Law & Legal & Attorney Politics

How to Prevent Another 9-11 Attack

It has been proposed at a Think Tank that we should build an altimeter for Airliners, which are already coupled to the autopilots and interfaced with GPS to prevent the eventuality of allowing the aircraft to hit a building.
It was further advised that these systems be preprogrammed for altitudes and locations of no-fly zones so the aircraft will automatically override the pilot.
"It is a simple idea" says Mr.
Aaron Gray who explains it is merely a basic idea but it can be built on to make it work effectively.
Gray, a modern day thinker continues: "We all know Terrorism is apart of everyone's lives in today's society, and one of their favourite weapons is aircraft so why don't we try to take this weapon away from them?" Mr.
Winslow agrees and the Think Tank feel not only is Gray's concept excellent, but in fact it could lead to even more off shoots to provide safety in other industries as well.
For instance If we program GIS Data and all buildings, radio towers, tension lines into these systems, we could prevent many general aviation aircraft from hitting things.
It is a good idea.
Looking even further ahead Mr.
Winslow, a futurist indicates; "It will be even a better idea in 30 years with the flying cars, especially considering people cannot drive very well either.
I watched a mom in a Ford Excursion who actually backed over a fire hydrant and knocked off its break away foundation?"If humans cannot see a fire hydrant, then god help us in Zero-Zero visibility IFR conditions with buildings, radio towers, grain silos etc.
The think tank concluded that for safety as well as anti-terrorist devices in Airliners and Perhaps Corporate Jets; it would be easy to map all the buildings.
Also the FAA and Military could use it to keep aircraft out of their Air Space or for temporary Notams or when the President or Secret Service calls for temporary restricted areas.
These are all good ideas.
If an international terrorist decides to crash into a building, he will not be able to, as the aircraft would simply turn itself? Of course there would have to be an over ride from the ground incase of emergency, so that the pilot could not override the system negating its strength to prevent the airplane being used as a weapon.
So perhaps Mr.
Gray's system would have to a terrain avoidance system as well.
Luckilywe probably already have a system which the military could kick down in transfer technology from UAV research at the AFRL.
I heard that Northrop Grumman has something similar.
It would also be good to prevent single mission UAVs or missiles from hitting the wrong buildings and reduce collateral damage in war.
Submarines have this to prevent hitting underwater obstacles and ridges, well unless the ridge changes in an Earthquake-Tsunami? Volkswagon and Audi have these avoidance systems, which if another car is in front it tightens your seat belt, lets off the gas, and starts to tug on the steering wheel.
In the DARPA Challenge many of their systems have this, which runs fully autonomous for obstacle avoidance.
The Think Tank also likes the Carnegie Mellon robotics stuff that attempts to address these things while on the ground.
This idea could work with input data from GIS, knowing where the aircraft was.
But if someone turns off the radar altimeter or system it would still need to work.
The Think Tank also realizes that during the 9-11 attacks that the International Terrorists turned off their Encoding transponders and communication, wonder what else? Therefore Gray's concept would need a fail safe, everyone thinks this is a good idea; although wonder what the costs would be? Then all the US Aircraft would have them? What about foreign cargo aircraft Nippon or KLM? Remember the Tom Clancey novel where the guy took a 747 and ran it into the white house, written in 1998.
That might be an issue as we would need to put them in all Aircraft made by Boeing and Airbus, Gulfstream, Bombardier, etc, etc.
But if it were a feature in every aircraft it would save lives and is worthy of consideration.
NASA SATS program should look into this too, as they make general aviation safe.
Lots of uses for UAV, MAV, UUVs, subs, aviation, space, satellite debris avoidance, cars, etc.
The Think Tank thought the idea is good and since the technology is available we need to get a really good price to implement it? It could even be made to be net-centric for avoidance of moving objects, other cars, planes, ships; preventing oil spills and autopilot canal and harbor controls? Do you have ideas and concepts like Mr.
Aaron Gray? Do you belong to a think tank? Should you? Think on it.

Leave a reply