Okay, I seriously doubt that this is an original idea on my part, but this came to me today and I’m wondering if it would work.
Since there are now a lot of areas which have become “no fly” zones over the US, why not use GPS units tied into the flight controls of aircraft so that if a plane gets too close to a “no fly” zone, the controls lock and the plane’s put into a holding pattern. The only way for the controls to be unlocked would be for air traffic controllers to release them and they’d only do this after a fighter escort had reached the plane. If, after the controls had been released, the hijackers refused to obey orders, the plane’s shot out of the sky. Additionally, give the pilot’s a “panic button” so that if a hijacking is attempted, they can lock the controls and send the plane into its holding pattern.
Now, admittedly there could be problems with this due to technical glitches (which is why I didn’t suggest that the plane blow itself up), but other than that, would it work?
(Not that I think that it’ll really be necessary for such a system to be installed, since odds are if someone does attempt to hijack a plane, the passengers are going to put a stop to it, one way or another.)
There are several problems with this, a big one being that any number of “no-fly zones” are so far away from any fighter jets that it would take upwards of 45 minutes for the jets to reach the area. That’s a hell of a long time ofr a jet to be locked into a holding patter and I think that it would lead to the hijackers killing the passengers.
Uh, yeah, like they aren’t going to be dead anyways. Since the assumption from this point forward is that no matter what the hijackers say, they’re going to attempt to slam the plane into something, then the passengers are pretty much goners. This would at least give them a chance at survival. (If the controls were locked, and the passengers took back the plane, they might be able to talk the passengers through a controlled crash. [Hey! It works all the time in the movies!])
Interesting question. Unlike a lot of pilots I know, I’m not going to dismiss this sort of question (you’re right, you’re not the first to think of this) out of hand.
Tying GPS into the flight controls wouldn’t be that hard. In fact, it’s becoming more and more common to like the automatic pilot and the navigation equipment into a comprehensive “flight director” device. So there’s no objection there.
However - the “no fly” zones change frequently (sometimes multiple times per day) both in size and location. There have been times since Sept 11 that even the official guys to call prior to take-off to make sure you aren’t violating any of these NFZ’s haven’t know or haven’t been sure of all these zones. So… how are you going to update with acuurant and timely data? In realtime?
Also, by “locking” the controls and forcing the plane to circle… what if you’re running low on gas? What if it takes so long to deal with situation that you run low on gas? In such a situation you have no chance of survival.
Also, where are you going to “park” the airplane? Certainly not near the NFZ! If you did that, the hijackers need only wait until the fuel runs out to accomplish their aims…
How do you prevent a co-conspirator from sending a signal to “unlock” the controls, thereby giving the plane back to the bad guys?
There is, already, a “panic button” in a sense - even many very small planes have a means of signalling hijack to air traffic control (a small plane has been hijacked in at least one case by an escaping prisoner). And I suppose we could connect the “lock out controls” to this device. But what if you accidently deploy this device? (it could happen - just about every possibility happens eventually)
I also have to wonder at some of my fellow citizens who seem disturbingly eager to “shoot out of the sky” an airplane that may contain a couple hundred innocents. Yes, that would have been preferable to Sept 11, but it’s not something we should be eager to do. It’s a last resort, not a first.
There are panic buttons on airplanes?!? O.K., so I have to ask, why the hell aren’t fighter planes mobilized the second one goes off (and it is confirmed it wasn’t an accident?) If this is true, I would think all four planes from Sept. 11th would have tripped these alarms as soon as the highjackers took over. That said, as I recall, the only one that was being tracked by fighter escorts was Flt. 93 where the passengers revolted and the plane crashed in the field in PA. I don’t know how long the flight time was from Logan Intl. to the World Trade Center, but I find it hard to believe that fighters couldn’t reach those planes in time.
Granted, they probably wouldn’t have shot down the first plane because we had no idea what their intentions were. But surely in the 15-20 minutes before the second plane hit the WTC, we could have had someone up there to shoot down the second plane in some kind of controlled way, couldn’t we?
I sure someone will come along in no time to tell me I’m an idiot for 12 different reasons regarding Sept 11th, but my main question is, can anyone confirm this ‘panic button’ fact?
Broomstick, didn’t know that about the NFZs, but I’m sure some of them never change (like the airspace around military bases, it may expand larger than the base, but not smaller than the base itself), and those could be the ones programmed into the system. And its certainly better than just having the controls lock-up the instant the plane deviates from its pre-programmed flight path.
Well, locking the controls and having the plane circle seems a better option than an “auto-destruct” one. (Besides, a plane that’s run out of fuel will do less damage, than a fully fueled one. Not to mention, unless they’ve hijacked a plane that’s low on fuel, there’ll be time to order an evacuation of the possible crash sites.) As for preventing a co-conspirator from unlocking the controls, certainly its possible that could happen, but that adds another layer to their operation and increases the odds that they’ll be found out before they can do damage.
Yeah, I know there’d be times when the flight crew would bump the button by mistake, and there’d be problems with it, but aren’t there problems with the transponders currently installed in planes? We deal with those, so this would just be another thing.
Finally, I’m not eager to see a plane load of innocents blown to bits (hence the lack of an “auto-destruct”), but there’s a chance that it’ll be necessary.
Personally, I’d rather they give the flight crew guns (loaded with low velocity rounds so there’s less chance the plane will be depressurized), but that’s unlikely to happen.
The fighters can’t just lift off right away. Even in a time of alert, it takes several minutes to launch the ready fighters (Ones with crews sitting strapped in and ready to go). Durring normall opperations, it could take 10-20 minutes or more to prep and launch a fighter, or longer. And that’s after the word has gotten out that it was a terrorist attack; Up untill the second plane hit the tower, it was generally thought that it was “just” a horrific accident (Though I’m sure that some people were preparring for the worst). And there’s also the delay of passing the word through the chain of command.
The reason that fighters aren’t mobilized the moment it’s discovered that a plane is hijacked is because, prior to this attack, there was no percieved reason to do so. Nobody expected the planes to become giant missiles, so nobody saw a need to shoot down a civilian airliner. Now I imagine fighters will be launched when a plane is hijacked, even though another suicide hijacking isn’t too likely (Most hijackers would still have some sense of self preserverance, though they might try using the possibility as a bargaining chip).
I also seem to recall something about the hijackers knowing how to disable the signal, too, but I’m not so sure about that. Something about the transponder…
No way I’m getting on any plane that has a device that allows the controls to be “locked up”! I want the pilots to have the ability to control the airplane at all times! There might be weather-related emergencies that may force a plane to fly over a “no-fly” zone, and I sure as hell don’t want the controls to be locked up at a dire time like that! Besides the fact that all equipment malfunctions from time-to-time, and something as vital as flight controls should not be subject to that kind of failure.
Also…I wouldn’t want the pilots to be armed. Having a weapon on board just increases the chances of it getting into the hands of the wrong person. But I wouldn’t be worried about depressurization if a bullet was fired in mid-flight. A bullet hole would most definitely not cause any type of depressurization in the plane…the pressurizaton system could easily compensate for a small hole like that. The bigger worry would be the (small) chance that the bullet would hit one of the hydraulic tubes. That would be bad.
Let’s see if I can answer this with fewer spelling errors than last time. There is a device called a “transponder” on almost all airplanes (I won’t go into exceptions here, particularly since these are all small planes far more likely to bounce off a building than damage it) From the pilot’s viewpoint this is a small box sitting on the control panel that you can dial a 4-digit code into. The little box transmits this code to air traffic control (ATC), along with the airplane’s registration number and altitude. Most of the time the code is used to help ATC track a particular flight. If you file a flight plan, for instance, you might be assigned 1234 and you will most likely keep that number from start to finish, so when the controller sees that number on his screen he can match it to a particular flight plan. Or, even if you’re not on a flight plan (they aren’t always required) if you fly into a certain size of airport when you contact ATC they’ll give you 4321, which you dial in, and while you’re in the busy airspace you’ll be easier to keep track of.
However, if you are having an emergency you’re supposed to spin the dials to 7700. If your radio quits you dial 7600 - then ATC knows why you aren’t talking and they’ll use visual signals to talk to you. And there is a specific code you use to say “I’m hijacked!”. That’s the “panic button” of a sort.
Or you could just get on the radio and yell “Help! I’m hijacked!”
You have to remember something about the Bad Guys from Sept 11 - they weren’t hijackers posing as pilots, they were really pilots. They knew about transponders, how they work, the emergency codes, all of that. It is unlikely they would have any problem identifying the transponder - and the “off” switch. Apparently they overpowered the pilots before they could signal and turned the machine off.
So, ATC calls them up and says, basically “Are you guys having a problem”. And Mr Atta (or whoever) says “It seems our transponder stopped working”. And ATC doesn’t question it (at first) because the little buggers do malfunction from time to time (it’s happened to me) and Mr. Atta (or whoever) is pilot enough to know what to say and how to say it to keep ATC happy, or at least confused. Eventually ATC will figure out something is wrong beyond the transponder but in the meanwhile the Bad Guys are buying themselves time to accomplish their aims.
As soon as the second plane hit the towers we all knew this wasn’t an accident. In fact, between that impact and the Pentagon crash every airplane over the US was ordered out of the air (my husband was listening on our aviation scanner and heard the order go out, along with a lot of arguing from folks who weren’t unaware what was going on). Flight 93 had fighter jets go after it because it didn’t obey that order, not because the transponder signal said “hijack”.
A panic button only works if you have time/realize you should use it. If they Bad Guys get you before you can signals it just doesn’t work.
Well, I hope we never had to actually try this. Even if, hypothetically, you shoot an airliner before it whomps into a building – what about where it falls? It’s still going to go BOOM! when it crashes (think of Flight 587, falling onto Rockaway shortly after Sept 11, or any other crash that killed people on the ground). Also, in 15-20 minutes an airliner easily travels a 100 miles or more - they’re fast. If the airliner has a head start it may take a fighter jet 15-20 minutes to catch up to it, even if the jet was already in the air. The country is BIG. If you have to get the crew into the jet and take off… that could take 10 minutes right there. That’s why after Sept 11 fighters were kept in the air - because unless an F-16 is already in the air it’s almost impossible for it to catch an airliner in time to do any good.
This amazes people sometimes, but… civilian pilots are allowed to use military airspace. It’s sort of unavoidable, given that there is so much of it. There are about 5 small airports in downstate Indiana where you talk to the control tower at a military base to go in and out of them. There are times the military will say “don’t go over there unless you want a jet up your butt” and yes, there are “forbidden zones” but they are fewer and smaller than the public expects. It’s not the airspace around (most) airbases, either, but around places like the White House and Camp David. But both of those have changed size multiple times since Sept 11, and they’re two of the most stable NFZ’s, having been in existance for decades.
We built all sorts of things that are potential targets without seriously considering the impact on air travel. For instance, when someone in Congress said “let’s put a NFZ of 100 miles around all the nuclear plants!” the gentleman had to be told that that would shut down such major airports as O’Hare, JFK, and LaGuardia. Downtown NY and Chicago are seconds away from these major airports, it is impossible to intercept a plane leaving from one of those in time to prevent an attack on the nearby downtown.
I don’t know about this idea… the words “lock the controls” give me the willies. What do you do if THAT system malfunctions? I’d think the likelihood of malfunction to be greater than the odds of an actual Sept 11 style hijack. (my opinion - YMMV)
Um, why do you assume that hijacking-pilots wouldn’t simply dump fuel? Remember, these guys did know how to fly a plane and had studied the systems of the particular planes they flew. Even if you outlawed the sale of this information there are already thousands of copies of these manuals already out in the world. If you changed these systems you’ll have to retrain the pilots who fly them, and since the Bad Guys (some of them) ARE pilots they just might be sitting in the class next to the Good Guys.
Gosh, they ALREADY had multiple layers to this operation, 19 conspirators willing to die, others assisting them, financing them… I think we have to consider all these possibilities. Clearly, you CAN have a multiple-member conspiracy work. It just takes millions of dollars, years of work and patience, and some fanatics.
The hydraulics are triple-redundant. You’d have to hit THREE lines to disable the plane. I would worry much more that after a gunfight you might not have any living pilot. THAT is a more likely sceanerio to me than screwing up the hydraulics or depressurizing the airplane. And more deadly. Folks have survived depressurizing planes, and even total failure of all hydraulics (Captain Al Hayes and the Sious City, Iowa crash), but if you don’t have a pilot you are well and truly screwed.
I’m with Mr. Frink on this one. And it IS possible to deviate from flight plans, even into normally forbidden territory, during an emergency. Or would you prefer your airliner fly through a tornado for the sake of national security? It is also possible that a hijacker might attempt to ram an airliner with another plane, in which case the airliner pilots need to be able to manuver freely to (hopefully) avoid this sort of thing.
Although, Mr. Frink, I must tell you that, sadly, flight controls do occassionally fail. Pilots do practice what to do in the event that, say, the rudder locks up or a flap either fails to retract or fails to extend. Which is why I’m so uncomfortable with the notion of delibrately locking these controls.
Speaking of the transponder, there is an effort underway by the FAA to modify them so that if the hijacking code is set, the transponder cannot be turned off. That would prevent a hijacker from turning off the transponder after taking over the plane and claiming a transponder malfunction to ATC.
Actually, making a transponder impossible to turn off wouldn’t prevent a hijacker from claiming that there was no hijacking and that the transponder was malfunctioning. My mistake.
It would, more importantly, make it much easier for air traffic control to track a hijacked aircraft. The transponter transmits a signal to ATC with the aircraft’s identification, location, altitude, and horizontal and vertical speed. Without the transponder, ATC has to rely on its own surveillance radar, which only provides aircraft location.
Well, no matter what solution one comes up with, there are going to be downsides to it. Personally, I’m more scared of the new “fly-by-wire” planes than I am of the controls becoming automatically locked.
Uh, Mr. Frink, the hole that began the depressurization of that Aloha Airlines and led eventually to the top of the plane coming off started out very small, at least according to one theory. The danger comes from where the round hits the fuselage and the altitude of the plane at the time.
You know, I was going to launch into a discussion of the different sorts of transponders (there are at least 3 I know of) and their capabilities, but I just don’t feel like it right now. Let’s just say some transponders do all that, but not all.
And I don’t care what they do to wire my transponder on, I know of two different ways to disable the entire electrical system on my airplane (and still keep flying!). Which makes for a very effective “off” switch.
Also, there’s the argument you need to be able to switch 'em off if necessary, but I’ll only go into that if you’re interested
Agreed. I gave a list of the types of data transponders can provide and oversimplified the case to avoid getting bogged down in the details. I should have been more clear. The transponders on most large airliners would encode most of that data (AFAIK).
In any case, the most important bit of data that the transponder provides to ATC is the aircraft’s identification code. All transponders provide that.
As an example, just last week there was an article in Aviation Week about ATC and NORAD’s response to Sept 11. The article noted that when American Airlines flight 11 turned off its transponder, ATC had a terribly difficult time finding its hull return amid the thousands of returns on its secondary surveillance radar. It basically disappeared in the clutter of aircraft traffic in the very busy northeast airspace.
Here’s an old article from [url-http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000DCDD3-AF31-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21&catID=2]Scientific American which discusses the cons of remote hijack prevention. It boils down to the simple observation that the system which remotely controls a plane will automatically become a terrorist target itself. Why go to all the work of sneaking suicide pilots onto a plane when you can take over the whole system and nose-dive 150 planes all at once?
