Researchers chase goal of non-hijackable plane
Thread Starter
Researchers chase goal of non-hijackable plane
BERLIN (Reuters) - Can technology create a non-hijackable plane?
By 2008, European researchers aim to bring that vision closer to reality through an ambitious security program to combat on-board threats in an industry left reeling this week by a security scare that raised the specter of September 11.
On Thursday, British police said they had foiled a plot to blow up aircraft mid-flight between Britain and the United States in what Washington said might have been an attempted al Qaeda operation.
Since September 11, the idea that civilian planes can be used as weapons has taken hold globally, spawning increased security measures in airports around the world.
The researchers aim to create a "last barrier to attacks" on planes in flight.
Among the non-hijackable plane's features: computer systems designed to spot suspicious passenger behavior, and a collision avoidance system that will correct the plane's trajectory to prevent it from being steered into a building or mountain.
The researchers are also investigating the possibility -- although they say it is probably some 15 years away -- of developing an on-board computer that could guide the plane automatically to the nearest airport, in the event of a hijack.
"You never reach zero level of threat, no risk," said program coordinator Daniel Gaultier of French technology group SAGEM Defense Securite, a unit of Safran.
"But if you equip planes with on-board electronics, it will make them very, very difficult to hijack."
SMART PLANE
The 4-year, 35.8 million euro ($45.7 million) project, called SAFEE or Security of Aircraft in the Future European Environment, was launched in February 2004.
Among those taking part are aircraft maker Airbus, its parents EADS and BAE Systems, as well as Thales and Siemens AG. The European Commission is contributing 19.5 million euros ($25 million).
Omer Laviv of Athena GS3, an Israeli company taking part in the project, said the system might be commercially available around 2010 to 2012.
SAFEE goes beyond the limited on-board improvements made since September 11 -- like reinforced cockpit doors and the deployment of sky marshals.
Proposed enhancements include:
-- A chip-based system to allocate matching tags to passengers and their luggage, ensuring both are on board and removing the need for stewards to count passengers manually.
-- Cameras at check-in desks and at the entrance to the plane, in order to verify with biometric imaging that the person getting on board is the same as the one who checked in.
-- An "electronic nose" to check passengers for traces of explosives at the final ground check before boarding.
-- An Onboard Threat Detection System (OTDS) to process information from video and audio sensors throughout the cabin and detect any erratic passenger behavior.
-- A Threat Assessment and Response Management System (TARMS) to assemble all information and propose an appropriate response to the pilot via a computer screen located at his side.
-- A Data Protection System to secure all communications, including conversations between the cockpit and ground control.
-- A secure cockpit door with a biometric system that recognizes authorized crew by their fingerprints, together with a camera to check they are not opening it under duress.
-- An automatic collision avoidance system to correct the plane's course if it strays from a permitted trajectory. TERRORIST IN CONTROL
In a September 11-style hijack scenario, for example, the TARMS system would detect that the plane was on course to plow into buildings and use biometric fingerprint sensors to check whether the pilot or an intruder was at the controls.
"If there is a terrorist in control or the pilot is not aware of this (false) trajectory, the TARMS decides to avoid the obstacle so there is an automatic control of the plane," Gaultier said.
The avoidance system would also kick in if the pilot, despite verifying his identity, persisted in the false course.
Given its complexity, the SAFEE project raises legal and ethical issues which are themselves a key part of the research.
They include whether people will find it acceptable to be minutely observed by sensors throughout their flight, recording everything from their conversations to their toilet visits.
With help from sources including security agencies and behavioral psychologists, researchers are building a database of potentially suspicious traits for computers to detect.
"It could be someone who's using their mobile phone when they shouldn't be, or trying to light up a cigarette. But it could also be something much more extreme, it could be a potential terrorist," said James Ferryman, a scientist at Britain's Reading University who is working on SAFEE.
The sensitivity of the system could be adjusted depending on factors like the general threat level, he said.
Program coordinator Gaultier conceded the system could generate false alarms, but said the crew and pilot would remain in ultimate control, deciding if the threat was real.
WHO PAYS?
The improved passenger surveillance, researchers say, will be an important advantage on larger planes such as the Airbus A380, capable of carrying 550 people.
They believe passengers will be ready to accept the trade-off of less privacy for the sake of greater safety.
"We have to show it's not Big Brother watching you, it's Big Brother looking after you," Ferryman said.
Researchers say it is too early to judge the price of kitting out a plane with SAFEE, but they are working closely with a user group including airlines like Air France-KLM.
The issue is part of a wider debate within the industry, with airlines calling on governments to underwrite security costs.
"Suicide terrorism is not an issue for the airlines, it shouldn't be their responsibility," said Philip Baum, editor of Aviation Security International magazine.
"It is an attack, actually, against the state and it's part of a national defense, and therefore we need to fund this accordingly."
© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.
By Mark Trevelyan, Security Correspondent
By 2008, European researchers aim to bring that vision closer to reality through an ambitious security program to combat on-board threats in an industry left reeling this week by a security scare that raised the specter of September 11.
On Thursday, British police said they had foiled a plot to blow up aircraft mid-flight between Britain and the United States in what Washington said might have been an attempted al Qaeda operation.
Since September 11, the idea that civilian planes can be used as weapons has taken hold globally, spawning increased security measures in airports around the world.
The researchers aim to create a "last barrier to attacks" on planes in flight.
Among the non-hijackable plane's features: computer systems designed to spot suspicious passenger behavior, and a collision avoidance system that will correct the plane's trajectory to prevent it from being steered into a building or mountain.
The researchers are also investigating the possibility -- although they say it is probably some 15 years away -- of developing an on-board computer that could guide the plane automatically to the nearest airport, in the event of a hijack.
"You never reach zero level of threat, no risk," said program coordinator Daniel Gaultier of French technology group SAGEM Defense Securite, a unit of Safran.
"But if you equip planes with on-board electronics, it will make them very, very difficult to hijack."
SMART PLANE
The 4-year, 35.8 million euro ($45.7 million) project, called SAFEE or Security of Aircraft in the Future European Environment, was launched in February 2004.
Among those taking part are aircraft maker Airbus, its parents EADS and BAE Systems, as well as Thales and Siemens AG. The European Commission is contributing 19.5 million euros ($25 million).
Omer Laviv of Athena GS3, an Israeli company taking part in the project, said the system might be commercially available around 2010 to 2012.
SAFEE goes beyond the limited on-board improvements made since September 11 -- like reinforced cockpit doors and the deployment of sky marshals.
Proposed enhancements include:
-- A chip-based system to allocate matching tags to passengers and their luggage, ensuring both are on board and removing the need for stewards to count passengers manually.
-- Cameras at check-in desks and at the entrance to the plane, in order to verify with biometric imaging that the person getting on board is the same as the one who checked in.
-- An "electronic nose" to check passengers for traces of explosives at the final ground check before boarding.
-- An Onboard Threat Detection System (OTDS) to process information from video and audio sensors throughout the cabin and detect any erratic passenger behavior.
-- A Threat Assessment and Response Management System (TARMS) to assemble all information and propose an appropriate response to the pilot via a computer screen located at his side.
-- A Data Protection System to secure all communications, including conversations between the cockpit and ground control.
-- A secure cockpit door with a biometric system that recognizes authorized crew by their fingerprints, together with a camera to check they are not opening it under duress.
-- An automatic collision avoidance system to correct the plane's course if it strays from a permitted trajectory. TERRORIST IN CONTROL
In a September 11-style hijack scenario, for example, the TARMS system would detect that the plane was on course to plow into buildings and use biometric fingerprint sensors to check whether the pilot or an intruder was at the controls.
"If there is a terrorist in control or the pilot is not aware of this (false) trajectory, the TARMS decides to avoid the obstacle so there is an automatic control of the plane," Gaultier said.
The avoidance system would also kick in if the pilot, despite verifying his identity, persisted in the false course.
Given its complexity, the SAFEE project raises legal and ethical issues which are themselves a key part of the research.
They include whether people will find it acceptable to be minutely observed by sensors throughout their flight, recording everything from their conversations to their toilet visits.
With help from sources including security agencies and behavioral psychologists, researchers are building a database of potentially suspicious traits for computers to detect.
"It could be someone who's using their mobile phone when they shouldn't be, or trying to light up a cigarette. But it could also be something much more extreme, it could be a potential terrorist," said James Ferryman, a scientist at Britain's Reading University who is working on SAFEE.
The sensitivity of the system could be adjusted depending on factors like the general threat level, he said.
Program coordinator Gaultier conceded the system could generate false alarms, but said the crew and pilot would remain in ultimate control, deciding if the threat was real.
WHO PAYS?
The improved passenger surveillance, researchers say, will be an important advantage on larger planes such as the Airbus A380, capable of carrying 550 people.
They believe passengers will be ready to accept the trade-off of less privacy for the sake of greater safety.
"We have to show it's not Big Brother watching you, it's Big Brother looking after you," Ferryman said.
Researchers say it is too early to judge the price of kitting out a plane with SAFEE, but they are working closely with a user group including airlines like Air France-KLM.
The issue is part of a wider debate within the industry, with airlines calling on governments to underwrite security costs.
"Suicide terrorism is not an issue for the airlines, it shouldn't be their responsibility," said Philip Baum, editor of Aviation Security International magazine.
"It is an attack, actually, against the state and it's part of a national defense, and therefore we need to fund this accordingly."
© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.
By Mark Trevelyan, Security Correspondent
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Festung Europa
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the cheaper way to achieve the same end would be to lock each person naked in an individual cell with a tube for fresh water and one for waste water?
Alernatively tow the pax in a glider behind the tug Ac....
Alernatively tow the pax in a glider behind the tug Ac....
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
idiot-proof
Interesting as a study..yes. In practice? 
As Murphy said: If you design something that is now, finally, idiot-proof, they will just design a better idiot!
Our society is OBSESSED with safety and security - some parts of the world are more "out there" (North America) than others.
If you interact with other people, chances are that you will have positive, as well as negative experiences. If you do something dangerous, you might die. Fact of life.
And, once we have submitted ourselves to total control "for our best" - who is going to control the controllers?
A system that cuts off the flight deck from controlling the airplane must be a wonderful thing to have, once you managed to get access to the "secure" data link. Imagine...hijacking a plane you are not even on board of!
New systems - new opportunities!
As Murphy said: If you design something that is now, finally, idiot-proof, they will just design a better idiot!
Our society is OBSESSED with safety and security - some parts of the world are more "out there" (North America) than others.
If you interact with other people, chances are that you will have positive, as well as negative experiences. If you do something dangerous, you might die. Fact of life.
And, once we have submitted ourselves to total control "for our best" - who is going to control the controllers?
A system that cuts off the flight deck from controlling the airplane must be a wonderful thing to have, once you managed to get access to the "secure" data link. Imagine...hijacking a plane you are not even on board of!
New systems - new opportunities!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think in light of recent events, the emphasis should now concentrate on keeping an aircraft aloft for as long as possible, after an internal explosion caused by chemicals or simillar substances... Hijacking although very dangerous and still a serious threat, seems a little 'old fasioned' after yesterdays happenings in the UK. Screening is not sophisticated enough yet, to deter these 
(being polite by the way) from carrying on everyday liquids and powders that when mixed, could possibly cause injury, death or the destruction of an aircraft.
(being polite by the way) from carrying on everyday liquids and powders that when mixed, could possibly cause injury, death or the destruction of an aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: aintsaying
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Build a solid bulkhead between the filghtdeck and cabin. IE two seperate compartments, two L1 doors, one for flightdeck compartment its own rest area etc, and the other door for cabin. No way at all of getting from one side to the other.
As for rapid expansion of cabin pressure from a explosion, make a series of large volume auto resettable pressure relief doors/valves.
We can make all the sensors in the world to detect any non wanted items onboard, why don't we start making aircraft that can withstand these idiots actions.
I'd be more worried about these idiots getting their licences or holding positions in areas of aviation, where they can take all the time they want to aid in the inflight destruction of an aircraft filled with inocent persons. What could you do on a C or D check if you could get away with it?
As for rapid expansion of cabin pressure from a explosion, make a series of large volume auto resettable pressure relief doors/valves.
We can make all the sensors in the world to detect any non wanted items onboard, why don't we start making aircraft that can withstand these idiots actions.
I'd be more worried about these idiots getting their licences or holding positions in areas of aviation, where they can take all the time they want to aid in the inflight destruction of an aircraft filled with inocent persons. What could you do on a C or D check if you could get away with it?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Frankfurt/Main
Age: 81
Posts: 296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One part of the equation is social security. Until everyone has stood up to be counted you cannot be sure you are not living next door to loonies. I've lived now for over 40 years in a police state, and although I don't subscribe to their system, i.e. I still have my original citizenship, I feel safe. Of course there are still criminals, fugitives etc, but get residents an ID and you've started sorting out the wheat from the chaff. And if you think this in an instrusion on your privacy, which no doubt it is, the benefit of knowing that loony is also registered is assuring.
We have to face the facts that there is a war going on, not just singular actions of brainwashed idealists, and until we stop siding with chief loonies who are trying to pour the 'backward tribes' into their own pockets there will be no peace.
9/11, Madrid, London, 8/06, whatever next in planning...whatever else we don't know about...this latest attempt at mass murder didn't need to succeed to cause the havoc it has. With or without the midair tragedies, the second part of the plan succeeded - total disruption of air traffic, huge discomfort to the travelling public, fear of flying, loss of tourist dollars on a huge scale, and so on. And at what cost? A couple of dozen one-way believers. Bin L's friends can now up the cost of oil to pay for the next load of hightech from the west...
Let's hope the CIDs of the world will always be as successful as they seem to have been this week, but let's get real, let's get an ID. Obsessed? Not really, but I'd like a safer place for my kids to play in.
Vertrauen ist gut, Kontrolle besser.
cheers
atb
We have to face the facts that there is a war going on, not just singular actions of brainwashed idealists, and until we stop siding with chief loonies who are trying to pour the 'backward tribes' into their own pockets there will be no peace.
9/11, Madrid, London, 8/06, whatever next in planning...whatever else we don't know about...this latest attempt at mass murder didn't need to succeed to cause the havoc it has. With or without the midair tragedies, the second part of the plan succeeded - total disruption of air traffic, huge discomfort to the travelling public, fear of flying, loss of tourist dollars on a huge scale, and so on. And at what cost? A couple of dozen one-way believers. Bin L's friends can now up the cost of oil to pay for the next load of hightech from the west...
Let's hope the CIDs of the world will always be as successful as they seem to have been this week, but let's get real, let's get an ID. Obsessed? Not really, but I'd like a safer place for my kids to play in.
Vertrauen ist gut, Kontrolle besser.
cheers
atb
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: DUBLIN
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Everyone,
I was pondering this issue of security before the UK plot stuff broke and was interested to read your views above.
Can i ask if this has been considered? Maybe im being silly, but as a future ATPL holder i have given its some considerable taught.
Most airlines allow you to PICK your own seats. Aerlingus have actually taken this one step further and allow you to do it on line!
My point is, whats to say that 20+ of these extreemist dont book key seats and arrange themselves to over power cabin crew and people on board a flight?
No weapons are needed? Just might and fight? Then they could spend as much time as they like breaking into flight deck?
This is such a simple idea that it terrifies me to think these physcos might actually get away with it. We just have to hope that the intellagece service will know when these people books flights!!!!
What do you think would this happen, would it be possible????
Regards
EIDW
I was pondering this issue of security before the UK plot stuff broke and was interested to read your views above.
Can i ask if this has been considered? Maybe im being silly, but as a future ATPL holder i have given its some considerable taught.
Most airlines allow you to PICK your own seats. Aerlingus have actually taken this one step further and allow you to do it on line!
My point is, whats to say that 20+ of these extreemist dont book key seats and arrange themselves to over power cabin crew and people on board a flight?
No weapons are needed? Just might and fight? Then they could spend as much time as they like breaking into flight deck?
This is such a simple idea that it terrifies me to think these physcos might actually get away with it. We just have to hope that the intellagece service will know when these people books flights!!!!
What do you think would this happen, would it be possible????
Regards
EIDW
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Where ever the roster tells me.
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wel Not for me, Thanks!!!!
I don't know about anyone else but i would not feel safe as a pilot or pax, if the A/c started doing what it wants with out some way of taking control back.
I mean what's to stop them building it, and one day it throws a fit and kicks the crew out the loop.
I mean what's to stop them building it, and one day it throws a fit and kicks the crew out the loop.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cloud9
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The controllable aircraft already exists! The Us tested this 30 years ago, but stopped in case the technology got into the wrong hands..........or did they stop????
Aircraft had the same systems as many airliners today. The 757, 767 are two I know of.
Aircraft had the same systems as many airliners today. The 757, 767 are two I know of.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alternatively, we could all board the aircraft naked. Then you wouldn't be able to hide anything, unless of course you stick it up your ....
I purpose a new system, "send your luggage before your departure." No cargo/luggage on board passenger aircraft. It all gets flown separately by low hour pilots. That way, it solves two problems at once!
Oh god, who am I kidding. This is all very depressing. Gone are the old days indeed.
I purpose a new system, "send your luggage before your departure." No cargo/luggage on board passenger aircraft. It all gets flown separately by low hour pilots. That way, it solves two problems at once!
Oh god, who am I kidding. This is all very depressing. Gone are the old days indeed.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Naked and sleeping gas - Forget sleeping gas, just pump up the music (choice of artists is unlimited. Could play tracks to suit the particular sector) and hey presto, One big happy milehigh club! Who would want to disrupt that
Polar Hero ; Interesting comment: "if the aircraft started doing what it wants without some way of taking control back."
Sometimes, pilots don't want to take control. They would rather push more buttons, reset f/d switches, instead of disconnecting the autopilot, gently grabbing the yoke or sidestick.
This has already happened numerous times, with awkward incidents or many fatalities as a result, because of pilots assuming that they fully understand what the plane is told to do-or fail to recognize that even the "automatics" can make mistakes. In the 90's, I saw it happen at least 3 times in about 3 years. Whether using full or partial automation in a "glass-c0ckpit" airplane, crews have delayed either clicking off the autopilot/autothrottles, or have felt like the automation is The Boss. Why let the airplane do what makes you uncomfortable? For example, it levels off in a climb from a BOS runway to 5,000' then with the next altitude entered and Vnav selected (yep-white mode on ADI turns green...).
Sometimes, pilots don't want to take control. They would rather push more buttons, reset f/d switches, instead of disconnecting the autopilot, gently grabbing the yoke or sidestick.
This has already happened numerous times, with awkward incidents or many fatalities as a result, because of pilots assuming that they fully understand what the plane is told to do-or fail to recognize that even the "automatics" can make mistakes. In the 90's, I saw it happen at least 3 times in about 3 years. Whether using full or partial automation in a "glass-c0ckpit" airplane, crews have delayed either clicking off the autopilot/autothrottles, or have felt like the automation is The Boss. Why let the airplane do what makes you uncomfortable? For example, it levels off in a climb from a BOS runway to 5,000' then with the next altitude entered and Vnav selected (yep-white mode on ADI turns green...).
Last edited by Ignition Override; 13th Aug 2006 at 08:21.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: CYYJ
Age: 40
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OR!!!!
We could just change the way we in the first world conduct foreign policy so you wouldn’t have a bunch of disenchanted radicals with something to prove. If someone wants to down a plane they ARE going to do it. IF someone wants to commandeer a plane they ARE going to do it. No amount of money thrown at the problem from THIS point in the situation is going to stop it from happening.
Any reasonably creative individual can come up with 1,000 ways to get by the system. Anyone motivated enough to blow them selves up is probably going to sit down and think about it for a while first. And Im sure anyone on this bored could inside 60 seconds come up with 5 ways John Doe could kill 300 people while racking up a billion dollar bill. But honestly is it just me who thinks this is the epitome of stupidity?
You think with Echelon and all the draconian laws we now have, how many plots get foiled every month. Does anyone find the whole timing of this situation a little convenient?
Anyway I guess now is a good time to invest in one of those VLJ companies!
We could just change the way we in the first world conduct foreign policy so you wouldn’t have a bunch of disenchanted radicals with something to prove. If someone wants to down a plane they ARE going to do it. IF someone wants to commandeer a plane they ARE going to do it. No amount of money thrown at the problem from THIS point in the situation is going to stop it from happening.
Any reasonably creative individual can come up with 1,000 ways to get by the system. Anyone motivated enough to blow them selves up is probably going to sit down and think about it for a while first. And Im sure anyone on this bored could inside 60 seconds come up with 5 ways John Doe could kill 300 people while racking up a billion dollar bill. But honestly is it just me who thinks this is the epitome of stupidity?
You think with Echelon and all the draconian laws we now have, how many plots get foiled every month. Does anyone find the whole timing of this situation a little convenient?
Anyway I guess now is a good time to invest in one of those VLJ companies!
Walker and Ppruners:
I wish it could be so, regarding foreign policy. However...
According to an article tonight on a news web, many of those who were arrested in Britain for attempted mass murder on aircraft grew up in, and were familiar with the secular society in which they lived/live. They were quite familiar. Were they kept blindfolded, and in chains under the Tower of London, or under a Victoria's Secret shop (do they have those over there) etc?
If their morale had sunken to the lowest levels and they allowed themselves to become brain-washed, twisted and bitter, then as an alternative to violence, they had the choice to stay or leave the UK (it could be Toronto, Amsterdam, Detroit, Madison WI...), as in other democracies. Not enough cash for the one-way airline ticket? Eventually they could have saved it-instead of buying a "telly", dvd player or big radio. No extra motivation for the ticket back to Peshawar etc? Blaming others 'holds no water". Secular western society was already here for a very long time before any of us were born, or immigrated here. It might cost even less to emigrate on a merchant ship in a small cabin. The galley food might be tasty. My parents CHOSE to live three years in central Mexico, then they CHOSE to return.
The article points out, among other grounds for serious discontent...a lack of educational achievements. Whose fault is that? One fine cadet who graduated from the US Air Force Academy years ago came here as a young person from Vietnam. His background not only offered obstacles, but a second language was necessary for him to find opportunities here.
I just wanted to point out that personal responsibilities still exist. Or do they?
We can't blame the morning/evening news or 24-hour CNN coverage if we don't want to work harder in school or at work. Sure, as with some politicians in this area, if one decides to play the "ethnic card" to excuse oneself from the obligation to have personal integrity, then expect no sympathy. The conflicts in various lands began many decades, possibly many centuries or millenia, before last July.
I could find my own excuses for my shortcomings in this media climate if I searched enough. As for disadvantage minorities, I've worked with several pilots from other ethnic backgrounds and a number of lady pilots, and all are very good pilots. They CHOSE not to sit around and find excuses from the apologists in the media, academia or the legal "profession". One guy is Indian/British; he must have worked as hard as everyone else-otherwise an opportunity would have eluded him. Most can only happen once in life, if we work very hard.
Personal responsibility is not too cool in Berkeley, MSP, UW Madison, nor parts of southern Vermont. Many are isolated/insulated from reality.
I wish it could be so, regarding foreign policy. However...
According to an article tonight on a news web, many of those who were arrested in Britain for attempted mass murder on aircraft grew up in, and were familiar with the secular society in which they lived/live. They were quite familiar. Were they kept blindfolded, and in chains under the Tower of London, or under a Victoria's Secret shop (do they have those over there) etc?
If their morale had sunken to the lowest levels and they allowed themselves to become brain-washed, twisted and bitter, then as an alternative to violence, they had the choice to stay or leave the UK (it could be Toronto, Amsterdam, Detroit, Madison WI...), as in other democracies. Not enough cash for the one-way airline ticket? Eventually they could have saved it-instead of buying a "telly", dvd player or big radio. No extra motivation for the ticket back to Peshawar etc? Blaming others 'holds no water". Secular western society was already here for a very long time before any of us were born, or immigrated here. It might cost even less to emigrate on a merchant ship in a small cabin. The galley food might be tasty. My parents CHOSE to live three years in central Mexico, then they CHOSE to return.
The article points out, among other grounds for serious discontent...a lack of educational achievements. Whose fault is that? One fine cadet who graduated from the US Air Force Academy years ago came here as a young person from Vietnam. His background not only offered obstacles, but a second language was necessary for him to find opportunities here.
I just wanted to point out that personal responsibilities still exist. Or do they?
We can't blame the morning/evening news or 24-hour CNN coverage if we don't want to work harder in school or at work. Sure, as with some politicians in this area, if one decides to play the "ethnic card" to excuse oneself from the obligation to have personal integrity, then expect no sympathy. The conflicts in various lands began many decades, possibly many centuries or millenia, before last July.
I could find my own excuses for my shortcomings in this media climate if I searched enough. As for disadvantage minorities, I've worked with several pilots from other ethnic backgrounds and a number of lady pilots, and all are very good pilots. They CHOSE not to sit around and find excuses from the apologists in the media, academia or the legal "profession". One guy is Indian/British; he must have worked as hard as everyone else-otherwise an opportunity would have eluded him. Most can only happen once in life, if we work very hard.
Personal responsibility is not too cool in Berkeley, MSP, UW Madison, nor parts of southern Vermont. Many are isolated/insulated from reality.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 13th Aug 2006 at 08:24.