What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
101 Comments
- LonesomeFighter, on 10/12/2007, -5/+57cool. now lets let 14 year old eastern europeans hack it and play the ultimate flight simulator game.
but this is also handy in other situations. like when the pilots die, some ground control person can land for them. Instead of a guy who plays too much playstation 2 like in Snakes on a Plane. - 7of7, on 10/12/2007, -7/+38No one can hijack a plane in the US anymore. It's not that security measure have worked, but even someone with a gun is no match for 150 angry airline passengers that know you might be trying to kill 3000 people and not just them. However, this is still a good idea for a number of other reasons.
- schwit, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33I love it when people end their OPINION with the word 'period'. As if that makes the opinion on par with Newton's Laws.
- hipstershaun, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27I doubt that would be a popular hijacking method. The plane crashes and they don’t even get any virgins out of the deal. Could be a hard sell.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15My thoughts exactly, well maybe not exactly. If a pilot doesn't have complete control over the plane, what will happen if the auto-pilot is engaged by a hacker, and the pilot just has to sit there and watch.
It is a good idea in theory, and will most likely work best as a deterrent than in practice. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Cui bono? Oh wait, Haliburton 'rebuilding' Iraq, right. Move along, nothing to see here.
- d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14The probability that this tool will be used by a "cyber hijacker" is far more likely than it will ever be used to thwart a hijacking.
- Protean1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Wasn't Boeing testing this in 2000?
To my knowledge, as a student pilot who's been lucky
enough to chat up some commercial flyboys out at the 'port,
this has been possible for quite some time now.
The shuttle can be brought in on full-auto too, no astronauts necessary.
This is common knowledge in the flight community, and the good old boys
do a lot of grumbling about it.
A question folks should ask, is why Boeing chose to use QRS-11 gyro-chips in their
C&C system, which are rated for high-speed flight (aka, missile gyros).
They already got busted selling 100+ of them to China in '00, and had to fork out
a $670,000 fine. Oh, and if you dig a little deeper, the command & control system
to be used to control these 'hijacked' planes to their landing area, is the old Iridium
satellite network, which was forced into bankruptcy and then bought at fire-sale
prices by the DoD.
Fun stuff. Good questions being asked these days. I like it. Makes me hopeful. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that.
- DKLD, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12"One nasty little thing is that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which has an almost explicit prohibition on possessing explosives. For those of you who are at BCA [Boeing Commercial Airplanes], you might remember that every single door on an airplane has actuators that are triggered by explosives ," said Bain.
Ok so there are explosives on the emergency systems in the doors whats new? They have been on A/C since the beginning of commercial flight. Hell the bolts on fighter jets are explosive. They blow out when you pull the eject.
I for one am glad that the actuators are triggered by explosives. I don't think I could provide the 1000+ pounds of preasure required to blow open a door. - jasonlion54, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@7of7
Exactly. 150 angry passengers will never allow their plane to be taken over again. Now the only way to do it would be with a remote control. I know! Let's put remote controls in the planes to make hijackings possible again. - kevinmotel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7never trust a machine you can't throw out a window
- d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -12/+19Well, with this technology, hijacking will become possible again. Seriously, this has got to be the most idiotic move ever. By definition, if the system communicates to the outside world, it is hackable. And if it is hackable, somebody will figure it out. Period.
- Orbmanelson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Does any living person think for a single short moment, that with our highly advanced technology and avionics systems that we have for the last 35 years have actually been letting these giant birds float around in the sky like Macy's Thanksgiving parade balloons?
Really!!! So in an attempt to rewind the clocks on all the walls in the universe, somebody has invented something that was invented and is now re-re-inventing what has long ago existed. It is not possible for a commercial aircraft to be highjacked with out the complicity of a government employee. Check out:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/home_run.htm
or
http://www.geocities.com/mknemesis/homerun.html
In the mid-seventies America faced a new and escalating crisis, with US commercial jets being hijacked for geopolitical purposes. Determined to gain the upper hand in this new form of aerial warfare, two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. Brilliant both in concept and operation, “Home Run” [not its real code name] allowed specialist ground controllers to listen in to cockpit conversations on the target aircraft, then take absolute control of its computerized flight control system by remote means.
From that point onwards, regardless of the wishes of the hijackers or flight deck crew, the hijacked aircraft could be recovered and landed automatically at an airport of choice, with no more difficulty than flying a radio-controlled model plane. The engineers had no idea that almost thirty years after its initial design, Home Run’s top secret computer codes would be broken, and the system used to facilitate direct ground control of the four aircraft used in the high-profile attacks on New York and Washington on 11th September 2001.
Can any one say "JOYSTICK" - ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Leave it to the mainstream media to skip all the important parts...
A NW airline pilot resigns and sues Boeing stating that the use of the military gyros not only allows planes to be taken over without the crew being able to stop it, but that evidence shows high levels of explosives are being placed in the planes which can be triggered by the gyros.
Boeing responds by calling the pilot a "nut", "Conspiracy kook" etc.
Article comes out in London Times with Boeing sources talking about the "new" nifty remote control, anti-hijack system. A system Bush alluded to in speeches in the days following 9-11 and a system anyone in / from the Air Force can tell you has been around in various formats since the late 1940's.
Cliff Notes:
Why is Boeing denying something they are announcing in the press at the same time?
The pilot and his research partner raise a lot of interesting points though they also take some very big leaps of reason and seem to bend over backwards to excuse Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld etc from any active role in 9-11.
Why was Bush stopped by his escorts when he began to speak about these systems in the days following 9-11? I'm sure the clip will be on Digg in a day or two, it's very interesting.
The big problem is the other less publicized elements of this system. It uses AI to determine if the plane has been hijacked and can be triggered without the flight crew actively doing so. Things like impact to the cabin door and so on. The system can also be triggered by parties in the communication link, on the ground etc and given lapses in security + the govt people are concerned, especially pilots. I think we all realize our planes and cars will be controlled by computers in the near future, this isn't about resisting technology, it's about trust and the actions of Boeing and others which are making said trust impossible. - geoken, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10I don't understand how it could be hackable. The planes actual actions don't need to be controlled remotely. The plane just needs to have an "engage hijack mode" switch. This switch could be triggered remotely, but the program it executes (ie. a series of auto-pilot instructions) can all be contained within the planes computer systems and don't need to be exposed to any type of remote interface. Several aircrafts (ie. Airbus A320 for example) are able to fly to an airport and actually land themselves. In certain airports they are even able to taxi to the terminal. All you would need is a remotely controlled switch which locks out all controll, and engages an auto-pilot program (which tells the plane to go to airport x and land). There is no reason to have the afformentioned auto-pilot program subject to any kind of remote management.
- ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@broomett
Would your opinion include the hundreds of military and civilian pilots who believe this is exactly how 9-11 was pulled off? If you spent more time actually researching things, like the impossible flight path the plane that hit the pentagon took maybe you'd be asking more questions instead of trying to insult others.
Making crappy little comments towards people you disagree with does nothing to build your position, it just makes you look incapable of reasonable discussion. - gab00n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Seeing that the planes were hijacked remotely wouldn't this just help the CIA out the next time they want to scare the public into submission?
- heptahedron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@geoken
Even a remote control system that is strictly limited to "land-at-X" is exploitable. If the hacker-terrorist tells all the planes on the East Coast to land on runway 12L at La Guardia, we will have a major problem.
I fear that more people will die because of this system than for the lack of it. - Clearz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Jeeze you people have little faith in software. First of all they say it would have to be activated by a pressure switch in the cabin. Now all these hackers can hack till they are blue in the face but they cant hack a system that isnt switched on.
Secondly this switch would only be activated during a real emergincy and we all know how often they happen. Once a decade maybe.
Third the hacker along with the rest of us would most likely not even know that this event is taking place until after the plane has landed and is switched off again.
It is simple to make it so that the plane has to initiate the connection and not vice versa.
Believe it or not people its not really that hard to make good secure software. - geoken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Or hell, just pre-program way points for each flight and if the "terrorist button" is pushed on the plane would then automatically land at the airport designated by the program based on it's current location. Therefore you wouldn't even need remote control per se.."
Exactly. The program which actually controlls the plane doesn't need to be subject to remote control. - SassyDave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I have the profanity filter turned on, which made this headline humorously appear thus:
If anyone attempts to force their way into the *****, autopilot can be activated manually or by pressure sensors that are installed in the ***** door. - Vigo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5compare the number of people who die on airlines every year to how many people die from cancer every year and we waste our money on this crap! We have our priorities screwed up.
- Vigo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm a commercial pilot and I think all this post 911 fear mongering is silly.
- cybermage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Does anyone else have profanity filter on, and find that cockpit is filtered? lol
- steelmaverick, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6What if the terrorists booked all 150 seats?
- zizzybaloobah, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6What if somebody hacks the remote control system? Seems at first glance that the hijackers will no longer have to physically be on the plane...
- peevegrider, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3just give the pilots uzis and a 40oz of Mickeys. That seems more effective anti-terrorist measure
- wvdavis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Aircraft are built with redundancy. There are backups to the backups. I would imagine that this system could only be activated from the initiating aircraft and would use something similar to the The Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Area_Augmentation_System .
- modusop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Profanity filter is on...who can fill me in on what happens when he tries to force his way through the ****** door?
- geoken, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I don't think it would be that hard to lock this system down.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3 One thing about the 9/11 truth movement I thought might have been a bit farfetched was how the planes were hijacked by remote control and flown into the twin towers.. However this to me if clear cut admission of technology that has been in airlines as far back as 1999. This is a staged admission of technology that is proof that 9/11 was an inside job and those planes were indeed hijacked by remote control.. I think those 50,000 per plane cockpit doors are more than adequate.. This is going to fail miserably and make 911 look like a blackcat firecracker compared to the real damage that will be done from more false flag terror events.. Our country has been hijacked by GOV terrorists that will not stop till they abolish freedom in all forms..
- bigtoe416, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Has the human race even made ANYTHING tamper-proof yet? Maybe we should work our way up to airplanes.
- Poco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Tamper-proof my ass!
It sounded right when I thought it, but written down I think it could be misinterpreted. Oh well, you know what I meant. - garyblock, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7They had this years ago. It was an autopilot system that flew the planes into the WTC on 9/11.
- graberc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm wondering where pilots stand on this. The ability to completely "turn off' the flight crew and their inputs - even if flight crew initiated - might scare (if I was a pilot). Thats a lot of control to potential give up
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Flight paths can be programmed very easily and planes do fly themselves every day..... this is how commuter flights are operated.... once in the air planes fly from one programmed point to the next..... the only time the pilots have to do anything is when they must deviate from those pre-programmed flight paths.
I talked to an American Airlines pilot who informed me that in times of bad weather many times they even allow the computer to land the plane.
You can take a program derived from an advanced flight simulator and put it directly into a planes computer and it would fly that programmed path.
If a plane can be computer controlled than with a slight modification it could be remotely controlled...... but it would be much easier to just programme the computer with the desired flight path.
This gyro chip would be a huge aide in accomplishing a desired programmed or remotely flown flight. - Anonymous3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"According to the Associated Press , from 2000 to 2003 Boeing shipped 94 airliners oversees, mainly to China, that contained the chip, a device used for "military applications," stated the report."
I didn't know Small Soldiers was a fan favorite amongst Boeing engineers. - ggbs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Pilot needs some help!
http://www.bootstrike.com/LaughterHell/showpic.php?file=computer06.jpg&title=Pilot%20needs%20some%20Help! - Yoshi39, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ta all of those saying that hacking would be impossible because the system would have to be activated locally imagine the following scenario
At the airport in the middle of the night when the aiplane is parked in a hangar a terrorist/hacker/whatever gets acces to the cockpit (either he works as an repair guy or he breaks an entery) he uplinks to the software and replaces the firmware with his own wich is has the emergency coordinates hard coded into it he then sets it to activate 1 hour after take off (or if thats impossible he can simply run up an kick on the cockpit door in mid-flight) the coordinates he enters can be what ever he wants them to be but a few examples are middle of nowhere in alaska, a tall building, a foreign airport where the passengers can be used as hostages ad infinitum.
Now further imagine that this person has access to 10 airplanes at anyone time and that there are 10 more like him that he is coordinated with that means they can bring down 100 airplanes within a couple of minutes of each other... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8The sad things is...Jeff is serious. He actually believes that.
Jeff and his senses have taken leave of each other long ago. - gotrevgo, on 10/12/2007, -10/+129/11 is the result of this very technology. It can be used to slam two planes into buildings as easily as the government can launch a missile at the Pentagon. I know this will get modded down but look at the obvious facts. Nobody gained more from 9/11 than the administration, and it's been proven by everyone in the know that the "confession" video of Osama Bin Laden was quite clearly not UBL.
- Humptydank, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3
I'd like to use this opportunity to introduce Humptydank's Law:
In any technology venture, "tamper-proof" will always be the punch line.
- bluenash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2leaving the pilot with both hands free to blast at intruders with a combat shotgun
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I saw remote autopilot working as intended on 9-11-2001. So did you.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Everybody...STOP declaring this thing easily hackable based on the 0.001% of the specifics that this article gives! You all sound like ***** idiots thinking that YOU thought of sometihng that they didn't when they came up with this idea.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@almalax19
I will respond to your toxic post, if only to show that your ignorance does not dissuade me from trying to educate you and that your obnoxiousness, by claiming I disrespect the fallen, somehow might intimidate me. It does not, you do not. So pay attention:
1) What crashed into the Pentagon? Based on this CNN video, and the reporters live commentary, certainly not a 757, as officially claimed.
http://freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm
http://freedomfiles.org/war/Cnn%5B1%5D.Pentagon.Jamie.Mcintyre.swf
2) Where are the voice and data recorders from the aircraft in question?
http://911review.org/Wiki/Black_Boxes_FBI.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/25/attack/main501989.shtml
Reply back when you check out those links and learn how to post something other than a public confession of your corrupt character, almalax19. - biff198, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2c o c k p i t
Mine is on too, I had to turn it off to find out what it said. I thought that was hilarious. - ajmeade1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I feel safer. I haven't felt this safe since they told me my 6 ounce bottle of cologne was a weapon and had to be thrown out. I for one welcome my all-seeing fascist overlords.
- Jonsey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@geoken
"In certain airports they are even able to taxi to the terminal."
Never heard of this, source? I can't see autopilot controlling the nosewheel and taxi thrust... but maybe I'm missing something. -
Show 51 - 100 of 101 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 