|
Remote pilots rescue { September 16 2001 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,552793,00.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,552793,00.html
Remote pilots could steer planes to safety
Special report: terrorism in the US
Robin McKie and Antony Barnett
Sunday September 16, 2001
The Observer
It remains the single most effective act of war ever committed. Armed only with knives, a collective death wish and a limited ability to fly a plane, a few individuals caused devastation equivalent to the detonation of a tactical nuclear device.
The terrorists' trick was simple, of course: they turned the West's technology on itself, using our own sophistication to carry out an act of slaughter unmatched since World War II. The question that must now be asked is therefore simple: how can we ensure that our own technology is never used this way again?
Obvious answers involve improving security and intelligence gathering. But what about the technology itself? If a plane is hijacked, can we stop it from being flown into a skyscraper again? And if that level of protection fails, can we ensure such a building withstands the impact?
In the first case, aviation experts are surprisingly confident. They say devices that would allow air traffic controllers to override the controls of a hijacked plane are close to development. Boeing has made one such system and used it to steer military aircraft remotely.
An overrider fitted in a passenger jet, when activated, would send it on a pre-programmed route to a military airbase or another safe landing area. Either it would be turned on in the cockpit by the pilot as soon as he or she realised an attempted hijack was under way or it could be triggered by air traffic control. It could even be switched on automatically if a plane steered too far from its flight path. Once the overrider was activated it could not itself be overridden.
'The technology is pretty much there and I don't believe there would be too many problems in fitting it,' said Frank Taylor, a safety expert at Cranfield School of Aeronautics. Certainly it is now possible to use autopilots to land planes safely, though they still have design flaws that need tackling.
Terrorists, realising they could no longer control their plane, could still cause it to crash. 'It wouldn't save the passengers on board but it would prevent the plane being smashed into a building,' said Taylor.
But such developments raise other questions. Terrorists might no longer target aircraft, but go straight to an air traffic control centre, or hack into an override control system and guide hundreds of planes at the same time, thus raising the slaughter stakes to a new level of magnitude.
'Obviously we would have to be very careful how we fitted such an overrider,' said one air traffic expert. 'Nevertheless, if we install them carefully, with the proper safeguards, they could be the answer.'
Other problems could be encountered - such as those involved in clearing airspace around a remotely controlled plane so that other aircraft were not endangered. Nevertheless, aircraft designers remain confident. A spokeswoman for plane manufacturer Airbus said the overrider idea had merits and would be a key area for the company to study in future.
Similarly, researchers are examining pilot recognition devices - to identify an individual by voice or iris of the eye - which would only allow authorised pilots to fly a particular plane. Again this would not provide foolproof protection for passengers, but it would - if the worst came to the worst - give a pilot the chance to crash instead of allowing a plane to be steered into an office block.
Other systems being investigated include the use of anaesthetic gas, which could be released in the cabin from a switch in the cockpit or in an air traffic control centre. Airlines including El Al are developing guns which will disable hijackers but not pierce the skin of an aircraft.
In short, several counter-terrorist systems that could prevent a repeat of last week's carnage are being worked on. But what if they still prove ineffective?
Is it possible to build mammoth office blocks - like those now being constructed in London, Paris, the rest of Europe and of course America - and make them terrorist-proof?
Here engineers are less sanguine. 'Both World Trade Centre towers withstood the impacts of the planes that struck them,' said Gordon Masterton of the Institute of Civil Engineers. 'The force at the base of each building was about twice that of the worst possible hurricane that could have hit them. These were sound structures.'
The real trouble came afterwards. Each plane spilled 30 tonnes of burning aviation fuel down each tower. Within an hour this fuel, burning at almost 1,000 C, softened each tower's outer steel shell so that it could no longer support the building's upper floors. One gave way, and sent the rest crashing downwards.
'There is simply no protection against that,' said Masterton. 'You could cover buildings in dense, impenetrable steel, of course. But they would be windowless edifices, nuclear bunkers in the sky. No one would live or work in them.
'In short, you can't protect buildings against flying bombs. You have to stop them long before they get near your skyscraper.'
|
|
