Mercy! Mercy! That Dang Nabed PERCY!

Scenario 3

The pilot(s) provided an opportunity for the hijackers to gain entry into the cockpit or were complicit in the takeover.

As my readers might have noted there is a common theme to these scenarios. An unauthorized attempt is made to gain control of the aircraft and an autopilot device kicks in that makes it impossible for the perpetrators to carry out their hijacking intent. This technology was feasible well prior to 911. Along with measures, such as a reinforced cockpit door, it is highly likely that an uninterruptible autopilot was considered as well. In the first two scenarios the system described was something that would not have required much testing and development. However, unlike the upgraded flight cabin door these measures would have been quietly put in place. Recently Boeing applied for and was granted a patent for such a device. McDonald Douglas has also been working on this technology.

In the fist two scenarios are technologies that could have been easily fielded in the aircraft being built in the timeframe immediately following 911. In this scenario the possibility of a still remedial but more capable technology is offered. This is a sensor-activated lockout if certain parameters are met. I call it the “Bingo Card” or “Lotto” enhancement.

It would have been designed to cope with the next scenario. This differs from the first two in that a hijacker or rogue pilot is involved, however, there is no explosive breaching of the door or manual activation by the pilot to enable the uninterruptable autopilot.

In this scenario the hijackers waited for an opportunity when the cockpit door opened or the pilot was complicit. Perhaps it was the result of the pilot wanting to take a stretch, use the lavatory or perhaps get a drink from the flight attendant. The other was that the pilot was actively involved in the hijacking.

In case 1 the flight cabin door was opened by an unsuspecting pilot. At this point the cockpit was breached, and perhaps a “Flash-Bang” was tossed inside. The flight officers were overwhelmed and incompacitated.

In case 2 the pilot alone or in concert with the hijackers attempted to divert the plane in order to accomplish an act of air piracy. In either case the scenario begins with the aircraft responding as it would under ordinary circumstances.

At this point several things began to happen as actions took place that deviated from the expected flight plan. In a flight plan an aircraft takes off, climbs to a predetermined altitude and course, and operates according to preexisting flight protocols. If a hijacking or unauthorized changes take place, exceptions to the norm occure. This is what makes scenario 3 different from the previous two.

For example assume there are six parameters, none of which alone would activate the uninterruptable autopilot but which collectively would. It is based upon the concept that a hijacker or rogue pilot would make some predictable deviations from the original flight plan. These might include:

1. Shutting down the transponders
2. A major change in altitude
3. A major shift in course.
4. Loss of radar contact
5. Lack of response to radio inquiry.
6. Maybe even a significant weight change in the seat sensors.

Whatever these parameters might be, when they all align themselves the uninterruptable autopilot kicks in and control is wrested from the pilots. A message might be given telling those locked out how control of the aircraft could be restored. If there is no response the airliner is steered on a course away from metropolitan areas as discussed in Scenarios One and Two.