13 Sep
2001
13 Sep
'01
5 a.m.
As a pilot...
The pilot has total responsibility for the safe completion of their flight.
Totally secure doors are impractical for long flights due to the need to rotate
the crew, and the crews in-flight needs (getting up and moving around, getting
food, and using the toilet, etc).
Given the responsibility the pilot carries, I think the pilot should be armed.
The FAA (now headed by the looser who ran MassPort and Logan during its years of
failing security grades) has just imposed a series of knee-jerk reactions, none
of which would have prevented this type of attack.
The only solution is an armed response on the plane itself. Sky Marshalls, as
are emplyed by El-Al, are the ONLY PROVEN effective measure.
Several laws have to change for this. Currently its not legal to carry a loaded
weapon on an aircraft.
Perhaps some undercover people trained in martial arts, and with a near-leathal
power stun gun?
Gordon Zaft wrote:
At 09:46 AM 9/12/2001 -0700, you wrote:
It seem logical that, after seeing what a hijacker
COULD do, the airlines
will install secure doors to the cockpit. The idea being that if a hijacker
takes the plane, the most he can do is either blow up the plane, or command
the pilots to fly to a certain destination but they would not be able to get
into the cockpit themselves. This would be expensive, and it would take time
but I think that they should consider it.
I saw this discussed last night on NBC (I think). It's not
possible to make cockpit doors really strong, apparently; something about
the airplane's pressure vessel and what would happen in a decompression
means the door can't be too strong or it will screw up the plane (for
example, blow the pilots out the windows in the event of a decompression
elsewhere in the plane, or something). Perhaps someone with more knowledge
about this can comment.
GZ