Preventing Aircraft Hijacks

@thebigk • Mar 18, 2006

Comments ! Anyone ?? 😀

0

Anil Jain

@CrazyBoy • Mar 20, 2006

The_Big_K
Comments ! Anyone ?? 😀

rename the thread as " The rediculous joke".....if you have these ideas.....😁😁

0

@thebigk • Mar 20, 2006

Ridiculous joke?

I don't see anything ridiculous. Btw, how about proving this idea ridiculous? 😀

Every 'Great' idea was called ridiculous at first. Uuhoo! I'm feeling great now 😁

-The Big K-

0

aimforthesky

@aimforthesky-SVdAIX • Mar 29, 2006

the idea sounds cool.....and i don think much cost is gonna involve in this...but anyways...won the hijackers find a way to overcome this???c'mon ppl....we've got a great idea...lets try to make it fool proof....wat about using N2O>??????

0

Jerry

@jerry-5wPKU7 • Mar 29, 2006

thumbs up !

nice idea indeed. yes, is should be cost effective & I think easy to implement too.

well, its a game afterall. if good people develop safety measures, the bad people will work on breaking it. no one can avoid that. good people developed computers and bad people developed viruses.

but even if the hijackers invent a method to overcome this, we- the crazy engineers will find another solution 😉

I can't think of any way of a way to fail this system. What do you say?

I'm not much aware of the gases. N20 doesn't cause side effects? anyone?

jerry

0

crook

@crook-0PFkJv • May 7, 2006

I am clueless about N20. Probably we will have to wait untill some chemical engineer drops in to comment 😀

The idea sounds great. But its too simple not to have been thought off earlier. I tried to see if there could be any digs in the system under consideration but couldn't find anything so far 😒 .

Good work guys!

0

Anil Jain

@CrazyBoy • May 7, 2006

crook
I am clueless about N20. Probably we will have to wait untill some chemical engineer drops in to comment 😀

The idea sounds great. But its too simple not to have been thought off earlier. I tried to see if there could be any digs in the system under consideration but couldn't find anything so far 😒 .

Good work guys!

Dear dear.....its a good try but why you guys are thinking in one way only...
see.....Its quite possible to make an isolated Cockpit. there are not much isuues in that....but still the idea..of gas and let every one sleep is wild...
Plane Hijeckers are not childs....they must have think about this ....a long before...generally they must used the air masks...
and about cockpit issue too...........you know dear .....cracker is always bigger than maker...so they must have think something about it...what that i dont know...i am not a ....
Am i wrong ......buddy...
Pour comments....
No offence means..........

--Crazy😁

0

Anil Jain

@CrazyBoy • May 7, 2006

Jerry
I'm not much aware of the gases. N20 doesn't cause side effects? anyone?

jerry

In between..........jerry can you give some idea about N20

--Crazy

0

@thebigk • Jul 7, 2006

Chemical Engineers join in !

Lately, lot of chemical engineers have joined. It would be nice if anyone could contribute to this thread.

What chemicals/gases could be used to achieve this? Is it practical & economical?

More ideas ? 😁

-The Big K-

0

@aashima-eO93l9 • Jul 7, 2006

yea...

even i am too interested to know this 😀

0

@thebigk • Aug 4, 2006

Chemical Engineers!

Lately, lot of chemical engineers have joined. It would be nice if anyone could contribute to this thread.

What chemicals/gases could be used to achieve this? Is it practical & economical?

More ideas ? :grin:

-The Big K-

I'm doubleposting, but can't help it. Many Chemical Engineers have joined CE. Please enlighten us if the Hijack-Fix we are thinking is practical?

-The Big K-

0

jumbotech

@jumbotech-BlOz8I • Oct 8, 2006

In simple terms,

Suggestion #1: After 9/11 all commercial aircraft flight deck doors were fitted with dead lock system that is very hard to break, access only via keypad entry and camera verification.

Suggestion #2: Not viable. Aircraft airconditioning systems recycle and replace the air inside the cabin every 2 minutes (average for a medium sized airliner) and besides, any introduction of seditive gas would affect the crew as well....

The best sollution lies in the Airport security which has improved but still is fragile.

JT

0

@thebigk • Oct 8, 2006

jumbotech
Suggestion #2: Not viable. Aircraft airconditioning systems recycle and replace the air inside the cabin every 2 minutes (average for a medium sized airliner) and besides, any introduction of seditive gas would affect the crew as well....

The best sollution lies in the Airport security which has improved but still is fragile.

JT

Welcome to the board, JT and thanks for clarifying the things 😀

I'll carry my point further. Even if the air inside aircraft is replaced every two minutes, let the mild anesthetic gas do its action. The idea is to make everyone (including the cabin crew & the hijackers) sleep.

Implementing better security systems at the airport is of course the best option. We need a solution when the things go out of control and the aircraft gets hijacked.

Tell us what do you think.

-The Big K-

0

@xheavenlyx-CbvN62 • Oct 9, 2006

Ok, seriously thinking, the idea of sedation is good, but if it could be replaced with something less spacial and more accurate.

For example, using sedative darts is possible. How? Fit small electronic shooters in strategic places like:

1. On the floor in front of pilot cabin. (funny where it could hit!)
2. Side of the pilot entrance cabin.
3. On the partition sides where the Business class and the Eco class are seperated. or on any similar partitions.
4. In the toilets for a laugh.

the contraption for firing can be small and remotely controled from the cabin. it is replacable, so less expencive. Choice for airlines.

Jumbo's airport security point is very important, thats the practicle solution for now, but still hackers are always better programmers 😛

How about it?

0

@thebigk • Oct 10, 2006

xheavenlyx
lol!!! That was a nice one. No offence but they might aswell make the pilots sleep and get the plane to auto pilot. Since landing is not possible in auto-pilot, we wait and pray.

Did you read the complete discussion? The pilots will be isolated and they won't be affected by the anesthetic gas.

I talked about making the cabin crew, passengers (including hijackers) sleep. So I think the idea is still good and practical.

Keep the new ideas coming!

-The Big K-

0

@aashima-eO93l9 • Oct 11, 2006

Good effort CEans!! I guess the ideas is on its way to be recommended to the professionals 😀
The idea sounds efficient enough to combat with the problem momentarily and the afteractions rest with the pilots who are the only ones still awake. Though i wonder if a gas like that actually exists, but still hope it should or it should not be a big problem to create one that could functtion this way. If we can have tear gas, having this kind of a gas should not be a big issue.
Between could we have anybody who could enlighten us with the details of cockpit which is supposed to be one of the most sensitive parts of the space crafts.

0

@xheavenlyx-CbvN62 • Oct 11, 2006

Well, what I like here in CE is accepting cunstructive criticism😀

Thinking practically, we cannot use the gas generally concidering the people there would not like that extreem measure. But if the situation calls for it, then there cant be a problem, like a last ditch effort.

On the chem note. There does not seem to be a safe gas for sedation since if there was then MOB control officers would use that in general public. And most importantly:

"As with other specialties within medicine, doctors wishing to specialise in anaesthesia must undertake extensive training. The length of this training varies by country, but is typically several years. In the U.S., the training of a physician anesthesiologist typically consists of 4 years of college, 4 years of medical school, 1 year of internship, and 3 years of residency."

This shows, in simple terms, that the amount of anesthetic used depends from person to person in different conditions and will have a variable effect. Speacialy in high energy adranaline pumped situations, the normal dose might not even work.

Anyway, keep thinking of a soluiton. Bytheway did anyone read my above post on the alternative ##-Link-Snipped-#?

This was taken from wiki Anesthesia : <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anesthesia" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer">Anesthesia - Wikipedia</a>

0

@thebigk • Oct 11, 2006

xheavenlyx
Well, what I like here in CE is accepting cunstructive criticism😀

Thinking practically, we cannot use the gas generally concidering the people there would not like that extreem measure. But if the situation calls for it, then there cant be a problem, like a last ditch effort.

On the chem note. There does not seem to be a safe gas

I believe that there exists a gas which solves the purpose. I'm waiting for a Crazy Chemical Engineer
( ) to enlighten us about it. If it doesn't, then I'm sure one day, CEans will be in a position to invent one 😁 !

I'm looking forward to ideas which will prove the original idea wrong (and of course, the ideas which support the original idea). Keep the new ideas flood in.

-The Big K-

0

Nickhouse

@nickhouse-FcIRBt • Oct 21, 2006

Great idea,
1) They now seal off the cockpit
2)Lets go for Zyklon B as the gas of preference

0

@thebigk • Oct 24, 2006

Nickhouse
Great idea,
1) They now seal off the cockpit
2)Lets go for Zyklon B as the gas of preference

Zyklon B :shifty:

This is what wikipedia says -

Zyklon B (IPA: [tsykloːn ˈbeː], also spelled Cyclon B) was the tradename of a cyanide-based insecticide notorious for its use by Nazi Germany to kill over one million people in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and Majdanek during the Holocaust.

...or you were just kidding? 😁

-The Big K-

0

@aashima-eO93l9 • Oct 25, 2006

Can we have a Crazy Chemical Engineer to tell us the gas regarding the same?

0

Romeos_person

@romeos-person-kCwLGM • Oct 29, 2006

The obvious solution for the hijackers would be to sneak a gas mask onboard with them. If they were to somehow manage to do that, then the gas system would take care of the crew and other passengers, leaving the hijacker alone to work on breaking into the cockpit. The crew could have gas masks for an event like this, but again, how do you guarantee that the bad guys wouldn't take the masks from them?

Other than hoping airport security would stop them from bringing a gas mask on, are there other ways to overcome this? I like the general idea, but I see this as an obstacle to overcome.

There is still your question too, is there a gas safe enough to dose a plane full of people, from infants to the elderly? I'm civil not chemical, sorry no help there.

0

@thebigk • Oct 29, 2006

Romeos_person
The obvious solution for the hijackers would be to sneak a gas mask onboard with them. If they were to somehow manage to do that, then the gas system would take care of the crew and other passengers, leaving the hijacker alone to work on breaking into the cockpit. The crew could have gas masks for an event like this, but again, how do you guarantee that the bad guys wouldn't take the masks from them?

I'll answer that. Let us assume that the hijackers manage to sneak gas masks with them. Then they would need oxygen cylinders as well.

Anyways, the hijackers will have limited time before they run out of O2. The plan is to keep the things simple. Everyone, except the pilots, sleeps. The solution so far looks practical to me.

We badly need chemical engineers to enlighten us about any gas which would solve the purpose. Chemical Engineers! We need you!

-The Big K-

0

desijays

@desijays-2SqnUc • Nov 17, 2006

rick
Hey I liked that idea.

I'm not sure if the gas you're thinking about really exists. Chemical engineers, comments please ?

if such a gas didn't exist, i wonder how doctors would have been performing operations all along. trust me. rest assured it exists. can't think of one right out of the box.

but there is something called the laughing gas that makes the person to laugh histerically instead of putting him/her to sleep. I think its chemical name is Nitrous Oxide.. correct me if i'm wrong..

rick
Probably the device you are talking about costs big bucks. It might be uneconomical to fit every aircraft with such device. Can someone estimate cost of building such a device?

i don't think so. the cockpit doors are already the way that big k described in the first post. its just that its not fool proof yet.

And i don't think they would mind spending a few more dollars to make the planes that already cost millions this way... fool proof, i mean.

There were talks abt having Marshalls on commercial jets. I don' t know if that has happened though.

0

@thebigk • Nov 17, 2006

desijays
but there is something called the laughing gas that makes the person to laugh histerically instead of putting him/her to sleep. I think its chemical name is Nitrous Oxide.. correct me if i'm wrong..

Yep, N2O or Nitrous Oxide is called as laughing gas. But I don't think its a good idea to use it in our case 😁

I'm not sure if the cockpit doors are sealed. The Discovery channel shows that the cabin crew can enter the cockpit 😉 . I agree that cost shouldn't be a problem when it comes to safety.

Let us hope that we, the Crazy Engineers, manufacture such system soon. At least, I'm now confident that the idea is practical & can be implemented.

Thoughts are welcome!

-The Big K-

0

desijays

@desijays-2SqnUc • Nov 18, 2006

The_Big_K
Yep, N2O or Nitrous Oxide is called as laughing gas. But I don't think its a good idea to use it in our case 😁

-The Big K-

just imagine a scenerio where the hijacker has a gun to the passenger's head and he/she laughs histerically..

but i think gaseous form of some anesthetic can be used, although it has the potential to function in a way that it wasn't meant to, if you know what i mean 😉

0

@aashima-eO93l9 • Nov 18, 2006

Sorry to interrupt, but the arrangement we are thinking will work only once. I mean once a hijack is prevented by this idea, the scheme will easily be cracked out by the time next hijack occurs!

0

@thebigk • Nov 18, 2006

aashima
Sorry to interrupt, but the arrangement we are thinking will work only once. I mean once a hijack is preventing by this idea, the scheme will easily be cracked out by the time next hijack occurs!

Well, think like a hijacker. I think our system is not easy to crack. You cannot carry oxygen cylinders/mask inside the cabin, say what?

-The Big K-
p.s: This is my 1000th post 😁 ! Yoo Hoo!

0

desijays

@desijays-2SqnUc • Nov 18, 2006

The_Big_K
Well, think like a hijacker. I think our system is not easy to crack. You cannot carry oxygen cylinders/mask inside the cabin, say what?

i second that. it makes sense. its hard to smuggle the gas masks in a stealthy fashion into the cabin. but the problem is that gas masks are so easy to make that you can make one using makeshift materials available inside the cabin.

a person who intends to hijack a plane, can carry inocuous looking materials that wouldn't raise any suspicion, but once inside the cabin, they can make the gas masks. even though they may not be perfect, they will serve the purpose for some time...

0

@frodorok-KGYXm6 • Nov 20, 2006

the idea is amazing.....
but still there is a doubt ...as...CRAZY said
that if the terrorists r wearing masks then
this idea ..as i think.. will not be very helpfull.
-frodo.(i haven't read all the posts.)

0

@frodorok-KGYXm6 • Nov 20, 2006

hey ..CEans..i think it is better not do
anything up there...this is risky.coz if terrorist
get the access to the cabin they will have more smooth
operation in case of using of proposed gas.
controlin this kind of situation frm. ground
wiil be better.
if u observe carefully the prob. faced by any country
in this kind of situation is that they cannot make
the plane land in there teritorry.
think abt. some mechanism frm. ground which can
make the plane land in the teritorry.
after that everything wiil be taken care of by commando
operation and diplomatic strategies.
i propose using a control system mechanism frm. ground
which can control a valve which can open the fuel
path reduce the fuel supply to the engine.
the terrorist will land the plane in this case as they have
some agenda or issues to be fulfiled.

0

@xheavenlyx-CbvN62 • Nov 24, 2006

Oh my god!!!

Thats soo true. Giving access to ground control in risky situations is an amazing idea!! Never thought of it myself. You know, you should look up on. Google or wiki it and keep us posted if it is implimented and how.

Taking away all the control away from the ground with special permitions and clearences to only some sectors, like defence or millitary can be more secure.

😁good one buddy!

0

Karthik

@karthik-aZ0BzQ • Nov 26, 2006

Hi ,
I Just joined today !! And Big_k, I don't think your idea will work out. May be in comics it will work 😉 (no offence meant). Here goes my justification..
First of all, even if the cock pit is gonna be made isolated, the hijacker is not going to pilot the plane (atleast in most cases). He's usually threatens to kill the passengers and get his work done.
Secondly, we can't use the gas as such. A dockie needs to study the patient in detail before he gives anasthesia to any one. They are not friendly.

So, I'd suggest you people to think about different idea...

0

Karthik

@karthik-aZ0BzQ • Nov 26, 2006

Giving control to the ground??!! What to do, if he threatens to blast the flight if it is not going to land in the place of his wish?? 😒

0

@thebigk • Nov 26, 2006

Karthik
Hi ,
I Just joined today !! And Big_k, I don't think your idea will work out. May be in comics it will work 😉 (no offence meant). Here goes my justification..
First of all, even if the cock pit is gonna be made isolated, the hijacker is not going to pilot the plane (atleast in most cases). He's usually threatens to kill the passengers and get his work done.
Secondly, we can't use the gas as such. A dockie needs to study the patient in detail before he gives anasthesia to any one. They are not friendly.

So, I'd suggest you people to think about different idea...

Of course, we won't take it as an offense. We are just working out various ideas & see if we can do anything about them.

However, I'm not convinced with your explanation.

First of all, even if the cock pit is gonna be made isolated, the hijacker is not going to pilot the plane (atleast in most cases). He's usually threatens to kill the passengers and get his work done.

Forgot 9/11 ? I'm not sure if there are any practical difficulties (& dangers) associated with isolating the cockpit. Aeronautical engineers can enlighten us.

Secondly, we can't use the gas as such. A dockie needs to study the patient in detail before he gives anesthesia to any one. They are not friendly.

Of course, the doctors do study the patient in detail before inducing anesthesia in any patient. The idea is to 'invent' such gas (if it does not exist). But I think there exists a gas which suits our need.

So I think the idea isn't still ruled out. Of course, we are open to new ideas, that's the whole purpose of this thread 😀

-The Big K-

0

@frodorok-KGYXm6 • Nov 26, 2006

Karthik
Giving control to the ground??!! What to do, if he threatens to blast the flight if it is not going to land in the place of his wish?? 😒

the idea is abt makin them land in country's territory.
if they do not agree to land then they need fuel,
i dont know whether there is any tech to fuel a aircraft
up there but if there exists any such thing then commandos
will get a chance to enter the plane.and if such tech do not
exists they must land the plane they wont blast the plane
coz they have some agendas to be fulfilled.

0

@frodorok-KGYXm6 • Nov 26, 2006

xheavenlyx
Oh my god!!!

Thats soo true. Giving access to ground control in risky situations is an amazing idea!! Never thought of it myself. You know, you should look up on. Google or wiki it and keep us posted if it is implimented and how.

Taking away all the control away from the ground with special permitions and clearences to only some sectors, like defence or millitary can be more secure.

😁good one buddy!

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

0

@frodorok-KGYXm6 • Nov 27, 2006

also i think if we can achieve perfect
auto pilot system with control frm ground
the BIG K's idea will rock....coz in that case
we dont need pilot and all of them can sleep.
so in that case we do not have to shield the
cockpit.but the prob is the gas and a
efficient auto pilot system.

0

@thebigk • Nov 28, 2006

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 - https://www.crazyengineers.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=34

0

@xheavenlyx-CbvN62 • Nov 30, 2006

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.

0

@frodorok-KGYXm6 • Dec 1, 2006

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.

0

@frodorok-KGYXm6 • Dec 1, 2006

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 - #-Link-Snipped-##-Link-Snipped-#

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.

0

seek3r

@seek3r-vobYQY • Dec 14, 2006

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.

0

Jerry

@jerry-5wPKU7 • Dec 14, 2006

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

0

th3 ied kid

@th3-ied-kid-AAVSGR • Apr 27, 2007

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

0

Rocker

@rocker-ZpZLKM • Apr 27, 2007

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 😉

0

@xheavenlyx-CbvN62 • Apr 28, 2007

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<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroshock_gun" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer">Electroshock weapon - Wikipedia</a>. 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.

0

crook

@crook-0PFkJv • May 1, 2007

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. 😒

0

@xheavenlyx-CbvN62 • May 1, 2007

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 😛

0

@thebigk • Oct 20, 2007

*Bumping into an old thread* 😁

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

-The Big K-

0

@Ash • Oct 21, 2007

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

0

@frodorok-KGYXm6 • May 2, 2008

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.

0

@Ash • May 2, 2008

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[sub]u[/sub] 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.

0

gohm

@gohm-F3UUpP • May 2, 2008

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:smile:

cool out of the box discussion!

0

@thebigk • May 2, 2008

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.

0

@frodorok-KGYXm6 • May 3, 2008

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.............

0

gohm

@gohm-F3UUpP • May 3, 2008

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?

0

@Ash • May 3, 2008

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.

0

gohm

@gohm-F3UUpP • May 3, 2008

The movie was cool. Don't know if they ever practise the mid air refueling from a KC tanker or not. Normally they'd refuel on the ground like others. A lot of speculation on what that plane can/can't do.

Oh Frodo, dumping fuel? Now the EPA will be tracking you.. laugh, only kidding. How would the terrorist know the fuel has been dumped, by cockpit display? How about just changing the display readout without dumping? How would you install and run this fuel dumping device?

0

@frodorok-KGYXm6 • May 5, 2008

Yes you people are right it is indeed a risky as well as technicaly difficult idea.
But i think technical difficulties can be removed.
And the task of breaking terrorist spychologicaly(or win their trust) so that they got no way out except leting us to be close to them ca be done by efficient nagotiators and pilots on board.
Still i cannot rule out the risk associated with it.
As I think more about it.I found that many has different and amazing techncal ideas.But no matter how efficient ones technology is it always has holes in it.
LIMITATIONS.....

What I think now is that,
we should have a task force(kind of) organised by countries(fighting terrorism) and let them be on board so that they can control situations.
Commandos for this special task force will be chosen from all the countries and will be an extreme confidential process and they will be chosen on real time basis.Prior to their task they will not be told about it.

Will it work??

0

@frodorok-KGYXm6 • May 5, 2008

How would the terrorist know the fuel has been dumped, by cockpit display? How about just changing the display readout without dumping? How would you install and run this fuel dumping device?--Gohm

Prior to my dumping fuel idea I have hought about what you say 'changing the display readout'....
now one of my freind ask me that if terrorists go to check it manualy(me and my freind both are not aware that wheither their is any provission to check it manualy when the aircraft is flying).
Considaring his point I left that idea and made it real.

How would you install and run this fuel dumping device?--Gohm

Okay, now thats technical....

It will be a valve or something like that which will open a concealed path from the tank.The valve will operate with electromechanical devices and the initiation and termination of the mechanism will controled from ground or by the pilot himself.It will be a remote controled valve.A efficient controle system mechanism as I think can do that.

0

@xheavenlyx-CbvN62 • May 5, 2008

Ok, Ive been reading the replies here. Really good ones, and a few need more research.

Before I say anything I want to share something amazing. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARINC#Standards" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer">ARINC - Wikipedia</a> has about...I dont know more than 300 protocols for in-flight to ground control communication catering to different things from weather to air-path and status of the flight. So about our ideas... we need to read more.

god i was going to write my thoughts on ideas u guys gave, but after reading a bit on ARINC I just ...got tired, its HUGE! and still there is more:

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Communication_Addressing_and_Reporting_System#Datalink_Message_Types" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer">ACARS - Wikipedia</a>
One thing to note is that most of what we are talking about can be possible with mainly software and some hardware changes. For example the displays can show what you want it to show through software.

0

@Ash • May 5, 2008

Thanks for the link! Awesome stuff.. *drools*

Oh, I don't think we can fool the hijackers with a display change. If they know a plane has that dummy system on board, they'll just ignore the warnings. An actual fuel dump will leave them helpless (whether they choose to verify or not). But there is probably an easier way, some sorta airborne immobilizer.

Going a bit off topic, have you guys played Flightgear? Its a free flight simulator.. awesome stuff. I tried taking off with a A-10 Thunderbolt, I thought I could simply release the brakes and increase trottle. Turns out I have to press a dozen switches before I could even move (you can click the buttons as well as move levers on the cockpit with the mouse). Love the realism 😀

(though, they have a UFO and Santa Claus models, which is just crazy to fly, lol)

0

@frodorok-KGYXm6 • May 6, 2008

Thanks Xheavenlyx.

Indeed we need to read more.

But in my case only reading those stuff does not help....I need help actualy.
I have doubt that i understand all about those protocols.

Ash please elaborate what do you mean by "Airborne Immobiliser".

0

@xheavenlyx-CbvN62 • May 6, 2008

Where airborne Immobilizer? Immobilize the terrorists rite? Yea I think thats good too. Like camera and a turret. A project was like this with an airsoft pellet gun on Hack-a-day.

and Ash, no havent played it. I know about it. but thought it was too complicated lol...

0