Pilotless landings work only in the most benign conditions, and then not consistently. And the cost would be astoundingly high to implement this.
"Your suggestions provoke a lot of thought. I hope you have success with it. Please provide us with an update to see how you are doing.
"As for me, I'm not technical enough to help very much, but I do have an active imagination. It seems to me that since you can deliver a plane, take off and land without pilot intervention (I think they can even do this with Boeing 747's), what would it take through the use of GPS and direct communications with the pilot, for air traffic controllers to over-ride pilot commands (when it is established that an aircraft has been hi-jacked) and have appropriate personnel take over controls of the aircraft remotely. "
"This does not seem like it requires any technology that is not in place - only an implementation of existing technology."
1) Remotely landing a plane _can_ be done, but not consistently, and not safely. Under the most ideal conditions (perfect weather, long runway, a simple approach--unlike San Diego, for example) it might be possible to spend ten billion dollars to retrofit the nation's airfleet for possible remote landings. In tough terrain, or where attackers are in the cockpit and can smash controls (what have they got to lose?), no way.
2) And even if these tens of billions are spent, attackers can a) use their own planes and target them at the last moment, b) disable the radio control systems, c) attack in very bad weather when any "remote landing" scheme would be very, very unlikely to succeed.
(I have described using a cargo plane from SFO to crash into PacBell Park. 30 seconds flying time...not enough time for any system to respond, take control, and either down the plane or land it elsewhere.)
3) Most importantly, it is almost 100% certain that the proposals to spend $3 billion a year on air marshals (estimate today by Mary Schiavo, expert, on the Chris Matthews show on MSNBC) and perhaps $10 billion in toto for the "remote landing" capability, will be perfect examples of locking the barn door after the horses are out. Rounds Two and Three will be different from Round One.
(Experts point out that the air marshals, on some fraction of the 23,000 domestic flights daily, will be bored out of their minds, with nothing whatsoever to do, with no opportunities for advancement, and that the program will be quietly dropped after half a dozen years or so of no hijackings. This is what happened with the air marshal program in the 1970s.)
Any remote-controlled landing capability is many years off, in any case. Whether the technology to do it with drones exists, it doesn't exist in the fleet of 727s, 737s, DC-10s, 757s, 747s, Airbuses, 767s, etc. Each would have to be expensively retrofitted, tested extensively, etc. And it does nothing for _owned_ aircraft where the owners elect not to install this exorbitantly-expensive technology. (Grounding all non-compliant aircraft, including those from other countries, would nuke the economy.)
Ain't gonna happen in _my_ lifetime.
As for the "killer app" idea, such killer apps are not created by someone setting out to create them. They emerge unexpectedly. They are especially unlikely to come from non-market sources, e.g., government.
Last note: The decision today to authorize the shoot down of passenger planes as a matter of policy, if they stray outside certain corridors, will further frighten flying passengers. (A terrorist may even use this to force a shoot-down of an aircraft, knowing the image of a plane being shot down by an F-15 would do another trillion dollars' worth of economic damage.)
Many of the blissninnies here have said I'm not being a good sport by pointing out these issues, and that I should be flying so as to make that all-important 0.0000000172% increase in airline ridership! Hooo--rah! We have nothing to fear but fear itself...and, folks, get out there to the malls and BUY MORE STUFF! Our way of life hangs in the balance.
--Tim May |
