A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Simulators
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A Question For Real Airline Pilots



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 19th 04, 09:51 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Blue" wrote in message ...
[...]
The first to reply have been revealingly strident in their disagreement to
discuss this question, even stating that it is "none of my business."
Nothing could be MORE of "my business," and everyone else in this country
old enough to vote .


The first to reply was me, and the point of my reply was to point out how
absurd the idea is.

Even if it was politically feasible, it would be idiotic to add remote
control to airliners. After all, about the only deterrent right now to
terrorists crashing airliners is that they have to die with the plane.
Given them a remote control, and they don't even need to do that.

And before you say "well, we'll just secure the remote control", think for a
moment just how impossible that would be.

Pete


  #12  
Old May 19th 04, 09:52 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Bill-R" wrote in message
...
[...] I dont think it would be technologically difficult to do it.


It would be technologically trivial to implement. That's not the point.


  #13  
Old May 20th 04, 12:24 AM
Doug Cox
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Bill" wrote in message

Yes I did read where this is being developed so that the plane could be
controlled from the ground or another aircraft. I dont know the status of
the project.


Brilliant idea. Then Osama can fly planes into buildings by remote control.

That'll save him half a few suicide bombers per plane that he can use
elsewhere...

Doug Cox.
Work to ride, Ride to work...
http://toosmoky.d2.net.au


  #14  
Old May 20th 04, 05:23 AM
Blue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Blue" wrote in message

...

Even if it was politically feasible, it would be idiotic to add remote
control to airliners. After all, about the only deterrent right now to
terrorists crashing airliners is that they have to die with the plane.
Given them a remote control, and they don't even need to do that.


It is provocative to look at something from a different angle. Try these:
(1) with a plane configured like this real "terrorists" are not even
necessary they can just be figmentary patseys. (2)Alternatively, if real
the terrorists can be expecting to merely hijack the plane when in fact
they were set up to die as patseys. (3)And yes, real terrorists could just
have the remote as you suggest but those terrorists would have to be very
special terrorists to be able to swap identical planes. Even more
fascinating is the morphing together of all three of these scenarios.


  #15  
Old May 20th 04, 07:01 AM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Blue" wrote in message ...
It is provocative to look at something from a different angle. [...]


Well, sure...once you start talking about absurd possibilities, the sky's
the limit. Why limit yourself to three absurd possibilities?

Though, I don't really understand your #3. My point is that if *someone*
can take over an airplane by remote control, then terrorists can take over
an airplane by remote control. There's no need to "swap identical planes".
You just take over your airplane of choosing by remote control.

Pete


  #16  
Old May 20th 04, 01:24 PM
Thomas Peel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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.
  #17  
Old May 20th 04, 02:56 PM
coustanis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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.
  #18  
Old May 21st 04, 05:42 AM
Blue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Blue" wrote in message ...

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Blue" wrote in message

...

Even if it was politically feasible, it would be idiotic to add remote
control to airliners. After all, about the only deterrent right now to
terrorists crashing airliners is that they have to die with the plane.
Given them a remote control, and they don't even need to do that.


It is provocative to look at something from a different angle. Try these:
(1) with a plane configured like this real "terrorists" are not even
necessary they can just be figmentary patseys. (2)Alternatively, if real
the terrorists can be expecting to merely hijack the plane when in fact
they were set up to die as patseys. (3)And yes, real terrorists could

just
have the remote as you suggest but those terrorists would have to be very
special terrorists to be able to swap identical planes. Even more
fascinating is the morphing together of all three of these scenarios.


To help in understanding (3) and "morphing together":

http://www.public-action.com/911/robotplane.html


  #19  
Old May 21st 04, 03:10 PM
Glenn Jacobs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #20  
Old May 21st 04, 03:26 PM
Glenn Jacobs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 03:26 PM
I'm a real PILOT! CFLav8r Piloting 45 April 26th 04 03:29 PM
Modern airline pilots. Carl Piloting 0 January 24th 04 02:29 AM
pilots refuse to fly with gun loons onboard nick Piloting 296 January 9th 04 09:08 PM
Question for Pressurised Baron pilots DeltaDeltaDelta Piloting 12 December 4th 03 02:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2023 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.