chollie

Great post, Boggie Dog. At one time, bad guys hijacked planes to 'freedom' or for a suicide mission. 9/11 stepped things up - the planes were hijacked to be used as missiles against specific high-profile targets.

I think we've done what we can to prevent another cockpit takeover. I don't think destroying a single plane mid-flight is going to have the kind of effect that the clever terrorists want. That said, it's probably still an attractive idea for low-level thugs like the underpants bomber and the shoe bomber. I don't think it's something a master planner is interested in. I definitely think the only way a plane is going to be taken out midair is via an inside job - cleaning crew or baggage handlers stashing something on the plane. It won't be via the pax and their belongings, but here in the US, we'll continue to focus our efforts and taxpayer dollars on the pax anyway.

I don't think any future attacks (and I'm talking about well-planned political attacks, not idiots like the shoe bomber or the underpants bomber) will involve destroying a single aircraft mid-air. I think the next attack will resemble 9/11 in that it will be something new and crippling in the near-term. Disabling a single airport can cause massive ripple effects throughout the country - remember when that nutter torched some of ORD's hardware and brought the airport to a halt?

MacLeanBarrier

Again 100% false. That's why it is law to install cockpit secondary barriers on new aircraft:

https://www.casey.senate.gov/newsroo...hijacking-bill

MacLeanBarrier

100% grossly false. The doors cannot be breached without a heavy-duty hardened steel impact tool or explosives--and why would you take out explosives and put them on the door in order for air marshals, crew, or passengers to stop you?


They've been reinforced since 4 months before my U.S. Supreme Court cited disclosure about the July 2003 al Qaeda hijacking plot to wait for them to open--again:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bulletp...ors-a-reality/

The January 11, 2002 FAA order:

The Avalon Project : FAA Sets New Standards for Cockpit Doors; January 11, 2002

MacLeanBarrier

Agreed, for the most part. But cockpit secondary barriers need to be installed first.

I've addressed the airport worker "insider threat"--as opposed to majority focus on passengers being suicidal threats--and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel agreed and ordered an investigation to be conducted per 5 U.S.C. § 1213:

https://www.whistleblower.org/press/...ns-exposed-air

Boggie Dog

I stated my opinion which could be wrong but opinion is never false.

Just because some political hack got a bill passed doesn't make that item the smart thing to do. I believe the underwing threat is a far greater threat than someone breaching the cockpit door. And that is were available resources should be focused, in my opinion.

The Saracini Aviation Act only applies to new aircraft (which definition is under discussion) and not the 100's of in-service aircraft. What about them? If the installation of a barrier is not required on older aircraft then just how acute is the issue?

cestmoi123

In the past 17+ years since 9/11, there have been over 170 million commercial flights in the US. Of those 170 million, there were zero successful attempts to hijack a plane by getting into the cockpit while a pilot was entering or exiting. So, what leads you to believe that the current setup is inadequate?

I recognize that the barrier installation for new airplanes is law. It is, in my opinion, a dumb law, imposing costs on airlines and consumers for little if any detectable benefit.

MacLeanBarrier

False again. 92% of the 435 House members passed it, and 100% of the 100 Senators.

...and false again--a bill was introduced last week by 11 bipartisan members of Congress:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1PX2AZ

MacLeanBarrier

There were over a Billion flights before 9/11 and then 4 jets were crashed after the doors got unlocked:

Boggie Dog

That doesn't make it a good bill.



Are you saying the Saracini bill is false? What current law requires barriers to be retrofitted to existing aircraft? An introduced bill is not law.

chollie

This just isn't what I consider the best use of taxpayer dollars.

I'd much rather the money be spent improving the checkpoint process, since it's clear that the government refuses to even consider the possibility of insider threats.

Boggie Dog

What does this long video clip of a movie have to do with your statement? Yes I'll buy into over a billion flights before 9/11 and 4 jets crashed on 9/11 (I haven't tried doing the math). So what? We knew that already. We know that cockpit doors were not hardened. We know that flight crew were told to cooperate with hijackers which they did on 3 of the 4 airplanes.

Doing the math on over a billion flights with 4 lost on 9/11. The math on that is a decimal followed by a whole bunch of zeros before getting to a 1. In other words a real rarity that should be treated like a rarity.

nancypants

MacLeanBarrier

I'm on top of it!

https://m.govexec.com/management/2019/01/tsa-whistleblower-disclosures-prompt-two-aviation-security-probes/153881/?oref=GovExecTCO

Boggie Dog

Hardly on top of it, inspecting food trucks and Narcon is a tiny part of the issue. If there was Narcon who decides which person gets it? Would there be enough for everyone on the flight? How will this item be maintained and accounted for?

I do agree that nothing should be loaded on the aircraft that hasn't gone through a screening process. People, cargo, beverages, food, what have you.

WillCAD

Explain why - if al Qaeda was plotting to attempt a cockpit incursion in 2003 - there has not been a single attempt by any terrorist organization in the 16 years since. Could it be... perhaps the current set of safeguards and precautions are adequate to dissuade them? Or maybe they're just playing the long game, letting us grow complacent for a decade and a half, and maybe in Year 17, POW! Right in the kisser!

No door is impenetrable, and no one here has asserted any such thing.

However, the reinforced and hardened doors are now strong enough to resist breaching attempts by an unarmed individual without heavy tools, long enough for the real source of in-flight aviation security - the terrified mob of pax who all remember the footage (some of us remember it live) of United 175 slamming into the South Tower in a ball of flame - to take action and render the would-be hijacker, uh, shall we say, no longer dangerous.

Had I any pity for any fanatical murdering monsters who could even conceive of such an act of depravity, I would certainly pity any poor sods who attempt to breach the cockpit of a full flight today.

Just because it's a law doesn't mean it's smart. It's against the law to keep a duck as a pet anywhere in New York City - does that mean that pet ducks are an imminent threat to the people of the Five Boroughs? If they're so dangerous, maybe NYC ought to exterminate all the wild ones, too.

The secondary barrier law may simply have been pushed through after a concerted lobbying effort by the company who makes money off them, whether they're actually needed or not. Wait - that has a ring of familiarity to it...

I don't care if all 535 MOC's voted for it, that still doesn't automatically make it right, smart, or necessary.

Statistically speaking, if you're of average intelligence, then you're likely to be smarter than about 50% of any given group. Given the mean intelligence level of American elected officials, I wouldn't be surprised if every person in this thread was smarter than 96% of MOC's, past and present.

On a side note, you seem to believe that you're smarter than the 100% of people in this thread who disagree with your opinion that these expensive boondoggle secondary barriers are so desperately needed. May I ask which brain trust YOU work for? Aside from the company that produces these expensive barriers, that is. We all know which brain trust you used to work for, and I think you know the prevailing opinion of that particular brain trust 'round about these parts.