Remote controlled autopilot to prevent hijacking

Post-September 11 air travel security concerns have spurred Boeing to develop and test a tamper-proof, remote-controlled autopilot system. They've already patented the project, which sounds similar to a European effort announced last year. The idea goes like this: If anyone attempts to force their way into the cockpit, autopilot can be activated manually or by pressure sensors that are installed in the cockpit door. This would eliminate any possibility of terrorists using the aircraft as a deadly missile, although it doesn't mean other terrible things couldn't happen en route to the nearest military base or commercial airport. Once the "uninterruptible autopilot system" is activated, it cannot be reversed. Ground controllers can then guide the plane to its destination via remote digital control using radio waves, satellite GPS, and existing landing aids known as "autoland function." Boeing insiders claim the anti-hijacking autopilot kits will be ready in three years and can be fitted to airliners throughout the world.

[Via Slashdot]

[Jimmy Joe @ Mar 8th 2007 10:42PM]

what if the terrorist hijack the remote control system!?

[Stephen Yuan @ Mar 9th 2007 4:29PM]

The possibility of a Terrorist remotely controlling an airplane's a reality since the 70s. NASA already developed a remote control system that can be installed on commercial airplane 30 yrs ago and used it to crash a plane filled with dummies to see the effect of a new mixture of fuel on burning. If you have doubt about the existence of such technology, go to Discovery Channel's website and look for the video about this matter. I remember seeing it. The question is, was this system used in 911, and if so how did the "terrorist" got their hand on the state-of-the art technology. Check out "Loose Change" on google video on this hypothesis.

[gunner @ Mar 8th 2007 10:58PM]

very stupid, they should be concentrating on not letting the terrorists inside the cockpit at all

[Jimmy James @ Mar 8th 2007 11:00PM]

Yea, my thoughts exactly! If you ask me, i'd think it would be easier to hack into a remote control system than to physically hijack a plane in flight. This has bad idea all over it.

[Stephen Yuan @ Mar 9th 2007 7:50PM]

The possibility of a Terrorist remotely controlling an airplane's a reality since the 70s. NASA already developed a remote control system that can be installed on commercial airplane 30 yrs ago and used it to crash a plane filled with dummies to see the effect of a new mixture of fuel on burning. If you have doubt about the existence of such technology, go to Discovery Channel's website and look for the video about this matter. I remember seeing it. The question is, was this system used in 911, and if so how did the "terrorist" got their hand on the state-of-the art technology. Check out "Loose Change" on google video on this hypothesis.

[Andy @ Mar 8th 2007 11:03PM]

I can see the guy on the ground landing the plane only to have the power go out.....

[Andrew Fong @ Mar 8th 2007 11:03PM]

Of course they can still hijack the system, but cracking it adds on an extra layer of difficulty for any would-be hijackers. If the concern is that a tech-savvy terrorist could simply fake the ground controller signals and take over a plane, my understanding is that the system must be activated on the plane first before control turns over to the people on the ground. Therefore, hijackers must take over both the plane and crack the remote control system -- much harder than just taking over the plane.

[Phil @ Mar 8th 2007 11:09PM]

@ Jimmy Joe:

Terrorists aren't stupid, but they also aren't really known for their cunning skills in engineering, which is what they'd need (along with a million other things) to reroute this system. It's not happening.

To everyone else, there's really very little that makes this a novel idea. See that green monochrome display with a keypad right next to the throttles? In conjunction with the top row of buttons right below the windshield, you can fly the entire flight airport to airport with just that system. Commercial airliners use a worldwide system of land-based VHF radio beacons to navigate, and the onboard system works by plotting a course between those points, selecting the appropriate speed and altitudes, and flying the plan!

Once within range of the series of radio beacons for a properly set up runway, the computer calculates the approach path and speed, and is therefore capable of performing and 'autoland' even in zero visibility.

While it's in no way capable of flying without pilots, but in the event that this emergency land function is enabled, it would just be a matter of the aircraft selecting the nearest suitable airport and plotting a course for itself.

[Mike @ Mar 8th 2007 11:09PM]

well it does say TAMPER-PROOF
if it did work they will just use something else just as "deadly"

[3t3 @ Mar 8th 2007 11:16PM]

what if they put in a multi-layers accidental activation by requiring more than one locations with the remote system (at least two) working in synchronation WITH sattelites to guide the plane safely to a predetermined and undisclosed location so we can take care of those goat-fuckers once the plane is landed? This would make it nearly impossible for the "evil-doers" to hijack the controller locations AND if they do, they still have to deal with the sattelites which can only be controlled by the military.

[JoshLowry @ Mar 8th 2007 11:17PM]

This is actually a good idea. There is no way a terrorist would be cracking this unless they set the password to GabeN. (HL2 reference)

Anyways, I hope they don't put the computer that runs the program anywhere near the cockpit. He or she is likely to have a fit and start smashing the cockpit controls in an attempt to crash it.


- Josh


Where's your head at? - http://www.StateOfBrain.com

[John Doe @ Mar 8th 2007 11:22PM]

God people. Repeat after me: We CAN NOT have another 9|11. Again. We CAN NOT have another 9|11. This is something the Bush administration loves to gloss over as they try to scare the crap out of the American public.
What is the difference between Sept 10th and Sept 11th? Simply this: Until 9|11 terrorists held planes and the people on them for hostage to obtain something. A plane until then really was not used as a weapon. For god sake if the people on the planes would have known what was going down not a single terrorists would have made it to the front cabin with their arms and legs still attached. We already have seen what happens when someone acts suspicious on a flight. We pretty much have a mob go after the poor bastards.
The only shot a terrorist has now a days is to get a bomb on board and all these wonderful toys being installed to stop a terrorist ain't going to stop a hole in the fuselage. Hell at this point the biggest terrorist threat is a shoulder mounted stinger outside the airport. I drive to work on 494 in Minneapolis ever day and the planes are so damn low you could probably take a fricking broom and swat them down. Even the most rudimentary rockets could probably take out what is landing.
Seriously though. This country has been successfully turned into a safety crazed loon because of a single terrorist attack. congrats guys. We have successfully gone overboard.

[Ben @ Mar 8th 2007 11:27PM]

Why is everybody always so reactive? How many airline hijackings have their been since 9/11? We need to be more proactive if we ever want to stop terror.

[Michal G @ Mar 8th 2007 11:51PM]

I can imagine Osama reading this:

[In arabic accent]
Those bastards think they can outsmart us be we will break it.. Just you wait and see.

(American's come in and boom headshot!)

Seriously I'm sure there will be at least one sort of firewall on this baby and I'm sure there will be a lot of security over where it is placed.

[Vagrant @ Mar 9th 2007 12:08AM]

Oh! Looks like I better brush up on Microsoft Flight Simulator. Just in case I need a job with the FAA. (schweeet)

[Timmy @ Mar 9th 2007 1:00AM]

The aero industry is like big pharma, and the arms industry AND the tobacco industry, etc.. They capitalize on people's fears, well some people's, not all. Do you really think we're safer just because of some "added layer of security"? Do you?
I mean, we were all teenagers once (I'm assuming everyone is over 20 here), and we all know the great lengths a kid would go to just to get what he or she want. You could be grounded, in your room, with bars on the windows and you'd still find a way. So, terrorists, being the zealots they are, aren't going to be scared away by some "added layer" mumbo jumbo. Let's start thinking about the hard earned money we're ALL throwing at these companies who claim it's in our best interest to install this and install that, blah blah blah. Companies like Boeing and Grumman are defense contractors. Some exec's buddy over at the pentagon promised him a boat load of green ones provided the government could scare the living bejesus out of people. DON'T GET SUCKERED IN. When will people learn? Has the TSA made air travel safer? Bull feathers! It hasn't and that's a fact. What difference could 3 ounces of gel vs. 4 ounces of gel make? What if 4 guys got on a plane with 3 ounces of liquid explosives? Let's see, 3x4=12. Would that make a nice hole in the fuselage? That's almost a pound. You bet it will. And we're focusing on silly stuff, whatever the government and the media will feed us, we'll continue to eat it like it's bacon on pork chops. It's time people started looking around them and asking questions, and learning and reading about the world we live in instead of getting your daily soundbite from your local CBS or Fox channel.

[chris @ Mar 9th 2007 8:53AM]

Timmy,
HOW does the Pharma industry capatilize on fear? By curing you of a friggen disease? By allowing a diabetes patient to have a chance at life? By giving a bit of normalcy back? By preventing cervical cancer? lets see, yeah they must be evil - they have reduced cancer fataltities even as the population has aged upward.
You sir - are . . something is wrong with you.

[Leandro Almeida @ Mar 9th 2007 1:08AM]

WAKE UP PEOPLE! This is the very same technology that allowed 911 to happen! or you think those hijackers would pilot a plane lke a motocicle? infowars DOT com and get informated.

[chris @ Mar 9th 2007 8:53AM]

Quit smoking the pot sir. 12 hijackers. Planes full of people. . .its sad, but real and far more beleiavable then your crazy websites. . .

[Leandro Almeida @ Mar 9th 2007 11:02AM]

Those who shut their eyes to reality live by illusion.
All civilization that base on anything other then love; walks into selfishness and its ouwn destrution.
knowing that everything you've been taugh might not be truth; its the passport for true knowledge and wisdom.

[Carl M @ Mar 9th 2007 1:30AM]

There's so many ways that a terrorist can deliver a bomb somewhere that it's almost kind of silly to just focus so much on commercial airlines.

A few years ago there was a successful project to build a tiny plane that could fly itself across the Atlantic. With the help of GPS, CDMA, or other positioning system, a craft could be built to autonomously fly an explosive payload just about anywhere, and there's not much that can be done to stop it.

So the same tech that allows planes to fly themselves can work against us, too. You just can't secure everything. It would probably be far easier to work towards peace and convince people not to kill us, except for the fact that everyone is too butt-headed for this to happen either.

[Matt Hadder @ Mar 9th 2007 1:31AM]

Attacking the shadow, not the substance...

It's not likely "they" will use planes to attack with again; especially since everyone, including the airlines are hyperparanoid about terrorism.

What about ships... cruise liners could be sunk while leaving ports and survivors shot to pieces with machine guns, oil tankers could be ruptured with high explosive causing billions of dollars worth of clean up costs, or pressurized gas shipping- those are floating bombs.

Not to mention Russia is building floating nuclear reactors to sell for export to coastal cities... insert Godzilla or mutation jokes at your discretion. http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/62416c853623e010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

The again the vast majority of terror attacks are home grown, so be vigilant for crazies like McVeigh, cults, fundamentalist religions or soldiers left high and dry without proper psychological help.

[Jacob @ Mar 9th 2007 1:57AM]

let me see, bad guy bangs on cockpit door, pilot activates system, guy on ground hacks the controller and flys it into a mountain

[rdas7 @ Mar 9th 2007 4:34AM]

Um, excuse me if I'm stating the obvious, but if they develop a system for planes to be reliably and safely remote controlled in case of emergency, then why have the pilots at all? Just to keep employment levels up? Surely that makes pilots redundant?

Although, it does make sense from a TERROR perspective, because as we know TERRORISTS mainly live in caves, have never seen iPods and mainly communicate through a series of grunts and whistles. Of course, over the air transmission of data is a "secure enough" setup. Come to think of it, why don't they just put child locks on the cockpit doors, that should keep 'em out!

[Bob @ Mar 9th 2007 7:43AM]

As it stands now planes can already, takeoff, fly and land themselves. The only reason we still have pilots for the most part is in case something goes wrong mid flight.

[rdas7 @ Mar 9th 2007 8:12AM]

So as backup, in case something goes wrong with the computers mid flight, there are pilots. And in case something goes wrong with the pilots, there are... computers? Hmmm... I feel safer already. Let's add another layer of pilots, and backup backup computers just to be sure, and then run it by the Department of Redundancy Department.

[Stephen Yuan @ Mar 9th 2007 8:36PM]

The amount of redundancy in a commercial airplane sounds safe enough. This will further make air-traveling safer than before. Wut I don't understand is....where is the redundancy and measures of criss prevention during 911 for the air force? Why didn't no Fighter Jets shooting those airplanes down? At least have a fighter jet fly by or around world-trade center when the plane hits the building or something to let people know that our Air Force is working.....geez...that's the least I will say.

[SoloMalee @ Mar 9th 2007 4:55AM]

Really though, the big news from this story is more likely to appear in 5 years time....

"Cockpit Rmemote Control and Aircraft Auto Flight Systems put 100s of pilots out of a job"

I joke slightly, but, logically, that is the next step to transport systems, completely automated with a few manual safeguards and 'baby sitting staff'.

It'll happen to cars too....no one remember the Audi on "I-Robot"...and the surprised statement from the passenger..."What, you're going to takeover manual control!?"

[Grey Acumen @ Mar 9th 2007 7:17AM]

I'm kinda surprised, all these things have been focused on complaining about how it can be hacked and stuff, but no one has yet made an:
"I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that" comment?

[chris @ Mar 9th 2007 8:53AM]

John O, are you saying that no hijackers hijacked the plane and that the US goverment sent the planes into a field, pentagon, and 2 buildings via remote control? A system that hadn't (and isn't) available yet on ANY plane?

just checking. Don't forget the tinfoil hat, the CIA is listening.

[just @ Mar 9th 2007 10:15AM]

Boeing is now making public the fruit of their efforts. I highly doubt something as critical as this would have been able to be developed in the short time since 9-11. Why are we hearing about this right after recently finding out about the ILLEGAL "remote guidance" parts being secretly installed in their jets in recent years and not sooner?!(infowars.com)(around 100 that are flying now) At what point do consumers ASK QUESTIONS?!! This UNINTERRUPTABLE system CANNOT BE OVERRIDDEN by the pilots? WTF?? We know the technology has existed for a LONG time. They think if they act like it's new and stamp "Anti-Terror" on it, the American public may perk their ears, but will pretty much lube up and bend over.

[just @ Mar 9th 2007 10:28AM]

chris you're either a NARC, or a dumbass. Have you EVER seen a still image or video or any evidence of any part of the planes "crashed" in the field or at the Pentagon? Don't let them fool you. The Pentagon is the MOST SECURE building in the world. There are cameras in every hallway and tons of cameras outside, not to mention the surveillance cameras of the adjacent businesses (the FBI confiscated their tapes that day and refuse to release). If they want me to stop ASKING QUESTIONS and exercising my FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS (NOT PRIVELEGES!!!), then all they have to do is release more than that one crappy video (that they released twice, once with the wrong date) from that crappy angle where you NEVER SEE A PLANE!

What is wrong in wanting a more complete, impartial, and HONEST investigation about the most horrible attack on U.S. soil EVER!

[A.J. @ Mar 9th 2007 11:02AM]

Now the terrorists don't even have to suicide themselves! All they need to do is hack into the system and crash every single airliner in the US! Way to go!!!

[Leandro Almeida @ Mar 9th 2007 11:24AM]

George Bush's Broather Marvin Bush were working on the world trade center complex running security, he didn't allowed dog that smeels bobs into the building 2 weeks before the attacks, That's how they installed bobs in the buildings. I have friends who survived the attacks i lie in new york.
REMOTE CONTROL pilots exist for over 15 years, but not on commercial airliners. No plane hit the pentagon. Don't take my word; do a research. and most important use common sense. The real terrorist are those rapping Iraqs braking their houses and finding no weapon of bush destrution. because this war is base on lies and false flaq information, just like 1962 OPERATION NORTHWOOD! witch is the very same 911 in documents as pretext for bringing down fidel castro. NOW ; RESEARCH PEOPLE AND FREE YOUR SELF FROM ILLUSION. USE THE GOOGLE, WIKIPIDIA, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwood

[Bluephoenix @ Mar 9th 2007 11:47AM]

I'm just wondering what could happen if the system were triggered by another system failure during the flight, rendering the autopilot non-functional. yet because of this the pilots cannot regain control and still have to fight the computer input.

Every time anyone gets on an airplane they take a calculated risk. even flying over the ocean is just as dangerous. why? the total number of successful emergency landings by wide-body aircraft on water is exactly 0.

Pilots will always be a necessity because of the unexpected, that is why the military has no plans to retire manned aircraft for the percievable future.

besides all of that, terrorists aren't stupid. because of 9/11 it has become too much hassle to try and get a plane so now they will turn to different methods.

[me and u @ Mar 9th 2007 11:50AM]

Hi folks,
I'm not sure if any of you are aware of this....but I didn't see any mention of the "Home Run" system....

http://geocities.com/mknemesis/homerun.html

Check it out, decide for your self.

peace

[Joe Shmoe @ Mar 9th 2007 12:47PM]

Wow, this thread is full of ten kinds of crazy. Hmm, Google "American Airlines Flight 77" and ignore the conspiracy theorist trash and you get:
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm
With /tons/ of images of plane parts inside the Pentagon. Literally hundreds of civilian witnesses saw an airplane crash into the Pentagon. Many of which testified to this literally moments after the crash, long before anyone of 'them' could have gotten to them. The few witnesses that claimed to see something were clearly looking for something else.

Marvin Bush was not at the time of the attacks, nor ever before in charge of security at the WTC. A firm which he directed did have a contract to provide security for Dulles airport, but he was no longer associated with that firm almost a year prior to the attacks. There is almost nothing about the collapse of either WTC tower or WTC7 that indicates a controlled demolition. The logistics of sneaking explosives into a working office building in which literally /tens of thousands/ of people work and visit daily are simply mind-boggling. Try to sheer sixteen inches of concrete and insulation off of a single load-bearing support (so you can place explosives) at your place of work and see how far you get. Then imagine doing it 20/30 times on each floor for 94 and 78 floors in each tower respectively. Remember no one can know what you're doing!

Finally, any claim that the planes were remote-controlled is pure fantasy and ad hoc reasoning. Occam's razor tells us that it is far more likely that they planes were piloted by hand. There is no need to introduce some needless complex ideas as remote control aircraft whether you believe the attacks were stages or not. There are a number of perfectly plausible ways to stage such an attack without the use of an untested secret remote control device. If I were a conspirator I would not want to introduce any new untried elements to my already over-complex plan to deceive the world.

No, there were two conspiracies on Sept. 11th. One by (mostly) Suadi terrorists to kill thousands of Americans and the other by this administration to cover up it's incredible incompetence both in dealing with the attacks and utterly failing to anticipate them. Any other conspiracy would have collapse under it's own weight years ago.

[Douglas Pace @ Mar 9th 2007 12:51PM]

John O lives in a scary world. Thank God it's not real.

[Chris @ Mar 9th 2007 1:10PM]

@John Doe

I agree completely. 9/11 was somthing that could only work once.

[matthams @ Mar 9th 2007 5:51PM]

911truth.org
infowars.com

this tech was already used on 911

watch loose change 2nd edition

[dondiego87 @ Mar 9th 2007 8:43PM]

Yes, because air traffic controllers don't have enough to do already. Hopefully this will be entirely automatic and trustworthy...