Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Armored Cockpits Now!  
User currently offlineCaptjetblast From Argentina, joined Aug 2001, 281 posts, RR: 0
Posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1696 times:

I think cockpits should be armored and locked during the whole flight.
Pilots should be told not to open the door, even if one of the stewardesses has a knife around her neck.
In such a situation, pilots should contact ground for help and land inmediately, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS TO THE REST OF THE CREW AND PAX behind the locked door!
I know it sounds easy to say but hard to commit, but now we know that a commercial flight can be easily converted to a missile.
Hope it helps.



53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGib From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 281 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1446 times:

Agree totally!!

User currently offlineMarkk From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 196 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1407 times:

Along with this I think we should look at using the technology that we have. Computers can be programmed to land a plane. Perhaps part of flight planning should be preprogramming computers to land at various en-route airports. Should this cockpit door be breached the captain would be able to hit a "panic button" of sorts causing a lock-out of controls and for the computer to take over and land the plane at one of the checkpoints along with transmitting warnings that the planes security has been compromised.

User currently offlineLuckySevens From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1377 times:

That's just like saying that we should make every plane just like the black boxes or even make every plane crash-proof.

If a bank robber can crack a safe, why couldn't they crack a lock on the cockpit door?

What do you propose to stop bullets? 4 inch steel plate around the cockpit?


User currently offlineNaimas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1365 times:

Yes yes yes I completely agree that planes should be fitted with the ONE BUTTON emergency switch that will automatically put the plane down at an airport.

They HAVE TO do something like this. The have to because they made it hard to smuggle bombs on board so unless this is nipped in the bud THIS will be the trend to use airliners as bombs.


It should have already been done figuring that every plane anywheres near you is already a danger when it is in the air. Too much fuel danger.

If they can make the plane fly itself they can figure out a way for it to do this. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE AN INTERNAL SETTING THAT COULD NOT BE EFFECTED BY SABOTAGING THE FLIGHT EQUIPMENT ONBOARD.

Just think how having that type of technology wouldve already made this impossible.

THE Emergency route could be by computer prefigured for each flight depending on ROUTE.. So a flight from BOS that was hijacked would land at (fill in the blank) airport and would once that ONE BUTTON was pushed (behind glass ofcourse) it would AUTOMATICALLY ping out to the contol towers that the plane was in trouble and was making an emergency landing.


WITH THAT TIME SEQUENCE it is highly likely that the airport would time to clear the runways and what I fear may be a future for air terrorism would be totally avoided and done.


IT is not that hard to do. It cant be. Depending on route a preplanned emegency programming that once hit could not be revoked.

They could also make it so the planes control went dead to human commanding once the alarm was triggered.


There wouldnt be a problem then.


This isnt far fetched.


User currently offlineLuckySevens From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1313 times:

I think that ANY plane that will render its controls null when someone pushes a button is a BAD idea.

This will cause more problems than it will solve.
Especially if there is already a problem with the guidance computer.


User currently offlineNaimas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1270 times:

OK

Valid argument point about the ON PLANE button being a bad idea. Although how could it be since the plane would be just forced to land?

But Ok I see the point.



HOW about AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL being able to push a button to land a plane if it fails to repeatedly radio to the tower it is ok?

That would require satellite technology.


It would be a bit Star Wars like when the Millenium falcon was brought down by tractor beam.


But its a thought.


GROUND Controls for bringing down a plane that doesnt repeatedly respond.


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1253 times:

The only way to prevent people from entering the cockpit in flight is not having a door between the cockpit and the cabin and having the wall made of thick steel.
This means of course that another way into the cockpit must be found for the pilots, probably doors on the outside of the plane.
Retrofitting this would be nearly impossible at the very least.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineJaspike From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 1 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1247 times:

It was on TV this morning.
Planes can't be taken over if people can't get in the cockpits to fly/crash the plane.


User currently offlineLearpilot From United States of America, joined May 2001, 814 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1240 times:

I don't know about armored, but the president of the airline pilots assn. is calling for armed pilots in the cockpit.

www.airlinepilots.com



Heed our warnings or your future will be underpant free!
User currently offlineMarkk From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 196 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1242 times:


I disagree about the button being a bad idea. Granted that computers landing the plane may not be a safe as a real person. But, I would think it would be a better option than what happened yesterday.. Those people had ZERO chance. With a button and computers landing at least their chances go up..


User currently offlineAKelley728 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2193 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1227 times:

Pilots and maybe the lead FA should be trained in the use of firearms and ARMED with at least a 9mm pistol.

If the hijackers know that they'll face firepower when they enter the cockpit, maybe they'll think twice.


User currently offlineHelje From Sweden, joined Sep 2001, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1196 times:

If so, the hijackers wouldn't have to care about bringing weapons on board. There would already be one or several. I think that idea would make things easier to hijackers. My vote goes to the automated landing-thing and a bulletproof door into the cockpit.

User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24947 posts, RR: 56
Reply 13, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1197 times:

Would it be a good idea to have 4 or 5 Air Sheerifs on each flight with guns?


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineIainhol From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1186 times:

Sometimes the crew need to come out of the cockpit for a pee, to check for ice before departure, to stretch their legs, and a variety of other reasons.
Iain


User currently offlineMarkk From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 196 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1187 times:


I would feel comfortable with 4 or 5 armed people.. But, how practical is that?? Think of how many domestic flights occur each day. Not to mention you are taking 4 or 5 rev seats.. Granted this is not about $$. BUT, to the airlines to some extent it is. Unless the gov is going to foot the bill. Automated landing and alerting takes out the human element. If this plan were actually realized what would the headlines read today?? Maybe 4 planes at a standoff on the ground. Perhaps 1 of the four crashes during landing sequence because the computer screwed up. Certainly a lot better scenario than what we are reading about today.


User currently offlineLuckySevens From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1175 times:

Markk & Helje,
The pilots were not able to communicate with ATC to inform that they had been hijacked. What gives you the idea that they would have the time to push the button? The transponder has an emergency setting, also. This was not set.

You say that that would have prevented this disaster. Ok, let's say it would. How many people would die on Airliners that the computer takes over (See the AF A320 movies) with incorrect data? You are not looking at the whole picture. It may have avoided this disaster, but it would cause many more.
What's to prevent a terrorist from splicing into the electrical cables on the plane and taking control from there?

Also, how do you make something bulletproof? Typical answers?
Kevlar. Unfortunatly, Kevlar can be cut by a KNIFE or scissors.
Steel? Oh yeah! 4 inches of steel between the cockpit and the cabin would be a good idea. That way, when the button fails and the terrorists get in the cockpit, they have the worlds biggest shotgun slug sitting between them and the passengers. A steel plate would have ripped right through the WTC undamaged and would have emerged on the other side, falling 80 stories on other buildings or people.


User currently offlineCactusA319 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2918 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1163 times:

Armed crew members or air marshalls.

That is a more practical solution.



User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6484 posts, RR: 54
Reply 18, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1156 times:

No, in worst case we will have to do the same as El-Al has done for decades: Armed security guards spread among the pax.

But first of all the guilty parties and their followers must be identified, and they shall all have to pay for this tragedy in such a way that any future group planning a similar thing will know in advance that the result would be their own elimination.

The other way around - to make all aspects of society, on the ground, in the air, and on the sea, totally safe to terrorism, that would be sort of self chosen "prison" for all of us. We can't accept that.

If only terror in the air becomes too difficult, then terror would just take other forms - we all know car bombs, human bombs, and I can't find more violent terrestrial terror weapons right now, but sure the terrorists can.

Well, let me mention SAM's. And who knows if the future may spell nuke?

This tragedy was a tragedy for aviation. But it was first of all a tragedy on the ground in NYC. Aviation was only a chosen tool for the terror. In any future case another tool will be chosen.

The world must now agree totally upon eliminating terrorism. Should there be a few countries left on this planet which do not obey to that code under international control, then at first they must be totally isolated. Any ship or plane leaving such a country shall be downed. Should such a situation last for any extended time, then the powers of these countries must be eliminated and new powers put in as was the case in Japan and Germany following WWII.

We only have one planet. There shall be room for all of us without having to live in a self chosen shelter or prison.

Politics are too complicated to do this tomorrow. But that should be the short term goal of this planet. Not within centuries or decades, but years!

Best regards, Preben Norholm



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineMarkk From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 196 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1136 times:


I would think that button being pushed at the instant of trouble would not be that hard to accomplish. Now of course this is assuming that the flight crew didn't simply let the hijackers in. F/A knocks on door and pop the door opens.. This should probably be reviewed.

I agree that auto-landing introduces some new problems, but do you think those problems would be as severe as yesterday?? I grant you that losing an aircraft because someone pushed the button and the computer was improperly programmed would be horrific. No doubt there. Perhaps a disengage code sent from the ground once the aircraft was determined not to be a threat..

I simpy introduced this option as a "think out of the box" solution. Airport security can only be so good. Measures to prevent such individuals from boarding can only be so good. Weapons on board with trained personel? Probably not practical. In panic situations people often miss their target and that would be fairly catastrophic if the bullet hit a window.


User currently offlineFlight152 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 3402 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1116 times:

People, the pilots need to open the door sometimes like bathroom or food breaks.

User currently offlineJumbojettim From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 193 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1113 times:

If you have the technology for an "emergency button," you might as well have pilotless aircraft.
Simple solution: as mentioned have a bullet proof door that cannot be kicked down (however, not made of steel, perhaps plexiglass), with the capability of having release pins on the inside of the cockpit in the case of an emergency for the crew. I don't think that pilots armed with guns is the solution (possible stray bullets decompressing the a/c), but to have small knifes or hatchets underneath the seats in the cockpit.

Later


User currently offlineTguman From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 431 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1106 times:

I think that pilots should stun guns or tranqulizer darts. That would certainly help the situation.


Life is a Mine Field.
User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6484 posts, RR: 54
Reply 23, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1106 times:

Just forget about that push botton autoland. It is far to complicated.

Automatic landing has to rely on uploaded data like weather and wind. Heavies would have to perform fuel dump first. And experts would be able to add a lot more prohibitive problems.

But the worst obstacle might not be technical at all. People living around airports chosen for emergency autolanding would protest and local politics would take charge and eliminate the idea. Or eliminate the airport.

80% of this thread has talked about "symptom elimination", not "healing".

An aspirin may do you good when you have pain from a broken leg. But it doesn't make you fit for the next Marathon Race. In the case the illness is "terrorism", not just "cockpit access". Medicine must be chosen accordingly.

Best regards, Preben Norholm



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineIainhol From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1081 times:

>>I think that pilots should stun guns<<
ANy weapon in the cockpit can get into the wrong hands, also you have to think in a modern aircraft cockpit 20,000 volts flying around is not a good idea.
Iain


25 Captjetblast : Don't you forget that the assholes couldn't take the plane using hard, big tools, inorder to unlock heavy armored doors. They could only take cutters,
26 LuckySevens : Markk, As Preben said, El Al has had the air marshal program for some time and have been quite successful. I agree that auto-landing introduces some n
27 Snn2003 : Seems just a wee bit overdramatic dont you think gentlemen???
28 Captjetblast : But I find this unpracticeable. What about another plane having to land at the same rwy due to an emergency situation (engine failure, lack of fuel, a
29 9A-CRO : PANIC BUTTON is a good idea, but not for autoland. the way it could be implemented is that computer had a map of "no-fly" zones and it would not allow
30 Scaredflyer21 : I totally agree, today my orchestra teacher(knowing my interest in aviation) asked why this was not in effect. She freaked when I told her many commut
31 Captjetblast : Please, if any commercial pilot enteers this topic, it will be nice to hear your thought about panic button, emergency autoland, etc.
32 Allee : Good idea, but I don't think it's practical. All the hijacker has to do is take a hostage and threaten him/her until the door is opened.
33 Captjetblast : Unfortunately, this would be a temptation to those assholes. They are trained in close combat, the could take the gun from the pilot and worse the sit
34 ChrisKSDF : According to aviation safety expert John Nance, armored cockpit doors are impossible, given the pressurized nature of commercial airliners. If one par
35 Alessandro : Dear all! I´m afraid there´s no quick "fix" to this problem, my suggestion is that any individual that enter the plane, airplane personell, cleaners
36 Markk : "If you have the technology for an "emergency button," you might as well have pilotless aircraft. " I am not suggesting this for routine use at all. J
37 Captjetblast : What about a camera? If pilots see something strange at the pax cabin, they push a button and anesthesic gas is sprayed at pax cabin and WC. Then ever
38 ChrisKSDF : "What about a camera? If pilots see something strange at the pax cabin, they push a button and anesthesic gas is sprayed at pax cabin and WC. Then eve
39 LuckySevens : Bravo CaptJetBlast. Very James Bond! No it's not a good idea, or even practical but it's very fun to think about.
40 Markk : This is an interesting idea. Would you need presurization?? Pilots have pressure masks in the event of decompress. They use them all the time now whe
41 LuckySevens : Ok this is stupid so I'm putting in another stupid idea: The pilot pushes a button and the plane automatically heads for the nearest body of water. It
42 Markk : Autoland - Impractical?? At this point probably. In the future?? Who knows... Stupid. Well, that is your opinion.
43 CALPilot : Take some time here. We will get it it right, and it will be safe without knee jerk reactions.
44 Post contains images Aloha 737-200 : Hello all. Well aviation has suffered a huge loss and I believe something should be done aobut it. Now having read everyone's posts, I do see some rat
45 Lemieux66 : Computer failure rare? Sort of like 4 domestic hijackings in the nation within a few hours? While the "panic button" could save lives.. it could also
46 Ryu2 : So what happens when there is a crash and the pilots need to escape quickly from that "armored" cockpit?
47 Padcrasher : It does not need to be a door armored enough to stop a tank, just something strong enough to withstand someone kicking it in and bullet resistant. Kev
48 LuckySevens : Option#2- Terrorist causes aircraft to go into panic mode. Aircraft could cirle above spot, and terrorist base camp would send detailed autocrash info
49 Jkelley480 : Armored doors are not impossible, even with pressurization problems. Engineers can design a gas escape route. Even a hidden hole in the bulkhead would
50 LuckySevens : Look guys, this is a good thread. Everyone needs to vent. To say "why?" Remember: Anything devised by man can be undone by man. This attack was not th
51 TWA717_200 : Absolutely armed flight deck members. If they can be trusted to safely transport hundreds of people at a time, they can be trusted with weapons. If yo
52 LuckySevens : TWA717_200, There's no one I trust more with my life than the pilots of the jet I am flying on. I am not concerned about them using the weapons wrongl
53 TWA717_200 : True, a bullet could put a whole in the fuselage. What is that compared to the total death and destruction we have seen on these 4 hijacked planes? A
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Transaero B737-800 Ntu - Now For Korean! (photo) posted Wed Nov 22 2006 05:45:18 by RobK
Why Is Airtran Slowing Growth Now? posted Tue Nov 21 2006 15:57:58 by Quickmover
BOS' New Runway 14/32 Now Open! posted Mon Nov 20 2006 04:08:38 by Highflyer9790
Has Bangkok Received More 717's Now? posted Sat Nov 18 2006 09:27:25 by 717fan
Bruggisser Now With South African Airways posted Wed Nov 15 2006 22:37:56 by Viasa
Allegiant Air In Lansing Right Now? posted Tue Nov 14 2006 18:30:46 by JetBlueGuy2006
Air Asia & Sisters Are Now On Amadeus posted Tue Nov 14 2006 16:40:06 by 9MMAR
EWR, Is The Weather Pretty Bad Right Now? posted Sun Nov 12 2006 22:33:05 by TK787
Qantas Now Fly To Brazil? posted Sat Nov 11 2006 00:20:11 by 747400sp
3x Taag 737s At Gander YQX Now posted Fri Nov 10 2006 02:39:16 by RobK