"House OKs Bill to Arm Airline Pilots"
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Approval by the House (Congress) isn't final.
Congressional approval by itself is no mandate. The Senate has to approve it by a wide margin to override executive veto. And then, even if it were to become legal, the individual airline companies will have to approve of its pilots being armed while on duty.
Just because ALPA and APA wants its members to be armed in the cockpit does not signal automatic approval by air carrier managements, or for that matter, approval by the traveling public.
So all you wannabe pistol toting aerial cowboys, don't wet your pants just yet.
Just because ALPA and APA wants its members to be armed in the cockpit does not signal automatic approval by air carrier managements, or for that matter, approval by the traveling public.
So all you wannabe pistol toting aerial cowboys, don't wet your pants just yet.
jetsy
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: US for now
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Do you mean to tell me that at US nuclear plants I can park my rented Saturn (or Ryder truck), then walk up to the ONLY door to the control room, bang on it and say "Pizza Man! please open up". "
No, Lizmad.
You can park any where you find the spot... 4500 feet from the main gate. Good luck.
Pizza guys stay out of the premises, I want a piece of pizza, I go to get it. On the way back I "hot touch" my id, palm and eye are read, am frisked and that pizza gets a whole body count.
I got used to cold pizza and monthly reports from the rad/chem departments that the pizza I brought on site had more rad's than the yearly allowable for a person doing work in the chamber!!! There goes my lunch for the year.
Lizman, on the serious note...
To get to the nuke plant you almost need to be a superman. We do not have guns to do our jobs and I am sure you do not need one to do yours. Demand the security on the ground.
We (unions) have, and been successful.
"Giving examples comparing to places that have 100 % armed guards on the premises is idiotic."
Lizad maybe you're not aware of it but we have the same safety measures taken at our gates as at the airline pax do. Nothing extra.
calling the comparison of flight ops to ground ops as idiotic is insulting. I hope you did not mean it. Nothing is ever a 100% safe., take that to the bank.
No, Lizmad.
You can park any where you find the spot... 4500 feet from the main gate. Good luck.
Pizza guys stay out of the premises, I want a piece of pizza, I go to get it. On the way back I "hot touch" my id, palm and eye are read, am frisked and that pizza gets a whole body count.
I got used to cold pizza and monthly reports from the rad/chem departments that the pizza I brought on site had more rad's than the yearly allowable for a person doing work in the chamber!!! There goes my lunch for the year.
Lizman, on the serious note...
To get to the nuke plant you almost need to be a superman. We do not have guns to do our jobs and I am sure you do not need one to do yours. Demand the security on the ground.
We (unions) have, and been successful.
"Giving examples comparing to places that have 100 % armed guards on the premises is idiotic."
Lizad maybe you're not aware of it but we have the same safety measures taken at our gates as at the airline pax do. Nothing extra.
calling the comparison of flight ops to ground ops as idiotic is insulting. I hope you did not mean it. Nothing is ever a 100% safe., take that to the bank.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Always in the air
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’ve been following this thread, as any other thread in PPRUNE, and I was wondering why nobody, or almost nobody has raised the question of what we really want?
I’m reading about arming the pilots! I assume that we’re talking (actually you’re talking) about US pilots?
I mean the US government is accepting the notion of armed pilots in the cockpit with the proper training and all…
OK. I can live with that! You – US – pilots, can learn to shoot and carry a firearm. I believe it can be done! And everybody will be happy?
Imagine, now, just imagine, a foreign airliner – like mine- coming and going out of – let’s say – New York, and taking off for Europe, with plenty of fuel, and using – just for the sake of the argument – runway 31L. Now, those who know the path will need no more words. For those who don’t, let’s say that you just see, straight ahead, the Empire State building!
Now tell me something. Are you going to teach ME how to fire a gun, in a situation like this, or are you going to … ban any foreign airliner that do not have armed pilots?
That’s a question that I had the first moment I head about arming airline pilots, who – by the way – are searched like hell in the security lineups! (I was searched for half an hour because the security lady thought that I had a … fork!!! In the end she realized that it was an electrical socket!!!)
The point that I would like to make is:
Are you talking ONLY about US pilots (Meaning more pax for us) or for all pilots coming and going to US airports (and meaning trying to find another job) ?
I am for the re-enforced cockpit-doors, but that’s it!! Maybe, and why not, some cameras watching the adjacent area.
No guns for me, thank you.
I’m reading about arming the pilots! I assume that we’re talking (actually you’re talking) about US pilots?
I mean the US government is accepting the notion of armed pilots in the cockpit with the proper training and all…
OK. I can live with that! You – US – pilots, can learn to shoot and carry a firearm. I believe it can be done! And everybody will be happy?
Imagine, now, just imagine, a foreign airliner – like mine- coming and going out of – let’s say – New York, and taking off for Europe, with plenty of fuel, and using – just for the sake of the argument – runway 31L. Now, those who know the path will need no more words. For those who don’t, let’s say that you just see, straight ahead, the Empire State building!
Now tell me something. Are you going to teach ME how to fire a gun, in a situation like this, or are you going to … ban any foreign airliner that do not have armed pilots?
That’s a question that I had the first moment I head about arming airline pilots, who – by the way – are searched like hell in the security lineups! (I was searched for half an hour because the security lady thought that I had a … fork!!! In the end she realized that it was an electrical socket!!!)
The point that I would like to make is:
Are you talking ONLY about US pilots (Meaning more pax for us) or for all pilots coming and going to US airports (and meaning trying to find another job) ?
I am for the re-enforced cockpit-doors, but that’s it!! Maybe, and why not, some cameras watching the adjacent area.
No guns for me, thank you.
We can demand all we want be remember the smallest airport has much more real estate than the largest nuke plant.
jet_noseover,
I guess you keep missing my point. With the initial layers of security, all of your examples are relatively same as with air travel. All of your ground examples have the additional layer of armed defense on call for immediate response. There is none usually in the air.
I suspect a nuclear control tech worker might feel a little bit more vulnerable in his control room if the only security was a single door between the control room and an outdoor public picnic area where entrance is gained by paying $100 and showing a picture ID,( fake if necessary and doubtfully noticed), and if the only guards in the event of attack were 60 minutes away.
jet_noseover,
I guess you keep missing my point. With the initial layers of security, all of your examples are relatively same as with air travel. All of your ground examples have the additional layer of armed defense on call for immediate response. There is none usually in the air.
I suspect a nuclear control tech worker might feel a little bit more vulnerable in his control room if the only security was a single door between the control room and an outdoor public picnic area where entrance is gained by paying $100 and showing a picture ID,( fake if necessary and doubtfully noticed), and if the only guards in the event of attack were 60 minutes away.
jetsy
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: US for now
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lizad
How am I missing your point? lizad?
Substitute the "pilot" by " reactor operator". truck driver, nat gas pipeline operator,etc.
Are you telling me you are to do someone elses job because you have no trust in the gov. you voted for to protect you?
Substitute the "pilot" by " reactor operator". truck driver, nat gas pipeline operator,etc.
Are you telling me you are to do someone elses job because you have no trust in the gov. you voted for to protect you?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heliport [Sir]
I will try not to upset anyone....!!!!
1. Maybe this is more a cultural issue than a security one!!!
From all that sit around the "Pond", there are two very opposite policies on guns and the attached restrictions, hence it is understandable as to why most Non US Pilots would be opposing the equiping of professional pilots with such devices, as that is the culture and enforced by legislation of the various European, Australian and New Zealand Governments.
Whereas, the "Right" to own, carry and use such devices in the US is enshired in the constitution.
Which is right and wrong.........well I promised "Heliport" I would not upset anyone....
2. These idiots that decide to grab control of an aircraft [not just airliners].and then do their worst are normally part of a team......maybe 2 or 3 or more on each aircraft.........lets say a pilot is lucky enough to neutralise [z] one idiot whilst sitting in his control seat.......what do you think the rest of the idiots are going to do.........lots of passengers and cabin crew will bear their fury.
3. Security in depth is the only answer.......better screening, Armed Inflight Marshalls, and security cabin doors that are strong enough to resist the forcable entry......Pity Australia's national airline is not listening.
4. As these idiots are now well aware of the beefed up security at the worlds major airports, they will move on to the next soft industry......
5... An interesting initiative by UA, but who is going to monitor the video cameras during the critical stages of flight...?
Did I upset anyone.........??
I will try not to upset anyone....!!!!
1. Maybe this is more a cultural issue than a security one!!!
From all that sit around the "Pond", there are two very opposite policies on guns and the attached restrictions, hence it is understandable as to why most Non US Pilots would be opposing the equiping of professional pilots with such devices, as that is the culture and enforced by legislation of the various European, Australian and New Zealand Governments.
Whereas, the "Right" to own, carry and use such devices in the US is enshired in the constitution.
Which is right and wrong.........well I promised "Heliport" I would not upset anyone....
2. These idiots that decide to grab control of an aircraft [not just airliners].and then do their worst are normally part of a team......maybe 2 or 3 or more on each aircraft.........lets say a pilot is lucky enough to neutralise [z] one idiot whilst sitting in his control seat.......what do you think the rest of the idiots are going to do.........lots of passengers and cabin crew will bear their fury.
3. Security in depth is the only answer.......better screening, Armed Inflight Marshalls, and security cabin doors that are strong enough to resist the forcable entry......Pity Australia's national airline is not listening.
4. As these idiots are now well aware of the beefed up security at the worlds major airports, they will move on to the next soft industry......
5... An interesting initiative by UA, but who is going to monitor the video cameras during the critical stages of flight...?
Did I upset anyone.........??
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done, Jenkins! Stand easy.
And the next time I hear any of the men saying Ozzies can't argue a point without being abusive, I'll be using your post to prove they're wrong!
Heliport
And the next time I hear any of the men saying Ozzies can't argue a point without being abusive, I'll be using your post to prove they're wrong!
Heliport
Moderator
I don't have clue what you said. I meant that a few foreign carriers with suspect security are easier to track and unfortunately shoot down than the multitudes of domestic carriers. Whether they are easier or more difficult to penetrate now is something I do not know nor will comment on
And I agree 100%! That is a great idea. It is impossible for the USAF to track every domestic flight. The number of international flights is relatively small. If US domestic pilots are armed the chances of them being successfully hijacked go down. Those going to or from countries that won't allow it will have the backup of being shot down. Everyone is happy!
How am I missing your point? lizad?
Substitute the "pilot" by " reactor operator". truck driver, nat gas pipeline operator,etc.
Are you telling me you are to do someone elses job because you have no trust in the gov. you voted for to protect you?
Substitute the "pilot" by " reactor operator". truck driver, nat gas pipeline operator,etc.
Are you telling me you are to do someone elses job because you have no trust in the gov. you voted for to protect you?
I'll try one more time. I acknowledge the possible communication breakdown that happens from trying a conversation in 4 sentences.
For the following, assume the examples in our previous discussion of control centers with the possiblility for large destruction such as aircraft cockpits, LNG or refinery control centers in populated areas, nuke plants, ect. Leave out truck drivers even though they can have quick armed defense through police forces in populated areas if time enough to call.
Read the following, here is how the aircraft is different.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Security at nuke plants, LNG or similar control centers, refineries, large profile highrises or complexes.
1. Basic outer ring or layer; Fences, gates, locked doors, adequate lighting, cameras, alarms, ect. Inner layers may be composed of the same.
2. Human security; Worker background checks, visitor or customer background checks or intelligence regarding them. activity monitoring
3. Basic intelligence covering any possible threat
4. Trained, armed security personell available 100% for immediate response.
Security in aircraft cockpits.
1 Same as above
2 Same as above
3. Same as above
4. Said to be very limited for US carriers. Others such as EL AL apparently have 100% coverage, same as #4 above. This is how inflight aircraft security is different from the control centers above.
I have no desire to "do someone elses job" like an Air Marshal
cont'd
I have no desire to "do someone elses job" like an Air Marshal, if they are onboard .
If they are not onboard, although I don't want the job, someone should defend the cockpit.
I have no desire to "do someone elses job" like an Air Marshal, if they are onboard .
If they are not onboard, although I don't want the job, someone should defend the cockpit.
Wayne Jenkins,
I think some of debate gets clouded by those bringing the cultural issues into the conversation. It is wrong for the US pro-gun side to bring the right to bear arms into the debate because this issue is light years away from a untrained hunter or homeowner owning a firearm for whatever reason. I believe it also is just as wrong for the anti-gun side to look at this issue with the same emotion as they view the untrained hunter or homeowner owning a firearm for whatever reason.
Both side should look at this issue from the view of risk and probabilities. The pro-gun side cannot dismiss the risks associated with accidental discharge, storage, crew transfer procedures, training, proficiency, aircraft damage while the anti-gun side cannot dismiss the possibilities that these problems cannot be overcome and largely reduce the threat of an airliner being used as a weapon or shot down.
Get SAS, GS9, Delta Force to act out every possible cockpit defense scenario with independent observers, armed and unarmed, and train a small control group of pilots with varying skill levels in defense of a cockpit mockup while both armed and unarmed.
Bringing cultural or political BS into this just means someone is willing to sacrifice someone else for their beliefs.
I think some of debate gets clouded by those bringing the cultural issues into the conversation. It is wrong for the US pro-gun side to bring the right to bear arms into the debate because this issue is light years away from a untrained hunter or homeowner owning a firearm for whatever reason. I believe it also is just as wrong for the anti-gun side to look at this issue with the same emotion as they view the untrained hunter or homeowner owning a firearm for whatever reason.
Both side should look at this issue from the view of risk and probabilities. The pro-gun side cannot dismiss the risks associated with accidental discharge, storage, crew transfer procedures, training, proficiency, aircraft damage while the anti-gun side cannot dismiss the possibilities that these problems cannot be overcome and largely reduce the threat of an airliner being used as a weapon or shot down.
Get SAS, GS9, Delta Force to act out every possible cockpit defense scenario with independent observers, armed and unarmed, and train a small control group of pilots with varying skill levels in defense of a cockpit mockup while both armed and unarmed.
Bringing cultural or political BS into this just means someone is willing to sacrifice someone else for their beliefs.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
could you kill some one today ?
My main worry about arming flight crew is that it is a big change in "mind set" for a well balanced proffesional to go from normal day at work mode to kill someone mode .
If guns are to be carried on the flight deck then the crew must be mentaly prepaired to use them at an instant as well as trained to shoot.
I am sure that we could all learn to shoot a gun in the cool atmosphere of a shooting range when all that is on the receving end is a paper target ,but when it is a human who is the target then doubt creeps in.
If the flight crew member hesitates for just one tenth of a second then they are likely to lose control the gun and that is the very worst thing that could happen.
On balance I dont think that it is a good idea to arm all flight crew but I see a real benifit in some well trained and screened flight crew having guns on the flight deck and this would leave an eliment of doubt in the mind of a person who wanted to take control of an aircraft as to what they would face in the way of opposition.
this would also be safer for all of us as I dont think that I would trust the "skill at arms" of some of the people that I fly with and fear getting shot by accident !.
I hope that this is a balanced reaction from the side of the pond that has over reacted to law abiding people from keeping guns for sport.
If guns are to be carried on the flight deck then the crew must be mentaly prepaired to use them at an instant as well as trained to shoot.
I am sure that we could all learn to shoot a gun in the cool atmosphere of a shooting range when all that is on the receving end is a paper target ,but when it is a human who is the target then doubt creeps in.
If the flight crew member hesitates for just one tenth of a second then they are likely to lose control the gun and that is the very worst thing that could happen.
On balance I dont think that it is a good idea to arm all flight crew but I see a real benifit in some well trained and screened flight crew having guns on the flight deck and this would leave an eliment of doubt in the mind of a person who wanted to take control of an aircraft as to what they would face in the way of opposition.
this would also be safer for all of us as I dont think that I would trust the "skill at arms" of some of the people that I fly with and fear getting shot by accident !.
I hope that this is a balanced reaction from the side of the pond that has over reacted to law abiding people from keeping guns for sport.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I'm not an airline pilot, and my knowledge of guns is limited to shooting pheasant and a few sessions on police ranges here and in the States, I'm not qualified to comment on the 'guns' issue.
But, if anyone's interested in the wider topic of hijacking, what goes through a hijacker's mind, why they do it etc, there was a fascinating interview with Leila Khaled in the October 2000 issue of 'Aviation Security International'.
(For our younger readers, Leila Khaled hijacked a TWA flight in 1969. She attempted to hijack an El Al flight in 1970 but was overpowered; the second hijacker was shot.)
It's outdated in some ways because, she doesn't consider hjacking to be legitimate in current times, and condemns killing innocent people - but still worth reading.
It's re-issued on the web here.
But, if anyone's interested in the wider topic of hijacking, what goes through a hijacker's mind, why they do it etc, there was a fascinating interview with Leila Khaled in the October 2000 issue of 'Aviation Security International'.
(For our younger readers, Leila Khaled hijacked a TWA flight in 1969. She attempted to hijack an El Al flight in 1970 but was overpowered; the second hijacker was shot.)
It's outdated in some ways because, she doesn't consider hjacking to be legitimate in current times, and condemns killing innocent people - but still worth reading.
It's re-issued on the web here.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 14th Jul 2002 at 19:26.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With lethal defense strickly limited to cockpit defense AND behind a hardened door that gives the flight deck crew to assess the situation, there is really no need for "instant" decisions. If someone is trying to break through the hardened door, it's going to take awhile. Authorized entry/exit is easily handled procedurally, and/or with physical/sight barriers to prevent opportunistic attack.
One more time:
1. Lethal cockpit defense is the last ditch defense when all else has failed.
2. Loss of command of the aircraft = mass death and destruction
3. Lethal defense is limited to defending the cockpit and retaining command of the aircraft. Shooting a man size target, with prior warning, at 4 feet trying to breach a door doesn't require exceptional marksmanship.
4. Hardened cockpit doors give the aircrew time to present a defense prior to breach.
One more time:
1. Lethal cockpit defense is the last ditch defense when all else has failed.
2. Loss of command of the aircraft = mass death and destruction
3. Lethal defense is limited to defending the cockpit and retaining command of the aircraft. Shooting a man size target, with prior warning, at 4 feet trying to breach a door doesn't require exceptional marksmanship.
4. Hardened cockpit doors give the aircrew time to present a defense prior to breach.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@A&C
but when it is a human who is the target
I dont really consider a terrorist "human", so to speak. If i know, and i think i can safely assume that, that a hijacker will try to endanger my life and each individuals life of the crew/passengers for their own personal gain, rest assured, i will (would, once i get there) kill the "terrorist".
On another note, ... a couple of months ago when i took an Advanced Regulation Ground Class we had an assignment to come up with a new rule, or change one. I proposed to arm only the PIC. To make a long story short, the reason only he should be armed is because he is the one DIRECTLY responsible for the flight and only he can/should make the decision of whether or not a shot will be fired on his plane. Afterall, if a bullet misses and damages the plane, the PIC is the one who has to deal with it, not someone else.
but when it is a human who is the target
I dont really consider a terrorist "human", so to speak. If i know, and i think i can safely assume that, that a hijacker will try to endanger my life and each individuals life of the crew/passengers for their own personal gain, rest assured, i will (would, once i get there
) kill the "terrorist".On another note, ... a couple of months ago when i took an Advanced Regulation Ground Class we had an assignment to come up with a new rule, or change one. I proposed to arm only the PIC. To make a long story short, the reason only he should be armed is because he is the one DIRECTLY responsible for the flight and only he can/should make the decision of whether or not a shot will be fired on his plane. Afterall, if a bullet misses and damages the plane, the PIC is the one who has to deal with it, not someone else.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: 340 and climbing
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stupid anti american remarks are not allowed.................
A good thing.
Offensive, and extremely provocative, generalisations about Europeans neither............
Another good thing.
But why the heck does nobody bat an eyelid at the fun suggestion of using FAs for target practice then?
Excuse me for failing to grasp the logic here........... 
A good thing.
Offensive, and extremely provocative, generalisations about Europeans neither............
Another good thing.
But why the heck does nobody bat an eyelid at the fun suggestion of using FAs for target practice then?
Secret Squirrel:
Just think about the delicious possibilities, though. All those surplus CSD's you could use for target practice. Oh the joy we could bring to the airline industry.
Just think about the delicious possibilities, though. All those surplus CSD's you could use for target practice. Oh the joy we could bring to the airline industry.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C'mon, there's a big difference. The CSD suggestion was clearly meant in a light-hearted way not to be taken seriously.
The snide American bashing has spolied many a good thread.
I didn't see Wino's post before it was deleted but if it was anything like his views on Europeans I've read on JB before, it's a good thing it was deleted or this debate would have been closed in no time flat.
Back to the debate -
I'm easy about US flight crews being armed. I wouldn't want to have a gun myself and don't think we need them, but it's up to each country and each company to decide.
Locked cockpit doors can work. Read the Leila Khaled article. It's gripping stuff, and a good insight if you read it with an open mind.
I'm strongly against restrictions on the people allowed on the flight deck. Let the Captain decide. I've taken my wife on occasions and my son now he's od enough. If the flight crew can vouch for the person personally, that's enough in my book. If you can't trust the flight crew, then we're on a hiding to nothing anyway.
The CSD suggestion was clearly meant in a light-hearted way not to be taken seriously. The snide American bashing has spolied many a good thread.
I didn't see Wino's post before it was deleted but if it was anything like his views on Europeans I've read on JB before, it's a good thing it was deleted or this debate would have been closed in no time flat.
Back to the debate -
I'm easy about US flight crews being armed. I wouldn't want to have a gun myself and don't think we need them, but it's up to each country and each company to decide.
Locked cockpit doors can work. Read the Leila Khaled article. It's gripping stuff, and a good insight if you read it with an open mind.
I'm strongly against restrictions on the people allowed on the flight deck. Let the Captain decide. I've taken my wife on occasions and my son now he's od enough. If the flight crew can vouch for the person personally, that's enough in my book. If you can't trust the flight crew, then we're on a hiding to nothing anyway.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having just come from security on my recurrent training, most of my comments will be "Can't talk about it."
A couple of points though. Richard Reids shoes turned out to be extremely sophisticated devices with many times the explosive power of the bomb that brought down the lockerbie jet. The shoes were examined (though not placed through explosive detectors ) in Paris and were cleverly designed and escaped detection. When they were recovered they had been jammed against the bulkheld in an extremely fragile part of the aircraft. The device would have brought 63 down.
Now here is the important part. American as a "common Carrier" (as all major airlines are) is extremely limited in their ability to legally refuse to carry someone. Basically they can delay them pretty liberally, but to deny them totally is very very difficult. A common carrier must take all comers. In France we had zero ability to refuse to carry someone or to screen them. Infact by French regulation final authority rested not with the Captain but with the French Government. This has since changed somewhat.
That is the first part about why security is tough on aircraft. And that is the extent of what I can talk about from security class. On to further analysis...
The second part is why the comparison to nuke plants isn't very good. Simply put, only if you had to come inside the plant to consume the electricity would the comparison be valid. An airline has to by its nature bring its customers into its soft belly to carry them. A power plant simply sends the power out where the product is consumed at home. Furthermore a nuke plant probably has very few deliveries. A few spare parts here and there, once a decade or so a few fuel rods, and then the employees. Airplanes need fuel, food, cleaning, maintenance, pilots, flight attendants and then scores of pax every day. The only way you can guarantee the security of the aircraft is to lock it down. But if you lock it down, you CANT FLY IT!
Security will never be more than a visual bandaid/ and small speed bump for those attempting to do evil things with aircraft. The hope is to make it more difficult so that the bad guys will move onto a different target. And indeed there are better ways to attract attention. Individual kidnapping works just as well or better for releasing your favorite political prisoner.
The problem here is that aircraft have been elevated to a new status. They are now not vehicles to be commandeered inorder to go for a ride and make a statement. An Aircraft is now a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION. You wouldn't leave a nuclear warhead just laying around in the street. Nuclear qualified crews to the best of my knowledge are armed everywhere (Any british Nuclear qualified pilots please chime in)
The value of an aircraft has been raised many many times by sept 11, so though the expense of taking one over has been raised (more people needed, better planning and weapons etc to deal with the increased vigilance, locked doors etc) the payoff has been raised even further making the likelyhood of further action greater than anyone realizes, when just looking at it from a macroeconomic point of view.
So the moral of the story is that you can't look at an aircraft and just see the plane and the people. You have to look at it like you would look at a WMD that isn't secured very well right now. The US approach has been basically to add the equivalent of a self destruct button on a nuclear missile. In this case its via sidewinder armed fighter aircraft patroling the areas of a likely target. It would be nice to have someother option as well...
Cheers
Wino
PS. Was that calm enough heliport ?
A couple of points though. Richard Reids shoes turned out to be extremely sophisticated devices with many times the explosive power of the bomb that brought down the lockerbie jet. The shoes were examined (though not placed through explosive detectors ) in Paris and were cleverly designed and escaped detection. When they were recovered they had been jammed against the bulkheld in an extremely fragile part of the aircraft. The device would have brought 63 down.
Now here is the important part. American as a "common Carrier" (as all major airlines are) is extremely limited in their ability to legally refuse to carry someone. Basically they can delay them pretty liberally, but to deny them totally is very very difficult. A common carrier must take all comers. In France we had zero ability to refuse to carry someone or to screen them. Infact by French regulation final authority rested not with the Captain but with the French Government. This has since changed somewhat.
That is the first part about why security is tough on aircraft. And that is the extent of what I can talk about from security class. On to further analysis...
The second part is why the comparison to nuke plants isn't very good. Simply put, only if you had to come inside the plant to consume the electricity would the comparison be valid. An airline has to by its nature bring its customers into its soft belly to carry them. A power plant simply sends the power out where the product is consumed at home. Furthermore a nuke plant probably has very few deliveries. A few spare parts here and there, once a decade or so a few fuel rods, and then the employees. Airplanes need fuel, food, cleaning, maintenance, pilots, flight attendants and then scores of pax every day. The only way you can guarantee the security of the aircraft is to lock it down. But if you lock it down, you CANT FLY IT!
Security will never be more than a visual bandaid/ and small speed bump for those attempting to do evil things with aircraft. The hope is to make it more difficult so that the bad guys will move onto a different target. And indeed there are better ways to attract attention. Individual kidnapping works just as well or better for releasing your favorite political prisoner.
The problem here is that aircraft have been elevated to a new status. They are now not vehicles to be commandeered inorder to go for a ride and make a statement. An Aircraft is now a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION. You wouldn't leave a nuclear warhead just laying around in the street. Nuclear qualified crews to the best of my knowledge are armed everywhere (Any british Nuclear qualified pilots please chime in)
The value of an aircraft has been raised many many times by sept 11, so though the expense of taking one over has been raised (more people needed, better planning and weapons etc to deal with the increased vigilance, locked doors etc) the payoff has been raised even further making the likelyhood of further action greater than anyone realizes, when just looking at it from a macroeconomic point of view.
So the moral of the story is that you can't look at an aircraft and just see the plane and the people. You have to look at it like you would look at a WMD that isn't secured very well right now. The US approach has been basically to add the equivalent of a self destruct button on a nuclear missile. In this case its via sidewinder armed fighter aircraft patroling the areas of a likely target. It would be nice to have someother option as well...
Cheers
Wino
PS. Was that calm enough heliport
?