Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3190779/

Topic: FAA: Planes Must Be Built To Take An Attack
Username: KarlB737
Posted 2007-01-09 20:00:10 and read 4536 times.

Courtesy: The Seattle Times

FAA: Planes Must Be Built to Take An Attack

http://www.airportbusiness.com/artic.../article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=9551

Topic: RE: FAA: Planes Must Be Built To Take An Attack
Username: YYZatcboy
Posted 2007-01-09 20:06:29 and read 4513 times.

The doors make sense, the rest... who knows. I just get the feeling that anything else won't make much of a difference if someone is determined to committ a terrorist act on an aircraft.

Topic: RE: FAA: Planes Must Be Built To Take An Attack
Username: DfwRevolution
Posted 2007-01-09 20:25:16 and read 4443 times.

I see one obvious problem that is most likely explained by poor journalism rather than the FAA recommendation:

"The manufacturers would need fire extinguishers in cargo holds that can withstand explosives, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said Friday."

Fire extinguishers are not going to help. An explosive device does not bring down an airliner by starting a fire, the explosive force tends to rip the airliner into shreds.

That being said, I think there is always room to improve the fireproofing of an airliner.

Topic: RE: FAA: Planes Must Be Built To Take An Attack
Username: Swissy
Posted 2007-01-09 22:38:01 and read 4240 times.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 2):
That being said, I think there is always room to improve the fireproofing of an airliner.

Could not agree more, however why not start at the source of the problem, screening of pax/laugage, every safety device is only as strong as the weakest link....., explosives in a confined space is always bad not to mention if that "small" space is pressurised.....

Cheers,

Topic: RE: FAA: Planes Must Be Built To Take An Attack
Username: Tlfd29
Posted 2007-01-09 22:56:38 and read 4186 times.

There's only so much you can do to an aircraft to make it "bomb proof" without running into weight issues. I do think that more could be done to aid in in flight fires. A decent ventilation system would make a huge difference. Being a firefighter, I know that ventilation is key. If you can't get the superheated gases out of that confined space the fire is going to gut that aircraft in seconds. It's probably a long shot but a sprinkler system would make a huge difference. Obviously the plumbing and water storage would be a large weight penalty. In flight fires are a pretty rare occurrence, but it would be nice to see the manufacturers doing something to make them more survivable.

Topic: RE: FAA: Planes Must Be Built To Take An Attack
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2007-01-09 23:41:43 and read 4104 times.

If you want to extinguish a fire on an airplane, you want Halon. Unfortunately, its manufacture is banned in most countries.

Topic: RE: FAA: Planes Must Be Built To Take An Attack
Username: Srbmod
Posted 2007-01-10 00:04:09 and read 4058 times.

Why don't they go the route of making the cargo cans bomb-resistant instead? While there are a/c currently in service that don't use cargo cans (Primarily narrowbodies), perhaps future narrowbody a/c can be designed to use cargo cans.

Topic: RE: FAA: Planes Must Be Built To Take An Attack
Username: Lightsaber
Posted 2007-01-10 02:20:54 and read 3898 times.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 5):
If you want to extinguish a fire on an airplane, you want Halon. Unfortunately, its manufacture is banned in most countries.

 checkmark 

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 6):
Why don't they go the route of making the cargo cans bomb-resistant instead?

Weight. Its non-trivial to making something bomb resistant. I've designed test cells... they're heavy enough. Nothing less than 3/8" aluminum counts. You can't make an airplane out of plate!

Now, a stronger cockpit bulkhead... that makes sense to me. If its composite... it really isn't that much weight. As to smoke removal... tough.

Ok, fire extenguisheres that work post an explosion... depends on how thick of a "blast sheild" is required.

Quote:
and having a designated place for crews to put an explosive to minimize damage to the plane.


What?!? Do you realize how heavy bomb proof containers have to be? Have you ever tried to lift one? (I can't... and I lift weights!).

I bet this rule gets watered down.

Its going to add too much weight to aircraft. And when does it get implemented? I'm not seeing only $459 million in costs... I see billions. But hey, only my  twocents 

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: FAA: Planes Must Be Built To Take An Attack
Username: Ruscoe
Posted 2007-01-10 02:31:15 and read 3859 times.

Just curious can one already "throw' something out of an aircraft, at cruising altitude if necessary.

Ruscoe

Topic: RE: FAA: Planes Must Be Built To Take An Attack
Username: Scbriml
Posted 2007-01-10 11:30:37 and read 3669 times.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 5):
If you want to extinguish a fire on an airplane, you want Halon. Unfortunately, its manufacture is banned in most countries.

There are viable alternatives to Halon like FM200. Halon is pretty much a last century solution.

However, the distinct disadvantage would be the weight of the gas cylinders and distribution pipework.

Topic: RE: FAA: Planes Must Be Built To Take An Attack
Username: Electech6299
Posted 2007-01-10 11:49:06 and read 3637 times.

I have major issues with this article. Well, the first three words of the article anyway:

Quote:
Boeing and Airbus

OK, so if you don't like the regs, just rename the company, right? And what about Bombardier? Canadair? Embraer?

Seriously, I wonder if the regs are specific to wide-bodies? Link doesn't specify...

Quote:
having a designated place for crews to put an explosive to minimize damage to the plane.

Like the old-style flushing toilets? More than one way to dispose of an explosive device... and that would reduce the gross weight of the aircraft!  Wink

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 9):
Halon is pretty much a last century solution.

 checkmark  Plenty of alternatives...

Topic: RE: FAA: Planes Must Be Built To Take An Attack
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2007-01-10 14:14:16 and read 3495 times.

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 6):
Why don't they go the route of making the cargo cans bomb-resistant instead? While there are a/c currently in service that don't use cargo cans (Primarily narrowbodies), perhaps future narrowbody a/c can be designed to use cargo cans.

What do you mean with "cargo cans" - containers? Even wide bodies have bulk compartments, whereas the A320 is container loaded plus a bulk compartment as well. On the other hand - cargo going on wide bodies must not necessarily loaded in containers, flats can be used as well, which are then closed with foil and nets.

For a cargo insider, the whole issue is ridiculous. We know our customers for years and the known shipper regulation is safe enough to prevent bomb attacks using air freight. Long before this hysteria came up, I would never have given flight details to an unknown customer. Personal effects generally received special checking and never went on the next flight out. I was reading this morning that lawmakers in the US intend to check all air cargo that goes into bellies. Good sruff, if they find a workable solution, it might work but at immense costs. If they start requesting to open freight for checking -. good night airfreight.

Instead of choking the whole industry, from exporters over service partner to airlines, the Governments should do their homework and that is intelligence surveillance of the self declared target group.

Topic: RE: FAA: Planes Must Be Built To Take An Attack
Username: Flyinround731
Posted 2007-01-10 19:01:27 and read 3359 times.

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 6):
Why don't they go the route of making the cargo cans bomb-resistant instead?

I was watching a show on PBS that was talking about airliner safety. I've forgotten the name of the show, but they stated that the containers are already available, but the reasoning airlines used back then was they were too heavy. Though a few years later, they added IFE systems that put on more or just as much weight as bomb proof luggage containers would.

Topic: RE: FAA: Planes Must Be Built To Take An Attack
Username: Jerald01
Posted 2007-01-10 19:18:43 and read 3330 times.

Not being an expert on commercial airliner cargo holds I pose this scenario:

A. You can't "explosion-proof" ANY airplane. Period.

B. You can lessen the effects of an on-board fire by any one of several methods, fire extiguishers being the primary one. All fires require a fuel, an ignition source, and oxygen. Take away any one of the three in that triangle and the fire doesn't happen. If a fire erupts in the baggage hold (or the cargo area of a freighter) wouldn't purging the affected area with nitrogen douse the fire?

C. I understand some manufacturer's have already thought of this, and maybe the added weight / storage space for the nitrogen is prohibitive, but, wouldn't it work?

Topic: RE: FAA: Planes Must Be Built To Take An Attack
Username: Charlienorth
Posted 2007-01-10 19:24:51 and read 3314 times.

Who's going to pay for this?It's more weight. It's feel good regulations like this that will ultimately kill the airlines.

Topic: RE: FAA: Planes Must Be Built To Take An Attack
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2007-01-10 19:28:55 and read 3295 times.

Quoting Jerald01 (Reply 13):
If a fire erupts in the baggage hold (or the cargo area of a freighter) wouldn't purging the affected area with nitrogen douse the fire?

C. I understand some manufacturer's have already thought of this, and maybe the added weight / storage space for the nitrogen is prohibitive, but, wouldn't it work?

Nitrogen generating systems have already been developed, for the fuel tank inerting program. They weigh about 240lbs (200kg).

Topic: RE: FAA: Planes Must Be Built To Take An Attack
Username: SirOmega
Posted 2007-01-10 19:34:43 and read 3280 times.

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 8):
Just curious can one already "throw' something out of an aircraft, at cruising altitude if necessary.

Thats what I thought initially - just create a way to dump any object out of the aircraft. But the problem with that is size. Whats the maximum size? 20cm square? 50cm? All the terrorist needs to do is make a bomb that exceeds the size of the dump bin and you cant get rid of it.

Topic: RE: FAA: Planes Must Be Built To Take An Attack
Username: Richierich
Posted 2007-01-10 19:59:42 and read 3219 times.

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 6):
Why don't they go the route of making the cargo cans bomb-resistant instead? While there are a/c currently in service that don't use cargo cans (Primarily narrowbodies), perhaps future narrowbody a/c can be designed to use cargo cans

Make smaller bomb-resistant cargo cans...!

Topic: RE: FAA: Planes Must Be Built To Take An Attack
Username: N353SK
Posted 2007-01-11 00:46:08 and read 3017 times.

Quoting Flyinround731 (Reply 12):
I was watching a show on PBS that was talking about airliner safety. I've forgotten the name of the show, but they stated that the containers are already available, but the reasoning airlines used back then was they were too heavy. Though a few years later, they added IFE systems that put on more or just as much weight as bomb proof luggage containers would.

Which do you consider to be a better marketing slogan:

A) XYZ airlines: PTVs in every seat

B) XYZ airlines: now more bomb-resistant than ever!


The easiest solution would be to only allow air cargo from a list of "trusted shippers" to fly on passenger flights.

Topic: RE: FAA: Planes Must Be Built To Take An Attack
Username: Lincoln
Posted 2007-01-11 01:45:21 and read 2958 times.

Quoting N353SK (Reply 21):
The easiest solution would be to only allow air cargo from a list of "trusted shippers" to fly on passenger flights.

Isn't that essentially what the "known shipper" program that's currently in use is all about?

Other than that I agree with you -- not only is there not the return on investment, but how often is there a bomb in the cargo hold vs. how often (at least if you go by this board) is a decision made based on who has PTVs?

(For the record, the airline of my choice doesn't offer PTVs on the aircraft I fly)

Lincoln

Topic: RE: FAA: Planes Must Be Built To Take An Attack
Username: JetJeanes
Posted 2007-01-11 04:30:00 and read 2892 times.

Kevlar behind the walls instead of insulation... it may add a few lbs

Topic: RE: FAA: Planes Must Be Built To Take An Attack
Username: N353SK
Posted 2007-01-11 05:30:43 and read 2829 times.

Quoting Lincoln (Reply 22):
Isn't that essentially what the "known shipper" program that's currently in use is all about?

Well the problem I see is that a lot of air forwarding companies are on the "known shipper" list and as far as I can tell they'll ship anything for anybody with the cash to spend.

Topic: RE: FAA: Planes Must Be Built To Take An Attack
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2007-01-11 08:39:54 and read 2746 times.

Quoting N353SK (Reply 21):

Well the problem I see is that a lot of air forwarding companies are on the "known shipper" list and as far as I can tell they'll ship anything for anybody with the cash to spend.

ypou see - that is exactly wrong and uninformed what you say.

A forwarder is a forwarder and not a shipper. A forwarder makes sure that his customers are on the known shipper list. If they are not, he will mention that on the waybill and these shipments may be subject to additional screening. However, it dos not make sense to screen shipments from secure shippers. In the European Union, we have a program of registered - regulated and secured agents - making sure that security is taken care of. More, most forwarders are IATA agents and by reaching that registraiton alone must pass certain standards.

In the history of air freight with hundreds of millions of shipments, there has never been a bomb smuggled on an airliner and if you would know how things work in this business you would agree that this is virtually impossible. We have no walk-on customers who try to sneak bombs into parcels.

If there is a danger then it is the integrators like FX and UPS who do exactly that, accepting parcels from total strangers for next flight out, something a forwarder would never do.

In sea freight, there is already US regulation in place that each and every containers which goes on a ship bound for the US must be screened. In Hamburg alone 3 Million containers have been screened since, with a US and a German officer looking at the contents. Not a single item has been found.

What a tremendous waste of human ressources caused by stupid and ridiculous laws made by ill informed law makers..


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/