Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AKDejaVu on September 12, 2001, 12:27:00 PM
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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..
-
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...
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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
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
-
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.
-
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 ]
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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