British install remote control system in fighter

The British just recently installed a remote control system in a Tornado fighter that could be used to remote control hijacked aircraft. Other US companies including Boeing have been working on systems like this.

Qinetiq demonstrated the system on 30 March 2007. The pilot of a modified Tornado fighter plane assumed remote control of a BAC 1-11 airliner carrying members of the press and flying at an altitude of 15,000 feet.

The remote control system could one day also be used to auto-land hijacked planes.

[edit on 6-5-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Gee, no replys ???????

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Gee, no replys ???????

Old news. The US Navy has been able to remote land aircraft on carriers since the late 1960's. Fly by wire control systems make it easy.

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Gee, no replys ???????

Old news. The US Navy has been able to remote land aircraft on carriers since the late 1960's. Fly by wire control systems make it easy.

But this is the first time a fighter has had a system installed that can take control of an airliner. Some people are fighting a remote control system for US airliners, they say it is unsafe and put the passnegers lives in danger.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But this is the first time a fighter has had a system installed that can take control of an airliner. Some people are fighting a remote control system for US airliners, they say it is unsafe and put the passnegers lives in danger.

I'm willing to bet that most of the people fighting this are members of ALPA. I have always been in favor of an automated system for US airliners, but what I have in mind is a little different from what is proposed here. My idea is to install a panic button that takes over control from the flight crew and allows a ground station to land the aircraft. Control of the aircraft CANNOT be restored to the flight crew once the button is pushed. It would also be possible to initiate this system from the ground in the event a crew doesn't respond or fails to follow commands from the controllers.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I'm willing to bet that most of the people fighting this are members of ALPA. I have always been in favor of an automated system for US airliners, but what I have in mind is a little different from what is proposed here. My idea is to install a panic button that takes over control from the flight crew and allows a ground station to land the aircraft. Control of the aircraft CANNOT be restored to the flight crew once the button is pushed. It would also be possible to initiate this system from the ground in the event a crew doesn't respond or fails to follow commands from the controllers.

Some compaines are working on a sytstem that are on some fighters like the F-111. The F-111 had Terrain Following Radar. What these companies are working on is a version that a computer on the planes would take over the flight controls of the plane if it was getting to close to an object like a building or a mountain and steer the plane away from the object.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Good idea, if used properly... But with all the 9/11 "whodunnit" theories, there will be some concern from many.

Also, how secure is such a system? Can it be hacked by a third party to remotely take-over an aircraft for nefarious purposes?

Originally posted by stumason
Also, how secure is such a system? Can it be hacked by a third party to remotely take-over an aircraft for nefarious purposes?

Yes that is the only bad thing with a system like this. You would have to make sure it was very secure. Also have to make sure it could not be jammed by someone.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes that is the only bad thing with a system like this. You would have to make sure it was very secure. Also have to make sure it could not be jammed by someone.

This system would be fairly easy to make secure. The majority of it would be on the aircraft itself. With GPS the aircraft would fly itself to the designated airport. The only time that it might be vulnerable would be on the final approach. For this I would use a laser communications system with a direct line of sight.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
This system would be fairly easy to make secure. The majority of it would be on the aircraft itself. With GPS the aircraft would fly itself to the designated airport. The only time that it might be vulnerable would be on the final approach. For this I would use a laser communications system with a direct line of sight.

Yes, I kind of like the other system too that uses terrain following radar and a computer to override the flight controlls if the plane gets close to something like a mountain or a building.

Companies are also working on a trandsponder that can not be turned off, and an emegency button instead of punchning in a code.

The Rapid Response Team (RRT) on Aircraft Security recently made recommendations for changes to aircraft design and operation that would help meet the demand for increased onboard security. An FAA-published report states that these modifications should include a method to ensure continuous transmission of a hijack signal, even if the flight deck selected code or function is turned off. Three suggested modifications that can be accomplished quickly are:
- Ability to set and lock in the hijacking code so the hijacker cannot disable it
- A panic button that initiates the hijacking code in an emergency situation
- An independent transponder that cannot be disabled by the hijacker
How it Works:

The Transponder lock installs behind the transponder control panel using existing wiring. No new wiring is required. When a pilot channels code 7500 using the existing control panel, the Transponder lock switches on and continuously transmits code 7500 until a company unique unlock code is channeled on the control panel and the aircraft is on the ground. Activation of the lock is indicated by a short (3 second) activation of the display test function on the control panel. Power interruptions do not defeat the lock. After the lock is engaged, the control panel ATCRBS output is ignored, precluding the transponder from entering standby or channeling another code. All TCAS mode selections continue to operate normally from the controller panel after the lock is engaged.
Optionally, an external PANIC switch may provide a direct trigger for the Transponder Lock. An AUX power input provides for switching the transponder to a backup power source, if the lock is enabled and primary power is lost. These optional features require the addition of two wires at the control panel.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes, I kind of like the other system too that uses terrain following radar and a computer to override the flight controlls if the plane gets close to something like a mountain or a building.

I don't really care for this system. I'd hate to take something away from the pilots that may be needed in an emergency. One thing that all of these systems must have in common is the ability for it not to be able to be overridden from the aircraft. There may be a situation where it is necessary for an airliner to fly close to an object. The other problem with the TFR system is that a malfunction may prevent the aircraft from coming too close to the ground when the pilots are trying to land the aircraft.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I don't really care for this system. I'd hate to take something away from the pilots that may be needed in an emergency. One thing that all of these systems must have in common is the ability for it not to be able to be overridden from the aircraft. There may be a situation where it is necessary for an airliner to fly close to an object. The other problem with the TFR system is that a malfunction may prevent the aircraft from coming too close to the ground when the pilots are trying to land the aircraft.

I do not think i heard of any problem with the TFR systems that have been in military aircraft like the F-111 for several years. But it should not be to much of a problem if you allow some varibles into to the system.