what to do about homicidal pilots?

[tynopik]

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!

the entire mentality of how we handle hijackers changed after 9/11

whether they had an armored door or not wouldn't have mattered if they had opened it in response to the hijacker threats

what protects flights isn't the door, it's the attitude of everyone else

 

[tynopik]

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

it doesn't have to hold up long, just long enough for people to realize what's happening and dogpile the hijacker

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?

no one is going to attack a FAM and successfully make it back to the cockpit, passengers will not allow it, gun or no

as far as a crazy FAM just blindly shooting through the door, he's unlikely to kill both pilots before he's dogpiled

 

[Sonikku]

Skynet!

I have an idea, why not instead of programming the robots to kill us we instead program them to love us and take care of us. :'(

 

[Ichinisan]

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

Because there were 4 hijackings that day, it proved that this was something other terrorists could easily repeat if there were no procedural and structural changes. The only logical response is to make procedural and structural changes to discourage it. Otherwise, it's extremely inviting to copycat terrorist cells.

 

[Ichinisan]

... as far as a crazy FAM just blindly shooting through the door, he's unlikely to kill both pilots before he's dogpiled

Killing both pilots isn't the only concern with bullets. What if it blows out the windshield or damages vital controls?

There's a very good chance a perfectly sane FAM will have to shoot toward the door AT THE ATTEMPTED HIJACKER.

Solution: Strengthen the doors.

 

[Cappuccino]

fire all pilots and use robots.

the plane basically flies itself.

No cuz nerds here will hack the auto pilot system and fly the plane on their iphones.

 

[Ns1]

it doesn't have to hold up long, just long enough for people to realize what's happening and dogpile the hijacker

Officials believe that at 9:28, the hijackers assaulted the cockpit and moved the passengers to the rear of the plane at the same time to minimize any chance of either the crew or the passengers interfering with the attack.

:whiste:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

 

[tynopik]

Killing both pilots isn't the only concern with bullets. What if he blows out the windshield or damages vital controls?

he can shoot out a window and potentially hit vital structures from anywhere on the plane

 

[tynopik]

:whiste:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

exactly, that would never happen today

do you think passengers would allow themselves to be 'herded' to the back of the plane? heck no!

armored doors do nothing except keep legitimate people out

 

[tynopik]

Because there were 4 hijackings that day, it proved that this was something other terrorists could easily repeat if there were no procedural and structural changes. The only logical response is to make procedural and structural changes to discourage it. Otherwise, it's extremely inviting to copycat terrorist cells.

you continually ignore the fact that their very success guaranteed it would never happen again

never again would passengers sit by while hijackers take over a plane

any procedural and structural changes are besides the point, the most important preventative factor is the attitude of the passengers and crew

no longer will they be sheep

no longer will they allow threats to cow them

 

[CZroe]

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

*facepalm*
They didn't have the doors OR THE POLICY. The doors came with the locking mechanism that allows them to lock someone OUT specifically to thwart a would-be hijacker from forcing a hostage crew member to use their code. You can't have one without the other. It's why the beefed up doors exist. It wouldn't do any good if they didn't beef up the doors. Yes, THE DOORS WITH THEIR DOOR LOCKING SYSTEM THEMSELVES would have prevented it. Had they existed, the attempt would not have even been made. You don't organize and involve 19 hijackers with a flawed plan that fails to consider the door, so that right there is why you will not find example after example of thwarted attempts after they instituted the doors.

You are arguing an indefensible position. Stop digging in. Grow up.

the entire mentality of how we handle hijackers changed after 9/11

whether they had an armored door or not wouldn't have mattered if they had opened it in response to the hijacker threats

what protects flights isn't the door, it's the attitude of everyone else

And this is PART of that. If we changed nothing then copycats absolutely would have taken advantage of that. Don't play dumb. The comparison is before/after, not after/after, so stop pretending that September 11th, 2001 didn't happen. You don't have large passenger planes without the doors to compare those with it "after" 9-11-01, so why do you keep looking for that comparison? Give it up.

it doesn't have to hold up long, just long enough for people to realize what's happening and dogpile the hijacker



no one is going to attack a FAM and successfully make it back to the cockpit, passengers will not allow it, gun or no

as far as a crazy FAM just blindly shooting through the door, he's unlikely to kill both pilots before he's dogpiled

Are all flights at full capacity? No. Are all hijackers solo? Also no. Are all passenger capable of and willing to subdue the hijacker(s)? NO.

How could you possibly make the assumptions you'd have to make to count on them "dogpiling?" Assume much? The burden of proof for your fantasy scenario being applicable 100% of the time is on you.

 

[WelshBloke]

never again would passengers sit by while hijackers take over a plane

That's a pretty big assumption to be building aviation safety protocols on.

 

[Ns1]

exactly, that would never happen today

do you think passengers would allow themselves to be 'herded' to the back of the plane? heck no!

armored doors do nothing except keep legitimate people out

Pure speculation on your part.

 

[Ichinisan]

Killing both pilots isn't the only concern with bullets. What if he blows out the windshield or damages vital controls?

he can shoot out a window and potentially hit vital structures from anywhere on the plane

Yeah. Ignore the part where I mentioned the possibility of the Air Marshal shooting toward a would-be hijacker at the cockpit door.

Killing both pilots isn't the only concern with bullets. What if it blows out the windshield or damages vital controls?

There's a very good chance a perfectly sane FAM will have to shoot toward the door AT THE ATTEMPTED HIJACKER.

Solution: Strengthen the doors.

:whiste:

 

[vailr]

The only reason a pilot or co-pilot would need to leave the cockpit would be: restroom break.
So: re-design the aircraft so that the cockpit has it's own direct access 2nd restroom door. In such an emergency situation, if the pilot using the restroom was prevented by the co-pilot from re-entering the cockpit via that same 2nd restroom door, he could continue through to the passenger cabin, enter his (non-overridable) secret pin number, and then re-enter through the main cockpit door.
Addition: require pilot and co-pilot to wear an NFC capable wristwatch, so that no potential hijacker from the passenger cabin area could impersonate one of them for cockpit access.

 

[CZroe]

exactly, that would never happen today

do you think passengers would allow themselves to be 'herded' to the back of the plane? heck no!

armored doors do nothing except keep legitimate people out

They DIDN'T "allow" it! They dogpiled the hijackers exactly like you are counting on! Did it save them? No. Conclusion: Counting on the dogpile and counting on it to solve everything = epic idiocy.

you continually ignore the fact that their very success guaranteed it would never happen again

never again would passengers sit by while hijackers take over a plane

any procedural and structural changes are besides the point, the most important preventative factor is the attitude of the passengers and crew

no longer will they be sheep

no longer will they allow threats to cow them

Then why did United 93 crash and kill everyone?! They "allowed" it?! They took ACTIVE steps to stop it. They did EXACTLY what are counting on future passengers to do.
It. Didn't. Work.

You are wrong. You couldn't be more wrong. You've been proven to be as wrong as anyone could ever be. History is not in your favor. The present is not in your favor. Your logic is severely flawed. Now: STOP.

 

[JTsyo]

fire all pilots and use robots.

the plane basically flies itself.

How do you stop a programmer from crashing the planes? Might be many times worse if all the auto-pliots try to crash their planes at the same time.

 

[MarkXIX]

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

there are NONE

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ge...rdings-could-yield-cockpit-door-clues-n330426

Seriously, you're making this too easy. Here's at least one. Estimated to be 8 minutes.

 

[Ns1]

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ge...rdings-could-yield-cockpit-door-clues-n330426

Seriously, you're making this too easy. Here's at least one. Estimated to be 8 minutes.

I'm not sure laughing is the appropriate response but damn OP getting owned here.

Maybe the OP is going for the lock on ownage of the year.

 

[CZroe]

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ge...rdings-could-yield-cockpit-door-clues-n330426

Seriously, you're making this too easy. Here's at least one. Estimated to be 8 minutes.

:awe:

 

[DrPizza]

Good luck with that!

No, no, no.

Anyway, requiring 2 in the cockpit covers medical emergencies. What do you do if a pilot passes out, has a heart attack, etc. However, I think it's safe to say that 50% of the time, it would not be sufficient to stop a determined pilot from crashing a plane. Unless, more than 50% of the time, the determined pilot is also the weaker pilot. I.e., "fight to the death" in the cockpit; if the determined pilot is the victor, the passengers wind up on the side of the losing pilot. If the flight crew is capable of carrying weapons aboard, then the element of surprise ought to increase that 50% to a significantly higher percentage of determined (to crash) pilots who would end up successful.

 

[tynopik]

Yes, THE DOORS WITH THEIR DOOR LOCKING SYSTEM THEMSELVES would have prevented it. Had they existed, the attempt would not have even been made.

and you know this how?

all they had to do was hold a knife to the throat of a flight attendant and say 'open the door or i'll slit her throat'

You don't organize and involve 19 hijackers with a flawed plan that fails to consider the door, so that right there is why you will not find example after example of thwarted attempts after they instituted the doors.

wait, weren't you just arguing that there hundred of attempts thwarted by the door?

so stop pretending that September 11th, 2001 didn't happen.

what the FUCK are you talking about?

my ENTIRE point is that September 11th changed the attitudes of passengers and crew making similar hijackings impossible

Are all flights at full capacity? No. Are all hijackers solo? Also no. Are all passenger capable of and willing to subdue the hijacker(s)? NO.

please point out all instances where the hijackers outnumbered the passengers and crew

again you can't because that has never happened

How could you possibly make the assumptions you'd have to make to count on them "dogpiling?" Assume much? The burden of proof for your fantasy scenario being applicable 100% of the time is on you.

fantasy?

Is United 93 real enough for you? Once they realized what was going on they stopped complying and started acting. Granted it was too late to prevent their own demise, but they prevented further attacks. And they didn't need any door to do it.

 

[CZroe]

...Anyway, requiring 2 in the cockpit covers medical emergencies. What do you do if a pilot passes out, has a heart attack, etc. However, I think it's safe to say that 50% of the time, it would not be sufficient to stop a determined pilot from crashing a plane. Unless, more than 50% of the time, the determined pilot is also the weaker pilot. I.e., "fight to the death" in the cockpit; if the determined pilot is the victor, the passengers wind up on the side of the losing pilot. If the flight crew is capable of carrying weapons aboard, then the element of surprise ought to increase that 50% to a significantly higher percentage of determined (to crash) pilots who would end up successful.

That's why they can only lock someone out manually for 5 minutes. They wouldn't be manually locked out at all in a health emergency. The code would simply work.

 

[tynopik]

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ge...rdings-could-yield-cockpit-door-clues-n330426

Seriously, you're making this too easy. Here's at least one. Estimated to be 8 minutes.

sorry, prolonged assault from a HIJACKER

that story just supports my position that armored doors only serve to keep legitimate people out

 

[CZroe]

and you know this how?

all they had to do was hold a knife to the throat of a flight attendant and say 'open the door or i'll slit her throat'

wait, weren't you just arguing that there hundred of attempts thwarted by the door?

what the FUCK are you talking about?

my ENTIRE point is that September 11th changed the attitudes of passengers and crew making similar hijackings impossible

please point out all instances where the hijackers outnumbered the passengers and crew

again you can't because that has never happened

fantasy?

Is United 93 real enough for you? Once they realized what was going on they stopped complying and started acting. Granted it was too late to prevent their own demise, but they prevented further attacks. And they didn't need any door to do it.

Your logic is impeccable. We bow to your superior mind. How could we have been so wrong?!