Worst-case terrorist scenario
 

If you go over the links in this thread: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=619038 you will find any quantity of both anecdotal and systematic evidence that electronic devices can interfere with aircraft control and navigation systems.

Now suppose you are a terrorist cell intent upon bringing down a few dozen U.S.-flag airliners (as in the Manila plot) and you know that broadband RF noise of sufficient power could do it. Remember - these people are fanatical, not stupid.

Could you disguise your device as a laptop or GameBoy and walk right onto a plane with it? Or build a timer into it and secrete it in a checked bag or cargo shipment?

I disagree. A lot (most?) of them are quite stupid.

Heck, yes. Cargo would probably be the easiest. Now, would the device do as designed? I don’t know, that is outside my scope of expertise.

Only the ones they've caught.

Nineteen of them took down the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon with box cutters.

What's worse than underestimating our enemies? Overestimating ourselves.

"One who lacks strategic planning and underestimates the enemy will be captured."
Sun-Tzu The Art of War

It's not underestimating; they literally are quite stupid. One only need to look at the "threats" that have been caught to see what kind of IQs we're working with here.

As I said above - only the ones that have been caught are stupid. I have no doubt that there are many still out there of equal or greater intelligence than our agents, and who outwit the good guys daily.

If our defense relied only on the stupidity of our adversary, we'd be in a real mess.

Until robots and computers fly planes with no human involvement, I would guess that this could be done on 50 planes, and only 1 would crash.

Shrug. Maybe.

So if it were done on 500 planes, 10 would crash?

5000?

Think what you're saying!

p.s. the problem is that robots and computers fly planes. When the pilot is connected to the control surfaces by cables and hydraulic lines, the danger from RF jamming is nil.

You have a flair for the dramatic, I'll give you that :)

Why bother with being on the flight and all the nastiness that comes from actually experiencing a crashing airplane. Let's take your scenario further - why don't they just park a car near the approach path on a rainy, foggy night and blast some RF at the ILS glideslope and localizer antennas as an aircraft on a CATII or III approach is passing through 1,000' on a low-minimums approach?

How about we get some control over the security gaps we can fix right now and worry about the pie-in-the-sky stuff later on.

Not really, but I understand your point. We do seem to be continually fighting the last war. Love the signature, by the way.

Mike

Easy fix - don't allow parking near the glideslope antennae - and scan for RF noise around airports.

Personally I'm beginning to wonder if it's not more a matter of getting reckless (why be careful and deliberate if you're planning to die anyway), even (maybe unconsciously) wanting to get caught, rather than simply being stupid. Even the perpetrators of 9/11 were at times careless beyond belief (e.g. taking flying courses and openly showing no interest in the landing bit). I guess being a suicide terrorist is not easy on the human psyche, and less so if you've been living in relative comfort for some time prior to your acts.

In the end all the extra security measures imposed on travelers and staff are killing and hurting innocent people more than terrorist attacks on transportation could have achieved.