He snuck it past security!! ROFLMAO

[Scotty]

Yes, if both pilots and all terrorists have guns, there is a good chance that you are going to be FUBAR. But that would be because the pilots would probably be dead. However, it is less likely that the bad guys can get through security with a gun. Yes, I know it's possible. But it would take some serious kahoonas (eh?) to even attempt it. It is not worth dying for if you can't even get on the plane. That's why the last guys took common items with them.

Go ahead and shoot up the cockpit, though. As long as one of the pilots is still functional, and he's worth a darn, the plane should land successfully.

You have redundant systems for EVERYTHING in the cockpit. You would have to hit everything at least twice and most of the time four or more times. Plus, they are all in different areas. -- Pilot and Co-pilot each have the same stuff and each of their stuff is running on redundant systems. (Pulled out the technical glossary for that ) Plus, the air traffic tower personel are trained to verbally guide a dis-abled plane down.

And Luc - thanks for bringing that up. I was going to, but forgot. The Hawaiian Air jet tends to actually support me. That plane lost an incredible amount of structural support, yet continued to not only fly, but land. I am really shocked that it didn't buckle on the ground. Yes, a couple people died, and that is unfortunate, but the plane held together and saved the rest of the passengers. So, a small bullet hole wouldn't do diddly. (Another tech term) Lesson here, wear your seatbelt the whole time.

And BTW, I am not so keen on there being any guns on the plane. Just spend the extra twenty grand and put in a steel door at the next 'C' or 'D' check. The current doors really are just a very lightweight fiberglass panel.

An alternative would be to put the cockpit on a completely separate air system and allow the release of a sleeping agent in the passenger compartment if things go bad. This would really be easy to do. And in fact, if I did fly, I would look forward to sleeping the whole way.

One really stupid idea I have heard being floated around would be to put an automatic override from the ground in place to fly the plane by remote control. How long until the bad guys figured out how to tap into that system and they fly EVERY SINGLE PLANE IN THE SKY to a target. That's one helluva bad idea. No thank you.

Quick lesson for those who keep asking themselves. A 'D' check on an airplane is when it is completely stripped and checked. The interior is ripped out completely, all access panels are removed. Skin is removed. Flight systems and controls are gone. Everything. And, as the dumb a**es I used to work for found out, you don't do it all at once, otherwise it's a b**** to put back together and have 1,000,000 rivet holes line up perfectly. But after all the stuff from one area is gone, you look the plane over with a magnifying glass and look for rust, cracks, dents, bending, holes, warps and just about anything else that shouldn't be wrong, and fix it. That takes months to do on a 747, and costs a ton of money. A 'C' check is about the same but not quite so extensive. An 'A' check is a visual lookover inside and out for obvious defects. A 'B' check involves removing all access panels and doing a complete visual and/or non-destructive testing on all major, easily accessable systems, sometimes more, sometimes less.

I tend to agree with Soback as well. The security on the ground should be better. There really is very little NEED for carry on luggage. Some medications and reading materials for adults, baby needs and stuff for your kids to keep occupied, but nothing else. However, I am waiting for the first report of a diabetic not being able to take on their insulin shot with them, then getting really sick because the airplane is delayed five hours and he/she needed a shot.

Scotty

Edit - Geepers, I get long winded.

[ 09-30-2001: Message edited by: Scotty ]

[Guest $iLk]

Alright, I'm going to bring up something Neil Boortz has said.

We know 2 things.

1. Bush has said NO to arming pilots

2. Bush has said YES to shooting down hijacked planes

So in essence a pilot cannot subdue an armed terrorist, possibly saving all passengers, but once hijacked, the plane can be shot down killing everyone on board.

Ahem, all the anti-gun hysteria needs to be controlled. A bullet hole in an aircraft would at worst cause the plane to have to drop altitude. Many pilots are ex military and i'm sure know their way around a gun. Classes could be set up to train them. So all this talk about WHAT IF THEY MISS! WHAT IF THEY ACCIDENTALLY SHOOT THEMSELVES! is nonsense yet sadly is not regarded as such. If a terrorist is onboard the plane, the pilot has a responsibility to protect the passengers. If a terrorist has a gun and pilots don't then we shoot down the plane?

As for air marshals, there aren't enough, and what if they miss hmmm...?

This ignorance of guns should only be left in the hands of government and police officers is just that, ignorance.

Police only show up AFTER a crime has been committed, and last century over 100 million people were killed by their own governments because they couldnt defend themselves.

Sadly these arguments are lost on people who see guns and not people who mis use them as "evil".

Point being guns don't kill people, people kill people.

[Guest Remo Williams]

LOL! Good pic Jaguar.

Damn typos my spelling bites!

[ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: Remo Williams ]

[Guest]

Silk,

You and I are on such the same wavelength that it is almost scary!!

[Põdi]

quote:

---

Ever see the bird cannon to test that stuff? Awesome.

---

Hehe, that reminds me of the story where British Aerospace (I think) were testing cockpit windscreens against bird impact for Boeing. The standard protocol was to fire a chicken carcass from a cannon at certain velocities. The first tests were a little worrying, because even at relatively low speeds the carcass was smashing the windscreen, destroying the pilot's seat and imbedding itself in the bulkhead at the rear of the cockpit. When the concerned engineers related these results to Boeing, the reply was:

'DEFROST THE CHICKEN FIRST'

I'm not sure if the details or the story itself are entirely correct, but it's bloody funny.

As for armed pilots and Air marshalls? Hmm, dunno. Better trained airport security staff would be a first step in the right direction though.

[ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: Paddy Gregory ]

[Guest]

That story is TRUE, my 2nd cousin was the buyer for boeing of the chickens. At first they were buying frozen chickens from Arkansas or something, but because the tests were so unrealistic, they were actually bringing LIVE chickens to the site, and the humane society would stand by as the chickens were slaughtered and then shot out of the cannon. They did this at the Renton Boeing plant, the one where they build the 737 and the 727.

They did this again in Everett when they were testing the 757, 767, and the 777 windshields.

Too funny!!!

My cousin told me that it was pretty disgusting, because the force of the cannon had to be done in such a way that it wasn't too violent, because a red mist and chicken parts would come out of the end, they had to make sure that the chickens didn't accelerate so fast as to be blown into pieces!! lol

[Põdi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

That story is TRUE, my 2nd cousin was the buyer for boeing of the chickens.

---

Now THAT is worrying!

(j/k)

Thanks for clearing up the details Jag.

[Fendi]

quote:

---

Hehe, that reminds me of the story where British Aerospace (I think) were testing cockpit windscreens against bird impact for Boeing. The standard protocol was to fire a chicken carcass from a cannon at certain velocities. The first tests were a little worrying, because even at relatively low speeds the carcass was smashing the windscreen, destroying the pilot's seat and imbedding itself in the bulkhead at the rear of the cockpit

---

You guys are scaring me.

At least there's no aircrafts made out of cloths yet is there?

quote:

---

And Fendi, I will get you as many numbers as you want

---

I travel (long haul) on average twice a year (to and fro). So that's four long haul flights a year at least. Oh yeah I like them to be of the 5'5'' to 5'7'' region as I'm a short guy.

[Soback]

K, once I get to the regionals I will start looking.

[Supreme Cmdr]

HA!!! so much for a humorous thread. Now I've I read about planes than I ever did back when I actually took flying lessons. (not, it was in the UK, not in Florida, yer git)

Man, this is nothing but a hijaaked thread!!! LOL!!

[Supreme Cmdr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paddy Gregory:

Hehe, that reminds me of the story where British Aerospace (I think) were testing cockpit windscreens against bird impact for Boeing. The standard protocol was to fire a chicken carcass from a cannon at certain velocities. The first tests were a little worrying, because even at relatively low speeds the carcass was smashing the windscreen, destroying the pilot's seat and imbedding itself in the bulkhead at the rear of the cockpit. When the concerned engineers related these results to Boeing, the reply was:

'DEFROST THE CHICKEN FIRST'

I'm not sure if the details or the story itself are entirely correct, but it's bloody funny.

---

ROTFLMNAO!!!! Damn thats funny.

[Fendi]

quote:

---

Man, this is nothing but a hijaaked thread!!! LOL!!

---

Ironic don't you think?