An Idiot's Guide to Hacking Aircraft

[TomDangeroux 4]

Hello fellow forum members. You don’t know me very well but I have hung around here for quite some time.

Now we’ve read some posts recently regarding computer boffins claiming they have hacked into aircraft.

Now some of you, like me, first thought that this was a ridiculous claim. Hacking into a plane? You would have to be in the air for hours typing away at your laptop to achieve anything. Sure, it’s an interesting idea but really, it ain’t gonna happen. If you’re interested in how this came about, feel free to read on.

OK, your still with me, cool. All we have is one hacker and his colleague. They set about seeing what they could hack in their spare time. No resources to speak off, just shear grit and determination. Some years ago they got into hacking cars. This proved to be a trivial matter, disabling ABS and braking systems. They even locked an accelerator open in testing to see if it could be done. Now this was all ‘proof of concept’, they never hurt anyone and just wanted to see what was possible. They then turned their attention to public transport. They set up a demo at a hacker conference were the delegates were to be driven home by a fleet of busses. They remotely locked all the brakes on the busses and took the applause of their fellow hackers as the vehicles where quickly going nowhere. Very smart people indeed.

Now this may sound a bit random but their next target was a missile system. Namely the Patriot missile system. They employed what they refer to as “Google Fu.” They scoured the web and were able to procure the schematics for the missiles guidance system. What!!! you may ask. Well it seems that the people who make the Patriot missile system don’t make it, they just assemble it. They procure, through contractors, parts that are assembled to produce a Patriot missile. Now these contractors are very proud that they have been hired to make components for such a highly sophisticated weapons system and brag about it all over there corporate web sites. Ask them nicely and they will give you the full schematics of how their components work. Further to that, you can go to the Patent Office and get all the gritty details. Once the hackers had that information they were still non the wiser as to what code ran in the guidance systems chips. Thankfully the coder of the system provided that information via his graduate thesis that was available on line. The missing parts where put together from his Linked In page, were he described in detail the coding language he had specially developed. Now the hackers knew intimately the guidance system of a Patriot missile system. They however knew that hacking it would be a different matter, the attack vector. Patriot missiles tend to be heavily guarded. Big burly blokes and girls patrol them with guns. But they knew if they could get near one they could hack it in such a way that if the missile was launched, it would turn right back and destroy the very launch site it was delivered from.

So they were quite happy chaps when they stumbled upon the fact that the same contractor that made the guidance system for the Patriot missile also made the chips for the navigation system of the 787. They again engaged their ‘Google Fu’ and Boeing quite happily provided a schematic of what parts of the a/c where made by whom. They then contacted the contractors saying that they wanted to develop inflight systems that were compatible with their current 787 technology. The sales rep was only too happy to comply. They not only acquired the coding manuals for the system but an actual physical piece of kit. The hackers where now able to run the software connected to the physical system architecture and run proof of concept code from the safety of their own lab with a couple of laptops. They wrote their own software that would ‘talk’ to the systems and allow them access.

Now armed with this knowledge and, they admit, they hacked into an FTP server of another contractor, were able to gain information about the control system that was the hub of the entire computer network of the aircraft. Critical to this was the knowledge that the hub was non bootable in flight, the system could only be reset on the ground and once they had access to this, the pilots would be effectively ‘locked out’.

So here these guys are, they have the entire code book and are learning the language. They have the actual physical systems on their desk and can talk to it via a Windows laptop. They knew they where in. Using their own software that they had coded, they could compromise the cabin pressure system, they could control the engines and shut them off, they could even control the flaps and other flight control systems. They looked at the infrastructure of the network. The hackers realised that the autopilot was vulnerable. The pilot could disengage the autopilot if they thought something was amiss, but the hackers knew that some of the data networks were digital and some where analog. If the pilot thought he had a problem and disengaged the autopilot the hackers could flood the analog channel with what amounts to a DDoS attack, the auto pilot disconnect was connected to the analog channel and that meant they could effectively lock him out, the hackers would have complete control.

These guys could now down an a/c if they could gain access to its systems. They were looking for the attack vector. At the time they had a close look at the aircrafts network infrastructure and deemed it too hard to hack. They then turned their hands to an attack vector on the ground. When you buy an a/c from Boeing or Airbus you don’t just get a shiny new plane, you get the support infrastructure that comes with it. They were interested in the trolly that has a whole load of electronics on it and it’s all controlled by a Windows laptop. The guys knew that trying to get one would raise eyebrows in the US so they set their sights abroad. It proved to be trivial to procure such a laptop from overseas, and now they we’re able to plug this into their system in the lab. They could now, at their leisure, write code that would totally screw a flight management system of a modern Boeing or Airbus aircraft.

They envisaged scenarios where they could bribe or impersonate an airport maintenance guy and all they needed to do was plug their laptop into the plane to compromise it’s systems and cause devastation.

A point the hackers emphasised was that they where just a couple of guys hacking in their spare time with no financial backing or support. Imagine what a Nation State could achieve with finances, highly trained staff and time.

This was two years ago. The same hackers now claim they have compromised the network so they can access the aircrafts flight control systems from the passenger cabin. No wonder the guy was arrested when the Delta flight landed after his badly judged Tweet. He is about to announce at DEFCON 2015 just what he has been up to in the last couple of years. I wait with bated breath.

Sorry about the length of this post, trust me, I could have added much more detail, I edited it as much as I could. The source material for this turned into an acronym soup with information that was well above my head. I have tried to condense it down the best I could. I hope some of our members have gained an insight into how hackers go about their business and don’t have nightmares

[MartinW 0]

Tom... in regard to this subject matter, that's the most fascinating post I have ever read! And very well written too!

Can I assume, that when some of us on the forum claim that yes, hacking into an aircrafts systems for nefarious purposes is technically possible but extremely unlikely, that we are mistaken.

It seems to me, that it's most certainly feasible NOW, not necessarily in years to come as systems become more complex and integrated.

Seems it's not just planes now Tom, trains too...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32402481

 

A hi-tech signalling system that will eventually control all of Britain's trains could potentially be hacked to cause a serious crash, according to a scientist who advises the government.

 

 

[MyPC8MyBrain 273]

a nicely written plot

but the conclusion is completely obscured; and it is the - IF

IF i could have someone plug my PC behind a banks firewall, i could...

 

[TomDangeroux 4]

Thank you guys for your kind replies.

Just to clarify a few points.

@MartinW.

When asked if what they have done is hard, they answered yes, extremely difficult. But they pointed out that just a couple of guys working in their spare time could now hack the a/c. The hard work is done, and until measures are put in place to lock down the system the attack works. This won’t be anything little Johnny can manage with his iPad in the cabin, it takes considerable knowledge and expertise, but the ground attack vector has been demonstrated. If these guys can do it, many others could too, especially someone with time and money and, if your a Nation State, you have the actual plane to play with too.

While working with law enforcement, they claim to have demonstrated the ground hack at Detroit Airport on both Boeing and Airbus models of aircraft. It was a matter of gaining access to the avionics bay and inserting there code into the system using a laptop. The code would take it from there, being triggered via the planes altitude. Not a trivial hack, to gain so much access to an aircraft would be tricky but far from impossible.

In your link Prof Stupples said, "The weakness is getting malware into the system by employees. Either because they are dissatisfied or being bribed or coerced.”

This is the very same attack vector the hackers of the a/c have envisaged.

Did you know that in Poland in 2008 a fourteen-year-old boy in Lódz caused several trams to derail when he used the infrared port of a modified TV remote control to hack the railway’s signalling system and switch the tram tracks. Four trams derailed and twelve people were injured.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1575293/Schoolboy-hacks-into-citys-tram-system.html

http://inhomelandsecurity.com/teen_hacker_in_poland_plays_tr/

@MyPC8MyBrain.

Your right, but it is only obscured in relation to access from the cabin. The ground attack works. The hackers are hinting that they have had success with the cabin attack vector now, but I totally agree with you, we need more information.

[MyPC8MyBrain 273]

to be honest it all sounds made up; it’s too far fetch from the truth imo,
they claim to be a small unfounded group; yet they have access to high end equipment to test against / and with?

ok, let’s assume the situation exists; testing in lab conditions directly connected to the gear is not a fair condition
these system are designed to control the aircraft; the fact that you can manipulate few packets with direct access is not something new!
this is why firewalls and security measures are put in place; so people with interest will not be able to manipulate the data transferred,

so their testing isn’t even close to being a threat in any way, their starting point isn’t even close to reality
testing while ignoring existing protection layers has no standing grounds in my eyes

[ddavid 149]

I worked on microprocessor systems in the early '70's - yeah, I know, a long time ago! Back then, you were memory bound, not only because of the 16-bit bus (I didn't use Motorola chips) but RAM, EPROM's, etc were expensive. Operating systems - yes, we wrote O.S.'s - were very simple and we understood how they worked. Prototype hardware was built from the chips up - a tedious and error prone activity as you can imagine.

By the late '70's, Intel had introduced prototyping boards, so you didn't have to build from scratch. The i8086 came along and then the i8xx86 family, which IBM used for the first P.C. around 1981. Bill Gates thought Xerox's GUI looked good and Microsoft was born.

So what am I rambling on about? By this time, most control equipment developers were rushing into micro-based systems and nearly all used Intel's development boards for their prototypes. Some, but not many, did as we had done 10 years earlier and developed their own control system's O.S., but the majority used the O.S. supplied by Intel. As you know, Intel and IBM moved towards Microsoft O.S.'s because of their popularity - thus most microprocessor control systems have O.S.'s based on Microsoft's.

As a result, the expertise in respect of how the O.S. works lies largely outside the hands of control systems designers. Would any of us on this forum claim to have an adequate understanding of the O.S. in our P?C.? We all 'trust' the O.S. not to over-write our files, but accept the odd BSoD, don't we? I've got a funny feeling that the control systems designers of all those individual 'circuits' in aircraft have a similar view. I doubt very much if they have any real idea how their embedded O.S. actually works.

Yep, we can install firewalls, but will they operate 100% securely? Unless you know the O.S. intimately, you'll not know.

Just my sixpenn'rth...

Cheers - Dai.

[brett 2,300]

We live in a world where, given enough time and resources, anything is possible if you work hard enough at it.

[TomDangeroux 4]

I may have inadvertently given the impression that the hackers were some spotty 'script kiddies' messing around in their bedroom or someone like David in War Games

When they are in fact highly respected Cybersecurity and Threat Intelligence analysts who hack for a living, testing government and corporate IT infrastructure for weaknesses.

A few days ago the FBI’s InfraGard web site issued new advise to airline staff.

--Report any suspicious activity involving travellers connecting unknown cables or wires to the IFE system or unusual parts of the airplane seat.

--Report any evidence of suspicious behaviour following a flight, such as IFE systems that show evidence of tampering or the forced removal of covers to network connection ports.

--Report any evidence of suspicious behaviour concerning aviation wireless signals, including social media messages with threatening references to Onboard Network Systems, ADS-B, ACARS, and Air Traffic Control networks.

--Review network logs from aircraft to ensure any suspicious activity, such as network scanning or intrusion attempts, is captured for further analysis.

It would seem some one is taking this VERY seriously.

The lead hacker gave a very informative talk this week at the RSA Conference in San Fransisco. If you have an interest in how these guys go about their business, here is a link to his slide show.

They hacked into a Hydro Electric power plant in the Pacific Northwest via some guys Smart Oven!

https://www.rsaconference.com/writable/presentations/file_upload/ht-r04-security-hopscotch_final.pdf

These guys are scary wizards and I also like their song;

99 little bugs in the code,

99 little bugs,

Take one down, patch it around,

127 little bugs in the code

[MyPC8MyBrain 273]

I definitely got the impression that these are scrip kiddies who are able to get their hands on classified information and expensive equipment to test on,

You have to remember that guys like Chris and such; are very few; they are well known individuals; as I mentioned before these are the “white hats” gents who help protect;

through their experience which is very different then a normal person they possess a very different set of skills and access to classified project that normal most will never be exposed to

Even when they conduct their testing; 9 out of 10 times will likely be directly interfacing with the application or device

What he is alerting about in his article is very different; he is speaking in general terms of data protection

The growth in recent years was so vast; that predicting the next 10 years and speculating some outcomes isn’t too far fetched

In today’s reality not many are aware or conscious to data protection and privacy; if this increases and subsequently the ignorance with it; that is the big risk!

Placing new protocols in place is not something new; I’m very glad to find out that someone is taking this matter seriously

These are the measures that will prevent future attacks from taking place

people like Chris will never ever for no amount in this world stray or agree to back such a cause

[TomDangeroux 4]

Thanks for your post Dai, very interesting information.

PC8MyBrain. The very point Chris and his team are making is that they didn't have any special privileges to information. They only had access to the same information any other hacker would have.

The way they procured the hardware was not through an agency giving them access, but by social engineering skills and vendors who were only too willing to sell them pieces of kit. You are right in saying that protecting data is a real problem and he and his team are highlighting this issue.

[allardjd 1,853]

I may have inadvertently given the impression that the hackers were some spotty 'script kiddies' messing around in their bedroom or someone like David in War Games.

 

Yeah, you kind of did that...

 

All we have is one hacker and his colleague. 

 .

 .

 .

They set about seeing what they could hack in their spare time. 

 .

 .

 .

No resources to speak off, just shear grit and determination.

 .

 .

 .

A point the hackers emphasised was that they where just a couple of guys hacking in their spare time with no financial backing or support.

 

The "No resources to speak off..." and "...no financial backing or support." doesn't sound accurate if they could...

 

"...contacted the contractors saying that they wanted to develop inflight systems that were compatible with their current 787 technology. The sales rep was only too happy to comply. They not only acquired the coding manuals for the system but an actual physical piece of kit."

 

"The hackers where now able to run the software connected to the physical system architecture and run proof of concept code from the safety of their own lab with a couple of laptops."

 

"It proved to be trivial to procure such a laptop from overseas, and now they we’re able to plug this into their system in the lab."

 

Without a corporate address and ID, just operating as individuals?  It sounds to me as if they did have some significant resources, not least a lab, a corporate identity to give credence to their acquisition of hardware, and some one paying the bills for the goodies and their salaries while they played.   

 

It all sounds more like two guys who have dedicated some serious time, effort and resources to this as a full-time project over months, at least, with the support of whoever was paying for all of it, and paying them to play.  

 

None of that is beyond the reach of determined "black hatters", government sponsored or otherwise, but it sure sounds like a bit more than two guys in their spare time. 

 

Technical question:

 

...hackers could flood the analog channel with what amounts to a DDoS attack,...

 

Can one guy in the cabin with a laptop connected through the IFE really generate enough traffic to emulate a DDoS attack?  I'm not an expert on these things but that seems like a stretch.

 

You've more than convinced me that there is an immediate and plausible threat, but the description gives the impression of having been a determined, subsidized project, not a spare-time lark by a couple of bright guys who had a little idle time on their hands.

 

John

[TomDangeroux 4]

I kind of did that, didn’t I

I’m glad that I have more than convinced you that there is an immediate and plausible threat. I’m sure they hoped the airline industry would have the same view and do something about it, not tell them to go away.

I understand the confusion, but this was the very point the hackers were attempting to emphasise. Yes, they have considerable knowledge and experience. They possess skills that to us seem fantastical. But they are not unique in this regard. Many ‘black hatters’ also possess such skills, be them private individuals, organised crime, terrorist groups or nation states.

They did do all their research in there spare time. They said it was a weekend project that started around 2011. The targets were not clients of their company, and their mission was to endeavour to find out how secure aircraft actually are only using publicly available information, clever social engineering skills and dedication. They never once flashed their corporate ID badges to gain a foothold into an organisation, but let’s think about that for a second, if that’s what it takes for a ‘black hat’, to impersonate someone with credibility, then that’s an interesting attack vector wouldn’t you agree? Also, telling a vendor, ‘Hi, where from so and so cyber security can we talk about your product?’ They would have clammed up in a second.

Don’t envisage their computer lab to be some highly sophisticated space full of nerds in white coats, buzzing around like there on the set of CSI Cyber or NCIS LA, it’s a work bench with some bits of kit and some computers on it. And white boards, lots and lots of white boards.

As far as financial resources, no. They didn’t apply the full might of their VISA card or their corporations credit limit to the task. This would have defeated the entire premise of what they wanted to set out to prove. That what they did wasn’t special to them. They blagged, borrowed and bought equipment on the open market. The maintenance laptops where procured second hand and cost in the region of $1000. They found that third party vendors where only too proud to speak with complete strangers about the equipment they provide for Boeing. Terrible information leakage.

As for the DDos attack. Remember, they are not packet flooding a T1 line to Level 5 and trying to knock a site off the web. They are attacking an analogue switch on the flight deck. The data throughput is small in comparison.

They said that when the pilots realised something may be wrong and the a/c was carrying out unexpected commands, the pilots could switch the autopilot off. The hackers could turn it back on again. They realised if they sent the ‘on’ command at a sufficient rate, the pilot would no longer be able to turn it off.

Intelligent people I grant you. I’m glad their on our side. But a project supported with loads of cash, a subsidised project with the backing of a company and the leverage that may bring. No way. They used brains, social engineering, played on peoples hubris and utilised the magical art of Google Fu. To do anything else would have defeated the entire reason for the project in the first place.

[MyPC8MyBrain 273]

Technical question:

 

...hackers could flood the analog channel with what amounts to a DDoS attack,...

Can one guy in the cabin with a laptop connected through the IFE really generate enough traffic to emulate a DDoS attack?

the answer is definitively - NO

one will need to swarm with as many stations possible transmitting simultaneously while all are aiming toward a single target;

using a simple water reservoir analogy; you cannot flood a container if the same volume coming in and out at the same time;

there will be no flood or saturation in this case

[MyPC8MyBrain 273]

clever social engineering skills and dedication. They never once flashed their corporate ID badges to gain a foothold into an organisation, but let’s think about that for a second, if that’s what it takes for a ‘black hat’, to impersonate someone with credibility, then that’s an interesting attack vector wouldn’t you agree? Also, telling a vendor, ‘Hi, where from so and so cyber security can we talk about your product?’ They would have clammed up in a second.

lol, you obviously are being feed information; i can speak from firsthand experience!

a real social engineering involves some very basic techniques alongside the very high end intelligence one must possess,

scavenging through garbage and little nuances in one’s life will give you allot of information about the individual; his habits; his mannerisms; and very likely at the end of the trail; his password!

It’s not glamorous as some might think; but it does the job very well

[TomDangeroux 4]

@PC8MyBrain.

They used clever social engineering skill and very possibly ‘ghetto tool’ techniques too. I fail to understand the need for the Lol or the statement that i’m being forced fed information.

As for the DDos scenario. You appear to be talking from a position of a Wi-Fi attack. They never mentioned Wi-Fi and neither did I, that came from press reports. He claims he can gain direct access to the flight systems and programmed his ‘crate’ software package to repeatedly call for the auto pilot to be engaged locking the pilots out of the loop. They denied the service of the auto pilot to the pilots. The scenario would be better described as a Dos attack. The technical method they utilised is only known to them. I don’t know it and i’m pretty sure you don’t either. To infer they utilised a packet flood via Wi-Fi is an assumption you are making, not them.

[MyPC8MyBrain 273]

i am a system information architect with a very high security orientation; I work strictly with fortune 100-500 companies,
this is my neck of the woods; it is amusing to me to hear some of the conjectures made; nothing personal,

I’ve never mentioned Wi-Fi in my statement above, a ddos is a simple concept; not many are aware of the technicalities behind it
i used the reservoir analogy to try an explain in a simple way why it is not possible with a single passenger flooding;

or for argument sake; every passenger on the plane are flooding all at ones; it is still not enough on a local network to cause ddos (Denial Of Service!)
let alone IDP or IDS that should be mandatory in such architectures before any FW leg; who’d have kicked in long before anything could happen

ddos attacks initiated from a local network are very simple to block and isolate
ddos are only effective when the swarm cannot be controlled!
hence the whole ddos attack theory is completely un based under normal conditions initiated from a local subnet!

 

attacking a switch directly suggests TCP layer 2 attack with direct access;

which means you’ve already bypassed many security elements you shouldn’t been able to bypass unnoticed in the first place!

[TomDangeroux 4]

Oh boy

"They said that when the pilots realised something may be wrong and the a/c was carrying out unexpected commands, the pilots could switch the autopilot off. The hackers could turn it back on again. They realised if they sent the ‘on’ command at a sufficient rate, the pilot would no longer be able to turn it off."

They described the principle as a denial of service attack. I doubt very much it bears any resemblance to the standard Dos attacks that bring down web sites. I'm sure they were using an analogy.

We don’t know what that form of attack took. It may bear no resemblance to the type of packet flood attack you are referring too. It is initiated by the payload they insert into the network, the avionics network. They imply that once in safeguards are limited. I know nothing more than this.

I don’t understand your need to shoot the messenger. I hoped this could be a fun and light hearted discussion about aircraft security and not spiral into a technical nitty gritty discussion as to who is an ‘Information architect with a very high security orientation” or not. I’m sure your very knowledgeable in your field but I also get the impression your not very knowledgeable in theirs.

Next time, if I post a thread again, remind me to have it proof read by my team of editors and technical consultants

[MyPC8MyBrain 273]

please don’t take me the wrong way Tom, this is a light weight discussion for me

by no means this is spiraling to childish arguments; i am not shooting the messenger

the messenger insists on the article being accurate; and i appose his statement; it’s simple as that,

When you’re naming a thread “An Idiot's Guide to Hacking Aircraft” you’re suggesting it is something any regular guy can just deploy at will!

i am simply sharing (what I’m in liberty to) some of the information from my prospective

just as you are looking up to the acclaimed article authors skills and experience;

the limited exposed skills set i choose to share shouldn’t be perceived as an ago statement; rather to provide credibility to my apposing statements!

If you want to call a spade a spade;

then imo the more I read into this I more i am convinced

these guys simply trying to manipulate the conference to gain some attention and possibly make a name for themselves through this,

[TomDangeroux 4]

No worries Chris. Seriously, it’s only a silly thread

Please don’t infer that I grasp what these guys are capable of, I just find this type of subject matter fascinating, and when it applies to aviation it checks all my boxes.

I don’t know if these guys can do what they claim. I just hope they are in dialog with people in authority. They will determine what measures must be taken.

I understand if you’re cynical as to their motives. I don’t know either way. But I do find the FBI’s response to all this rather suggestive. But don’t quote me on that

[allardjd 1,853]

"They said that when the pilots realised something may be wrong and the a/c was carrying out unexpected commands, the pilots could switch the autopilot off. The hackers could turn it back on again. They realised if they sent the ‘on’ command at a sufficient rate, the pilot would no longer be able to turn it off."

 

 

Couldn't the pilots pull the autopilot circuit breakers?  Assuming, of course, they aren't Asiana - I guess they can't fly without autopilots.

 

John

[MyPC8MyBrain 273]

I’m glad we're on the same frequency Tom,

the same fascination that drives your interest; been driving ny professional thirst for 20+ years now; with side dish of OCD

security aspect of information systems is a crucial part in my work; focusing on all layers from an architectural prospective is a second nature for me;

If I told you that I used to be the security principle for third largest (at the time) pharmaceutical in the world; will probably put some of what I said in prospective

[MartinW 0]

 

"They said that when the pilots realised something may be wrong and the a/c was carrying out unexpected commands, the pilots could switch the autopilot off. The hackers could turn it back on again. They realised if they sent the ‘on’ command at a sufficient rate, the pilot would no longer be able to turn it off."

 

 

Couldn't the pilots pull the autopilot circuit breakers?  Assuming, of course, they aren't Asiana - I guess they can't fly without autopilots.

 

John

 

 

Shortly after take-off? 10 feet, 25 feet... doubt they'd have time to react. There are lots of critical points in the flight where interference would be disastrous.

 

Ordinarily, in most airliners the rule is no autopilot until 50 feet. I could envisage a scenario where just after take-off, a few feet, the nasty hackers activate the autopilot and command a disastrous manoeuvre. Given that the cockpit is a busy place at such times, and given that it would take time for even the most experienced pilot to process what was happening, and given that the pilots would no doubt try deactivating the autopilot first... calamity ensues.

 

 

[allardjd 1,853]

I think most airliners give the pilot the capability to physically over-power the autopilot, though control forces required to do that are probably quite high.  Not sure of that, but I seem to recall that's the case.  If the miscreants are also messing with  engines, flaps, slats, spoilers, and systems stuff, the autopilot may well be the least of their worries.

 

Ordinarily, in most airliners the rule is no autopilot until 50 feet.

 

 

Are you sure about the 50' ?  I thought that was more like 500'.  That sounds pretty low for that.

 

In fact, there’s a limitation on the 757 and 767 that doesn’t allow the autopilot to be used below 1000 feet, after takeoff. 

 

 

 

http://gadling.com/2008/05/02/plane-answers-when-do-pilots-use-the-autopilot/

 

John

[TomDangeroux 4]

The point your making is very relevant MartinW.

Let’s not get bogged down with minutia allardjd. This thread should not be about correcting every single little mistake, it’s the general picture that should be relevant. 50, 100, 1000 ft, it’s not all that important surely. The premise is correct.

We are indeed on the same frequency Chris. I’m like you but minus 20 years

Just to clarify, I don’t work for Sony

[MartinW 0]

I think most airliners give the pilot the capability to physically over-power the autopilot, though control forces required to do that are probably quite high. Not sure of that, but I seem to recall that's the case. If the miscreants are also messing with engines, flaps, slats, spoilers, and systems stuff, the autopilot may well be the least of their worries.

 

Yes that's true. Significant movement of the yoke does deactivate the autopilot. Not sure how that system would be impacted by hackers sending a repetitive "on" command at the critical rate.

 

Are you sure about the 50' ? I thought that was more like 500'. That sounds pretty low for that.

 

 

 

Usually 50 lowest for modern airliners. Boeing specify 50 lowest for single autopilot.  Depends on the airline SOP's though, company may specify higher.   ATR is 100 feet. 747-400 250 I recall.

 

In regard to the bus, AP can be engaged at just 30 feet if the speed reference system is available. But as I say, company may specify higher in the SOP's.

 

757, 767 are getting on a bit now.