NotPart91

In an attempting to find a solution to uncontrolled A/C's due to Pilot Incapacitation a group of associates and I have some put some ideas together, (some have already been designed, tested and in use).

With recent tragic events in Asia and the Alps a "Safety Net" Option would be the next level added to Commercial Aviation Safety with an enhanced Flight Monitoring and Ground based or Other Surveillance Platform (i.e. P-3 etc) and Emergency Off-Site Telemetry based Flight Control.

Here's what I have so far;

1) An the Out-of-Normal Flt Parameter is detected;

2) A non responsive flight deck is detected and;

3) Separate and unassociated monitoring entities validate the parameter alert and execute certain flight deck data validations in another attempt to get the flt deck to respond.

4) Flight Deck validations aren't received or acted upon;

5) Flight "ALERT" is then activated;

5) ALERT Telemetry is then sent to the A/C where the A/C will be put in a Class A Airspace vectored flight pattern.

This can either be pre-programmed into the A/C's existing systems or can be sent via encrypted telemetry flight control commands.

This ALERT type system/procedures have already been developed, tested and operational in certain Mil Flight Environments.

Flight monitoring and telemetry can be simultaneously monitored and then directed by, FAA/TRACON, DUATS/DoD, Company Ops and a 3rd Party, (most likely the manufacture) for a multi redundancy plan.

Telemetry commands would be coordinated between Company Ops and another Monitoring Entity, (more then likely DoD as a flight intercept would be in-progress).

If a $500.00 Hobby-Level Octocopter and a $15 Mil UAS have similar "Imminent Safety Initiated Control Commands" why wouldn't this work in Commercial Aviation.

Thoughts/Comments?

rickair7777

Cost a lot of money to develop. Cost a lot of money to equip the global fleet. Oh wait, this is aviation...whatever you thought it would cost, multiply by ten. Plus the command center and global comms infrastructure.

Airlines won't want to pay for it since this is a very very rare event, particularly in the west and most particularly in the US.

Plus what are you going to do when you take control...vector it to a safe crash site (ocean/desert)? You won't be landing without gear/flaps. Oh you want remote controls for that too? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Something like this could be built into future airliners, but it ain't getting retrofitted.

RhinoPherret

Statistical occurrence of this type of incident ≠ COST of proposed system(s) in commercial aviation arena.

FamilyATM

"If a $500.00 Hobby-Level Octocopter and a $15 Mil UAS have similar "Imminent Safety Initiated Control Commands" why wouldn't this work in Commercial Aviation."

I don't know. Maybe we should ask the Iranians who captured that RQ-170 a couple years ago how safe and secure these systems are?

Cubdriver

Cost is always the main block with these high tech solutions. Many airlines will not even spring for off the shelf lojackers (MH370). They would rather let the western world join hands and find their lost aircraft after its lost. A serious implementation would have to be mandated by a higher power at the aircraft design level, costs and all, and as far as I know no such power exists.

Another thought is, techno fixes like this work great until the enemy figures out how to exploit it and in this case you might have hijacking taking place from the ground. Talk about a problem! With the nature of human beings as unstable as it is, an internal or external security compromise could lead to a bad guy doing major evil from an office cubicle. We'd have to think long and hard about setting that system up. It would seem to necessitate military operational control, which is not perfect either.

cardiomd

As others have said every "solution" for remotely accessing flight systems introduces another attack vector. These events are exceedingly rare, and most often solutions are worse than the problem.

BoilerUP

Quadcopter and military RPA: *unmanned*

Everything not the above: *manned*

PurpleToolBox

Of the 269 MQ-1 Predators purchased by the United States Air Force, more than half, HALF, have been wrecked in major crashes.

Despite what the quadracopter community thinks, pilotless airplanes are not coming anytime soon.

More so, unmanned aircraft (or pilotless airliners) significantly increase risk and costs.

Lastly, how does this system work when someone pulls the firewall handles, shuts off the engines, or pulls a circuit breaker or two?

NotPart91

Yes but most of the Predator "Class A" mishaps have been caused by Human Error.

There has only been 1 or 2 "Class A" incidents in the civilian sector, (which were also caused by Human Error).

During the mil UAV program "push" a large part of the UAV operators came from non-aviation jobs, or directly from basic training, (thus leading to the high percentage of Class A incidents).

Human error causes most Predator crashes - US news - Military | NBC News

So the remote flight control technology has proven its reliability, but the "CPU between the shoulders" causes and or leads to incidents/malfunctions the majority of the time.

BoilerUP

Wat?

Aren't all USAF RPA operators rated officers and winged aviators...not "directly from basic training"?