Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airport Security?  
User currently offlineDfwRjCapt From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 16 posts, RR: 0
Posted (14 years 4 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1177 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?

7 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineILS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (14 years 4 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1159 times:

No it doesn't. However, the security people always are aware that there are fake pilots out there and they want to take all necessary precautions.

User currently offlineSouthern From Australia, joined Jul 2000, 198 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (14 years 4 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1150 times:

If i were a pilot id just use the staff entrance to bypass the security. It'll be a hell of alot easier

User currently offlineILUV767 From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3142 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (14 years 4 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1135 times:

Southern Wrote:

If i were a pilot id just use the staff entrance to bypass the security. It'll be a hell of alot easier

In San Francisco, all United employees with plane access have to go through the employee checkpoint. UA pilots can no longer by-pass security. Same goes for the flight attendants.

I L U V 7 6 7

User currently offlineJhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6210 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (14 years 4 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1127 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.
User currently offlineFly_emirates From United Arab Emirates, joined Oct 2000, 1046 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (14 years 4 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1124 times:

I agree with ILS, but there are also fake ones like what happend in sept 11 where some of the hijackers dressed like F/A's as i heard and changed before getting to the plane.

User currently offlineFearlessLeader From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 6 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (14 years 4 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1118 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.

What do you think?

User currently offlineYqfca From Canada, joined Jun 2001, 156 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (14 years 4 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1106 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.

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...
The Challenges Of Airport Security posted Thu Dec 11 2008 13:12:13 by 747438
Italian Airport Security posted Fri May 9 2008 09:40:17 by OtagoHarbour
French Airport Security posted Thu May 8 2008 13:46:19 by OtagoHarbour
UK Airport Security Worries posted Wed May 7 2008 16:18:09 by Oly720man
Observation: Airport Security (Or Lack Thereof)..... posted Sat Mar 22 2008 21:36:33 by 87GROUNDED
New US Airport Security Line Method Being Tested posted Mon Mar 3 2008 15:03:49 by Starlionblue
Airport Security A Waste - Report posted Tue Jan 8 2008 21:17:09 by ECONOMICS
No Proof Airport Security Makes Flying Safer posted Thu Dec 20 2007 19:49:39 by Halls120
Government Passes Buck Over Airport Security posted Fri Jul 20 2007 14:37:27 by Revo
Scary Report On Airport Security posted Fri May 18 2007 07:13:55 by LV