New TSA Rules

[wayman]

Considering that I just saw a news report that AlQuida had brought a $12 electronic part that allowed them to tap into the video feeds for our survailence drones that are tracking them, I'd say that there would be a very strong possibility of what you suggest happening GML.

Those drones aren't using an encrypted signal. This is blown way out of proportion.

"The naive reaction is to ridicule the military. Encryption is so easy that HDTVs do it -- just a software routine and you're done -- and the Pentagon has known about this flaw since Bosnia in the 1990s. But encrypting the data is the easiest part; key management is the hard part. Each UAV needs to share a key with the ground station. These keys have to be produced, guarded, transported, used and then destroyed. And the equipment, both the Predators and the ground terminals, needs to be classified and controlled, and all the users need security clearance..."

See this site for more.

Even secure keys aren't secure forever.

GSM phone encryption was cracked yesterday by one guy who broke no laws, but just spent a while gathering data legally and using publicly available software and hardware. (Basically, he demonstrated that phone calls where one party is using AT&T Wireless or TMobile in the USA, or Rogers in Canada, or any cell phone in most of the rest of the world, can be eavesdropped. Easily, once you know how. Fortunately for us, the guy who figured this out was a "good guy" rather than a "bad guy". Of course, that's assuming he's the first to figure it out. For all we know, other people have been doing this before....)

 

[rrdude]

the TSA are the real terrorest alongs with DHS.

Your statement is both wrong and offensive, and I invite you to retract it.

I agree with amtrakwolverine.

..........All planes should have "PPC" to allow FAA flight controllers to override cockpit control to bring a hijacked plane to a safe landing at the closest airport. If such a system was in place and operating on 9/11 the planes could have been safely landed and the hijackers could have been arrested............

Unless......... you take control of the FAA flight controller's location, then you could send hundreds of planes into buildings....from one convenient location.......... Kinda be like a video game.........

 

[BigBlueBuddha]

Considering that I just saw a news report that AlQuida had brought a $12 electronic part that allowed them to tap into the video feeds for our survailence drones that are tracking them, I'd say that there would be a very strong possibility of what you suggest happening GML.

Actually, it is software called SkyGrabber and it costs about $50. You do also need a satellite dish. . .

See: http://www.skygrabber.com/en/skygrabber.php

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Is it even possible to land a plane remotely? Read "possible" as "safe and effective" not "one-in-a-million life or death shot".

 

[rrdude]

Is it even possible to land a plane remotely? Read "possible" as "safe and effective" not "one-in-a-million life or death shot".

Drones take off and land safely several times a day in the Mid-Eastern theater, and the pilots are just working eight-hour shifts at the flight controls, in Colorado (?) I think......

 

[MattW]

Is it even possible to land a plane remotely? Read "possible" as "safe and effective" not "one-in-a-million life or death shot".

Some airports and aircraft support what's called Category IIIc ILS which is for what's known as 0-0 conditions. This means that the pilot can push a button and the plane lands itself without much if any further interaction (it's actually a bit more complex than that, but you get the idea). So yes, it is possible once the plans has the ILS information (glide slope and localizer).

However, I'm with GML (!!) that if it relies on radio frequencies, then it can be hacked. I'm a big computer geek, and I prefer Wired to WiFi any day even if WiFi makes my life a little easier (doesn't mean I don't use it, I just prefer not to). My dad and I sometimes talk about the UAVs/UCAVs and one point of contention we both agree on is that they could be at the best jammed, and at the worst, hijacked. Sure, it means a pilot isn't put at risk, but how many extra people are at risk by a hijacked armed remote-controlled plane?

 

[wayman]

Is it even possible to land a plane remotely? Read "possible" as "safe and effective" not "one-in-a-million life or death shot".

How is it much different from landing a plane in an accurate flight simulator program? You have realtime gauge and visual feedback, and you use controls that can look just like the ones in the cockpit (or could look like anything else). You can't swivel your head to look around you (yet... I'm sure VR cockpit simulator cameras are not far away) and you're not affected by G-forces (which is probably an advantage). You wouldn't want me landing a plane remotely because I never once successfully landed a plane in Microsoft Flight Simulator in my life, but I'm sure there are tens of thousands of twelve-year-olds who could do this with no problem.