I call B.S. Airline pilots will NEVER allow it.
Unbelieveable! Boeing really developing no-overide auto-pilot for airliners?
- Thread starter mikea
- Start date
I call B.S. Airline pilots will NEVER allow it.
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,529
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
I doubt the flying public will allow it either.
K
KennyFlys
Guest
If it does make it into the plane, it should be activated by remote... with executive order. What if there were an emergency and flight crew were disabled... and the door had to be accessed by other than normal means?
Nav8tor
Line Up and Wait
Why not? It's not intended to take control away from the pilots if they are still in command of the aircraft. It will back them up if necessary and could serve as a deterent to would-be hijackers who would be less likely to try to take over the cockpit if they knew they couldn't take control of the airplane. If I flew for the airlines I think I'd welcome a system like that as long as it was designed with sufficient safegaurds against inadvertant activation.
RogerT
Cleared for Takeoff
As long as it's not driven by software from MS. Would be bad to
have it cruising along and the blue screen of death come up.
have it cruising along and the blue screen of death come up.
Sufficient safeguards? Like maybe it shouldn't go off when the jet hits Clear Air Turbulence and the door gets hit by the beverage cart.
They're confident they can do an auto-land, but how about "auto-circle until ATC takes control but let's hope there are no mountains or buildings in the way?"
Airline pilots are such scared for their job wussies they wouldn't have the nads to squawk, but in this instance, I can't really see the complaint from them or pax. Most CAT III planes can pull the main features off anyway, the only difference is under this system, a terrorist wouldn't have the ability to gain control of the aircraft to fly it into something. They will of course retain the ability to destroy the aircraft itself.
I always think about the electrical and hydraulic lines to/from the cockpit which are right under the floor in the cabin and in the top of the fuselage.
JohnR
Final Approach
I can envision several amusing scenarios.
"Open the flight deck door, HAL." "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."
"Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of Captian HAL9000, I'd like to wish you a pleasant flight."
Or, when terrorists figure out how to control the remote control, they won't even need to board the aircraft.
Why can't we just go after terrorists instead?
"Open the flight deck door, HAL." "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."
"Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of Captian HAL9000, I'd like to wish you a pleasant flight."
Or, when terrorists figure out how to control the remote control, they won't even need to board the aircraft.
Why can't we just go after terrorists instead?
It's hard. That Bin Laden guy changed his phone number.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Not intended...
Sufficient safeguards...
Hah. There has never been a single system on any aircraft that has not failed. This is a system which cannot fail, there is no way out if it does.
No freaking way I will ever get on an airplane that has something like this.
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
There are plenty of sheeple that will be delighted to see this. The same ones that think the TSA's doing a great job and ought to be doing more.
Baaahhh... Baaahhhh
Nav8tor
Line Up and Wait
You could make the same argument about the autopilot and the FMS, but nobody seems to have a problem with those. The autopiilot essentially takes control from the pilot but there are sufficient safegaurds that prevent it from happening if the pilot doesn't want it to. None of us know the details of how this remote system would be implemented so you can't really state that there is no way out if it failed.
There are those who believe that we're headed in this direction anyway by adapting UAV technology for commercial airplanes.
Last edited:
JohnR
Final Approach
And the people who believe it when the media strongly implies that all flights are "controlled" by ATC.
Dwight B. Van Zanen
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2006
- Messages
- 417
- Display Name
Display name:
DBVZ
Seems like it would need to be subject to reset at some point. The plane needs to fly again later, right? So some form of reset must be available or they replace the airplane (ar at least the control system). So if the system can be reset, perhaps it requires a reset code the aircrew does not have? Or the plane has to be on its wheels to reset? Or both? Or something the ground staff can send up by telemetry?
So, if it is a wheels lockout, the terrorists need to know what wires to reroute to trick the system into thinking that the wheels are down. If it is a code the aircrew does not have, what do you think would happen if the terrorists said (in a Spanish accent), "we just want to go to Cuba, but if you do not send up the code to release the plane we are going to start killing people".
Seems like it would make things more complicated for terrorists, but would just change how they did things. Like if you want to kill a few hundred to a few thousand, wait for the plane to be on final and explode something. They would have a fair chance of having the plane plow into one of the airport hotels or businesses or another plane at the gate, even with the remote landing system. Something like that was the plan for those planes from London a few months ago, that was prevented. This would not have prevented that plot from succeeding.
So, if it is a wheels lockout, the terrorists need to know what wires to reroute to trick the system into thinking that the wheels are down. If it is a code the aircrew does not have, what do you think would happen if the terrorists said (in a Spanish accent), "we just want to go to Cuba, but if you do not send up the code to release the plane we are going to start killing people".
Seems like it would make things more complicated for terrorists, but would just change how they did things. Like if you want to kill a few hundred to a few thousand, wait for the plane to be on final and explode something. They would have a fair chance of having the plane plow into one of the airport hotels or businesses or another plane at the gate, even with the remote landing system. Something like that was the plan for those planes from London a few months ago, that was prevented. This would not have prevented that plot from succeeding.
Last edited:
K
KennyFlys
Guest
It would make more sense to be subject to squat switches as well as a ground maintenance interface with limited availability; perhaps only by the FAA. I don't know, those are just ideas kicked out there as well. But, I'm sure they've addressed all this and probably will release very little data to the public.
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
I'm pretty certain that there are several ways to disable the autopilot and FMS.
But it's intended to be impossible to be disabled so by design there will be "no way out" if something goes wrong.
flyersfan31
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 14,269
- Display Name
Display name:
Freiburgfan31
As long as it's not programmed by the guys at Airbus whose errors lead to that crash at the Paris Air Show.
Whatever happened to the pilot + dog concept? You know, pilot to feed dog and dog to bite pilot if he tries to do anything. Couple that with this here new-fangled autopilot and I think you have a complete system. The dog can bite the terrorists too.
Whatever happened to the pilot + dog concept? You know, pilot to feed dog and dog to bite pilot if he tries to do anything. Couple that with this here new-fangled autopilot and I think you have a complete system. The dog can bite the terrorists too.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Because if the autopilot or FMS craps out, the pilot can punch a button or pull a circuit breaker and take the plane over. This system, there is no taking over if it decides to take everyone for a joyride into Mt. Cumulogranite.