what to do about homicidal pilots?

[tynopik]

That's just it: You can't possibly know how many potential hijackings were never even attempted thanks to the change, but you can assume that there would be copycat attacks if nothing changed. Even so, there have been multiple attempts to storm cockpits since doors were beefed up. Not sure why you think they don't happen:
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Attempted-S-F-American-Airlines-cockpit-break-in-2372003.php

Definitely NOT "speculative."

he was quickly subdued, no armored door needed

even if he had briefly breached the cockpit, he would have been quickly dragged right back out

these armored doors are designed to withstand a sustained, determined assault, which is frankly stupid

no hijacker is going to be given that much time

the only time the doors will be subjected to such an assault is in situations like this where the legitimate crew have been locked out and need back in

you know, situations where an armored door is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE

 

[Ken g6]

what to do about homicidal pilots?

fire all pilots and use robots.

Good luck with that!

 

[CZroe]

he was quickly subdued, no armored door needed

even if he had briefly breached the cockpit, he would have been quickly dragged right back out

these armored doors are designed to withstand a sustained, determined assault, which is frankly stupid

no hijacker is going to be given that much time

the only time the doors will be subjected to such an assault is in situations like this where the legitimate crew have been locked out and need back in

you know, situations where an armored door is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE

And now you think that all hijackings are solo endeavors?

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but now I see that your ignorance is astounding.

 

[Ichinisan]

it's not the policies that stopped stuff, it was the attitude of the passengers and crew

previously it was all 'de-escalate, give the hijacker what they want, make sure no one gets hurt', now it's 'ZERG RUSH!!!1'

THAT more that any silly policy or armored door has prevented any successful hijackings since

The upgraded doors have foiled multiple attempts to invade the cockpit.

 

[Ns1]

he was quickly subdued, no armored door needed

even if he had briefly breached the cockpit, he would have been quickly dragged right back out

these armored doors are designed to withstand a sustained, determined assault, which is frankly stupid

no hijacker is going to be given that much time

the only time the doors will be subjected to such an assault is in situations like this where the legitimate crew have been locked out and need back in

you know, situations where an armored door is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE

...he was quickly subdued, because he could not get inside.

 

[tynopik]

And now you think that all hijackings are solo endeavors?

i think in all instances the other passengers and crew substantially outnumber the hijackers and should be able to quickly overwhelm them

feel free to point out any instances to the contrary

oh wait, you can't

 

[CZroe]

i think in all instances the other passengers and crew substantially outnumber the hijackers and should be able to quickly overwhelm them

feel free to point out any instances to the contrary

oh wait, you can't

Oh, so September 11th, 2001 didn't exist now? It doesn't qualify as an "event?" 19 hijackers. Looks like you mean't to say "can" instead of "can't." That isn't even the right standard: United 93's passengers "overwhelmed" the hijackers. Did it save any of them?!

You still have yet to show how 150 deaths you say "may" be caused by the doors are somehow greater than the 3,000 deaths definitely caused from not having the doors. How has it "killed more people" again?

YOU have a math problem. The numbers are in my favor even without digging up a single other incident.

 

[Ns1]

i think in all instances the other passengers and crew substantially outnumber the hijackers and should be able to quickly overwhelm them

feel free to point out any instances to the contrary

oh wait, you can't

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

 

[tynopik]

The upgraded doors have foiled multiple attempts to invade the cockpit.

please point out all incidents where the door fended off a prolonged (>1 minute) assault

there are NONE

 

[Ichinisan]

...he was quickly subdued, because he could not get inside.

Yeah. Think about the panic when the plane suddenly dives and everyone clings to their seats for dear life.

Keep him out of the cockpit.

 

[tynopik]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

way to intentionally misconstrue what i said

 

[Ichinisan]

... United 93's passengers "overwhelmed" the hijackers. Did it save any of them?! ...

Good point. They would be better off if the hijackers couldn't enter the cockpit.

 

[WelshBloke]

How would a 2 person mandatory rule be a bad thing? Seems like it would have at least helped in this situation.

Twice the chance of having a suicidal person on the flight deck? As a general rule you want the amount of people with access to the flight deck to be as minimal as possible.

I don't really think it's an issue either way. This was certainly an horrific, tragic event but it's an extremely uncommon thing to happen. Using events like this to drive policy is not necessarily going to result in a useful response.

You have to put your trust in others every time you use any form of transport. Your bus driver could drive off the bridge, your ferry captain could sail too close to the rocks, the guy driving towards you could swerve into your lane... Life is just full of risks, it's recognising which ones are worth worrying about and addressing those ones that's the important thing.

 

[CZroe]

please point out all incidents where the door fended off a prolonged (>1 minute) assault

there are NONE

First you shift the goalposts to eliminate the lack of doors from counting, then you refuse to consider the attacks that were never launched as a direct result of having the doors, then you start moving the goalpost again for what you will accept as an attempt on the doors. Just... please. Stop digging your hole deeper.

 

[tynopik]

Yeah. Think about the panic when the plane suddenly dives and everyone clings to their seats for dear life.

Keep him out of the cockpit.

you are ignoring that previously they had locking doors, they just weren't ARMORED

my contention is that the base level locking door is sufficient to stop any surprise assault long enough for the crew and passengers to respond

anything stronger is simply counterproductive

 

[inachu]

My own rule if things were implemented for the FAA.
No pilots allowed to be on any medication for any mental health reasons.
If you take medication to stay sane then you will be let go and banned from the industry.
Yep that includes a national registry of banned pilots.

 

[Ichinisan]

please point out all incidents where the door fended off a prolonged (>1 minute) assault

there are NONE

Please put the shovel down and stop digging.

 

[Ichinisan]

Do you want to have hijackers AND multiple passengers / crew trying to subdue them IN THE COCKPIT?

Correct answer: NO.

 

[Ns1]

way to intentionally misconstrue what i said

I believe I answered your question as asked.

 

[cyclistca]

fire all pilots and use robots.

the plane basically flies itself.

What if the robot decides to commit suicide?

 

[CZroe]

way to intentionally misconstrue what i said

Way to INTENTIONALLY IGNORE thousands of deaths that would have been prevented by the doors. Your shell game is laughable.

 

[tynopik]

My own rule if things were implemented for the FAA.
No pilots allowed to be on any medication for any mental health reasons.
If you take medication to stay sane then you will be let go and banned from the industry.
Yep that includes a national registry of banned pilots.

the problem with that is that if you are a pilot and start developing symptoms of mental illness, you're not going to report it to anyone

who is going to volunteer information that will destroy their career?

tough situation

 

[CZroe]

you are ignoring that previously they had locking doors, they just weren't ARMORED

my contention is that the base level locking door is sufficient to stop any surprise assault long enough for the crew and passengers to respond

anything stronger is simply counterproductive

And our argument is that, CLEARLY, "the base level locking door" IS NOT "sufficient." Case in point: September 11th, 2001. How do you justify your continued dismissal?! 3,000 > 150. STFU already!

 

[Ichinisan]

you are ignoring that previously they had locking doors, they just weren't ARMORED

my contention is that the base level locking door is sufficient to stop any surprise assault long enough for the crew and passengers to respond

anything stronger is simply counterproductive

The previous doors were more of a partition / divider. Practically nothing. Locking it basically meant: "Please don't force your way in. Thanks!"

Bullets would go through the other doors. What happens when someone gets the Federal Air Marshal's gun? What happens when you have an insane FAM?

 

[tynopik]

Way to INTENTIONALLY IGNORE thousands of deaths that would have been prevented by the doors. Your shell game is laughable.

no, the doors by themselves would not have prevented the hijacking

they would have threatened to kill a passenger unless the pilots opened the door and the pilots would have complied because that was the policy then