The man who stole a plane said he didn't need much help: 'I've played some video games'

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/08/11/us/seattle-stolen-plane-audio-recording/index.html

As far as I know, if you hijack a city bus or certain cars, the engine can be shut off remotely.
I wonder, why isn’t this technology used on airplanes? Any unauthorized engine start should immediately alert air traffic control and if a plane attempts to take off without authorization authorities should be able to shut off the engines remotely.

 

This guy had some skills. I watched the video on CNN and he definitely had some flight experience. You can't get that just from video games. Not sure if he committed suicide or just Fcked up a maneuver. He came close to the ground several times. FWIW, while tough, a Q400 isn't made for aerobatics.

Do you want terrorists hacking an airliner and shutting down the engines over the ocean or near a city?

 

I’m sure there are ways to make sure this is a very safe option.
For example, you can make this option work only when the craft is still on the ground. Once it took off then it won’t be an option, or use a system where a confirmation to shut off comes from some safe encrypted government channel.

 

First, at most airports there is no such thing as "unauthorized engine start".

Second, while unauthorized taxis can be identified, all he has to do is ask for authorization for a local maintenance flight.

Lastly, even if it was the most secure system in the world, if a guy on the ground can shut it down, what's to stop a rogue ATC or some other person who has access to shut down all of them at once?

 

You can design the system in such a way that a shut down must be confirmed by the head of the airport.
There are ways to make this work and it is technologically possible.
Also, in Airbus, a machine desicion making is of higher priority than pilots. In Boeing it’s opposite. So, in Airbus, if machine prevents a pilot from doing something that overloads machines sensors, then why can’t two humans in authority position to decide to shut off all or some engines in the airplane remotely?

 

I doubt any pilots are going to fly a plane which can be shut down by someo groundpounding assclown who is having a bad day.

While you are close about the difference between Euro philosophies and American on both aircraft and spacecraft design, the pilot still flies the Airbus albeit up to a point. The Airbus/Euro philosophy has resulted in several crashes.

 

Yet, they fly machines that can override their decisions.

 

@Max Rockatansky
I have a car that has dynamic drive control. Even if I switch it off, it still partially functions. The idea of the system is that if it senses that not all while are spinning then it will stop the other wheels.
Very annoying when you are trying to get your car out of the snow because the system doesn’t let me continuously spin the wheels till my car is out of the snow. Honestly, I’d trade this feature for a possibility of remote shut off.
It’s similar to airbus airplanes - they won’t let pilot do something if the planes sensors sense something that it wasn’t programmed to handle. How is that better than a remote engine shut off?

 

Only up to a point such as flying it into a stall (stall limiting). Pilots can still screw up and fly it into the ground.

Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afriqiyah_Airways_Flight_771

 

There's a key difference between you losing an engine on the highway and an aircraft losing it's engine(s) 1000' above the ground. I've lost powered steering on the highway and, while tough to handle, kept it straight enough to stop. In flight, that's a different matter.

The US has 87,000 per day. It's poor decision-making to panic over a single incident after millions of flights over the past several years where this never happened.

 

How the hell would an unauthorized person be able to fire one of those up in the first place? Don't the pilots have to at least key in a code or something?

 

No keys or codes. There is plenty of security, however. 87,000 flights per day X 365 days x 10 years = 317,550,000 flights with never a problem. Let's not get too upset over a single incident.

 

If a bus or car engine shuts off due to a malfunction in the system they just stop. What happens to a plane in flight if the system malfunctions? It crashes.

 

There is a Canadian movie I really liked called Last Night. The premise is that everyone knows precisely when the world will end due to some cosmic event that is never explained. The crux of the movie is to ask the question, how would you spend your last days if you knew exactly when the world would be extinguished?

I'm with this guy but one better. I decided that military bases would be mostly abandoned. So I'd grab a fighter jet and take it for a ride. I could probably get one off the ground. I likely couldn't land but wouldn't need to. Just be sure you're up there when the big event comes.

In a strange way I admire this guy. Before ending it all he went for the ride of his life. I have to respect that. I've been on the ride of my life for six years now and started my adventure after almost ending it all.

 

Great idea for the bunch that did 911. They could of shut off all planes engines.

 

I can see them shutting down the engines and then the plane crashing into a school killing a bunch of kids.

Yea, probably not a very good idea. I believe we can have fighters pretty much anywhere in the nation fairly quickly so that's probably the best option.

Let them take it down.

 

This guy picked an awfully expensive method of taking his own life.Thank God at least he didn't kill others besides himself.

 

Then I'd say that needs to change.

There's no need to get upset at all. What's needed is to fix this before somebody decides to do a solo 911.

 

Man, the guy managed to pull off a loop and a barrel roll. He barely made the loop but he did.

 

Agreed. I'm sure he over-G'd the aircraft when he did too!

 

I like to read about different aircraft too and am surprised he pulled it off too.
Looks like he was surprised how much fuel he burned. I think he overloaded the plane quite a few times.

 

I bet it was fun! And it does a real sales job for the aircraft. I'd bet there are a few sales executives who would like to use that video.

I did Air Combat once; where you do WWII-style dog fights using LASERs and smoke pods. It was a high-performance plane that was fully aerobatic. I had never flown a plane so it was pure Adrenalin the entire time. On the way back to the airport I did a loop and was pulling 5 Gs at the bottom. That day was about as much fun as I've ever had with my clothes on. I was so pumped when it was over that I was physically incapable of driving home. I can only imagine what this guy was feeling.

Sad for the guy but as I said, I have to admire his choice of how to go.

 

After John-John plowed into the ocean of Martha's Vineyard with his wife and SIL, spineless, clueless non-flying ninnies panicked and suggested that nightflying be made a special qualification. They reacted out of emotion, not knowledge much less logic. Fortunately, wiser minds prevailed and recognized the situation for what it was.

http://www.natgeotv.com/me/air-crash-investigation/galleries/the-death-of-jfk-jr/1

 

Given this is likely an extremely unique event, I don't think a new costly bit of regulation is necessary.

 

The Q400, a variation of the Dash-8, is a good aircraft. Still, I'm guessing if he landing safely the plane would have been overstressed beyond repair. When I was a T-34C flight instructor we had a student overstress an aircraft on a solo flying an unauthorized Split-S. He pulled 9gs and safely landed but the wings were bent up and the entire tail twisted several degrees. Most of us were shocked the plane held together much less that he remained conscious during the recovery. Part of that was attributed to him being a body-builder.