European Effort to Stop Hijacks

[xoxoxoBruce]

I don't see these efforts actually in common use for 15 years, but at least the effort is being made. Hijack proof is, of course, a misnomer. Anything man can build, another man can circumvent, but making it harder is always good.... unless the pilot locks himself out of the cockpit, mid flight.

Leading European aerospace companies began working together on an airline security project in 2004 and are making progress with systems to help produce the first hijack-proof plane.
The SAFEE project, which stands for Security of Aircraft in the Future European Environment, aims to create a series of technological innovations to prevent 'a repeat of Sept 11', says project coordinator Daniel Gaultier.

These include microphones and cameras to monitor passengers in the cabin, digital fingerprints and iris scans for access to the cockpit, and an avoidance system to prevent planes crashing into buildings. All are designed to make hijacking an airliner in mid-flight virtually impossible.

Not on the list, however, is the oft-mentioned idea of piloting planes from the ground by remote control. Mr Gaultier describes this as futurism, noting that it presents 'huge difficulties in regulation and in securing the signal'.

Instead, the 31 companies participating in SAFEE, launched in 2004 by the European Commission, are looking at more viable alternatives.
Airbus, BAE Systems, Thales, Sagem and NLR have each taken charge of one of five main initiatives.

In Hamburg, Germany in August, Airbus carried out the first tests on its 'threat detection system', which warns the pilot of any suspicious behaviour by a passenger via a system of cameras and microphones. A full simulation is planned for January 2008.

Thales, meanwhile, is working on an anti-collision system to be tested in June 2007, Mr Gaultier said.

Developing biometric fingerprinting to ensure that only crew members can enter the cockpit, has been entrusted to Dutch firm NLR, which plans to test the system in August 2007 in Amsterdam.

Mr Gaultier's company, Sagem Defense Securite, part of the Safran group, is working on protecting data systems, in particular on communications between the cockpit and control tower.

The total budget for SAFEE is 36 million euros (S$72.13 million), 19 million of which have been put up by the European Commission.

The five companies involved in the project aim to give a joint demonstration of their achievements in February 2008, 'to show that it works', said Marco Brusati, head of project at the European Commission. After that, a new seven-year contract should be signed to bring the project to completion.

According to Mr Brusati, 'there will be no products on the market before 2010. The whole package could be available on planes in operation from around 2015'. Developing the new equipment poses legal and ethical as well as technological problems. You cannot film passengers on board planes or record their conversations except within a strict legal framework. But it is possible, says Mr Gaultier, 'provided you destroy the recordings at the end of the flight'.
The other stumbling block, Mr Gaultier notes, is the 'exorbitant' cost of fitting the new technology to existing planes. 'Doubtless it would be better to think about incorporating them into the next generation of aircraft,' he says.

If the airlines say, up front, were going film you inflight for safety reasons, if you don't want to be filmed, don't fly, I don't see a problem. Am I missing something?
I wonder if the video/audio feed would be transmitted to the ground? The air crew has enough to do without monitoring that video. By the time a bad guy's actions become overt, it may be too late. It's the subtle things that tip off trouble in advance.

They could make a few bucks selling commemorative souvenir videos to passengers that joined the mile high club.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

If the airlines say, up front, were going film you inflight for safety reasons, if you don't want to be filmed, don't fly, I don't see a problem. Am I missing something?

That's what I was thinking, but maybe UK law is different. I know for sure they have more stringent privacy laws when it comes to computer data.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

If the airlines say, up front, were going film you inflight for safety reasons, if you don't want to be filmed, don't fly, I don't see a problem. Am I missing something?

Just people who want to whine about something for no reason... it is no different than going to the bank.

I don't see an issue with one flight attendant being allowed into an armored cockpit only, no matter what.
This would solve a lot of problems.

[JayMcGee]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I don't see an issue with one flight attendant being allowed into an armored cockpit only, no matter what.
This would solve a lot of problems.

Jeez, that's one hell of versatile flight attendant.......

[xoxoxoBruce]

I suppose with the flight crew in their fort, watching some psycho killing the passengers one by one, on closed circuit TV, might open the airline to some hellish law suits.
Not valid ones, in my opinion, but that never stopped the lawyers.

I don't see what one could sue for? What are they supposed to do? Turn the plane over? No. Not a valid argument.

[JayMcGee]

the flight crew could sue for the trauma caused by having to watch the slaughter on the CCV screen.......

and don't mock, there is precedent for this in here in the UK, normaly a lot less prone to 'whackey' lawsuits as the US

[xoxoxoBruce]

I don't see how the airline was responsible for the death of the people on 9-11, but the lawyers disagree.

[MaggieL]

An "avoidance system to prevent airplanes crashing into buildings" would make them rather difficult to land.

Originally Posted by JayMcGee

the flight crew could sue for the trauma caused by having to watch the slaughter on the CCV screen.......

and don't mock, there is precedent for this in here in the UK, normaly a lot less prone to 'whackey' lawsuits as the US

Not mocking you, but that is what a waiver is for.

[noviceathome]

The problem could be removed entirely if the cockpit were armoured and sealed for the duration of the flight, period. Assuming this was made common knowledge prior to boarding, potential hiijackers would recognise the futility of their planned actions. Desperate emergency circumstances might circumvent this isolation via an elaborate set of coded actions, signals etc, known only to senior, trusted cabin staff.

[lumberjim]

when i think about this, it reminds me that the gun control laws in the us are far superior to those in the uk.

besides, our food is so much better than theirs.

hey, what celebrity would you like to have over for dinner?

oh, and before i forget, Star Wars is waaaayy better than Star Trek.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

when i think about this, it reminds me that the gun control laws in the us are far superior to those in the uk.

besides, our food is so much better than theirs.

hey, what celebrity would you like to have over for dinner?

oh, and before i forget, Star Wars is waaaayy better than Star Trek.

Now that's funny!

Rather than wondering about how to stop hijacks , we should wonder why these people want to do these things to us . Always remember what Alexander The Great said about looking for the thorn in the foot of the horse .

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I don't see these efforts actually in common use for 15 years, but at least the effort is being made.

Sounds to me like an effort primarily designed to provide work for idle EU engineers.