The last attempted plane attack I’m aware of was Richard Reid’s nearly-successful shoe bombing. This wouldn’t have made a difference to him.
I believe that this idea was metioned and discuss in some detail in an issue of Popular Mechanics a few years back (i’ll try and find the issue in a minute). IIRC, they came to the conclusion that, with sufficent technology and certian fail-sakes, namely the ability to turn it off. either remotely from the tower, or via some other panel in the plane. Also, i believe they discussed, or i thought of, a form of kill-switch - a system to monitor the vitals of the pilots and, should they die, automatically activate this automatic landing system. Just some musings
-Drew K.
Aww, my bad, I failed to realize that you can’t edit your own posts as a guest puts on dunce hat Anyway, its the january 2002 issue of Popular mechanics, Vol. 179, No. 1 This system was first tested successfully in 1995, and was designed to be activated when a pilots heartbeat pattern changed. And apologies about the double post 
-Drew K.
People are offering those rebuttals because, well, there is some truth to them. Understandably, you, and many other people see hijackers as devious, plotting people that coordinate with a larger network with much bigger targets - citys, skyscrapers, and the like. However, before 9/11, the typical airline hijacker set his sights much lower - usually just the airplane and the people in it. Now, compared to 9/11, this seems miniscule. However, remember that this plane is worth anywhere from 70 to seavral hundered million dollars and carries anywhere from 80 to 200 passangers. An example that comes readily to mind is D.B. Cooper. He had no ulterior motive in hijacking the plane - all he wanted was money and a parachute.
I’d just like to repharse how odd I find it that people think that the lives of those aboard a hijacked plane are forfit, and that it would be better to crash the plane, or those who think ‘A plane detonating above a major city wouldn’t cause that much damage’ The suscidal overthrow by the passangers of flight 93 was a unique occurance, as the passangers knew the fate of their plane. That type of desprate courage isn’t likely to be seen unless an extremely similar situation arises. After all, what is the point of crashing the plane and killing everybody aboard if the only people to be harmed, should the terrorists succeed, are…the people aboard.
-Drew K.
P.S. Any mod that wants to edit all my posts into one would be greatly apperciated. I hate not being able to edit
If I’m a terrorist, as soon as this is implemented I place a large explosive device on the aircraft of choice (based upon where it is to land), intentionally make the pilots activate this “undefeatable” system, and then sit back and smile at my own cleverness, because I have just given myself the means to blow the hell out of an airport terminal and you cannot stop me.
I’m pretty sure that this is a really, really stupid idea.
That’s not a guest thing. We can’t edit our own posts either; only mods can.
Yeah, and only by ‘proper authorities’, not random people with radios. 
Look, this whole thing has ‘bad idea’ written all over it. I invite anyone who thinks this is a remotely good idea to read a few issues of Risks.
You need to think about this a bit more, AD.
As of today, entirely without Shagnasty’s device, if you can get a bomb on a plane, you can get it onto a plane going to a particular terminal by choosing which flight you put it on.
This isn’t a fricken’ Austen Powers movie. The bad guys don’t pursue needlessly elaborate schemes to achieve what they can achieve simply. If you can get a bomb on a plane and you want to blow up LAX, why the hell would you put it on a flight from San Diego to Seattle then tell the pilot about the bomb at just the right moment so that he puts on the automatic system when the nearest airport is LAX? Other than so you can get to play Dr Evil and say “mwahaha” a lot? Why not just put the damn thing on a plane going to LAX (something you can do as of today, with or without a Shagnasty device)?
Further, if you want to and can get a bomb into a terminal (which you are going to have to be able to do to get it onto the plane in the first place), then why don’t you just fricken’ drive to LAX and let off the bomb?
My overall comment on many of the negative comments on Shagnasty’s device in this thread is that you are asking yourselves the wrong question. The question is not whether Shagnasty’s device will prevent all air terrorism. The question is whether it will discourage or prevent some air terrorism.
Sure, a guy who just wants to get on a plane and blow it up isn’t going to be discouraged. But anyone who might want to get on a plane and make it go somewhere is.
When you are able to articulate why it is a bad idea, I’ll be impressed.
As to risks, what is your point? I suspect it will be that an SD has risks associated with it. So your job is to show that the risks associated with it are greater than the risks associated with the possibility of being on a plane that is in the control of terrorists.
I’m open to persuasion on that point, but I am not persuaded by some vague reference to a magazine title.
Go back and read post #11, mhendo hit the nail on the head. This is a solution to a problem that isn’t a problem anymore. Nobody will ever hijack a commercial passenger airplane the same way again.
A sturdy locking door, cautious security procedures, and 100 angry passengers will prevent 99% of hijack attempts. Terrorists know this, and are not going to take the hijack route anymore. They only took it on 9/11 because they knew procedure was to obey hijackers, they were counting on that to make the plan work. Today, nobody will every obey a hijacker, they will have to fight and kill to get into the cockpit in the first place. Once they are there, you’ll have 100 people beating that door in and crashing the plane.
Start putting in automated, “undefeatable” autopilots in planes, take away pilot control, and I think you actually create more options for terrorists, not less.
Indeed. Putting a solid blackjack in each seat bag next to the barf bag and Catalog o’ Overpriced Junk would do more for air travel security than a hundred TSAs.
Er, that’s precisely the point. For at least the next generation, the default assumption is that any hijacking is “an extremely similar situation” (i.e. hijackers are terrorists who want to use the plane as a missile). The old default assumption (hijackers are clowns who a free political-theater trip to Cuba, or crooks who want money) is no longer operative.
If you can place a large explosive device on an aircraft, you can blow the hell out of an airport terminal anyway, simply by setting off the bomb before the plane takes off. Hell, that would be more effective, since the plane would still have 100% of its fuel load.
Your objection is found unpersuasive.
Not to mention taking care of that pesky overly-talkative neighbor.
Well, first off, planes don’t land at terminals. They land on runways which are quite far off from the terminals. A plane with a bomb on it forced to land at a chosen airport isn’t getting anywhere near the terminal. If you wan’t to blow up a terminal it’d be easier to drive the bomb there than try to get it on a plane first.
Secondly, how exactly did the “lare exposive device” figure into the original equation anyway? The 9/11 terrorists didn’t have a bomb. That was the whole point. They were able to cause mass casualties by taking over the plane with box cutters and then used the plane as a destructive object.
Without Shagnasty’s device: casualties= 4 planes worth of people, 2 towers worth of people, 1 pentagon wing.
With Shagnasty’s device: casualties= as many people on the 4 planes as the terrorists can get with the box cutters.
That is right. From what I understand, autoland systems don’t do taxiing off the runway. They simply stop.
Some of you are acting like you would never dream of letting and avionics and computer systems fly a plane and yet autopilots do it all the time. Likewise, if you fly a lot, you have probably been on a flight that autolanded and you didn’t even know it. This system would simply combine the two.
Sure there are some remote risks but the crew and passengers are already at grave risk due to the circumstances. I would take an almost guaranteed arrival on the ground any day.
The system is meant as a deterrent anyway. It would be heavilly advertised and wouldn’t ever need to be used.
The beauty of deterrents like this is that they don’t inconvience the public at all. Airline safety officials check the shoes of 3 year olds and confiscate party poppers today. They must believe there is some risk there.
I think the general public would both feel better and actually be safer if they knew that no one could successfully take over a plane and make it crash.
The more you describe it the worse an idea it becomes. The most valuable asset you have in protecting the cockpit are the other passengers, and their willingness to lay their lives down to stop a hijack.
Put in a highly publicized automated system that supposedly prevents hijacking, and your passengers will no longer be willing to put themselves at risk. They will just sit back and rely on the system, instead of their own action. Then, hijackers will be able to get into the cockpit, and disable the system. You want to say it’s a perfect system, that can never be disabled? There’s no such thing. Maybe they won’t be able to fly the plane where they want, but I think it is more than possible for a person with full access to the cockpit to make a plane crash, regardless of what safeguards you try to put in.
You do realize that this was suggested by “Archie Bunker” on an episode of “All in the Family”; where Archie gets to do an editorial rebuttal on TV.
It’s only fair to note that a bad idea for dealing with “free ride to Cuba” hijackers isn’t necessarily a bad idea for dealing with “free ride to 72 virgins” hijackers.
The problem is that as soon as you allow the system to be turned off (either remotely or on the plane) you open up the possibility of the hijackers threatening to kill the hostages unless the system is turned off. It has to be un-turn-offable.
I’ve always thought that the best way to prevent hijackings is to make all the passengers board the plane butt naked.
By the way, have there been any hijackings in the world since 9/11? Richard Reid doesn’t count because he wasn’t trying to hijack the plane.