Hidden PAX
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there a technical solution?
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.
Supercharged PPRuNer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Doon the watter, a million miles from the sandpit.
Posts: 1,183
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Wow!
http://www.nationaudio.com/News/East...egional22.html
http://millennium-debate.org/tel26decem2.htm
http://millennium-debate.org/tel28decem8.htm
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?
Wow!
http://www.nationaudio.com/News/East...egional22.html
http://millennium-debate.org/tel26decem2.htm
http://millennium-debate.org/tel28decem8.htm
Last edited by Agaricus bisporus; 10th Dec 2003 at 20:46.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aidanf
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.
lomapaseo/Intruder
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.)
Grandpa
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.
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.
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.
lomapaseo/Intruder
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.)
Grandpa
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.
PPRuNe Handmaiden
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: France
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you flying lawyer
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grandpa,
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.
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.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
[Edit]
I'm not sure I've explained the door operation / gear bay very clearly.
Is there a 777 pilot in the house?
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.
[Edit]
I'm not sure I've explained the door operation / gear bay very clearly.
Is there a 777 pilot in the house?
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 11th Dec 2003 at 02:27.
Explained it well enough for me and I'm not a flyer
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: France
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't worry, be happy!
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:
1° THERE IS A BIG SAFETY PROBLEM!
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?
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:
1° THERE IS A BIG SAFETY PROBLEM!
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?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grandpa,
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.
Even with the video cameras somebody would eventually make it past them. They always do.
sniff......sniff.........anyone else smell the poop?
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.
Even with the video cameras somebody would eventually make it past them. They always do.
sniff......sniff.........anyone else smell the poop?
...the lack of surveillance causing danger for unconscious stowaway...
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.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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.