View Full Version : Hidden PAX

9th Dec 2003, 04:47
On October,6 this year, the pilot of Air-France flight Brazzaville/Paris received a message," more than one hour after take-off", informing him that a man had been spotted climbing in the wheel well just before take off from Brazzaville (Congo).

After discussion with Air-France operation in CDG, it is said that the decision was taken to continue the flight and land at destination in Paris, where the frozen dead body of an African teen ager was found in the wheel well.

This fact caused some turmoil in pilot's unions , human right and migrant assistance associations in France. Air-France spokesman declared the young Congolese was "no doubt" allready dead when the message was received in the cockpit.

Today, AFP released new Air-France instructions for pilots, in same circumstances, advising them to descend at safety altitude, and land at departure airport, according to possibilities...

Unfortunately this is not the first case of young thoughtless people trying to escape their impoverished African country and reach dreamland....

It seems that there has been a survivor in at least one occurence, on a very short trip in warm low altitude flight.

Usually, the corpse was discovered upon arrival and the pilot got no information about it during flight, but this time two questions arose:

Unhumanity of the decision to refuse taking all the chances to save this human life...if there were any.

Insecurity at Brazzaville Airport (....and you can guess also in similar places) where anybody is able to enter the "protected" area , access to the planes with any intentions and equipment.

French pilots flying between Africa and Europe are aware of these tragic events, but I wonder if it happened in other places, and would be glad to read your opinion and informations if you get some.

Thank you in advance.

9th Dec 2003, 08:35

If they were to cycle the undercarriage in the air with another plane watching wouldn't they establish a go-no-go decision without having to turn back and land?

9th Dec 2003, 09:01
Fuel is cheap, fly fast.
To divert is a waste of time and resources, IMO.

Pays your money (or not), takes your chances.:ooh:

9th Dec 2003, 09:50
So, is it a teenager trying to stow away, or a terrorist trying to plant a bomb? Cycling the gear may be the best way to reduce the risk of the latter...

9th Dec 2003, 15:31
I'm desperately trying to feel humanity flowing through your answers.

Are you going then to speak about Civilisation, Good, Evil, Christianity....you know....all these things...?

It is not the kind of answer I was waiting for.

Do you want to turn this thread into the expression of barbarous pulsions?

Please keep the right direction:

Did it happen anywhere else "out of Africa"?

What's your opinion about these facts (either racist or unhumane consideration will be rejected)?

9th Dec 2003, 17:47
<<It seems that there has been a survivor in at least one occurence, on a very short trip in warm low altitude flight.>>

Years ago I read a story about a guy surviving a 747 flight all the way from India to LHR, hiding in the undercarriage bay. He was even wearing only light clothes. I think his brother was with him but died shortly after take-off. I don't know how well he recovered, but he'd certainly made it alive to the UK, although I'm not sure what happened to his future there from a legal point of view...

9th Dec 2003, 20:37
<<(either racist or unhumane consideration will be rejected)?>>
You started the discussion - If you don't like the comments you receive then you should withdraw.

9th Dec 2003, 21:15
Grandpa, this has been covered several times in previous threads. fatal Toronto (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77846&highlight=stowaway) fatal heathrow (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50291&highlight=stowaway) alive Montreal (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74912&highlight=stowaway) One of the worst cases into Heathrow, was when a body landed in Sainburys car park, amongst shoppers loading their cars! :yuk:

9th Dec 2003, 21:31
The Darwin Awards honor those who improve our gene pool... by removing themselves from it. We commemorate the men and women who gave their "all" in an effort to improve the human species. Of necessity, the honor is generally bestowed posthumously. :E

Anybody that illegally messes with an aircraft that is carrying other souls and therefore putting them in jeopardy deserves to pay the ultimate price. No different than grabbing a wire bundle and cutting it in my opinion. :mad:

9th Dec 2003, 22:55
...thanks to you I know a bit more about this kind of stowaway.

The most interesting point is about those who survived, even after a long flight at high altitude, so it's never sure a man is dead after hours in this situation.

It has been proposed a video should be installed, which could allow the crew to monitor aircraft belly and wheel well, thus preventing intruders to hide there and improving safety...

Basil my dear!
You should know racist comments are forbidden in Pprune forum....and also by law (in my country and ,I hope, in yours too),
so YOU have to withdraw!

Same for 747Focal: you way of expressing cynical racist views is quite disgusting. It reminds me of a commentary made by a Judge at Nuremberg Court after WWII:
"Racism is welcomed by too many peoples because it allows them to consider that whatever disgraced and stupid they are, they found other peoples they can call "inferior" and humiliate."
Please try to improve yourself first!

Pax Vobiscum
9th Dec 2003, 23:06
I think 747Focal was re-echoing Robert Heinlein's (I think - anyone care to correct?) view that "stupidity is ALWAYS a capital offence".

9th Dec 2003, 23:21
how about a multi language message in the wheel bays ......

"if you stow away in this wheel bay you will certainly die from exposure to sub zero temperatures"

9th Dec 2003, 23:39
Grandpa, just to make myself absolutely clear:
My views will not be altered by 'thought police'.
I enjoy speaking out against those who use the cheap abuse of terms such as 'racist', 'bigot', 'fascist', 'sexist', 'anti-semitic' (whatever that may mean), as a way of stifling comment.
No one is immune from adverse criticism by virtue of their perceived persecution.

p.s: I wouldn't say the guy's stupid for trying to stow away in the wheelwell, just extremely badly informed.

9th Dec 2003, 23:58

I have read Basils’ and 747focals’ postings several times now and see no racist comments or suggestion in either of them. Me thinks you are trying to start a Racist argument, given you are the only person who has mentioned racism.

The morality of the decision made by the crew and management is worthy of good debate, however I suspect you may be using the post for another agenda.

10th Dec 2003, 06:05
I would have thought that this discussion be best moved to JetBlast.

It now seems to be boiling down to the moral question of "should people be protected from their own actions because of ignorance?"

Its a very fine line, but I can't help thinking that the correct response to those who end up in a criminal court is that they cannot escape from the consequences of their actions because they didn't think through it fully. The more difficult question is whether they were capable of thinking it through fully. If one wants to say that because of their ethnic origins, they were incapable of thinking it through fully, whereas I, from a different part of the world, could think it through fully, I would humbly submit that this is racism.

Undoubtedly this poor guy knew his actions were criminal. He therefore took a risk that the sanction if he were caught would be less severe than it turned out to be. Its tragic, but I believe that there has to be a deterrent to criminal activity.

I think that its a moral dilemma comparable with the Jamaican drug mules coming into Heathrow. These women are tempted by getting enough money to solve all their problems, and no doubt believe that the chance of getting caught is smaller than it is, or that the punishment if caught is far less severe. What is the appropriate sentence here?


G-Foxtrot Oscar 69
10th Dec 2003, 06:23
Hey back to a serious note for a moment, (Not saying that predujice and hatred are not) but back to that most serious of issues, aviation.

In the modern "Post 911" world, what the hell are the carriers dong letting random people get that close to their A/C!

This ain't about some poor badly informed guy who thought it would never happen to him, this is about a badly informed person with a bomb etc who is on a mission to get a point of view across.

At Airports with lesser security should a crew member not do a final pre-push walk round check into the wells etc, as this would solve two probs: Stowaways and attached threats.

Just a thought.

10th Dec 2003, 14:08
"At Airports with lesser security should a crew member not do a final pre-push walk round check into the wells etc, as this would solve two probs: Stowaways and attached threats."

I seem to recall seeing or reading somewhere that when events such as that mentioned at the outset of this thread occur it is long after the push at terminal. Usually the potential stowaway is hiding in long grass near the runway where security isn't so tight and as the a/c is on or approaches active runway for departure he makes his move. Hence a pre-push check wouldn't be of any use. Neither, I suggest, would a multi-lingual sign in the well of the a/c as was suggested since you will probably find that most people contemplating such an action would quite possibly be illiterate. Any relevance to the fact that it is inevitably a male?

10th Dec 2003, 16:21
Now that this thread has returned to some kind of civilised discussion, let us point again this problem is asking two questions to us:

May I tell those who focalise on the stowaway guilt (...often illeterate teens thus irresponsible by definition...), that, doing so, they are neglecting the other and very important question of aircraft safety.

Interesting demonstration, when you see that you have better to stick strictly on humanism, if you want to avoid unpredected awfull consequences.

So, the point is "How can we protect aircraft and passengers from this danger?"

One solution is following the plane from apron to runway and make sure nobody get a chance to climb in the wheel wells.
Video monitoring from the cockpit of all the hidden parts of the plane could enhance safety too.

Should we be surprised that this tremendous hole in Air Transport safety is left wide open, in today's dangerous environment, when we know terrorists are taking each and every opportunity to take the lives of hundreds of innocent people, when we know that instead of unconscious teens there could be a suicid attack by fanatics?

My opinion is it's time to invest money in embarked video monitoring, and I wonder what professionnal pilots and other concerned (what about technical problems?) think about it on Pprune?

Luke SkyToddler
10th Dec 2003, 17:04
Nah - bollocks to em. Anyone (of any nationality) who is stupid enough to get into a wheel well, deserves everything they get.

These aircraft are soon going to be so laid up with wheel-well-camera-surveillance systems and SAM-missile-defense-protection systems and hardened-cockpit-doors and god knows what else, that they will be too heavy to get off the ground :(

An extra couple of security guards in a pillbox at the runway threshold would do the business - and it's much more cost effective, the airlines could all chip in, and on African wages you could pay them for the next 1000000 years for the price of some flashy STC'ed camera system :rolleyes: .

A multi lingual sign in the wheel well is actually not a silly idea (or even some graphics or pictures of frozen corpses for the illiterate ones). It would also have the bonus of protecting US carriers from being sued by the occasional survivors for failing to fully notify them of the hazards involved (think I'm kidding! Remember that woman who tried to sue Mcdonalds for millions after she spilled hot coffee on her lap, so now Mcdonalds coffees and apple pies have that big 'Caution - filling may be hot').

10th Dec 2003, 17:19
Well I would have landed ASAP to protect ME from the lawyers and the media.

10th Dec 2003, 18:00
I would have to go with Crepello on this one with regard to the crimson piscatorial nature of the origional post and the possible motives for the question.
Racism aside it would appear that the stowaway problem is from less devloped countries to the West and quite a difficult problem. It does however pose some quite serious security questions in that if someone is stowing away they could quite easily be planting something beside themselves.
The two factors which immediately pop up are Weight and Cost with video monitors becoming lighter and cheaper it is not beyond the realm of possibility that some form of video monitoring of the external of the plane and certain areas. But as someone has said manufacturers cannot cater for every single possible eventuality otherwise the aircraft simply would cease to be affordable.

10th Dec 2003, 18:39
Would it be possible to "standardise" on "split" undercarriage doors? When the wheels are down, the doors close together again, leaving just a small aperture surrounding the strut, too small for any "body" to force themselves through. Not sure how many aircraft already have this facility. I am sure someone will know how many of today's aircraft are/are not already like this, so that the size of the problem could be evaluated.

10th Dec 2003, 19:12
This incident already disussed here:


Agaricus bisporus
10th Dec 2003, 19:27
Oh dear, It amazes me how things go off topic so fast, and never faster than when the blindly self righteous start calling "racist" at someone who manifestly was not.

Look, its common sense, isn't it? If anyone, blue, black, white or yellow climbs into a wheel well intending to hitch a lift they get all they deserve, which is more often than not dead. Additionally they hazard the lives of many, perhaps several hubdred people by their stupidity, and they deserve everything they get for that if they are caught too.

Back to topic, in Dec 2000 there were TWO such incidents reported at Gatwick! On the first a frozen meat bomb fell from a landing aircraft on finals, and later a body was seen by several people falling from a departing aircraft onto the apron. He was DOA too. I'll see if I can find a link.

The fascinating, and rather horrifying implication of the Telegraph's report of the 28 Dec is that the Cuban brothers fell from the same aircraft, bit on different days! Had one fallen out inbound, and the other remained, unnoticed, dead and frozen solid in the wheelbay during A checks, walkarounds, inspections, tow bar fittings etc until he was dislodged on the following take off next day?





Flying Lawyer
10th Dec 2003, 19:34
aidanfI seem to recall seeing or reading somewhere that when events such as that mentioned at the outset of this thread occur it is long after the push at terminal. Usually the potential stowaway is hiding in long grass near the runway where security isn't so tight and as the a/c is on or approaches active runway for departure he makes his move.
You may be thinking of the Cuban stowaways incident at Christmas time three years ago which was widely reported in the Press, and debated on Pprune. Two teenagers stowed away in the wheel-bay of a BA 777 from Cuba to LGW. (They thought it was going to Florida.)

I represented BA at the Inquest.
The 777 was followed from the gate by an airport security vehicle which waited at the holding point until departure. As the aircraft moved from the holding point, two stowaways who'd been hiding in long grass avoided the security vehicle's lights (night departure) and climbed into the wheel-bay as the aircraft was turning onto the runway.
There was an attempt to criticise BA because there'd been a simliar incident a year or so earlier. However, we were able to show that BA had its own security around the aircraft the entire time it was at the gate from landing to departure in addition to the airport's own (alleged) security, that BA had repeatedly complained about airport security and holes in the perimeter fence, and that requests to allow BA's own vehicle/personnel to follow the aircraft from the gate had been refused.
The Coroner exonerated BA of any blame.

Recycling the gear? Not necessarily. It depends upon (a) the design of the wheel-bay, (b) how securely the stowaways have lodged themselves and (c) see below. In the above incident, the first stowway fell out when the gear was lowered for landing at LGW. The second didn't fall out until the next day when the gear was raised climbing out of LGW for Mexico. (This may be difficult to understand for Ppruners not familiar with 777 wheel-bay doors.)

I don't think it was inhumane, especially if the information wasn't conveyed for " more than one hour after take-off."
The evidence given by an expert at the Cuban stowaway Inquest was that stowaways die long before an aircraft reaches high altitude and, contrary to common belief, they are dead long before they are frozen.
His view was that stowaways die because of the speed with which oxygen levels reduce as the aircraft climbs, particularly if it has the RoC of a 777. He contrasted that with mountaineers climbing Everest who acclimatise gradually. His opinion (I'm merely repeating it) was that the two men would have died within literally a few minutes.
It's true that one stowaway has survived a flight from India to LHR. He was so severely brain-damaged that he was allowed to remain with family in the UK as an act of compassion. However, his survival is regarded by the medical world as one of those freak and totally inexplicable incidents.

Just a suggestion in an attempt to help .....
It's your thread, but you might want to decide whether you want a discussion about the moral dilemna or security aspects. I agree there are aspects common to both, but the two issues aren't inextricably interwoven and the opinions are highly likely to vary depending upon whether people are being asked to comment upon the safety of stowaways who certainly know they shouldn't be there (regardless of how illiterate they are) and almost certainly know they're taking an enormous risk, or security of aircraft against terrorists.

10th Dec 2003, 20:18
So, if they are hiding in the long grass why not cut the grass and improve the fence? If it's harder to hide then that must reduce the risk. Has to be cheaper than fancy cameras and the like.

10th Dec 2003, 20:42
I began this thread upon the problems refered to in this accident: the lack of surveillance causing danger for unconscious stowaway anf for passengers and crew.

Involved also is the trend in airline managment to minimise the safety gaps in many airports : it's from Brazzaville that two French airline UTA flight took off and exploded later, one on the ground in N'djamena ,and the second over desert of Tenere killing everybody onboard.

The suggestion to pay local to watch the aircraft before take off isn't a realistic approach, because it's difficult to measure the level of confidence you can put in them , according to the fact that anybody can bribe them.

The cost of video monitoring isn't so high, the weight involved too, and you should think about all the useless gadgets we carry in aircraft, compared to the stupendous efficiency of this one in term of saved human lives.

10th Dec 2003, 21:59

Why should airlines be forced to pay millions to install and maintain a camera system? Would this be a dispatch problem if the video monitors were malfunctioning? Lets be realistic here, airlines are already bogged down with a lot of revenue sucking crap. Having to pay to protect idiots from themselves on this level is unfair.

All you guys talking about posting signs in the wheel wells or on the airport property warning these people are forgetting that anybody stupid enough to jump in a wheel well of a jet probably can't read. ;)

11th Dec 2003, 00:13
And who would monitor these video pictures? I'm assuming you mean the pilots should. You obviously have not one iota of an idea what the workload is on the flightdeck during taxi out and take off. Even if it were possible to cover all angles on the tiny LCD screens you are also probably assuming that one of the two pilots will be watching the screen like a hawk.

It's bad enough now with the flightdeck security cameras just for access but to even suggest that the crew watch those low resolution pictures and throw in all the muck and sludge that gets thrown up into the gear bay and a possible night departure and you can see it's a non-starter. I would suggest that someone who is obviously not familiar with the ergonomics, workload and procedures on the flight deck accept the fact that once your idea has been shown to be flawed you stop tryong to flog the proverbial dead horse. :rolleyes:

11th Dec 2003, 00:44

Here, here......:)

Flying Lawyer
11th Dec 2003, 02:15
Agaricus bisporus
The two did fall from the same aircraft on consecutive days. I hope you won't think me rude saying this because I'm not an airline pilot and I assume you are, but I suspect you're not familiar with the operation of the wheel-bay doors on a 777.
If you were, I don't think you'd have written your final paragraph in such sensationalist style or concluded with a tabloid style "Wow!"

On a 777, the wheel-bay doors open during gear operation and then close again. If the gear's down, there's a small gap around the leg. It wasn't a case of a "frozen solid body dislodging on take-off next day." The body had defrosted whilst the aircraft was on the ground between landing from Cuba and departing for Mexico and fallen into the bottom of the U-shape made by the closed doors - think of the shape of the bottom of the fuselage - and wouldn't be visible "during A checks, walkarounds, inspections, tow bar fittings etc."

I don't understand why you suggest a tug-driver would see up into the main gear bays when fitting a tow-bar but, that aside, the aircraft is designed so that all necessary pre-flight checks can be carried out with the doors in the closed position. It's impossible to see down into the U-shape from the ground. The only way of doing so is with an engineers platform, but I can confirm there's nothing there but space which will be occupied by part of the wheels when the gear is raised. Until this incident, there was no reason to look into an empty space.

BA couldn't reasonably be expected to forseee that someone would climb onto a moving aircraft while it was turning onto the active, climb up the leg and through the gap - all under the eyes of two airport security guards who were there at BA's insistence to make sure that didn't happen (or to stop the take-off if necessary), and then be lodged so securely that, even when dead, would remain lodged and not fall out when the gear was lowered on the approach to LGW and then defrost overnight and fall down out of sight into the bottom of the bay.

Anyone with such an ability to foresee the future wouldn't be working for BA or anyone else - they'd be retired in luxury on the proceeds of several lottery jackpots.

I'm not sure I've explained the door operation / gear bay very clearly.

Is there a 777 pilot in the house?

surely not
11th Dec 2003, 02:40
Explained it well enough for me and I'm not a flyer:ok:

The reason the airlines are expected to front up the costs for security is because in foreign lands a lot of arports are owned by governments therefore they would be increasing their own costs by putting the costs on to the airports.

Let's face it, there is no such thing as absolute security. The situation in Iraq proves that, in spite of the amount of firepower gathered there. I have no wish to wish to live in a police state where there is a gun toting official checking my every movement, therefore these incidents will happen. It is important to keep matters in proportion, the number of incidents per year is a minute and inconsequential figure compared to the number of flights flown.

Before you call me callous and uncaring Grandpa, I think it is shameful that people will go these desperate lengths to escape from their own environments. The G7 countries continually fail to address the problems of poverty and oppression in developing countries, but aviation cannot be expected to pick up the tab because Govts will not do so. The job of airlines is to carry bona fide passengers safely from A to B NOT to provide security services for the countries of the world.

11th Dec 2003, 03:35
It seems that a lot of poster red only half of my messages, and on the other hand, Danny, the great Danny himself considers it impossible to maintain a video operating in the wheel well, impossible for the pilots to have a look on the screen.....due to work load...

Let us minimise the safety problem, and let us magnify the technical difficulties to solve it.....and when Al Qayda and C° will have blown up a few Jumbos, killing hundreds and hundreds....suddenly my poor fellows, you will realise:


2° Nobody will be more anxious to check the safety screen than the pilot himself, for his own safety and his passengers and crew's too...and nobody more than him will consider this is one of the most important point of the check list before take off in well known deficient areas.

3° Since dozzens of year aviation, pilots, crews, mechanics, ATC....have been adapting themselves to an everchanging environment.
Today is the time to adapt and survive facing the terrorist threat. Video cams have been adapted everywhere, even on lorrys... and Danny thinks it's impossible to use it in a wheel well!

How much do you bet on it Danny?

11th Dec 2003, 03:42

11th Dec 2003, 03:44

They are going to blow up a few aircraft anyway. Right now they seem to prefer to shoot at them with anti-aircraft missles so they don't have to martyr themselves. Either that or they figured out the whole 70 virgins thing is Bullsh*t. :E :E :E

Even with the video cameras somebody would eventually make it past them. They always do. :hmm:

sniff......sniff.........anyone else smell the poop? :yuk:

11th Dec 2003, 03:57
I only hope people in charge of antiterrorism are a little more subtle....

11th Dec 2003, 04:32
Thats why September 11 happened......the people in charge of anti-terrorism were asleep at the wheel. Can't get anymore subtle than that. :)

11th Dec 2003, 08:53
...the lack of surveillance causing danger for unconscious stowaway...

No. The cause of danger to the stowaway is the stowaway's choice to er...stowaway. How is an airline responsible for that?

That logic is the same as: A man dies because he tiesstring to the steering wheel & tries to steer at speed by pulling on the strings from the back seat. I know! We must design steering wheels that prevent string being attached to them.

11th Dec 2003, 10:33
It has been proposed a video should be installed, which could allow the crew to monitor aircraft belly and wheel well, thus preventing intruders to hide there and improving safety...

Danny's already addressed this issue, but I still have to throw in my 2 pence...

The Captain on an aircraft is legally and morally responsible for the safety of his passengers. He is NOT responsible for the "safety" of any illegal stowaways. In fact, the mere existence of a stowaway in the wheelwell negatively imapcts on the safety of the 100+ passengers for which the Captain is responsible.

So, Grandpa, what if there WERE a camera in the wheelwell? What if the Captain DID see the stowaway in there, after the airplane took off and the gear was retracted? What now? Does he attempt to land gear up, thereby risking his 100+ passengers, the emergency crews, and god-knows who else at the airport, all for the sake of the single illegal stowaway?

I see... You seem to think the camera will PREVENT such a stowaway! Sorry, but it will NOT! There are too many other things the Captain and his crew must attend to while preparing the airplane for flight. He CANNOT continuously monitor such a camera! He CANNOT be made responsible for ILLEGAL stowaways, ESPECIALLY when it would detract from his other legal and moral duties!

I, also, do not care where the airplane is, or what the race or age of the stowaway is. the quicker he's gone and the landing gear is safely down & locked, the better off the rest of us are.

11th Dec 2003, 12:28
Ho, hum.... :rolleyes:

11th Dec 2003, 14:13
Well I certainly give him credit for being as subtle and incredibly persistant as a fly round a piece of horse manure that he himself proudly produced. About as anoying and I long for a f#ing great fly swat.

11th Dec 2003, 16:27
As it seems your first and great ground for posting on this thread, my dear Paterbrat, is to indulge into the kind of scatology that usually children give up when they leave kindergarten, may I suggest....

....That you create, operate, moderate, and in one word manage a new, special, great, full of flavour thread, exclusively dedicated to your love for shit, poop, fart, and everything that goes along.

...Or there is another solution: consult a specialist, enter in psychanalysis, talk about your disease with Freudian therapist, and try to escape from your anal age !

For sure it's expensive my dear Paterbrat!

Do you want I call Ppruners for a contribution to a charity fund which could help you to pay for your admission in the adult club?

Don't go down the tubes Paterbrat, move your arse, and in a jiffy you are a real man.

11th Dec 2003, 17:38
I believe the captain is not responsible for Stowaways. They run the risk, but i beleive the people doing it doesn't realise there more or less in a suicidal attempt.

But i also believe this problem needs to be stamped out, if someone can run up into a planes wheel well at night, this is not stopping a terrorist with a block of C4 doing the same.

IMO its a major security issue.

Someone mentioned cameras in the wheel well, i too believe this is too much work for the pilots.

I believe another system as in a sensoring system with a warning system in the cockpit could be enough for the pilot to forget about this issue until the warning takes place.

11th Dec 2003, 17:38
Seems to be getting a bit personal here.... :sad:

Grandpa - you were a bit taken aback initially at the replies, but seemed to counter with a reasonable argument albeit in favour, of course, of your point of view.

The great thing about this forum - and why it works so well, all around the world, is because it allows for OTHER views than those of the originator / author.

So, just because it has now been pretty well discussed and PROVED that video cameras are NOT the solution - hey, my pax wouldn't want me watching movies on take-off - would you..? - then may I suggest you deal with it, get over it and move on.....

All the counter arguments are valid, from size, weight, cost, clarity, work-load, garbage etc. I think the legal aspect might be a whole new kettle of smelly stuff - just think - Capt' MISSES young Moodley climbing in - what then - is he guilty of manslaughter...

Grandpa - methinks you sell video cameras for a living - sorry, try the shopping channel... :suspect:


11th Dec 2003, 18:16
Well well, it appears Grandpa that advancing years have dimmed the old peepers in addition to inducing reluctance to take anyone elses advice. I had in fact already contributed on page two and concurred that there indeed was a point to answer with regard to security, you obviously missed that one, but then a number of studied replies from more serious contributors had also been brushed airily aside by you, I would conclude from this that your myopia extends to anything that does not fit in with your concept of how the world and all that is in it should function. You are however sharply attuned to anything that might smack of... shock horror, gasp RACISM or anything remotely un PC. Your starting sentiment seemed indeed to imply that the actions of the pilots of the AF flight were inhuman. The subject is a serious one, a number of answers were put forward, you however continued to punish a deceased equine. Regretfully I placed you in the proximity of manure and likened you to a persisitant insect, that at least appeared to catch your attention. PC it may not have been, scatalogical it regretfully was, the message however seems to have quite passed high above you, a problem, which, like that of stowaways we will all have regretfully to continue to struggle with in this sadly imperfect world we inhabit... with you.:{

11th Dec 2003, 19:15
Dear all: Please accept my apologies for what is going to be a partisan and semantic post.

Dear Grandpa: A few points, mainly of history, I wish to respectfully make.

1. Calling people "my dear" is patronising, and makes you sound like you fell out of an Oscar Wilde novel.

2. Since this is a largely technical forum, populated mostly with professionals (which I am admittedly not), I should not be surprised that you didn't feel any "humanity" flowing through the answers. You asked a technical question and received a technical answer. Don't be surprised that no-one's heart started bleeding.

3. The Nuremberg trials have been extremely well translated into English, and I thus cannot imagine from whence your horrendously mangled approximation of a judge's statement came. Suffice it to say that nothing here resembles racism, only pragmatism (i.e. climb into a wheel-bay and you'll get what's coming to you. Physics is remarkably colour blind).

11th Dec 2003, 19:58
another one for you Dave ......

quote ..... "Pray tell me ..... etc etc "

drives me up the wall but everyone loves the guy who frequently uses the above to start a post .....