If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Blue schrieb: I have a question that can only possibly be answered by real airline pilots and pilots of the heavy oil-burners at that. Even they may not know - or want to tell the answer. I have heard that most if not all of the heavies now flying have special equipment in them to thwart hijacking. The equipment that I am referring to is not just an autopilot which is standard but additional mechanical devices to completely remove control from the cockpit making it possible to take control away from the flight officers and giving that control to an outside pilot which could be in a following aircraft or at an airport or anywhere. Hope a real airline pilot will comment on this question. Would you want to fly in a plane equipped like that? I would not. The chances of the system going wrong leaving the plane being controlled by nobody are higher than the chances of being hijacked by a suicide bomber. You should read Bruce Schneier's book about real security. http://www.schneier.com/book-beyondfear.html T. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 20 May 2004 14:24:03 +0200, Thomas Peel wrote:
Blue schrieb: I have a question that can only possibly be answered by real airline pilots and pilots of the heavy oil-burners at that. Even they may not know - or want to tell the answer. I have heard that most if not all of the heavies now flying have special equipment in them to thwart hijacking. The equipment that I am referring to is not just an autopilot which is standard but additional mechanical devices to completely remove control from the cockpit making it possible to take control away from the flight officers and giving that control to an outside pilot which could be in a following aircraft or at an airport or anywhere. Hope a real airline pilot will comment on this question. Would you want to fly in a plane equipped like that? I would not. The chances of the system going wrong leaving the plane being controlled by nobody are higher than the chances of being hijacked by a suicide bomber. You should read Bruce Schneier's book about real security. http://www.schneier.com/book-beyondfear.html T. I am in total agreement with you. There would have to be a way to disable the remote control from the cockpit and how would you keep the hijackers from learning how to do this? I will get Schneier's book. I have a couple of his booksand have met him, but didn't know about that book. He also has an email news letter that comes out monthly that usually has a lot of info on various types of security. to subscribe go to http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram.html. JakeInHartsel |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Blue wrote: I have a question that can only possibly be answered by real airline pilots and pilots of the heavy oil-burners at that. Even they may not know - or want to tell the answer. I have heard that most if not all of the heavies now flying have special equipment in them to thwart hijacking. The equipment that I am referring to is not just an autopilot which is standard but additional mechanical devices to completely remove control from the cockpit making it possible to take control away from the flight officers and giving that control to an outside pilot which could be in a following aircraft or at an airport or anywhere. Hope a real airline pilot will comment on this question. A remote controlled airliner has already been done. There's a well known test on an airliner in the desert. The heavy was equipped with special fuel tanks and anti-misting fuel. The idea was to try to reduce the explosion / fire hazard in an airliner when it crashed. So, they outfitted an airliner with this fuel setup, installed remote controll, flew it and crached it into the desert. The airplane flew well but the test failed. The fireball was spectacular. There is a video around that's not too hard to get. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 20 May 2004 13:56:53 GMT, coustanis wrote:
Blue wrote: I have a question that can only possibly be answered by real airline pilots and pilots of the heavy oil-burners at that. Even they may not know - or want to tell the answer. I have heard that most if not all of the heavies now flying have special equipment in them to thwart hijacking. The equipment that I am referring to is not just an autopilot which is standard but additional mechanical devices to completely remove control from the cockpit making it possible to take control away from the flight officers and giving that control to an outside pilot which could be in a following aircraft or at an airport or anywhere. Hope a real airline pilot will comment on this question. A remote controlled airliner has already been done. There's a well known test on an airliner in the desert. The heavy was equipped with special fuel tanks and anti-misting fuel. The idea was to try to reduce the explosion / fire hazard in an airliner when it crashed. So, they outfitted an airliner with this fuel setup, installed remote controll, flew it and crached it into the desert. The airplane flew well but the test failed. The fireball was spectacular. There is a video around that's not too hard to get. It really did not fly per se, it simply was run down the desert the the landing gears were sheared off and it "flew" a short distance before crashing. There was some obstructions in fron of it to assure that the fuel tanks would rupture. JakeInHartsel |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Glenn Jacobs wrote in message ...
On Thu, 20 May 2004 13:56:53 GMT, coustanis wrote: A remote controlled airliner has already been done. There's a well known test on an airliner in the desert. The heavy was equipped with special fuel tanks and anti-misting fuel. [...] It really did not fly per se, it simply was run down the desert the the landing gears were sheared off and it "flew" a short distance before crashing. There was some obstructions in fron of it to assure that the fuel tanks would rupture. You must be thinking of a different test. The one that most people think of was like this, according to NASA: "On the morning of December 1, 1984, a remotely controlled Boeing 720 transport took off from Edwards Air Force Base (Edwards, California), made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2300 feet. It then began a descent-to-landing to a specially prepared runway on the east side of Rogers Dry Lake. Final approach was along the roughly 3.8-degree glide slope. The landing gear was left retracted. Passing the decision height of 150 feet above ground level (AGL), the aircraft was slightly to the right of the desired path. Just above that decision point at which the pilot was to execute a "go-around," there appeared to be enough altitude to maneuver back to the centerline of the runway. Data acquisition systems had been activated, and the aircraft was committed to impact. It contacted the ground, left wing low. The fire and smoke took over an hour to extinguish. " |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Glenn Jacobs wrote: On Thu, 20 May 2004 13:56:53 GMT, coustanis wrote: Blue wrote: I have a question that can only possibly be answered by real airline pilots and pilots of the heavy oil-burners at that. Even they may not know - or want to tell the answer. I have heard that most if not all of the heavies now flying have special equipment in them to thwart hijacking. The equipment that I am referring to is not just an autopilot which is standard but additional mechanical devices to completely remove control from the cockpit making it possible to take control away from the flight officers and giving that control to an outside pilot which could be in a following aircraft or at an airport or anywhere. Hope a real airline pilot will comment on this question. A remote controlled airliner has already been done. There's a well known test on an airliner in the desert. The heavy was equipped with special fuel tanks and anti-misting fuel. The idea was to try to reduce the explosion / fire hazard in an airliner when it crashed. So, they outfitted an airliner with this fuel setup, installed remote controll, flew it and crached it into the desert. The airplane flew well but the test failed. The fireball was spectacular. There is a video around that's not too hard to get. It really did not fly per se, it simply was run down the desert the the landing gears were sheared off and it "flew" a short distance before crashing. There was some obstructions in fron of it to assure that the fuel tanks would rupture. It flew all right. It shows in the video as it descends in a flat attitude until it impacted the desert floor. The rest is, as they say, history. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Blue" wrote in message ...
I have heard that most if not all of the heavies now flying have special equipment in them to thwart hijacking. The equipment that I am referring to is not just an autopilot which is standard but additional mechanical devices to completely remove control from the cockpit making it possible to take control away from the flight officers and giving that control to an outside pilot which could be in a following aircraft or at an airport or anywhere. It's a moot question. There's no need for such a setup now. Cockpit doors have been reinforced, pilots won't open it even if everyone's being killed in back, heavies with large fuel loads probably have an air marshall aboard. In short, it's doubtful that another 9/11 can take place in the same way as before, at least with passenger airliners. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
I'm a real PILOT! | CFLav8r | Piloting | 45 | April 26th 04 03:29 PM |
Modern airline pilots. | Carl | Piloting | 0 | January 24th 04 01:29 AM |
pilots refuse to fly with gun loons onboard | nick | Piloting | 296 | January 9th 04 08:08 PM |
Question for Pressurised Baron pilots | DeltaDeltaDelta | Piloting | 12 | December 4th 03 01:54 PM |