Why Couldn't this System be Used to Deter Aircraft Hijackings/Terrorism?

[Shagnasty]

@1920s Style "Death Ray"

I should not say that it is a bad idea, but rather, that the problems I mention are challenges that would need to be overcome before it would be viable.

You are an airline pilot or something related if I remember correctly. That is what I was hoping for. I work in IT software development and I am an aviation buff.

One element of control the pilot would have is whether to turn it on at all. It is built to be a deterrent system and it would be unlikely that a hijacker would pick a time when heavy icing or similar conditions exist. If that happened, the pilot still has the ability to make a decision about whether to turn it on at all. In the end, it would be a judgment call up to the pilot and that is what we want right?

That said, there is a whole lot you can do with avionics software (or any software). You could set conditions when the system would disengage on its own (with warning. still without human intervention). This could be because any serious type of mechanical failure. If the terrorists blew up the ILS transmitters at the go-to airport then the GPS could locate another. If there was complete avionics failure due to human destruction then the system could disengage also. That would also work as deterrent because who know how to surgically disassemble the avionics of a 737 with a fire axe?

To those of you who say it is fighting a non-problem: Why do little old ladies get searched for weapons all day every day? My wife recently cleared a checkpoint and my three year old ran through and grabbed her. The whole family had to go through a hand search. It is now needless hysteria out there. This should be the time of effective and non-intrusive solutions.

Commercial airliners have a service life of over 20 years. A lot can happen in twenty years. In addition, people react emotionally to airliner crashes and hijackings like few other things. The dollar toll isn’t just with the lost plane, people and possessions. It is about public perception and the economic toll on the airline industry.

I am about the last person to propose feel-good but ineffective measures. However, I think it would be great if you told people “these planes are almost hijack-proof” and here is why.

Good, safe human-machine interfaces are not that hard to design. I propose an “arm” switch, a keypad with a four digit code, and then an “enter” key physically located a foot or so away in a non-obvious place. A trained person could complete the task in 5 seconds and an untrained person never.

[Broomstick]

@Shagnasty

One element of control the pilot would have is whether to turn it on at all. It is built to be a deterrent system and it would be unlikely that a hijacker would pick a time when heavy icing or similar conditions exist.

Do you know what constitutes heavy icing conditions? Would a hijacker? If a hijacker doesn’t care if he survives the hijacking or not what does he care about the weather?

If that happened, the pilot still has the ability to make a decision about whether to turn it on at all. In the end, it would be a judgment call up to the pilot and that is what we want right?

Then why have this system at all? Everyone will be depending on an “automatic” system that doesn’t automatically activate.

That said, there is a whole lot you can do with avionics software (or any software). You could set conditions when the system would disengage on its own (with warning. still without human intervention). This could be because any serious type of mechanical failure. If the terrorists blew up the ILS transmitters at the go-to airport then the GPS could locate another. If there was complete avionics failure due to human destruction then the system could disengage also.

That said… could a “disengage” condition be triggered by hijackers, thereby giving them control again?

That would also work as deterrent because who know how to surgically disassemble the avionics of a 737 with a fire axe?

I was thinking more “butchery” than “surgery”.

It is now needless hysteria out there. This should be the time of effective and non-intrusive solutions.

The thing is the word “and”. It must be both effective and non-intrusive. Our concern here is with the “effective”.

In addition, people react emotionally to airliner crashes and hijackings like few other things.

Which is precisely why simply blowing up an airplane is an effective terror weapon.

However, I think it would be great if you told people “these planes are almost hijack-proof” and here is why.

And immediately folks would bring up the “unsinkable Titanic” issue.

There are at least three pilots in this thread who have expressed grave reservations about implementing such a system. The questions fall into two basic categories: “Would this truly be effective?” and “What problems could this cause in failure mode?”

Good, safe human-machine interfaces are not that hard to design.

Then why do we have so many poorly designed machines, tools, and interfaces?

I propose an “arm” switch, a keypad with a four digit code, and then an “enter” key physically located a foot or so away in a non-obvious place. A trained person could complete the task in 5 seconds and an untrained person never.

And if there’s a pitched battle going on in the passenger cabin as a distraction and maybe some heavy turbulence operation of this “arm” switch may take more than just 5 seconds. Airplanes do not remain stationary, we’re not talking about a keypad on a nice, stable desk in a nice, stable office firmly rooted to the ground.

Is the code permanent? How do you keep it from falling into the wrong hands? Does the code change? How will you communicate these changes? How do you ensure the correct code is issued for each flight?

What will prevent the Bad Guys from getting information on this system?