At 11:37 AM 10/31/2002 -0800, you wrote:
This assumption may not be a good one. Considering the level of current security checks, it should be trivial to smuggle some sort of anesthetic or poisonous gas generator aboard. No need for sharp objects. AFAIK, the air supply aboard current U.S. fleets is shared between passengers and cockpit.At 4:13 PM -0800 10/29/02, John Kelsey wrote: >At 12:01 PM 10/28/02 -0800, Tim May wrote: >>By the way, there are perfectly good fixes to the current hysteria >>about things carried on board planes... > >I think the best fix is to accept that a determined suicidal attacker will >probably manage to bring down the plane, but make sure that's the worst he >can do. That removes the externality problem. The current algorithm for >this is some combination of pilots being told not to go along with >hijackers' demands, and maybe some chance of getting a military jet in >place to shoot the hijacked plane down, if it is taken over by the >hijackers.Another "fix" that is being used is passengers who will act to keep the plane from being used as a weapon. If the hijackers have to kill people with small sharp objects that they can smuggle on board, instead of mass killing devices like machine guns, then a large number of passengers can overcome a small number of hijackers.
steve
