wigstheone
Oct 19, 01, 7:59 am
President George Bush and some White House aides have advanced the idea of remotely controlling hijacked jetliners from the ground as the ideal, long-term antidote to prevent a replay of last month's terrorist attacks. But so far, few aviation-industry leaders are heeding those calls.
In announcing the administration's airline security priorities three weeks ago, Mr. Bush urged investment in various new systems, "including technology to enable controllers to take over [a] distressed aircraft and land it by remote control."
Flying aircraft entirely through remote control is technically possible and routinely occurs on unmanned planes used for surveillance or target practice by the military. But instantaneously passing control of a speeding commercial plane to someone many miles away on the ground raises huge financial, institutional and public-perception problems, according to industry officials.
What is more, few of the big companies that would have to devise, test and ultimately install such technology are aggressively pursuing the idea. "There are much more important areas to work on," said Charles Higgins, a veteran Boeing Co. safety official recently named to head up the company's post-Sept. 11 security initiatives. "I certainly wouldn't put it at the top of my list."
It 'Seemed Like a Great Idea'
Immediately after last month's devastating attacks, the possibility of yanking control away from the cockpit and relaying instructions from a traffic-control center "seemed like a great idea to a lot of people," according to Frank Daly, who is in charge of coordinating Honeywell International Inc.'s aviation-security programs.
Based on years of research and testing by the Pentagon and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, proponents of remote-control safeguards were eager to tap some of the $500 million set aside by the White House for grants to improve onboard security.
But a more-detailed analysis reveals that applying remote-control concepts to the entire fleet "would be quite impractical," Mr. Daly says, with the likely result of alienating pilots, raising new safety concerns and draining resources from more important, short-term security fixes.
For instance, since less than 30% of the nearly 7,000 U.S. commercial aircraft have the latest electronic flight-controls and flight-management computers, any remote-control system could require potentially extensive and expensive modifications to autopilots on older aircraft, according to Mr. Daly and other industry officials. Even on planes that have most advanced automated cockpits, already capable of issuing all commands from takeoff to touchdown, computers typically can't adjust braking action or deploy so-called thrust reversers, devices used to slow down aircraft during the landing roll.
http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB100343987267796040.htm
http://www.msnbc.com/news/644929.asp
[This message has been edited by wigstheone (edited 10-19-2001).]
In announcing the administration's airline security priorities three weeks ago, Mr. Bush urged investment in various new systems, "including technology to enable controllers to take over [a] distressed aircraft and land it by remote control."
Flying aircraft entirely through remote control is technically possible and routinely occurs on unmanned planes used for surveillance or target practice by the military. But instantaneously passing control of a speeding commercial plane to someone many miles away on the ground raises huge financial, institutional and public-perception problems, according to industry officials.
What is more, few of the big companies that would have to devise, test and ultimately install such technology are aggressively pursuing the idea. "There are much more important areas to work on," said Charles Higgins, a veteran Boeing Co. safety official recently named to head up the company's post-Sept. 11 security initiatives. "I certainly wouldn't put it at the top of my list."
It 'Seemed Like a Great Idea'
Immediately after last month's devastating attacks, the possibility of yanking control away from the cockpit and relaying instructions from a traffic-control center "seemed like a great idea to a lot of people," according to Frank Daly, who is in charge of coordinating Honeywell International Inc.'s aviation-security programs.
Based on years of research and testing by the Pentagon and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, proponents of remote-control safeguards were eager to tap some of the $500 million set aside by the White House for grants to improve onboard security.
But a more-detailed analysis reveals that applying remote-control concepts to the entire fleet "would be quite impractical," Mr. Daly says, with the likely result of alienating pilots, raising new safety concerns and draining resources from more important, short-term security fixes.
For instance, since less than 30% of the nearly 7,000 U.S. commercial aircraft have the latest electronic flight-controls and flight-management computers, any remote-control system could require potentially extensive and expensive modifications to autopilots on older aircraft, according to Mr. Daly and other industry officials. Even on planes that have most advanced automated cockpits, already capable of issuing all commands from takeoff to touchdown, computers typically can't adjust braking action or deploy so-called thrust reversers, devices used to slow down aircraft during the landing roll.
http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB100343987267796040.htm
http://www.msnbc.com/news/644929.asp
[This message has been edited by wigstheone (edited 10-19-2001).]