Superguy

I disagree. They brought down the WTC because they were granted access to the flight deck and because of the mentality with cooperating with hijackers that was in time at the place.

Box cutters are irrelevant. As a lot of them were in F, they easily could have used metals knives that are served with the meals.

Superguy

TSA does that quite regularly, convincing the public that airport security is good when it most certainly is not.

Superguy

Instead, we rely on the stupidity of our gov't to "keep us safe®." As a result, airport security is a mess and ineffective on a good day.

SJCFlyerLG

I am an electrical engineer by trade, so I have more than a layman's knowledge about this. What you are suggesting is really far-fetched; if someone could create an RF broadcast device of some significant power, it still would have little effect. There is something called shielding that is part of all modern electronics, including avionics instrumentation. This shielding prevents EMI from getting in or out. Much ado about nothing...

Superguy

Not so easy when a lot of airports have roads running under/thru the antennae. BWI is notorious for this.

I don't see why you're so obsessed with this. Do you think that Boeing and Airbus didn't take RF interference into consideration? And you already said earlier that when the pilot's in control that the risk is practically nil, so what's the problem?

Yes, there's a tiny risk. There always is. However, you seem to be more concerned about the miniscule rather than the gaping holes in security.

SJCFlyerLG

Either that, or the OP is stealthily advocating banning all electronic devices on board.

davidcalgary29

Worst case terrorist scenario:

government "agency" "discovers" a "terrorist plot" to "harm soft targets" by using "common household items" in any quantity larger than could fit in Barbie's suitcase. The public then overreacts, goading public officials to implement ill-conceived, ineffective measures to calm public fears that result in massive transportation delays and endless, but warranted, hand-wringing and moaning on internet-based chat forums.

CessnaJock

Oh, geesh. This isn't about cockpit access or weapons of choice.

The point is that they know how to leverage a given set of prevailing conditions to their advantage. In the case of 9/11, it was box cutters and lax boarding/onboard security. And if the RF thing is possible, they will do it.

CessnaJock

No - I said that the risk is nil when the pilot is connected to the control surfaces. In fly-by-wire aircraft, there are myriad computers between the control yoke and the airfoils. Hardware and software, both of which may be vulnerable.

So you don't think the people responsible for our safety should consider this possibility and see if a threat exists? That attitude brought down the World Trade Center. Score one for the jihad.

Wally Bird

I can't be bothered to address/debunk this. I'll let Boeing do it instead: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...y.html#testing

CessnaJock

Please don't patronize me with statements like "there is something called shielding" - something I've known about and worked with for over 50 years. I was licensed as KØDUC in 1956, and began my study of Electrical Engineering at Kansas University in 1960.

As an electrical engineer, you will know that designs are tested against "real-world" parameters, likely occurrences - with a 100% (or greater) margin for safety. What if the emissions coming from the fiendish thingies exceed the design criteria by 500%?

And how much is "little effect"?

Superguy

He flat out said that in another thread.

Superguy

You brought up 9/11 and the box cutters, so how can you say it's not? I said how they brought it down. Getting into the cockpit was the WHOLE POINT. Boarding procedures had nothing to do with it and really haven't changed since 9/11.

And with what you advocate, even the tiniest possibility is enough to ban stuff and throw money away. Do you work for TSA?

It's possible it could snow in hell too. Do you think it will happen?

CessnaJock

Quote from article: "Sufficient margins exist between the qualification susceptibility test level and the expected airplane environment noise levels. Compliance with these requirements provides a high level of confidence that the airplane systems will function as intended in the electromagnetic environment of the airplane. However, susceptibility can occur in the airplane if an uncontrolled source of electromagnetic energy radiates emission levels above the susceptibility level to which the airplane system was tested or if the airplane system protection has been degraded." In other words, all the testing that has been performed assumed an absence of malevolent intent on the part of passengers - but if high-powered devices introduce noise in the systems, all bets are off.

The Summary begins with the following statement: "Passenger-carried PEDs [Personal Electronic Devices] on commercial airplanes will continue to present a source of uncontrolled emissions and as a result may cause interference with airplane systems."

I don't know what part of that sentence people don't understand.

Superguy

And again, do you not think Boeing and Airbus considered that possibility or do you think they would design something that could be taken down so easily?

Cables and hydraulics can break too. The same vulnerabilities are there, they're just in different forms.

Seeing if a threat exists? Sure. Imagining one up and going crazy over it like it's the next big attack? Nope. That attitude gives us TSA. Score one for the jihad.