Flybyguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1803 posts, RR: 1 Posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 12539 times:
In light of the Airbus A380's world debut this month. I have received feedback from close friends indicating that if an A380 crashes it can involve upwards of 550 passengers. Larger derivatives have this number approach 1000. Mixing two larger-derivative A380s and you have a disaster on the scale of the World Trade Center attacks.
Does the sheer size of the A380 make it a more appealing target for Terrorist networks attempting to achieve maximum casualties with minimum effort?
[Edited 2005-01-12 06:23:08]
"Are you a pretender... or a thoroughbred?!" - Professor Matt Miller
TWAMD-80 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1006 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 12330 times:
I think that if terrorists were to go primarily for an airliner to bring down that they'd naturally go for the larger plane to inflict more casualties. I think that the reason we didn't see bigger planes used on 9-11 was because the 767/757 were lightly loaded and full of fuel for a cross country flight (unfortunately it got the job done for the terrorists). A 747 would likely have had more passengers aboard which could carry the possibility of the passengers combating the plans of the terrorist scum.
Two A-4's, left ten o'clock level continue left turn!
Flybyguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1803 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 12247 times:
I did not mean terrorists commandeering an aircraft just merely shooting one down or suicide bombing one. After all, the TSA swabs baggage for explosives, but a carefully arranged wallet packed with C4 plastic explosives can elude security screenings in the back pocket of any terrorist. In the era of online seat selections a terrorist need only to select a seat in the vicinity of his target aircraft's belly fuel tanks to accomplish his wicked task.
I think women may be even better at hiding plastic explosives by stuffing it into their braziers.
"Are you a pretender... or a thoroughbred?!" - Professor Matt Miller
B2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1375 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 12199 times:
IMHO, the risk of terrorism is the worst of the usual arguments against the A380. For one thing, the aircraft is only 25% bigger than the 747-400, and 9/11 proved that even relatively small aircraft can be devastating in the wrong hands. If taken to its logical conclusion, this argument would have us flying around on Beechcraft 1900s.
The key to combating aviation terrorism is prevention. Once the bomb, hijacker, missile, etc. gets through, the aircraft type is mostly irrelevant.
Sevenair From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 1728 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 12045 times:
depends-the next 9-11 (like the first one) will occur where and when Bush wants it to-if you wanna know if/when the a380 will be hit ask him-saying that the a380 is potentially a significant competitor to certain US aircraft manufacturers-he complained about govt money which airbus was recieving-how better to get his own back than blowing up (of getting 'the tyrant' or 'the killers who kill') to blast the flagship out of the sky?
Yhz78 From Canada, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 11820 times:
In addition to the above reasons given about light loads and high fuel the B757 and B767 were also ideal to the terrorists because of the cockpit similarities. We might as well start making every cockpit completely different as well to make it even harder for the terrorists should they ever get that far again.
Canada Rocks! From the west coast to the best coast!
Na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 11004 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 11729 times:
The USA are the prime target of global terrorism, the A380 a European product that will be mostly operated by airlines from countries who do not invade whole countries (or do not support that) to fight terrorism.
Besides that I do not think that terrorists would choose a certain airliner for their horrible "work" logic has it that a 777 would be a far more fitting object ...
But, paranoia doesn´t help nobody. Somehow I´m getting tired of all those threads here who try to downwrite the A380s success and rightful existence.
There is so much obvious envy and jealousy in it.
@Flyssc: "Let's all stay at home, buy tons of kalashnikov, close doors and windows, and pray !!! "
Don't make this suggestion, gas masks have been sold out in lots of US shops before Iraq War began because people believed what US admin said.
So there is no need to make panic, it's a tawdrily propaganda - shameless.
DTWA320 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 104 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 11622 times:
I believe that's a valid point, BestWestern. On a personal level European or world "things" don't annoy me at all. I still get up every other weekend, and watch the F1 races from Europe, and beyond. And I may one of the few Americans on A.net looking forward to the A380... something I've been looking forward to for a very long time. Some Americans may "tune out" those countries we have disagreements with, but I believe most of us are perceptive to what the world has to say.
Couzinet70 From France, joined Dec 2004, 16 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 11616 times:
Could you please have the decency to let this plane roll-out of his factory, be presented to the press and to the great team of people & supliers who have built it before talking about his destruction !!!!!!!!!
And please, for the sake of aerospace industry and airlines, let's not play with topic like these. I really do not undertand your motivation Flybyguy ??????
Chris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2825 posts, RR: 50
Reply 21, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 11492 times:
The peace of mind of say a few thousand individuals isn't going to do anything to Airbus's proposed production plans of the A380, so i suggest not worrying about it. If you feel unsafe about don't fly it!
5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII
Gearup From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 578 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 11430 times:
It seems that as the A380's entry into service gets closer, as it looms larger on the world stage and as the day appoaches when it supplants the 747 as the Queen of the skies, it seems to annoy those people who suffer from Not-invented-here-syndrome (NIHS) more and more. There has been a constant stream of drivel about potential problems, failures etc. about the A380. Where are the true airliner fans, those that are excited about flight, those that can appluad the engineering effort being made to build such a beautiful machine as the A380. Lets celebrate this achievement just as we did when the 777 was born and many others before it. This time, the biggest and best comes from Europe, get over it people. Shove all the politics and nationalistic claptrap up where the sun don't shine!
Gilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3085 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (10 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 11324 times:
I am getting really bored with these "Anti" A380 forums, where do people get some of this shit from!
In Japan many 747-400's are flown in an all Y configuration and these hold 500+ passengers, you dont hear any scare mongering about these and possibility if one of these crash.
If they are such terrorist threats why in the 9/11 tradegy did Al-Queda not use the 777 or 747 for maximum impact???
We should be celebrating engineering and technology at its finest! Regardless of if it is an Airbus or Boeing aircraft, this is one of the most exciting things to happen in civil aviation since the launch of the 747 or Concorde.
: Terrorists may dream of attacking an A380 but size is secondary. First rule is that they will be able to carry out the act of terrorism "successfully"
: I think that the operators, manufacturer and airport authorities have already developed comprehensive anti-terror plans for the aircraft.
: The terrorists targeted the 757 & 767 aircraft on 9/11 because that's the aircraft type that they were able to get some level of training on. Also to
: I agree with the Airbus crowd on this one. To argue that the A380 presents some greater risk because terrorists would be drawn to it is absurd. As som
: N79: "I do not think we should let terrorists or the fear they seek to spread determine how large an airplane should be." This already happened, N79,
: Cwapilot: who is interested in your political statements? And concerning Udo's "rant": He's just tired (as lots of people here) to hear all this paran
: Apparently the people who posted their nonsense in the above posts, since they can't expect to post them without having them responded to. Don't fault
: Cwapilot, forget it, watch Fox and agree with us: the Terror theory is nonsense.
: I already agreed the terror theory is nonsense...why bring up your Fox nonsense again? I will continue to watch Fox/CNN and all of the other news sour
: Why should the A380 or any aircraft be any more of a target than Times Square in NYC or the mall area of Washington, DC or central London by use of a
: Are we allowed call the A380 the "Queen Mother of the Skies"?
: Are we allowed call the A380 the "Queen Mother of the Skies"? -If the "Queen Mother" is named Bertha...although the nose section does give more of an
: AMEN, Cwa, AMEN. Thank you for your level headed, backed up with evidence, no nonsense, mature response(s). If everyone on this board would have back
: So how many successful hi-jacking after 010911? If you want to crash into a major building why not hi-jack an AN-124 instead?