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.

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.

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

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.

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...

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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"?

He flat out said that in another thread.

You brought up 9/11 and the box cutters, so how can you say it's not? :rolleyes: 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?

I don't see where Boeing debunked anything.
 

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.

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.

Sounds a good idea - no real plans for doing anything nasty but just get people running around like headless chickens. Get your enemy to do the hard work for you

And as my physics professor always said to ask: how much? And what kind?

Where is the susceptibility threshhold? At what frequency?

Apparently, the risk is pretty small or airlines would have banned electronics a long time ago.

Just flat out say it: you don't like electronics on planes and think people shouldn't have them. You already said it in another thread and that's what you're getting at.

Planes are subjected to radiation from around the spectrum all the time. Even people are huge light bulbs when you think of it. Put a couple hundred people on a plane and you have a couple hundred thousand watts of radiation blaring thru the cabin. Planes get hit by all kind of transmitters even near the ground (BWI has cell antennas on the water towers half a mile out from the field).

All this radiation and yet planes don't fall out of the sky. Hmmm.

I really think you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

At the risk of repeating myself: the only reason I mention the terrorist technique of 9/11 was to demonstrate (for the benefit of those who think our enemy is stupid) that they're smart enough to do what they did with primitive equipment.

"Boarding procedures...haven't changed?" I don't know what you mean by that, but it can't possibly mean that you think the 19 could have boarded a flight under today's TSA inspection.

I don't see how banning RF radiators from flights is to "throw money away."

It's hard to argue with a man with your sig line (Go Sox!), but I must:

Look at the 93 bombing of the WTC, from a piece done by Stratfor:

There were almost comical mistakes made by Salameh, serious gaffes also were made by Ahmed Ajaj and Basit as they prepared for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Before the bombing, the FBI investigated the cell that carried it out, made the determination that the men were harmless fanatics and closed the investigation. When Ajaj and Basit flew into JFK Airport in September 1992, authorities pretty much ignored the fact that Ajaj was found transporting a large quantity of jihadist material, including bombmaking manuals and videos. Instead, he was sentenced to six months in jail for committing passport fraud -- a mere slap on the wrist -- and was then to be deported. Had they taken the time to carefully review the materials in Ajaj's briefcase, they would have found two boarding passes and two passports with exit stamps from Pakistan. Because of that oversight, no one noticed that Ajaj was traveling with a companion. Even when his co-conspirators called Ajaj in jail seeking his help in formulating their improvised explosive mixtures and recovering the bombmaking manuals, the calls were not traced. It was not until after the bombing that Ajaj's involvement was discovered, and he was convicted and sentenced.

Some pretty dumb moves made, but they still blew one hell of a hole in the WTC, didn't they?

I wouldn't ignore the threat that "stupid" or "crazy" people can pose. Ronald Reagan, were he alive, would likely agree with me.

Yeah - except they can't be disabled by malicious PEDs.

Okay, now wait a minute. Don't forget these guys are persistent. They tried a truck bomb on the WTC in 1993 and it didn't work. Did they give up?

We know for certain that they would like to bring down a dozen U.S. flag airliners. Have they given up because the Manila plot was busted?

It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what the gov't policies were. Anyone who watched the news saw that it was policy to meet hijackers' demands to get the plane on the ground and negotiate. They took advantage of that.

You brought up boarding procedures. You tell me what you mean then.

I think they still could, and TSA would allow it to happen. There's nothing that TSA's procedures that would have prevented those folks from getting on a plane.

All had valid ID and boarding tickets. They probably would have taken their shoes off and put their liquids in a baggie.

The true message you're trying to pontificate.

I don't see why you think it's such a benefit. Ban that stuff from planes, TSA will have to screen for it. They already can't do a good job as it is with everything they have to look for. Airlines will have to have contigency plans and maybe additional shielding for those "rogue" devices. FA's can't be in the cabin all the time constantly searching for devices. Would they have to install RF detectors? That all costs money.

It would also cost a lot of money in lost revenue when air travel comes to the point where it's practically unusable for business travel. Leisure travelers won't sit there with nothing to do either. Look back to when BAA banned everything from going on flights after the liquid ban and see how much of a reaction that got. Had they made that permanent and the UK would have been facing deep economic trouble with no one wanting to come to do business with them or visit the country.

If you want to destroy an industry that's already hurting, you would push it over the edge with your ban.

What it comes down to is risk vs. rewards. Apparently the risk is sufficiently small not to throw resources at it and the risk of losing revenue too great from such a ban.

Take a look at the adequate protection principle in risk management. You'll learn a lot from it.

And don't forget that terrorists don't have the monopoly on stupid or crazy. You can find the same types of people working for our gov't.

Here, I'll say it flat out: I like electronics on planes, and I think they should be monitored and controlled much more closely than they are now. I carry a computer, a GPRS/GSM phone, and a GPS when I fly.

But the topic of this thread is: are we safe from deliberate EMI threats on board airplanes?

[QUOTE=CessnaJock;8588213]

"Boarding procedures...haven't changed?" I don't know what you mean by that, but it can't possibly mean that you think the 19 could have boarded a flight under today's TSA inspection.

QUOTE]

The only thing different today is that knives/blades are not allowed. With the TSA's stellar detection rate of 20% or less, it would not take much to get one on. Or just make a blade out of something non-metallic, such as ceramic, and put it in your pocket. The 9-11 hijackers succeeded because of psychology, not technology or weapons. Here is my take on the history of hijackings.

Hijack plane, crew cooperates, fly to Cuba, land safely, release passengers.
Hijack plane, crew cooperates, fly to somewhere, land savely, release passengers.
(repeat many times - conditioning)
Hijack three planes, fly two into WTC and one into Pentagon
Hijack fourth plane, try to fly plane into ???, passengers find out about WTC and pentagon, stop plot, but crash plane.
Get drunk on plane, try to gain entry to secured cockpit, passengers beat the crap out of you, land safely, go to jail.

The threat still exists and is as likely as your scenario. Why does yours take precedence?

I'm not saying that they should be ignored. I'm saying that we need to approach this with thought and wisdom rather than knee jerk reactions, xenophobia, CYA attitudes and stupidity like we have been.

The MNL plot wasn't a US flag carrier.

And do you think that planes are the only target? Hit a few malls around the country in suburban American and watch real chaos ensue.

Aviation is NOT the only target, nor are US carriers the only target.