DfwRjCapt From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 16 posts, RR: 0 Posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 829 times:
Somebody explain this to me.
Pilots are required to surrender their nail clippers, pocket knives, and other deadly weapons, right before they go to a workplace where they have access to an axe, a flare pistol, (possibly) a stun gun, and an aircraft loaded with high-grade kerosene.
Does this make sense to anyone out there? Hello?
Jhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6197 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 779 times:
Why would a terrorist want to mess with the security of the scheduled airlines anyway? At my local airport, we get chartered jets (usually DC-9 or B-727s) out here all the time. The ramp is easily accessable by anyone, and the airplanes are left virtually unattended. Any security problems here?
Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
FearlessLeader From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 6 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 770 times:
Here's a thought on improving the security of the planes themselves:
How about installing a time-lock of some sort on the controls, so that once the plane is airborne, only the ATC on the ground can release the controls back to the pilot once the plane is approaching its destination?
Yes, yes, of course there would have to be failsafes in the event of an emergency, but if a system like this were in place, wouldn't the fact that the pilots CAN'T direct the plane deter hijackers?
Shouldn't all new planes be built so that they can only be flown by remote, or at least have the manual controls and the pilot present only as a backup to the remote pilot? Remote-pilot-vehicles are a fact, the military uses them as battlefield reconaissance drones. If we're worried about pilots being replaced by terrorists, let's remove the pilots from the equation altogether. We all know that planes can be landed by wire, and landings are arguably the most dangerous maneuvers a plane can make, it is deliberately approaching the ground. If a computer can land a plane, why not have it do the takeoff, flight, and landing all the time?
Decent anti-virus software and a firewall will eliminate cyber-terrorist concerns. Hell, make the robo-pilot an independant system, monitored only (when I say monitored only, I mean it tells the other computer what it is doing, and communication is one-way) by another computer that is in contact with the ground. Then no one can mess with it, except the pilot on board.
The details of the system (like how many backup robo-pilots are in between the main one and the human pilot in the event of an emergency) can be worked out by the designers. The technology exists, let's use it.
Yqfca From Canada, joined Jun 2001, 156 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 758 times:
I think it would be a wise idea for airlines to offer legal protection for passengers restraining persons engaging in outbusrts of "air rage". I would not think twice to pound the "P" out of someone trying to get into the cockpit or attacking a flight attendant if had immunity to the lawsuits against me as a result.
A person considering "Air Rage" would think twice if he knows it is open season on him or her, to stuff his face in a toilet and flush it.