Gold9472
06-19-2005, 11:10 AM
Defeating the suicide hijackers
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1322
Paul Marks, Catherine Zandonella and Justin Mullins
19:00 19 September 2001
We used to assume that hijackers want to negotiate. Now we know that some are ready to end their own lives in order to turn an aircraft into a fuel-laden, 200-tonne guided missile that will kill thousands. But is there anything aviation engineers can do to thwart suicidal hijackers once they have managed to board a plane?
One strategy is simply to keep them out of the cockpit. "Having a locked, reinforced cockpit door is a valid idea airlines have explored in the past," says David Villupillai, spokesman for Airbus in Toulouse. In the US, the influential Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) is now backing the idea of more robust cockpit doors, among many other measures.
But that won't stop the hijacker threatening passengers or cabin crew until the door is opened, as is thought to have happened last week. So some suggest going further, and fitting a bulkhead that permanently blocks access to the cockpit from the cabin.
One reason for opposition to this idea is that a sealed cockpit would also prevent cabin crew helping sick or incapacitated pilots. Another is that it's not compatible with the captain's role as commander of the whole aircraft.
"Changes would have to be made regarding the role of the pilots," says Elizabeth Verdier at Boeing. "They are in charge of the emergency egress, they are in charge of safety and they are responsible for getting every passenger off the airplane."
Despite these objections, ALPA is urging more research and development for better, stronger cockpit doors. New rules could also be proposed to ensure they are kept shut no matter what appalling threats are being made in the cabin.
Biometric tests
But if hijackers do make it into the cockpit, is there anything that can be done to stop them taking the controls? Hopes here are most likely to be pinned on "biometric" technologies that can verify that the person in the driving seat is the bona fide pilot.
A range of electronic ID systems exist or are being developed to identify an individual by taking measurements of some unique aspect of their biology: their face, iris, fingerprint, voice pattern or even their heartbeat. Biometrics are already used to verify staff ID at nuclear power plants and in secure banking centres.
Wouldn't it make sense to use similar techniques to verify the pilot's ID? "Frankly, no," says Villupillai. "It would be a lot of work to put on board." He says money would be better spent on stopping the terrorist, the bomb or the gun getting on the aircraft. He adds that any new systems in a cockpit can also become an added distraction to pilots who already have enough to contend with.
Undetectable detectors
But some emerging biometric systems might go virtually unnoticed by the pilot. A new heartbeat recognition system checks out your ID remotely - using radar. Gene Greneker and colleagues at the Georgia Tech Research Institute in Smyrna are developing this non-intrusive biometric system, funded by the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
The system bounces a very low-power radio wave off the heart, and uses the Doppler effect to detect movements as small as half a millimetre, from which it can build up a signature of your heartbeat.
"We've built a desktop device that goes in a briefcase. You turn it on and you can see the pulse of the heartbeat and a long-term respiration signature of a person sitting several feet away," Greneker told New Scientist. And such a system automatically tells you that the subject is alive - a key factor all biometrics systems strive to take into account, says John Woodward, a senior policy analyst at the RAND research organisation, based near the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia.
Any new technology - especially one involving radio waves in the cockpit--would have to be proven safe and regulated by the US Federal Aviation Administration and its counterparts elsewhere. Thus far, however, the FAA has not commented on any new security plans.
Autopilot control
Can anything be done to wrest control of the aircraft from those in the cockpit - who may have incapacitated the pilots and/or found themselves locked out of the controls? One option is to extend the automatic landing capabilities of aircraft.
It is already technically possible to control and land an aircraft without the pilot. Such a system, triggered by air traffic control, a pilot or a biometric alarm during a hijack, could land an aircraft safely at a nearby airport in an emergency.
But such systems raise almost as many problems as they solve, and have been ruled out in the past. Pilots and passengers have been naturally suspicious of handing control of an aircraft to a computer in any circumstances.
Then there is the problem of flying automatically in crowded, controlled airspace where all other aircraft are obeying directions from air-traffic controllers. And there's the danger of the system failing or deploying accidentally. But following last week's attacks, it may be time to think again.
Zero visibility
The most modern systems are designed to land aircraft in conditions close to zero visibility, so-called Category IIIb landings. They can only be used at airports fitted with the required instrument landing system that sets up an "electronic corridor" through which the plane descends to the airport. All the pilot has to do is apply the brakes and taxi off the runway. In practice, however, automatic systems are rarely used for the entire landing. Pilots nearly always take control for at least a few seconds before touchdown.
Automatic landing systems are not yet able to wrest control from the pilot and land the plane in an emergency - and pilots would almost certainly oppose any system that could deny them ultimate control. However, systems that override pilots are not unprecedented.
Fighter pilots were at first strongly opposed to automatic ground collision avoidance systems, which prevent them flying their planes into a hillside. "Pilots were initially very sceptical, yet when they tested the system they became believers," says Christopher Wickens, professor of psychiatry at the Institute of Aviation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Pilots would need a similar period of adjustment to any system designed to take over a plane in the event of a hijacking or emergency, he says.
Uncrewed aerial vehicles
Uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) are already capable of the kind of autonomous flight that could one day bring passenger aircraft to the ground safely in an emergency. For instance, the US Global Hawk, a UAV developed by the aerospace company Northrop Grumman, is able to take off, fly for more than 24 hours, land and even taxi back to its hangar without any human intervention. The plane is flown entirely by two onboard computers, which take care of everything including flight planning.
Another American UAV, the General Atomics Predator, is flown remotely by a pilot on the ground. "In terms of doing this with a manned aircraft, why not? The technology I've seen is rather rough and ready but it's capable," says Kevin Young, an expert on UAVs at the Ministry of Defence.
However, UAV operators accept a high level of risk that would be unthinkable among passenger aircraft operators. And terrorists might also jam control signals. But some believe these risks may be worth taking and should at least be examined, given the nature of the new terrorist threat.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1322
Paul Marks, Catherine Zandonella and Justin Mullins
19:00 19 September 2001
We used to assume that hijackers want to negotiate. Now we know that some are ready to end their own lives in order to turn an aircraft into a fuel-laden, 200-tonne guided missile that will kill thousands. But is there anything aviation engineers can do to thwart suicidal hijackers once they have managed to board a plane?
One strategy is simply to keep them out of the cockpit. "Having a locked, reinforced cockpit door is a valid idea airlines have explored in the past," says David Villupillai, spokesman for Airbus in Toulouse. In the US, the influential Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) is now backing the idea of more robust cockpit doors, among many other measures.
But that won't stop the hijacker threatening passengers or cabin crew until the door is opened, as is thought to have happened last week. So some suggest going further, and fitting a bulkhead that permanently blocks access to the cockpit from the cabin.
One reason for opposition to this idea is that a sealed cockpit would also prevent cabin crew helping sick or incapacitated pilots. Another is that it's not compatible with the captain's role as commander of the whole aircraft.
"Changes would have to be made regarding the role of the pilots," says Elizabeth Verdier at Boeing. "They are in charge of the emergency egress, they are in charge of safety and they are responsible for getting every passenger off the airplane."
Despite these objections, ALPA is urging more research and development for better, stronger cockpit doors. New rules could also be proposed to ensure they are kept shut no matter what appalling threats are being made in the cabin.
Biometric tests
But if hijackers do make it into the cockpit, is there anything that can be done to stop them taking the controls? Hopes here are most likely to be pinned on "biometric" technologies that can verify that the person in the driving seat is the bona fide pilot.
A range of electronic ID systems exist or are being developed to identify an individual by taking measurements of some unique aspect of their biology: their face, iris, fingerprint, voice pattern or even their heartbeat. Biometrics are already used to verify staff ID at nuclear power plants and in secure banking centres.
Wouldn't it make sense to use similar techniques to verify the pilot's ID? "Frankly, no," says Villupillai. "It would be a lot of work to put on board." He says money would be better spent on stopping the terrorist, the bomb or the gun getting on the aircraft. He adds that any new systems in a cockpit can also become an added distraction to pilots who already have enough to contend with.
Undetectable detectors
But some emerging biometric systems might go virtually unnoticed by the pilot. A new heartbeat recognition system checks out your ID remotely - using radar. Gene Greneker and colleagues at the Georgia Tech Research Institute in Smyrna are developing this non-intrusive biometric system, funded by the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
The system bounces a very low-power radio wave off the heart, and uses the Doppler effect to detect movements as small as half a millimetre, from which it can build up a signature of your heartbeat.
"We've built a desktop device that goes in a briefcase. You turn it on and you can see the pulse of the heartbeat and a long-term respiration signature of a person sitting several feet away," Greneker told New Scientist. And such a system automatically tells you that the subject is alive - a key factor all biometrics systems strive to take into account, says John Woodward, a senior policy analyst at the RAND research organisation, based near the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia.
Any new technology - especially one involving radio waves in the cockpit--would have to be proven safe and regulated by the US Federal Aviation Administration and its counterparts elsewhere. Thus far, however, the FAA has not commented on any new security plans.
Autopilot control
Can anything be done to wrest control of the aircraft from those in the cockpit - who may have incapacitated the pilots and/or found themselves locked out of the controls? One option is to extend the automatic landing capabilities of aircraft.
It is already technically possible to control and land an aircraft without the pilot. Such a system, triggered by air traffic control, a pilot or a biometric alarm during a hijack, could land an aircraft safely at a nearby airport in an emergency.
But such systems raise almost as many problems as they solve, and have been ruled out in the past. Pilots and passengers have been naturally suspicious of handing control of an aircraft to a computer in any circumstances.
Then there is the problem of flying automatically in crowded, controlled airspace where all other aircraft are obeying directions from air-traffic controllers. And there's the danger of the system failing or deploying accidentally. But following last week's attacks, it may be time to think again.
Zero visibility
The most modern systems are designed to land aircraft in conditions close to zero visibility, so-called Category IIIb landings. They can only be used at airports fitted with the required instrument landing system that sets up an "electronic corridor" through which the plane descends to the airport. All the pilot has to do is apply the brakes and taxi off the runway. In practice, however, automatic systems are rarely used for the entire landing. Pilots nearly always take control for at least a few seconds before touchdown.
Automatic landing systems are not yet able to wrest control from the pilot and land the plane in an emergency - and pilots would almost certainly oppose any system that could deny them ultimate control. However, systems that override pilots are not unprecedented.
Fighter pilots were at first strongly opposed to automatic ground collision avoidance systems, which prevent them flying their planes into a hillside. "Pilots were initially very sceptical, yet when they tested the system they became believers," says Christopher Wickens, professor of psychiatry at the Institute of Aviation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Pilots would need a similar period of adjustment to any system designed to take over a plane in the event of a hijacking or emergency, he says.
Uncrewed aerial vehicles
Uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) are already capable of the kind of autonomous flight that could one day bring passenger aircraft to the ground safely in an emergency. For instance, the US Global Hawk, a UAV developed by the aerospace company Northrop Grumman, is able to take off, fly for more than 24 hours, land and even taxi back to its hangar without any human intervention. The plane is flown entirely by two onboard computers, which take care of everything including flight planning.
Another American UAV, the General Atomics Predator, is flown remotely by a pilot on the ground. "In terms of doing this with a manned aircraft, why not? The technology I've seen is rather rough and ready but it's capable," says Kevin Young, an expert on UAVs at the Ministry of Defence.
However, UAV operators accept a high level of risk that would be unthinkable among passenger aircraft operators. And terrorists might also jam control signals. But some believe these risks may be worth taking and should at least be examined, given the nature of the new terrorist threat.