Europeans working on anti-hijacking software

Even though air travel has gotten marginally safer since the tragedies of 9/11 -- thanks in part to fortified cockpits, increased air marshal presence, and a ban on toenail clippers -- it still doesn't seem impossible for a group of determined individuals to hijack a plane and turn it into a deadly missile. And should such a suicide-style attack happen again, the only surefire way of protecting targets on the ground would seem to be shooting the plane out of the air -- a nightmare scenario that no one wants to see. Well, soon airlines may have another, much safer option at their disposal in the form of a software platform being developed by a consortium of 30-odd European businesses and research institutes that would make an aircraft's systems completely unusable in the event of a cockpit breach -- control of the plane would be passed to officials on the ground -- even if one of the hijackers was among the 1337est of hackers. The $45 million program is being spearheaded by Airbus (already big fans of auto-pilot), Siemens, and the Technical University of Munich, with the first results of the collaboration scheduled to be revealed at an October conference in the UK. Here's to hoping that the group comes up with a working solution sooner rather than later, because this is one technology that just can't be deployed quickly enough.

[diulei @ Jul 25th 2006 6:59PM]

"Marginally safer" is being generous, IMO.

I just feel like going to the airport is a bigger annoyance now.

[Snake @ Jul 25th 2006 7:09PM]

"make an aircraft's systems completely unusable in the event of a cockpit breach -- control of the plane would be passed to officials on the ground -- even if one of the hijackers was among the 1337est of hackers."

When their's a will their's a way....

Someone will be able to do it...

[Jonathan @ Jul 25th 2006 7:10PM]

I agree with Diulei...This may sound safer but our objective should be lives not control. In such life threatening situations, the lives of those in the plane should be of paramount importance. Good idea however because it does give those on the ground a safer chance incase anyone decides to ram another World Trade Center

[sw_guy @ Jul 25th 2006 7:16PM]

So instead of getting into the airplane, hijack it, and die along w/ all other victims, some jerk can now hack into the network, takeover the airplane control and slam it, while watching it live on TV ???

Bank and government spend billions of dollar on their security system, and once everyone, some kid from a basement could still hack it. With $45 mil, and the airport network, I can't imagine what would happen.

[CRH @ Jul 25th 2006 7:19PM]

"Give me control of the plane or I start killing passengers!" As quick as the Europeans are to give in to terrorists, that is all it would take and $45 mill is right out the window.

[Robert Aitchison @ Jul 25th 2006 7:22PM]

What if the 1337est hijacker was sitting on the ground controlling the plane? he wouldn't even have to be a martyr and could take control from the flight crew and pilot the plane from anywhere. Though I guess he wouldn't get his 72 virgins.

[Foo @ Jul 25th 2006 7:35PM]

If they designed it right, then the plane wouldn't start accepting input from ground stations until someone forcibly entered the cabin. And then of course they would use some sort of encryption to fly the plane to make it difficult to override the signal.

[KiFe @ Jul 25th 2006 7:55PM]

That's all well and good.. but what if someone were to release... oh .. i dunno... SNAKES ON A PLANE!?

[your father @ Jul 25th 2006 7:57PM]

anti-hijacking

knockout everybody with some sort of gas /leave pilot's cabinet free of this or nock them out too and have computer take care of the landing.

or knockout all pasangers have air martial come out take care of OSAMA end of story people would wake up in 30min keep on flying. (of course air marcial will be sitting on specail compartament where it be protected from this gas

i think this should be easy to do aside from computer issues hope to god they not running windows =)

have carry-on bag's locked ones put inside or ban them to protect against anyone taking a gas mask

[TVGenius @ Jul 25th 2006 8:06PM]

This reminds me of one of the first public demos of the Airbus... when the plane's software tried to over-rule the pilots' attempt at a touch and go and made for a nice landing in the forest at the end of the runway...

[x23 @ Jul 25th 2006 8:09PM]

all the hijacker has to do then is leave his tray table down or his seat reclined.

i think we all know it is basically impossible to land a plane with either of those conditions present.

[az1324 @ Jul 25th 2006 8:15PM]

What if the hijackers are old school and simply intend to redirect the plane to another location, not use it as a missle. But instead the system locks out local control of the plane. If the system fails, or the hijackers hear about it and bring an RF jammer, then who is flying the plane? Oops it just hit a building. 'It was the hijackers, we swear.'

[Nick @ Jul 25th 2006 8:18PM]

"your father," re:knockout gas

Remember the Russian Opera-house hostage situation from a few years ago? They didn't take into account how much the stress placed on the hostages and other factors would make them more susceptible to the gas. Long story short, they ended up hurting the hostages way more than they intended. Gassing an enclosed space like that is a BAD idea.

[John @ Jul 25th 2006 8:34PM]

Um, I can just see the scenario unfolding a bit like this:

1. A plane's hijacked by some psycho a-hole wielding toenail clippers—minus the nail file portion, of course.

2. Control is passed automatically to a ground station.

3. The human at the ground station has to authenticate on a computer just to prove he really has authority to take over control. He sits down at his desk, reaches up to the monitor and plucks off a yellow Post-It note. He sticks his tongue out as he thinks hard and taps in the password... "1-2-3-4-5"

[ebob9 @ Jul 25th 2006 8:58PM]

Airbus hasn't had the best of luck with auto-landing software..

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/37527/aircraft_crash/

[Felix @ Jul 25th 2006 8:59PM]

"That's all well and good.. but what if someone were to release... oh .. i dunno... SNAKES ON A PLANE!?"

AHAHAHAHAH

[Scott @ Jul 25th 2006 10:15PM]

Just build all the planes like El-Al (the Israel airline) orders them. Separate compartments for the pilots and the passengers. There are two exterior doors, one leads to the pilots area and cockpit; the other leads to the passenger seating. There is no direct entry to the cockpit from the passenger area, unless you dismantle the plane. I think there is a steel bulkhead in between the two compartments.

The only way to get to the pilots is from the outside.

[Phil @ Jul 25th 2006 11:54PM]

@ ebob9:

That crash had nothing to do with Airbus software. The pilot was just flying too low, too slow, and wasn't paying proper attention to his surroundings. See for yourself:

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19880626-0&lang=en

The narrator in the clip you provided was totally off base. "Designing the pilot out of the equation" couldn't be further from the truth. Ask any A320 pilot, they'll tell you.

[Nogami @ Jul 26th 2006 2:15AM]

Are hijackings that much of a problem anymore? After 9/11, pretty much every able passenger on the plane is going to rush the hijackers no matter what is threatened.

Plus, the pilots have vault-like doors to the cockpit now, and usually have them locked at all times while in-flight.

[Richard @ Jul 26th 2006 8:39AM]

Hmmm, let's see . . . how about we pull this little grey cable out of this Cisco Router under the cabin control desk . . .

bye-bye remote control! :)

It's gotta talk somehow . . . find the router . . . relinquish the control . . . job done!

I'll go by land thanks!

[GadgetMike @ Jul 26th 2006 10:07AM]

Except when the pilots go to the bathroom...and they position the rolling cart to block the aisle.

[TC @ Jul 26th 2006 11:47AM]

If this means I can finally go back to eating using a metal knife and fork instead of some cheap plastic knock off in the terminal then I'm all for this development.

[TimTheFoolMan @ Jul 26th 2006 1:07PM]

I'm with Nogami. One of the realities that 9/11 has brought to everyone's attention is that being on a hijacked plane means that EVERYONE is going to expect to die. Some of us not dying is a bonus once the event has begun.

As a result, even causing a commotion that appears to lead to something like a hijacking is a good way to get mauled by a band of fellow passengers. Short of IMMEDIATELY disabling all the innocents with gas, you're not likely to be successful in doing much in the passenger space in the US anymore.

Instead, Airbus is looking at piling MORE TECHNOLOGY on, when a non-technology solution is already dealing with this problem effectively. This is a learning system (the social one). Don't defeat that system by putting a less reliable one in its place. This is a technolgy that can't be done away with quickly enough.

[I heart Bruce Schneier @ Jul 26th 2006 1:32PM]

Tim hit it spot-on. This isn't a technical problem, and adding technology in the critical path (especially Airbus-style) is just going to increase the risk of failure.

That $45M would be far better spent plugging other holes in the system (or better yet, spent on intelligence to take the bad guys out back in Osama-stan) than nailing the barn door shut.

[Ajax @ Jul 26th 2006 2:45PM]

Pardon my ignorance, but if a plane can be controled by officials on the ground, who can safely land it, why have pilots at all? If they can control it from the ground enough to safely land it, shouldn't they be able to do a safe take-off too? And what would keep the hijackers from killing everyone on the plane if ground control didn't comply with their demands ... or just cause they were pissed off? Is the reasoning here that they at least wouldn't be able to fly it into buildings?

[Phil @ Jul 26th 2006 5:30PM]

@ Ajax:

Contrary to popular belief, airline pilots are always doing something up there, and things get *extremely* busy in the cockpit during takeoff and landing. Therefore, the airlines couldn't have less than two people controlling the plane (not to mention the FAA forbids it). Moreover, having two people on the ground for every aircraft in some remote-control setup would be complex, costly, and could be a liability in emergency situations. What if the ground loses contact with the aircraft?

More to the point, there's a good reason the airlines still have two highly trained professionals in every cockpit.

[Sam @ Jul 26th 2006 5:33PM]

This still means that officials need to know the plane has been hijacked before they can take control. On 9/11 nobody on the ground knew what was going until it was too late.

Why can't a GPS system be added to planes so that if the plane is flying towards a tall building or too low for a built up area then it will automatically redirect away or pull the plane up? Yes, it won't prevent determined terrorists crashing it into an empty field but it takes away one of the most dangerous elements.

[Bret @ Jul 26th 2006 7:51PM]

@Sam,

Now that's a good idea. Took the words out of my mouth :-) Render the airplane ineffective as a weapon, or at least blunt it.

[Phil @ Jul 27th 2006 12:46AM]

@ Sam

That's a good idea, but I don't think the aviation industry would go for it. There are many aiports within built-up areas (think London City airport, Newark Intl.) that this systen would have problems. Sure, certain approaches can be programmed in, but what will they do if functions of the autopilot fail?

The idea I have is that in the event of a cockpit breach, the aircraft would fly a pre-programmed descent and landing in to the nearest suitable airport. This information would only be able to be changed by the manufacturer.

[Todd @ Sep 8th 2006 12:24AM]

Why not just jam the signal used to control the plane, then radio down "Give us back control or the plane is toast."?