Keith Antoine wrote:
>
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 09:48, Ian Marchak orated thus:
>
> > > Something was mooted on radio here today:
> > > Why aren't the bulkheads or doors to the cabin armour plated and locked
> > > so as noone can enter.
> >
> > The main argument used here (up to this point) is the weight of such a
> > bulkhead. It may not seem like much in the overall scheme of things, 1
> > - 2 thousand pounds per aircraft to make the cockpit enclosure near
> > impenetrable. However, carry that added weight out over a fleet of
> > aircraft and it would literally be millions yearly in added cost in the
> > fuel used to carry the extra weight.
>
> I do not quite buy that argument insofar as there are now lightweight
> stronger than steel substitutes.
i.e.: Carbon Fiber I assume you are referring to? Other than that there
are no materials that I know of lighter than and stronger than steel.
CF is amazingly strong when it comes to blunt forces and the like, but
if someone grabs one of the fire axes that are std equip on all
commercial pass. planes, they will make quick work of it. Much like a
kevlar vest won't do much good against an axe.
For practically every solution to this problem there is a way around
it. I have been working in the aerospace industry for several years now
and can honestly say, that when there is a known better way of doing
things on aircraft, it's done that way.
> > > Why are there no suveillance cameras installed so as the pilots can see
> > > whats going on.
> >
> > That way the pilots watch what's happening in front of the
> > aircraft...not in the cabin. A far better solution IMO would be air
> > Marshall's, although that is not without it's drawbacks...but that's
> > another debate. :)
>
> Not to debate it but isn't flying an aircraft today lots easier and don't
> they have other crew other than just a pilot up front?
Actually, they have already removed the Flight Engineers from commercial
aircraft, his duties are now handled by the computers, co-pilot and
pilot. (This is part of what was being debated after the AirTransat
emergency landing in Portugal a month or so back).
Observing the passengers is the job of the fight attendants. Every time
you step on a plane, they are looking at you as you walk past, examining
you for "uneasiness", "darting eyes", "excessive sweat" and the like.
These hijackers knew what was going to happen, they knew what they were
going to do, and I can almost guarantee that they were not calm, cool
and collected. If not nervous of dying, they were extremely nervous of
failing and being found out. If anyone should have noticed this
behavior, it should have been the flight attendants. The pilots' jobs
are to fly the plane. Most airlines if not all (it could be FAA rules),
have the passengers board before the pilot, so in the event that a
hijacker is noticed getting on the plane before takeoff, there are no
pilots aboard to even get the hijacked plane in the air.
> > > Lastly why isn't the cabin on a seperate environment
> > > so as the cabin crew could unleash a fairly harmless gas to put ALL to
> > > sleep till it could land with a sombulent cargo??
> >
> > Keep in mind, that the hijackers are often times, as we saw, willing to
> > die. If this gas was released into the cabin, they would not fall
> > asleep instantly. Although it sounds feasible, they would no doubt
> > start shooting people, windows, doors etc. and do everything in their
> > power to ensure that they are not taken alive. A bullet hole at 450
> > knots and 35,000 feet soon makes a very serious problem. You mentioned
> > in one other post, the "flying colander" theory. When at altitude and
> > pressurized, an aircraft is constantly exerting several hundred pounds
> > of explosive force on each square foot of it's pressure envelope.
>
> Not that I am volunteering, but isn't just one or two lives better than waht
> we have seen. Yeah I know that just one life is sacroscant but I wonder if
> some would not have preferred that this last week. Maybe some did on that one
> that crashed in the woods.
Yes. Absolutely. I agree 100%.
What I am saying is that we as continents, nations, as "western
civilization" must realize that the laws that govern the western world
are ultimately based on the christian beliefs and values of the people
who wrote those laws. There are a vast many people in the world who
have no such values. These are the terrorists, within and outside of
north america, these are the Dahmers, Bundys, Bernardos and Bin-Ladens.
These people must be actively sought out and dealt with before they
kill, before they bomb, before they get on the plane.
I am not arguing that your points, or the points of the reporter or
whomever are wrong. They are valid points, but are coming from the
wrong direction. We are trying to find what was wrong with the
airports, what was wrong with the planes. Nothing. Absolutely
nothing. There was something wrong with the individuals who boarded the
planes, hijacked the planes and turned them into explosive weapons. We
cannot expect the people of the United States, the people who
manufacture planes and the people who design airports them to cover
every eventuality of the actions of lunatics.
Not only must the fox be kept from the hen house, the fox must be dealt
with at the perimeter of the farm, and must be activly sought out while
still in the forest.
--
Linux SxS [http://hal.humberc.on.ca/~mrcn0031/sxs/]
_______________________________________________
http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, Etc
->http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
