Securing our Airspace, Any Ideas?

[AndyF]

TV this week has been having documentaries that review the 9/11 tragedy. The made for TV movie “Flight 93” is airing tonite at 9PM eastern.

I was watching one show on how air traffic control were helpless everyone was to do anything about the flights once in the air. One controller mentioned the FAA is now ensuring plane transponders cannot be turned off so they can still be tracked.

It occured to me that we could easily come up with automatic control of these machines that are practically drones anyway. If we can create X-Boxes for our kids, and now we have Global Positioning Systems, and we have drones, what’s stopping us from employing technology? What about other alternatives?

For instance:

1/ the pilot radioing in a different code every 15 minutes, where every controller would have a log for every appropriate answer.

2/ No tamper Auto pilot that flies the plane to the nearest airport. Here a F18 can fly in behind the plane and make contact. If the F18 pilot is suspicious, he presses a button which starts the auto pilot. The hyjacker suddenly realizes that whatever instrument he smashes it has no effect, or the joystick is under it’s own control. If the pilot is ligit, he is told to relax and enjoy the flight and his sleeping problem will be handled after landing. This also could be triggered by air traffic control with special permission.

A flight simulator type setup can be devised that uses downloaded information the plane transmits(altitude,etc) along with video cameras mounted on the nose. An experienced controller or retired pilot could be on the job to bring the plane in to land. Every plane’s flight test on manufacture would be required to pass 2 auto landings.

3/ The autopilot is activated by a false thumb print/temp indicator switch on the stick, or it asks the pilot/co-pilot to place his finger on a thumb reader every 15min.

4/ voice pattern recognition.

** And what is being tried now**.

1/ cockpit door security.

The problem with this is the control mechanisms are easily accessed under bulkheads and trap doors. All it would take is a terrorist plane mechanic.

2/ security personell:

This sounds heroic in a sense. The sight of kung-fu trained personell taking on hyjackers. Trouble is it’s costly and not practical.

Perhaps some of you have come up with some ideas. So what are your possible solutions?

Andy

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/29/AR2006012901118.html?nav=rss_artsandliving/television

 

[Philip_P]

I think it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for terrorists to pull off a 9/11 type attack again. The locking cockpit doors I think makes a difference, but even more important is the change in attitude. Prior to 09/11, if your plane was hijacked you probably assumed you’d be flying to a remote runway somewhere for a few days while the terrorists and officials negotiated. That assumption doesn’t exist anymore. I think the fourth flight shows that - once news of the towers came out, the passengers risked (and ultimately chose) crashing into a field rather than allow the terrorists to take control.

Most of the money we are spending on aircraft security could be better spent defending against new attacks to come, not trying to prevent the attacks which already happened. Trains, trucks, and ports need more attention.

 

[Al_Masetti]

On one of the later flights after air traffic was restored, the pilot said that if anyone attempted to hijack the flight, that the passengers should gather up the blankets as shields and rush the hijackers and beat the c**p out of them. He received a standing ovation.

A lot of pilots are armed. A lot of flights have sky marshals.

It is highly unlikely that such an event (hijacking 9/11 style) will happen again.

Other alternatives are available. They could buy a plane, but to do damage, they would need a BIG plane, like a 767. Most of the planes available are small, like DC-9’s and 737’s. They would also need to be able to actually start the engines and get the thing off the ground. Much more difficult than just steering the thing around the sky like they did on 9/11.

Having someone on the ground being able to steer the plane by remote control opens up a whole nuther can of worms. It wouldn’t take a genius to figure out the codes and then some geek could be sitting in his bedroom and override the whole airline fleet and fly them all into the ground. Not a good idea.

Most likely, the next attempt will be done more simply, mirroring the techniques employed by the Provisional IRA in the UK with massive truck bombs. Or by hijacking a cargo ship… their crews are only 10 people. Take a look at www.cargolaw.com and review the section on piracy - which is a huge problem.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Al Masetti:

Most likely, the next attempt will be done more simply, mirroring the techniques employed by the Provisional IRA in the UK with massive truck bombs. Or by hijacking a cargo ship… their crews are only 10 people. Take a look at www.cargolaw.com and review the section on piracy - which is a huge problem.

A possible next event of great proportion will be a walk-in or float-in mini-nuke.

I was watching Flight 93 tonight as well. I just simply cannot fathom how people can outright dismiss that terrible and terrifying reality which happened on 9/11, as though an attack on the homeland were nothing to get too upset about.

I remember worrying myself frantic over a friend who was in Washington and because of his job in a media outlet may have been near the Pentagon just doing his job the way so many other folks were.

 

[MikeWM]

Ani Ibi:

I was watching Flight 93 tonight as well. I just simply cannot fathom how people can outright dismiss that terrible and terrifying reality which happened on 9/11, as though an attack on the homeland were nothing to get too upset about.

I haven’t seen anyone dismiss it anywhere. I have seen wide differences of opinion as to how to minimize the risk of a repeat performance, however.

Also remember some countries have lived with terrorist attacks for years - not everywhere in the world is as peaceful as Canada! We lost many good people to so-called-‘Catholic’ bombers here on the UK mainland for nearly 30 years.

Mike

 

[Philip_P]

Ani Ibi:

A possible next event of great proportion will be a walk-in or float-in mini-nuke.

I was watching Flight 93 tonight as well. I just simply cannot fathom how people can outright dismiss that terrible and terrifying reality which happened on 9/11, as though an attack on the homeland were nothing to get too upset about.

I remember worrying myself frantic over a friend who was in Washington and because of his job in a media outlet may have been near the Pentagon just doing his job the way so many other folks were.

Please don’t dismiss those who differ politically from you as being somehow dismissive of 9/11. I live in NYC, and I assure that while you will find plenty who do not share your politics, no one here “dismisses” 9/11.

The world is more than just liberal and conservative

 

[Al_Masetti]

MikeWM:

I haven’t seen anyone dismiss it anywhere. I have seen wide differences of opinion as to how to minimize the risk of a repeat performance, however.

Also remember some countries have lived with terrorist attacks for years - not everywhere in the world is as peaceful as Canada! We lost many good people to so-called-‘Catholic’ bombers here on the UK mainland for nearly 30 years.

Mike

As you said, many countries have experienced and lived with terrorist attacks. In fact, if you google for “terrorist attacks”, there are hundreds listed.

The problem is this: the United States did, in fact, “live with” terrorist attacks… many of them. The various embassies, various military barracks, the Cole, the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993.

AND THEN 9/11 HAPPENED.

Mike, we have discussed this before. You still haven’t visited the crater.

9/11 changed everything.

Maybe it’s a good thing that the bureaucrats and political activists can’t agree on any aspect of rebuilding the WTC because the crater reminds us of what actually happened.

How many 9/11’s can any country live with?

About 20 square blocks were totally annihiliated.

In place of a modern complex of buildings, there is just a huge hole… a giant crater in bedrock, 70 feet deep.

It’s the size and effect of a nuclear bomb detonation.

Mike, before you use words and dismissive expressions like: “countries have lived with terrorist attacks for years”, Mike… visit the site.

Mike, 9/11 changed everything.

 

[MikeWM]

Al Masetti:

The problem is this: the United States did, in fact, “live with” terrorist attacks… many of them. The various embassies, various military barracks, the Cole, the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993.

Yes, but apart from the first WTC - and Oklahoma - not on the US mainland.

Mike, we have discussed this before. You still haven’t visited the crater.

I haven’t visited Auschwitz-Birkenau either, but I can still comment on the Holocaust. I haven’t visited Jerusalem, but I can comment on the Passion of Our Lord.

How many 9/11’s can any country live with?

There ought to be none, of course. The question you ought to be asking though is how many 9/11s could you cope with before your country collapses. I’d bet it’s a lot.

It’s the size and effect of a nuclear bomb detonation.

Err, no. I haven’t been to Hiroshima or Nagasaki either (I really need to do more travelling) but this is an exaggeration. 9/11 is a more than sufficient atrocity without trying to overplay it.

Mike, before you use words and dismissive expressions like: “countries have lived with terrorist attacks for years”, Mike… visit the site.

I’m not being dismissive. I’m trying to explain why, though we all look upon 9/11 as a terrible event, some people - those who have had terrorism, at whatever scale, at home with them for years - were perhaps less revolutionised at these events than others.

This hasn’t got a great deal to do with securing airspace, so I’ll leave it there. Philip is right though, the terrorists are innovative. Airplanes need to be secure, but let’s not concentrate exclusively on such things.

Mike

 

[Ani_Ibi]

The scope and scale of the planes ramming the three buildings was incomprehensible in and of itself. The horror of the two towers crashing down and hurling up enormous clouds of dust – and the loss of civilian life – was a shock to the heart.

But it didn’t stop there. The American airspace completely shut down. The President was taken to Air Force One with military escort. The Vice-President gamely held the fort in the underground bunker at the White House.

Up in Canada planes were trying to land where ever they could. All those passengers had to be put up where ever space could be found. Some found hotel rooms. Most found the kindness of strangers who took them into their homes.

The only military target was the Pentagon. The twin towers was a civilian target. As for Flight 93 – God bless them – where would it have struck? The White House? The Capitol?

It is incomprehensible to me that folks would even think that it might be possible to spindoctor 9/11 to make it just another day in life of the Jihad.

They should leave the crater and make it into an urban lake. And they should plant red maples all around it to remind folks that the US is not without friends. And maybe oak trees and eucalyptus trees and any other form of national flora.

 

[Al_Masetti]

MikeWM:

Yes, but apart from the first WTC - and Oklahoma - not on the US mainland.

I haven’t visited Auschwitz-Birkenau either, but I can still comment on the Holocaust. I haven’t visited Jerusalem, but I can comment on the Passion of Our Lord.

There ought to be none, of course. The question you ought to be asking though is how many 9/11s could you cope with before your country collapses. I’d bet it’s a lot.

Err, no. I haven’t been to Hiroshima or Nagasaki either (I really need to do more travelling) but this is an exaggeration. 9/11 is a more than sufficient atrocity without trying to overplay it.

I’m not being dismissive. I’m trying to explain why, though we all look upon 9/11 as a terrible event, some people - those who have had terrorism, at whatever scale, at home with them for years - were perhaps less revolutionised at these events than others.

This hasn’t got a great deal to do with securing airspace, so I’ll leave it there. Philip is right though, the terrorists are innovative. Airplanes need to be secure, but let’s not concentrate exclusively on such things.

Mike

As far as Americans are concerned, the next nearest comparable event was the attack on Pearl Harbor. As a result of Pearl Harbor, the United States pulverized Japan. And since Hitler made the mistake of declaring war on us at a “bad time”, we pulverized Germany as well.

al Qaeda already declared war on the United States.

So, al Qaeda can expect us to hunt them all down, them and all their supporters, and to use a Texas euphemism, “to bring them to justice”.

 

[djamu]

i saw a political cartoon that said Flight 93 didn’t end, just got rerouted to heaven instead of California.

“Attention passenjers of F93, we are now landing safely in Heaven. Thankyou for your patience as we dropped of a few Talibs in hell.”