Marshalls are a short term fix.

The simplest security fix is to forget about marshalls and implement the measures below.

1. Secure and seal the cockpit from the rest of the aircraft while any member of the public is on board. This would mean that the cockpit would have to be larger because it would have to incorporate a bathroom and possibly a small kitchen as well. The pilots should have no discretion to open the door even if a member of the crew, or a passenger, is threatened.

2. All crew should carry a remote transmitter to discretely alert the cockpit that there is a situation in the aircraft be it a hijacker or an unruly passenger.

3. The cockpit should be able to view the entire aircraft using CCTV to assess any situation on board the aircraft and determine whether to make an unscheduled landing and alert the appropriate authorities on the ground.

4. If there is an extreme situation on board the aircraft, the cockpit should be able to utilise knockout gas throughout the aircraft and land at the nearest airport.

Comments are welcome.

You are opening a whole new can of worms with this. Where there is a will, there is a way. If the terrorists wish to get inside they will. Plastic explosives, blow torch, posing as pilots with stolen key cards for access, etc. Bank vaults and safes were once considered impossible to crack and now we have more advanced robbers.

Also costs not feasible because cockpit would have to be very big. Pilots will need berths to sleep, room to get up and stretch their legs, and most importantly- how would they get their food during flight? A sliding window liek they serve prisoners? Terrorists could even poison pilots and plane would go down on their own anyway.


------------------
"Fly me to the moon and let me earn alot of miles."

In response:

Plastic explosives and blow torches:
How do they get these items past the gate and increased security measures?

Cost not feasible:
Sacrificing a bit of space is a small price to pay to avoid the cost of another September 11.

Food during flight:
It's already been suggested that they have the food within the cockpit. This way there is no possibility of the food being poisoned. Also food served doesn't have to be exclusively hot. However, assuming the worst and the pilots are unconscious, the aircraft can be equipped to be flown remotely.

I like the knock out gas idea! It should be used if any of the following is witnessed:

1. Hijackings
2. 2 or more pax picking noses (or toes)
3. Anytime a "Baldwin Brothers" movie is screened in the main cabin
4. If they run out of coffee

[This message has been edited by skofarrell (edited 09-13-2001).]

Pay anyone working on the tarmac $5,000



Where was your plan on September 10?

Hey, it's just an illusion of safety. Freedom has its risks, and we need to be willing to accept those risks.

I, for one, am not willing to give up my way of life for the ridiculous illusion that I'm being "protected." I want my freedom, and I'm willing to take the risks.

Where are all the Americans? It's sickening how many of you are willing to trade away your liberties in the midst of this hype.

Give the pilots weapons (guns) and teach them how to use them. If the door to the cockpit is breached, let the pilot(s) shoot to kill.

I want to give my 2 cents:

There is no point in banning knives (at least small knives). 3-5 terrorists holding knives are NOT able to take over a plane if passengers and crews resists. It is just historically it is safer not to fight the hijackers. I remember from past that airline could could get into legal troubles if they fight hijackers, which often cause more problems.

Imagine your self on a plane, when hijackers announced that they have a bomb onboard. A knife does not make any difference, as crew and passengers can easily overpower hijackers with knives. Before 9/11/01, I would not fight hijackers, as most hijacks resolves peacefully. What makes you decide to fight or not depends on your belief whether hijackers will go on a suicide mission. NOT a knife.

blocking access to cockpit will not work for the same reason. If a hijacker says he will blow up the plane if you don't give him access. Do you take a chance? it depends on if you belive the hijacker or not. Blocked cockpit don't make any difference.

I am sorry if I am not able to explain this well. thanks for hearing me out.

Hey Mori -

Air Marshalls are a start.

Pilots would need HEAVY DUTY psychological training to be able to keep flying a plane as someone in the "back of the bus" is killing a passenger every 5 minutes until he does as he is told.

Knock out gas? I can carry in my carry-on all I need to feed into the onboard air system, and not worry about gas.

A terrorist who kills a sleeping passenger is still killing a sleeping passenger. In fact, the presence of such a system would reduce the manpower needed to keep control by the hijackers.

Ban knives? Almost worthless. I am sure some of you have seen the training session where they are taught to take control of the plane with NO weapons. The fire extinguisher is a lethal weapon of choice. Then, the fire axe, and finally, oxygen cannisters from the plane make for just a dandy bomb.

As for attacking the hijackers - yes, I would, but be mindful: It is typical that in a situation where maybe three people are carrying out the hijacking, it is likely that at least two others amongst the passengers are "sleeper" partners who can keep an eye on things and help feed the control psychology. Imagine 20 people rushing to the front of the plane, going after 3 men. The first people could be badly hurt or even killed, but the group has good chances of succeeding - as long as there are not two "unknown" hijackers slashing from the back.

Sorry to be so plain spoken, but that is how a successful takeout works.

Any system that you but in place, you must be prepared to have used against you.

Suggestions?

Full satellite tracking - it is useless that the plane must rely on the transponder being activated to advise the ATC's that it should be closely watched.

Move the bathrooms away from the front of the plane so that they are not within an arm's reach of the pilots door. As soon as the seatbelt light goes off, two people in First go to the WC's, open the doors a few minutes later as the attendants are serving the other passengers, and with the passageway partially blocked, rush the front.

Make the door a more difficult thing to get through, but also give it less likelyhood to have passenger traffic near it.

Instead of keying in a four digit code to alert ATC, have the pilot do a "double pull" plug system - you simply pull a pin that is on a cord attached to you, much like on a Jetski- only, the pilot has two, so that there is no "false alert" if he forgets to "log out" of his seat before getting up to eat, got to the WC, etc.

Speaking of logging out - pilots could be required to enter a code every 30 minutes, let's say, to ensure that they are still the ones flying.

Anyway - these and many more things that can be done, and for very little money, which for some reason, appears to be important to those that made things the way they are now.

These security fixes should not begin at the airport. Air marshalls, on-board security, even ground security/screening, while important no doubt, should be all last ditch efforts to maintain a safe environment. The government and others should consider how to make travel safer before travel actually begins.

My two miles...


------------------
"What do you mean you didn't get miles for that?!"

I heard an interview with a representative from a US pilot's union.

He talked about a bulletin the union issued suggesting rapid cabin depressurization as being the recommended tactic.

Did anyone else see that?

did not hear the quote , but would agree with it if it is rapid & gets to 12k ft in a hurry. i am uncomfortable in la pas bolivia @ 13,3 k ft [per flight crew in cock pit] . however, if the idea is to knock out everyone & make the young perps unconsious , i would rather have my knife & be awake.

I agree with JohnnyP.

Having said that however, methods of containing any situation need to be considered in the event of that situation arising.

Banning implements such as tweezers, nail clippers, knitting needles etc will have no practical effect. If a person wants to, he/she can be very creative about what can be used as a weapon. An obvious example is a pen.

Not just looking back on 11 Sept but to any hijacked airplane, what measures could have be taken to neutralise the terrorists?

(edited for typos)

[This message has been edited by Moriarty (edited 09-15-2001).]

While stuck in Miami, I was staying with a good friend who is a pilot, a Jet pilot instructor, and someone who's expertise and experience I trust.

We had lots of long discussions about what can and can't be done to secure things "day 2".

We both agreed that the airline insustry is not going to dramatically redesign the aircraft in their fleet, nor are they going to retire working, million dollar jets that are not up to some new utopian standard.

After going around and around, we came up with the following conclusions:

1) Knockout gas - while we agreed an intruder disabling system makes sense, and is easy to do, the airline would probably face lawsuits from injured passengers in the long run, and it may not be worth it.

2) Better cockpit doors - while a good idea, the flight crew might need to use a bathroom, breeching any security a reinforced door would create. And just how much reinforcing do you think can be done without an entire cockpit structure redesign. Again, any change that requires massive refit of the aircraft is impractical.

The only idea that we both considered to be reliable and relatively inexpensive was one that would not protect the passengers but would prevent the type of "aircraft as missile/bomb" disasters we just saw:

3) Autopilot/remote pilot lockout - many aircraft flying today have the ability to land on autopilot at properly equipped airports. The flight crew and the FA's should have the ability to punch in a code that essentially engages the autopilot and locks out all on-board controls. A minor upgrade to the aircraft systems to allow this lockout feature, and also to allow autopilot commands to be sent from properly authorized ground control systems is very easily accomplished. A plane could not be controlled in this way unless the pilot or FA engaged the system (preventing ground controls that are infiltrated from crashing aircraft at will). This change, compared to the costs of the others discussed, was practical and do-able in our opinion. It may not save passengers being stabbed or blown up, but it would prevent a maniac from taking control of the aircraft.

I agree with your suggestions however I would add that the pilots be able to lock-in a flight plan that would require a speccial code to un-lock. In both NYC & DC, the highjackers had to turned the planes around to hit their targets. Also a re-enforced door, if bombed, may provide pilots with an opportunity to alert authorities & find an area that is safe for land.

Consider for a moment the case of El Al. More terrorists want to hijack / bomb El Al than all other airlines combined, yet they haven't succeeded. Why?

Because El Al has the political will to do security properly. I am not going to go into the details of the El Al security model here, because 95% of it is unseen, and should remain that way.

But bear in mind it is possible to approach full security with passengers checking in less than 2 hours prior to the flight, and only a small percentage (under 10%) of pax having their bags hand searched.

They do not outlaw razors or plastic knives. On board they have metal silverwear and corkscrews.

Yes, they do a lot of other things, but they do them without passenger inconvenience.

It is possible.