| Author |
Message |
Casper H.S. Dik
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:15 am Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
Rich Grise <rich@example.net> writes:
| Quote: | On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:51:50 +0200, Skybuck Flying wrote:
Come on guys,
This is a serious issue.
Somewhere in the future you might actually be inside a hi-jacked plane, then
what you gonna do ???
Well, since the odds of an airplane being hijacked or bombed are about one
in a million, the odds that there will be _two_ bombs is one in a million
million, or an American trillion.
So, just carry a bomb with you, and you'll be a million times safer!
|
Or plan to hijack it (while bringing a bomb) to get even better odds....
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John Woodgate
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:15 am Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
I read in sci.electronics.design that Pooh Bear
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote (in
<4329D44E.44B4940@hotmail.com>) about 'Taking back control of the flight
computer ?', on Thu, 15 Sep 2005:
| Quote: | In the UK where we've had to deal with IRA terroism for a long time, a
close rapport has developed between the various parties who have an
interest in intelligence issues.
|
True, but there was a LOT of resistance from the various species of
spook before their heads were banged together.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
If everything has been designed, a god designed evolution by natural selection.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter \"Firefly\" Lund
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:15 am Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, Terje Mathisen wrote:
| Quote: | The captain managed to land the plane on a couple of tiny fields
(breaking a lot of spruce trees while doing so), with zero (or very
low?) loss of life. The plane broke into three parts, but did not catch
fire.
|
Zero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_Flight_751
-Peter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken Smith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 2:48 am Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
In article <dgbvhq$hb0$2@blue.rahul.net>,
Ken Smith <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | If that happens everybody dies. No-one has ever landed an airliner in "a
flat piece of land" and it is very-very unlikely in future.
|
Ok, I was wrong about that. It seems that google really cares what you
search for.
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken Smith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 2:54 am Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
In article <1126811985.390961.238570@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Sean Kelly <sean@f4.ca> wrote:
| Quote: | Ken Smith wrote:
In article <1126731334.818926.221680@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Sean Kelly <sean@f4.ca> wrote:
[...]
This sounds like a complex answer to a simple problem. Plus, it
presents the opportunity for hackers to take control of airplanes from
a secure location. Gives a whole new meaning to the term "fly by wire"
The system can be all contained on the aircraft. It only needs GPS or the
like to know where it is. The software contains a map of the world. If
there isn't an airport marked at this location, you can't go below 3000
feet.
Complex solution again, though I grant that it eliminates the
possibility of remote control. For any such system, the flight crew
would need an override method, and there's no practical way to prevent
its use by others.
|
I believe:
The pilot can't override the antistall system on the Airbus.
The flight crew does not have to have an override at all. In the places
where the maps says "you don't go below 3000 feet" you simply can't do it.
Based on what others found, the area where flight below 3000 feet is
disallowed may be just the cities etc instead of everywhere but the
airport.
Aircraft already have a bunch of really complex stuff onboard in the form
of the autopilot. On many of the new planes, the autopilot can take the
plane to the airport and land it with no action by the crew during the
landing.
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gerard46
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 7:03 am Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
| Terje Mathisen wrote:
|> Ken Smith wrote:
|>> Terje Mathisen wrote:
|> [...]
|>>Let's assume we have a critical situation, the pilots are foced to
|>>attempt a (dead-stick?) landing in the nearest flat piece of land, and
|>>the hw takes over and foils them during their only possible attempt.
|> If that happens everybody dies. No-one has ever landed an airliner in "a
|> flat piece of land" and it is very-very unlikely in future.
| Totally wrong!
|
| A very famous incident here in Scandinavia involved an SAS machine (DC9
| afair) losing all engine power shortly after takeoff from Arlanda,
| Stockholm.
|
| The captain managed to land the plane on a couple of tiny fields
| (breaking a lot of spruce trees while doing so), with zero (or very
| low?) loss of life. The plane broke into three parts, but did not catch
| fire.
Any time a plane breaks up into three pieces on a "landing", I'd call
that a controlled crash, fire or no fire. __________________Gerard S. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skybuck Flying
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 2:45 pm Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:dgdc5l$rho$2@blue.rahul.net...
| Quote: | In article <1126811985.390961.238570@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Sean Kelly <sean@f4.ca> wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
In article <1126731334.818926.221680@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Sean Kelly <sean@f4.ca> wrote:
[...]
This sounds like a complex answer to a simple problem. Plus, it
presents the opportunity for hackers to take control of airplanes from
a secure location. Gives a whole new meaning to the term "fly by
wire"
The system can be all contained on the aircraft. It only needs GPS or
the
like to know where it is. The software contains a map of the world.
If
there isn't an airport marked at this location, you can't go below 3000
feet.
Complex solution again, though I grant that it eliminates the
possibility of remote control. For any such system, the flight crew
would need an override method, and there's no practical way to prevent
its use by others.
I believe:
The pilot can't override the antistall system on the Airbus.
The flight crew does not have to have an override at all. In the places
where the maps says "you don't go below 3000 feet" you simply can't do it.
Based on what others found, the area where flight below 3000 feet is
disallowed may be just the cities etc instead of everywhere but the
airport.
Aircraft already have a bunch of really complex stuff onboard in the form
of the autopilot. On many of the new planes, the autopilot can take the
plane to the airport and land it with no action by the crew during the
landing.
|
Yes, did anybody read my post about the emergency button(s) and landing the
plane automatically ?
......................... ????????
Bye,
Skybuck ;) =D |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 2:51 pm Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
In sci.electronics.design Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:51:50 +0200, Skybuck Flying wrote:
Come on guys,
This is a serious issue.
Somewhere in the future you might actually be inside a hi-jacked plane, then
what you gonna do ???
Fly Atheist Airlines:
----------------
I noticed there are a lot of specialty airlines these days. For example,
Hooters has its own airline targeted at horny men, and Virgin has an
airline targeted at virgins. My idea is to start Atheist Airlines,
targeted at non-believers who want to avoid security delays.
At Atheist Air, prior to boarding, passengers would be required to spout
blasphemous remarks at a display of artifacts from all the major
religions. This effectively weeds out anyone who has a secret plan to meet
the Creator in the next few hours. Blasphemers would be allowed to
carry-on pickaxes, blowtorches, chainsaws, nun chucks, whatever, under the
theory that atheists generally try to avoid hurting other people in any
situation where there isn't a clear escape route.
-- http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/dnrc/html/newsletter49.html
You remind me of my idea to avoid having Moslems flying on board.
Compulsory pork snacks.
|
In 1200 Spain the christian king demanded that all people had pork hanging
inside their houses. Compliance was upheld by the inquistadors.
It was a way to expel any non-christians. Pure ethnical cleansing.
So it has been done in the past. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:00 pm Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
In sci.electronics.design Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@hda.hydro.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Ken Smith wrote:
In article <dgb474$es4$1@osl016lin.hda.hydro.com>,
Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@hda.hydro.com> wrote:
[...]
Welcome to news:comp.risks
Let's assume we have a critical situation, the pilots are foced to
attempt a (dead-stick?) landing in the nearest flat piece of land, and
the hw takes over and foils them during their only possible attempt.
If that happens everybody dies. No-one has ever landed an airliner in "a
flat piece of land" and it is very-very unlikely in future.
Totally wrong!
A very famous incident here in Scandinavia involved an SAS machine (DC9
afair) losing all engine power shortly after takeoff from Arlanda,
Stockholm.
The captain managed to land the plane on a couple of tiny fields
(breaking a lot of spruce trees while doing so), with zero (or very
low?) loss of life. The plane broke into three parts, but did not catch
fire.
|
Should be mentioned that some passengers got serious spine damage. Makeing them
paralysed. Otoh.. anyone doing the Q=1/2 * m * v^2. Understand the challenges.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Woodgate
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
I read in sci.electronics.design that
pbdelete@spamnuke.ludd.luthdelete.se.invalid wrote (in
<432a9599$0$18638$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>) about 'Taking back control
of the flight computer ?', on Fri, 16 Sep 2005:
| Quote: | In 1200 Spain the christian king demanded that all people had pork
hanging inside their houses. Compliance was upheld by the inquistadors.
It was a way to expel any non-christians. Pure ethnical cleansing.
|
Christian church behaving then as the Islamic extremists are now.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
If everything has been designed, a god designed evolution by natural selection.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bernd Paysan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
Ken Smith wrote:
| Quote: | If that happens everybody dies. No-one has ever landed an airliner in "a
flat piece of land" and it is very-very unlikely in future.
|
Just last year, a Austrian Airlines Fokker 70 (ok, a relatively small jet
airliner) landed on a field nearby (I work close to the Munich airport).
Everybody survived, just two light injuries. If you like photos, look here:
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?cnsearch=11559&distinct_entry=true
The pilot must have been quite good. He did land without landing gear, a
good choice on the snowy field (landing gear will sink in, but the body
glides well).
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bernd Paysan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
| Quote: | At Atheist Air, prior to boarding, passengers would be required to spout
blasphemous remarks at a display of artifacts from all the major
religions. This effectively weeds out anyone who has a secret plan to meet
the Creator in the next few hours. Blasphemers would be allowed to
carry-on pickaxes, blowtorches, chainsaws, nun chucks, whatever, under the
theory that atheists generally try to avoid hurting other people in any
situation where there isn't a clear escape route.
|
The best security measure of Atheist Airlines is the stewardesses dress (or
the complete absense of it). Since most theists believe that seing a nude
woman (especially one you are not married to) is a sin that leaves you no
chance whatsoever to enter the paradise soon, passangers can enjoy the
flight (and their pork meals and alcoholic drinks) with even more delight.
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Burke
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
Bernd Paysan wrote:
| Quote: | passangers can enjoy the
flight (and their pork meals and alcoholic drinks) with even more delight.
|
The trouble is that atheism doesn't guarantee immunity from fanaticism.
Paul Burke
CinC, Solipsist Liberation Front |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Del Cecchi
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
Bernd Paysan wrote:
| Quote: | Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
At Atheist Air, prior to boarding, passengers would be required to spout
blasphemous remarks at a display of artifacts from all the major
religions. This effectively weeds out anyone who has a secret plan to meet
the Creator in the next few hours. Blasphemers would be allowed to
carry-on pickaxes, blowtorches, chainsaws, nun chucks, whatever, under the
theory that atheists generally try to avoid hurting other people in any
situation where there isn't a clear escape route.
The best security measure of Atheist Airlines is the stewardesses dress (or
the complete absense of it). Since most theists believe that seing a nude
woman (especially one you are not married to) is a sin that leaves you no
chance whatsoever to enter the paradise soon, passangers can enjoy the
flight (and their pork meals and alcoholic drinks) with even more delight.
|
This is all very amusing, but if you look at the actions of the 9/11
guys before the event, they were drinking and going to strip clubs,
apparently in the belief that "martyrdom" would cancel it all out. So
your scheme doesn't work in that case.
--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sean Kelly
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
Ken Smith wrote:
| Quote: |
I believe:
The pilot can't override the antistall system on the Airbus.
The flight crew does not have to have an override at all. In the places
where the maps says "you don't go below 3000 feet" you simply can't do it.
Based on what others found, the area where flight below 3000 feet is
disallowed may be just the cities etc instead of everywhere but the
airport.
|
So if they shut down the engines they'll be automatically re-engaged?
Interesting. What does the system do if the plane has a mechanical
failure?
| Quote: | Aircraft already have a bunch of really complex stuff onboard in the form
of the autopilot. On many of the new planes, the autopilot can take the
plane to the airport and land it with no action by the crew during the
landing.
|
I know :) I'm mostly playing the devil's advocate here. As far as
autopilots are concerned, I once heard that the auto-landing system is
so accurate that a degree of randomness had to be built in to ease wear
on runways--trenches were being formed from the wheels contacting the
ground in the same place for every landing.
Sean |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in