Hacker News Reader

Comment by Zelphyr | Hacker News Reader

I suspect the better deterrent, and the reason we haven’t seen another attack remotely similar to 9/11, is that the terrorists know we won’t fall for that again. There would be a whole airplane full of people willing to take down a would-be terrorist.

The TSA is just a pacifier for people who buy that they’re effective.

View on HN

Yes that attack was viable for less than 1 hour. On flight 93 the passenger revolt began at 9:57AM, and the the first plane hit the World Trade Center at 9:01AM

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

> After the hijackers took control of the plane, several passengers and flight attendants learned from phone calls that suicide attacks had already been made by hijacked airliners on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia. Many of the passengers then attempted to regain control of the aircraft from the hijackers. During the struggle, the plane crashed into a field near a reclaimed strip mine in Stonycreek Township

And if that hadn’t worked, before the crash the military was already authorized to shoot down that flight. So the system adapted quickly.

Also, we lock cockpit doors now and pilots aren't going to let someone in just because they threaten passengers or crew members with harm.

I think we should give up on the TSA theater, but most people seem to want it. Makes them feel better, even if their rational minds know it's a lie.

> just because they threaten passengers

I'd say "especially if" rather than "just because".

Cockpit doors are also thicker steel now as well

This might be a stupid question, but, airplanes are computerized, can they be programmed such-that they simply won't fly into buildings, cities, restricted airspace, etc..

I think that would set a dangerous precedent. Systems mess up in all kinds of strange ways. The human pilot needs the final say, especially in an emergency situation.

I think they were saying the autopilot only kick in if the pilots fail to acknowledge it.

So, you'll put locations of all things that plane is not supposed to fly into on the plane? Also you will program it to automatically fly around? #whatcouldpossiblygowrong?

Air plane auto-pilots keep the plane on a specified course; they don't do obstacle avoidance. Planes aren't even programmed to avoid mountains, let alone buildings.

No. Computers aren't magic in that way, and we leave those types of decisions up to pilot's for a reason.

With any advanced system, we use automation to decrease the complexity of a task by which to act as a throughput modifier by decreasing barrier to entry for safe pperatiom.

If you start throwing in computers which fight the operator at every step, you'll start seeing people (1) move away from the system, (2) subvert the system, (3) start trying to make a buck off of selling systems they claim will fix everything, while not really dealing with the issue.

Plus, computer vision just isn't there yet.you're talking about giving a machine the ability to integrate a whole lotus different streams of data and reliably making a decision to veto the pilot's instructions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com