uninterruptible autopilot system

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 4, 2003
Messages
6,619
Location
southeast US
Quote:
Although airplane cockpit door locks are now standard, worries remain about terrorists taking control of a plane a la 9/11, perhaps by extorting the pilots into opening the door against their better judgement. Elsewhere in today’s issue we report on a new Raytheon contract to develop software that uses type of craft, location, and fuel capacity to determine the safest route for a hijacked or otherwise compromised aircraft. This is a great idea, one that must have Chicago, Illinois-based Boeing excited — not out of envy but because it improves the value of its recently awarded patent for a system that, once activated, takes control of the airplane away from the pilots and flies it to a predtermined landing position. Put the Raytheon and the Boeing systems together — now that’s a good idea.

Boeing’s is, of course, not the first autopilot technology in existence, but this one has been designed with counterterrorism first and foremost in mind. Not only is it “uninterruptible” — so that even a tortured pilot cannot turn it off — but it can be activated remotely via radio or satellite by government agencies. The system might even include senors on the cockpit door that activate the autopilot of a certain amount of force is used against it. “There is a need for a technique that ensures the continuation of the desired path of travel of a vehicle by removing any type of human decision process that may be influenced by the circumstances of the situation, including threats or further violence onboard the vehicle,” the patent application explains. To make it fully independent, the system also has its own power supply, independent of the aircraft’s circuit breakers.


http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/boeing-wins-patent-uninterruptible-autopilot-system

i'm thinking the germanwings A320 didn't have it because (1) it was an old plane, (2) it was airbus, and (3) nothing happened when the captain "used some force" against the cockpit door.
 
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
it's interesting considering very few people know about it.
i didn't say whether it was good or bad.


This system has been in development since the 1980's originally funded by SDI. The idea came from having large capacity B52 drones that could penetrate soviet airspace and if the pilots were killed could complete the mission and return to base. Or prevent a rogue pilot from starting WWIII
 
Last edited:
Plenty of us know about it. The crackpots bring it up every time there is a crash. However, there is an enormous difference between a patent for an idea, and the design, testing, building, acceptance and installation of a system.

That's why Germanwings doesn't have it. That's why no one has it. No one is willing to pay for this, and it doesn't do anything to reduce risk. If it were a good idea, it would have been adopted a decade ago.

No airplane has this idiocy installed.

I would never fly on one that did.

Let's take a look at the risk. Roughly 90,000 commercial flights per day, that's roughly 30 million per year. Once every several years you get a pilot that wants to crash. One in what, 100 million flights?

So, you want to spend millions on each airplane to retrofit this thing? Billions of dollars? For a one in a hundred million risk?

There are far better ways of reducing aviation risk than any ground takeover of the airplane.

Further, how does your autopilot actually land the airplane? Without being able to configure (gear, flaps, spoilers, brakes) the airplane for landing, it simply can't land the airplane. All it would be able to do is crash the airplane (and we were trying to avoid the rogue pilot doing that, right?).

So, billions of dollars to be able to crash the airplane from the ground? Yeah...and nothing would go wrong with the system...it would never "glitch" and lock the pilots out...or prevent the pilots from avoiding the thunderstorm that would wreck the airplane in flight...no chance of fire danger from the isolated power supply...no chance that it would be hacked, or that the ground control center would be taken over by terrorists, who could then crash airplanes all over the world...

The logic of this system is like listening to a guy who develops protection from lightning strikes while playing golf and insists that everyone adopt his lightning suit, but he doesn't wear his seatbelt, keeps his eyes on his iphone when walking, keeps a kerosene heater in his bedroom, never sees a doctor.

His ability to ascertain and manage risk is utterly and completely absent. He focuses on the least likely while ignoring the most likely risks...and thinks he's brilliant...
 
Last edited:
If such a system were in place the suicidal pilot would know about it and come up with a different plan, like disabling the pilot in his seat.

If airplanes had "secret systems" the pilots didn't know about, they would be annoyed at the micromanagement (lack of control) and flying wouldn't attract good talent. "Sully" might have chosen a career in delivering potato chips and some other, less experienced fill-in would not have handled that incident with the same grace.
 
Okay, and would this magic autopilot prevent someone from pulling the throttles all the way back or shutting down the engines?
What about simply opening the fuel dump valves over the Pacific or the Arctic in an airplane in which has fuel dump capability?
Fuel dump is not a quick process, but the fuel available could probably be reduced to a level where a safe alternate detinantion couldn't be found.
What if someone just applied full back stick, let the autopilot trim against it and then released the yoke, or do the reverse, aplly full forward stick, let the autopilot trim against it, and then release the yoke and let the airplane stall.
Autopilots are also intended to go offline under certain circumstances and a a steep dive or an approach to a stall would probably be among those things.
What about that?
This sounds like a complicated and expensive way of addressing a threat that is very rarely seen that could not be practically retrofitted into any existing transport.
You'd have to design an entire program around such a system and I can't see Boeing or Airbus doing so, since few airlines would want to pay for it.
 
Or mandate that two people must be in the cockpit at all times.
I think Quantas is still the safest airline in the world, and that is their solution.
The only perfectly safe way to avoid plane crashes is to never fly them.

Roger.
 
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Quote:
flies it to a predtermined landing position.
The system might even include senors on the cockpit door that activate the autopilot of a certain amount of force is used against it.



I would not put much credence in an article with that level of spelling and grammar.
 
Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: michaelluscher
Your first two points are moronic, but OK.


Not moronic at all.


Wait, so this happened because it's an older EADS product instead of a contemporary Boeing or MD design?
 
Originally Posted By: Claud
Or mandate that two people must be in the cockpit at all times.
I think Quantas is still the safest airline in the world, and that is their solution.
The only perfectly safe way to avoid plane crashes is to never fly them.

Roger.


As I pointed out in other threads, the two person rule is what the U.S. major airlines do.

Now, all airlines are adopting it.
 
Originally Posted By: michaelluscher
Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: michaelluscher
Your first two points are moronic, but OK.


Not moronic at all.


Wait, so this happened because it's an older EADS product instead of a contemporary Boeing or MD design?


No airplane has this.

Trust me.

This crash happened for reasons that aren't yet clear, but it appears to be deliberate pilot action.

But this uninterruptible autopilot is a case where the cure is worse than the disease.

All it can do is crash the airplane somewhere else....and add more points of failure and potential compromise...so....how is that better?
 
Automation is not the answer. Nor are locked cockpit doors, air marshals, or extreme security.

It's obvious aviation is a target for those with evil intent. Nothing we do can change the outcome. A dedicated individual will achieve a disastrous result, regardless of our schemes to prevent it.

Quite simply, from the instant an airplane starts rolling, there are any number of scenario's that can happen. From driving it into another plane, building to crashing it on take off. No amount of automation will prevent disaster. Consider how simple it would be for a pilot to simply push the nose down or roll the aircraft shortly after rotation. Or, for that matter, select flaps up while doing so. Or, or, or....
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Astro14

All it can do is crash the airplane somewhere else....and add more points of failure and potential compromise...so....how is that better?


the only advantage i see is white house occupants sleeping better at night worrying less about airliners falling down on them.

supposedly it will have the auto-land capability, just like the newer drones.

not sure when boeing will (or did ?) start equipping their planes with this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top