http://www.physorg.com/news72860619.html
Why not put a bulkhead between cabin and pilots with separate access from the outside for pilots?
Wow, now you can hijack a plane and you crash it without even risking your own life. Imagine the scale of problems that could occur with an ability to fly aircraft with tons of people on them from the ground.
I think your bulkhead idea is better. (And they can hand every passenger a gun before boarding also ... that would deter hijackers
)
I think your bulkhead idea is better. (And they can hand every passenger a gun before boarding also ... that would deter hijackers
)
This is an interesting topic for speculation, but really no more than that.
Yes, it is certainly theoretically feasible to develop a system which would allow control of the aircraft to be taken over by someone on the ground, and then flown to an airport, and then, and landed safely.
But there are three serious stumbling blocks.
1. A safe landing can only be reasonably assured when the hijacked aircraft has full autolanding capability, and the chosen airport has one or more runways equipped with the necessary Category III zero visibility landing guidance system. (Do not blithely respond "GPS" for that concern before consulting landing system specialists) Without both the aircraft and the airport being so equipped - and I'd guess that less than 20% of all aircraft and airports are - the approach and landing must be controlled by a person on the ground.
This would be an extraordinarily difficult task, requiring a pilot (a) to be experienced in flying the aircraft type being hijacked. (b) to be seated in a reasonably close operational replica of the specific aircraft type (forget about flying R/C models here) , © having a ground/air/ground data link tailored specifically to the aircraft's systems and controls and (d) having some form of visual look-ahead monitor in the aircraft to assist the ground pilot to accurately approach, flare and touchdown. The probability of all the latter conditions being available in the right place and the right time is extremely remote.
2. But assuming the feasibility of all the above, there remains the airworthiness certification of all the additional overriding control functions which must be introduced into, and specifically tailored to, each different aircraft type. Such a development, test and approval effort would be almost overwhelmingly costly. Again, just ask anyone in the airworthiness regulatory business. And who would pay for such an endeavour?
3. It has been estimated that the cost of installing anti-MANPADS systems on individual airliners - and which would be in add-on external pods, completely independent of the aircraft's systems - is around US$1 million per aircraft. The airline
industry has rejected these systems as totally unaffordable. I suggest that remote controlled, type specific, anti-hijacking systems proposed here would be many times more costly than anti-MANPADS equipment, while the probability of their need would be very much less.
As said, an interesting topic, but to my mind, totally impractical when examined seriously.
I would welcome discussion about it.
David U.
Yes, it is certainly theoretically feasible to develop a system which would allow control of the aircraft to be taken over by someone on the ground, and then flown to an airport, and then, and landed safely.
But there are three serious stumbling blocks.
1. A safe landing can only be reasonably assured when the hijacked aircraft has full autolanding capability, and the chosen airport has one or more runways equipped with the necessary Category III zero visibility landing guidance system. (Do not blithely respond "GPS" for that concern before consulting landing system specialists) Without both the aircraft and the airport being so equipped - and I'd guess that less than 20% of all aircraft and airports are - the approach and landing must be controlled by a person on the ground.
This would be an extraordinarily difficult task, requiring a pilot (a) to be experienced in flying the aircraft type being hijacked. (b) to be seated in a reasonably close operational replica of the specific aircraft type (forget about flying R/C models here) , © having a ground/air/ground data link tailored specifically to the aircraft's systems and controls and (d) having some form of visual look-ahead monitor in the aircraft to assist the ground pilot to accurately approach, flare and touchdown. The probability of all the latter conditions being available in the right place and the right time is extremely remote.
2. But assuming the feasibility of all the above, there remains the airworthiness certification of all the additional overriding control functions which must be introduced into, and specifically tailored to, each different aircraft type. Such a development, test and approval effort would be almost overwhelmingly costly. Again, just ask anyone in the airworthiness regulatory business. And who would pay for such an endeavour?
3. It has been estimated that the cost of installing anti-MANPADS systems on individual airliners - and which would be in add-on external pods, completely independent of the aircraft's systems - is around US$1 million per aircraft. The airline
industry has rejected these systems as totally unaffordable. I suggest that remote controlled, type specific, anti-hijacking systems proposed here would be many times more costly than anti-MANPADS equipment, while the probability of their need would be very much less.
As said, an interesting topic, but to my mind, totally impractical when examined seriously.
I would welcome discussion about it.
David U.