The Airport Experience
By JillPage Sat, Sep 18 2010
Patent Pending
http://communities.canada.com/montrealgazette/blogs/patentpending/archive/2010/09/18/the-airport-experience.aspx (http://communities.canada.com/montrealgazette/blogs/patentpending/archive/2010/09/18/the-airport-experience.aspx)
An article appearing in Postmedia papers today talks about tightened airport screening in Canada. It focuses mainly on Muslim women being forced to remove veils, but it also has this to say:
The new rules stipulate that passengers cannot board a plane if they do not "'resemble" the photograph on their ID, or if they do not "appear to be the age indicated by the date of birth on the identification he or she presents." In addition, passengers could be prevented from boarding if they do not "appear to be the gender indicated" on the photo ID, or if they present more than one form of identification and there appears to be a "major discrepancy" between the IDs.
More false airline security. Honestly if every single passenger boarded an airliner with a mask on and completely anonymous it would do nothing to increase or decrease security. This all comes down to thought crime or crime prediction. One person appears to be an honest upstanding citizen with documents that match what is in the system while another one looks shady and doesn't have accurate documents. That does not change a thing about what can or will happen on board. Anybody regardless of history can grab a fire extinguisher and hit someone with it. Anyone can grab car keys and cut or stab someone with it. Anyone can smash out a window and cause decompression. IDs do nothing to prevent anything that can happen in the air but only serve as predictive tools or profiling.
If you want real airport security, you install the overhead panels of airliners that normally contain the backup O2 system with guns. When a terrorist or disgruntled passenger tries to take over the plane or put lives in danger, the pilot simply releases those panels, a gun falls into every passenger's lap, the terrorist gets 300 holes put in them, and everyone goes right back to their featured movie as if nothing happened. No, let's instead have security measures that harass transsexuals. ::)
There were plans to equip pilots with firearms to defend themselves in case of unlawful interference, but this has a lot of resistance, even from pilots themselves.
As far as I know, 1 airline did allow their cockpit crew to carry guns, but that ended with an incident where the gun was without intention fired in the cockpit causing a decompression.
If you ask me, I am against guns on board of an aircraft. The risk of damaging the aircraft and with it endangering the people on board is just too great.
Quote from: Britney_413 on September 21, 2010, 01:40:09 AM
...a gun falls into every passenger's lap, the terrorist gets 300 holes put in them, and everyone goes right back to their featured movie as if nothing happened.
lmao! >___< :P
Now of course I was being a bit sarcastic. ;D Octavianus, you are a pilot I believe? I'm not so I don't know as much about aircraft as you do. My general sense of security and self defense is that sometimes the simplest things work the best. I have weapons I could use to keep an intruder from entering my home but simply locking the door will stop most attempted entries. Probably the simplest security for a jet is for the pilots to close the door and lock it if there is a dangerous passenger or other crew member. Firearms are dangerous but used properly will save lives. A homeowner can miss the burglar and shoot the child playing across the street. Likewise a pilot could miss and damage the wall of the plane causing a fire or in the case you mentioned decompression.
I think the solution honestly is air marshalls (who are well trained and carry concealed). It wouldn't hurt to train crew members on basic self defense and how to mandhandle and restrain dangerous passengers. It is a shame that life and air travel has gotten this way but as a pilot yourself and as a passenger myself we want air travel as safe as possible. It isn't just terrorists that are the problem but drunken passengers and even disgruntled crew members and one idiot can put everyone's life in danger.
I don't see why pilots who go through strict training shouldn't be allowed to carry firearms because if they have already locked the door and someone still manages to break it down it becomes kind of a last resort situation. Again I'm not an expert on air travel as much as you probably are but I'm sure there are better solutions than harassing women over lipstick in their carry-on bags, a kid with an obvious toy gun, a grandfather who has a bottle of prescription pills, and a transsexual who hasn't undergone SRS. This is band-aid security. Just because someone can't bring a pocket knife on board doesn't mean there aren't plenty of items already on the plane that could be used as weapons. A strong and determined person could probably grab someone and shove them right through a window. It is sad that the modern world has gotten this way, nonetheless and a handful of psychos ruin everything for everyone.
Quote from: Dee_pntx on September 21, 2010, 03:14:35 AM
This scares the crap out of me.
In a few months I will have to fly to either Colorado or California (Make up your mind Marci!) from Houston and back.
I've had my name legally changed but my ID (which I don't have yet,) will have that nasty old M on it.
I'll have a female photo on it so that will help but the friggin M is gonna bite me in the ass.
Not only that, but I have a bunch of titanium in my spine from back surgery and that ALWAYS sets of metal detectors.
They are gonna screw with me, I know it.
Not to mention, I'm terrified sh!tless of flying and I will be extremely nervous. Remaining calm just won't be possible for me and I know they will see that now that they have these jagass "emotion detector" agents watching how you act, if you sweat, shake, etc.. >:(
The deck is totally stacked against me. Gawd I hate airplanes. I wish they had never been invented..... :(
No proper rail connections?
(I ask in my ignorance)
There are completely different views to owning a weapon in Europe and in the USA. In Europe it is very hard to become the legal owner of a firearm and control is very strict. The same goes for pilots, and many of us are against it because we don't like the idea of bringing weapons onto an aircraft. For us the best way to secure the aircraft's safety is to keep the door shut, but even this can be very nasty. Imagine the scenario when people get killed because you won't open the door. I wonder if I am emotionally able to handle this if the situation ever arises (knock on wood).
All in all, preventing a problem is better than curing it. If you ever get the chance to take a look at the collection of weapons security at Schiphol finds in a year you will be amazed. But I do agree that security has overshot this cause. There is indeed plenty that can be used as a weapon. Imagine a pot of boiling water or even the human body itself. If you want to ban every possible weapon you need to stop flying. Things can go much easier than they go now. On my base airport we use a separate security checkpoint which involves the much debated bodyscan instead of the old gates. Personally I am in favor of this new method as it is much faster and trouble free. Basically a silhouette of the body is presented on a screen with the locations of the detected objects encirceled on this image. Many passengers protest against this new method because they think the machines allow security to see their naked body, which I can assure you is not the case. The way security treats people is very much depending on their training.
A few years ago I was in Spain passing security to board an aircraft for a training flight. Security took my navigation compass because it could be used to stab people. I got failry angry with them not only for taking away my equipment, but also because there would be only 2 persons on board that flight: My collegue and I. Do they think I am going to hyjack myself? What is the point of taking away a possible weapon when a crash axe is present just a few inches behind my seat?
Security focusses a lot of attention to 1 point: what goes on board. But there is little focus to other risks. Just imagine the damage a person can do with a gun standing at the end of a runway.
Quote from: Dee_pntx on September 21, 2010, 03:14:35 AM
Not to mention, I'm terrified sh!tless of flying and I will be extremely nervous. Remaining calm just won't be possible for me and I know they will see that now that they have these jagass "emotion detector" agents watching how you act, if you sweat, shake, etc.. >:(
I know this won't lessen your fear of flying, but I can assure you that I am far less nervous when flying an aircraft than when driving a car. I have much more faith in the machine and the people working on it. When performing the exterior inspection of the aircraft I sometimes ask myself when the last time was when I checked my car before I hopped in and drove away.
A good friend of me also has a fear of flying, so I did the opposite: I rented a small Cessna aircraft and let him fly, even do the takeoff. I showed him how much a simple machine like that could take before the situation actually becomes so dangerous that I had to take over. This helped him gain a lot of confidence.
Good luck with your journey, I hope you don't encounter too much problems.
I'm not afraid of flying and flying is much safer than most other forms of travel. I'd be actually interested in learning how to fly a plane but it wouldn't be something I'd want to do as a career. Probably the thing that I don't like is giving up control over my destination. When I'm driving a car I know that I'm in control of the machine so that if I screw up and crash it I have nobody to blame but myself. I feel better driving than being in a car when someone else is driving for that reason. They may be a good driver but do they know how to respond to emergencies as well as I do such as a tire blowout or another car spinning out of control. Same with flying. I don't know how to fly and therefore must depend on the skills of those who are flying the plane to get me there safely. Octavianus, I bet you feel safer when you are flying than when someone else is. While it is a safe form of travel every once in awhile you hear news of human error resulting in a crash or an embarrassing situation such as some stories I've heard about flights in the U.S. where the pilots had fallen asleep.
When I ask friends how they experienced controlling an aircraft they all replied that they were amazed how they could feel every little control input in the movement of the aircraft. Where a car has only 1 control axis, an aircraft has 3 which causes first time fliers to be overloaded with information fairly quickly.
Somehow women handle this stage better than most men.
I understand it must feel a bit helpless when you give away all control to another person. But when I fly as a passenger I have complete faith in the crew's ability to handle the aircraft. This is because I know the strict qualifications and training they go through. Each 6 months we are given a so called "profcheck" in which our capabilities to handle a severe emergency are tested in a simulator.
It is true that human factors are the largest safety risk today. This is because the aircraft and materials themselves have been perfected in such way that it is almost unthinkable an aircraft will crash purely for technical reasons.
Humans however are not easily upgraded so a strict way of operating the aircraft by procedures is needed to keep human error to a minimum. You can compare it with a script for a movie or play. If you are interested this is a video I actually used in my training and shows the atmosphere and the roles of the 2 pilots during an emergency in a realistic way:
A320 2 engine failure after takeoff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4riBeS7GEk#)
The only comment I can make is that I don't like how the captain didn't declare an emergency. Note the strict way of conduct. Below 10.000 feet altitude we are discouraged to discuss anything but the operation of the aircraft. Above it we are free to talk about our wives and kids all we want. :D
Fatigue is an important human factor and in my company it is taken very seriously as it is in all mayor airlines I know.
I have to admit though that after a few years it just becomes a job. But this job has the office with the best view imaginable.
My biggest fear when I flew recently was the full body thermal scan at Logan International Airport. It displays a picture of your naked body so I thought it will look weird to see this chick with boobs and you know "that" body part.
My ID reflects the gender which I identify with and live as which is Female, and here in MA way back in the 90s when I got my license changed were able to change the gender marker.
Not sure if they still do it nowadays. Anyhow I was on the line for the scanner and a bit nervous when I'm about 3 people away a state trooper hand picks me and waves me off, it seems they were randomly waving people off I was so happy but still wondering what would have happened had I gone through the scanner...
A few months ago there was actually a strange cartoon hanging in the mail room of the situation you fear. I can assure you that these bodyscans don't work like that. All security gets to see is a cartoon figure on which the locations of detected objects are marked. The websites claiming these bodyscans allow security to see a naked body have fallen for a hoax. So as long as you don't use your underwear to hide weapons you should be ok.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bndestem.nl%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F01331%2FBodyscan_op_Britse_1331421b.jpg&hash=aaa5186f1cafc2a5767a60f76273a8a8157a9be7)
Days before my flight I researched this on Google and the pictures I saw showed a lot more detail than those posted above, anyhow I had nothing to hide but I was afraid to being question about what was that in between my legs..
I am sure it would have all worked up at the end they would have gotten a good laugh out of me..
one of the Muslim men who tried to blow up London's underground trains with chappati/bleach bombs escaped the country by borrowing his sisters ID and burkha.
CCTV showed he did not have the female body language but he got on plane and out to Pakistan(?) with the help of this simple disguise.
I'd prefer not to fly with burkha'd people who may wish to see if Allah really does provide 72 virgins on demand sp I quite agree that a person should have correctly gendered and named ID.
Interesting video. It certainly does seem like a lot of controls but I guess the rules are pretty strict. The last flight I took had a mechanical problem that delayed the flight. It was really quite annoying but I guess again there are strict protocols to follow for safety. This was just a short 50 minute flight but there was a cabin pressure problem. I guess they check these systems regularly because the pilot noticed the problem immediately. I felt my ears pop rather painfully at the same time the pilot announced the problem. I would have thought they could have simply flown at a low elevation but apparently this is prohibited as other air traffic (police and fire) uses that space. So we had to sit there on a grounded plane for a long time until they finally fixed it. The pilot announced they had to replace the unit and was non-chalant about it. Does this sound pretty standard to you? Several passengers seemed panicky and nervous and ended up transferring to another plane instead of staying on the existing one until it was fixed. Someone told me this would be considered a "major problem" yet it seemed minor to me but then again I guess what the passengers experience is very different than what the pilots see.
I guess I'm getting off track here but it is interesting to hear the wisdom of a pilot vs. just what passengers experience. I'm still not nervous about flying as long as there is reasonable security (meaning no bombs on board) and that the pilots are focused and the equipment in the aircraft is up to standards. Just curious if you have ever encountered what would be considered an emergency and how you handled it.
Quote from: Octavianus on September 22, 2010, 02:09:11 PM
For us the best way to secure the aircraft's safety is to keep the door shut, but even this can be very nasty. Imagine the scenario when people get killed because you won't open the door. I wonder if I am emotionally able to handle this if the situation ever arises (knock on wood).
I rarely go on airplanes. But it seems to me that, if some idiot is killing passengers because you won't open the door, there is little point in opening the door, since he is going to kill everyone anyway and possibly a lot of people on the ground.
The weak link in airplanes in access to the cockpit.
A bomb on board is going to kill everyone regardless, so other than trying to pervent it, there seems little point in worrying about it.
This tendency to confiscate anything that could be used as a weapon is really very silly. There will always be some things around to use. The last time I was on a flight, a long haul lasting 14 hours, I passed through the galley to get from the front to the back. To be honest, I was more worried about food contamination and the kitche knives, which were sitting on the counter, falling on the floor.
Terrorists know they can't win by violence. The violence is not the end in itself.
In war, both sides blast each other until one gives in. Like two fighters in a ring.
Terrorism is always a few against the might of states.
Terrorists seek to create fear so governments impose greater and ggreater restrictions until the populace objects. Then the government is faced with either giving into the terrorist demands or turning on its own people.
The reality of terrorism is that the political objectives are a front. Many of those who do the deeds are fanitical, even insane, but those that lead them are little more than thugs, in the same way as the likes of Al Capone. They wrap themselves in claims of supporting the oppressed, yet have little interest in anything other than their own enrichment and power.
I've been flying as a woman since the late 80's....
The terrorism security shifts have made things slower. more arcane and stressful for sure....
But I've never, ever had a problem.....
And this would include multiple trips to Europe, the Middle-East and USA...
I've flown on three different occasions since 2008, two were to Montreal and required a passport. The US Passport service would not put an "F" on my passport unless I gave them a GRS affidavit. I had GRS on the second trip to Montreal. So on two trips security personnel saw gender conflicts between my presentation and my identification, out of Chicago, into Montreal, out of Montreal and into Chicago both times. The only time I had a problem is when I hesitated on an answer in Montreal, "Where are you staying?" I hesitated because I didn't want to be identified as a Brassard girl, eg: TS. And then sent us in for questioning.
Gender surgery isn't a new phenomenon, although the mainstream often calls it sex change or sex swap. Yes, it invades our privacy, but what good is privacy when your plane has been hijacked and you're barreling towards a building?
Quote from: Britney_413Someone told me this would be considered a "major problem" yet it seemed minor to me but then again
lack of correct air pressure makes everyone go to sleep and then the plane just flies along until the fuel runs out then it plunges to earth.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/indiana-plane-crash-pilot_n_304516.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/indiana-plane-crash-pilot_n_304516.html)
last time I flew I was close to wing and amused to see the flap things extend ready for landing and the little ram cylinders that operate them were losing quite a bit of fluid.
Quote from: Britney_413 on September 28, 2010, 03:32:06 AM
Interesting video. It certainly does seem like a lot of controls but I guess the rules are pretty strict. The last flight I took had a mechanical problem that delayed the flight. It was really quite annoying but I guess again there are strict protocols to follow for safety. This was just a short 50 minute flight but there was a cabin pressure problem. I guess they check these systems regularly because the pilot noticed the problem immediately. I felt my ears pop rather painfully at the same time the pilot announced the problem. I would have thought they could have simply flown at a low elevation but apparently this is prohibited as other air traffic (police and fire) uses that space. So we had to sit there on a grounded plane for a long time until they finally fixed it. The pilot announced they had to replace the unit and was non-chalant about it. Does this sound pretty standard to you? Several passengers seemed panicky and nervous and ended up transferring to another plane instead of staying on the existing one until it was fixed. Someone told me this would be considered a "major problem" yet it seemed minor to me but then again I guess what the passengers experience is very different than what the pilots see.
I guess I'm getting off track here but it is interesting to hear the wisdom of a pilot vs. just what passengers experience. I'm still not nervous about flying as long as there is reasonable security (meaning no bombs on board) and that the pilots are focused and the equipment in the aircraft is up to standards. Just curious if you have ever encountered what would be considered an emergency and how you handled it.
Failures can indeed been annoying, but passengers who are rude even more. I can't understand how people can possibly be rude to personnel when they are working on their safety.
Air conditioning and pressurization are indeed on the preliminary checklist. If a problem is present it will probably be noticed after powering the system or starting the engines. On normal flights the cabin pressure is kept equivalent to that at 8000 feet altitude. This is done to maintain passenger comfort without the need of building a stronger hull. The reason aircraft fly as high as possible is because it saves fuel. So if an aircraft flies to its destination at 8000 feet instead of at 40.000 feet altitude it will need a lot more fuel to reach it. Air-conditioning is fairly complex on an aircraft. Basically it works by drawing compressed air from inside the engines. The air is cooled down, water is removed and it is blown into the cabin. An electronic system maintains the pressure by regulating how much air leaves the aircraft again by opening and closing a valve in the hull.
When a machine becomes more complex the number of parts that fail will also increase. This is why we check everything before departure. When we detect a failure it does not immediately mean we ground the aircraft. In the flight deck we have a so called MEL or Minimum Equipment List. This document shows what parts may fail without compromising the safety and what the conditions are. Cabin pressurization is so important that most failures on this system must be fixed before a flight is performed. When you fly aircraft for a few years it becomes a second nature. Then we aren't taken aback by small failures like these anymore because we have become familiar with the machine, we see the big picture. It is very understandable that people who don't have this knowledge can be nervous because they don't know how and if it will affect the safety.
When I take family and friends out flying I generally use an aircraft that was already getting old when I was born. When I am asked if such an old machine is really safe I simply answer: "If it was unsafe it wouldn't have become this old."
I have experienced several failures in my lifetime and by far most of them were like the situation you described. Apart from these there were 3 failures that actually compromised safety, but thankfully I never had to declare an emergency.
When you look at statistics, professional pilots will experience an emergency only 1 or 2 times in their entire career.
The most memorable of the 3 failures happened when doing a sight seeing flight over The Netherlands for paying customers. When flying over a big river I saw the fuel meters indicated the right tank was empty. I knew it was full before departure because I look into the tanks before each flight leaving 2 possibilities: The instrument failed or I had a fuel leak which is very improbable. The fuel tanks are located in the wings so I realized that if I would let go of the control wheel the aircraft would start a slow turn to the left because that wing would be more heavy. I let go but the aircraft remained straight and level. I concluded it was an instrument failure and continued the sight seeing flight. Just in case I leaned the fuel/air mixture so less fuel would be used by the engine. Doing this the engine immediately failed. This is a moment when training results in quick, reflex like actions. I turned the aircraft to the shore (when flying above water I always make sure I fly high enough so I can reach land by gliding) and selected a meadow suitable for landing. Meanwhile I kept the propeller windmilling, increased the fuel/air mixture and checked if I was using all sparkplugs in the engine. The engine roared back to life again, I think the entire failure took no more than 7 to 10 seconds. My passengers didn't even realize what happened because I made up a silly excuse about switching gears.
Back on the ground I tested the engine and discovered that some of the spark plugs were not firing. They were probably tainted with residue from burned fuel.
Quote from: spacial on September 28, 2010, 05:15:23 AM
I rarely go on airplanes. But it seems to me that, if some idiot is killing passengers because you won't open the door, there is little point in opening the door, since he is going to kill everyone anyway and possibly a lot of people on the ground.
This tendency to confiscate anything that could be used as a weapon is really very silly. There will always be some things around to use. The last time I was on a flight, a long haul lasting 14 hours, I passed through the galley to get from the front to the back. To be honest, I was more worried about food contamination and the kitche knives, which were sitting on the counter, falling on the floor.
Before 9-11 aircraft were not used as actual weapons so the manner of dealing with unlawful interference was very different than they are now. Then it was regarded best to temporarily give in to the demands and land the aircraft to further negotiate. With the attacks it was realized that an aircraft can be used as a weapon very well and it was made clear that access to the flight deck should be denied all times when facing a hostage situation.
I think that terrorists only partially managed to bring fear. On the ground we have entered a vicious circle of enforced security and people finding ways to pass that security. In the air the largest change is that we don't always allow people to take a look on the flight deck anymore. On flights to the USA this is out of the question mainly because of air marshalls can report this. On flights in Europe however it depends on the crew. I usually allow people who can show me a pilots license to take a seat on the flightdeck.
Quote from: Dee_pntx on September 28, 2010, 09:54:54 AM
Oh gee, thanks for all that. Now I really want to fly. NOT...........
Add to that, the airplane that crash landed the other day on it's wing.
SCREW airplanes! >:(
Dear Dee, please don't torture yourself with these thoughts.
You can think about the gear-up landing you saw on the news, but you can also think about how it ended: nobody was hurt. Landings like these are actually pretty safe because the airframe takes all the damage:
kingair gear-up landing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE_PlwJn-N0#ws)
Quote from: lilacwoman on September 28, 2010, 11:53:07 AM
lack of correct air pressure makes everyone go to sleep and then the plane just flies along until the fuel runs out then it plunges to earth.
last time I flew I was close to wing and amused to see the flap things extend ready for landing and the little ram cylinders that operate them were losing quite a bit of fluid.
Hypoxia is very dangerous because you don't realize that it is affecting you. You just feel a bit light headed and take things less serious. It can be compared with taking drugs. A fun experiment many pilots do is to get into a pressurized chamber to bring them in a state of hypoxia. Males are sometimes required to do simple psychological tests while the air is drawn away and in one test women were asked to apply makeup. They all felt they had a great time and did well on their tests, but when they recovered and they saw their writings and faces they realized how serious it was. The main point of this experiment is to be able to recognize hypoxia.
In this fragment you can hear a pilot in increasing state of hypoxia. Luckily air traffic control recognizes the symptoms and orders the aircraft to descent.
Pilot Declares Emergency Because Of Extreme Hypoxia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IqWal_EmBg#)
My dear Dee, please accept my aplologies if my comments have caused you to feel worse. Believe me that it was not my intention to do so.
Wow, I don't think flying is that bad but some people do fear it. It isn't perfect but it is the best technology we have. Between taking a bus or a ship and spending days or weeks reaching a destination, a plane will last several hours. I mainly don't like flying due to the way security is done and mainly just being cramped in a seat for a long time. If you need to travel for SRS, I certainly think a plane would be less stressful than a bus. Even typical turbulance I have experienced when flying still seems less bad than the constant bouncing up and down a bus does.
Octavianus, I don't know if I gave you the wrong impression or if you were just speaking in general but I certainly was not rude when the plane was delayed due to the cabin pressure problem. There were several passengers that were demanding to the flight attendants that they were not going to take that plane so they switched to another gate and took another plane at no extra charge.
Shutting and locking the cockpit door as necessary does sound to be the safest measure to prevent a hijacking. The longer you keep them from accessing the plane's controls, the faster you can get the plane back on the ground where the authorities can step in. Probably the last line of defense would be the passengers themselves. After 9/11 I don't think people are so complacent when it comes to their safety. As a passenger myself I would have no problem restraining another passenger if they became so disorderly as to comprise safety. These days if someone on a plane does try to threaten someone a bunch of people would likely step in and restrain them. Other than that I think air marshalls are a good idea, pilots carrying firearms as an option if properly trained, and flight attendants being trained in basic self-defense and restraining tactics if not already. The absolute best form of protection which applies both in the air and on the ground and in virtually all situations is nothing more than being aware of your surroundings. If passengers and crew members simply pay attention to what is going on around them they are more likely to notice suspicious behavior and intervene in a timely manner.
Planes, statistically, are a LOT safer than driving in a car.
So, on those rare locations that I go somewhere in a plane, I know the butterflies in my stomach are completely irrational butterflies. ;D
But our security is more Security Theater and less actual security.
As far as making planes hijack-resistant, I can think of a pretty good way: I'm told the Israelis have their cockpit sealed form the rest of the plane. The cockpit presumably has its' own toilet and/or food compartment. The pilots enter and exit the plane through a separate exterior door from the passengers.
That way, if someone wants to hijack a plane, they have to cut through a bulkhead to get to the pilots and controls. Making it next to impossible to do in the amount of time before an emergency landing can be effected.
And, Octavianus, they could not force you to open any doors through murdering passengers if there was no door available, correct?
So I think that should become the standard to which we try to retrofit our planes.
I also think explosive-sniffing dogs in front of the security checkpoint as well as in the baggage area (two to three at any given time on shift at the passenger check-in) ought to be mandatory.
Supposedly the government is developing electronic chemical detectors to do a job that dogs have been doing reliably for some time. While the chem detectors would be more accurate, perhaps, we can have the dog program online in a year or less, I suspect, and probably for somewhat less. (Note I said somewhat. Good dogs and good handlers aren't trained cheaply.)
That hypoxia video was kind of scary. Don't most planes have gauges or sensors that warn the pilots of a drop in air pressure?
Quote from: Octavianus on September 28, 2010, 09:40:23 PM
Before 9-11 aircraft were not used as actual weapons so the manner of dealing with unlawful interference was very different than they are now. Then it was regarded best to temporarily give in to the demands and land the aircraft to further negotiate. With the attacks it was realized that an aircraft can be used as a weapon very well and it was made clear that access to the flight deck should be denied all times when facing a hostage situation.
I think that terrorists only partially managed to bring fear. On the ground we have entered a vicious circle of enforced security and people finding ways to pass that security. In the air the largest change is that we don't always allow people to take a look on the flight deck anymore. On flights to the USA this is out of the question mainly because of air marshalls can report this. On flights in Europe however it depends on the crew. I usually allow people who can show me a pilots license to take a seat on the flightdeck.
Using an airplane as a weapon has always been a real possibility, only prevented for the want of someone willing to die.
I appreciate that terrorism is serious, I live in the UK after all, but it needs to be managed in the same way as a beligerant teenager having a tantrum.
The failure of governments to prevent any access to the flight deck, along with the completely over the top reactions, increased security, repressive legislation, not to mention the utterly pointless invasions and the continuing persecution of selected individuals is playing into the hands of terrorists.
They have their reaction. Everyone is noticing them. Their attention seeking behaviour has been a complete success.
There has been much speculation about the motives of governments, especially the US. Prsonally I doubt that any of the conspiracy theories have any truth in them. The profiteering by many senior government officers, not least Blair, seems more likely to have been opportunism.
I tend to believe the problem is the US tendency to use superlatives.
9/1 was an insult to the security of the US. Probably the most significant breach of the security of US soil ever. Previous incursions by the Japaneese in WW2 were petty. Conflicts with Mexico more annoyances.
9/11 demonstrated not only that it is now possible to use an airplane as a significant weapon, it demonstrated that American can be hit quite hard.
The lessons of the IRA terrorism campaign are that terrorists are indeed attention seekers. If it had, in reality, been their intention to achieve their goal of bringing England to its knees, that could have been achieved witin about months with minimal loss of life. Instead they spent about 30 years, when numerous innocenet people were killed or imprisoned. All that time, accumulating vast wealth.
In the 70s the response was to view with suspicission almost anyone who appeared to be Irish. This happened all over Europe. The result was extreme anger from Irish people and increased support for the objective, rather than the methods of the terrorists.
Only, when in the 80s, the attenion shifted to containment was any progress made.
Quote from: Britney_413 on September 29, 2010, 01:02:17 AM
Octavianus, I don't know if I gave you the wrong impression or if you were just speaking in general but I certainly was not rude when the plane was delayed due to the cabin pressure problem. There were several passengers that were demanding to the flight attendants that they were not going to take that plane so they switched to another gate and took another plane at no extra charge.
Don't worry, I wasn't referring to you in that post. In that situation whe had a hydraulical failure in which one of the systems were was not adequately pressurised (my aircraft has 3 separate hydraulical systems, should 1 or 2 fail in flight). Sitting at the gate I was surprised by the amount of people discussing it. Some asked me why we couldn't go, because hydraulics can't be that important. But the pinnacle was an enraged man showing his gold card demanding the immiddiate departure of the flight.
Quote from: rite_of_inversion on September 29, 2010, 08:49:54 PM
As far as making planes hijack-resistant, I can think of a pretty good way: I'm told the Israelis have their cockpit sealed form the rest of the plane. The cockpit presumably has its' own toilet and/or food compartment. The pilots enter and exit the plane through a separate exterior door from the passengers.
As far as I know ELAL aircraft have a double door locked from inside the cockpit. it is closed before departure and not to be opened after landing. The indeed have their own simple lunches. A completely sealed cockpit is not a good idea because there are some situations where a pilot has to leave the flightdeck. For example to inspect the engines or the wings for damage or ice, or for restraining an unruly passenger. The captain also carries documents to legally arrest persons and is allowed to make a will in case a passenger dies.
Quote from: Britney_413 on September 30, 2010, 12:20:08 AM
That hypoxia video was kind of scary. Don't most planes have gauges or sensors that warn the pilots of a drop in air pressure?
They do, we have a system that measures the "cabin altitude" (You can actually hear an alarm sounding in the background). When it goes above 9550 feet (in my type) an alarm will sound. One of the strange thing of the human brain is that it will ignore all extra data in case of overload. When a person experiences a high workload or even stress, it is possible he ignores a person talking to him or even doesn't hear an alarm.
Hi Oct, just curious what type of airline aircraft do you fly? You say you are 23 y.o That is very young for a first officer so congrats to you !!!
!, but I can't imagine your career had been that long.
Anyhow I had always an interest in aviation and took flying lessons when I was a bit younger.
Take care
Quote from: adaralove on October 02, 2010, 04:57:55 PM
Hi Oct, just curious what type of airline aircraft do you fly? You say you are 23 y.o That is very young for a first officer so congrats to you !!!
Heh, I hear that a lot, especially from passengers. It looks like people generally want to have old pilots and young stewardesses when they fly. If it is the other way around it gets a bit awkward. Especially the times I mentioned that I didn't have my drivers licence yet (I do have one now).
I started flying right after my final exams in highschool. I was 18 at the time and finished at the age of 20. In the short time after this I flew some sightseeing flights and in about half a year I found a job as First Officer on the Airbus A320. The way of making a career as a commercial pilot in Europe is a bit different from the USA. Here you almost immediately get hired on large aircraft, while in the USA you are stuck flying regional propeller aircraft for a long time. Looking down on the Earth made me wonder how such beauty and diversity ever came to be so I started to study geology in my spare time.
You can always take up flying when you feel like it and have the financial resourses. Apart from professional flying I still fly a lot in small aircraft because I just can't get enough of the experience and freedom.