Preventing Aircraft Hijacks

[The_Big_K]

Frodo, thumbs up for the idea of having remote controlled planes. But I think it would be too risky to remote control a plane with 300 + (save A380) lives.

I'm not sure but there are few fighter planes which are auto-pilot enabled. Do we have someone from Boing / Airbus over here?

-The Big K-

Fredo: Take a moment to go through Lecture #2 & #3 in our Newbie Training Center here - http://www.crazyengineers.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=34

[xheavenlyx]

Originally Posted by frodo.rok

thanx buddy.....but i dint get u sayin "takin away.....secure".
pls clarify.

Actually, i ment Taking away the control for a moment from the pilots and giving it to the ground control. And the ground command will be under the millitary/selected few, which is much secure rather than to the airport ground control. How is ithis effective?

1. Actually the hijs, if not "very" trained or if in too much adranaline relly totally on the word of the pilots to where they are headed. You cannot "see" where you are headed unless you know how to read the instruments, which in an high adrinaline case...is not very clear. I can tell this by looking in a cockpit myself (traveling for 18 yrs delhi to riyadh), you cant really see ANything! If they know how to read > goto 2.

2. If the hijs take over the cockpit, and they know how to read the instruments then let them read!! Since all instr. are electronics...they can be automated, to give a delusion, that the plane is really under their control. Actually its being driven by the ground to a safe location.

2b. If they make it into the cockpit. Lockit up (remotely) and gas em (non-lethal) lol. The remaining in isles can be taken care on landing.

3. Remote control does not mean an RC control with left/right goup godown commands. But a whole VR system, which is normally used to train pilots. Just that its connected to the real plane in question. Now how can we rereally be sure if its safe to give into VR? ...I can say not every system is perfect..and anyway something is better than hijs taking over the whole plane anyway.

More importantly, this only takes care of the hijaking. But if u have a case of a bomb then let the dudes down at airport security take care of it. Tighten that first.

P.S: Bytheway, to someone who asked if refuling is poss in air. Yes it is, ive noted for fighter. But I dont know about the comertial aircrafts.

[frodo.rok]

Originally Posted by xheavenlyx

Actually, i ment Taking away the control for a moment from the pilots and giving it to the ground control. And the ground command will be under the millitary/selected few, which is much secure rather than to the airport ground control. How is ithis effective?

1. Actually the hijs, if not "very" trained or if in too much adranaline relly totally on the word of the pilots to where they are headed. You cannot "see" where you are headed unless you know how to read the instruments, which in an high adrinaline case...is not very clear. I can tell this by looking in a cockpit myself (traveling for 18 yrs delhi to riyadh), you cant really see ANything! If they know how to read > goto 2.

2. If the hijs take over the cockpit, and they know how to read the instruments then let them read!! Since all instr. are electronics...they can be automated, to give a delusion, that the plane is really under their control. Actually its being driven by the ground to a safe location.

2b. If they make it into the cockpit. Lockit up (remotely) and gas em (non-lethal) lol. The remaining in isles can be taken care on landing.

3. Remote control does not mean an RC control with left/right goup godown commands. But a whole VR system, which is normally used to train pilots. Just that its connected to the real plane in question. Now how can we rereally be sure if its safe to give into VR? ...I can say not every system is perfect..and anyway something is better than hijs taking over the whole plane anyway.

More importantly, this only takes care of the hijaking. But if u have a case of a bomb then let the dudes down at airport security take care of it. Tighten that first.

P.S: Bytheway, to someone who asked if refuling is poss in air. Yes it is, ive noted for fighter. But I dont know about the comertial aircrafts.

it is me who ask about refuelling and thank you for the information.
and you know one thing your reply makes me convinced about the idea.
and i think it will work if implemented.hats off to CEans.

[frodo.rok]

Originally Posted by The_Big_K

Frodo, thumbs up for the idea of having remote controlled planes. But I think it would be too risky to remote control a plane with 300 + (save A380) lives.

I'm not sure but there are few fighter planes which are auto-pilot enabled. Do we have someone from Boing / Airbus over here?

-The Big K-

Fredo: Take a moment to go through Lecture #2 & #3 in our Newbie Training Center here - http://www.crazyengineers.com/forum/...splay.php?f=34

sorry for using sms languages BIG K.it will never happen again.

i heard from one of my freind that the maximum time during its flight
an airbus is in the control of autopilot system.i dont know whether
it is true but if it is then i dont think the idea will be that risky.

[seek3r]

Interesting idea. I like that people are thinking "out of the box". Here are some problems. 1) A wet cloth over mouth and nose would provide terrorist with protection from the gas, and possibly put everyone asleep except for him. As a terrorist, this could be a bonus 2) Some passengers could have allergic reactions to the gas and be killed a a result. So if pilot (in his safe space) hears some commotion, which is just some drunk guy, and he panics and hits the gas the passenger button. If #2 takes place as a result, there would be lawsuits to contend with.

[Jerry]

Originally Posted by seek3r

So if pilot (in his safe space) hears some commotion, which is just some drunk guy, and he panics and hits the gas the passenger button. If #2 takes place as a result, there would be lawsuits to contend with.

Answer to this is simple - How about the cabin crew operating the gas button? Alternatively, we fit spy cams and the control room on the land observes the activity going on inside the plane. If they suspect anything unusual, they hit the button and make everyone sleep

Jerry

[th3 ied kid]

well i assume myself to be hijjacker for a moment and think am flying by your crazyengineer airlines!
first if i had a gas mask my job of eluding sedation gets done!
next i dont need to hold that gun pointing at your plane drivers(sorry guys i canyt sppell piolet correctly!) coz i would rather threaten the hundreds travelling by your airlines!that should be heartfull enough for some governments to suggest negotiations with me!
next thing if my negotiations fail , the aircraft would be landing in some location which the govt feels is secure enough and then i gain company!
either i die or there is mass murder!
so my point of taking you in my CRAZYENGINEER airlines is to illustrate the importance placing AIR MARSHALLS plus one more thing
making passengers sleep in AIR could help our AIRLINES go bankrupt anytime
coz of those PETA/ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS banging at our director's doors!


well i mean only fun and dont like to hurt any one, animals as well so please dont get hurt
and i apoligise if i seem to hurt anyone

[Rocker]

I could not understand your line of argument, th3 ied kid!

well i assume myself to be hijjacker for a moment and think am flying by your crazyengineer airlines! first if i had a gas mask my job of eluding sedation gets done!

You should read previous replies. As mentioned earlier, even if you carry the gas mask with you (if the security allows you to do that), you will be protected for a limited time.

next i dont need to hold that gun pointing at your plane drivers(sorry guys i canyt sppell piolet correctly!) coz i would rather threaten the hundreds travelling by your airlines!that should be heartfull enough for some governments to suggest negotiations with me!
next thing if my negotiations fail , the aircraft would be landing in some location which the govt feels is secure enough and then i gain company!
either i die or there is mass murder!

Without a gun (or a weapon) how would you ( the hijacker) threaten the passengers?

Remember that the initial plan says that the cockpit is sealed from the rest of the aircraft. So at any point of time, the aircraft will be controlled by the pilots. There is no question of the aircraft landing anywhere else but its destination.

making passengers sleep in AIR could help our AIRLINES go bankrupt anytime coz of those PETA/ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS banging at our director's doors

This point is interesting. I, personally, would prefer sleeping in the aircraft instead of getting killed in the air

Air Marshells is a good idea though

[xheavenlyx]

Remember every should read the "whole" thread before replying. I know its a little daunting to do that, but in my previous post I had clearly told why sleeping gas would be ineffective.

1. Expense: Setup, Research for generic 'gas'.
2. Psychological factors like passengers fear of the whole process, chemical reaction, every person reacts differently to different doses etc thats why we have anesthetists!

Keeping the cockpit 'locked' properly is better that sealing it. Remember many accidents kill people cuz they cant get out easily, way of escape must be present for the pilots too. Maybe the windshield is releaseable. But that can be disastrous! Look below

next i dont need to hold that gun pointing at your plane drivers(sorry guys i canyt sppell piolet correctly!) coz i would rather threaten the hundreds traveling by your airlines!that should be heart full enough for some governments to suggest negotiations with me!
next thing if my negotiations fail , the aircraft would be landing in some location which the govt feels is secure enough and then i gain company!
either i die or there is mass murder!

'th3 ied kid' meant that even if the cockpit is 'sealed' the terror-ist can threaten the people!! Which is more than enough for a negotiation. So leaving the cockpit door 'as it is thesedays' the terrs will concentrate on the pilot more than the hysterical people and avoid a standout (stalemate) between the terrs and the people while in air. (I am assuming 'gas' system is not present.)

Now for the 4 solutions I would present. (Sorry for another long post)

1. Having cameras in the isles which send video feed to the ground base AND to the engineer in the cockpit. They have a locking system for the cockpit door which they control.

2. The 777 economy class has 3 sections (example), thus at the intersection we can have a high powered projectile gun embedded in the division (between toilets wherever). The projectile will be rubber bullets like used by riot police OR taser wires(Click Here). The control for this is to the ground AND the engineer. They can also turn on the trip switch which fires when someone crosses! Its all in their control!

3. the same system but the projectile guns are located either in the ground at random locations or on the ceiling of the aircraft.

4. Having a way to operate the aircraft automatically (AI) in emergency mode and land in the right place or controlling it from the ground. And if the 'Artificial Intelligent system' notices all the terrs are in the cockpit, seal it! And then Autopilot lands it to the desired location!!

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.

(Initially I thought each section can be seal-able, but that also can be too costly and possibly unsafe.

Thankyou for your time I hope its been wasted in a good way And thanks to the people for the different ideas and comments!

And I would love a simulation like 'th3 ied kid' did. It was nice. Good way of trial and error experimentation.

[crook]

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

I agree with rocker. I'd prefer sleeping instead of getting killed by the the terrorists. Of course the problem is that the sedative might not be effective on everyone.

[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