Fellow pilots,
I highly recommend Jim F.'s excellent piece on aviation safety and anti-hijacking measures in today’s Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-091301fallows.storyclick here).
Sincerely,
Roger
Fellow pilots,
I highly recommend Jim F.'s excellent piece on aviation safety and anti-hijacking measures in today’s Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-091301fallows.storyclick here).
Sincerely,
Roger
I for one don’t think we should JUST treat the symptoms and ignore the cause.
I wonder about bullets and pressurized cabins at 36K ft. Any hesitation could result in the bad guys having a gun also.
Punitive restrictions on the inocent are not the complete answer.
The cause must be eliminated, not in an attitude of revenge but pre-emption. It could also be call Justice.
Myers
I certainly would not mind at all the reinstatement of the “Air Marshal” concept aboard airline flights. At the very least it would introduce a variable into the calculations of would-be terrorists that they would not be able to accurately assess in their otherwise meticulous plans.
Otherwise I very much hope that the usual compulsion felt by the various branches of our government to “do something” in the wake of a major adverse event will be moderated by reflection on how such restrictions could severely compromise our economy and freedom to travel. Politicians always try their hardest to either “fight the previous war” as Jim puts it, or enhance their careers by “idenitfying,” and implementing solutions for, problems that do not exist. However I am more optimistic than some that the final scenario will be workable for most. Tuesday’s events were of such a huge and sobering scale that I think a degree of sobriety will prevail, and policies adopted over the long term will be preceded by reasonable and thoughtful debate. Ultimate safety is not attainable, and I think most citizens recognize this.
Of course, the problem will not be solved until the monsters who believe that the incineration of innocents is their passport to paradise have that passport stamped early and often, and if necessarily pre-emptively. Terrorism needs to be viewed as a military problem, not a “civilian justice” problem. I was enouraged to hear Bush say that we will not distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them. A more explicit and dramatic statement would be, “It shall henceforth be the policy of this nation that nations fostering or harboring those who commit acts of war against the United States, are themselves at war with the United States.”
Fellow pilots,
I highly recommend Jim F.'s excellent piece on aviation safety and anti-hijacking measures in today’s Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-091301fallows.storyclick here).
Sincerely,
Roger
An armed guard may be a help in some cases.To a future hijacker.One guard can easily be over powered.If one snuck some mace or a nerve agent take the gun then what?.Just a couple big guys going against an armed guard can do it.It would be a poor idea to carry any sort of weapons on board.Security basically stinks.If you notice when you go throught security you put your keys in a bowl.One can hide a knife or razor in a rabbits foot on the key ring.They never really check keys.They really need to look at every possible way one can sneak a weapon on.If that armed guard does shoot in the jet you will decompress then who knows.At night contracted cleaners which I have seen arent really supervised when they clean at night.Food workers sneaking stuff on… are these people xrayed before they board and do their work at night? I don’t think alot of them do.Only if the jet is due to depart is securtity a real issue… my 5.6 cents… later -j
I tend to agree with Myers.
It’s only ever going to be possible to obtain near perfect security by impossing severe constraints on citizen’s liberties. Just look at the crime statistics of any totalitarian regimes and you’ll see that they are normally safe places (for some …).
I wonder about bullets and pressurized cabins at 36K ft. Any hesitation could result in the bad guys having a gun also.
… and if the Hijacker puts a gun to the head of some passenger or crew, what is the guard going to do?
Punitive restrictions on the inocent are not the complete answer.
The cause must be eliminated, not in an attitude of revenge but pre-emption. It could also be call Justice.
Yes, but what’s the cause? The terrorist’s are comparatively easy to eliminate, but they are not the cause, they are already a consequence.
I think, at some point we’ll also have to face the question as to why there are some many nutcases out there - I think more than we care to admit - that hate the Western world and what it stands for to such an extent.
Chris
Roger, thanks for the link.
As for Myers:
I for one don’t think we should JUST treat the symptoms and ignore the cause.
Agreed. That’s why the headline says “Step One:”
Obviously after Step One come many other steps. The challenge to all of us is to try to figure out these long-run, comprehensive responses, which may range from different military postures to different diplomatic engagements to fundamental discussions about the daily inconveniences or incursions on civil liberties we are and are not willing to accept.
Politicians play a major role in these discussions; academics and experts should speak up; citizens will ultimately decide; and people in the press, like me, need to do their best to explain and explore the options. So that’s the plan – after Step One.
Obviously after Step One come many other steps. The challenge to all of us is to try to figure out these long-run, comprehensive responses, which may range from different military postures to different diplomatic engagements to fundamental discussions about the daily inconveniences or incursions on civil liberties we are and are not willing to accept.
Politicians play a major role in these discussions; academics and experts should speak up; citizens will ultimately decide; and people in the press, like me, need to do their best to explain and explore the options. So that’s the plan – after Step One.
I still have a problem with the Air-Marshall idea. The determination of the current batch of martered terrorist is worlds different from those of times past whose goals were to get to a different country or effect the release of a comrade. The goal now is to kill, no matter what, as many as possible. Anyone’s death, their own, or a child means nothing.
This is what scares me about the Marshall concept. Say, for instance, one or five or ten terrorist conceal plastic or ceramic sharp objects, suitably enclosed in a protective sheath in a body orifice. Its assumed we are not willing to subject ourselves to total body x-rays everytime we board an airplane. He retrives the sharp object and grabs the nearest kid, say a five year old. Does the sky-marshall shoot through the child to get to the terrorist? Imagine multiple terrorist with multiple kids. How many kids do the terrorist have to kill before the sky marshall either kills the children to get to the terrorist or lays down his gun or becomes overpowered? I personally don’t think I could look into the face of a child and pull the trigger.
Who is going to select these sky-marshalls and train them? Is Delta Force personel the answer? Could they kill multiple innocent people before being overpowered and giving the terrorists a gun also? Guns aboard really opens alot of new avenues.
If someone could be found to takeout a terrorist under the worst of circumstances it might work. The trouble as I see it is currently your worst nightmare is still not grotesque enough.
M Myers
James,
I think the answer lies with changing Americans’ basic attitudes right now. The declaration of war is a guerilla war. That means every American needs to be prepared to be a warrior. One marshal, one door, one of anything cannot prevent determined terrorists. 50-300 American passengers determined not to be powerless are an absolute guaranty of the failure of any hijack attempt. The politicians need to take the lead on this message, and the media needs to fall in.
-Curt
Obviously after Step One come many other steps. The challenge to all of us is to try to figure out these long-run, comprehensive responses, which may range from different military postures to different diplomatic engagements to fundamental discussions about the daily inconveniences or incursions on civil liberties we are and are not willing to accept.
Obviously after Step One come many other steps. The challenge to all of us is to try to figure out these long-run, comprehensive responses, which may range from different military postures to different diplomatic engagements to fundamental discussions about the daily inconveniences or incursions on civil liberties we are and are not willing to accept.
Jim, I think you’re hitting on a number of aspects of what I hope will become part of the national debate.
-
The best security program is a layered approach. Instead of focusing merely on reducing the odds of breaching a single piece of the security system, like the cockpit entrance, the best security systems place a series of measures in place which have a multiplicative effect on the odds of breach. Isn’t this the principle behind the use of redundant instruments in the cockpit? Since a layered system is more efficient it is more sustainable on a permanent basis.
-
I heard a commentator say that the US is the target because we enjoy so much freedom. Actually, I think we’re VULNERABLE because we’re so free, but we’re a TARGET because we assume a controversial leadership position in world affairs. Otherwise Canada (also very free & open) would be a target, too. As a nation we should consider whether we’re still willing to be such a leader.
-
You’re totally on target about civil liberties, not just convenience, being restricted if we try to become more secure. As a nation I think we’ve carried our protection of individual rights to obsessive extremes, but I think the right time to debate the tradeoffs is NOT while we’re so emotionally distraught.
-
I understand the concept of circling the wagons in a time of crisis, but isn’t it a bit odd that we consider politicians a bunch of corrupt nitwits when there’s nothing going on but we trust them implicitly when we have a crisis?
Actually if you shoot a gun on an airliner it will not decompress in fact you will probably not even notice a difference. Also the Food servers and cleaners are x-rayed and searched before they enter secure areas. My two cents
An armed guard may be a help in some cases.To a future hijacker.One guard can easily be over powered.If one snuck some mace or a nerve agent take the gun then what?.Just a couple big guys going against an armed guard can do it.It would be a poor idea to carry any sort of weapons on board.Security basically stinks.If you notice when you go throught security you put your keys in a bowl.One can hide a knife or razor in a rabbits foot on the key ring.They never really check keys.They really need to look at every possible way one can sneak a weapon on.If that armed guard does shoot in the jet you will decompress then who knows.At night contracted cleaners which I have seen arent really supervised when they clean at night.Food workers sneaking stuff on… are these people xrayed before they board and do their work at night? I don’t think alot of them do.Only if the jet is due to depart is securtity a real issue… my 5.6 cents… later -j
To avoid the guard himself becoming a target, have him board the plane undercover. If each flight, or even MOST flights, were assigned such an undercover officer many attackers would be deterred - starting tomorrow.
Think it through from the attacker’s perspective: SOMEBODY on the flight is an agent, it COULD be the fellow with long hair listening to hip hop music on his walkman; it MIGHT be the businessman in first class. This “Sky Marshall factor” would substantially complicate planning for an operation like Tuesday’s. Remember, an airliner is one of the few places in the United States where an attacker today is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that nobody possesses a firearm!
Guard the airliners in flight, monitor and/or deport aliens in the U.S. from unfriendly countries, control the borders and leave the civil liberties of the rest of us intact.
George Savage
An armed guard may be a help in some cases.To a future hijacker.One guard can easily be over powered.If one snuck some mace or a nerve agent take the gun then what?.Just a couple big guys going against an armed guard can do it.It would be a poor idea to carry any sort of weapons on board.Security basically stinks.If you notice when you go throught security you put your keys in a bowl.One can hide a knife or razor in a rabbits foot on the key ring.They never really check keys.They really need to look at every possible way one can sneak a weapon on.If that armed guard does shoot in the jet you will decompress then who knows.At night contracted cleaners which I have seen arent really supervised when they clean at night.Food workers sneaking stuff on… are these people xrayed before they board and do their work at night? I don’t think alot of them do.Only if the jet is due to depart is securtity a real issue… my 5.6 cents… later -j
Also the Food servers and cleaners are x-rayed and searched before they enter secure areas.
I know I have seen folks drive on to secured areas through gates with a code with no such security checks. -j
To avoid the guard himself becoming a target, have him board the plane undercover. If each flight, or even MOST flights, were assigned such an undercover officer many attackers would be deterred - starting tomorrow.
There were apparently 4 hijackers per plane. If undercover guards are a concern, then have one hijacker try to take over the plane and when the undercover guard takes action an undercover hijacker takes him out. If another undercover guard then takes action, you still have 2 undercover hijackers left.
To avoid the guard himself becoming a target, have him board the plane undercover. If each flight, or even MOST flights, were assigned such an undercover officer many attackers would be deterred - starting tomorrow.
Another thought…Knowing that one can be undercover they can simply have everyone strip down and find the armed person … just like the mob movies. -j