Re: OT:Prevent Airline Hijacking

On Wed, 11 May 2005 17:56:43 -0700, Bob Monsen wrote:

> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> Bob Monsen <rcsurname@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> news:5bmdneOLQeUvFB_fRVn-uw@xxxxxxxxxxx:
>>
>>
>>>Luhan Monat wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hey, lots of brainpower in this ng. What about this...
>>>>
>>>>In "Wrath of Kahn", they took back control of the Enterprise by a
>>>>secret override code known only to bridge officers.
>>>>
>>>>Put this in every airliner, each with a unique and very secret code
>>>>to take control of it. Now, you just have to keep a few thousand
>>>>codes secret (1 floppy disc?) to protect the entire airline industry.
>>>> This prevents ever having to shoot down one of our own airliners.
>>>>
>>>
>>>A 16 year old swedish kid was just arrested for organizing the
>>>breakins to hundreds of classified systems, NASA, DOD, etc. We don't
>>>know enough about security to protect important information. The codes
>>>would leak, and we'd have terrorists flying planes into buildings by
>>>remote control.
>>>
>>>The best way to prevent hijacking is to physically seal the
>>>pilot/copilot off from the rest of the passengers, and to have armed
>>>undercover marshalls amongst the passengers on random flights. Cheap
>>>and effective.
>>>
>>>---
>>>Regards,
>>> Bob Monsen
>>>
>>
>>
>> Armed Pilots would be even more effective.(one flies,one shoots)
>>
>
> Perhaps, but pilots shouldn't really be worried about security, they
> should be worried about flying. Making them into security guards is not
> an effective use of talent.

Maybe not, but there is no room in the cockpit for security guards, and I
think almost everyone would feel safer knowing the pilots are or might be
armed.

> Perhaps hiring a few private security
> guards, that could dress so as not to be noticed, who were armed with
> non-lethal weapons might be a better way to go.
>

Why non-lethal? If there is a minor problem such as a drunk or rowdy
passenger, the other passengers can deal with it just fine. An undercover
security guard should reveal his or herself only when there is a
probability of hijacking or serious bodily injury, and in that situation,
it seems to me that lethal force might be the way to go. Especially if
there is only one guard and several hijackers.

>> Sealing off the cockpit;the current reinforced door was already breached by
>> cabin cleaners using a beverage cart,knocked it clear off the hinges.
>> Plus the door must be opened for toilet breaks,or for other reasons.
>> IOW,not practical.
>>
>
Well, as part of a multi-tiered effort, it is probably not a bad idea. But
arming the pilots and or putting under-cover feds on the airplanes could
also be part of the solution.

Sometimes I joke that instead of taking away sharp things from passengers
they should give knives to every passenger as they board. Think about it.
The good guys always outnumber the bad guys. What we need is to make sure
the bad guys can't overcome this numerical superiority with weapons.

Strangely, I have never found anyone who agrees with me. ;-)

> Actually, I was thinking total isolation of the pilots; no physical path
> between cockpit and passenger zone, with no communication forward except
> a single button in the passenger area, secured with a code, that meant
> 'emergency, land as soon as possible'. They would need their own
> bathroom... ;)
>

This would necessitate a redesign of the airplane interiors, I think. It
might even cause the airplane entrances to be moved. I'm pretty sure
that would be prohibitively expensive. I think this idea has about as much
chance as my idea of arming every passenger. ;-)

> ---
> Regards,
> Bob Monsen

--Mac

.