Planes get armored doors (finally)

step in the right direction

Stupid.

Thanks for that trenchant insight.

I love posts that make you think.

Your sarcasm is sharp like a pan.

That was quite possibly the lamest comeback I have ever read. "Sharp as a pan?" Come on, if you're trying to degrade my sarcasm with some sort of simile, at least use an appropriate simile. Something like "Sharp as a rusty saw." I don't know that anyone really considers pans as notable for their lack of sharpness, whereas a rusty saw would be assumed to be quite dull as a result of the elements. Hense much better contrast in your comparison, creating an effective, but still admittedly somewhat lame burn.

Maybe you'd care to pipe up instead with something useful, like what you think is stupid? Planes? Armored doors? Guns? Long flights? Lerkfish? The point of my sarcastic comments, since they seem to have eluded you entirely, was to get you to actually expand on your expansive post with some content.

I think if they could implement some kind of double door system on planes, both bulletproof, it would help when pilots have to leave the cockpit. I don't know how feasable that is, given space constraints on a plane, but it occured to me, so thought I'd throw it out there.

--Josh

I thought the pan simile was rather well-done.

Reminiscent of the plump humor of old slapstick comedy.

Sad, but Boeing Engineers among others claim it will not make flying safer (possibly more dangerous).

1. Not all planes were designed for a huge heavy partition like that... possible stress, especially for older planes... could prove to be dangerous in some smaller (older) commercial aircrafts... though FAA and NTSB let it pass anyway despite a small objection from those who own these aircraft. No testing was done on smaller commercial aircraft.

2. No requirement that they be airtight.... hence a chemical/bio agent could of course be slipped under the door... or through that thin carpet/rug thing on the floor of the cabin... Not very likely... but then again... How many times has someone tested security at an airport and gotten away with several knives, crowbars, blades, etc.


I'm for an electronic bracelet that could give a good charge... If the pilot feels the need, presses the button on a wrist watch detinator... and a couple hundred volts of electricity immobalizes the individual(s). Left button for pointing at the idividual to shock... right button for everyone in 10 feet.

or...

seal the cockpit, and put cameras in the cabin. if the pilot sees something in the video camera that seems suspicious... press a button... sleeping gas... then land the plane.


I don't think the best way to stop a problem is to impose a new problem.

We've been through this. It looks good on Mission Impossible, but in real life if you pump anaethetic into a room, the dose varies and people die. Think of the difference in body weight between an adult and a child. Or consider what you do about passengers with heart or breathing problems. You either pump in not enough - in which case the hijackers aren't knocked out, or you pump in too much and you start killing passengers.

You might recall that the Russians tried that in the theater hostage crisis. A bunch of hostages were killed by the gas.

pump the smoke from weed into the cabin - apart from an attack of the munchies (and only airline food available) everyone should land with a smile on their faces.

What is stupid about the whole armored door thing?

Everything.

Will it prevent dedicated terrorists from entering the cockpit? I think not. Ingenuity of terrorists isn't all that great but if you throw enough **** on the wall something is bound to stick. That is kinda the thing isn't it? The "armored door" philosophy is good for three things only:
1. To make passengers of commercial carriers feel more safe. Even though the added safety of re-enforced doors to the cockpit is unknown.
2. To distract people (in the US I guess, since this isn't being done anywhere else in the world at the moment) from the lack of progress in the War on Terror. Applying "solutions" like this is like using a band aid on a cabra wound. The poison is already in the system. It may make you feel better but you'll still die.
3. Decrease public 'sense' of the real situation. Make the passangers wary of one another, because re-enforced doors must give the impression that the passangers are the real danger. Before locked doors implied that experts were at work and must not be distracted, but now it is like they'd rather not have these 'dangerous' passangers at all. No more vbisits to the cockpit for little Timmy any more huh?

I wonder. Are you patting yourself on the back for this 'progress' because you really believe it will help against terrorists who want to hi-jack a passanger carrier or just to make yourself feel better the next time you fly commercially?

I don't like it one bit either that bullistic weapons will be standard equipment on commercial carriers. (as was implied in the original post by the comment "about 48 pilots will be begin training to carry weapons while flying commercial passenger planes this month. Thousands more could be carrying weapons by the end of the year.

I am really amazed that my original post didn't get through. Stupid. It is. All of it Now that I have spelled it out for you, gimmie some patriotic partisan rebutals.. I'll be here all week

It's probably a good idea in general, since nutcases with boxcutters aren't the only ones who have meandered into cockpits in planes and caused troubles. As the article says though, it's not perfect but it's better than nothing.

But pilots carrying guns in a pressurised cabin is not such a good idea if you ask me. Gun accidents happen every now and again and not only is an airplane a fairly cramped space, but one bullet through a window and that's the end of the plane.

Better and above all, consistent security checks on the ground would be a better idea.

Kind of like saying

"going to war without france is like going duck hunting without your accordian."

In that case, I agree.

Remember that the nutters with the boxcutters didn't exactly break the doors. They just started to cut up flight attendents until the pilots opened. That was the case in one of the 9/11 planes. I still thing that this as good as nothing. I'd like to see actions that go to the root of the problem instead of patching small insignifact things all the time.

As for guns in the carrier, we are in agreement. It is *so* stupid... there isn't an emoticon to decribe it.

What is the point in armour plated doors when the fusilage is made of tin-foil and foam?..

And you rig a plane against engineers advice to hold a gigantic metal partition that can pose a risk to small aircrafts.

People die either way... at least one is targeted towards those most at risk.

Nothing, if you plan on blowing up the aircraft. But if you wanted to enter the COCKpit (sorry, flightdeck), to commandere and later kamikaze the aircraft into a building, it would be much more difficult to do so with an armored door...unless you were thinking you could cut a hole in the fuselage and make your way on the outside of the aircraft through the 500 knot winds and enter the cockpit from the outside.