Improving air safety

[SysOpt]

I think these would be good ideas:

Sky marshalls on every flight (if there are 4,000 planes flying over the U.S. at any given time, then we would need about 4,000 sky marshalls - not an outlandish number IMO)
Guns in the cockpit accessible to the pilots
Easily accessible "Panic buttons" for the pilots to indicate a hijacking, rather than manually setting the transponder to 7500
No knives allowed of any kind.
Security check before every flight and BETWEEN stopover flights. Security at small airports can be crappy. If you get on a plane at a small airport and go through another airport to your final destination, your only security checkpoint is at the small airport.
Random carry-on bag thorough searches - do we really need to bring everything we own with us on the plane?
Carry-on restrictions? Metal detectors or a security checkpoint at each gate?



Overkill? Bad ideas, good ideas - more ideas? Will flying ever be 100% safe from this?

[This message has been edited by SysOpt (edited 09-12-2001).]

[socalgal]

Solid, reinforced, locked and / or otherwise inaccessible cockpit doors.

I agree with a silent panic alarm, armed or defense-trained pilots and / or trained, armed sky marshalls, beefed up security before admittance into the airport or terminal areas.

Background and security checks on all airline personnel. Metal detector security personnel have been found to be inadequately trained, some without even background checks, according to reports.

I believe the "no knives" ban has already been implemented. Last I heard, even the plastic butter-knives used on-flight meals have been discontinued.

Also, there are many security rules already in place - but they have not been followed or not followed thoroughly and consistently. I suspect we'll be hearing more about this...


[This message has been edited by socalgal (edited 09-13-2001).]

[SysOpt]

Yeah they've implemented these restrictions:
http://www.sysopt.com/news/gws/cdata/Forum1/HTML/000313.html

[Scorpio69]

I think many of these are good ideas. Unfortunately, there are a couple of counter points.

More restriction equals less freedom, and America was founded on freedom. People will whine. When I worked retail, I routinely asked for ID when someone used a credit card. Amazingly many people complain when you try to help them! (I go out of my way to thank people who card me when using a credit card.)

Increased costs for tickets means fewer passengers. (More automobile traffic).
The problem with this is that if people drive more, they are in much more danger than flying.

I do like the "panic button" idea.

One important point to mention is that this is a wholly new type of attack. Pilots have traditionally been instructed to cooperate with terrorists, in order to save their passangers lives. Now I think it goes without saying that in a similar event this will not be the priority.

Forgot to mention: No, I don't beleive we are ever safe, anywhere. Life is inherently dangerous.


[This message has been edited by Scorpio69 (edited 09-13-2001).]

[Aaron_J]

My opinion (would like to hear others)

Sky marshalls on every flight

I assume you mean ARMED SM's right? There are 2 problems with that. The first is that all the terrorists would have to do is use 1 of their own to "flush" out the SM then attack him with larger numbers. Now they have a gun. The second problem is having a projectile weapon on a plane is extremely dangerous. Put a hole in the wrong place (like a window) and not only will you experience a loss of pressure at altitude, you may cause a serious structural failure. This has happened before in the case of a sudden decompression as it is a serious stress on the airframe.

Guns in the cockpit accessible to the pilots

Pilots are not police. The chance of them being able to bring a weapon into effect quickly enough to combat a militarily trained terrorist is slim. I also subscribe to several avaition forums and this was brought up there. It is the answer most professional pilots provide. Also, if they fail, as in the above idea, the terrorists now have a weapon and again, projectile weapons are extremely dangerous on a plane.

Easily accessible "Panic buttons" for the pilots to indicate a hijacking, rather than manually setting the transponder to 7500

Not a bad idea. Only problem is what happens afterward? After this incident will we immediately shoot down any airliner upon confirmation of a hijacking?

No knives allowed of any kind

This is already in effect as of yesterday. Should have been common sense before.

Security check before every flight and BETWEEN stopover flights

If I heard correctly that has also been enacted as of yesterday. At least before the initial flight. Not sure about between stopovers.

Carry-on restrictions?

How about we go one step further? NO carry on bags. NO walkmans. NO purses. NO notebook computers. NOTHING that could even possibly contain a weapon or have one integrated into it's components. Sound drastic? The memory of September 11, 2001 should be all that is necessary to remind everyone that we need SERIOUS measures to insure this NEVER happens again.

I do have an idea that is virtually foolproof though. Why don't we simply replace the flimsy door leading to the cockpit with a virtually impregnable security door and lock? It shouldn't be difficult as any terrorist on board will have no saws or torches with which to penetrate one. Then no matter what, even if the terrorists are threatening to kill hostages, the pilots simply land the plane and let the professionals handle the situation.

Unfortunatly, even if we do this there will always be ways to kill large crowds of people. In this situation, other options would have included purchasing an old Greyhound bus. Loading it with 20 tons of explosives and fuel, then driving it through the ground floor of the WTC(s). If the explosion didn't take the building down then the fire might, and it sure would make the building hard to evacuate while the first/second floors were on fire and destroyed. All the while the flames would be rapidly heading upward. No one ever said skyscrapers are safe to work in. An uncontained fire is always a tradgedy in one. And containing one is virtually impossible.

You could also use older/smaller planes loaded with explosives and simulate the same physical energy as a larger one loaded with fuel. These planes would be beyond the restrictions placed on commercial planes.

So what I am saying here, is while it would be simple to ensure this particular chain of events never happens again, it is impossible to preven the same end result without seriously restricting the basic freedoms we enjoy as citizens of this country.

What do we do?

BTW not spellchecked...didn't feel like it http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Aaron_J (edited 09-13-2001).]

[Scorpio69]

It's easy to second guess these types of things after the fact. As they say "Hindsight is always 20/20."

The larger issue (I think,) is enforcing the security, rather than imposing more restrictions. I think we just let our guard down. Typically the people watching the metal detectors make just over minimum wage, and there is a high turn-over rate.

This is not to say we should not implement more restrictions, but people (especially Americans) will only tolerate so much.

Another note on knives (or even guns): They are not necessarily made of metal.

[club_med]

The planes should be built in such a way that it would be physicaly impossible to enter the cockpit from inside the plane.

The cockpit should become an independent section, with toilets and kitchen and all so that there would be no need for any of the pilots to access the passenger section.

There should be no doors or hatches that could connect the passeneger section with the cockpit.

The crew should take over any functions the pilots might have to perform in the passenger section.

Thats just one idea,
cm.

[Hellmund]

Maybe the SM could stay in the cockpit with the pilot, they have firearms which are still powerfull enough to kill/severely maim a person but can't penetrate the hull. The idea of locking off the cockpit has one flaw, what if the pilot is the terrorist, he's protected and can take the plane where he wants and no-one onboard can do a thing....sorry to be negative but every suggestion is bound to be flawed in some sense....

More difficult than I thought....everything I come up with I can easily flaw myself!

I think maybe combinations would be most effective, have a skymarshmal aboard at all times, restrict all weapons, always have stringent back-ground tests and psych evals on pilots before they're allowed near a plane and randon bag checks.....

[Aaron_J]

Any projectile weapon likely to severely injure an attacker will probably puncture the hull of an aircraft. You can stab a hole in one with a screwdriver.

Also on further thought, arming the pilots has another reason to be a bad idea. I know of at least 3 instances of a disgruntled pilot attempting to bring down his plane in the last 10 or so years. There are many reasons those planes reqire at least 2 pilots. Thats one of them.

I'm not talking about Egyptair btw, that hasn't been confirmed yet. I cannot fully remember the others (I read WAY too may accident/incident reports) but a UPS, DHL, or Fed-Ex (I remember it was a well-known cargo carrier) pilot stormed into the cockpit swinging a wrench at his first officer (maybe the other way around). Turns out he didn't take control but he was going to be fired really soon and it was revealed/suspected that he was going to crash the plane into line of his companys' planes after he landed.

There was also one where the flight engineer (I think) shot the pilot and first officer leading to a crash of the plane. Little vague on that one too but I know the cvr for it has been released to the public.

Again sorry for the vagueness...I read so much that I tend to lose specifics. Didn't feel this warranted an hour or more looking up the specific reports though I would if anyone was interested.



[This message has been edited by Aaron_J (edited 09-13-2001).]

[daveleau]

AaronJ-
There are bullets that will pierce a human body but not pierce other items. I think we should have a sharpshooter on every flight and should have guns in the cockpit. Everyone should be a policeman when it comes to a situation like this. Also we should do background checks on suspicious people before they board flights. It is not a catch-all, but will make things more difficult. While this is not PC, we need to get away from being politically correct because it is a noose around the head of America.

[Aaron_J]

I do recall seeing special purpose rounds that would supposedly not penetrate sheetrock (for home defense). I don't know what ever became of them.

As far as an armed guard on the plane though, tell me, what is to stop 1 terrorist from making a scene in order to identify the guard then having others jump him?(these airmarshalls are usually plainclothed) These terrorists were willing to die so I suppose they were willing to to get shot if necessary.

And as far as arming the pilots, the first time one pilot shoots the other in order take over the plane then it will seem like an extremely bad idea. And as I said, those attempts have been made before.

The ONLY solution I see is to make the cockpit COMPLETLY inaccessable during flight. The only problem with that is most cockpits don't have their own restrooms or galleys (for long flights) It would require an extensive redesign of new aircraft and a difficult upgrade for existing aircraft

[daveleau]

There is always a WHAT IF? If we only set security protocols in place that were foolproof, we would be security protocol-free, meaning we would have NO security protocols. We must have protection on flights. The cockpit being innaccessible was something I was shocked to find as not being a reality. I thought this was an obvious security item which was already in place. In a WHAT IF scenario, a hijacker could just as easily trick the pilots into opening the cockpit for their mid-flight coffee. We need several provisions in place and one must be a trained, and heavily armed security guard at the front of the plane.

[Hellmund]

What if the PILOT is a TERRORIST, he'd be safe isolated from the rest of the plane and could take it where ever he wants.....atleast there's a chance if their access to the cockpit of stopping them, back-ground checks and psyc eval's can only detect so much...

[daveleau]

Again another WHAT IF scenario that is highly unlikely. WHAT IF President Bush is s a terrorist and hijacked niclear weapons to destroy Sri Lanka. Very unrealistic, but another WHAT IF.

Background checks on pilots are thorough and would 99.999999999% of the time catch this.

[sharder8]

Aaron_J --

The special purpose rounds that the Sky Marshalls would use are a brand called Glazers (sp?). They are designed to penetrate one (1) object only. Yes, they will go through one (1) sheet of sheetrock, but not the second sheet (as in an interior wall in your home or apartment). Realize, that the wall of an commercial aircraft is NOT one wall, but two (2). Even the windows are at least 2, seperated barriers.

My wife's .380 is loaded with these rounds alternating with another brand of self-defense round. I have fired these rounds into simulated walls and materials to see if they really did do as claimed, and they do!

Harder

[Aaron_J]

Yes, but it still leaves the ultimate problem of keeping the firearm out of the hands of a potential attacker.

Unless there is a definite solution to that problem I would hope that we don't go sticking armed men on every flight.

There will be no easy answer to this problem because ultimately there is nothing "safe" about aircraft, some weighing over 400 tons, flying unrestricted around our country.

And getting rid of them isn't an option anyone would be willing to entertain is it?

[This message has been edited by Aaron_J (edited 09-13-2001).]

[daveleau]

That is typical anti-gun propoganda. Do you know that out of over 2 million times a gun was used in defense last year, less than 1% had the gun taken away? Anyone with a gun sets a perimeter. When it is crossed YOU FIRE THE GUN. You do not allow those to take it away. How many police officers have their guns used on them? VERY FEW. Anti-gun propoganda (I say propoganda, but untruths or misinformation could be substituted) must be stopped in America.

[Aaron_J]

That is typical anti-gun propoganda

I own several firearms. Seven to be exact. 1 shotgun, 3 rifles, 1 Beretta 92FS, 1 96FS, 1 Glock model 27 for carry. I go the range about once a week, I have a CCW, I am a member of the NRA, and I am a former Marine.

Care to give up your job as an internet psychologist?

My opinion still stands. I consider myself to be very well trained with firearms and I know the limitations of their use.

1 terr makes a scene. Lets say he jumps a flight attendent. Airmarshal breaks cover to subdue him. 3 more terrs jump the Airmarshal. It's that simple. An aircraft is a cramped environment, there is little chance of warding off 3-4-5 attackers simultaneously. End of story.

You put too much stock in Hollywood films showing Rambo wasting 500 of the enemy.

That DOES NOT happen.

Oh and:

How many police officers have their guns used on them? VERY FEW

Actually if you go to any large memorial site for police and read up on what happened to them you will find this statement to be complete BS. It does happen suprisingly often. Although you are foolishly comparing 2 very different situations as usually the attacker in this case ALREADY has a gun.

Care to compare more "apples" to "oranges"?

[This message has been edited by Aaron_J (edited 09-13-2001).]

[daveleau]

Care to give up your job as an internet psychologist?

End of conversation. I am not personally attacking you.

[wyvrn]

Ok people calm down. The thread has some good brainstorming. We need to control our emotions and keep the personal attacks out of it.

Aaron_J

People post their ideas mostly to vent relieve the shock and stress. You do not need to tear them all to pieces. I do appeciate hearing your educated perspective on the issue so please keep posting.

My ideas:

Sky marshalls could all be trained martial arts fighters, and carry a stun gun with x amount of charges. And if we are going to commit to having 4000 active marshalls, why not double the number to 8000 and have two per flight?

IMO we do need to make the cockpits inaccessible. I don't thinks it is neccessary to make them bathroom capable, just do not have more than one member of the cockpit leave at a time. Also, the doors could have peep holes made of bullet proof glass used to verify attendants before opening the door.

The airport security could be tightened. Eliminate curb side check-ins completely and develop more inside checkpoints. Train attendants to spot state of the art weaponry, like plastic guns etc...

Increase airport security personnel, maybe one per checkpoint?

Limit carry on bags to 1 per person, and do random inspections, so that you don't know who is going to be checked. Do these random checks on every flight, just don't check every piece of luggage.

Institute an easier panic system in the cockpit (good idea).

Put a non-removable, non-controllable transponder on EVERY commercial plane that would give exact location, as well as all relevant information such as registration numbers, etc. That way flight towers could positively identify any plane that veered of course, where it should be headed, where it came from, and all on-board pilots and attendants at the click of a button.

Make a direct line from airport officials to military (accessible by only 1 or 2 airport officials), so that fighters can be scrambled quickly if terrorist activity is suspected.

Require official US Passports on every domestic flight. Make these obtainable only at federal offices.

These are only ideas, probably most of them can be torn apart, but that is the best I can do http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by wyvrn (edited 09-13-2001).]

[daveleau]

Nice one wyvrn. lotsa good ideas.

The stun gun idea is nice. Actually every stewardess/ steward/ pilot could have one and make it very difficult to do anything against the aircraft.

[Gomer]

No guns in cockpit... foolishness. Pilots fly the **** plane... can't be playing soldier at the same time.

Sky marshall good idea.. Until it can be implemented, a member of the US armed forces in every flight. Have them fly plainclothes in the back of the plane if you want. Or in full uniform.

I think the risk of a bullet piercing the fuselage and depressurising the plane is far less than the danger of a plane being taken over and flown into populated areas.

A real door on the cockpit. easy enough eh?

All this talk of carry on restrictions and whatnot may be overkill. Weapons aren't always needed to terrorize people. "We have a bomb" is often all the motivation people need to sit back and obey orders. A strong threat can be a great weapon.

BTW, For what it's worth, I have never flown.



[This message has been edited by Gomer (edited 09-13-2001).]

[Gomer]

dave... every weapon on the plane is a weapon a terrorist could use against those the weapons were meant to protect.

[wyvrn]

Yeah but you can't expect them to go weaponless. The same reason we do not ask our boys in blue to keep the peace without weapons. Force must be countered with equal force.

I remeber the scene in Heat where police were using handguns against thiefs with automatic weapons. Not a good strategy.

[This message has been edited by wyvrn (edited 09-13-2001).]

[daveleau]

Yes, they did say they had a bomb and it is not believed that they really did have one. This is enough to terrorize.

With the bullets mentioned earlier, the threat to the fuselage would be greatly reduced.

[Gomer]

Wvyrn...

maybe you missed this in my post
Sky marshall good idea.. Until it can be implemented, a member of the US armed forces in every flight. Have them fly plainclothes in the back of the plane if you want. Or in full uniform.

I think the risk of a bullet piercing the fuselage and depressurising the plane is far less than the danger of a plane being taken over and flown into populated areas.


I just don't think that all the employees on the plane need to be armed. One person is enough.

[This message has been edited by Gomer (edited 09-13-2001).]

[Aaron_J]

Again, comparing them to police on the street is like comparing apples to oranges.

Police generally have backup in hostile situations and when they don't, they are trained to keep a distance between themselves and possible attackers until backup arrives.

That isn't possible on an airplane. It might work 1 on 1 but not against 3 or 4 attackers.

Stun guns are a great idea. Multiple Airmarshals (with stun guns) are a better idea. Sure it would cost more but it is money being spent on something we should have already been doing.

As far as a button that can be pressed that will alert the military, nothing wrong there but I am curious. What happens then? What do we do when we find out a plane has been hijacked. I posted a new thread on this but only got one other response. I really would like to hear what others think.

[gyoung]

This is from an article at FoxNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34300,00.html) :

"Increased security measures" don't stop terrorists, except for the occasional bumbling amateur. To put it bluntly, bullets stop terrorists. Terrorists do what they do because it works: it spreads terror, it inconveniences and disrupts societies, and it leads to the adoption of cumbersome security measures that increase the inconvenience and disruption and burdens law enforcement and antiterrorist forces with so many pointless tasks that they're actually less effective against future terrorism. If terrorism doesn't work, if the consequences are serious and the payoffs small, then terrorism will stop.


[This message has been edited by gyoung (edited 09-13-2001).]

[Warthog]

I'm sure it would be effective, you sit on an airplane, stairing at the wall for 8-9 hours a day. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

Warthog

[Banti]

I had an idea similar to DiscoLando's.

Each plane has an onboard comp. I think the state machine (async or not) should not allow the plane to be at a downward angle AND at full throttle WHILE below 10k feet. Also I think the plane should not allow any major changes from flight path unless it gets a random-encrypted security code (possible each plane has a pgp), otherwise the changes are locked out and the plane will follow the flight path. Also the transponder has no on/off option... also it cannot be removed and the plane still function.. or it can only be removed on the ground after getting the code mentioned above.

These changes would not really cause much problems on the planes... just back at Lockhead as some of my friends have to reprogram the onboard computer... and maybe some work in the control tower to set up the code generator.

PLUS
No button to hit
No weapons in plane

MINUS
Person in tower can be tricked
Person in tower can be in collusion


Banti

~~EDIT I CANNOT spell at all http://www.sysopt.com/forum/frown.gif

[This message has been edited by Banti (edited 09-13-2001).]

[DiscoLando]

Banti, I like your idea's very much.

I think the cons you listed really wouldn't be insormountable at all. How could the tower be tricked? If a plane is hijacked and the attackers demand control of the plane, the tower could grant it, but the moment the flight path is determined to be destructive, the tower could immediately give control back to the computer only.

And as for collusion, I don't see how a tower operator could get away with cooperating with hijackers. They're in a much different environment than the plane itself, and would be surrounded by armed guards.

[pickel]

As much as I'm for self-defense and the right to carry a firearm, I feel that NO GUNS, whoever has them should not be allowed on any aircraft. A law enforcement official trained in martial arts and the flight crew trained to react to these emergengies and an educational program for passengers to be more aware and participate in observation and communiction between all members of each particular flight. The inpregniable door thing should be fitted immediately. If they can't control the plane ,the war zone is resticted to the passenger area. They might very well take over and blow up the plane, but the pilot could keep in an unpopulated area. We just have to be prepared , mentally, for anything they can throw at us. Be strong and determine that the future will be shaped be our decisions instead of those that would do us harm.

[BBA]

How about using non-lethal guns? Ones that either shoot tranquilizers or shock people into unconsciousness? They can be used to incapacitate without killing, so to minimize the chance of terrorist using them. ( They can incapacitate a stewardess...big deal...keep flying...because you, the pilot, are safe behind the newly installed cockpit firewall. )

[ILC]

Guns are a bad idea IMO, on planes due to they penetrate the walls, and all that gas. The inpregneable door is a GREAT idea, an dit should be air tight. When the pilot hits the panic button..it should decompress the cabin, and the masks should not drop. EVERYONE will become unconscience until the plane has landed and police and oficials are on the plane.

ILC

[wyvrn]

Ok. So guns on an airplane are not the greatest idea. We know that terrorists succeed in numbers. One terrorist with a box knife would not have been able to take over the plane.

So we agree that we need multiple marshals on the planes, right?

[Aaron_J]

So we agree that we need multiple marshals on the planes, right?

The more the merrier. Whatever it takes to prevent unauthorized access to the flight deck. Besides it wouldn't hurt to have someone on board to straighten out the drunks that can't seem to control their actions. Thats becomming more frequent too.

[Warthog]

Until it can be implemented, a member of the US armed forces in every flight.

That'll quickly rise to the top as the most boring job on the planet, surpassing watching paint dry.

An effective measure but not with 40-50k flights in America daily.

Warthog

[DiscoLando]

My ideas to add onto the other ones:

2 Sky Marshall's on each flight - one plainclothed, one uniformed. That would help prevent 'sniffing' out the plainclothed officer, and would probably give passengers a psychological boost.

Secondly, since everyone seems to agree that the Panic button is a good idea, why not go further? If a particular panic button is pressed, why not lock out the physical controls of the plane, only to be reactivated by an FAA control tower?

Sure, I can already think of flaws in these ideas, but we're all brainstorming, right?

[Gomer]

Wart:
That'll quickly rise to the top as the most boring job on the planet, surpassing watching paint dry.
I am sure if you asked any member of the armed forces if they'd rather be working a bucket brigade fetching civilian body parts out of collapsed buildings, or flying jumpseat in a commercial flight... they'd choose the commercial flight... boring or not.

Is it really 40-50K a day? That seems like a tall number to me.

[Scorpio69]

I like Banti's idea. If a plane strays from it's course, an autopilot takes over. It will only accept course correction from a remote source. (You'd have to make sure the encryption would be sufficient.)

BTW, the guns the Sky Marshals used were specially designed not to penetrate the skin of the plane.

[ILC]

Scorpio, how in the world would they design a gun not to penetrate the skin of an airplane. In most places its just sheets of aluminum. My hunting bow can penetrate it. Just curious unless they used rubber bullets??

ILC

[Mark Stubblefield]

Just testing something. test.

[Scorpio69]

ILC, read the posts above (last one on first page). I was not aware how they worked till I read it here. The bullets are designed to penetrate only one object

[DaveLewis]

The round that was developed for the Sky Marshall program back in the 70's is called the Glaser Safety Slug. I believe that the first Marshalls carried snub .38 specials - Charter Arms, Rugers, and Smiths. The original Safety Slug design used compressed #9 shot housed in a teflon matrix. When the round was fired, the small shot would remain together in the teflon and act as a solid projectile. Then when the bullet hit the target - or the skin of the aircraft - the teflon would break apart. If the target was a bad guy, the many small bb's in the round would literally explode from the teflon and create a huge and hopefully rapidly disabling wound. The Glaser was virtually guaranteed not to penetrate through a human target. When the bullet hit a non "flesh and blood target " the round would break up and the small bb's were relatively harmless and certainly not capable of penetrating an aircraft fuselage.

Since the 70's the Glaser round has appeared in a variety of calibers from .22 long rifle all the way up to .44 magnum and .45 ACP. While documented accounts of actual shootings with Glaser ammunition are quite rare, anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that they're very effective. The bad news is that they're totally ineffective against soft body armor. So that's why you're taught the "Mozambique drill" - 2 to the body, 1 to the head, and repeat as necessary.

Probably more than you guys wanted to know about Glasers but I wanted to get set the record straight.

I'd rather see a Marshall carrying a pistol loaded with Glasers go after hijackers than to leave it up to a couple of passengers armed with fingernails and teeth.

Remember that the Israelis have put armed guards aboard their aircraft for at least 20 - 25 years and NOBODY hijacks el-Al.

[Aaron_J]

Good info DaveLewis. I have seen these rounds but I never looked to see what they are made of. Last time I saw them they were ungodly expensive.

[SysOpt]

I'm not familiar with the latest autopilot wizardry, but if it is possible for a plane to land itself (I know it's possible for autopilot to guide it within feet of the runway at least), why not have the panic button lock out the controls and put the plane on approach to the closest capable runway?

I also don't know about exit doors - can they be opened during any phase of flight by anyone? If so, then they need to be reworked. Someone willing to die could just get an exit row seat and open the door to try to bring the plane down.

[cadetstimpy]

I agree with Socal.....

the best, fastest, cheapest and immediately effective recourse would be an impenetrable cockpit door lockable only from the inside of the cockpit....to be closed before taxiing and not to open until after landing. This would allow in a worse case scenario, time for the pilot to control a plane away from population. This would only leave the terrorist one option, completely blowing up the plane near a population. It's far easier to detect explosives than weapons.

Alternatively, unless the terrorists could sabotage the plane, the pilot could land the plane in an attempt to arrest or at least positively identify the terrorist in the case of suicide.

[Scorpio69]

I could be wrong, but I don't think the doors will open at altitude, due to the pressure differential.

[pickel]

You guys remember "Lucky Lindy", Charles Lindberg?
Ed_S should know this...the Spirit of St. Louis was fitted with a periscope because of the size of the engine. Why not have the polits in an inaccessable area and have them fly with a big monitor kind of like flight simulator and not have to worry about forced entry of any kind.

[Scorpio69]

How about releasing some type of sleeping gas on all the passengers - then one of the pilots could just put on a gas mask, go back and 'cuff 'em an' stuff 'em! Of course you'd have to search carry-on luggage for gas masks.

[socalgal]

I just heard some aviation engineer talking about a remote-controlled device that could be installed and then used by the ATCs in the event of the pilot being unable to fly the plane and when the transponder goes off. The FAA ATC would be able to take over control the plane.

Feasible?

[Scorpio69]

I think it's physically feasible, but I don't know if the cost is justifiable.

I saw a documentary one time about the statistics involved with increasing costs for passengers.

The example they gave was that if people were forced to pay for an extra seat for a small child instead of sitting on a parent's lap, more people would travel by car, and hence have more accidents. The term they used was "statistical homicide".

Another example was seat belts on busses. It turns out that more injuries and deaths occur getting on/off a bus than in crashes. Therefore the money is better spent on safer ways to board.

Somebody who knows statistics back me up here, it's been a while since I've seen the show.

[strangerstill]

Something no-one seems to have mentioned yet is collision avoidance software. The military use it so it is proven technology and can't be too difficult to retro-fit.