Free Fall

Thirty-Six

Manhattan, New York

Kate’s face swam in and out of focus on the big screens throughout CTNB’s New York studio in the Time Warner Center at Columbus Circle.

She was perched on a stool at the desk, shoulder-to-shoulder with two other panelists, Cal Marshall, a former NTSB investigator, and Stuart Shore, a retired commercial airline pilot, now an air security consultant.

“We’re just four people discussing commercial air security,” said Reese Baker, the CTNB moderator, after glancing up from the monitor under the glass desktop. “Forget the cameras and talk to me like you’re talking to neighbors over the back fence.”

“Twenty seconds, everyone!” a voice called out.

“Kate, that was a great article yesterday. Excellent.” Reese smiled.

Kate’s story had explored the president’s security promise of remote-control technology, but it had also raised the fear of its use against commercial airliners. She’d set it within the context of the Shikra crash at Heathrow and the EastCloud incident at LaGuardia.

Working closely with Chuck, and never mentioning the two threatening emails they believed were sent by Zarathustra, Kate had produced a nuanced article, a “situational,” on the theory that the two flights could have been targets of cyber hijacking. She’d backed it up with balanced, on-the-record comments from experts and built it on the president’s pledge.

Let’s see what happens, Chuck had said.

Interest in the story had been strong, yielding a high level of pickup by subscribers across the US, in Europe, South America, the Middle East and Asia. It had prompted CTNB producers to request that Kate be a panelist the next day on Beyond the Headlines with Reese Baker.

The show’s guests had gone through makeup and a sound level test; camera angles had been checked and set. The theme music played, seconds were counted down and the program went live.

“Good afternoon. Mystery still envelops the Shikra Airlines crash at Heathrow, which claimed fifteen lives, and the chilling close call with an EastCloud flight to New York’s LaGuardia Airport. Could these two incidents be linked to potential hacking and a presidential promise to introduce remote-control technology in jetliners? That’s the subject of today’s panel. I’m Reese Baker and this is Beyond the Headlines.”

Reese turned from one camera and introduced a setup segment of CTNB news reports on the London and New York cases that ran for four minutes. When the producer threw it back to Reese, she introduced Cal Marshall, Stuart Shore and Kate.

“Let me take you back to September 27, 2001, two weeks after the terrorist attacks. President Bush, in a speech on aviation safety to air industry workers at O’Hare in Chicago, promised to introduce technology that would enable controllers on the ground-I’m quoting the president-‘to take over distressed aircraft and land it by remote control.’ Stuart, I’ll start with you. As a former commercial pilot and expert on airline security, does this technology exist?”

“Yes and no. Several airlines have the patents for it, but it hasn’t been applied in the commercial airline industry. Military applications are another issue, with drones and other types of aircraft, but the technology we’re talking about here, for commercial aircraft, is not employed today.”

“Cal, you’re a former investigator with the NTSB, a highly qualified expert. Tell us, could this technology somehow have been developed surreptitiously and used to take control of the Shikra and EastCloud planes?”

“Reese, first I want to stress that at this time we don’t know what happened in the cases of the Shikra and EastCloud flights. We’re not privy to all the evidence, data and facts. Only the people investigating are. And I can assure you that these investigations are meticulous and they take time. To be honest, to theorize about them, sitting here with no information at a desk in your studio, is a fool’s game.”

Reese smiled, acknowledging his point.

“Absolutely, but we’re free to address the implications of the type of technology promised by the president.”

“Let’s be clear,” Cal said. “The aim of the technology we’re talking about is the safe landing of a troubled plane by remote control.”

“Could it conceivably make a plane ‘hijack-proof’?” Reese asked.

“If we’re talking in-flight, then yes, I’d say it could,” Cal said.

“Could such technology be hacked?”

“No,” Cal said. “The design and the systems in aircraft make it impossible for a hacker to gain entry to the flight-management system to engage and control the aircraft. It’s just not possible.”

“But Cal,” Stuart said, “you can’t rule out all possibilities. If you could control a plane remotely from the ground, then your system is vulnerable to attack.”

The panel debated the subject until the show neared its end.

“I’m afraid we’re running out of time,” Reese said. “I’d like to close with you, Kate. You touched on this with your story. Why has this technology not been put into use? Let’s look at the Japanese airliner that disappeared over the Pacific a year ago, and the Argentine jetliner that crashed into the Andes. Some theories hold that they were hacked.”

“Well, in researching the story, we found a number of reasons why the system has not been installed.”

Kate explained that pilots had objected to it. In some cases, there were concerns that controllers couldn’t see all that pilots see in the cockpit, which could create a hazard. There were arguments that the skies were too crowded to make remote navigation safe.

“And there’s the fear that the system could be hacked?” Reese added.

“Yes, the fear that the system could be hacked was a major concern. However-” Kate looked directly to the camera “-while there are many conspiracy theories, claims and debates, there has yet to be a single confirmed case of a commercial aircraft being cyber hacked.”

“And that’s our time,” Reese said. “Thank you all for joining us. News is next.”