On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 20:43:03 -0500, "Mike" wrote:
>
>"Richard" wrote in message
>news:22HGh.5181$wS3.2900@newsfe12.lga...
>> That sound just great. Now they won't even have to hijack a plane. You
>> just have to hijack the ground station that is controlling the plane and
>> then fly it where ever you want.
>No you have to do both actually, and im pretty sure you would probably
>require a army to hijack the ground station, it'll probably be just as
>secure as a nuclear missle.
>
Snort...yeah right and who pays for all this? Besides, you won't need
to hijack the ground station, you just hack the system remotely and
take it over. Probably within three weeks of such a system going live
you will be able to go to a web site and select which plane to make do
loops and barrel rolls.
And since there really isn't any magical "autolanding" system that
completely and fully works in every case, or else there wouldn't still
be airports closing for fog and such...and since I've seen a hell of a
lot of model airplanes get slammed into the ground...do *you* want to
trust your life to a system like that?
Not to mention the opportunity it gives the mythical terrorists to
raise economic hell.."OK, everybody listen up..each one of you gets on
a plane and at exactly noon..start whamming on the cockpit door. let's
see what happens when 137 panes all try to autoland at the same time.
Group 2, you wait until the planes are on final approach then do the
same..lets see what happens when remote control takes over on the
approach path to LAX or ORD when a dozen planes in line to land
suddenly try to fly to "safety"?
Remember, we beat the Soviet Union into the ground by bankrupting
them...stuff like this allows the bad guys to do the same to
us....spend a hundred billion dollars aganst a threat hardly exists
usinglutions that hare hare-brained at best. The current "safety"
model has cost tens of billions of dollars and wasted hundreds of
million of hours for the travelling public with no one outside of TSA
flacks claiming it has enhanced security in any meaningful way.
Oh, and there's no such thing as "secret patents", if it's patented,
full details of all aspects of whatever it is are published.
Sounds like this came out of the Globe & Mail or the National Enquirer
Jim P. |