Its time pilots were completely seperated from the crew/passengers.

[Skuzzy]

Hmmm,..bottomline:  No matter what procedures or policies are implemented, there will always be a way for a plane to get hijacked.
All they have to do is get familar with those procedures and find a way around them.

As far as the flight crew not being armed.  I think this is just nuts.  Not only should they be armed, but well trained to use those arms.  Covertly sneaking weapons onboard by the flight crew is really not good, but removing the ability to secure a plane they are responsible for is just nuts.

Here is what I would like to see:

1)  Flight crews trained in the use of a hand gun.
2)  Breathalyzer tests for all flight crews boarding a plane, whether they are flying it or not.
3)  A more secure entry/exit to the cockpit area.  Heck, 2 plate steel brackets bolted to the air frame supporting a plate steel crossbar would do the trick.  The door would need a security hole or camera view to the door so entry could be secure.  I like the camera idea better.  One that could see the passenger area too would be wise.

I don't like the air marshall idea too much.  All this does is to force the terrorists to train better, making it more difficult to stop them in the advent they overcome the marshall.

No matter how good the mouse trap is, the mouse will eventually find a way to get the cheese.

[AKDejaVu]

AKDejaVu
that's where I guess we differ
I'd give up some convienence and freedom in the name of safety..

Where did I say that I wouldn't be for stricter security (Such as El Al's)?  How could you even know what I think in regards to what I would put up with here?  I haven't stated as much.

I do know that these airlines are buisnesses and they have to be concerned about their customers.  They have to consider the consequences of treating their customers in ways they are unaccustomed to being treated.

 

don't get me wrong, it makes me mad as hell that a relative handful of kooks can crimp our hard earned freedoms so relatively easily.
I can only pray that the yesterday style terror is very far and few between. If it isn't, we need to learn from and accept some of Israeli type tactics as they are the experts in dealing with this suicidal type terror..or we'll have no one to blame but ourselves.

I'd rather not rely on prayer to ensure this doesn't happen again.  I'd rather not rely on human decency to ensure this doesn't happen again.  I'd rather hard barriers were put in place.

AKDejaVu

[Toad]

Skuzzy, just curious. Why the breathalizser?

Are air crew somehow less reliable than law enforcement? The police don't take a breath test at the beginning of each shift.

Further, do you REALLY think the OTHER guy on the crew would accept a fellow crewmember that had been drinking? I'm sure the image is one of a bunch of hard-drinking skirt chasers but it just isn't so. The cockpit of a commercial airliner is a place where professionalism rules. Period. Anyone showing up impaired by alcohol would be immediately turned in, even by his best friend. Further, he'd be scorned by one and all for discracing the profession.

We do have programs to rehabilitate (and possibly return to the line after completion of the program) problem drinkers. Every profession has them. However, these programs ONLY apply to those that will admit they have a problem.. otherwise, you're fired immediately.

There's zero tolerance in this profession for a guy that shows up to fly impaired by drugs or alcohol. Zero.

[Skuzzy]

Sorry Toad.  I guess I should have explained that better.

I had an experience with a Captain of a commercial flight once (1999).  He was puking drunk when he boarded.  In my mind, it only takes one time.
He claims he never took control of the plane and the co-pilot and engineer did the flying, which is probably true.  The fact he was in the cockpit made me nervous.

The breathalyzer would be just an insurance policy used in conjunction with allowing hand guns to be carried by the flight crew.  The insurance companies of the airlines would probably want this test, just to avoid any possible liability.  Safety when guns are in the cockpit was my only reason for listing that.

I have logged many millions of miles of air time in commerical flights as a passenger and have the utmost respect for those flight crews.

I apologize if my post was taken as a personal afront to anyone in that career field.  It was not, I can assure you.

[ 09-12-2001: Message edited by: Skuzzy ]

[Gh0stFT]

what we need is an Elektronic control of all Airliners. IF a pilot dont react to the tower, or is on collision cours onto a City/Airfield ect. it should automatic change cours, the Pilot should not be able to manually fly the plane and use it as a weapon. There are some testing going on here in germany with such a System. I think this is the only way to prevent hijjacking Airliners in future.
Of course this Systems needs to work Global.

Gh0stFT

[Lance]

I'd much prefer to see airlines contract security agencies to have undercover armed agents sitting amongst the passengers.  

First, they are specialists trained to act and react with good judgement in these type of situations.  A pilot, even if they are comfortable with guns and a good shot, are not.  Beyond that, if pilots are the only source of security on the plane, they can be easily neutralized.  The bad guys know who you are, you don't have a clue who they are.  Huge advantage to them.  With undercover security agents disguised as passengers, terrorists are forced to operate with that disadvantage.

[capt. apathy]

Personally I would like to see the cockpit separated from the rest of the plane.  No coded doors or fancy locks just a separate door to get on and off the plane with a bulkhead separating the cockpit from the rest of the plane (something sturdy, hard to penetrate without major tools).  Also I think there is a need for a separation of crew, one crew in charge of the passengers and one crew in charge of the plane. Obviously the cockpit would have to be bigger, with food storage and heating area and of course a restroom.
 As far as firearms in a pressurized cabin I think tazzer guns, teargas spray and the like is a smarter option. I also like the idea of security being undercover instead of out in the open as an obvious target to be neutralized

[Steven]

Up until now hijackers actually wanted to live and just take the plane somewhere else.  However, with this latest incident, I'd be worried if I was a terrorist trying to take over a plane with a few knives or with muscle power.  I for one would take my chance in a scuffle with terrorists and maybe get cut a few times or a bloody nose(and I bet many other passengers as well) rather than partake in a ride to kill thousands of people on the ground.  Before when a hijacker said "we want control and if you do as we say, you'll live" presented some hope and people will generally want to believe it.  Now, crew and passengers will never believe that again.  As long as guns can be prevented from getting on board, I think there is a good chance that passengers and crew can overpower a small group trying to take control.

-Puke
332nd Flying Mongrels