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

[AKDejaVu]

There needs to be a hard line drawn in regards to passenger/crew access to the cockpit.  It has just been highlighted that anything that big, fast and explosive can be used as a weapon.

Terrorists could still be accomodated in regards to route changes... but they should not be allowed to have complete control of a plane.  The possible consequences are just too great.

AKDejaVu

[Maverick]

Dejavu,

I gree with ya in principal. I am trying to think of the impact on the crew as they have to ignore what is going on to keep control of the plane. They won't be dealing with civilized people, just deranged animals.

Before yesterday that type of act would have been unthinkable. Now pilots will have to decide if losing control of the plane or downing it intentionally is prefferable. I also see skymarshals being reinstituted with the probability of gunfire in a pressure vessel at high altitude.  

Mav

[AKDejaVu]

I gree with ya in principal. I am trying to think of the impact on the crew as they have to ignore what is going on to keep control of the plane.

Keeping the plane flying safely should be the utmost concern.  There is no way the pilot can do that with terrorists in the cockpit.

I know what could arise because of this... that's why the barrier should be a hard barrier.  The decision process of the pilot would then become... "If I don't do this he kills another passenger... so I should do it" vs "If I do this, he could kill all passengers and us and peope on the ground".

I'm not talking about a no accomodation situation, just a situation where the terrorists no longer have access to the pilots.

AKDejaVu

[AKDejaVu]

BTW... I don't believe the Air Marshall idea is all that great because of the reason you mentioned.  Guns and preasurized cabins are a bad mix.

AKDejaVu

[Yoj]

Also agreed in principle - however, I'm not sure there is a way to do it, short of installing bank vault doors.  In practice those doors can be opened by anyone who is determined enough.  Requiring some kind of "access code" to gain control of the plane might help, but I can see ways that could be bypassed, as well as circumstances in which it could be its own disaster.

The best thing we can do is vastly improve the screening and inspection process before the passengers even get on the plane.  There's no simple solution to that either, but surely we can do better than hire minimum-wage people with 100% annual turnover.

Sky marshalls will almost surely make a comeback - maybe with weapons tailored to being in a pressurized cabin.

- Yoj

[AKDejaVu]

I disagree Yoj.

There is a big difference between smuggling the equipment necessary to penetrate a bulkhead and simply smuggling on a knife.  Hell.. the knife doesn't even have to be steel.

If they bring enough explosives to detonate the bulkhead, then the situation is hopeless already.  It then becomes the responsibility of the pilots to keep the aircraft out of a situation where its crash would cause large collateral damage.

Basically, there will always be weapons that can bring down an aircraft... its a matter of preventing the aircraft from being used as a weapon.

AKDejaVu

[Yoj]

I see your point - but there needs to be a door, not a bulkhead.  There are too many good reasons why there has to be some form of access between cockpit and cabin.  

In any case, it seems to me that the terrorists were most likely able to gain control of the plane with knives because the aircrew opened the door due to the threat to passengers and attendants.  You can bet that no aircrew will ever open the door because of that threat again.  

However - the doors they currently have are not strong enough.  A big man can shoulder his way through.  Maybe not a bank vault, but someting that would require serious tools or explosives to breach is required.

- Yoj

[storm]

to make a phisical barrier between the cockpit and the cabin is a bit uncertain.There will be always a time where the crew has to get food,drinks.They gotta pee etc.This will always be weak seconds where the cockpit could be breached.

why not invent a system then can bypass pilot input in every civilian jet from a military satellite for emergency purposes only,like if any plane goes offroute without any radiocontact..this stuff can be activated and keep the plane on autolvl until further investigation

 
 storm

[Yoj]

Interesting idea, but it sounds expensive.  Although money should not be that important a consideration, we're still talking about airliners, which is business.  If it costs too much it won't happen.  Reinforcing the doors could be afforded.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
BTW... I don't believe the Air Marshall idea is all that great because of the reason you mentioned.  Guns and preasurized cabins are a bad mix.

AKDejaVu

seems to work for these guys:
El Al Israel Airlines
I'd be for Air Marshalls as just the fact the terrorist would know that one or more of the average looking passengers had the means to subdue him/them would deter many if not all hijackings. A marshall trained in hand to hand combat wouldn't need a gun to subue a hijacker armed with only a knife. Several such trained marshalls on each flight, would go along way in detering a repeat of yesterday..

[majic]

Anything we do may be expensive, but that is not that important.  As I understand it pilots now have a covert means of telling ground controllers they are being hijacked.  maybe a way for people on the ground to force the plane remotely to go to autopilot and maybe incapacitate all those in the plane? Expensive but not impossible.  Is it possible to remotely land plane? Just conjecture...

[AKDejaVu]

Eagler, you cannot just look at what happened yesterday.

Hand to hand combat trained marshals may have prevented the situation (in hindesight), but the situation would not have been the same had they been there.  Any defense will be met with some kind of adaptation.

If you rely on people to defend or make decisions, then you open a gaping exploitable hole.  If you place hand-to-hand combat trained people on board, then you require terrorists to increase their hijacking armament.

As for El Al... their security is super tight in every aspect... not just with marshalls.  It borders on restrictive and is something that would be ill recieved in the states.  Increased checks at the gate... increased checks at the counter... viewing everyone suspiciously... it just doesn't work here.

I do believe that taking security at the airports more seriously is an issue... but I don't believe we'll ever aproach the precautionary stanse of El Al airlines in regards to the passengers themselves.  Basically, evaluating then implimenting their policies is not realistic in this country.

AKDejaVu

[Toad]

I think in any "hostage" situation, most of the "official" procedures are built based on the theory that the situation can be resolved without undue violence.

In other words, the hostage taker will be open to negotiation and possible resolution of the situation without deadly force being necessary. The hostage taker wants something... media access, money, release from jail of "political prisoners", etc.

On the ground, with law enforcement on the scene, these procedures also allow for the application of deadly force if the "negotiation" phase fails. (The SWAT team sniper on the roof solution, if you will.)

In the air, the "negotiation" phase is about all you have. There is no SWAT sniper to provide a solution.

I'm sure these crews did the best they could with what they had.

The problem is that the Barbarians they were dealing with had no intentions of negotiating anything. Therefore, all the fancy "conflict resolution" techniques in the world would have done them no good.

Sometimes, there's no substitute for a Colt.

When I first started in the Commercial Aviation game, I flew with many Captains that kept a "Peacemaker" in their flight kit. When asked, their explanation was that "this is my ship and I am responsible for the safety of all passengers and crew aboard her. I am simply preparing myself for any eventuality that may occur with respect to that duty."

Of course, after the crash where the fired airline (non-crew) employee downed a plane in California by killing the pilots with a handgun, all carrying of weapons by flight crew was immediately prohibited. Go figure.

Flight Crews, the guys who hold your lives in their hands for the entire flight, were no longer considered trustworthy enough to enter the airport after being duly identified and authenticated. No, we had to go through security just like everyone else, in case we had something with us that might make the plane crash. LOL... we still slip right on through with our hands attached to our wrists. If we decide to kill yas, our hands alone are more than enough.

Wonder how they feel about armed crewmemebers now?

[Eagler]

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

[AKDejaVu]

Toad,

I understand that things were made easier as a result of the "Most hostage situations are easily resolved without vileonce" policies in place.  Combine that with the inability for most to fathom the events that were to come and there was no reason for the pilots not to cooperate.

Unfortunately, these events highlight the issues that arrise when you allow the pilots to become the hostages.  My idea is to simply prevent them from being anything but negotiators.

AKDejaVu