Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Denholm on January 24, 2008, 10:10:39 AM
-
Kudos to American Airlines, it's about time!
On January the 4th of this year American Airlines announced that they would be placing an Anti-Missile defence system named, "Jet Eye" onto some of their Boeing 767-200's. The device won't be tested on public flights since they're simply trying to achieve a goal of 4,500 hours (without failure) to prove that the device will work. American Airlines predicts to have the first 767-200 equipped in April or later.
( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,320489,00.html )
Here is a picture of the "Jet Eye" system:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/917_1201190964_c-manpads.jpg)
-
Fearmongering pork project.
-
Tarmac nailed it.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Fearmongering pork project.
exactly.
-
What's next? Stealth civilian airliners...?
It would make some sense if they were flying into combat / high risk zone....
-
WAIT WAIT there putting those on are 767's when they get hijacked and we decide to fire missles at it, explain to me how are we gona take it down. I know that sounds crazy firing missles at a hijacked plane heading somewhere unknown but would if we decided to. Or are these 767's that travel into Iraq to drop troops off?
-
I'd rather drive than deal with the TSA.
-
Originally posted by BlackJack
WAIT WAIT there putting those on are 767's when they get hijacked and we decide to fire missles at it, explain to me how are we gona take it down...
We don't use shoulder-launched missiles.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Fearmongering pork project.
In 2002, two "man portable air defense systems" were fired at an Arkia Isreal Airlines 757-300 shortly after takeoff from Mombasa. Both missiles missed the target. In 2003, a DHL A300F attempting to land in Baghdad was struck by a MANPAD. The aircraft was able to land but sustained significant damage.
-
Rip, I hardly think Baghdad Airport and a typical US ariport have anything in common. Besides that planes land there, that's about it.
-
Originally posted by Stang
Rip, I hardly think Baghdad Airport and a typical US ariport have anything in common. Besides that planes land there, that's about it.
If it's as easy to get a fake bomb through airport security checkpoints, how easy would it be for a terrorist group to get a handful of MANPADS through the borders, and sit at the end of any runway?
BAE got this contract. I think any security measure that is proactive such as this is a good one. It will of course be at the airlines expense and choice to refit their existing aircraft (although R&D was at the Gov't expense)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I'd rather drive than deal with the TSA.
I agree, I wonder how much this will add to the cost of a ticket as well.
-
This would be like buying a tank instead of a sedan for your commter vehicle because it protects against short range missles, ala Family Guy. Almost totally useless.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
BAE got this contract. I think any security measure that is proactive such as this is a good one. It will of course be at the customer's expense...
Fixed it.
-
But when is there going to be enemy missiles in the united states anytime soon?
-
Lets see. How many illegal immigrants currently flow undetected into the USA every day? How hard would it be for some of these to forget to take their missiles out of their baggage before they come?
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ripsnort
BAE got this contract. I think any security measure that is proactive such as this is a good one. It will of course be at the customer's expense...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sandman
Fixed it.
Then who pays other corporate costs... like taxes?
-
Originally posted by SD67
Lets see. How many illegal immigrants currently flow undetected into the USA every day? How hard would it be for some of these to forget to take their missiles out of their baggage before they come?
We are a nation of candy tulips afraid of shadows.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Then who pays other corporate costs... like taxes?
That would ultimately be the customer as well. You'd be nuts if you didn't think any costs would filter down to the ticket price. We (in Oz) regularly see the fuel surcharge (which is ultimately part of the ticket price) get increased which is just a way they airlines try reassure you that they are not actually increasing the cost of the ticket, they just want you to chip in for the fuel too.:lol
-
So when we tax the evil corporations... we are actully taxing us? Even oil corporations? Even... even Halliburton?:confused:
-
Originally posted by Sandman
We are a nation of candy tulips afraid of shadows.
Mind you if we crossed into Mexico illegally it would be considered an unforgivable act of war.
-
Sleep well tonite, your TSA is on guard.
Loaded gun slips through airport security (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/01/23/airport.gun/)
Sell the public the sizzle, not the steak.
I think the anti-missile stuff is more sizzle. I can almost guarantee it. Wonder where this will fit on the MEL list... hmmm.. I think I already know.
-
Originally posted by Denholm
Mind you if we crossed into Mexico illegally it would be considered an unforgivable act of war.
If frogs had wings they wouldn't bruise their ass.
-
Originally posted by Toad
...I think the anti-missile stuff is more sizzle. I can almost guarantee it. Wonder where this will fit on the MEL list... hmmm.. I think I already know.
I have to agree that it's more of a sizzle. A report released by the DHS already stated that both Northrop Grumman's and BAE's prototype don't meet reliability standards.
-
You agree it's more sizzle, yet you start the thread in favor of the new system? Squeakers, lol.
-
Indeed.
-
Originally posted by Denholm
I have to agree that it's more of a sizzle. A report released by the DHS already stated that both Northrop Grumman's and BAE's prototype don't meet reliability standards.
Yeah...wait 'till that thing zaps a 172 holding in a full pattern. That oughta be good for another FAA panic grounding of all commercial flights.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
We are a nation of candy tulips afraid of shadows.
Bingo.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
If it's as easy to get a fake bomb through airport security checkpoints,
Is it really?
I wonder sometimes.
Actually I dont think its all that easy to sneak a bomb in through airport security.
I think they may just want everyone to think it is. Including and especially potential terrorists so they can catch them in the act.
Like a sting operation.
Think about it. For all the touting they make about how easy it is.
Why is it nobody has managed to actually do it and do harm yet?
One would think that if a terrorist knew it would be easy. It would have been done already.
And if it really were that easy. The government would find a way to squelch that kind of information from getting out as revealing that kind of information on our weakness in our security system would be considerded a threat to our national security.
-
Ya, I agree. It's completely useless...
...until it was needed....
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Yeah...wait 'till that thing zaps a 172 holding in a full pattern. That oughta be good for another FAA panic grounding of all commercial flights.
honestly. during that grounding I kinda enjoyed the peace and quiet.
I'd never before realised just how much noise pollution airliners put out till they werent there anymore.
It was actually noticable.
Though I wish it had been done for different reasons.
-
As long as the airliners aren't equipped with active countermeasures.
"SAN ANDREAS, CA (AP) - 12 are dead and 23 injured after an American Airlines 767 fired on a Boy Scout model rocketry event. The jet, which had taken off from San Francisco minutes before, apparently detected and responded to what it classified as multiple launch threats. This follows up last week's massacre at the Jamaica, NY KOA campgrounds when a barbecue triggered defensive missile firing from another Boeing aircraft."
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Think about it. For all the touting they make about how easy it is.
Why is it nobody has managed to actually do it and do harm yet?
Been answered.
Originally posted by Sandman
We are a nation of candy tulips afraid of shadows.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Yeah...wait 'till that thing zaps a 172 holding in a full pattern. That oughta be good for another FAA panic grounding of all commercial flights.
Come on now, do you seriously think that commercial flights will be grounded? It's just the excuse they need to ground all GENERAL aviation. Lord knows those uppity private pilots have no business flying about in their airspace, they should buy a ticket like the rest of the sheep or keep their feet firmly on the ground!:t
-
deleated
-
I think they might come in handy in a few years. I'd rather have bigger seats though.
-
All it does is burn out the seeker head on an IR missile... It doesn't "shoot down" missiles. If you shot a radar guided missile at a plane equipped with the system, it'd never even know you shot. Of course, all manportable missiles are currently IR only.....
Complete waste of money and time. If you're flying somewhere on a commercial airliner where you have to worry about this...then you were dumb enough to buy a ticket. It has also been shown that portable systems are poor performers (poor hit percent, very small warhead) and are most often utilized extremely badly. (poor training)
Figure out a system that can completely foil windshear first... one of the top causal occurences of aviation accidents. Improve Air traffic controller training...put breathalizers in the cockpit of civilian airliners....you know, things that are more likely to cause your plane to end up "in a bad landing".
We have turned into a nation scared of shadows.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
We have turned into a nation scared of shadows.
This belongs in the Global Warming/Climate Change/Catastrophe thread(s).
-
Meh, sit under the approach path with an old fashioned rpg.
-
How many perk points do we get if we shoot it down? :D
-
What is it gonna do? Deploy flares and burn down a neighborhood?
(Ding) "Ahhh...ladies and gentlemen, if you look out the left side of the plane you'll see a lovely sunset...and an SA-7 rapidly approaching."
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Fearmongering pork project.
yup
-
Originally posted by Stang
You agree it's more sizzle, yet you start the thread in favor of the new system? Squeakers, lol.
Currently it's more sizzle. I'm in favor of it because the research will lead to better methods to make a system capable of deterring missiles. At the time being nothing is going on that would require the system on airliners. But in a few years Al-Qaeda will decide that it's time to wake up the world again. And when it does, it's target shouldn't be a jet loaded to the brim with Jet-A and passengers.
-
You cant secure everything. What is next? A billion dollar project to secure trains incase someone representing Al Quaida decides to park a truck with a bomb on the tracks?
Im sure the defence industry would love it though. Hmm...
-
What's the ratio on train travel to aerial travel? There's your answer as to why this device is being tested.
I know you can't secure everything, but that doesn't mean we can't try.
-
Situation:
A lactose intolerant man drives up to a McDonalds drive-through. He carefully orders a hamburger. Unbeknownst to him, an Al Qaida operative with a CB radio is overwhelming the radio connection to the person taking the order and has instead ordered a CHEESEBURGER. Within minutes of beginning his meal, the man is overcome with abdominal cramps and shortly after, sprays diarrhea through the cab of his pickup truck.
Another point for the terrorists!
Solution:
A $5 billion plan to develop secure encryption for drive-through radio links so that terrorists can't launch these dastardly attacks on our national dignity.
When you order over an unsecured radio link, you're pulling forward... WITH OSAMA!
-
Originally posted by Denholm
What's the ratio on train travel to aerial travel? There's your answer as to why this device is being tested.
I know you can't secure everything, but that doesn't mean we can't try.
Flying in and out of hotspots? yes. For general aviation outside of hotspots its just a waste of money that will add to the ticket that is going to get alot more expencive with rising fuel costs anyway.
-
Does indeed sound like a waste of money. I'm all for eliminating wasteful spending, especially when it's my money. How many billions do we waste on buying crack for those who refuse to get a job? How much do we spend on supporting Mexican citizens who come here illegally to steal our jobs? This missile defense thing is a tiny drop in a large bucket. I'd rather get indignant about some real waste.
oh yeah, how much have we wasted on the fear mongering global warming/changists?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Flying in and out of hotspots? yes. For general aviation outside of hotspots its just a waste of money that will add to the ticket that is going to get alot more expencive with rising fuel costs anyway.
I agree, but with no test subjects to prove the reliability of this product, how can it be proven effective? Right now American Airlines is helping BAE by testing out their product. Without the tests to prove their product's reliability under particular weather circumstances BAE can't sell their product to companies that need it.
-
So who gets to fire missiles at them to test it out then?:t
-
Computers get all the fun.
"...The use of a signal to mimic a missile attack has already been tested in the air, Wagner said.
Those tests also showed that the anti-missile systems didn't interfere with the jet's other controls..."
-
Originally posted by AKIron
This belongs in the Global Warming/Climate Change/Catastrophe thread(s).
LOL. Just can't keep it compartmentalized, can you?
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
LOL. Just can't keep it compartmentalized, can you?
Not when the application is so easy. It just begged to be said.
-
Originally posted by Denholm
Computers get all the fun.
"...The use of a signal to mimic a missile attack has already been tested in the air, Wagner said.
Those tests also showed that the anti-missile systems didn't interfere with the jet's other controls..."
Oh great.
1st Officer: Captain, EWS is detecting a missile launch!
Captain: Don't worry George, the anti missile system will take care of it, it's performed flawlessly in all the computer tests.
1st Officer: Oh goody! I feel much safer n..........
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
put breathalizers in the cockpit of civilian airliners....you know, things that are more likely to cause your plane to end up "in a bad landing".
Is that at all likely?
Can you show us some loss of life accidents where the people in the cockpit of a civilian airliner did fail/would have failed a breathalyser test?
Take your time; list as many as you can find.
Thanks!
-
Its actually happened a couple times in the last year, you're unaware of the news stories?
-
Civilian airliner with fatalities and proven intoxicated pilots?
Yes, I missed those. Can you give me a link or some way to find those?
Roughly how many instances would you say?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Civilian airliner with fatalities and proven intoxicated pilots?
Yes, I missed those. Can you give me a link or some way to find those?
Roughly how many instances would you say?
Whilst getting those figure for you sir, please direct me to the list of civilian airliners downed via Manportables. How many fatalities there?
-
The art of shooting down aircraft is not new.
BTW, the last downed airliner by missile was where and shot down by who?
And the biggest casualties of such an incident were where and done by who?
(it will be tested if I am right out of my head but I think of the Persian Gulf in the former (USA being the shooter), and the USSR shooting down a S-Korean airliner in the second)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Civilian airliner with fatalities and proven intoxicated pilots?
Yes, I missed those. Can you give me a link or some way to find those?
Roughly how many instances would you say?
No, pilots pulled from cockpits of jetliners because they were intoxicated. You added the 'crashes with fatalities' bit yourself.
-
Well, perhaps I should have quoted more of the post.
one of the top causal occurences of aviation accidents. Improve Air traffic controller training...put breathalizers in the cockpit of civilian airliners....you know, things that are more likely to cause your plane to end up "in a bad landing".
I think the clear implication here is that drunk pilots cause aviation accidents.
So drop the fatalities part from my question. Can you show me how many commerical aviation accidents cited drunk pilots as a causal factor? Or link me to a few dozen? I mean, obviously it's something that is "more likely" to cause an accident.
As for drunk pilots getting caught prior to flight, yes, there have been some. There are even a very, very rare few incidents where a legally intoxicated pilot actually flew a leg or three. The Northwest crew many years ago comes to mind. However, I am unaware of any accidents that were attributed to intoxicated pilots. Perhaps you know of some?
Point is, there are basically NO accidents listing intoxicated pilots as a causal factor. There are a few simple reasons for this fact.
1. The number of commercial pilots that show up for work drunk is an infintesimal fraction of those that show up fully sober to do their jobs. Percentage wise, it's not even a blip.
2. There are safeguards built into the system that pretty much prevent an intoxicated crew from leaving the gate.
3. Lastly, even if they do get into the air, it's not "likely" that they will be involved in an accident. Again, the Northwest crew serves as the example. Legally intoxicated is a long way from incapacitated. I'm sure you have driven your car after a few beers; did you crash and die every time?
On another note, are you aware of just how many foreign airlines serve wind to their cockpit crews in flight?
-
(http://hallbuzz.com/images/unlinked/jedi_systems.jpg)
-
Fixed
(http://www.sidesconsulting.com/misc/jedi_systems.jpg)
-
Co-Pilot: I got one!
Pilot: Great shot, kid! Don't get cocky!
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Fixed
(http://www.sidesconsulting.com/misc/jedi_systems.jpg)
LOL!
That is better! I think you need to add some midichlorians or dark side sensors or whatever.
-
It dumbfounds me how narrow minded some people are.
On Sept 10th 2001 no one beleived terrorists would ever hijack airliners and fly them into buildings.
on Jan 26th a few still don't beleive a terrorist would ever use a MANPAD to shoot down an air liner....OR 4
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
It dumbfounds me how narrow minded some people are.
On Sept 10th 2001 no one beleived terrorists would ever hijack airliners and fly them into buildings.
on Jan 26th a few still don't beleive a terrorist would ever use a MANPAD to shoot down an air liner....OR 4
No, it's just that i believe an air traffic controller will run two planes into each other accidentally, before a "terrorist" shoots one down. It's a question of need. Billions spent for an occurence that has just about a zero percent chance of happening.... Yet don't fix the things that happen on a daily basis...
:rolleyes:
-
they already stopped "Islam is peace" mooslims crossing with mexicans..
-
Gunslinger: Nobody really believes that hundreds of trained attack cobras will be unleashed into the Whitehouse's vents either. By your logic, the smart federal money should be spent buying legions of mongooses.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Gunslinger: Nobody really believes that hundreds of trained attack cobras will be unleashed into the Whitehouse's vents either. By your logic, the smart federal money should be spent buying legions of mongooses.
mongeese?
-
According to Wikipedia, 'mongeese' is the lesser used plural form.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Fixed
(http://www.sidesconsulting.com/misc/jedi_systems.jpg)
That's good stuff!:lol