Air Travel » Air Travel Flight » What new security measures would YOU suggest? What would you willingly accept, or grudgingly tolerate?
Question:
>On FBW aircraft, rewrite the flight control software to lockout the flight >controls and crash the aircraft in the event the flight deck bulkhead is >breached.
Effective security does not require the passengers to suffer. If you can arrange for the plane’s automatic systems to take control of the craft then they ought not to crash the plane but land it at the nearest airport instead. No fuss, no muss. Andrew
Response:
> > No, it was a carry on boombox > What on earth made you think it was carry on? The cassette radio player, > and the explosion, was located in the forward cargo hold on the > aircraft.
My mistake. What good is a boombox if you aren’t going to use it in flight?
Response:
>> > No, it was a carry on boombox > What on earth made you think it was carry on? The cassette radio player, > and the explosion, was located in the forward cargo hold on the > aircraft. >My mistake. What good is a boombox if you aren’t going to use it in >flight?
Err, blowing up 747s. AFAIK if there had been a matching of passengers to bags before that flight left LHR the incident would not have happened. I can’t think of another incident of an unaccompanied piece of checked luggage being used in this way since, so maybe the increased security measures have been a deterent. –==++AJC++==–
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->. I remember at least two incidents when I have been >> delayed sitting on a plane waiting while they find and remove such >> baggage. One time they got very close to having all passengers get >> off, and personally identify their own bags on the tarmac. Annoying, >> irritating, but worth it. >Why was it "worth it"?? >Name a recent hijacking involving checked baggage. >Name a recent terrorist attack involving checked baggage > Didn’t the incident over Lockerbie involve an exploding suitcase? > –==++AJC++==–
No, it was a carry on boombox.
Response:
> No, it was a carry on boombox
What on earth made you think it was carry on? The cassette radio player, and the explosion, was located in the forward cargo hold on the aircraft. David — David Horne- www.davidhorne.co.uk Composer in Association- RLPO david (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
Response:
>> - carry-ons ok, but in overhead compartments, locked during flight. >Carry ons are meant to allow folks to bring stuff that they will need during >the flight. > What else? What sorts of things would have prevented Tuesday’s tragedies? >Permanentlty prohibit non-ticket holders from entering airside. By doing this, >you will reduce significantly the number of people that need to be scanned and >thus allow better scanning for each people.
The one (obvious) measure that I didn’t hear mentioned was introducing passenger-baggage matching on US domestics. If a passenger doesn’t board, the flight doesn’t leave until her checked baggage is removed. It is standard procedure in Europe, but apparently does not occur on US domestics. I remember at least two incidents when I have been delayed sitting on a plane waiting while they find and remove such baggage. One time they got very close to having all passengers get off, and personally identify their own bags on the tarmac. Annoying, irritating, but worth it. >Bush should drop his plans for that fancy satellite missile defense thingy and >spend that money on better security at airports and border crossings.
Reports here have suggested that the US concentrates too much on high publicity, high tech, ‘macho’ projects like ‘Star Wars’ but neglects the un-glamorous, dull, boring, routine aspects of security. –==++AJC++==–
Response:
. I remember at least two incidents when I have been > delayed sitting on a plane waiting while they find and remove such > baggage. One time they got very close to having all passengers get > off, and personally identify their own bags on the tarmac. Annoying, > irritating, but worth it.
Why was it "worth it"?? Name a recent hijacking involving checked baggage. Name a recent terrorist attack involving checked baggage
Response:
>. I remember at least two incidents when I have been > delayed sitting on a plane waiting while they find and remove such > baggage. One time they got very close to having all passengers get > off, and personally identify their own bags on the tarmac. Annoying, > irritating, but worth it. >Why was it "worth it"?? >Name a recent hijacking involving checked baggage. >Name a recent terrorist attack involving checked baggage
Didn’t the incident over Lockerbie involve an exploding suitcase? –==++AJC++==–
Response:
>> Something that’s been done in the UK on all non-domestic traffic for YEARS: > photo ID/passport check – at the aircraft DOOR! > I did not experience this flying UA from LHR-ORD earlier this summer.
Are you sure? I know I’ve always had it in NL for the past few years and I’m quite sure I’ve had it on every international UK flight as well (never flown domestic in UK). miguel — Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Response:
> > Something that’s been done in the UK on all non-domestic traffic for YEARS: > photo ID/passport check – at the aircraft DOOR!
How would this have stopped yesterday’s actions?? It it impossible for a gate agent to tell whether an ID is fake or not. They are supposed to accept a government ID. This can be a DL from any state or country, or a passport, or something else. Plus, if you are going to die, you could just as easily give them your real identification. Michael
Response:
> Something that’s been done in the UK on all non-domestic traffic for YEARS: > photo ID/passport check – at the aircraft DOOR!
I did not experience this flying UA from LHR-ORD earlier this summer. OtherKevin
Response:
> Bush should drop his plans for that fancy satellite missile defense thingy > and spend that money on better security at airports and border crossings.
Oh come on, what enemy would spend $250 on a plane ticket and a box cutter when for only $10,000,000 more he could have the same effect? miguel — Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Response:
> photo ID/passport check – at the aircraft DOOR!
I experienced this at LAX a year ago on a MX flight to CUN. It might have been a special alert as there were about a dozen inspectors, some with dogs. – Ash
Response:
> What else? What sorts of things would have prevented Tuesday’s tragedies? > What would have done that, while still allowing most of us to use air > travel as we usually do?
I’ve been thinking about 1. Self-defense/martial arts training required of all flight crew. 2. A switch available in the cockpit that floods the aircraft with knockout gas in the event of a hijacking. Pilots have oxygen in the cockpit to keep them from being knocked out as well. 3. Alternative to 2. A switch available in the cockpit that instantly depressurizes the cabin, resulting in everyone on board becoming unconscious in seconds from lack of oxygen. 4. Armed marine guards on every flight, stationed immediately outside the cockpit. 5. All passengers required to register with an airline and subjected to a criminal background check before being allowed to fly. FBI cross checks this list with a list of known terrorists and flags potential terrorists for the airlines. Why a known terrorist would buy a ticket under his real name is beyond me, but this apparently did happen in this case.
Response:
> I’d personally go for: > No curbside baggage check in. Maybe eventually go back to they way it > originally was – curbside baggage check in for ticketed first class > travelers only. Skycaps still available curbside for those who have > extra or large luggage and need help with it.
So – FC pax, by virtue of paying a high fare – or upgrading using their FF miles – are a "better risk"?? I think not. – I hear that Bin-laden fella is worth $300M. Fred
Response:
> What else? What sorts of things would have prevented Tuesday’s > tragedies? What would have done that, while still allowing most of us > to use air travel as we usually do?
Make the flight deck a self-contained compartment with a dedicated exit door, washroom, food storage facilities and space for relief crews. Use 3" of Chobham armor for the bulkhead between the cabin and the flight deck. On FBW aircraft, rewrite the flight control software to lockout the flight controls and crash the aircraft in the event the flight deck bulkhead is breached. — Coridon Henshaw — http://www3.sympatico.ca/gcircle/csbh "..To expect a good deal from life is puerile." — D.H. Lawrence
Response:
> Declaring war on terrorism–or even on Islamic fundamentalism–means > nothing; those folks are already convinced they are at war.
Even if they were not, these would still be empty words.
Response:
While a security review is no doubt necessary, there is no way of preventing absolutely something like this from happening again. So long as there are people who want to kill people, even en masse, atrocities will happen. The best solution is to reduce the number of people who want to kill people. And that means a political solution. Declaring war on terrorism–or even on Islamic fundamentalism–means nothing; those folks are already convinced they are at war. Take care Jon, relieved that I have managed to locate, unharmed, so many of my friends in New York. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > It’s a given that "tighter security measures" will be in place when air > travel resumes in the U.S., and it will be a matter of "if you don’t like > ‘em, don’t try to fly." > Now of course none of us will be asked, but we all do just love to > speculate about solutions to problems… ideas suggested in other threads > here have included: > - armed Sky Marshalls on every flight. > - complete ban on carry-ons. (even Purses? Wallets? Fanny packs?) > - carry-ons ok, but in overhead compartments, locked during flight. > - no more curbside checkin. > - tighter identity checks on travelers. > among others. > What else? What sorts of things would have prevented Tuesday’s tragedies? > What would have done that, while still allowing most of us to use air > travel as we usually do? > — jeh
Jon Beasley-Murray Literature Program Duke University (New Address:) Spanish and Portuguese Studies University of Manchester
Response:
-Stronger cockpit doors which can’t be broken down. Door not to be opened during flight – period. -These hijackers will do this again now that they have seen what they can do. Passengers need to get active from now on. Passengers need to attack, kill, or throw overboard any hijacker. There are more passengers than hijackers. This should be done even if they claim they have a bomb. Just do it!
Response:
[[ This message was both posted and mailed. ]] > It’s a given that "tighter security measures" will be in place when air > travel resumes in the U.S., and it will be a matter of "if you don’t like > ‘em, don’t try to fly." > What sorts of things would have prevented Tuesday’s tragedies? > What would have done that, while still allowing most of us to use air > travel as we usually do?
From the little I heard about the hijackings the pilots opened the cabin door to investigate the attacks on flight attendants. If the control cabin had a window or video feed so they could see the passenger cabin they might have stayed safely inside the cabin and prevented the terrorists from taking control of the plane. Of course before this time there was little reason to think that a hijacking might lead to the cerain death of everyone on board. If the flight attendants had (at least!) some pepper spray with which to defend themselves and the passengers they might have been able to stop the attacks. I would have them carry their weapon in a holster that would sound an alarm when the retaining strap was opened. If all the flight attendants came running with weapons at the ready at the sound of the alarm they might be able to overpower or disable the attackers. Of course this only helps if the suicide hijackers are unable to bring a bomb on board. A pepper-spray foam would help block the view of an attacker wearing a plastic bag over his head to avoid the pepper spray.
Response:
Something that’s been done in the UK on all non-domestic traffic for YEARS: photo ID/passport check – at the aircraft DOOR!
Response:
> It’s a given that "tighter security measures" will be in place when air > travel resumes in the U.S., and it will be a matter of "if you don’t like > ‘em, don’t try to fly."
…snip Here is what YVR (Vancouver, BC) is saying about security: September 12, 2001, 3:00pm PDT (Richmond, BC):At 1:45 pm, Vancouver International Airport Authority received an extensive list of heightened security measures from the Minister of Transport that airports, airlines and other related agencies must put into place. We are prohibited from releasing any information on these security measures. YVR will begin phasing in departures and arrivals over the next few days. Departures at YVR will not begin for several hours. The Airport Authority and related agencies, especially the airlines, have an enormous task before them. It will take time to return to anything resembling normal operations at YVR. We are still advising that passengers not come to Vancouver International Airport. People need to contact their airline for flight information and any additional steps that may be required of the traveling public in light of these new security measures. Please check our website (www.yvr.ca) and contact your airline for additional information as it becomes available. In other words, they aren’t saying what the security measures will be because that could compromise the new security measures!
Response:
> - carry-ons ok, but in overhead compartments, locked during flight.
Carry ons are meant to allow folks to bring stuff that they will need during the flight. > What else? What sorts of things would have prevented Tuesday’s tragedies?
Permanentlty prohibit non-ticket holders from entering airside. By doing this, you will reduce significantly the number of people that need to be scanned and thus allow better scanning for each people. Bush should drop his plans for that fancy satellite missile defense thingy and spend that money on better security at airports and border crossings.
Response:
> - armed Sky Marshalls on every flight.
hmmm. Maybe. > - complete ban on carry-ons. (even Purses? Wallets? Fanny packs?) > - carry-ons ok, but in overhead compartments, locked during flight.
1 Carry on, thoroughly searched, small enough to fit under the seat in front of you (no suitcases). > - no more curbside checkin.
Yup. Also no electronic expedited checkin for FF/etickets. (I mean kiosks/internet/telephone – I don’t care if they have separate lines). > - tighter identity checks on travelers.
Most definitely. > What else? What sorts of things would have prevented Tuesday’s tragedies? > What would have done that, while still allowing most of us to use air > travel as we usually do?
Its hard to say. I have a money clip that has miniscule scissors and a small knife (< 1/2" long). I suppose I could use it as a weapon if I tried. Better searches are necessary. Positive ID – maybe require passports for all travel, with some sort of ID number at reservation time. Checks automatically done for links to terrorist organizations. (also might as well use for warrants, wanted violations, etc). Kevin
Response:
It’s a given that "tighter security measures" will be in place when air travel resumes in the U.S., and it will be a matter of "if you don’t like ‘em, don’t try to fly." Now of course none of us will be asked, but we all do just love to speculate about solutions to problems… ideas suggested in other threads here have included: - armed Sky Marshalls on every flight. - complete ban on carry-ons. (even Purses? Wallets? Fanny packs?) - carry-ons ok, but in overhead compartments, locked during flight. - no more curbside checkin. - tighter identity checks on travelers. among others. What else? What sorts of things would have prevented Tuesday’s tragedies? What would have done that, while still allowing most of us to use air travel as we usually do? — jeh
no comment untill now