jam our signal. Using your isolated island concept, if we try disabling controls on the plane before the signals get jammed, it'll just crash.

I suppose why missles can't be hijacked in mid air is because they are quite autonomous with their own guidance systems.

Regardless, this is quite an interesting discussion. Perhaps we should focus our attention on possible wireless encryption schemes we can use to control the plane? What is the feasibility of using C and K_u Band for the communications to avoid jamming?

And remember, the military does not really disclose their encryption methods (to avoid opposing forces to develop countermeasures). That said, Airlines wouldn't want to install a system in which only a selected few countries have full control of.

[gohm]

The gas idea will not work because of all of the automatic oxygen masks within the airplane that automatically deploy by pressure drop/rapid altitude change that they would use. Also, elderly or children could potentially suffer fatal doses. Not to mention the potential of gassing everyone to sleep leaving nobody to fly (cockpits are not sealed off, do not have a seperate air supply nor do they constantly wear masks like fighter pilots. The gas would make it into the cockpit. The gas would leak, rupture etc. They cannot maintain their planes well! If the terrorist did have an explosive device they would definately trigger it if they got gassed. Also expensive for an airline to install so not all airlines would worl wide.

RC, though a cool idea is just not practical as it would require each plane to have a seperate frequency transceiver (a lot of servos wired in too!) from every other plane and every control tower would have to have controls with programming for every frequency due to range limitations (of both radio waves and radar). They would just need to wait until the plane was over the ocean to strike. Again, once the terrorists realized they were not in control & they had explosives, they would use them. Again, even more expensive for an airline to install than gas. You would just take over another company plane that didn't have it.

As proven nowdays it does not take much weapon-wise to strike fear and gain control, box cutters were used on Sept. 11th. People have robbed banks with a cell phone, etc.

I also think a projectile system in an inclosed vessel with hundreds of people pressurized at thousands of feet up is a bad idea. Like the gas, too easy for something to go wrong, get misussed/accident, etc. Expensive for an airline to install and maintain. I would not fly on that airline.

The locking re-inforced cockpit door with cameras, now that I like! practical, effective, less risk. Cost effective for most airlines to install & maintain. I would fly with them.

I agree that 95% of the security needs to be on the ground. You will never be able to eliminate the risk, however the risk is so small that the risk of an elaborate protection device failing or going wrong is far greater.

that's my 2 cents

cool out of the box discussion!

[The_Big_K]

Well, as we all agree, what we are discussing is not a substitute for the ground security. Ground security is the crucial part of it, but what if someone breaks through it?

I'm bit narrow minded about my mild-gas idea I want to know if there is a gas available that is safe & can induce temporary drowsyness in anyone? [I'm aware of the fact that every individual needs different dose of anesthesia]

Secondly, I support remote controlling of air-crafts. If we fit cameras on the front side of the cockpit, the pilot can just put the flight on auto-pilot and/or let someone on the ground control the plane.

Someone mentioned setting up R/C guns on the plane , I think its a good idea, however, its risky! But I believe modern techniques allow you to have the perfect shots What say?

ps: Pardon me if I'm off the track, I'm bit sleepy right now.

[frodo.rok]

Thanks to all of you for your replies.
especialy to Ash. I must admit I never thought in that way.

But still there is a little misconception about the idea i have proposed.
I had not given the idea of having a fully RC controled plane.
I had proposed that there shouid be a remote controled valve which will operate only under situations and open the fuel path that will lower the fuel level.Terrorists will allow us to get close to them in case fuel level is low and they want it to be refueled.
But arguments of Gohm and Ash makes me a little doubtful about the idea.

Actualy now i am thinking that EVERY LOCK HAS A KEY.
so every time we should have different safety measures.But that will not be economical.

I do not have doubt that gas idea will work.
But once discloed terrorists will have countermeasures making it a use and through idea.And also it can have dengerous side effects.

CONFUSSIONS.............

[gohm]

Frodo,

this has been a fun thread to read! I do know mid air refueling is very tricky and dangerous. Even more so with a large jetliner flying so close to a tanker. Maybe someone with military background can shed some light on this? Is the danger factor too high for a passenger aircraft? I know technically it is possible to do with modification to the commercial aircraft. Would airlines invest in tanker aircraft to refuel?

[ash]

Airforce One can refuel in mid air Of course, Airforce One can do many things.. hmm. Anyone watched the one with Harrison Ford? Pretty cool movie..

Frodo, sorry for misunderstanding your idea on the fuel control I thought you meant full control of the aircraft! I see what you mean, you just leak the fuel from the aircraft remotely, forcing the terrorist to redirect from their original direction. If they are not suicidal, perhaps its possible they would indeed land the plane. But if they still decide to fly on, they might do as much collateral damage before it crashes.