Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bush Outlines New Airline Security  
User currently offlineClimbout From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (12 years 12 months 13 hours ago) and read 899 times:

Here it is in a nutshell:

1. Feds to take over airport security.

2. Plain clothes Sky Marshalls aboard the aircrafts

3. A device that would allow the ATC's to land an aircraft in distress, by remote control.

4. Putting video monitors in the cockpit so the pilots can see what's going on in the cabins.

I'm not surprised by number #1. But I find #3 very interesting. Imagine an ATC sitting at his desk while bringing down a distressed 744 using remote.

Looks like air travel is getting more and more interesting.

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBigo747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 12 months 13 hours ago) and read 884 times:

Remote control? Um ya... Ok....

User currently offlineClimbout From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 12 months 13 hours ago) and read 880 times:

Yep, that's what he said.

User currently offlineTeva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1872 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (12 years 12 months 13 hours ago) and read 877 times:

And no guns for pilots !!!!
And asking passenger to fly again !!!
Very good news !!!!
Nana...



Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
User currently offlineCx flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6605 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (12 years 12 months 4 hours ago) and read 857 times:

No guns is great. What a stupid idea that was. We could have had gun battles in the air! Look at the UK, police don't carry guns. Few criminal's have guns, citizens don't feel the need to own guns, and the whole place is safer. Everytime I fly to the states and watch the news it's about shootings here, shootings there. In the UK a single shooting is big news.

As for no.3, that's a stupid idea too! So the pilots won't have ultimate control over the aircraft??! So next time instead of hijacking aircraft, you hijack a single control tower and from there you have control of not one airliner, but hundreds!!! Yeah, brilliant idea.

Cameras in the cockpit to monitor the cabin is a good idea. I was discussing that the other day.


User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (12 years 12 months 4 hours ago) and read 849 times:

Ground control of an aircraft probably won't happen but guns in the cockpit still might. Remember, even if Bush vetoed the idea, Congress can still override his veto.


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineWillfly4food From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 74 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 841 times:

I like guns in the cockpit if the training and backround checks are done by the FBI. No green carders and no one who doesn't get the extra training. It is no secret that we have the flare gun and the crash ax but, no one has been trained to use them. Defensive training is the key here. Guns or rocket launchers won't out do someone who will pay the ultimate price to accoplish their mission but, a stronger defence of the cockpit will bring us closer to their level of commitment.

Ground based control is rediculous. Those guys have enough stress without adding learning how to control and land all of the aircraft they might deal with.

Sky marshalls are OK. They won't do much more than make people feel good but, the rest of these solutions are no less appropriate.

Glad I don't have much say in what they do. There are too many possibilities.


User currently offlineTeva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1872 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (12 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 834 times:

Willfly4food
In your profile, you say you are a pilot, and you say you like the idea of having a gun.
Then tell me the scenario you prefere:
1: the gun is secured in a box locked with a code. A terrorist enters in the cockpit. The pilot: " Excuse me, Mr terrorist, but I have to type thecode to get my gun ...."

2: The gun is accessible very easily. Good point for the terrorist. He does not have to think how to go through the security. He knows he just has to jump in the cockpit. And, thanks to the surprise, he will take it before the pilot.

I can tell you that if the US pilots have guns, I will do my best to avoid them.
And for all the gun lovers, do you no that the Bobbies (London policeen) have no guns?

Nana.....



Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (12 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 831 times:

Treva

The bobbies don't have guns themselves but they have a radio and a 4 man "swat"(that isn't the term) team no more then 3 to four minutes away.

Those guys carry sub machine guns.

The ground control idea is a joke. Can you imagine what is going to happen when somebody figures out how to transmit those same signals? They would have to worry about security since they can be miles away with a radio that they built out of Radio Shack parts.

2 and 4 are allright suggestions, #2 especially.

I am a bit leary of #1 though, general nothing good comes out of federal intervention.

Contract screening does need to be eliminated but I don't think making it a federal job is needed. Especially if the federal standard isn't changed and that is the faulty part of this equasion.

The FAA sets the standards already, the airport managers/authority have to meet those standards in order to get certified as a public airport and to have commercial flights. Those security standards, including screening need to be done by the airport police/safety if the facility is shared or by the individual airlines if they own their own facility.

For example here at ANC. The airport police, firefighters and paramedics are all Airport Public Safety Officers. They rotate between the various shifts, Medic, Police and Firefighter respecively. In order to work as an APSO up here they have to be certified as a Firefighter-1, Emergency Medical Technican-1 and they have to be state certified as a police officer. In fact the Airport Police recruits are usually sent to the Alaska State Trooper Academy to get their certifications, or if the Anchorage Police department is running an acadamy they may send a recruit there. These are the people that should be doing the screening job at shared facilities.




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineB747-337M From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (12 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 833 times:

With apologies to the staff of The Onion, I think these ideas make more sense than some of the stuff that has been proposed lately.



User currently offlineWillfly4food From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 74 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (12 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 819 times:

I know where you are going. My only reason for supporting the idea is that behind a stronger door you have the chance to make decisions. That is all they are looking for. More options. No one is going, "I'm a pilot I want to shoot someone." It is about the option and the idea that the cockpit will already be made very hard to enter.

We in the USA don't have tanks with just park and reverse (like france). If you come and try to remove a freedom from us we chase you until we stop your ability to remove chioce from anyone in the world.


User currently offlineClimbout From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 806 times:

Cx flyboy,

Regarding #3, I beleive they were saying the ATC would take over the aircraft if the pilots were either dead or in some sort of struggle. I don't know, it does seem a litte farfetched. But I guess we'll see in due time. But you are so RIGHT about the the control tower being taken over. I agree, that could be disasterous. Remember, one of the hijackers DID visit the ATC towers!!


User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (12 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 792 times:

Look, all we really need is to have a heavy, strong, and locked cockpit door that the terrorists could not penetrate. The video monitors would be great too, but then again, the pilots will be manning the controls the whole time, not looking at the tv's. The skymarshals are also a good idea. Remote controls?! LMAO!!! That's along the lines of Reagan's Star Wars Project.

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...
Airline Security: Israel Implements New Technology posted Mon Mar 3 2008 19:57:56 by NYC2TLV
Pilot - A New Approach To Airline Security posted Mon Jun 6 2005 03:24:52 by JumboJet
Gstar, New Airline For Chile W/ Bush's Former A/c posted Thu Jan 6 2005 19:02:25 by Arcano
New State - New Airline? posted Sat Feb 16 2008 23:30:56 by Pa747sp
Investor Plan For New Airline Based At MSY posted Fri Feb 1 2008 10:26:30 by MSYguy
Rumor: New Airline To Start In Italy posted Tue Jan 29 2008 02:19:53 by Beagleboys
Israel To Pay Higher Airline Security Cost Share posted Sun Jan 27 2008 07:54:54 by LAXintl
New Airline In Bangladesh Offers "escort" Service! posted Mon Jan 14 2008 15:35:19 by Biman
New Airline To CMH? posted Tue Jan 1 2008 22:53:47 by JetBlueJackets
New Airline Terms Being Adopted By Carriers World- posted Wed Dec 19 2007 10:10:23 by N160LH