SUBSTITUTE SPECIFICATION
SYSTEM FOR PREVENTION OF SKYJACKING
Field of the Invention
The
present invention relates to a new device and system for thwarting skyjacking.
Description of the prior art
The
suicide terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon with huge
civil airliners astonished and infuriated the world. “Are we safe? ” is a question raised by the people of Hong
Kong as well as the USA, whose enormous economic loss is shadowed by inner
grief.
Sorrow
and anger are condensed into the words “Punish the terrorists!” “Prevent hijacking!” is a paramount
task of governments in the future!
Sorrow and anger inspire the American people to tide over difficulties
with the government! Although
airports have resumed service, stricter check-in procedures make people even
more anxiety-ridden. “Are we
safe?” is a persistent question.
The Empire State Building, overwhelmingly magnificent and believed to be
the tallest in New York now, is likely to be deserted by salary earners. Skyscrapers are now, expectedly and
painfully, choking the life of the economy…
At
the US stock exchange, the shares of the insurance companies involved fell into
disfavor. It is expected that
skyscraper syndrome will also entangle real estate shares. Arrows shot from the dark are beyond
our capability to escape from. Who
is dominating the world now? The
current terrorists crisis tests the intelligence of US leaders, not America’s
military power. It is a common goal,
not just President Bush’s desire, to spot the harbor of terrorists and get even
with them. Airports are now under
stricter control, but is there anybody who can guarantee our safety and
reassure us? How can
anxiety-ridden people push the economy forward? US President Bush has a bucket of sticky problems to tackle!
How
the New York Stock Exchange behaved is a measure of the extent to which the
world has been affected by the disaster of the century. What is essential is how to convince
people that such a disaster will not occur again. People expect President Bush to come out to assure them.
The
strict and unpleasant check-in procedures at airports are expected to ease
after plans for preventing hijacking are implemented. The pain is temporary because the civilized world is
powerful in our production and technological capabilities. The disaster will never happen
again! The people of the United
States and around the world will no longer live in the shadow of
terrorism! May the victims of the
disaster rest in peace. We’ll let
terrorists know that human civilization is not to be trespassed upon!
The
world is waiting. And it is
strongly believed that effective plans for preventing hijacking by improving
the structure of the airplanes and setting up corresponding procedures can be
devised. It is reported that
people working in the Empire State Building feel quite upset because of their
being “outstanding”. Acrophobia is
spreading! Without plans to end
hijacking, the shares of airlines, insurance, real estate and tourism will fall
into disfavor. Fear will lead to
economic turbulence and downturn.
We expect President Bush to come out with strong measures and assure
people that all evils will be conquered!
The unprecedented disaster heralds the beginning of a life-and-death struggle between the evil and the civilized community. With a sense of mission, the inventor faxed a creative hijacking prevention device and system proposal, as well as the above considerations, to Mr. Liu of the USA Embassy in Hong Kong on September 19, 2001, who forwarded them to the White House and President Bush.
At
four o’clock on September 26, 2001, Mr. Liu told the inventor over the phone:
“I would like to thank you on behalf of the government of the USA...” On
September 27, 2001, President Bush aired three safety measures for civil
aviation. It is anticipated that
Mr. Bush will take resolute actions to implement these measures and launch a
campaign to conquer the evil! It
is gratifying to note that President Bush’s three safety measures for civil
aviation are similar to ones that were proposed by the inventor.
On
October 22, 2001, the Patent Bureau of China finished an international patent
inspection report concerning an application for a patent on “Measures on the
Prevention of Hijacking of Civil Airliners”. This report lists six references for gauging the originality
that a patentable technique should have.
It is these six references that set off not only the originality of this
patent application, but also its flawlessness!
The reference numbers of the six references in the Inspection Report
are listed below:
|
|
Relativity |
Country |
Reference No. |
Requests for rights |
International patent No. |
|
1 |
1 |
CN |
A,85100918,
B64CA/14 |
1-3 |
B64 |
|
2 |
Y |
CN |
A,1126686,
B64D25/00 |
1-2 |
B64 |
|
3 |
Y |
CN |
A,1038434,
B64D25/00 |
1-2 |
B64 |
|
4 |
Y |
US |
A,3704845,
B64C1/10 |
1-2 |
B64 |
|
5 |
Y |
JP |
A,9-036791,
H04B7/15 |
3 |
B64 |
|
6 |
Y |
JP |
A,9-020297,
B64D47/00 |
3 |
B64 |
1. Patent No.
CN85100918a
Patent owner: Mr. Yi Ming and Mr. Shen Xinhua of Mashan Surveying and Mapping Team, Jinxian County, Jiangxi Province.
Patent name: Airliners with Anti-Hijacking Function Dec. 20, 1985
The following three major technical
features of this invention are:
1. Walls and doors with
new functions: using new materials to make the walls and doors capable of
sustaining heavy impacts and gunfire.
2. Two different types
of “safety cockpit” designed to prevent hijackers from entering the cockpit,
thus ensuring normal flight of the airliner.
3. An alarm device
designed to keep people informed whether safety door of the cockpit is open or
closed.
The first technical feature is designed in
light of the following:
(1) Using
bulletproof high-performance materials to make isolating boards.
(2) Double-bar-shaped,
spear-shaped and blade-shaped screws designed to fix the isolating boards and
prevent hijacking.
(3) An external
framework with “metal blades” designed to fix the isolating boards and prevent
hijacking. Aluminum alloy
materials are shaped like knives or saw-teeth, giving the “metal blades” extra
power.
The second technical feature is designed in
light of the following
(1) Safety
isolating walls with no doors and permanent safety cockpit.
(2) A transit
room and impermanent safety cockpit.
(3) Transit
room temperature including how to enter the cabin from the cockpit and vice
versa.
The third technical feature is designed in
light of the following:
(1) An alarm
device used to keep the crew informed whether the doors of the cockpit and
cabin are open or closed. The
alarm device may consist of an indicator, flashlight and buzzer.
(2) Spring
switches designed to connect or disconnect some circuits according as whether
the safety bolts are plugged or unplugged.
(3) Synchronized
switches designed to make the alarm device automatically operate when the
airliner is started.
2. Patent CN
1126686A
Patent owner: Mr. Wang Honghua, Shangyuetang Construction Section, Zhuzhou City, Hunan Province, 412000
The application of Mr. Wang Honghua is
basically the same as No. 88103336.7 patent CN 1038434A of Mr. Zhang Hua and
Mr. Zhou Guangyuan of Beijing.
This invention adopts an automatic monitor to transfer messages, but it
is installed only in the airliner.
The inventor treats the airliner full of passengers as a battlefront.
1. The
inventor proposes to install the alarm device in the cockpit, but fails to
explain how the alarm device identifies hijackers.
2. He
points out that a “digit-key alarm device” is now available in China, explains
how the alarm device can exactly count the hijackers, how may cameras are
needed to cover every corner of the airliner, how to identify overlapped
images, and how to spot disguised hijackers. The 0-9 keys are intended to notify the control (operation)
room by pressing 6 or 7 when 6 or
7 hijackers are counted. Then what
about 11 hijackers? The story is
not convincing first because of the irrational design of the alarm device!
3. The
inventor proposes to equip the plane with auto-aim guns that are synchronous
with the small video cameras, transferring messages to the control room. His invention does not ensure the
safety of the hostages. The
auto-aim technique is rather complicated.
The “anti-hijacking” function claimed by the inventor will fail if the
hijackers hold just one hostage or makes a smoke screen.
3. Application
88103336.7 CN 1126686A
Patent owner: Mr. Zhang Hua
Address: No. 8, Bldg. 2, behind Yong An Dong Li Primary School, Jian
Guo Men Wai, Chaoyang District.
Patent name: Anti-Hijacking Device Installed on
the Aircraft
January
3, 1990
A TV monitor, striker, gun barrel and gun
head on the operation desk designed by the Beijing inventor can’t prevent
hijacking. They are just
mechanical or shooting devices, which can do nothing when terrorists hold any
hostage. Patent 88103336.7 CN
1126686A is by no means the same as the present inventor’s hijacking-prevention
solution.
4. Application
US A,3704845, B64C 1/10
Patent owner: Michael Ord, 5267 Wilkins Avenue, Pittsburgh,
Pa.
Dec.
5, 1972
Patent name: AIRPLANE HIJACKING PREVENTION
SYSTEM
A method and system for
preventing airplane hijacking features the following:
1. The cockpit is
isolated from the cabin to give passengers a sense of safety, but communication
must be ensured. The buttons fixed
in the cabin keep the cockpit informed of such things as oxygen shortage, fire
alarm, medical accident, device fault and any other trouble.
2. The isolating door
between the cockpit and the cabin is restricted, and the door and its
associated isolating walls are made of bulletproof materials.
3. The voice
communication system of the audio system is a one-way system from the cockpit
to the cabin, preventing the words of the hijackers from being heard.
4. This invention warns
the passengers in advance.
The key idea of the patent is that the pilots are locked in the cockpit so that the hijackers cannot communicate with the pilots. Even if the hijackers hold any hostage, the pilots will not open the cockpit without hearing anything. Even if the hijackers hold any hostage, the pilots will not open the cockpit without hearing anything. Even if the hijackers do as indicated in Fig. 4 of the reference, the pilots may choose to stay if the situation is not critical.
5. Application
JP,A,9-036791, H04B7/15
(19)
Franchise Office of Japan (JP) Issued on Feb. 2, 1997
Inventor: Decheng
Changzhi
Address: No. 1 Bldg. 1 Dingmu 2, Xiaogu, Hanchuanding, Gaozuo Shire,
Kangawa
Patent
name: A Support Device Using Satellite Communication to
Prevent
Hijacking
The inventor designed the support device
using satellite communications to prevent hijacking. The device keeps a ground monitoring center informed of hat
is going on in a hijacked airliner by means of satellite communication.
In case of hijacking, the passengers or
aircrew press emergency buttons fixed at various places in the airliner, and a
video camera with long or short lens installed at an appropriate place begins
to work, digitizes the information by means of an image processing device or
turns the information into FX (facsimile) file format, and then sends the
information to the ground monitoring center via the satellite. The ground monitoring center in turn
sends information via the satellite to the camera so that the camera adjusts
the foci and angles of the long and short lens. In addition, dialogs may help to solve hijacking.
What the reference proposes:
1. Fix several cameras
at places with a good field of vision and install a monitor in the cockpit to
monitor the cabin, and receive information from the communication satellite and
transfer it to the ground monitoring center through the support device.
2. Record the
information of the satellite for the use of the emergency communication
device. Use the image processing
device to digitize the information or turn the information into FX (facsimile)
file format and then send it to the ground monitoring center.
3. Fix emergency
buttons in the cockpit and the cabin, which serve to start the support device
so that the ground monitoring center can monitor what is going on.
6. Application
JP,A,9-020297, B64D47/00
(19)
Franchise Office of Japan (JP) Issued on January 21, 1997
Inventor: Youdong
Gongqi
Address: No. 1,
Zhizituju 1467, Zuoboding, Zhedao
Patent: Support
Device for Hijacking Prevention
Application JP,A,9-020297, B64D47/00 is exactly the same as JP,A,9-036791, H04B7/15. It is strange that both of them should be approved. Both use satellite communication to achieve the same purpose. Both are different from the hijacking prevention system. One item of the present inventor’s hijacking prevention system solution features a detailed and original arrangement for remote control of the airliner. Therefore, we can easily come to the conclusion that application JP,A,9-020297, B64D47/00, just like JP,A,9-036791, H04B7/15, would not have led to the present inventor’s prevention system solution.
The
disadvantages of prior art are overcome by the present invention. The following are disadvantages and the
solutions provided by the present invention:
The features of CN 85100918A include the following:
1. Shockproof isolating
walls with or without doors, featuring bulletproof materials (unidentified yet)
and heterogeneous screws fixing isolating boards.
Comments: Over one hundred
years’ development of aircraft leads to different performance concepts of
isolating-wall technique and bulletproof performance. This patent technique is open to all aircraft manufacturers.
2. Permanent doorless
design or entering impermanent safety cockpit through the “transit room.”
Comments: The application
for patent does not depend on the failure or success of a permanent doorless
design. The safety conditions of
the “transit room” are monitored through a peephole. The right of passage through the “transit room” is subject
to the perception of the aircrew, which is a time-honored concept! What is strange is that the most recent
application for patent was made in 1985, but there weren’t the sophisticated
automatic detection tools already available in the 1970s, so that patent CN
85100918A lacks the originality essential to any patent! The inventor has further modified the
design from double-wall double-door to double-wall three-door (Figure 9). Short of automatic detection tools,
however, more doors are of no avail!
A knife is enough for the terrorists to force the aircrew to take them
through the “transit room” to the cockpit! Therefore, no one has used patent CN 85100918A. The inventor is fully aware of that and
so identifies his invention as an impermanent design.
3. The third patent
feature of CN 85100918A is the alarm device designed to keep people informed
whether the safety door of the cockpit is open or closed.
Comments: Page 7 is
highlighted by the patent staff:
(1) The alarm device consists only of an indicator, flashlight and
buzzer. It serves to notify
whether the doors are properly closed.
But the then-popular infrared sensor is not used, so how could such an
alarm device be sophisticated? (2)
The safety lock is even or outdated.
It is intended to lock the door of the cockpit, with the key to be kept
by the captain. What the
terrorists need to do is steal the key (without needing to kill the captain)
and enter the cockpit. (3) The
shield of the peeping device is intended to prevent terrorists, who may look
into the cockpit through the peephole, from shooting at pilots. If the terrorists are determined to shoot,
chain switches may serve the same purpose. In addition, convex lens, widely used in stores and shops,
may better serve the purpose.
Therefore, using a shield is like carrying coals to Newcastle!
Patent CN
85100918A is defective. The 19th-century
technology was not to blame for its inability to prevent hijacking. The scarcity of practical
anti-hijacking techniques sets off the originality of this patent technique. For example, image identifier,
identification through sound spectrum, and use of five-finger mold instead of
that of a single finger. The
application of this patent system solution will help eradicate “hijacking”!
Patent CN1126686A may be
virtual, but it does not befit a civilized society to turn an airliner into a
battlefield. Unlike patent CN
1126686A, which features “anti-hijacking,” the present inventor focuses on the
prevention of hijacking, and therefore his patent application is justifiable.
Patent 88103336.7 CN 1126686A
is by no means the same as the present inventor’s hijacking-prevention
solution. Having been widely used,
a TV monitor is but an auxiliary feature.
It is not the key to the present inventor’s solution to hijacking prevention. It does not befit a civilized community
to ignore the safety of passengers and turn an airliner into a
battlefield. Therefore, the
present inventor believes that application 8810336.7 is not truly valid.
Drawbacks of patent US A,3704845, B64C 1/10
1. The US patent invention does not allow for any possible neglect of the pilots.
2. The pilots
may not come even if all buttons in Fig. 4 of the reference are pressed.
3. Are the bulletproof
wall and door of the cockpit soundproof?
The hijackers know perfectly well how to raise hell, and they may kill
one person every five minutes until the pilots come out!
4. The pilots may rely
on their unreliable perception and reasoning to decide whether to open the door
of the cockpit; therefore the US patent invention is inadequate to deter
hijacking.
The US patent invention in 1972 has drawn
upon the experience of the previous three patents of China but still leaves
much to be desired. By contrast,
the double-door structure proposed by the present inventor is original, the
“single-person checkroom” is a natural evolution of modern technology, and the
five-finger mold is unprecedented.
The single-person checkroom of the double-door structure precludes the
effect of human factors and the five-finger mold makes the system flawless.
The present invention can also serve as a support device to prevent hijacking through satellite communication! Its merit is that the support device can be used for negotiation and monitoring!
It
is recommended, in one item of the present inventor’s hijacking prevention
system solution that, apart from using satellite communication for negotiation
and monitoring, manual piloting should be disabled while automatic piloting is
enabled until the airliner touches down, thus deterring hijacking. There lies a primary feature of the
invention! Satellite communication
is not the patent right of application JP,A,9-036791,H04B7/15, but instead the
right of the owner and inventor of the satellite! What makes the difference is how to use satellite
communication to achieve different purposes. The present inventor’s hijacking prevention system solution
features a detailed and original arrangement for remote control of the
airliner. Therefore we can easily
come to the conclusion that application JP,A,9-036791,H04B7/15 would not have
led to the generation of the present inventor’s hijacking prevention system
solution.
Application JP,A,9-020297,B64D47/00 is exactly the same as JP,A,9-036791, H04B7/15. It is strange that both of them should be approved. Both use satellite communication to achieve the same purpose. Both are different from the present inventor’s hijacking prevention system, which features a detailed and original arrangement for remote control of the airliner. Therefore we can easily come to the conclusion that application JP,A,9-020297,B64D47/00, just like JP,A,9-036791,H04B7/15,k would not have led to the generation of the present inventor’s hijacking prevention system solution.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
Fig.
1 is a drawing that shows the hijacking prevention system and device.
Fig.
2 is a flow chart of the airliner hijacking prevention system.
Fig.
3 is a program block diagram of a singe person checkroom security system.
Fig.
4 is a drawing that represents the construction of a series of security
checking system.
DETAILED
DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
A. Improvement of Airplane
Structure and Establishment of Corresponding System Program:
1. As shown in Fig. 1,
at reference number 1, a “single person checkroom” path structure is installed
to make it impossible for terrorists to enter the cabin.
2. With reference to
Fig. 2 of the systematic program, an independent concealed electronic
monitoring device is installed. It
is not controllable by but is visible to the aircrew. A special waveband transfer enables a ground-based
monitoring center to have full control of terrorists and negotiate with them
easily.
3. With reference to
Fig. 1, at the four passages of the entrance 3 of the airliner,
remote-controlled chemical spraying guns and appropriate obstacles are installed
to control or restrict the activities of terrorists. A narcotic sprayer may also be installed.
4. With reference to
Fig. 2, nothing is worse than when the pilot takes a hand in hijacking, but in
this case a “ flight Trajectory Calibrator ”or flight path specifying unit, can
be used to lock the flight course, under the remote control of the ground-based
monitoring center. In Fig. 2,
notations such as “Fig. 1-5” indicate reference number 5 in Fig. 1.
5. With reference again
to Fig. 2, the ground-based monitoring center has special plane with a
monitoring device, ready to fly and trace. Or satellite relay stations may transfer monitoring
messages.
6.
Set flight
discipline for the aircrew.
B. Fig. 3 shows the Facilities and Features of the System Program:
(1) Passage checkroom structure and system setting:
a.
Two
unidirectionally transparent bullet-proof glass doors are hiden as shown in
Fig.1 a & b. When closed ,
the doors push out from the dotled line of Fig.1 f,
Fig1.r. shown the check place which is enclose by closing two the doors. From the cabin to the passage as a second
door, so that the pilot can see the passage unidirectionally, making hijackers
conscious of someone looking at them in the dark.
b.
Fig.4f are shown install hiden in a and b of the
bullet-proof glass door are both unidirectionally transparent, when they push on and closed, with a 0.8-1 meter single person checkroom
in between. Fig. 4 also shows a
detector c of a raster curtain, a detector d for identifying weight, and a
detector e for a password card, a detector h of a finger mold test and a
detector i for an image test. Fig.
4 also shows a detector j of human body infrared, a launcher k of special beams
for the raster curtain and a detector l for voic e recognition. These detectors automatically
identifying weight, a password card, fingerprints, and an image, and provide a
voice test. Although FIGS. 1 and 4
show elements c, d, h, i, k, and L at positions offset from the “single person
checkroom” that is provided between and enclose by closed two the doors.
c. As shown in Fig. 2,
the front and back panels are closed under the double control of closing
instructions of an airplane in flight status and the ground-based monitoring
center, meanwhile turning on the automatic identifier.
d. As Fig. 2 shows, the
aircrew must get permission via communication and a password card instruction
to open the first door and enter the checkroom, and the automatic identifier,
after sensing only one person in the checkroom, closes the first door and
begins to check.
e. As shown in Fig. 3,
after the automatic identifier checks that only a single person is present and
makes ID identification, the cabin, on being notified of the ID of the
approaching person, decides whether to open the second door. The first door will not open until the
second door closes, thus preventing hijackers from swarming in.
f. Persons in the
cabin will be documented by the captain and the monitoring center respectively
when the automatic identifier is started.
There must be at least one engineer in the cabin; otherwise no person
can pass the checkroom, except in non-flight status of the plane or by
obtaining instruction from the monitoring center.
g. If any person in the
cabin wants to leave the cabin during flight, a simple password card can be
used to open the second door and enter the checkroom, and the automatic
identifier in the checkroom instructs the second door to close and begins to
check. The first door can be opened
only after the check.
h. The automatic
identifier sets the number of persons in the cabin and decides that at least
one engineer must stay in the cabin during flight.
i. Problems and
solutions:
1. The automatic identifier
restricts the number of persons in the checkroom, making it impossible for
hijackers to enter the checkroom together with the aircrew. A hijacker may only enter under
disguise, but the automatic identifier may have identification combinations,
such as the weight, fingerprint and palm print and voice. The unidirectionally transparent glass
door fully exposes hijackers, but it is necessary to equip a back-view mirror
for the engineer or formulate a review system to increase the weight of manual
check.
2. Why use the five-finger
mold? Because a single finger may
be cut, but if the whole hand is cut, it will be impractical and unnecessary to
use modern technology to make a frozen cut hand resume its original appearance
in the short time and limited space.
This makes the system flawless.
3. Even if the engineer and
aircrew are hijackers, who can freely pass the single person checkroom, they
are restricted by a locked flight course by means of the flight Trajectory
Calibrator.
(2) Independent concealed electronic monitoring device:
The historic disaster of the World Trade
Center shows how defective the designs of airplanes are: the hijacking shut down all
communications facilities so that their identities remained a mystery. The black box cannot provide real-time
on-site video and audio recordings, making it almost impossible to find and
punish those behind the terrorist acts.
Airplanes
are not equipped with independent concealed video and audio electronic
monitoring equipment and real-time transfer and storage equipment, which (if
any) cannot be controlled by the aircrew.
This is ridiculous today, when technology is so sophisticated and the
space is studded with satellites.
No doubt, the US aviation security bureau cannot pass the buck.
Therefore,
it is imperative that an independent concealed electronic monitoring device 4
should become a standard device of an airliner. Some people my claim that their privacy is encroached upon,
but the monitoring on the channel is within the permitted range. And so the independent concealed
electronic monitoring device may somewhat deter potential hijackers.
(3) A locked flight course by means of flight
Trajectory Calibrator:
a. As shown in Fig. 2,
in case the flight orbit deviates from the preset course, the calibrator 6 (see
Fig. 1) will surely use the alarm functions of the electronic monitoring
device.
b. With the flight
Trajectory Calibrator 6, the ground-based monitoring center may switch manual
steering over to remote-controlled automatic/semiautomatic steering (not beyond
the present technology) when the engineer loses his right to act. A remote-control plane may be provided
so that it can take off and take control of the airliner in the event the
signal from the monitoring center lacks sufficient coverage.
c. It is advisable to
draw upon the high-air remote control technology of air scouts. The security of a hijacked plane may
somewhat be affected by geographical and atmospheric conditions, but “remote
control” can bring the hijacked plane to “an automatic flight status” and thus
absolutely prevent the plane from suicide attack on downtown areas or landmark
buildings. For example, the plane
can be made to safely rise and fly away from the downtown area and enter into
“remote-controlled steering status,” thus winning time for the plane to enter
the preset course. Decades of
successful applications of automatic pilot technology have made us fully
convinced of its security.
d. Confidentiality of
remote control information is no problem in today’s digitized age.
(4) The ground-based monitoring
center should have a special plane with a monitoring device, ready to fly and
trace. The ground-based special
remote-controlled plane prevents an accident plane from flying out of the
direction radius.
(5) Set flight discipline for the aircrew:
a. It is necessary to
strictly comply with the discipline set by the structure and program of the
channel calibration room so as to preclude any hijacking.
b. Make the engineer
more capable of tackling emergencies, mainly with portable non-fatal chemical
weapons.
From
the description above, the excellence and characteristics of the present
invention will be apparent:
1. The Measure Plan of
this patent application centers on structural techniques;
2. Various combinations
of available classifiable techniques are used in the Measure Plan;
3. The Measure Plan is
quite comprehensible. Except the
remote-controlled transmissions, which are encrypted, all the rest is open to
the public, thus serving as an effective deterrent to hijackers;
4. Even though the
above Measure Plan leaves much to be certified and improved, it comes right to
the point if considered from the perspective of the global economy; and
5. It is likely for the
Americans to accept the plan, because they have their own thoughts and
judgments! They will regain
confidence in safety and overcome their fears incurred by the disastrous
attacks. The global economical
order is soon to return to normal!
The use and networking of “flight trajectory monitors” of the monitoring centers at airports the world over promise enormous business opportunities. Uprooting hijacking, striking terrorism worldwide and defeating the evil by enlightened means manifest the intelligence of the civilized human community.
The
present invention has been described with reference to a preferred embodiment
thereof and it is understood that this is not a restriction to the present
invention, and that many changes and modifications in the described embodiment
can be carried out without departing from the scope of the invention, which is
intended to be limited only by the appended claims.
ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE
An
airliner hijacking prevention system has three complementary aspects. One of these aspects is that a
double-door “single person checkroom” provides the only passage to the
cockpit. In this closed
one-person-only checkroom, a series of checks are made before access is gained
to the cockpit. Another
aspect is that a closed circuit television and communication system is
used. It is hidden, free
from the control of the aircrew, and provided with an independent power
supply. This system provides
information about what is going on in the cockpit and cabin. The third aspect is the use of a hidden
flight Trajectory Calibrator, also
free from the control of the aircrew and provided with independent power
supply. It transfers
messages between the airliner and the ground monitoring center through a relay
satellite or special frequency band. The ground monitoring center must comply with state
laws and a transnational overall management and monitoring center must be
established to bring any off-course airliner into automatic flight through the Trajectory
Calibrator or bring back the airliner to the airport through remote control.