Safe Mode for airplanes?

September 14, 2001 5:11 PM

Safe Mode for airplanes? Here is an interesting idea on one way to prevent Tuesday's disaster...it will not stop hijacking but could avert another WTC. "Install 'safe mode' panic buttons that put the plane on forced autopilot that cannot be overridden, except in special circumstances," Steve says. He'd have them mounted in the cockpit, one for each side, with additional optional buttons in crew areas on each side of the plane in both the forward and aft cabins. Once a plane is in safe mode, suggests Steve, it would randomly select one of the 10 nearest airports capable of accommodating that plane type, and automatically land the aircraft there. "
posted by Oxydude (31 comments total)

dansays has some other ideas along these lines.
posted by rebeccablood at 5:17 PM on September 14, 2001

Automatically landing a plane? Are you kidding? A lot of these ideas sound really good on paper but in reality wouldn't work. Having the pilot/copilot carry a weapon is just an invitation for trouble (several "specialists" inteviewed on various stations have also said this). Having a bullet proof/locked cabin wouldn't work either. If I were a terrorist I'd keep killing hostages until the pilots opened the door. Why not make it so that the door cannot be opened? What if both or one of the pilots becomes impaired? What if an emergency happens and assistance is needed? Such scenarios have happened before (such as the footage of one plane crash which was shot through a chain link fence, it would've been worse if a pilot trainer wasn't on board).
posted by geoff. at 5:28 PM on September 14, 2001

Automatically landing a plane? Are you kidding?

Since they can do it with the Space Shuttle, I don't see any real technological difficulties with doing it with a jetliner.
posted by rushmc at 5:29 PM on September 14, 2001

I was talking to my friend Adam yesterday, and he suggested that a good model might be the 7-11 time lock safe system that cannot be opened by the cashier. Lock the cockpit before any passenger boards, and keep it locked throughout the flight. 7-11 might not be such a bad source of ideas -- assume that people will come in with weapons; then what?

Instead of Air Marshals, I would rather see two or three seats on every flight reserved for free travel by any member of the armed forces, any police officer, any fire fighter, or any other government officer trained in hand-to-hand combat. These people are trained do deal with dangerous situations, and would be able to help crew and maybe passengers respond to an attack. In this plan, it is not someone's full-time job to fly around waiting 10 or 20 years for an attack to occur; but if one does occur, people able to help are likely to be aboard. In addition, I think free flight might be a good benefit to give to the people who have risked and lost their lives this week.

I would love to see this thread propose some peaceful responses to this week's attacks.
posted by precipice at 5:35 PM on September 14, 2001

The day I have a machine land a plane, is the day that people decide that life is too precious to kill thousands.
posted by trioperative at 5:47 PM on September 14, 2001

I was thinking about an idea like this. But the device would have to be 100 percent reliable. Imagine if just once it activated by accident, or if it failed after being activated. I can't imagine how hard (and expensive) it would be to design such a thing....
posted by mattpfeff at 5:53 PM on September 14, 2001

If someone can find an link on how El Al handles their on-board security, that will probably be quite informative.
Sorry, I don't have time to find one now.
posted by marknau at 5:56 PM on September 14, 2001

Many landings these days are via autopilot, and in fact there are conditions in which this is required (lack of visibility). I have been on a few flights where the pilot announced (after the safe landing) that the plane had been guided in by automatic systems. What would need to be added to the technology is the guidance system to the nearest airport; with so many beacons and GPS to use, is that any harder than programming a plane landing?

I feel pessimistic about finding a safety system that can't be thwarted. We can hope to stop the idiots, and perhaps can save some flights, so it is worth it to add more safety measures, but the smartest ones will find a way. Also, I did some research on Air Marshals for my weblog, and was fascinated to find that they were already flying every day, I assume on the high risk flights (which I'm sure weren't the ones that ended up hijacked Tuesday). More will be recruited (they won't publicize how many there are already), and their ranks supplemented. The FAA faq states that they will continue to fly anonymously. I'm betting they can't cover every flight, but perhaps they will try to.
posted by girlhacker at 6:04 PM on September 14, 2001

I'm with having air marshalls on every flight - in plain clothes. Wondered on Tuesday why such a thing hadn't been implemented in this country, when it has in others. Who cares if they have to wait around? Worth it to save lives.

I've always wondered about the numbskulls who use a pointless statistical statement like "it's still the safest way to travel" to dodge the inarguable necessity of finding a way to make something as potentially dangerous as a commercial jet more hijackproof. At the moment, U.S. passenger planes are total sitting ducks - not a smidge of a security measure on them. It's absolutely amazing.
posted by mirla at 6:15 PM on September 14, 2001

"Hi Bob, good to see you"

"Hi Jack, how's it going?"

"Oh crap! We just tripped safe mode!"

Now then, seems to me I have seen more than one disaster movie where the basic premise included the idea that the auto-pilot could NOT land the plane and only a HUMAN was smart enough to do it. (Cut to Ted Striker, the only guy on the plane who can fly *and* who didn't have the fish)

Those two things being said, I find safe mode an absolutely ludicrous idea. I see some decent ideas scrolling up. Lets hope rational thought prevails.
posted by ilsa at 6:44 PM on September 14, 2001

Tangent: An overzealous radio announcer tripped over her words yesterday and called air marshalls "air martians" and another announcer meant to say "allied nations" but it came out "alien nations". Laughing was good. :-)
posted by thunder at 7:18 PM on September 14, 2001

Reinforced doors. Tethered wire type tazers available to pilots and senior stewards. Secure restroom facilities for flight crew. Usually the simplest security solutions are the best. Secure auto-landing is a good idea in principle but I would imagine difficult to implement (I have to imagine, I'm not an aeronautical expert).

We've got plenty of ideas for securing the cockpit...we need some good ones for protecting passengers on the other side of the door. Free air travel for police officers isn't bad, but what if there doesn't happen to be a police officer who wants to take the 10.30pm flight from Newark to Cincinatti on a Sunday night...do you cancel the flight?

I guess in the event of a hijacking attempt the pilots could deliberately depressurize the cabin from inside the cockpit? The oxy. masks are already there for the passengers - kinda hard for hijackers to start killing hostages when the choice is not breathing or staying in your seat. Do let me know if that's ludicrous ilsa.
posted by daragh at 7:21 PM on September 14, 2001

Let me try to rephrase my auto-landing is stupid theory. The space shuttle lands on an airstrip that's predetermined and has all the necessary gear to guide it. With airplanes you have intersecting airstrips and planes constantly coming and going. I had to write a simulation of planes trying to figure out where to land and take off, even with many variables taken out (delays and such) it was extremely difficult (basically impossible, it was to show the difficulty the Denver airport had with their baggage system). Maybe someone can correct me, flying a plane from point a to point b in the sky by autopilot is easy to do, having the airplane communicate with ground control and other planes is next to impossible with current technologies. Remember this would take an overhaul of not only the planes but the ground. If I'm not mistaken they have been trying to overhaul the system for the last 70 years.
posted by geoff. at 7:35 PM on September 14, 2001

Safe mode is just too complex. Pick a simpler soultion - I like walls. Just put a (bulletproof) bulkhead between the passenger cabin and the cockpit. Separate entrance, bathroom and coffee pot for the cockpit crew.

The El Al solution is physical searches of all baggage, and armed guards on the plane. (including any active duty soldiers that happen to be flying...)

The discussion also brought to mind a book of cartoons from the late 80's called "Public Therapy Busses" by Stephen Johnson. His solution to (at the time, bombs) was that all luggage went into a "trailer" behind the plane. No carryons. The idea of "Luggage" included all the clothing worn by the passengers. Before boarding, all the passengers would have to check their clothing, and change into pocketless, beltless, disposable jump suits before boarding.

Organizer: The New England Rubbish Deconstruction Society; The NERDS. The first US team to compete in Junkyard Wars/Scrapheap Challenge.
posted by rjnerd at 7:42 PM on September 14, 2001

Ooh! Just have armed security agents put all passengers on anesthesia before taking off. That would also work for trains and buses. You can pack 'em more tightly when they're knocked out, too. And you don't need inflight service. It would be like plain old cargo-transport! Cheap and easy!

The only real problem I can see (okay, besides the marketing problem) is that some people don't do so well with anesthesia.
posted by whatnotever at 7:58 PM on September 14, 2001

To me, the idea of seperating the cockpit from the passengers seems to hold the most promise. Easy to implement, and (to me) sounds very effective.

However, I find it highly likely that the next attack won't come from the air. They'll wait until we're got air travel secure, then blow up a professional football game using an 18 wheeler full of explosives or something.

And I realize that we need to make our planes safe in any case....I'm just saying that we had better think just as seriously about other security measures.
posted by dr_emory at 8:58 PM on September 14, 2001

Here's a Washington Post story from Thursday about Israeli security in general; it touches briefly on El Al's procedures. Wish I could find the incredibly detailed article I read online a while back.
posted by Vidiot at 9:37 PM on September 14, 2001

Whoops -- helps if I actually include the link. Or is this ctrl-shift-A thing not working? (Be nice to the newbie, please.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21262-2001Sep12.html
posted by Vidiot at 9:38 PM on September 14, 2001

I want to go back to one of the first comments for a second - about the locked pilot door, and how terrorists would kill passengers until the door was opened.

Any pilot, while they ARE responsible for the passengers, they are also responsible for anyone they might kill if their plane goes down. I'm sure in light of these tragedies, pilots would rather ditch somewhere or land with an entire planefull dead than to kill thousands more.
posted by agregoli at 9:52 PM on September 14, 2001

most new autopilot systems can in fact safely land a plane in zero visibility.

most pilots, however, prefer to land the plane themselves given the choice.

auto land could be programmed in a 'safe mode' scenario.
posted by bwg at 10:28 PM on September 14, 2001

Janes' All The World's Aircraft on the 747-400:

Automatic flight control system: Combines autopilot, flight director and automatic tailplane trim and sends commands through triple independent flight control computers; system automates all flight phases except take-off.

Or look at these fun do-it-yourself instructions for landing a 747.
posted by mrbula at 11:27 PM on September 14, 2001

Beefing up our air security now is kind of like closing the barn door once the horses are out- what dr_emory and agregoli said.

Slate's William Saletan had this article, which argued that the reason these attacks worked isn't because the hijackings were especially brilliant or used any special weapons or security bypasses but because of the element of surprise- hijackings happen, and have happened before. What was new is the idea of using the plane- and as that fourth plane showed, once the passengers and crew had become aware of this new option of terrorism, the acted to stop it. Quoting now:

Terrorists don't have the technical assets that states enjoy. What they have instead is the advantage of surprise, by virtue of their willingness to defy moral expectations. If you can't imagine that they'd target children, they'll target children. If you can't imagine that they'd use your bus to do it, they'll use your bus to do it. If you can't imagine that they'd fly your plane into the World Trade Center, they'll fly your plane into the World Trade Center. Your conscience is their cover.

Where will terrorists strike next? If you've got an answer off the top of your head, it's the wrong answer.

posted by hincandenza at 11:29 PM on September 14, 2001

No carry on luggage. Everybody wears hospital gowns. Four drink minimum. Simple.
posted by drunkkeith at 11:41 PM on September 14, 2001

A problem with autopilot flying and landing has always been with icing. Icing during flight causes aerodynamic changes that autopilot cannot detect. You can liken it to how you can tell when your card is hydroplaning. Autopilot systems have yet been able to detect slight changes in the "feel" of the flight that hand flying by an experienced pilot does.
posted by Led at 1:27 AM on September 15, 2001

Why not -- instead of internal human or automatic-control -- have a switch which gives the control of the plane to a stand-by emergency control team on the ground somewhere?

These teams of emergency pilots could be stationed at airports around the world, and whenever a plane got in trouble somewhere, they could take over remotely, and land it safely somewhere.

They could be seated in something just like a flight simulator.
posted by dagny at 1:58 AM on September 15, 2001

Rushmc (back early in the thread) said re: automatically landing a plane:

Since they can do it with the Space Shuttle, I don't see any real technological difficulties with doing it with a jetliner.

Remember how much the space shuttle costs? Do you really want to pay airfare for planes that are using space shuttle technology??
posted by monkey-mind at 3:57 AM on September 15, 2001

1. Complete physical separation of the cabin and the cockpit could eliminate all kamikaze-like hijackings, so start by having no door between the two areas.

2. Add automation at least as reliable as having a couple of human pilots. It is rather unlikely that two pilots and two or three redundant automatic systems would all fail catastrophically at once. Automatic systems are probably more reliable, day after day, hour after hour, over the same tedious routes, than a couple of bored retired fighter pilots.

3. Hire and train cabin crew as security officers first, cabin attendants second. And don't forget how useful this would be against all of those "air rage" cases everyone used to talk about.

Accept that, as always, some planes will crash and some will be hijacked, but if you eliminate the cabin-cockpit door, at least future kamikazes will be eliminated. (Unless, of course, the pilot turns out to be suicidal, and then you just have to depend on the automatic pilot and the control tower being able to outsmart the would-be kamikaze.)
posted by pracowity at 5:54 AM on September 15, 2001

One person pointed out that an airplane can't talk to ground control -- That is correct. Air traffic control, including runway selection instructions, are by voice. Although there are some digital messaging systems, they're not connected to air traffic control. An airplane doing a landing based on what is stored in it's memory may not be aware of the construction equipment on a closed runway.

"Beefing up our air security now is kind of like closing the barn door once the horses are out"

So do you leave the barn door open while the cows are still inside?

"ALL hijackings up to this point have been of the "take us to ", or, "give in to our demands""

This is why people have avoided fighting hijackers. It has been safer to endure the inconvenience of landing at the wrong airport. As the Pennsylvania flight showed, people may take action rather than being passive when they know that death is an alternative.

Giving "control of the plane to a stand-by emergency control team" has been considered, either on the ground or in a nearby airplane. There have been difficulties, and there are risks of someone using the technology to maliciously control a plane remotely.

"...want to pay airfare for planes that are using space shuttle technology??"

The Space Shuttle is using technology from the 1960s and 1970s. There is no comparison with modern autopilots, other than using modern programming technologies.
posted by SEWilco at 7:17 AM on September 15, 2001

How much cheaper do you reckon it's going to be to retrofit bulletproof bulkheads to cockpits and retro-fitting external cockpit doors plus bathroom for crew versus fitting existing auto-land technology and an upgrade of air traffic control systems?
posted by vbfg at 12:06 PM on September 15, 2001

Speaking of cost: with airlines in trouble and asking for a handout, this would be the right time to get the government to help pay for the required upgrades.

[By the way, I would like to see airlines try a new style of flight scheduling on busy routes: planes would leave whenever they are ready, presumably when the plane is full, but airlines they would share waiting areas for common destinations, so airlines could compete for the pool of people waiting to go to destination X.
posted by pracowity at 1:14 AM on September 16, 2001