Fly-By-Wire Aircraft could be Die-By-Wire

brien23

brien23

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,496
Location
Oak Harbor
Display Name
Display name:
Brien
Today's modern fly-by-wire could be Die-by-wire, by a clever computer hack to make them drop out of the sky. Newest book released fact based thriller. Lots of people Technicians working on the jets and one could infect the computer programs that control the aircraft.
 
Cite the reference or personal opinion or personal experience?
 
darrell said:
Scary. Would be easier to sabotage traditional controls, though.
Click to expand...
I Guess we will never know till 5 or more drop out of the sky all at the same time same day and some group takes credit.:confused:
 
murphey said:
Cite the reference or personal opinion or personal experience?
Click to expand...
gI_79689_0495%20Lewis%20Perdue%20ecover%20DIE%20BY%20WIRE_5-2-200px.jpg
 
This would never happen and if you think it could I got some bad news for you...
 
There are ways to make an effectively hacker-proof computer. It's more expensive and requires building pretty much everything from scratch, but I would hope aviation is the one field where a company would go to the trouble and expense.
 
Having spent years in the aircraft and engine development business, the only realistic way to sabotage a flight control computer is to load bad navigation or approach data. If the PIC is paying attention, unlike the Asiana crew, that can be overridden easily.

Cheers
 
Oh boy.

Repeat after me.

Fiction is not reality. Even "fact based."

And real-time embedded systems with air-gap networks are substantially more difficult to "hack" than your typical Microsoft POS.
 
Last edited:
X3 Skier said:
Having spent years in the aircraft and engine development business, the only realistic way to sabotage a flight control computer is to load bad navigation or approach data. If the PIC is paying attention, unlike the Asiana crew, that can be overridden easily.
Click to expand...

If you were to somehow load bad nav data, the PIC, even if paying attention, may not notice. After all, they have no reason to suspect what the gadgets are telling them, so if the gadgets are telling them they're in the right place, how are they going to notice?

cowman said:
There are ways to make an effectively hacker-proof computer. It's more expensive and requires building pretty much everything from scratch, but I would hope aviation is the one field where a company would go to the trouble and expense.
Click to expand...

There are supposedly 8 Windows computers on the flight deck of an A380. I'm not sure your hopes are coming true...
 
Some hack attacks can be really sophisticated. Of note is the spoiled Iranian nuclear facility that the Israelis recently took credit for sabotaging. They very slightly changed the rpm of the centrifuge that spins the nuclear material during the refinement process. Took years to figure out what went wrong. Israelis denied it for a long time, until they couldn't anymore. I thought it was pretty damn brilliant myself.
 
We've had people die by wire and we've also had them die by hydraulics and plenty from pushrods and control cables and jack screws.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
If you were to somehow load bad nav data, the PIC, even if paying attention, may not notice. After all, they have no reason to suspect what the gadgets are telling them, so if the gadgets are telling them they're in the right place, how are they going to notice?



There are supposedly 8 Windows computers on the flight deck of an A380. I'm not sure your hopes are coming true...
Click to expand...

Because they are professionals and they have radios, flight plans, and windows.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
If you were to somehow load bad nav data, the PIC, even if paying attention, may not notice. After all, they have no reason to suspect what the gadgets are telling them, so if the gadgets are telling them they're in the right place, how are they going to notice?



There are supposedly 8 Windows computers on the flight deck of an A380. I'm not sure your hopes are coming true...
Click to expand...

It all depends... if it's a windows 8 system there for logging or general information purposes and not in any way connected to something like flight controls or navigation systems then that's not really a problem.
 
In the multiple wars for multiple countries the F16 has been involved with, I don't recall them ever dropping out of the sky.
 
Asiana 214 died by wire. Cause was determined to be a short circuit between the pilot's seat and the controls. :yes::D
 
The premise in the book is GPS hacking not the onboard computers. Which assumes the airplane is using GPS navigation and not INS.
 
DavidWhite said:
In the multiple wars for multiple countries the F16 has been involved with, I don't recall them ever dropping out of the sky.
Click to expand...

You may want to brush up on the development history of the F16 young lad.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
If you were to somehow load bad nav data, the PIC, even if paying attention, may not notice. After all, they have no reason to suspect what the gadgets are telling them, so if the gadgets are telling them they're in the right place, how are they going to notice?



There are supposedly 8 Windows computers on the flight deck of an A380. I'm not sure your hopes are coming true...
Click to expand...

Really ? How exactly are you going to hijack INS ?
 
brien23 said:
Today's modern fly-by-wire could be Die-by-wire, by a clever computer hack to make them drop out of the sky. Newest book released fact based thriller. Lots of people Technicians working on the jets and one could infect the computer programs that control the aircraft.
Click to expand...

"Facts based" Thriller????:rolleyes2:

Uh, go do a bit of study on how this actually works. :nonod:

Remember on Jan 1, 2000 all computer controlled devices were gonna stop working also and the world was going to plunge into chaos. :rofl:
 
cowman said:
It all depends... if it's a windows 8 system there for logging or general information purposes and not in any way connected to something like flight controls or navigation systems then that's not really a problem.
Click to expand...

Dunno what the heck they can do with 8 of 'em. :dunno:

Art VanDelay said:
Really ? How exactly are you going to hijack INS ?
Click to expand...

Who's still using INS instead of GPS?

RotorAndWing said:
Remember on Jan 1, 2000 all computer controlled devices were gonna stop working also and the world was going to plunge into chaos. :rofl:
Click to expand...

You clearly have no idea how many millions (actually, more likely billions) of man-hours were spent making sure that things were going to work on 1/1/2000. That problem kept a lot of people employed for a long time, and it was very real.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
You clearly have no idea how many millions (actually, more likely billions) of man-hours were spent making sure that things were going to work on 1/1/2000. That problem kept a lot of people employed for a long time, and it was very real.
Click to expand...

But it was fixed, wasn't it?

Cheers
 
RotorAndWing said:
Remember on Jan 1, 2000 all computer controlled devices were gonna stop working also and the world was going to plunge into chaos. :rofl:
Click to expand...

There was a lot of work done prior to that date to prevent that outcome. I was working for one of the companies that were being required by their customers to ensure Y2K readiness.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Who's still using INS instead of GPS?
Click to expand...

Have any idea how IRS works?

flyingcheesehead said:
You clearly have no idea how many millions (actually, more likely billions) of man-hours were spent making sure that things were going to work on 1/1/2000. That problem kept a lot of people employed for a long time, and it was very real.
Click to expand...

You clearly have no clue as to how FBW aircraft work and their associated systems. Do you think Airbus and Boeing haven't spent millions of man hours perfecting the systems and software of FBW? Do you actually think they have overlooked sabotage as a way of compromising the software and hardware? Do you actually believe that all work has stopped on FBW software and hardware and that no updates and refinements are happening?

Palmpilot said:
There was a lot of work done prior to that date to prevent that outcome. I was working for one of the companies that were being required by their customers to ensure Y2K readiness.
Click to expand...

See above. My comment was directed at this inane notion that Airbus and Boeing (and their subcontractors) haven't considered all aspects of FBW architecture and function.
 
Last edited:
RotorAndWing said:
You clearly have no clue as to how FBW aircraft work and their associated systems. Do you think Airbus and Boeing haven't spent millions of man hours perfecting the systems and software of FBW? Do you actually think they have overlooked sabotage as a way of compromising the software and hardware? Do you actually believe that all work has stopped on FBW software and hardware and that no updates and refinements are happening?
Click to expand...

I wish I could think that they're still working on this stuff. On the other hand, these are the same companies that decided they didn't need to bother encrypting the feeds from the drones, so now the bad guys know exactly what we're looking at. I'd think a government agency would employ people just going through the stuff over and over and trying to hack it and make it better, but my cynical side thinks that a for-profit corporation probably has their engineers working on the next thing, not the one that's already certified and out.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I wish I could think that they're still working on this stuff.
Click to expand...

So all of those continuing updates put out by Airbus and Boeing aren't real?


flyingcheesehead said:
On the other hand, these are the same companies that decided they didn't need to bother encrypting the feeds from the drones, so now the bad guys know exactly what we're looking at.
Click to expand...

So Boeing commercial airliners and Airbus are ground controlled aircraft? :rolleyes2:


flyingcheesehead said:
I'd think a government agency would employ people just going through the stuff over and over and trying to hack it and make it better, but my cynical side thinks that a for-profit corporation probably has their engineers working on the next thing, not the one that's already certified and out.
Click to expand...

And you were accusing me of "not having a clue"? :rolleyes2:

Please go find a source (reliable) that indicates that both Boeing and Airbus (and their associated suppliers) have stopped working and updating previously supplied aircraft and systems.

As far as Airbus (my current aircraft) we are always receiving notices of software updates or system updates on our fleet. I hardly think the engineers have moved on "to the next thing" and have abandoned the current systems in the fleet.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I'd think a government agency would employ people just going through the stuff over and over and trying to hack it and make it better, but my cynical side thinks that a for-profit corporation probably has their engineers working on the next thing, not the one that's already certified and out.
Click to expand...

Like Obamacare (government agency) vs the continuous validation and verification process and updates to flight controls in every aircraft I have ever worked on, civilian and military (for profit corporation)?

I think you have it backwards. ;)

Cheers
 
RotorAndWing said:
So all of those continuing updates put out by Airbus and Boeing aren't real?
Click to expand...

I'm glad to hear they're actually doing it.

So Boeing commercial airliners and Airbus are ground controlled aircraft? :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

Think for a second what the point of me saying that was - Simply that something that seems like a blatantly obvious thing that should be done, was not done, by some of the same companies involved here.

And you were accusing me of "not having a clue"? :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

Actually, you accused me of not having a clue. I did no such thing.

As far as Airbus (my current aircraft) we are always receiving notices of software updates or system updates on our fleet. I hardly think the engineers have moved on "to the next thing" and have abandoned the current systems in the fleet.
Click to expand...

Again, glad to hear it. Maybe my cynicism was misplaced.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I wish I could think that they're still working on this stuff. On the other hand, these are the same companies that decided they didn't need to bother encrypting the feeds from the drones, so now the bad guys know exactly what we're looking at. I'd think a government agency would employ people just going through the stuff over and over and trying to hack it and make it better, but my cynical side thinks that a for-profit corporation probably has their engineers working on the next thing, not the one that's already certified and out.
Click to expand...

The goal is to meet contract requirements (and sometimes certification requirements). Unfortunately the goals are not the same. I've seen things that as a taxpayer made me sick.

Case in point (details altered for confidentiality): Govt spec'd out a system and awarded a contract to a company who then went out of business. Govt forgot about the system, Company was purchased and new company was ready to deliver and collect remaining funds (no time limit). System as delivered was out of date and not needed, but govt paid anyway. My assigned task was to present a paper of all the technical reasons and risk of deploying the out of date system. We took bets on how long it would take to pwn the system
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top