Where would they take it to?


Sorry!

It is so much easier to spend billions of $$$ on trying to make a machine that will solve a human problem. :rolleyes:

This is such a wonderful idea by the hardware manufacturers and defence companies. They will make millions before the concept is abandoned..

Many of the posts here just spell out why my miserable, almost science-fiction type of solution will eventually be the only way forward. The cost will be huge whichever way we go, but I have a terrible gut feeling that what we have now is the lull before the storm. I hope I'm wrong, but the ‘success' of 9/11 will not be missed on the planners of chaos.

An aircraft that weighs 20% more due to cast iron bulkheads and other daft ideas, will also be a burden to be paid for by nations not airlines...well, unless ticket prices double. Even then, to effect the winning of a battle, they only have to bring it down over a town. No need to be at the controls. All in all, it will be better to work towards carrying ‘sterile' passengers.

What I'm saying is, whichever way we go, it will be expensive: a partial rundown of aviation as we know it, before rebuilding the industry.

Of course, there is another route. Working towards some understanding of the hatred that these fanatics feel towards us, and working towards battle agreements that would leave aviation alone. I'm mindful of the IRA's policy of backing off after the mortar attack at Belfast. It was in their interest to leave aviation alone. Their determination was absolute, but I'm told there were several reasons for not attacking aviation. Just maybe there could be a common logic. Mmmm......Now I'm dreaming.

I agree with Mode7. It isn't the answer to all the problems but I've always thought having a completely seperate flight deck would go a long way in reducing possibilities open to a potential hijacker. But then you wouldn't get to chat to the hosties I s'pose...:}

Well ... if the politicians chatted with the folks that hate them and try to find out WHY they hate them (it ain't difficult, coz they keeps telling us) then we don't need to have sterile pax or cast iron flying machines.

As I keep repeating, this is a human problem, created by humans. Machines and the deities are not needed.

You also get to ponder the irony of this thread sitting right next to the thread about the Helios accident ...

Bring back thise hard nosed FE's. That will solve the problem.

Well I know of at least one hi-jack that was ended with a gentle tap on the skull with a Flight Engineer's torch.
Not only a separate flight deck, but the ability to jettison the cabin would be a good start. A gentle para descent and flotation devices should limit the punters complaints.
One common factor to all the suggestions made in the original posting. They all need electrical power.
There lies the first weakness.

I'm sure the terrorist labor union is disturbed by this development.

Teams of terrorist operatives could always count on years of financial assistance while training, and maybe a small pension for their families. (jihadi video royalties)

Now they will be able to outsource these labor intensive teams to some disgruntled teenage computer hacker with a joystick. :E

No mate the fallacy is that the public will pay! Not up front they won't.A mythical source will provide limitless cash.Oh that would be me would it? Subsidising air transport throgh taxation?

I didn't know they do that....those devilishly clever Israelis must be frightfully good at welding before each flight, then unwelding when it comes down again, then rewelding, off again, down again, unwelding, rewelding, unwelding, rewelding.......

Do the aircrew do that? Or is it a specialist job?

Futile attempts?
 

Sooo - when airside is blocked, when will "they" turn elsewheres?

:confused:

Quite soon. To cargo shipments and remote maintenance hangars, not necessarily in that order.

Hollywood gave "them" the idea of using aircraft for kamikaze. Don't remember the movie, but it's there... Long before 2001.

Shudder at the thought of what ships entering US harbours may do, the checks there not matching airports.

Kinda weird that "gods-own-country" may give control of their harbours to the very kind that they now are at war with.

Strange world, I say. :ugh:

About 25 years ago a C172 pilot attacked the White House and managed to damage a shrub, I believe, but it intensified D.C. security quite a bit; sharpshooters on the roof were the result I believe.

star wars
 

some time in the future.....
all flts will be "launched" out of an airfield in to the air and on board systems like automatic terrain aviodance coupled with gps coupled with google earth uplink;) will prevent the aircraft from approaching terra firma at all parts of the globe except designated airfields determined by a encrypted uplink from acars.On approaching an airfield, video feed from the cockpit+biometric data will be verified against ref data by controller and company security, at which point the automatic terrain aviodance mode will change to ILS capture mode.In the event of a go-around system will revert back to terrain avodance mode.Any perfomance degradation that may lead to ditching/forced landing/fuel starvation is prohibitted by law:E

The plane is not the problem....
 

the passenger is.
As long as they maintain political correctness and these half-wit security measures we will have problems with people coming aboard with less then honorable intentions.
Everybody might be better off spending a little more on good security then spending millions making aircraft bomb-proof.
Example:
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/N...998462,00.html
Pilots do not need shoe bombs to bring down a plane...