Flight Deck Access for passengers
Manchesters Most Wanted PPRuNer
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know that a certain Eastern UK commuter airline are indeed offering fam flight rides to ATCOs - thankfully.
As others have said here (and as I've said many many times), a fam flight is an essential part of the ATCO / flight crew relationship in my opinion - in the same way as ATC visits.
It's also my understanding that ATCO Cadets (or rather Student ATCOs) down at the college will, very shortly, have the flight training / airmanship parts of the course removed (if it's not been done already) - so no PPL training for them and possibly no fam flights either. Therefore it's entirely possible that an SATCO can pass through the college without any advanced knowledge of flying and without knowing exactly what goes on "up front" of an aircraft of any size.
I've loved every fam flight I've been on and have found talking to the pilots fascinating and very very educational. Let's hope more airlines follow the Eastern-UK based lot and open up their FD doors briefly to allow us ATC types inside
As others have said here (and as I've said many many times), a fam flight is an essential part of the ATCO / flight crew relationship in my opinion - in the same way as ATC visits.
It's also my understanding that ATCO Cadets (or rather Student ATCOs) down at the college will, very shortly, have the flight training / airmanship parts of the course removed (if it's not been done already) - so no PPL training for them and possibly no fam flights either. Therefore it's entirely possible that an SATCO can pass through the college without any advanced knowledge of flying and without knowing exactly what goes on "up front" of an aircraft of any size.
I've loved every fam flight I've been on and have found talking to the pilots fascinating and very very educational. Let's hope more airlines follow the Eastern-UK based lot and open up their FD doors briefly to allow us ATC types inside
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While a FAM flight is good for relations between ATC and pilots, it really does very little giving ATC an idea of what pilots need in an emergency.
For those of you that are concerned about that, you should do as I do and invite ATC to sit in on your checkrides in the SIM. That gives them a MUCH better idea of what the work load is like during a problem, and gives them a much better idea of how you can be distracted and how ATC can hurt you or save the day (Think EAL 401 in the everglades). If you have time left over, let them provide the vectors and what not during an engine failure circuit. Its very interesting when their procedures are done and then they get to see inside the cockpit at the same time.
Fam flights are great for relations but usually send the WRONG message as far as workload and task saturation goes....
Don't get me wrong, I loved fam flights... But think about what you are actually doing...
Cheers
Wino
For those of you that are concerned about that, you should do as I do and invite ATC to sit in on your checkrides in the SIM. That gives them a MUCH better idea of what the work load is like during a problem, and gives them a much better idea of how you can be distracted and how ATC can hurt you or save the day (Think EAL 401 in the everglades). If you have time left over, let them provide the vectors and what not during an engine failure circuit. Its very interesting when their procedures are done and then they get to see inside the cockpit at the same time.
Fam flights are great for relations but usually send the WRONG message as far as workload and task saturation goes....
Don't get me wrong, I loved fam flights... But think about what you are actually doing...
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, but my point is that the CAA /DTR are not thinking things through, ATC fam flights are very usefull, but occur once in a blue moon. I am prevented from taking my family / friends on jump seat rides by some nut at a desk !
I see the same nutter(s) - (dtr) has now thought up a ridiculous system that anyone entering the flight deck has to be visually checked by one of the flight crew - meaning he gets out of his seat and looks through the spy hole !!!
It's about time we as proffesional pilots could take a stand against this type of nonsense, it has got to the point that the DTR are so obsessed with granny off to Spain gaining access to the flight deck that they themselves are compromising flight saftey ! every time I go to work there is a new directive from the DTR on how to get a cup of tea !
Anyone who works in the industry knows what a pile of s**t this really is, again all show, like removing overcoats to walk through the scanner's ??? - I have a shiney steel axe in the flight deck for god's sake !
Sorry to rant but I really feel that the DTR deskjockey's are meddling to justify their sallery !!
I see the same nutter(s) - (dtr) has now thought up a ridiculous system that anyone entering the flight deck has to be visually checked by one of the flight crew - meaning he gets out of his seat and looks through the spy hole !!!
It's about time we as proffesional pilots could take a stand against this type of nonsense, it has got to the point that the DTR are so obsessed with granny off to Spain gaining access to the flight deck that they themselves are compromising flight saftey ! every time I go to work there is a new directive from the DTR on how to get a cup of tea !
Anyone who works in the industry knows what a pile of s**t this really is, again all show, like removing overcoats to walk through the scanner's ??? - I have a shiney steel axe in the flight deck for god's sake !
Sorry to rant but I really feel that the DTR deskjockey's are meddling to justify their sallery !!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
toon
If you thought it through you would realise that ATC fam flights take place "once a blue moon" because the requirement for them is minimal. Incidentally, the rules have allowed for ATCO's to have fam flights for at least 18 months and they have happening quietly - all it required was the Flight Ops director's permission.. You will see from today''s DfT direction that they are amongst the approved persons - so that ends that debate.
As to having your wife/ children / parents / partner / mate / latest conquest etc on the jump seat, I would like to know where you would draw the line and how it could be monitored. Remember that pre-9/11 the US were supposed to only allow license holders with a valid ID but that system degenerated into anyone who wanted access. I suggest that this defeats the object of having a secure flight deck.
Your comments about spyholes is only relevant to aircraft that are not fitted with cameras ; cameras are the DfT (and the CAA's ) preferred solution. The idea of secret knocks and coded messages is much less secure. Sadly this is the Boeing solution which is being pushed by airlines which are loathe to spend the money fitting cameras.
Quote ([your spelling )
It's about time we as proffesional pilots could take a stand against this type of nonsense, it has got to the point that the DTR are so obsessed with granny off to Spain gaining access to the flight deck that they themselves are compromising flight saftey
Unquote
Given this weekend's terrorist enquiries in the Midlands with on-going investigations, I am surprised at any professional pilot's resistance to the current attempts to keep British aviation safe.
Anne
If you thought it through you would realise that ATC fam flights take place "once a blue moon" because the requirement for them is minimal. Incidentally, the rules have allowed for ATCO's to have fam flights for at least 18 months and they have happening quietly - all it required was the Flight Ops director's permission.. You will see from today''s DfT direction that they are amongst the approved persons - so that ends that debate.
As to having your wife/ children / parents / partner / mate / latest conquest etc on the jump seat, I would like to know where you would draw the line and how it could be monitored. Remember that pre-9/11 the US were supposed to only allow license holders with a valid ID but that system degenerated into anyone who wanted access. I suggest that this defeats the object of having a secure flight deck.
Your comments about spyholes is only relevant to aircraft that are not fitted with cameras ; cameras are the DfT (and the CAA's ) preferred solution. The idea of secret knocks and coded messages is much less secure. Sadly this is the Boeing solution which is being pushed by airlines which are loathe to spend the money fitting cameras.
Quote ([your spelling )
It's about time we as proffesional pilots could take a stand against this type of nonsense, it has got to the point that the DTR are so obsessed with granny off to Spain gaining access to the flight deck that they themselves are compromising flight saftey
Unquote
Given this weekend's terrorist enquiries in the Midlands with on-going investigations, I am surprised at any professional pilot's resistance to the current attempts to keep British aviation safe.
Anne
Last edited by Anne.Nonymous; 2nd Dec 2003 at 00:45.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anne.Nonymous
As you can tell by my username, I'm not a professional pilot but I'm interested in the discussion and hope you don't mind my asking you to help me understand some of the points in your latest post.
"Remember that pre-9/11 the US were supposed ... etc"
How would the FAA rule, even if strictly applied, have prevented 9/11?
How will the new CAA rule prohibiting pilots from permitting their families/friends to sit in the jumpseat prevent, or reduce the chances of, such an incident occurring again?
"Where you would draw the line .... etc?"
I assume from your question you don't think it's safe to leave such matters to the judgment of the Captain. If I've understood correctly, what would you say if the line was drawn at family members (or family and friends, depending upon the airline) named on a pilot's concession list?
"I am surpised at any professional pilot's resistance to the current attempts to keep British aviation safe."
As I understand it, all that pilots who disagree with your view are saying is that tighter security is needed on the ground and the new cockpit rule is no more than window-dressing which causes inconvenience to law-abiding people and adds nothing to aviation safety. Have I misunderstood?
As you can tell by my username, I'm not a professional pilot but I'm interested in the discussion and hope you don't mind my asking you to help me understand some of the points in your latest post.
"Remember that pre-9/11 the US were supposed ... etc"
How would the FAA rule, even if strictly applied, have prevented 9/11?
How will the new CAA rule prohibiting pilots from permitting their families/friends to sit in the jumpseat prevent, or reduce the chances of, such an incident occurring again?
"Where you would draw the line .... etc?"
I assume from your question you don't think it's safe to leave such matters to the judgment of the Captain. If I've understood correctly, what would you say if the line was drawn at family members (or family and friends, depending upon the airline) named on a pilot's concession list?
"I am surpised at any professional pilot's resistance to the current attempts to keep British aviation safe."
As I understand it, all that pilots who disagree with your view are saying is that tighter security is needed on the ground and the new cockpit rule is no more than window-dressing which causes inconvenience to law-abiding people and adds nothing to aviation safety. Have I misunderstood?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: N/W London, England
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks,
As one who pre 9/11 enjoyed one or two flight deck visits thanks to my Pilots Licence (albeit gliders), there is an obvious point that seems to have been missed in this discussion.
You can add the most impregnable door in the world to the flight deck and you can introduce whatever procedure you like for food / toilet visits but there is one integral weakness.
If a stewardess or a passenger is being held at knifepoint outside the door with the threat that they will have their throat slit or whatever unless the door is opened, how many crew would be mentally prepared to deal with the consequences of not complying with their request? Who can honestly say that the frantic screams and pleadings of a hostage could be ignored, especially if it is a child? How many deaths would it take before that door is unlocked?
Personally I feel that the emphasis should be placed on screening before the passengers board the aircraft, not the door to the cockpit.
'BLW'
As one who pre 9/11 enjoyed one or two flight deck visits thanks to my Pilots Licence (albeit gliders), there is an obvious point that seems to have been missed in this discussion.
You can add the most impregnable door in the world to the flight deck and you can introduce whatever procedure you like for food / toilet visits but there is one integral weakness.
If a stewardess or a passenger is being held at knifepoint outside the door with the threat that they will have their throat slit or whatever unless the door is opened, how many crew would be mentally prepared to deal with the consequences of not complying with their request? Who can honestly say that the frantic screams and pleadings of a hostage could be ignored, especially if it is a child? How many deaths would it take before that door is unlocked?
Personally I feel that the emphasis should be placed on screening before the passengers board the aircraft, not the door to the cockpit.
'BLW'
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer
I am pleased to debate the subject but I notice already your professional approach whereby you are selective in your quotation taking
I was making the point that those who occupied the jump seat before 9/11 where supposed to be airline employees / crew but it had degenerated to allcomers. I, too, used to enjoy the company of those who joined me in the flight deck on the long sectors. It was great to see wonderment in the childrens' faces.
However, 9/11 banished that for ever as far as I am concerned. I prefer to have no-one other than essential persons in the flight deck rather than risk my aircraft being used as a missile.
The DfT does not just ban pilots' families from the flight deck - it bans ALL non-essential people from the flight deck. Furthermore it expressly stops Commanders allowing anyone other than "permitted persons" on the flight deck. Some commanders see this as an errosion of their authority.
....you don't think it's safe to leave such matters to the judgment of the Captain. If I've understood correctly, what would you say if the line was drawn at family members (or family and friends, depending upon the airline) named on a pilot's concession list?
You are correct. I don't think it is safe because we don't have (and nor IMHO should we have) the whole picture. If the threat to OK aviation is at the same threat level as Saudi Arabia and Afganistan do you really think it is wise for each individual to do their own thing?
However you suggest the pilot might be allowed his family. Why should a pilot be allowed and not the cabin crew? To be extreme, how does CRM cope with a pilot's same sex partner on the jumpseat whilst the cabin crew's spouse is not allowed and is bumped because the aircraft is full? You could expand that to include foreign, locally recruited cabin crew whose brothers / sisters are completely unkown to the Captain; is a Captain going to excercise his judgment and say "no" when there is no other reason to refuse?
If you are au fait with the concession list system you will know that it can be, depending on airline, any six friends who do not even have to be related to the employee. I have two people on my list who are just friends I have know for just aver a year. You will therefore see that it is very difficult to draw a finite line.
For the reasons above I think it is safer and more secure to minimise the people who have access to the flight deck.
.....all that pilots who disagree with your view are saying is that tighter security is needed on the ground and the new cockpit rule is no more than window-dressing which causes inconvenience to law-abiding people and adds nothing to aviation safety. Have I misunderstood?
Yes, you have misunderstood totally. I am not sure how you deduced that from what was a very simple statement. I would be surprised if any pilots wanted to deliberately disobey the rules that are designed to make our flying more secure. Pilots usually respect the rules that govern our profession without question - they don't break decision heights or bust flight levels for fun, duck medicals nor exceed speed points (too often!). They are normally responsible, self-disciplined, mature people. That is why I would be surprised - and I fly with them daily.
We now have a secure flight deck if we follow the rules and guidance which allow for refreshment, meals and physiological breaks. It is only one layer in a multi-layer defence but an important one nonetheless.
Anne
PS I am away on a trip for the next three days so no quick replies
I am pleased to debate the subject but I notice already your professional approach whereby you are selective in your quotation taking
I was making the point that those who occupied the jump seat before 9/11 where supposed to be airline employees / crew but it had degenerated to allcomers. I, too, used to enjoy the company of those who joined me in the flight deck on the long sectors. It was great to see wonderment in the childrens' faces.
However, 9/11 banished that for ever as far as I am concerned. I prefer to have no-one other than essential persons in the flight deck rather than risk my aircraft being used as a missile.
The DfT does not just ban pilots' families from the flight deck - it bans ALL non-essential people from the flight deck. Furthermore it expressly stops Commanders allowing anyone other than "permitted persons" on the flight deck. Some commanders see this as an errosion of their authority.
....you don't think it's safe to leave such matters to the judgment of the Captain. If I've understood correctly, what would you say if the line was drawn at family members (or family and friends, depending upon the airline) named on a pilot's concession list?
You are correct. I don't think it is safe because we don't have (and nor IMHO should we have) the whole picture. If the threat to OK aviation is at the same threat level as Saudi Arabia and Afganistan do you really think it is wise for each individual to do their own thing?
However you suggest the pilot might be allowed his family. Why should a pilot be allowed and not the cabin crew? To be extreme, how does CRM cope with a pilot's same sex partner on the jumpseat whilst the cabin crew's spouse is not allowed and is bumped because the aircraft is full? You could expand that to include foreign, locally recruited cabin crew whose brothers / sisters are completely unkown to the Captain; is a Captain going to excercise his judgment and say "no" when there is no other reason to refuse?
If you are au fait with the concession list system you will know that it can be, depending on airline, any six friends who do not even have to be related to the employee. I have two people on my list who are just friends I have know for just aver a year. You will therefore see that it is very difficult to draw a finite line.
For the reasons above I think it is safer and more secure to minimise the people who have access to the flight deck.
.....all that pilots who disagree with your view are saying is that tighter security is needed on the ground and the new cockpit rule is no more than window-dressing which causes inconvenience to law-abiding people and adds nothing to aviation safety. Have I misunderstood?
Yes, you have misunderstood totally. I am not sure how you deduced that from what was a very simple statement. I would be surprised if any pilots wanted to deliberately disobey the rules that are designed to make our flying more secure. Pilots usually respect the rules that govern our profession without question - they don't break decision heights or bust flight levels for fun, duck medicals nor exceed speed points (too often!). They are normally responsible, self-disciplined, mature people. That is why I would be surprised - and I fly with them daily.
We now have a secure flight deck if we follow the rules and guidance which allow for refreshment, meals and physiological breaks. It is only one layer in a multi-layer defence but an important one nonetheless.
Anne
PS I am away on a trip for the next three days so no quick replies
Last edited by Anne.Nonymous; 2nd Dec 2003 at 05:44.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anne, i don't know which airline you work for but all the airlines I know have banned anyone on the jump seat, except as you rightly point out those people on 'the list', no family / friends etc are allowed on that list, it's for training / check rides / atc etc.
Do you have a list of 'screened frinds' ?
Further, my point is to draw attention to the ridiculous situation we have in the UK where security guards (under dtr directives) ask us to remove overcoats etc when I have an axe in the flight deck ! / where passengers are now being charged a ' enhanced security tax' but security staff have been cut !
Since you like it so much -
Quote ([your English])
"Given this weekend's terrorist enquiries in the Midlands with on-going investigations, I am surprised at any professional pilot's resistance to the current attempts to keep British aviation safe".
As PROFESSIONALS anything to make the industry safer is welcolmed by all, I seek merely to point out the window dressing.
Oh and excuse me for a spelling mistake ! Maybe you should have been an English teacher ?
Next time i'll PRUNE over my text - the world hates a smarta**
Do you have a list of 'screened frinds' ?
Further, my point is to draw attention to the ridiculous situation we have in the UK where security guards (under dtr directives) ask us to remove overcoats etc when I have an axe in the flight deck ! / where passengers are now being charged a ' enhanced security tax' but security staff have been cut !
Since you like it so much -
Quote ([your English])
"Given this weekend's terrorist enquiries in the Midlands with on-going investigations, I am surprised at any professional pilot's resistance to the current attempts to keep British aviation safe".
As PROFESSIONALS anything to make the industry safer is welcolmed by all, I seek merely to point out the window dressing.
Oh and excuse me for a spelling mistake ! Maybe you should have been an English teacher ?
Next time i'll PRUNE over my text - the world hates a smarta**
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anne (To await collection)
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Professional approach? I 'selected' the parts I didn't understand.
Re the concession list: I said "family members, or family and friends, depending upon the airline" to include the different policies of (for example) BA and Virgin. I'm on a Virgin list.
"Why should a pilot be allowed and not the cabin crew?"
Because it's the flight deck not the cabin.
Because a pilot can personally vouch for the person. I didn't suggest it should be expanded in any of the ways you mention.
I don't think anyone suggested deliberately disobeying the rules or, if they did, I missed it. That would obviously be wrong.
Thanks again for your time.
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Professional approach? I 'selected' the parts I didn't understand.
Re the concession list: I said "family members, or family and friends, depending upon the airline" to include the different policies of (for example) BA and Virgin. I'm on a Virgin list.
"Why should a pilot be allowed and not the cabin crew?"
Because it's the flight deck not the cabin.
Because a pilot can personally vouch for the person. I didn't suggest it should be expanded in any of the ways you mention.
I don't think anyone suggested deliberately disobeying the rules or, if they did, I missed it. That would obviously be wrong.
Thanks again for your time.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 2nd Dec 2003 at 16:48.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: EGLL
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My opinion on flight deck/jump seat occupation for the flight is that it should be limited to:- aircrew, DOT/CAA representatives (on business), licensed engineers (on business), licensed controllers (for flight deck familiarasion). All these should have security passes, licenses and passports whilst travelling. As I said previously, any of these professional people could cause a major disaster without access to the flight deck. I cannot understand why we are discriminating against our fellow professionals when we should encourage more of this type of interaction to understand what each of our jobs consist of, and what anomolies may arise which are not discussed. By the time any crew/jump seat passenger and paying passenger reaches the aircraft they should have been security checked to the highest standard, maybe the security companies who screen people for access to airside should pay more than "peanuts". We all know what you get when you pay "peanuts".
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here in the US it is amazing how many passengers are literally afraid to come anywhere near the cockpit on the ground during boarding or deplaning. I make it a habit of allowing passengers access to "my office". I am always taken aback when they will say " I didn't know we could come up here". So let's open another can of worms...........
If you do a search, you'll find that 'can of worms' has been discussed several times. By all means find one of the threads and bring it back to the top by adding a comment, but it's not the issues under discussion here.
Heliport
If you do a search, you'll find that 'can of worms' has been discussed several times. By all means find one of the threads and bring it back to the top by adding a comment, but it's not the issues under discussion here.
Heliport
Last edited by Heliport; 3rd Dec 2003 at 14:20.
Anne.Nonymous, your argument seems to be based on the (mis?)apprehension that access to the flightdeck by known people increases the ability of nefarious people to get up to mischief.
There's a very good argument that having an additional friendly body on the flightdeck impedes ingress to those who are not welcome. Many types have a very much restricted access when a body is occupying the space where the door is. There's also the ability of the additional person to assist the crew with dealing with an aggressor either passively by simply obstructing & delaying the attacker until others can come forward to help, or by actively resisting.
Of course flight deck access still has to overcome the perception that accessing the cockpit was a contributor to an aggressor taking control. This certainly wasn't a factor in the US 11 Sep. events. They had a locked door/no visitor policy that had been in use for many years. Made no difference. Since it seems to be irrelevent, why persist with it? Besides, any locked door can be penetrated eventually - either through force, guile or opportunism.
IMO, the main factor was that for 30 years the received wisdom has been to acquiesce to a hijackers demands INSTEAD OF actively & aggressively resisting. Had that been the policy then I believe the outcome would have been rather different. Especially if there happened to be a friendly visitor able to help.
Removing supposed 'weapons' from crew (and passengers) is also misquided. The US perpetrators used boxcutters. Big deal. They could have had equal effect with a sharp pencil, broken bottle or any number of items that are deemed acceptable even under today's 'enhanced' security. How about a shoelace? They make excellent garrots. Under the previous cooperation policy attackers need only demonstrate ruthless force against a couple of victims for the entire a/c to be pacified.
Given that policy has now - sensibly - shifted to one of active resistance it becomes awkward to explain the reasoning behind removing potential defensive weapons from the crew & pax. Unless you believe that the majority of occupants (including crew!) are all intent on hijacking the plane? All disarming the occupants has done is ensure that **when** hijackers eventually get some sort of weapon (or even a believable threat of a weapon) on board then they'll not have to worry about the rest of the occupants having some means of defense/retaliation.
Meanwhile the authority's solution is to deny that on board armament is an allowable option. They want to move straight to scrambling armed fighters. This offers no defence other than shooting down the airliner. No different from a ground hostage situation where you 'win' by destroying the premises and all occupants, including the innocent hostages.
There's a very good argument that having an additional friendly body on the flightdeck impedes ingress to those who are not welcome. Many types have a very much restricted access when a body is occupying the space where the door is. There's also the ability of the additional person to assist the crew with dealing with an aggressor either passively by simply obstructing & delaying the attacker until others can come forward to help, or by actively resisting.
Of course flight deck access still has to overcome the perception that accessing the cockpit was a contributor to an aggressor taking control. This certainly wasn't a factor in the US 11 Sep. events. They had a locked door/no visitor policy that had been in use for many years. Made no difference. Since it seems to be irrelevent, why persist with it? Besides, any locked door can be penetrated eventually - either through force, guile or opportunism.
IMO, the main factor was that for 30 years the received wisdom has been to acquiesce to a hijackers demands INSTEAD OF actively & aggressively resisting. Had that been the policy then I believe the outcome would have been rather different. Especially if there happened to be a friendly visitor able to help.
Removing supposed 'weapons' from crew (and passengers) is also misquided. The US perpetrators used boxcutters. Big deal. They could have had equal effect with a sharp pencil, broken bottle or any number of items that are deemed acceptable even under today's 'enhanced' security. How about a shoelace? They make excellent garrots. Under the previous cooperation policy attackers need only demonstrate ruthless force against a couple of victims for the entire a/c to be pacified.
Given that policy has now - sensibly - shifted to one of active resistance it becomes awkward to explain the reasoning behind removing potential defensive weapons from the crew & pax. Unless you believe that the majority of occupants (including crew!) are all intent on hijacking the plane? All disarming the occupants has done is ensure that **when** hijackers eventually get some sort of weapon (or even a believable threat of a weapon) on board then they'll not have to worry about the rest of the occupants having some means of defense/retaliation.
Meanwhile the authority's solution is to deny that on board armament is an allowable option. They want to move straight to scrambling armed fighters. This offers no defence other than shooting down the airliner. No different from a ground hostage situation where you 'win' by destroying the premises and all occupants, including the innocent hostages.
