Pentagon seeks bids on aircraft "kill switch"

mikea

mikea

Touchdown! Greaser!
Gone West
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
16,975
Location
Lake County, IL
Display Name
Display name:
iWin
Pentagon Wants Kill Switch for Planes

The Pentagon's non-lethal weapons division is looking for technologies that could "disable" aircraft, before they can take off from a runway -- or block the planes from flying over a given city of stretch of land.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/the-pentagons-n.html
Click to expand...
:hairraise:

Law of unintended consequences: "WHAT IS GOING TO BE DONE ABOUT ALL OF THESE PLANES CRASHING NEAR WASHINGTON??!!!!!" Why, make the kill zone 250 miles in diameter, of course.

To be fair, they want it for boats, too. "Oh, no! We're heading for the falls and the engine died because we got too close to the resort area!"
 
Enormous costs for GA. If implemented, this WILL kill GA.
 
Would love for my kill switch to malfunction or get activated erroneously especially on takeoff over a poulated area.

Morons. :rolleyes:
 
Anthony said:
Would love for my kill switch to malfunction or get activated erroneously especially on takeoff over a poulated area.

Morons. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

would love to see it malfunction on a full loaded 747 that is at about V1 on a short runway. you might think it would stop it, but without reverse thrust, it will not stop in time....
 
Maybe they could combine this with their research on the gay bomb.
-harry
 
SkyHog said:
Another reason to build.

Gov't can't make you install a killswitch on your own plane.
Click to expand...


I don't know about that. The gov't can pretty much do what it wants. There's no Constitutional right to fly.
 
Anthony said:
I don't know about that. The gov't can pretty much do what it wants. There's no Constitutional right to fly.
Click to expand...

I was e-mailing the FAA with a question on their regulations that they wrote. Iv'e been directed to 4 different branches now, with no sign of an answer in sight. I hate how it works.

if you like chemistry or physics: http://www.dullmen.com/governmentium.htm
 
My brother-in-law is with the Sheriff's department; they've had to chase several cars at over 100 mph, put out the spike strips, etc. They've wanted the same thing for a long time on cars to prevent innocents from being hurt by these crazy folks trying to evade the police. He asked me what I thought about it. I certainly saw their reasoning. My response was how do I stop a bad enforcement officer or hacker from killing my car when it's not justified?

Best,

Dave
 
Thinking back to what happened to our board the other day...
What will happen when a group of disgruntled teens get their hands on a bunch of "kill" switches?
 
If OnStar can open a locked door, why can't they kill an engine? That's easy enough to set up, regardless of car, boat, or plane.
 
re: "If OnStar can open a locked door, why can't they kill an engine?"

It's coming

But if you have to install some device on your airplane, then it would make sense to put in a kill switch bypass switch in (or accidently have a wire come disconnected) so any malfunction or "accidental" activation wouldn't cause you to have a problem eh?
 
The government already installed kill switches. It's the "no drilling for domestic oil" kill switch.

As for a non-lethal way to stop a plane from penetrating some airspace or other... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 
Well a HERF gun will generally stop any modern car as it fries the electronics. However, let's examine what really happens if you try and remotely disable a vehicle operating at high speeds:

First, you have to be sure you disable the RIGHT vehicle.
Then, when you shut down the engine, the driver loses power steering, power brakes, and basically becomes a passenger in a ballistic ride.

Put those two together and you probably have INCREASED the hazard to other vehicles and people nearby.


Now let's apply it to airplanes - similar issues. You just turned a powered airplane into a glider, and since you're trying to protect the public, you probably did it right over some part of "the public", and probably increased the risks of hazard to innocent bystanders.

I've said it before and I'll say it again now - I would rather have an airplane crash into the white house or the capital or the pentagon than have it scattered across my neighborhood after being shot down to "protect" the other places. The folks in those buildings all chose to be where they are, and the risks and responsibilities come with the job.
(and no, it doesn't matter who's in the white house - I value my family and my neighbors as highly/more higly as I do the president/congress/military).
 
Note that the request is to be able to "safely divert an aircraft in the air or stop and/or disable an aircraft on the ground". Disable a plane in the air isn't one of the choices.

There was mumbling some time back about installing some kind of "override" that would allow some authority on the ground to be able to commandeer an airliner in flight via remote control, ostensibly in response to a hijacking. Presumably this is similar to what they have in mind here, e.g. something that takes over the auto-pilot. Whether they intend this to be something that would frustrate a pilot intent on terrorism, or just guide away (and scare the hell out of) a clueless pilot bumbling into something, I dunno, but the requirements and implications are dramatically different in the two cases.

As for disabling a plane on the ground, that strikes me as a peculiar requirement, and I'm not sure what they have in mind. The only thing I can think of is that an airport within a TFR could be "locked down" in some way that prevented the local planes from taking off. You could get really fancy, and interface this capability with some other method of authorization, e.g. if you haven't typed in your 32 digit security code to the magic box, you can't take off. Shrug...
-harry
 
Well...

LOTS of silly RFPs come out of DoD.

Usually it's the result of some company having an idea, passing it through a friendly "sponsor" inside DoD, who sends it out for "bid" -- a competetion with only one serious contender.

It's called "seeding" and is SOP in DoD Contracting.

75% of these great ideas never get past phase 1....
 
so, you are flying a JFK approach, overshoot a turn, hit restricted airspace. (don't know if would happen, but lets use it as an example) in a GA, or small aircraft, the kill would take out engine, and alternator. that means the radio is off the battery, and I'm sure that you might risk draining the battery, which cannot be good, especially in such a congested area.

or if you are in a larger, hydraulically controlled aircraft. you loose engines and control surface, although if you have an apu, you could run then. correct me if I'm wrong, few business jets have apus, right?

either way, more lives are at risk. A kid stole a 172, hit an office building (it was a suicide) and he just made the evening news with a broken window. no fire. what damage could a GA really do?
 
"If OnStar can open a locked door, why can't they kill an engine?"
Click to expand...

PD's have ben using "bait cars" with remote kill switches for years. I've heard of several instances where it either didn't work, or worked at the wrong time resulting in a dead car in the middle of an intersection with cars dodging around it.

I think it was Dallas recently that had some sort of incident where a woman got hurt in an accident with a bait car because DPD policy was not to disable the car unless they could see it. They didn't hit the switch in time, and the thief took off with the car trying to out run the cops. Ended up hitting an innocent woman and either killed her or hurt her pretty badly, I can't recall which. DPD has suspended the use of the cars.

A bit off topic, but about technology: Did anyone see a recent news story about video cameras some PDs are installing in their cars now that are constantly videotaping and automatically running license plates from every car the camera sees as the officer is driving around town? It alerts the officer every time it runs an LP with some sort of hit on it (warrants, stolen vehicles etc).

As a cop..I think that's pretty cool, but it also seems a little bit too close to big brother to me too, so I'm torn about the technology.
 
ausrere said:
As a cop..I think that's pretty cool, but it also seems a little bit too close to big brother to me too, so I'm torn about the technology.
Click to expand...
I've seen the story and though neat, it's not right. What would have been the reason for the cop to run the plate manually? To have a computer do it just because it's an automated process is a bit much.
 
ausrere said:
As a cop..I think that's pretty cool, but it also seems a little bit too close to big brother to me too, so I'm torn about the technology.
Click to expand...

I agree with your assessment. It is interesting technology and has some applications, but it's one more step on the "Big Brother" road. How long will it be before face-recognition software reaches a low (but not perfect) error rate... will innocent citizens be harassed or detained as a result of errors? Or will we reach the point where chips must be implanted or other identifying marks are required on each person?

Seems to me that Pandora's Box has been opened, and that is troubling.
 
KennyFlys said:
What would have been the reason for the cop to run the plate manually?
Click to expand...
I don't think they need a reason to run the plate manually. I think sometimes they do it at random if they have time. I was stopped once by the Kansas highway patrol. The reason he gave was that the plate number didn't match the physical description of the car. When he found out the car was a rental he let me go because he said that sometimes rental car agencies swap plates. He had no other reason to stop me or run the plate as I was not speeding or anything.
 
A HERF can do serious biological damage. This is the "shoot to kill" order repackaged into hi tech form.
 
That's just messed up.

I'm willing to install that device...right after they install and actually use a similar device in cars, trucks, busses (including school buses) that yanks the steering wheels hard over into bridge pilings, trees, concrete walls, etc anytime those vehicles get near a TFR or equivalent also.
Deliberatly disabling an engine in flight borders on premeditated attempted murder in my book.
This is supposed to be the USA, not North Korea or Iraq.
 
fgcason said:
That's just messed up.

I'm willing to install that device...right after they install and actually use a similar device in cars, trucks, busses (including school buses) that yanks the steering wheels hard over into bridge pilings, trees, concrete walls, etc anytime those vehicles get near a TFR or equivalent also.
Deliberatly disabling an engine in flight borders on premeditated attempted murder in my book.
This is supposed to be the USA, not North Korea or Iraq.
Click to expand...

well, only the president can give a shoot down order, so will only the president be able to activate these switches? I think not. and the who failur thing. So if you a stop sign you will get killed in a crash, and if you are driving down the street, you face a one in ten thousand change of being kill by your car. seems safe to me. if they do this, I think the country would have to boycott flight. Not many of them know that planes can act as gliders, and if they do, they know that those gliders do sink pretty fast to maintain speed.
 
ausrere said:
...

A bit off topic, but about technology: Did anyone see a recent news story about video cameras some PDs are installing in their cars now that are constantly videotaping and automatically running license plates from every car the camera sees as the officer is driving around town? It alerts the officer every time it runs an LP with some sort of hit on it (warrants, stolen vehicles etc).

As a cop..I think that's pretty cool, but it also seems a little bit too close to big brother to me too, so I'm torn about the technology.
Click to expand...

Chicago is already using that on parking enforcement vans.

They weren't getting enough revenue from Denver-booting scofflaws that park illegally so the van scans license plates along the street so they can boot cars parked legally.

Chicago is creative that way.

When they became convinced that car owners weren't buying the $100 city stickers if they didn't park on the street, they passed a law saying they could go into private garages and look for the cars. :hairraise: That doesn't stop the ages-old SOP scam of Muffy and Brad just registering their Lexus to the address of Mom's house in Winnetka, rather than their $500K condo. Saves on car insurance that way, too.

Drifting.... Gov. Blago made the usual grandstand when the CTA needed baling out by the state adding that seniors have to get free rides - doesn't cost him anything. I took a bus a few weeks back and saw a young able-bodied messenger put the senior card in the fare box. The driver threw him off the bus. I think it took about 6 weeks before the scum were trying that. :mad:
 
Another example of some pentagon pencil pusher trying to "make the US a safer place..." What's next? Delivery and rental trucks?

Good thing that this idiotic scheme will never be implemented.


Anthony said:
There's no Constitutional right to fly.
Click to expand...


... it's YOUR GOD GIVEN RIGHT. :yes::yes:
 
ausrere said:
PD's have ben using "bait cars" with remote kill switches for years. I've heard of several instances where it either didn't work, or worked at the wrong time resulting in a dead car in the middle of an intersection with cars dodging around it.

I think it was Dallas recently that had some sort of incident where a woman got hurt in an accident with a bait car because DPD policy was not to disable the car unless they could see it. They didn't hit the switch in time, and the thief took off with the car trying to out run the cops. Ended up hitting an innocent woman and either killed her or hurt her pretty badly, I can't recall which. DPD has suspended the use of the cars.
...
Click to expand...

Chicago use of the tech is today's paper:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-car-theft-city-web-jun14,0,2757395.story

Pure entrapment. These kids wouldn't have tried to steal the car if da cops dint[ pout it there....or something.

This story made me mad:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/brown/996885,CST-NWS-brown10.article
Notice how, as we expect, the victim and true owner was made to jump through hoops to prove ownership while the lying thief casually watched, and eventually just walked away laughing.

We live in Bizzaro World.
 
mikea said:
This story made me mad:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/brown/996885,CST-NWS-brown10.article
Notice how, as we expect, the victim and true owner was made to jump through hoops to prove ownership while the lying thief casually watched, and eventually just walked away laughing.

We live in Bizzaro World.
Click to expand...

And it would be less so if folks would press charges when the thief is caught red-handed. Then the thief could be exposed for stealing from a baby.

I wouldn't think that comparing the registration number is a big deal, especially when it provides irrefutable evidence that the stroller was stolen. Different matter entirely if the box had been trashed or the stroller were old.
 
wsuffa said:
And it would be less so if folks would press charges when the thief is caught red-handed. Then the thief could be exposed for stealing from a baby.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't matter. We, as a society, have decided that holding others accountable for actions like this is less important than their feelings of self-worth. We, as a society, overlook things like this since "it's not a big deal" in the grand scheme of things. The case would have been dropped for the insignificance that it is compared to the "big picture".

The sad thing is that, individually, most people feel that others should be held accountable for their actions. It's only in social groups that we start looking to one another for support in excusing bad behavior. We, as a group, decide it's okay when we, as individuals, would hold the criminal to a different standard.

The action was excused therefore endorsed. She'll do it again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top